Within any federal political structure such as India’s, centre-state relations remain a sensitive matter. It is necessary for both the national and regional leaders to observe certain basic norms of governance, especially when different parties rule in Delhi and the states. Arbitrary actions or pronouncements on part of either the leadership at the centre or in the states, seeking to increase the power of ruling political parties, are bound to strain the delicate fabric of what is a potentially uneasy relationship at the best of times.

A recent example are the comments made by the Trinamool Congress Minister of Municipal Affairs in West Bengal, Mr. Firhad Hakim, in the context of the stalled Indo-Bangladesh Teesta water sharing treaty—an issue as sensitive and delicate as it can be. Mr. Hakim (‘Bobby’ to his friends and his leader Ms. Banerjee) is a former Councilor of Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

This explains why he holds his present portfolio. But it certainly mystifies observers, when he goes public on sensitive matters involving bilateral relations with an independent neighbouring country.

This is one of many examples of the kind of ‘paribartan’ (change) the TMC under Ms. Banerjee has brought about in the political culture of West Bengal, and, by extension, to India. The Chief Minister, who never concealed her impatience bordering on contempt for Constitutional norms, herself showed the way. Defending her sabotage of the proposed Teesta water accord and her subsequent stonewalling on the issue —a matter that could make or break Ms. Sheikh Hasina’s prospects in Bangladesh polls—Ms. Banerjee had declared that it was “none of her business to improve someone else’s election prospects in another country.” The interests of West Bengal must come first.

No wonder Mr. Hakim followed suit, complaining against the Congress(I) at a public forum that now his party (TMC) was copping much political flak for not helping this or that group (read the Awami League) in elections in a different country.

There has been no censure of Mr. Hakim, during whose tenure charges of corruption and mismanagement have been levelled against the Kolkata Municipal authorities, for his bumbling, bullish rush into an area where angels fear to tread, completely out of turn!

This must be the first time in India that state leaders have commented in such a brazen manner on such a delicate development, violating diplomatic norms of minimal bilateral courtesies. There was no reaction from the Congress (I) at any level, perhaps because its leaders felt that it would be wiser not to start a debate.

Observers in Bengal are familiar with Ms. Banerjee’s attitude to Constitutional obligations and norms. During the long rule of the Left Front, there was hardly a day when she did not call for the immediate imposition of President’s rule under article 356 of the Constitution, for some thing or the other. After her spectacular defeat in the 2006 State Assembly polls, she accused the Left front, the police and the centre as having “conspired” against her, including even the Central Election Commission among the plotters—another “first” so to speak!

It is not as though Ms. Banerjee is totally wrong in her defence of West Bengal’s interests. There is no doubt that terms of the Ganga water sharing treaty between India and Bangladesh hurt the prospects of Kolkata and Haldia ports. But the solution lay in maintaining level of navigable water through constant dredging operations and removal of silt from the river channels. The centre was committed to ensuring this. But over the years, both the state and the centre did not give due priority to dredging operations, with the result that silt accumulations increased and affected traffic and cargo handling. Ms. Banerjee is, therefore, partially justified in her grievances again the centre and former Chief Minister Jyoti Basu, regarding the implementation of the clauses of the Ganga water sharing treaty. Once bitten twice shy, she would not, therefore, allow a similar debacle where sharing the waters of the Teesta in north Bengal was concerned. In any case, the one and only base of the TMC in India is West Bengal (with due apologies to Ms. Banerjee’s newfound enthusiasm for acquiring a pan India persona.)

However, as a ruling Chief Minister of a state with three international borders, Ms. Banerjee cannot either afford or be allowed to adopt, a petulantly insular mofussil-like mindset over critical bilateral issues that need urgent intervention. Her refusal to accept the quantum of water to be sent to Bangladesh may be understood, but not her persistent denial thereafter to discuss a solution or even to reopen the issue.

This writer has information that the expert report on the availability of water in the Teesta during the seasons, prepared by Mr. Kalyan Rudra, is already with her, although the state government continues to maintain that “further studies on the matter are necessary.” The only reason she is not disclosing its contents or allowing fresh discussions is her stubborn insistence that the centre must offer West Bengal a comprehensive financial package to help it out of its present economic crisis. If nothing else is possible, New Delhi must agree to write off for a period of three years the repayment of annual loans and debts amounting to Rs 22,000 crore annually.

The centre has not agreed to the proposal, and with the TMC out of the UPA II, it is certain that it never will.

Observers are therefore skeptical as to whether the centre will fall in line with Ms. Banerjee’s demands. Sources close to the Chief Minister, while denying that their leader is pushing for any such deal, have remained tight-lipped about the water sharing accord and related issues.

Bilaterally, there may be far more at stake than Ms. Banerjee’s brinkmanship that borders on political blackmail. Mrs. Hasina Wazed and her Awami League are among India’s firmest allies in South Asia. They have already paid a high political price for this within Bangladesh. Whether in the question of cracking down on anti-Indian activities in Bangladesh, or keeping Islamic fundamentalists under control, whether it’s granting transit rights partially to India through the rivers and roads, or keeping a check in illegal infiltration, it has been the Awami League led by Sheikh Hasina that has consistently stood by India.

Now that she faces hard times before the next elections, with the prospect of a defeat facing her, India should have made things easier for her, not more difficult, in its own long-term interest. (IPA Service)