'Modi'fication of Foreign Policy

By T.P.Sreenivasan

A tough line towards Pakistan, greater attention to building of brand India and a bigger role for the states in foreign policy making are the proposed modifications of foreign policy put forward so far by Prime Ministerial candidate Narendra Modi. His promise to allow states a bigger say in strategizing and building foreign policy is unexceptionable.

The states, which have special links with certain countries, either because of a common border or cultural and commercial affinities should be consulted in framing policies towards those countries, he said. As examples, he gave links of Gujarat with Africa, West Asia, China and Japan, Odisha with Indonesia, Goa with Portugal, Pondicherry with France, Tamil Nadu with Sri Lanka, Singapore and Malaysia and Bihar with Buddhist countries. One could add Kerala and the Gulf countries, West Bengal and Bangladesh, Bihar and Nepal and Mauritius. Most states have links with the United States because of the large number of immigrants from these states. As stakeholders in India's relations with the countries concerned, it is only legitimate that these states be consulted and kept informed of developments.

The Chief Minister did not question the constitutional position on foreign policy, which is crystal clear. It is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Centre and there is no mechanism to consult the states. Some people believe that the Indian state is only quasi-federal because of the lack of autonomy given to the states in certain vital matters.

In his letters to the Chief Ministers, Pandit Nehru often took the regional leaders into confidence on some aspects of foreign policy, more to educate them than to consult them. Foreign policy advocacy by certain states was not uncommon even then. But with the advent of coalitions, in which the regional parties had the power to make and unmake governments, state leaders began to play a decisive role in foreign policy. With globalization and economic reforms, ethnic, immigration and economic issues and even simple prejudices of regional leaders began to play a role. The most recent dramatic instances were of Mamta Banerjee holding up the Teesta water sharing agreement with Bangladesh and Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi pushing India to vote in favour of a US sponsored human rights resolution on Sri Lanka. The Tamil Nadu legislature even passed a resolution, asking the Government of India to move the United Nations Security Council to ask for a referendum in Sri Lanka on establishing a Tamil Eelam there. In its latest resolution, Tamil Nadu legislature has demanded that India should boycott the Commonwealth Summit in Colombo. It was not long ago that the Kerala legislature passed a resolution against the India-US nuclear deal. Less dramatically, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu slowed down the Jaitapur and Kudankulam nuclear projects, Odisha forced a revision of a South Korean project and Kerala made it hard for the Centre to deal with the Italian marines, who killed two fishermen off the cost of the state.

There have been other state interactions with neighbouring countries. Pakistan announced readiness to buy power from Gujarat, the Bihar Chief minister has been hosting dinners for Nepal politicians and the Chief minister of Punjab has received a gift of a buffalo from the Chief Minister of Pakistani Punjab. Taking these into account, the noted columnist, Nitin Pai has suggested the setting up of a Subcontinental Relations Council, headed by the Prime Minister and comprising of the External Affairs Minister and the Chief ministers of all states that have external borders.   

The way to deal with the situation is for the Centre to subsume the interests of the states. Coalition politics cannot be permitted to sway foreign policy beyond a point. Trade agreements are particularly important, when products, which are special to different states, are covered in such agreements. The virtual veto given to the states on the issue of FDI in retail is a case in point.

Jammu & Kashmir is, of course, a special case when it comes to foreign policy. The state leaders have always been consulted on our policy towards Pakistan. Moreover, the state has used our differences with Pakistan to push for its own autonomy in various ways. The special privileges that Kashmir enjoys are a consequence of our foreign policy preoccupations. The role that Hurriyet plays in relations with Pakistan is significant. The Hurriyet leaders meeting Pakistani leaders in India has almost become routine. In the name of Pakistani sensitivities, the state adopts positions, which the other states will not be permitted to do.

Of late, Chief Ministers and others have begun to visit foreign countries to canvass investments, to seek changes in immigration policies and to smoothen trade regulations. Increasingly, foreign dignitaries too have begun to visit the states to win potentially powerful regional leaders. Hillary Clinton chose to visit Mamta Banerji in Kolkata and  Jayalalthaa in Chennai. She made a policy statement on the US rebalancing in the Pacific not from Delhi, but from Chennai. A day may come when foreign dignitaries will do their business in the states and go to Delhi only to pay homage to the Father of the Nation and to receive the ceremonial welcome at the Rashtrapati Bhavan!

