Kerala government has appointed senior IAS officer K Vasuki as the state’s ‘secretary for matters relating to external cooperation’.
Reacting to the Kerala government’s appointment of a ‘foreign secretary’ for the state, the BJP on Tuesday criticized Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan for what the opposition called ‘clear excessive independence and violation of the Constitution so’ the ho.
“The appointment of an IAS officer as the ‘Foreign Secretary’ in Kerala by CM Pinarayi Vijay is a violation of the Union Scheme of our Constitution and a clear exaggeration. The LDF government has no mandate in foreign affairs,” BJP Kerala unit chief K Surendran revealed on X (formerly Twitter).
“This unconstitutional action sets a dangerous precedent. Is CM @pinarayivijayan trying to make Kerala a separate state?” Surendran asked.
According to The Times of India , the Kerala government has appointed senior IAS officer K Vasuki as ‘secretary for matters relating to external cooperation’.
The officer, in addition to the existing charges, shall frame and supervise all matters in this connection and related matters,” read the July 15 order issued by the state government. The resident officer, Kerala House, New Delhi, has been directed to assist him in liaising with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi and Indian embassies and missions abroad,” the order mentioned.
Talking to the newspaper, former cabinet secretary KM Chandrasekhar was ‘skeptical’ about the appointment. International relations fall within the jurisdiction of the Centre. If a Ministry of External Affairs needs assistance from abroad, it can contact the MEA or the Indian Embassy. I think the state government will also clarify the ‘other’ role of the officer in addition to what the secretary already does,” said Chandrasekhar.
In recent weeks, a significant political controversy has unfolded in the southern state of Kerala, India, as the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) government, led by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, announced the appointment of a “foreign secretary” to manage Kerala’s international relations. This move has drawn sharp criticism from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which views it as an overreach of state authority and a challenge to the central government’s jurisdiction over foreign affairs. This article delves into the details of this controversy, the arguments from both sides, and its potential implications on Indian federalism.
The Kerala government recently appointed a senior bureaucrat as the “foreign secretary” with the intention of enhancing the state’s international engagements, especially concerning the welfare of the large expatriate Malayali population. Kerala has a significant number of its citizens working in the Gulf countries, contributing substantially to the state’s economy through remittances. The state government argues that a dedicated foreign secretary is necessary to address the issues faced by these expatriates and to foster better international cooperation in areas such as trade, tourism, and education.
Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan defended the decision, stating that the appointment is in line with the state’s rights to manage its own affairs and to protect the interests of its people abroad. He emphasized that the role is intended to complement, not conflict with, the central government’s foreign policy.
The BJP has strongly criticized this move, labeling it a “blatant overreach” and an unconstitutional attempt to usurp the central government’s exclusive authority over foreign affairs. BJP leaders argue that foreign policy and international relations are subjects under the Union List of the Indian Constitution, meaning they fall exclusively within the purview of the central government. By appointing a foreign secretary, the Kerala government is allegedly encroaching upon a domain reserved for the central authorities.
BJP spokespersons have accused Chief Minister Vijayan of trying to create a parallel foreign policy and warned that such actions could undermine the unity and integrity of India. They argue that allowing individual states to appoint their own foreign secretaries could lead to a fragmented and inconsistent approach to international relations, potentially harming the nation’s interests.
The Indian Constitution clearly delineates the distribution of powers between the central and state governments. Foreign affairs are explicitly listed under the Union List, making it the exclusive responsibility of the central government. This distribution of powers aims to ensure a cohesive and unified foreign policy, which is essential for maintaining the country’s international standing and diplomatic relations.
However, the Kerala government contends that its appointment does not infringe upon the central government’s jurisdiction. It argues that the role of the foreign secretary is limited to coordinating with the central government and other relevant authorities to address specific issues faced by Kerala’s expatriates and to promote the state’s economic and cultural interests abroad. The state government maintains that this is a legitimate exercise of its administrative powers to protect the welfare of its citizens.
Legal experts are divided on this issue. Some argue that Kerala’s move could set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to conflicts between state and central governments. Others believe that as long as the foreign secretary’s role is confined to areas that do not interfere with national foreign policy, the state government is within its rights to make such an appointment.
