HVK Archives: Parliament's new ascendancy in foreign policy-making
Parliament's new ascendancy in foreign policy-making - The Times of India
Prakash Nanda
()
20 May 1997
Title : Parliament's new ascendancy in foreign policy-making
Author : Prakash Nanda
Publication : The Times of India
Date : May 20, 1997
Unlike in the past, the Indian Parliament now seems to be influencing the foreign
policy-making process a great deal. The latest manifestation of this trend is the
resignation of Mr Bhabani Sengupta from the Prime Minister's Office.
Irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the circumstances under which Mr
Sengupta, who was believed to have been appointed by Prime Minister I.K. Gujral as
an Officer on Special Duty for offering advice on foreign affairs, quit office,
the fact remains that he did so following strong views expressed in Parliament
against his appointment mainly due to Mr Sengupta's 'unconventional' foreign
policy views.
There was a time when Parliament's inputs in the country's foreign policy- making
was negligible. For instance, all major treaties that India had entered into with
other countries-the Indo-Bhutanese Treaty of 1949, the Nehru Liaquat Agreement of
1950, the Indo-Nepalese Treaty of 195 1, the India- China Agreement of 1954, the
Tashkent Agreement of 1965, the Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1972, the Shimla Agreement
of 1972 and the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1987-were never discussed or debated in
Parliament in advance.
Even after these treaties were concluded, the parliamentarians, in the absence of
any mandatory requirement of the legislature's approval for their ratification,
were helpless in modifying the texts. By contrast, in democracies like the United
States, no treaty that a president signs with his counterparts in the world can
come into force unless the American Senate upholds it. Even closer to home, Nepal
and Bangladesh have similar provisions in their Constitutions.
Even otherwise, until recently, there has rarely been lively debate on foreign
policy issues in Parliament. So much so that until the mid-1990s, parliamentary
grants to the ministry of external affairs were literally passed without a single
murmur of dissent.
It may be noted that the late prime minister Indira Gandhi was on record ashaving
said that public debates on foreign policy do not serve any useful purpose as they
are a highly specialised subject. In the specific context of Parliament, it may
also be noted that though the minister of external affairs interacts with a
consultative committee representing parliamentarians belonging to all parties in
proportion to their respective parliamentary strengths, it was usually, to quote
former external affairs minister Swaran Singh, "more or less a passive and one-way
communication channel between the government and Parliament".
Mr Singh once told an interviewer, "The consultative committee, like Parliament
itself, reflects the structure of Indian politics, which represents a wide
spectrum of political ideologies and strategies, from the extreme right to the
extreme left. Generally speaking, such a committee cannot be expected to throw up
a consensus on any specific foreign policy issue. The respective ideological
positions and political strategies of the different political parties represented
in the consultative committee are often too divergent and rigid to permit any
meaningful dialogue, not to speak of a workable consensus."
It is against this background that analysts are talking of a discernible and a
"welcome change" in the old pattern. As Prime Minister I.K. Gujral told Parliament
on the day of seeking the confidence vote, "On every important foreign policy
issue, I, as external affairs minister, tried to seek consensus." He even went to
the extent of saying that opposition leader A.B. Vajpayee would be requested to
lead the Indian delegation to the United Nations in future.
It can be argued that over the last three years parliamentary debates have
significantly contributed to foreign-policy making. In this context, it is
noteworthy that India's decision to block the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty at
Geneva last year was influenced by parliamentary deliberations on the matter.
Even otherwise, observers have noticed a remarkable rise in the number of
questions asked by MPs to the government on foreign policy matters.
This is a particularly healthy n for scholars like us, particularly when in this
country every piece of important information is classified. The more questions MPs
ask the government, the greater the flow of information from the government to the
public. That, in turn, will help the country in having a highly desirable broader
base for foreign policy-making," says P.K. Mishra, director of the Academy for
Asia-Pacific Studies.
Analysts see three important factors behind the enhanced role of Parliament in
foreign policy formation. First, the consolidation of coalition politics in the
country which has supplanted the 'one-party dominance' of the Congress. No longer
can the government readily take Parliament for granted since it cannot count on an
overwhelming majority there. The government of the day has to strive for
consensus by taking into confidence all the major political parties. Parliament,
in the process, comes into its own as a deliberative body. The second reason is
the globalisation of the country's economy. Unlike in the past, foreign policy
matters now are seen to affect the lives of citizens and are becoming electoral
issues.
In this regard, analysts point out how in the 1994 assembly elections, the then
ruling Congress had to face poll reversals in the two southern states of Karnataka
and Andhra Pradesh. Among the reasons for the reversals, a noteworthy one was said
to be the condition of the fishermen who had been badly affected following the
central government's decision to allow multinational corporations into deep-sea
fishing; this became an important electoral issue espoused by the opposition.
The third reason for Parliament's ascendancy in foreign policy matters is the fact
that these days, foreign policy achievements or failures can make or unmake a
government. This belief, analysts point out, has become strong after I.K. Gujral
became Prime Minister. It has been argued that Mr Gujral's significant success as
a foreign minister in the past turned out to be the single most important point in
his favour at the time of choosing a United Front leader last month. Therefore,
it may not he surprising if, in the coming days, foreign policy decisions by the
government come under closer scrutiny in Parliament.
Back
Top
|
