India needs federal foreign policy?

India needs federal foreign policy?
(Since most state share an international boundary, they need to be involved and external affairs that affect them)

* The people of any country have a right to advocate and push for particular foreign and security policy.

* But in India much diverse environment, since our linguistic, ethnic, religious , ideological division of every state and region.

* This diverse country must have a single foreign policy and its execution must be the responsibility of federal government.

Why India needs federal foreign policy?

* Since from last 2-3 decades, there was no one party government at the center level. Therefore union government has been taking the form coalition with regional or state parties, they have become vulnerable to party or sectional pressure which often takes the form of pure blackmail.
Some recent examples:

1. DMKs withdrawal from UPA government Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam wanted the UPA government to pilot a resolution in the United Nations demanding an international probe into alleged war crimes tantamount to genocide in Sri Lanka.

2. AIADMKs proposal- The Tamil Nadu chief minister J. Jayalalithaa joining a fray, the demands escalated :

1. A boycott of the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit to be held later this year.

2. A ban on Sri Lankan players in IPL.

3. An assembly resolution asking the union government to get the UN to create a separate Eelam in Sri Lanka.

4. To retrieve the decision of Kachchatheevu Island, this was given to Sri Lanka with a special accord in 1974.

3. In 2008 left pulled out from UPA-I coalition it opposed the Indo-U.S civil nuclear deal because : a) its belief that nothing could come out of an agreement with imperialist
America.
b) As its attempt to clock the decision in the grab of attacking America for its anti- Muslim policies.

1. West Bengal CM and then UPA coalition partner, Mamata Banerjee, opposed the river water agreement with Bangladesh in September 2011, on the eve of Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs visit to Dhaka; the Union Government was forced to call off the signing of a pact that would have ratified a formula for sharing the waters of the Teesta with Bangladesh.

2. Narendra Modi suddenly jumped into the Sir creek on the eve of Gujarat election. In letter to PM, Mr. Modi said that not only should India hand over the Creek to Pakistan, it should stop any dialogue.

Consequences of above issues:

1. In Sri Lanka, the government of India has had to balance its policies to ensure that Colombo does not drift towards Beijing and Islamabad. There also is the question of pushing resolution on the territorial issue of other countries, having burnt our hands on the Kashmir issue.

2. As for the Teesta issue, there were expectations that in exchange for the river waters treaty, Bangladesh would sign an agreement giving India transit to its landlocked north-eastern state. Clearly, while West Bengal may have notionally given up something, there was advantage of the greater good that would accrue, not only for the north- eastern states but West Bengal as well.

3. In the case of nuclear deal, too, the net gainer was India. It was the US which had to abandon its sanction regime against us and agree to allow civil nuclear commerce to resume with India. Given the balance of power in the international system, it was a deal only the US could pilot not Franc, China, or Russia through all of them had to finally put their stamp on it through the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

4. In Gujarat, the boundary between India and Pakistan on Sir Creek remains disputed and, as a result, the maritime boundary between two countries has yet to be finalized. In this sense, India and Pakistan are both losers, not only because no one will invest in exploiting the natural resources from a disputed area, but also because they will lose out on the extended exclusive economic zone they can get under UN convention on the laws of seas.
Some small issues:

1. We have seen how the politics of Kerala has impinged on a foreign affairs issue relating to two Italian marines.

2. There is Jammu and Kashmir which still complains about the shrift it got on the matter of river water when Union government signed the Indus Water treaty with Pakistan.

3. As for waters, the chief ministers of Bihar and Assam too have important issues which impinge on our relation with Nepal and China.
Take example of U.S.:
Among the various governmental system, the US is one in which the interests of its federal constituents are taken into in the formation and exercise of foreign and security policies. This was part of the large and small State compromise that resulted in its constitution. This enables its upper chamber, the senate to be the lead house on foreign policy issue ratifying international agreement, approving appointment of envoy and so on.
Intersection:
Barring Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, all Indian states share borders with other countries, or with international waters of the sea. In that sense, they have intersect or issue that may intersect with the foreign and security policies of the country.
Conclusion:
If India wants to be a leader in the world, then it should lead the region first, increase cooperation in region and maintain peace and tranquility in border areas irrespective the state.


Sources:

1. Self-written notes from The Hindu.

2. URL of a special article : http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/india-needs-a-federal-foreign-policy/article4591675.ece

3. News analysis from The Hindu and Indian Express.
Declaration:
I hereby declare that the information given above is true to the best of my knowledge & belief and not copied from any Magazine or coaching class except newspapers.
: Dashrath Hembade
.

Name and Address:
Dashrath Laxman Hembade,