Mamata, Karunanidhi effect: MEA sees red as states veto foreign policy

HYDERABAD

20 MARCH 2012

The protestations from Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa and her rival and DMK

patriarch M Karunanidhi over India's vote on Sri Lanka later this week, coming as they

do months after West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee vetoed an agreement on

the sharing of the Teesta river waters with Bangladesh, has further fuelled anxiety in

South Block, which also houses the ministry of external affairs (MEA.)

The precedent being set by the Centre caving in or succumbing to the States on matters

that fall in the domain of foreign policy is worrying for India, and more so for the

practitioners of diplomacy in the MEA.

Already, India's engagement of Pakistan on one hand and China and Burma on the other

are determined to an extent by the domestic conditions prevalent in Jammu and Kashmir

and the north-eastern states, respectively.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh betrayed his frustration when he said in the Lok Sabha

that difficult decisions were getting more difficult because of coalition compulsions. He

called for bipartisanship in the interest of the country.

However, not everybody is pessimistic. Lalit Mansingh, a former foreign secretary and a

former ambassador to the US, echoes the sentiments of many who believe that this trend

should not be unwelcome.

"Foreign policy today is made not only in New Delhi but elsewhere, too. There are

multiple stakeholders and one can't deny states a say in foreign policy if it relates to

them," Mr Mansingh told this newspaper. So, if the states assert their rights and seek

more consultations, then the Centre must respect those sentiments, he notes.

Equally worrying for New Delhi would be the erosion in its standing in what it calls its

sphere of influence. The ongoing debate over which way India should vote on a UNHRC

resolution on Sri Lanka is instructive in that it illustrates how far India has come from

being an influential player in its own backyard to a marginal or fringe player.

Irrespective of whether India joins the US, France, Norway and others in voting for the

resolution as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh indicated in the Lok Sabha, or abstains,

which is not ruled out if the resolution is not worded to its satisfaction, the non-binding

resolution is most likely to fall through.

Colombo is sanguine about the outcome of the March 23 vote in Geneva. It believes it

has the numbers required to defeat the resolution. China, Russia, Pakistan, Cuba,

Indonesia, Thailand and others from the Asian and the African regional groups in the 47-

member UNHRC have indicated that they would oppose it.

If that is a probability, then is it advisable for New Delhi to vote for the resolution and

risk losing whatever goodwill and leverage it might have with Colombo? At the same

time optimists take the view that Colombo would be helping itself, and India, by agreeing

to some concessions on the language of the draft resolution and by putting forward a

roadmap for a political solution of the ethnic conflict.

// Table //

Current membership of the Human Rights Council (20 June 2011 - 31 December 2012) by

regional groups

AFRICAN STATES

Angola

Benin

Botswana

Burkina Faso

Cameroon

Congo

Djibouti

Libya

Mauritania

Mauritius

Nigeria

Senegal

Uganda

LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STATES

Chile

Costa Rica

Cuba

Ecuador

Guatemala

Mexico

Peru

Uruguay

ASIAN STATES

Bangladesh

China

India

Indonesia

Jordan

Kuwait

Kyrgyzstan

Malaysia

Maldives

Philippines

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Thailand

WESTERN EUROPE AND OTHER STATES

Austria

Belgium

Italy

Norway

Spain

Switzerland

United States

EASTERN EUROPEAN STATES

Czech Republic

Hungary

Poland

Moldova

Romania

Russia

Trivedi bites the bullet, but may have bitten off more than he can chew!

Hyderabad
14 March 2012

Dinesh Trivedi's maiden railway budget could well be his last, if the reaction from his own party is any indicator.*

In what can only be described as unprecedented, unconventional, or, comic, barely had Mr Trivedi commended the budget to the House than his party colleagues demanded that the increase in the passenger fares be rolled back in the interest of the common man, who, they said, is already reeling under the burden of recent increases in the prices of fuels and essential commodities.

