Why the US is chasing India's regions?

[Lankan Ranger]

Why the US is chasing India's regions?

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Calcutta to meet the West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee was not just one successful woman politician on Time magazine's Power List paying a courtesy call to another.

US secretaries of state are not known to waste time promoting sisterhood unless it serves American interests. In July 2011, Mrs Clinton paid a similar visit to J Jayalalithaa, the chief minister of Tamil Nadu.

In both instances, crucial foreign policy issues were on the agenda.

Ms Banerjee has claimed that Mrs Clinton did not raise the issue of water sharing between India and Bangladesh on the Teesta river or foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail in their meeting.

However, the US secretary of state had made her views on the twin issues very clear in a televised public interview in Calcutta a day earlier.

She was not unaware that the two initiatives of the Delhi government had been scuttled by West Bengal's chief minister. Ms Banerjee is also the head of the Trinamool Congress party, a key ally of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's coalition.

Weak centre

The Americans seem to have recognised that certain foreign policy issues cannot be pushed with a weak central government in Delhi alone.

They can see that there are domestic political compulsions which affect Indian foreign policy and sometimes they may require massaging the egos of regional satraps to push it in the desired direction.

There are other instances of how foreign policy issues get shaped by the local agendas of certain states or regional political leaders.

With the Tamil Nadu chief minister last July, Mrs Clinton had also discussed a foreign policy issue.

The Tamil Nadu cabinet passed a resolution against restarting work on the Koodankulam nuclear power plant - stalled by anti-nuclear protesters - knowing full well that it would impact on Indo-Russian relations.

Later, Chief Minister Jayalalithaa was persuaded to change her stance. The price she is believed to have extracted was to get India to vote against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC, although up to then India had always made a virtue of not voting on any country-specific UN resolution.

Up north, the Jammu and Kashmir state legislature of Indian-administered Kashmir occasionally discusses walking out of the Indus Water Treaty with Pakistan as some Kashmiris consider it an unfair treaty.

These are instances where the states have had to be brought on board on issues which impinge on India's relationship with foreign countries.

Up to a decade ago, these would have been seen strictly in the domain of the central government. After all, the Indian constitution places foreign affairs - defined as "all matters which bring the Union into relations with any foreign country" - in the Union List, meaning states can exercise no power over it.

That does not seem to be the case any longer.

'Ham-handed US'

The Teesta water sharing treaty and FDI in multi-brand retail are not issues that specifically refer to US interests.

FDI in multi-brand retail is not solely an Indo-US issue - there are a number of European countries which are also waiting for the policy change.

If the head of Walmart or Carrefour were to meet officials from the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) or the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) on the issue, nobody would object.

However, if the US secretary of state starts leveraging her weight to ram the door open for FDI in multi-brand retail, then even those who think it is a genuinely good idea will stop favouring it. Ham-handed US diplomacy in this case is likely to be counter-productive.

If Americans blatantly push their agenda on FDI in multi-brand retail with West Bengal, they also stand in danger of being seen as disregarding the constitutional distribution of powers between the centre and the states in India; and undermining the position of the Indian prime minister.

It is the prime minister's job to push the policies of his government and not that of the foreign minister of another country.

The inability of the centre to push its foreign policy or economic agendas reflects its incompetence in handling its allies and other regional parties.

However, that is a domestic matter and does not justify tolerating foreign forays in India's internal affairs - even if these have foreign policy implications.

BBC News - Why the US is chasing India's regions

 

[IndoCarib]

At present this crazy woman seems to be the most powerful person in Indian politics

 

[Lankan Ranger]

 

[tvsram1992]

At present this crazy woman seems to be the most powerful person in Indian politics

still sonia rules

 

[Pakistanisage]

The US should not interfere in India's Internal Affairs.

 

[ZABASHO]

The US should not interfere in India's Internal Affairs.

apparently we got no one in the centre for that either

 

[kawaraj]

good article, indeed.

I was surprised to see Clinton is meeting West Bengal CM in the news. it certainly is a slight contempt to New Delhi.

 

[IndoCarib]

apparently we got no one in the centre for that either

That's true. The center has become so weak, now it is actually the 'periphery' that matters. And US knows this

 

[ZABASHO]

That's true. The center has become so weak, now it is actually the 'periphery' that matters. And US knows this

yep and too bad even Clinton is bound by minority appeasing politics. Though her visit to Didi was a good plan to further progress the FDI in multi brand retail issue, she also should've visited or perhaps called upon Modi, given that just a few months back there was a congress report on his progress, and hopefully he could've arranged for some good deals to be made unlike our mega socialist didi.

 

[IndoCarib]

yep and too bad even Clinton is bound by minority appeasing politics. Though her visit to Didi was a good plan to further progress the FDI in multi brand retail issue, she also should've visited or perhaps called upon Modi, given that just a few months back there was a congress report on his progress, and hopefully he could've arranged for some good deals to be made unlike our mega socialist didi.

But Clinton visiting Mamata may not do any good. She is unlikely to budge from her anti FDI stance. This will only give more head weight, nothing else

 

[ZABASHO]

But Clinton visiting Mamata may not do any good. She is unlikely to budge from her anti FDI stance. This will only give more head weight, nothing else

yep, it probably had more to do with opening up WB and Eastern part of India for increased trade with BD & Myanmar.


In the news I hear this Clarify FDI was not discussed, says Mamata govt to US

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's much-hyped visit to Kolkata yesterday ended with the Americans stating that the issue of US investments in retail sector had come up during her meeting with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, something that she and her government denied.

 

[gubbi]

That's true. The center has become so weak, now it is actually the 'periphery' that matters. And US knows this

Funny that you people say this. When our FM visits US and pays a visit to the Governors of California or NJ or NY, does that mean that the US federal govt has no control over policies?

This article is by an "analyst" and its total malarkey!

FYI, under the provisions provided by the Constitution of India, States have certain powers and Ms Mamta and Ms Jayalalitha are well within their rights to exercise those powers. If they were so out of line as the articles suggests, the Supreme Court of India - guardians of the Constitution - or the President of India would have certainly sent them notices or stepped in.

 

[IndoCarib]

Funny that you people say this. When our FM visits US and pays a visit to the Governors of California or NJ or NY, does that mean that the US federal govt has no control over policies?

This article is by an "analyst" and its total malarkey!

FYI, under the provisions provided by the Constitution of India, States have certain powers and Ms Mamta and Ms Jayalalitha are well within their rights to exercise those powers. If they were so out of line as the articles suggests, the Supreme Court of India - guardians of the Constitution - or the President of India would have certainly sent them notices or stepped in.

I meant when it comes to any policy making, the center has become a wimp. Anything that MMS proposes , Mamata opposes

 

[gubbi]

I meant when it comes to any policy making, the center has become a wimp. Anything that MMS proposes , Mamata opposes

That has nothing to do with the powers of the Central Govt. As a member of the UPA alliance, TNC's head has a say in the policy/decision making process of UPA. She has the right to disagree with any policies she deems fit. A consensus has to be reached with all the parties (constituting UPA) on board. That does NOT mean that the powers of the central govt are diluted. Its plain coalition politics - power play. Period.

 

[Abingdonboy]

This is just pragmetism- just like when Obam/Clinton visits UK he visits deputuy PM Clegg who is head of the party which is in power with the CONservatives. There are bound to be other parties in power postions in a coalition.