The foreign Consulates have stepped up their activities in several states. Requests for appointment of Honorary Consuls have multiplied. The states have also begun to push for internationalization of education to gain benefits abroad.

Turning to Kerala, there has been sustained interest in foreign affairs in the state, but it was confined to sending some Menons, Nairs and Panikkars to the South Block and trusting them to take care of Kerala’s interests.  Today, Kerala pressurizes the Centre to send Malayalee envoys to the Gulf, in the expectation that they would look after the Kerala labour in those countries better. The possibility of the forced return of Kerala workers from the Gulf creates tremors and Kerala Ministers rush to the Gulf even when two Central Ministers from Kerala deal with the issues. At the time of the nuclear deal, the leftist Government in Kerala campaigned strongly against it. The same Government raised alarm when a trade agreement between India and ASEAN came up. It agitated that the loss of revenue to the state should be avoided even if there were more than corresponding benefits for the Centre. Kerala insisted that the bilateral relations between India and Italy should not be dragged into the legal case against the Italian marines. Even the United Front Government, dominated by the Congress Party, felt deceived when its jurisdiction in the case was questioned. Kerala was confident that a settlement could be reached with the Italians with the help of the church, if the Centre had not intervened.

The Centre should be more sensitive to the needs and concerns of the states. Some methods of institutionalized consultations between the Ministry of External Affairs and the states have been mooted in the past. Apart from the MEA Branch Secretariat in Kolkata, which was set up under special circumstances, a proposal to station senior MEA officials in major state capitals was mooted by the then Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran and it was partly implemented. Other suggestions such as annual consultations with the states on foreign policy, inclusion of the relevant Chief Ministers in the Prime Minister's delegations to certain countries etc have been suggested.

Serving officers of the Ministry of External should brief think tanks and other groups, who are interested in foreign policy through outreach programmes and provision of support to them for sustaining themselves. More courses should be started in international relations in the Universities to enthuse youngsters. State media take interest in foreign affairs only when something of their immediate interest happens and they tend to be negative about them. The successes in foreign policy elsewhere go unnoticed in the process.

Intensive and continuous interaction between the Centre and the states is important to allay the fears of the states regarding foreign policy being made in Delhi. 

Foreign policy making cannot be shifted out of Delhi and the regional satraps, who do not have a national perspective, should not be allowed to dominate foreign policy. But regional inputs should be integral to foreign policy making at every step of the way. If regional leaders, think tanks and media are fully briefed, they will become partners in foreign policy making and implementation rather than hurdles. 

Federalism and Foreign Policy

(Remarks at ICWA-JNU Conference)

Oct 9, 2013

By T.P.Sreenivasan

Some years ago, I worked with a Foreign Secretary, who believed that no Punjabi should deal with Pakistan and no Tamil should deal with Sri Lanka. In fact, when I offered to be posted to Sri Lanka, he told me that I should not go there because of my Tamil sounding name. I pleaded that the name was not uncommon in Kerala, but he said that it was not possible to convince every Tamil Tiger and Sinhala extremist that I was not a Tamil. Today, he might say that no Bangali should deal with Bangladesh, no Bihari should deal with Nepal or Mauritius, nobody from the North-East should deal with China and no Malayalee should deal with the Gulf. Such are the interlinkages that have developed between our border states and our neighbours. Their concerns about our relations with these countries are so real that foreign policy can no longer be framed or practiced without taking into account their interests.

The constitutional position on foreign policy is crystal clear. It is within the jurisdiction of the Centre and there is no mechanism to consult the states. Some people believe that the Indian state is only quasi-federal because of the lack of autonomy given to the states in certain vital matters.

In his letters to the Chief Ministers, Pandit Nehru often took the regional leaders into confidence on some aspects of foreign policy, more to educate them than to consult them. Foreign policy advocacy by certain states was not uncommon even then. But with the advent of coalitions, in which the regional parties had the power to make and unmake governments, state leaders began to play a decisive role in foreign policy. With globalization and economic reforms, ethnic, immigration and economic issues and even simple prejudices of regional leaders began to play a role. The most recent dramatic instances were of Mamta Banerjee holding up the Teesta water sharing agreement with Bangladesh and Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi pushing India to vote in favour of a US sponsored human rights resolution on Sri Lanka. Less dramatically, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu slowed down the Jaitapur and Kudankulam nuclear projects, Odisha forced a revision of a South Korean project and Kerala made it hard for the Centre to deal with the Italian marines, who killed two fishermen off the cost of the state.
The only way to deal with the situation is for the Centre to subsume the interests of the states. But coalition politics cannot be permitted to sway foreign policy beyond a point. Trade agreements are particularly important, when products, which are special to different states are covered in such agreements. The virtual veto given to the states on the issue of FDI in retail is a case in point.

