The annual presidential budget for international travel is roughly equivalent to the income tax paid by 10,000 average Indians.

Earlier this month, President Ramnath Kovind’s office said that there would be no iftar party at the Rashtrapati Bhavan this year “on taxpayer expense”. Ironically, days later, Kovind has departed on a state visit to Greece, Suriname and Cuba on taxpayer’s expense, even as little is known about how the visit would benefit the nation.

“#PresidentKovind departs for his state visit to Greece, Suriname and Cuba. This is his fourth state visit as President and first outside Africa. He will be the first Indian President to travel to Suriname and Cuba and first to visit Greece since President Kalam in 2007,” the President’s official Twitter handle tweeted Saturday.

But what good is going to come out of his visit? Is the president expected to add any concrete value in the form of getting commitments from these nations that would quantifiably increase bilateral trade and investment? Will his delegation include high-level, prominent executives from the Indian business community? Is there any significant geopolitical, strategic or social goal that would be accomplished through this tour?

There is little demonstrable evidence to suggest that foreign visits by Indian presidents and vice-presidents contribute to the Indian economy, or address any strategic imperative, either military or geopolitical, significantly. At best, they remain ceremonial and symbolic – at worst, glorious holidays on taxpayer’s money.

As it were, the amount of money the exchequer bears on such visits is no paltry sum – over the period of his or her term, a president or a vice-president spends close to Rs 200 crore on foreign travel. In the cases of former presidents Pratibha Patil and Pranab Mukherjee, the travel expenses went beyond Rs 200 crore.

On this three-nation tour, in particular, Kovind and his entourage have chartered an Air India jumbo Boeing 747, which has an operational cost of nearly Rs 10 lakh per hour. As is the case with any presidential overseas trip, Kovind is likely to spend his time paying tribute to statues, giving academic lectures to audiences, sightseeing major tourist attractions, and presiding over meetings that will not yield concrete action items.

In the pre-departure press statements, the Presidential Secretariat said the visit will result in signing of multiple memorandums of understanding (MoUs) across multiple sectors. But MoUs are not contracts that can be used to benchmark the success of the level of effort that goes into planning and completing a presidential state visit. MoUs only express intent, are non-committal by definition, and do not carry any penalties for non-materialisation. So, this is what it comes to: a president and an entourage of 100-odd people go to countries with little strategic importance – at great cost – to sign a bunch of MoUs.

Since the rhetoric on “taxpayer’s hard-earned money” gets most of us on social media going, it would be useful to note that the yearly presidential budget for international travel is roughly equivalent to the income tax paid by 10,000 average taxpayers (calculations based on income tax figures for FY 16).

Kovind is, of course, not the first president (or vice president) to travel around the world. This has been standard practice for presidents when they are in office and is an issue that cuts across party lines.

Consider that Pratibha Patil went to 24 countries over 13 visits during her presidency. Her maiden international trip in 2008 to Latin America had a 98-member delegation. A trip to Mauritius in 2011 had a 105-member delegation that included her spouse, son, daughter-in-law, daughter and two grandchildren. Such holidays were all too frequent. In all, reports suggest that President Patil spent nearly Rs 225 crore to complete her foreign visits during her term.

Pranab Mukherjee was no better. He visited 21 countries over 13 trips. On many of his trips, including those to China, Norway, Finland, Belgium, Turkey and Mauritius, his daughter accompanied him.

Do we remember anything concrete coming out of these visits that continues to be in force till date?

Our Constitution has clearly defined the roles and powers of the president. For all practical purposes and key matters, barring a few exceptions, the president has to consult with, and seek approval of, the prime minister. There is, therefore, little authority in the presidential office to carry out national strategies unilaterally. So, when the president is travelling abroad, he or she does not have the authority to independently act, enable, negotiate and implement any form of foreign policy.

At a time when the president should be making efforts to put our minority populations at ease, he has chosen to discard hosting an important festival at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, and yet has not foregone or put to better use the travel budget. Presidential foreign visits should be scrutinised for their value added to the nation carefully. Tax-paying citizens should demand greater accountability.

  • 14
    Shares