Grand Strategy | Should states have a stake in foreign policy?
The controversy is an opportunity to revisit the debate on the slow but growing influence of the states on India’s foreign relations since the 1990s
The ministry of external affairs (MEA) recently pulled up the Kerala government for appointing a secretary in charge of “external cooperation”. Kerala surely has no business appointing a “foreign secretary” (as some media reports suggested), nor does it have the constitutional mandate to engage in foreign relations. But, the controversy is an opportunity to revisit the debate on the slow but growing influence of the states on India’s foreign relations since the 1990s, thanks to economic liberalisation and coalition governments.
The makers of the Constitution were clear that states have no role in the realm of foreign policy, and foreign affairs, international law, foreign trade, and citizenship matters were placed on the Union list. Therefore, these are exclusively within the jurisdiction of Parliament, as per Article 246(1). Under Article 253, Parliament enjoys exclusive and complete authority to legislate on such matters. And, unlike the Canadian, Swiss, and German Constitutions, where provinces are allowed to engage in foreign affairs within certain restrictions, our Constitution does not allow such subnational engagement. As for foreign economic relations, Article 293(1) places territorial limits on the borrowing power of the states, implying their non-access to foreign loans on their own accord.
Yet, an increasing number of states have been pushing the boundaries since the 1990s. For instance, states with proactive leadership and greater industrial bases have been at the forefront of subnational, foreign-trade related diplomacy. Narendra Modi, as Gujarat’s chief minister (CM), started Vibrant Gujarat to showcase the state’s economic potential. Its success inspired other states like Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan to undertake similar initiatives.
Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu has long been a key player in his state’s foreign economic engagement. In April 2015, he led a high-level delegation to China on the Centre’s behalf. Earlier this year, Telangana CM Revanth Reddy attended the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos and signed new investment deals of ₹40,232 crore. States such as Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra have also approached the World Bank directly for development loans. In 1997, Andhra Pradesh became the first state to receive a structural adjustment loan directly from the World Bank.
In 2017, the Centre approved guidelines to allow “financially sound” states to borrow directly from the bilateral Official Development Assistance (ODA) partners for vital infrastructure projects. The same year, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority approached the Japan International Cooperation Agency for loans for the Mumbai Trans Harbour Link project, which it subsequently received.
Today, several Indian states have WTO cells as well as NRI cells. While Punjab has a department of NRI affairs, Kerala, since 1996, has had a department of non-resident Keralites affairs (NORKA), for grievance redressal both in India and abroad. Even though states are proactively negotiating with foreign entities, they are not allowed to establish their own offices in foreign countries or place officials in the Indian embassies abroad.
The Centre has also made attempts to consult states on foreign policy. In 2000, the then Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government established the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, which recommended “that for reducing tension or friction between States and the Union and for expeditious decision-making on important issues involving States, the desirability of prior consultation by the Union Government with the Inter-State Council (ISC) may be considered before signing any treaty vitally affecting the interests of the States regarding matters in the State List.” It has not been implemented.
The arrival of Narendra Modi as Prime Minister in 2014 had created hopes that the states would have a larger influence on foreign policy matters. In October 2013, Modi said “India is not just Delhi. The foreign policy should be decided by the people and not by some politicians sitting in Delhi.” In November 2015, he said, “In a break with over 65 years of tradition, we have involved states even in foreign policy. The ministry of external affairs has been asked to work with the states.” He was referring to the States Division that was established within the MEA in 2014 to facilitate meetings of Indian officials with foreign delegations in India and abroad. In 2017, the then external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj tweeted, “We’ll set up ‘Videsh Bhavan’ in all state capitals. These will be one-stop centres to provide all facilities given by various MEA departments”. This proposal has not yet been implemented. The closest institutional mechanism to that is the existing MEA branch secretariats in cities like Hyderabad and Kolkata, which have limited mandate.
While, unsurprisingly, the States Division does not include state representatives, the ISC, which could have helped states air concerns, has become dysfunctional. In the post-liberalisation political and economic context outlined here, the controversy over the Kerala government appointing a secretary in charge of matters concerning external cooperation is a needless one. It should restart conversations about how to involve Indian states in matters of foreign policy creatively.
Happymon Jacob teaches India’s foreign policy at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, and is the founder of the Council for Strategic and Defence Research, a New Delhi-based think tank. The views expressed are personal
Continue reading with HT Premium Subscription
