Subnational Influence in Indian Foreign Policy: The Role of Border States in Transboundary Diplomacy with Bangladesh
Introduction
In traditional Westphalian paradigms of international relations, foreign policy is the exclusive prerogative of the national government, while subnational units play a negligible role in external affairs. However, in practice, the domestic–international nexus has become increasingly prominent, especially in federal democracies like India, where constituent units—particularly border states—exert considerable influence on certain aspects of foreign policy formulation and execution. Nowhere is this dynamic more apparent than in the India–Bangladesh relationship, where the state of West Bengal, owing to its geographic, cultural, and economic proximity, has played a critical role in shaping the trajectory of bilateral engagement, especially in areas such as transboundary water sharing, cross-border migration, and border management.
This essay examines the extent, mechanisms, and implications of the involvement of border states like West Bengal in the making and implementation of India’s foreign policy. It situates the discussion within the broader frameworks of federal diplomacy, subnational agency, and domestic determinants of foreign policy, thereby highlighting how internal actors shape international engagements in complex federal settings.
I. The Constitutional Framework: Limits and Possibilities
1.1. Division of Powers under the Indian Constitution
Foreign affairs, defence, and diplomacy are placed under the Union List (List I, Seventh Schedule) of the Indian Constitution. Article 246 and Article 253 affirm the exclusive competence of the Union Government in negotiating treaties and conducting foreign relations. Hence, the legal architecture centralizes foreign policy authority in the hands of the central executive, particularly the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).
1.2. Evolving Role of States under Cooperative Federalism
Despite this constitutional centralization, the Indian federation has witnessed increasing state-level assertiveness in areas where international commitments intersect with domestic concerns. This is particularly evident in border states that share ethnolinguistic, religious, and environmental continuities with neighboring countries.
West Bengal, with its 2,216 km border with Bangladesh, plays an outsize role in shaping India’s subregional diplomacy, not as a foreign policy actor per se, but as a domestic veto player and subnational stakeholder.
II. The Case of West Bengal and India–Bangladesh Relations
2.1. Teesta Water Sharing Agreement: A Case of Subnational Veto
- One of the most illustrative examples of subnational influence in Indian foreign policy is the Teesta River Water Sharing Agreement.
- The central government, under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2011 and later under Narendra Modi, sought to finalize an accord to allocate 42.5% of Teesta’s flow to India and 37.5% to Bangladesh.
- However, strong opposition from the West Bengal Chief Minister, Mamata Banerjee, who cited adverse implications for the state’s agriculture and hydrological needs, stalled the agreement indefinitely.
This represents a paradigmatic case of federal friction, where the lack of state-level consent constrained India’s ability to deliver on bilateral commitments, despite diplomatic willingness at the central level.
2.2. Border Management and Cross-Border Migration
West Bengal’s administrative machinery is deeply involved in issues such as:
- Illegal migration, with demographic, economic, and political ramifications.
- Refugee management, particularly concerning the Matua and Bangladeshi Hindu communities.
- Security coordination, with local police working in tandem with the Border Security Force (BSF).
State-level perspectives on these issues significantly influence the tone and urgency of central negotiations, particularly when the interplay of domestic politics and electoral calculations is involved.
2.3. Economic and Cultural Diplomacy
Subnational actors also engage in cultural diplomacy and economic outreach:
- The Biswa Bangla brand, Kolkata–Dhaka bus and train connectivity, and cross-border festivals are examples of how West Bengal contributes to soft power diplomacy.
- Informal and semi-formal Track 2 initiatives, business chambers, and civil society exchanges help shape a climate of trust at the subregional level.
These initiatives complement the centre’s policy and help build people-to-people contact, a key pillar of India’s diplomatic engagement with Bangladesh.
III. Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives: Federalism and Subnational Diplomacy
3.1. Federalism as a Foreign Policy Variable
India’s case illustrates what political science literature calls “paradiplomacy”—the external engagement of subnational governments, often in areas like trade, environment, culture, and transboundary water management.
The concept of “constituent diplomacy”, advanced by scholars like John Kincaid and Jorge Heine, helps explain how states, provinces, and cities increasingly influence international affairs, particularly in decentralized and multicultural polities.
3.2. Comparative Cases: Canada–Quebec, China–Hong Kong, and the U.S. States
- Quebec’s influence in Canada–France cultural relations.
- California’s climate diplomacy, often distinct from U.S. federal policy.
- Hong Kong’s economic agreements under “One Country, Two Systems.”
These examples illustrate the diversity of subnational influence, depending on constitutional structure, political autonomy, and diplomatic precedent.
India’s model falls somewhere between cooperative and contested federalism, where state-level influence is exercised not through formal authority, but through negotiated coordination, political leverage, and normative contestation.
IV. Implications and Strategic Considerations
4.1. Strengthening Cooperative Federalism in Foreign Policy
Given the growing salience of subnational actors:
- The MEA has increasingly consulted state governments prior to finalizing international agreements with domestic implications.
- Mechanisms such as the Inter-State Council, Standing Committees of Parliament, and regular Chief Ministers’ forums can be leveraged for institutionalizing consultative diplomacy.
4.2. Challenges of Fragmentation and Policy Incoherence
However, state-level politicization of foreign policy can lead to:
- Delays in international agreements (e.g., Teesta).
- Conflicting public messaging, undermining diplomatic credibility.
- A fragmented policy posture when centre–state relations are politically antagonistic, as seen during opposition-ruled states’ resistance to central initiatives.
The challenge lies in balancing national interest with regional sensitivities, without eroding the constitutional supremacy of the Union in external affairs.
Conclusion
The role of constituent units, particularly border states like West Bengal, in India’s foreign policy is no longer peripheral. While constitutionally limited, such states wield considerable influence over transboundary issues where geographic contiguity, political stakes, and socio-cultural ties are prominent. India’s engagement with Bangladesh—especially on matters like Teesta water sharing, cross-border connectivity, and migration—offers a compelling illustration of how domestic actors shape foreign policy outputs.
Far from being an anomaly, this trend reflects a broader evolution in global diplomacy, where subnational units are increasingly recognized as stakeholders in international cooperation. For India, managing this reality requires the development of institutional mechanisms of cooperative federalism, where consultation, coordination, and consensus-building become the basis for foreign policy decisions with domestic implications. In doing so, India can harness the capacities of its federal units to enhance regional diplomacy, cross-border governance, and ultimately, the effectiveness of its foreign policy in an interconnected world.
Discover more from Polity Prober
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.