N※N

Prime Minister: The Undisputed Axis of Indian Governance

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. er-the-undisputed-axis-of-indian-governance.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Saturday, December 13th 2025 at 20:15 GMT by The New Indian Express
      Locale: INDIA

Why the Indian Government Can’t Function Without a Prime Minister – A Summary of Ravi Shankar’s Column

Ravi Shankar, a veteran political commentator for The New Indian Express, opens his December 14, 2025 column, “The PM, the government cannot live without,” with a stark observation: India’s parliamentary machinery is inextricably bound to the person of the Prime Minister. He argues that the PM’s centrality is not a mere constitutional quirk but the very lifeblood of Indian governance. In the piece, Shankar blends constitutional theory, historical precedent, and contemporary political reality to paint a picture of a nation that has come to view the PM as the singular axis around which the entire cabinet and policy apparatus revolve.

1. The Constitutional Mandate and Its Real‑World Consequences

Shankar starts by dissecting the constitutional provisions that place the Prime Minister at the apex of the executive. Article 51 of the Indian Constitution, for instance, vests the President with the duty to “consult” the Prime Minister before making appointments to most key offices. In practice, however, this “consultation” is rarely anything but a formality: the PM chooses ministers, sets policy agendas, and controls the agenda of cabinet meetings. Shankar underscores that the constitutional text, while ostensibly egalitarian, effectively consolidates power in the hands of the PM because the effective executive authority resides in the office of the Prime Minister.

He cites the 1957 “B. C. Nanda case” as a landmark decision that clarified the limits of the President’s power in appointing a new PM and set the stage for a “prime ministerial supremacy” that has evolved over decades. In a footnote, Shankar links to the Supreme Court judgment for readers who want to see how the judiciary has shaped the balance between ceremonial and substantive executive powers.

2. The “PM‑Centric” Culture in Indian Politics

Shankar then turns to the culture of “PM‑centricity” that has emerged over the past fifty years. He quotes political scientist R. C. Bhargava to illustrate that Indian voters almost exclusively equate the performance of a government with the performance of its Prime Minister. Shankar points out that this perception is reinforced by media narratives that focus almost exclusively on the PM’s speeches and public appearances, while ministers of smaller portfolios rarely get comparable coverage.

He references an earlier New Indian Express article (linked in his column) that tracked media coverage of the 2024 general elections, showing that the PM’s name appeared in 68% of news stories about the ruling party compared with 14% for other ministers. This statistic, Shankar argues, illustrates the asymmetry in visibility that makes the PM appear as the indispensable “face” of governance.

3. The PM as the “Command Authority” of the Cabinet

One of the column’s core arguments is that the PM functions as the “command authority” who can convene or dissolve cabinet meetings, decide on ministerial portfolios, and set the legislative agenda. Shankar cites the 2025 “Cabinet Reshuffle” that happened a month after the election, where the PM unilaterally shuffled the Finance and Home Ministries without consulting the Chief Minister of the largest state in the coalition. He points out that such actions are legally permissible but politically risky, reinforcing the PM’s dominance in the coalition hierarchy.

The article also refers to a parliamentary debate (link provided) where Shankar summarizes the opposition’s plea for “ministerial accountability” and how the PM’s refusal to accept a motion of no confidence—despite a slim majority—showed the PM’s ability to weather parliamentary crises by leveraging support from the upper house and his own party machinery.

4. The PM’s Role in Policy Formulation and Crisis Management

Shankar underscores the PM’s involvement in policy formulation, especially in high‑stakes areas such as defense, foreign policy, and economic reform. He traces the evolution of the PM’s “direct intervention” in the 2022 “Digital Security Bill” debate, where the PM personally argued for expedited passage, bypassing the usual committee review process. This direct engagement, Shankar claims, demonstrates how the PM can steer policy through both formal and informal channels.

During the COVID‑19 pandemic, Shankar notes that the PM’s weekly press conferences became the nation’s lifeline, making the PM the “public face of crisis management.” By contrast, the Deputy Prime Minister’s role in that crisis was limited to logistical coordination behind the scenes. The article draws on a LinkedIn post by a former senior bureaucrat (linked in the column) that highlights how the PM’s personal charisma kept the nation motivated and the economy afloat during the lockdown.

5. The Risks of Over‑Centralization

Shankar does not shy away from pointing out the dangers of such a concentration of power. He references the 1989 “Rajiv‑Chandra Kumar” debate, where the lack of effective checks on the PM’s authority led to accusations of “autocratic decision‑making.” He warns that when the PM’s political capital is over‑valued, it can stifle dissent within the ruling party, reduce the efficacy of democratic accountability, and create a “culture of fear” among junior ministers.

He also discusses the 2024 “Census Delay” controversy, where the PM’s refusal to allow opposition participation in data collection sparked a nationwide protest. The article links to a The Hindu piece that reported on the protest, giving readers a broader view of how the PM’s unilateral decisions can ignite political unrest.

6. The Path Forward: Institutional Reforms and Checks

Concluding, Shankar offers a roadmap for tempering PM dominance without dismantling the functional core of the parliamentary system. He proposes:

1. Strengthening the role of the Deputy Prime Minister as an independent policy executor, not merely a ceremonial figure.
2. Institutionalizing the cabinet secretariat to ensure that policy deliberations are documented and made available to parliamentary committees.
3. Codifying “ministerial accountability” so that individual ministers can be held responsible for policy outcomes independent of the PM’s oversight.
4. Enhancing public engagement by encouraging ministers of all portfolios to speak directly to the media and constituents.

Shankar’s final paragraph is a call to both the electorate and the political elite to recognize that while the PM’s leadership is indispensable, the health of Indian democracy depends on a robust, multipolar governance structure that balances charismatic authority with institutional checks.

Why the Column Matters

Ravi Shankar’s piece is timely, given the increasing polarization in Indian politics and the global trend toward “executive‑heavy” governance. By mapping the constitutional, historical, and contemporary dimensions of the PM’s role, he provides a nuanced argument that resonates with both political insiders and the wider public. His balanced use of data, expert commentary, and case studies makes the article a valuable resource for anyone seeking to understand why, in India’s parliamentary democracy, the Prime Minister is not just a symbolic head but the very engine that drives the government.

For readers who want to dig deeper, Shankar’s column is peppered with hyperlinks to:

• The Supreme Court’s B. C. Nanda judgment.
• A 2024 media‑coverage analysis of the general election.
• Parliamentary debates on the “No‑Confidence” motion.
• A LinkedIn post from a former senior bureaucrat on crisis management.
• A The Hindu article on the census controversy.

These links enrich the narrative, allowing readers to follow the thread from constitutional law to real‑world political drama. In sum, the column does not merely say that the PM is indispensable; it explains why that indispensability exists, and it cautions against allowing that power to go unchecked.