Is foreign policy entirely the domain of the Union government, with no role for state governments? That, at any rate, seemed to be the point that two Union ministers, Pranab Mukherjee and P Chidambaram, reportedly made in a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA) convened to discuss the proposed India-Bangladesh Teesta river agreement. West Bengal Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee has refused to give her consent to an agreement that the Union government had proposed. There are two dimensions to the controversy. The first is about facts. Was Ms Banerjee briefed properly? Did she first agree to come on board and then shy away? Does she really object to the terms of the proposed accord or was she throwing a political tantrum with other things in mind? It would appear that though Ms Banerjee was briefed properly, she chose to withdraw her consent for political reasons. This, coming after the manner in which Sharad Pawar chose to reject a Bill brought to the Union Cabinet on regulation of sports bodies, suggests that all is not well between the Congress party and its allies in the United Progressive Alliance. These are domestic political issues that have nothing to do with foreign policy.
The Mamata tantrum on Teesta river has, however, another dimension that should engage political scientists, foreign policy and international relations experts, Indian strategists and diplomats: what is the role of state governments in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy? Were Messrs Mukherjee and Chidambaram right in insisting that foreign policy is the prerogative of the Centre with no independent role for the states? In theory yes, in practice no. The fact is that in a federal, continental country like India, with varied regional history and politics, and given the history of the subcontinent, and furthermore in the context of coalition politics with regional parties playing a role at the Centre, there is no way in which foreign policy can be regarded as a purely central government prerogative any more. Apart from the fact that border states have a right to have their views heard on bilateral relations with neighbours – Tamil Nadu on Sri Lanka; Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir on Pakistan; West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura on Bangladesh; and Bihar and Uttar Pradesh on Nepal – there are some states whose economy is dependent on distant lands — for example, Kerala’s interests cannot be ignored while formulating India’s policy in West Asia and the Persian/Arab Gulf. Though in theory the Centre can pretend that it has a monopoly in the formulation of foreign policy, in practice it must consult and keep state governments informed. After doing so, the Centre can, and should, act on its own, mindful of the consequences and willing to tackle them. But a more consultative process can always smooth the rough edges and strengthen national initiatives. Apart from states, the Centre should also keep other political elements in the loop on foreign policy. These include domestic business, representatives of various interest groups and so on. Some may be missing the Nehru-Indira era, when Delhi could do what it liked in foreign policy, but those days are gone. Even Rajiv Gandhi could not afford to ignore Tamil Nadu’s politicians on his Sri Lanka policy.
