The blame game regarding how the Indo-Bangladesh treaty on the Teesta was undone deflects attention from some of the critical issues that revolve around the subject. These issues concern the nature and the functioning of democracy in India. Democracy, in spite of Abraham Lincoln’s memorable definition, is often confused with the principle of majority. This principle is only one aspect of democracy. The core of democratic governance pertains to links with the people. So when the prime minister says that he was in touch with the chief minister of West Bengal, he rather simplifies the issue. The chief minister of West Bengal is only the elected representative of the majority of the people of the state of West Bengal. By no means does she represent all the people of West Bengal. It is important to bear in mind that in the last assembly elections, approximately 40 per cent of the people of the state did not vote for the party that now runs the government in West Bengal. The point is critical since the matter concerns a natural asset that belongs to the people of West Bengal and not to this or that political party and certainly not to the government in New Delhi.

Under the circumstances, and given the importance of the treaty for both the people of West Bengal and Bangladesh, the proper procedure on the Indian side would have been to discuss the matter, at one level, with the state government and the principle opposition party. At another level, sections of society not necessarily linked to political parties — members of civil society and the media to take two examples — could have been involved in the process of discussion and debate. At another, and a final level, the opinion of the people who are to be directly affected by the treaty — the inhabitants of North Bengal — should have been sought, if necessary through a referendum. The argument that all this would have taken an enormous amount of time is a spurious one. For one thing, the treaty has taken a long time to be finalized. And for another, a treaty concerning the natural assets of a state/country should take a long time and should involve discussion and debate at various fora. The assumption that a treaty of this nature only involves the government of the two concerned countries suggests, at best, a rather simplistic notion of democracy and, at worst, a complete disregard of democratic norms.

Foreign policy is the responsibility of the Central government. But the principle of federalism that underpins the Indian Constitution would dictate that on issues of foreign policy where the interest of a state is critically affected, the government and the people of the state be taken fully into confidence by the prime minister and his government. In spite of his best intentions and his commitment to democracy, the prime minister did not do this. That is why he was wrong.