Kashmir is, of course, a special case when it comes to foreign policy. The state leaders have always been consulted on our policy towards Pakistan. Moreover, the state has used our differences with Pakistan to push for its own autonomy in various ways. The special privileges that Kashmir enjoys are a consequence of our foreign policy preoccupations. The role that Hurriet plays in relations with Pakistan is significant. The Hurriet leaders meeting Pakistani leaders in India has almost become routine. In the name of Pakistani sensitivities, the state adopts positions, which the other states will not be permitted to do.

Of late, Chief Ministers and others have begun to visit foreign countries to canvass investments, to seek changes in immigration policies and to smoothen trade regulations. Increasingly, foreign dignitaries too have begun to visit the states to win potentially powerful regional leaders. Hillary Clinton chose to visit Mamta Banerji and Chennai to meet Jayalalthaa. She made a policy statement on the US rebalancing in the Pacific not from Delhi, but from Chennai. The Consulates have stepped up their activities in several states. Requests for appointment of Honorary Consuls have multiplied. The states have also begun to push for internationalization of education to gain benefits abroad.

Turning to Kerala, where I have lived for nearly ten years after leaving the Foreign Service, there has been sustained interest in foreign affairs, but it was confined to sending some Menons, Nairs and Panikkars to the South Block and trusting them to take care of Kerala’s interests. Even today, Kerala pressurizes the Centre to send Malayalee envoys to the Gulf, in the expectation that they would look after the Kerala labour in those countries better. The possibility of the forced return of Kerala workers from the Gulf creates tremors and Kerala Ministers rush to the Gulf even when the issues are dealt with by two Central Ministers from Kerala. At the time of the nuclear deal, the leftist Government in Kerala campaigned strongly against the deal and even adopted a resolution in the legislature against it. The same Government raised alarm when a trade agreement between India and ASEAN came up. It agitated that the loss of revenue to the state should be avoided even if there were more than corresponding benefits for the Centre. Kerala insisted that the bilateral relations between India and Italy should not be dragged into the legal case against the Italian marines. Even the United Front Government, dominated by the Congress Party, felt deceived when its jurisdiction in the case was questioned. Kerala was confident that a settlement could be reached with the Italians with the help of the church, if the Centre had not intervened.
Intensive and continuous interaction between the Centre and the states is important to allay the fears of the states regarding foreign policy being made in Delhi. The Centre should be more sensitive to the needs and concerns of the states. Serving officers of the Ministry of External should brief think tanks and other groups, who are interested in foreign policy through outreach programmes and provision of support to them for sustaining themselves. More courses should be started in international relations in the Universities to enthuse youngsters. State media take interest in foreign affairs only when something of their immediate interest happens and they tend to be nagaive about them. The successes in foreign policy elsewhere go unnoticed in the process.
Foreign policy making cannot be shifted out of Delhi and the regional satraps should not be allowed to dominate foreign policy without the national perspective. But regional inputs should be integral to foreign policy making at every step of the way.

Hopes of Autumn

Indian Express Oct 11, 2013

By T.P.Sreenivasan

The salubrious early autumn in New York offers the ideal setting for the General Assembly session, which opens in the third week of September every year. Kings, Presidents and Prime Ministers, not to speak of Foreign Ministers and professional diplomats throng New York, some to mix business with pleasure, others to mix pleasure with pleasure. Diplomatic activities multiply everywhere and every one reviews policies and projects them to the world. Deals and pledges are made, even if they have to be broken subsequently. After the long speeches, gala dinners and joint statements, the guests return to their homesteads to continue their struggle for power and progress.

In Japan, they say that the autumn sky and the woman’s heart are susceptible to frequent changes. Leaves change colours and fall, paving the way for winter. This year, war clouds were visible on the Syrian firmament as delegates were packing their bags for their pilgrimage to the United Nations. Pundits around the globe declared that war was inevitable, now that Syria had used chemical weapons and thus breached the red line. The words from President Obama and Secretary Kerry were warlike. War drums were heard in London and Paris. The United States, they said, could not but attack Syria to maintain its global status and credibility among its allies. Money was no problem, as oil rich Arabs would finance the war.