The controversy over Kerala’s appointment of a foreign secretary is not an isolated incident but rather part of a broader debate about the balance of power between the central and state governments in India. India’s federal structure allows states a significant degree of autonomy in managing their internal affairs. However, the central government retains control over critical areas such as defense, foreign affairs, and communications.
Throughout India’s history, there have been numerous instances of tension between the central and state governments over the distribution of powers. States with strong regional identities, such as Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala, have often clashed with the central government on various issues. These tensions have sometimes led to calls for greater decentralization and more powers for the states.
The current controversy can be seen as part of this ongoing struggle. The Kerala government’s decision reflects its desire to assert greater control over matters that it views as crucial to the welfare of its citizens. On the other hand, the central government’s opposition underscores its commitment to maintaining a unified approach to foreign policy and international relations.
Kerala has a unique demographic and economic profile, with a significant portion of its population residing abroad, particularly in the Gulf countries. These expatriates play a vital role in the state’s economy, sending back substantial remittances that support millions of families and contribute to the state’s revenue. The welfare of these expatriates has always been a priority for successive Kerala governments.
The appointment of a foreign secretary is seen by the Kerala government as a necessary step to better address the needs and concerns of these expatriates. The role would involve liaising with foreign governments, international organizations, and Indian diplomatic missions to ensure the protection and welfare of Malayalis abroad. Additionally, it aims to attract foreign investment, promote tourism, and enhance educational and cultural exchanges.
Economic considerations are also a significant factor. Kerala has been actively seeking to diversify its economic partnerships and attract foreign investment in various sectors. The state government argues that a dedicated foreign secretary would help streamline these efforts and foster better international cooperation, ultimately benefiting Kerala’s economy.
The controversy has also taken on a political dimension, with both the BJP and the LDF using it to rally their respective bases. The BJP’s criticism is in line with its broader strategy of emphasizing national unity and central authority. By opposing Kerala’s move, the BJP seeks to position itself as the defender of constitutional propriety and the integrity of India’s federal structure.
For the LDF, the controversy provides an opportunity to reinforce its image as a champion of state rights and the welfare of its citizens. Chief Minister Vijayan and his government have framed the issue as one of protecting the interests of Malayalis, both within Kerala and abroad. This stance resonates with a significant portion of the state’s population, which sees the central government as often indifferent to their specific needs and concerns.
Public opinion in Kerala appears to be divided. While some support the government’s initiative, seeing it as a proactive step to address expatriate issues and boost the state’s international profile, others are wary of the potential legal and constitutional complications. The opposition Congress party in Kerala has also criticized the move, accusing the LDF government of creating unnecessary controversies and diverting attention from pressing local issues.
The Kerala controversy has broader implications for Indian federalism and the evolving nature of center-state relations. It highlights the need for a more nuanced and flexible approach to governance in a diverse and complex country like India. As states seek to assert their rights and address their unique challenges, there is a growing need for dialogue and cooperation between the central and state governments.
One potential solution could be the establishment of a formal mechanism for states to engage in international activities within a framework set by the central government. This could involve clear guidelines and protocols to ensure that state-level initiatives do not conflict with national foreign policy. Such a mechanism could help balance the states’ need for greater autonomy with the central government’s responsibility to maintain a cohesive and unified foreign policy.
The controversy also underscores the importance of strengthening institutional mechanisms for intergovernmental cooperation and dispute resolution. Bodies like the Inter-State Council, which was established to facilitate coordination between the central and state governments, need to be more active and effective in addressing such issues. Enhanced cooperation and communication can help prevent conflicts and ensure that the interests of both the states and the nation are protected.
The BJP’s criticism of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan for the appointment of a foreign secretary in Kerala has sparked a significant political and constitutional debate. While the Kerala government argues that the move is necessary to protect the welfare of its expatriates and promote the state’s international interests, the BJP sees it as an unconstitutional overreach into the central government’s domain.
This controversy highlights the ongoing tension between central authority and state autonomy in India’s federal structure. It underscores the need for a more flexible and cooperative approach to governance, one that respects the unique needs and challenges of individual states while maintaining the unity and integrity of the nation.
As India continues to evolve and navigate the complexities of its federal system, it is crucial to find ways to balance these competing interests. The Kerala controversy serves as a reminder of the importance of dialogue, cooperation, and mutual respect in addressing the diverse and dynamic challenges facing the country.