As a Political Analyst, I still believe the Constitution Matters
A screaming headline in a local daily jolted me—not as a citizen alone, but as a political analyst who still naïvely believes that constitutional morality should matter in a republic. The report said Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy wants to seek the Congress high command’s “nod” before holding civic elections. Let that sink in. A constitutional obligation reduced to a political permission slip from Delhi.
If this does not qualify as a brazen insult to the Constitution, it is hard to imagine what does.
Municipal elections are not favours to be dispensed at the convenience of ruling parties, nor are they events to be timed after consulting dynasts ensconced in Lutyens’ Delhi. They are a constitutional mandate. Articles 243U and 243E of the Constitution clearly stipulate that municipal bodies and panchayati raj institutions must be elected every five years. The only permissible deviation is in extraordinary circumstances—natural calamities or pandemics—and even then, deferment is temporary, not tactical.
What makes this episode particularly galling is the Congress party’s newfound obsession with “saving the Constitution.” From Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo theatrics to endless op-eds warning of a “Constitution in crisis” under Narendra Modi, the Congress projects itself as the last custodian of Dr B.R. Ambedkar’s legacy. Yet, when it comes to practice, the party cannot even respect the most basic democratic process—local self-governance—without clearing it with the high command.
One is tempted to ask: Which Constitution is the Congress invoking?
The one drafted under Ambedkar’s stewardship, or the one amended, altered, bent, and stretched nearly a hundred times by successive Congress governments to perpetuate power for over six decades?
Let us not forget that it was the Congress that inserted terms like “Secular” into the Preamble decades after independence, not through popular consensus but through brute parliamentary majority during the Emergency era. Therefore, the moral panic over constitutional destruction rings hollow in “new Bharat.” Measures such as the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A or the banning of instant triple talaq are not assaults on the Constitution—they are course corrections, restoring equality before law.
Against this backdrop, the Telangana Chief Minister’s public admission that his government needs Delhi’s approval to hold civic polls is not just laughable—it is alarming. It exposes the Congress’s instinctive distrust of grassroots democracy. If the party claims it swept gram panchayat elections, even on a non-party basis, why this sudden hesitation to face municipal polls fought on party symbols? Is it fear? Or is it the creeping realisation that the much-advertised “six guarantees” have failed to translate into governance outcomes?
History offers a cruel irony here. The Congress lost Andhra Pradesh primarily because it allowed Delhi to rule over regional aspirations. N.T. Rama Rao built an entire movement on a simple but powerful idea: Telugus should not be governed by remote control from Delhi. That sentiment still resonates across states. Yet, decades later, Congress seems incapable of unlearning its colonial high-command culture.
In a functioning democracy, elected representatives choose their leaders—both in government and opposition. In the Congress, however, power flows in reverse. The high command chooses leaders, often disregarding legislative consensus. Loyalty to the dynasty outweighs public mandate. This is not democratic centralism; it is feudal politics wrapped in constitutional rhetoric.
Disturbingly, the BJP—despite branding itself as a “party with a difference”—has increasingly begun mirroring this culture. The ritual of parachuting central observers to “select” chief ministers after winning state elections raises uncomfortable questions. Why should elected MLAs wait for approval from Delhi when the people have already delivered a verdict? The process may be procedural, but the optics are unmistakable: Delhi decides, states comply.
As a political analyst, I find this convergence deeply troubling. The Congress perfected the art of high-command control; the BJP, wittingly or otherwise, is normalising it. Different ideologies, same method. The Constitution becomes a talking point during protests and campaigns—but an inconvenience when it constrains political expediency.
Local bodies are the foundation of democracy. Undermining them weakens the republic from the bottom up. If civic elections require clearance from Delhi, then federalism is a farce and decentralisation a myth.
The tragedy is not that Delhi dictates—it always has. The tragedy is that elected governments no longer even pretend otherwise.
And that, more than any slogan or speech, is the real constitutional crisis.