The experts were obviously wrong. The Americans, the British and the French were in no mood for war even if their leaders were. Regime changes in the Middle East did not seem very attractive after the aftermath of the Arab Spring in other countries. The Morsi phenomenon in Egypt and the murder in cold blood of the American Ambassador, who was the architect of the new regime in Libya, had dampened enthusiasm for change. President Assad seemed still strong and fundamentalist elements had crept into the dissident movement. A dithering US Administration, therefore, grasped the straw that Vladimir Putin extended by way of a plan to eliminate the chemical weapons of Syria, as though the rebellion in Syria was not against President Assad, but his chemical weapons arsenal. President Obama claimed that Syria accepted the deal because of the gravity of his threat. Others thought that it was the defeat of imperialism and triumph of the “Communist” Putin, who threatened the Americans through the New York Times. But there was an element of wisdom and the preference to avoid war in the mind of President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry. Nobody will concede this, as the world is not accustomed to the breaking out of peace. War and violence come more naturally to the Homo sapiens.

The beginning of a thaw in the Arctic freeze of US-Iran relations was more dramatic as the two countries had not spoken to each other since 1979. The feeble signs of a change after President Rouhani took over were dismissed as unreal, but the announcement of the first direct contact between the two leaders by way of a telephone call from President Obama to President Rouhani shook the very foundations of the theory of inevitability of war. What was more, President Obama said that it was not merely a goodwill call, but a discussion on Iran’s nuclear programme and that he was persuaded there was even a basis for agreement. Obama called the discussion an important breakthrough after a generation of deep mistrust and suggested that it could serve as the starting point to an eventual deal on Iran’s nuclear programme and a broader renewal of relations between two countries that once were close allies.

“The test will be meaningful, transparent and verifiable actions, which can also bring relief from the comprehensive international sanctions that are currently in place,” added President Obama. “Resolving this issue, obviously, could also serve as a major step forward in a new relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” he said.

The skeptics and the non-believers have ruled out any change in the future and have pointed out the geopolitical compulsions on both sides. They expect that the mirage of peace will give way to war clouds, as it is unthinkable for Iran to give up its nuclear adventure as long as the hidden weapons of Israel posed a threat to the Islamic world.

India too contributed to the autumn of hope with the farewell visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the White House, though seen by many as nothing but ceremonial. A significant step that was taken by the two sides went almost unnoticed in the midst of disappointment of on the Afghan front and the economic liberalization area. The media, which called the move “reckless adventurism” when there were indications that the liability law would be “diluted”, kept quiet when an agreement was signed to begin work on the installation of a Westinghouse reactor in Gujarat. We do not know whether the US relaxed its insistence on no liability for suppliers or we relaxed our liability law, but one irritant in India-US relations seemed to be fading away.

One exception to the general mood of change for the better was the disastrous India-Pak summit in New York. It was a summit, which should have gone the way of Obama-Putin summit and the Dilma Roussef-Obama summit, for which the time was not propitious. India and Pakistan did not even have the courage to announce the meet and it was made to appear as though no decision had been taken. Guns continued to boom across the Line of Control as a cover for infiltrators from Pakistan. The only substantive outcome of the summit was an agreement that Directors General (Military Operations) on both sides should look into cease-fire violations, a job already assigned to them. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif did not even show the courtesy of avoiding his meaningless reference to Kashmir in his speech to the UN General Assembly. Whether he referred to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as a “dehathi aurat” or simply narrated the story of a village woman, who constantly complained about her neighbor, the body language did not show any warmth. Nawaz Sharif had the habit of embracing Prime Minister Gujral and breaking into Punjabi when they met. With his hands and feet tied up, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh could only read the riot act on terror to him, for which he did not need to meet him face to face. The summit did more harm than good, because it highlighted that the two leaders were hostage, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to his army and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the Indian public opinion. The claim that we lost nothing was untenable. We lost at least a dozen more lives on the eve of the meeting.

Though the India-Pak summit failed to take things forward, in the eyes of international observers, the summit also fitted into the general trend towards relaxation of tensions. The hopes of autumn, however,  must go through the rigours of winter before blossoming in spring. Chances are that the winter freeze will destroy some of the seeds planted in autumn.