Sudip Bandopadhyay, a Trinamool MP and Union minister of state of health and family welfare, was the first to fly off the handle, describing the hike in the fares as being against the party's principles and stated position. The Trinamool Congress wants withdrawal of the rail-fare hike, Mr Bandopadhyay told reporters matter-of-factly, suggesting an open breaking of ranks by Mr Trivedi. When pointed out that Mr Trivedi and Mr Bandopadhyay belonged to the same party, Mr Bandopadhyay said that Mr Trivedi, as the railway minister, had performed his Constitutional duty but the party was steadfast in its demand of a roll-back. "The Trinamool Congress never rolls back its demand," Mr Bandopadhyay added for good measure, indicating that the ball was squarely in the court of the UPA Government.

Another Trinamool MP and party spokesman Derek O'Brien was even more candid. "... yes, our party has issues on content," O'Brien said in a message on his Twitter account. "Railway Budget...what was all that about increasing fares across the board? Upper class...maybe ok...but all? Sorry, cannot agree (sic)” read another tweet by him.

The tremors of Mr Trivedi's decision to hike fares was immediately felt in Kolkata, where party supremo and West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee was hardpressed to defend it. The message from Writers' Building to Rail Bhavan was clear: Roll back, or else.

Speaking to reporters at Nandigram in West Bengal, Ms Banerjee said that her party was opposed to the hike.

"We will not accept the fire hike. We will not allow the fire hike to happen for the sake of the common man... we are totally against it. I can assure you this," Ms Banerjee said.

Later in the day, Mr Bandopadhyay told reporters in New Delhi that if necessary, the party will move a cut motion on the issue in Parliament, indicating little possibility of a compromise. In an oblique reference to Mr Trivedi, Mr Bandopadhyay also said that everyone should know that Trinamool was united and committed to its leader, Ms Mamata Banerjee. "Those who do not not abide by the party directive may quit the party. We have no no feelings for them,” he asserted. Adding insult to injury, he indicated that the party could propose a new name to replace Mr Trivedi as railway minister. Furthermore, the Trinamool MPs are likely to take up the issue of rail fare-hike during their sit-in outside Parliament House on Thursday. Also, a delegation of Trinamool MPs is expected to call on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to press for a roll-back of the fares.

The knives were always out for Mr Trivedi; his decision to hike rail fares has further isolated him. Mr Trivedi has not particularly endeared himself to his party for not forcefully articulating Ms Mamata Banerjee's position on key policy issues that were discussed in Cabinet meetings chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Also, Mr Trivedi is the lone Trinamool minister with a Cabinet rank in the UPA Government when those senior to him in the party, such as Mukul Roy, are only ministers of state. Furthermore, Mr Trivedi's effusive praise for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Congress President Sonia Gandhi, and Ms Mamata Banerjee, in that order, in his budget speech left many wondering where his loyalties lie.

Trinamool sources insisted that Mr Trivedi's decision to hike the rail fares went against the grain of the party's stated position. More so, after the party threatened to pull out of the UPA last year over an increase in fuel prices.

However, the Trinamool party's critics would argue that the open criticism of their own minister was unfounded, particularly after Ms Banerjee's government in Bengal allowed the state-run power distribution utility to raise tariff on account of rise in coal prices.

The only praise for Mr Trivedi, predictably, came from the Congress party and the industry. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described the budget as forward-looking with emphasis on safety and modernisation. Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, in turn, welcomed Mr Trivedi's attempt to bring down the operating cost of the Indian Railways.

Industry chambers such as CII and Assocham said that the "very minimal" hike in rail fares was a good decision as they had not been increased in nearly a decade.

Mr Trivedi defended himself by maintaining that the hike was not steep. "The Railways was getting into the ICU and I have pulled it out of it," he said stoically. "You cannot have everything".

For somebody who famously asserted in the speech that he has opted to bite the bullet, as opposed to maintaining a status quo, the next few days could determine whether Mr Trivedi actually ended up biting off more than he could chew.

* The report was filed at 4.20 pm on Wednesday, 14 March 2012.