Hijacking Foreign Policy?
IT is trite to say that no foreign policy can succeed unless it enjoys popular support.
It is, however, equally valid to assert that a foreign policy, formulated after full deliberation in the light of the national interest, must not be sacrificed at the altar of popular moods or sectional interests.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had to face an acute dilemma on whether or not to attend the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Colombo.
The Hindu reported on Nov 5 that the external affairs ministry had recommended that he should go in view of India’s “paramount security and strategic interests” in and around Sri Lanka. The Prime Minister’s Office agreed.
But the cabinet and ‘the Core Group’ in the Congress were split; not on whether participation in the CHOGM was in the national interest but in deference to whipped up regional emotions in the state of Tamil Nadu.
The divide was exclusively on regional lines. India goes to the polls in 2014. The two main political parties in Tamil Nadu, the ruling All India Anna Munnetra Dravida Kazhagam and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, have been locked in a contest on which of them cares more for the Sri Lankan Tamils. The Congress party in that state did not want to lag behind.
Two ministers of state, V. Narayanasamy and Jayanti Natarajan, joined the union shipping minister, G.K. Vasan, in voicing their opposition to the proposed trip. In the Congress Core Group, Finance Minister P. Chidambaram and Defence Minister A.K. Antony opposed the visit. All hail from Tamil Nadu, bar A.K. Antony.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha got the state assembly to adopt a unanimous resolution urging the prime minister not to go to Colombo. She cited the Canadian prime minister’s decision not to participate in the CHOGM.
It is impossible to exaggerate the impact of the prime minister’s absence on public opinion in Sri Lanka and on its leaders even if India was represented at the CHOGM by External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid. The prime minister’s participation in the CHOGM would have enabled him to engage at a high level with Sri Lanka’s leaders on issues that matter and would have sent a strong message to other chief ministers that he would not grant them a veto on his government’s decisions on foreign policy.
This is precisely what the volatile chief minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee has done. She has succeeded in preventing signature on an important agreement, which India concluded with Bangladesh, to the embarrassment of the prime ministers of both countries. On Nov 9, it was revealed that Dr Singh would not attend the CHOGM after all.
No sensible government will conclude an agreement with a neighbouring country without consulting the leaders of the region which shares a border with that country. But this is a far cry from giving the states a veto on the centre’s considered decisions on foreign affairs. It is a sad day for India’s foreign policy.
Trust the chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, a candidate for the prime ministerial office, to muddy the waters. His party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, has always stood for a centralist polity. On Oct 18, in his first speech on foreign policy, he betrayed all too clearly his ignorance on the subject and, incidentally, his unfitness for the high office to which he ardently aspires.
The demagogue even asked why important international conferences and summits should not be held in the states. That he had in mind some degree of participation by the state government emerged from his claim that it would provide the states’ bureaucracy with some exposure. Each state in the federation should be allowed to have partnership with one country.
All this is the stuff of sheer ignorance on the subject on which Modi so confidently held forth. Precisely what does that ‘partnership’ imply and entail? Chief ministers have freely negotiated deals on water and economic issues with leaders of foreign countries.
But, ignorant assertions should not blind all who believe in the concept of a genuine federalism to the fact that in this day and age the process involves some role to the federating units in the realm of foreign affairs.
In June 1948, the Indian government offered to the Nizam of Hyderabad a draft ‘Heads of Agreement’ on defence, foreign affairs, and communications. They were reserved for the Indian government with a qualification: “Hyderabad will, however, have freedom to establish trade agencies in order to build up commercial, fiscal, and economic relations with other countries; but these agencies will work under the general supervision of, and in the closest cooperation with the Government of India. Hyderabad will not have any political relations with any country.”
Do the states of the Indian Union not deserve as much respect? Every federal constitution has room for growth.
In Australia an all-party constitutional convention resolved on April 29, 1983 that the federal treaty-making power should not be abused to undermine the states’ autonomy. Later, a conference adopted ‘Principles and Procedures for Commonwealth — State Consultation on Treaties’.
It fell into three parts: consultation, treaty negotiation process, and federal-state aspects. A detailed procedure was laid down. “Where state interest is apparent, the Commonwealth should, wherever practicable, seek and take into account the views of the states in formulating Australian policy and keep the states informed of the determined policy.”
Already in certain cases, states’ representatives were included in delegations to “international conferences which deal with state subject matters.” It observes that “The purpose is not to share in the making of policy decisions or to speak for Australia” but to ensure that the states know what is afoot and are in a position “to put a viewpoint to the Commonwealth”. This is a fair approach. Some Indian states’ claims go much beyond this.
The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.
Post a Comment