With Finance Commission recommendations, Centre-state relations are set to undergo dramatic change any big change requires big ideas, decisive leadership, and a happy coincidence of circumstances. As chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi had often argued that the central government implemented schemes that were at odds with the state's needs and priorities. For example, schemes that provided funds for electrification were at best of limited value to Gujarat since it had already achieved near 100% electrification. This state could have spent the money provided for such a scheme more productively if allowed to use it for other purposes. Modi was joined by other chief ministers such as Vasundhara Raje of Rajasthan who argued that the vast numbers of central schemes further restricted their fiscal space because many of them required matching contributions by them from their otherwise untied funds. Once these matching funds were committed to access central schemes, states were left with very limited funds for even the most important expenditure items such as the enforcement of law and order. Nevertheless, this system has remained entrenched in one form or another in the last several decades on account of the coincidence of three factors. First, outside of state leaders and a few economists and policy analysts, advocates of the view that true federalism means giving greater fiscal space to states and trusting them in setting their own priorities have been few and far between. Second, the Finance Commission appointed once every five years plays a key role in the division of tax revenues between centers and states. Consistent with the first point, successive Finance Commission held untied funds to the states at or below 30% of the divisible tax pool. Only the 13th FinanceCommission exceeded this mark, setting states' share at 32%. Finally, successive central governments have chosen to transfer the bulk of the remaining funds to the states via central and centrally sponsored schemes.