Reviving India's Foreign Policy ... Part III

01 August 2009



Two incidents in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in this session of Parliament and the response and conduct of MEA should have been enough for the Government of India to take a serious look at the way India’s External Affairs Minister and the ministry was functioning.
The first blunder committed by MEA Mr SM Krishna was on 6th July in Rajya Sabha when he read out a statement on the first anniversary of the attack on Indian Embassy in Kabul which a number of diplomatic and security personnel had lost their lives .But he was not able to answer any question on what had the government done for the dependents of those victims and it was the former Minister of state for External Affairs, Anand Sharma who saved Mr Krishna from being pilloried on the floor of the House.
The second was Mr Krishna’s reply in Lok Sabha on 29th July on the mention of Balochistan in Indo-Pak joint statement issues at Sharm el Sheikh between Prime ministers of India and Pakistan. The entire opposition walked out of the House in protest against” unsatisfactory” reply from Mr Krishna and former External Affairs minister Mr Yashwant Sinha went to the extent of saying that “The country’s foreign policy would not be safe in Krishna’s hands. He would do to MEA in four months what Shivraj Patil took four years to do to Ministry of Home Affairs”.
While the UPA government would have got away with such “bloopers and blunders” because of its sheer strength in the House, yet the fact remains that the conduct of India’s foreign policy needs a serious re-think and a fresh approach in the light of the emerging set of challenges both at regional and global level.
Mr Krishna and Mr Tharoor may have looked like novices in the face of such thorny issues, but the fact is that it is the Prime Minister’s Office which has to take the major share of blame for such a faux pas both at Sharm-el Sheikh, as well as in Parliament for a variety of reasons.
The PMO has always dominated foreign policy issues from the very beginning and it went on exercising it’s “extra powers” even when it was not required.
It was Pandit Nehru who set the pattern for the formation of India’s foreign policy by thrusting a strong personal role for the Prime Minister and in the process, making the MEA a weak institutional structure. Nehru kept the MEA portfolio with himself because at that time he was the best person to handle this portfolio, because of his titanic and iconic international stature and experience. He took all the foreign policy decisions himself after consulting with his advisors and then entrusted the conduct of international affairs tothe senior members of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS).
His successor continued to exercise considerable control over India’s international dealings even through they appointed a separate minister for External Affairs. Mrs Indira Gandhi further strengthened the role of PMO in controlling MEA. She also established RAW for gathering intelligence and providing various kinds of inputs to the PMO and conducted overt operations abroad.
The PMO’s influence over MEA remained very strong during the regime of Mrs Gandhi and Shri Rajiv Gandhi for various reasons and one of the common factors was their giant international stature and influence. MEA was, on the other hand, stronger during the tenure of Morarji Desai, VP Singh, Chandrashekhar and PV Narasimha Rao,
The PMO under Dr Manmohan Singh has been successful in making itself as the supreme body, thanks to the dexterous manipulations by his NSA MK Narayanan and his principal Secretary TKA Nair and the coterie around them, even as Dr Singh could be a poor shadow of the Gandhis in terms of their international recognition and personal stature. Ministry of External Affairs has been functioning as “extended PMO” and no wonder then that India’s diplomatic and foreign policy conduct has remain amateurish because they have been handled by anyone, but career diplomats.
As long as Mr Pranab Mukerjee remained in command in MEA, there was some uniformity and consistency and India’s success in pinning down Pakistan post 26/11 at international fora was mainly because of his personal effort than that of his Ministry. But that advantage appears to have been frittered away now and the barrage of attack that both PM and MEA faced in the aftermath of the Sharm el Sheikh joint statement once again proved that India needed more seasoned diplomats who were well versed with nuances and conduct of cool and calculated diplomatic tasks and engagements than those politicians who were outclassed and outmaneuvered by UK and US educated Pakistani leaders and diplomats, when it came to the drafting and declarations couched in ambiguity and ambivalence.
No wonder then, as a former Foreign Secretary, said ‘whatever India gains on the ground, invariably loses on the diplomatic bargaining table. “

Need for a fresh perspective
MEA has been entrusted with task of foreign affairs, foreign policy making, actual implementation of the policy and the daily conduct of international relations. The Ministry’s duties include providing timely information and analysis to the PM as well MEA, recommending specific measures when necessary, planning policy for the future and maintaining communication with foreign missions in New Delhi.



In 1994, MEA administered 149 diplomatic missions abroad. The figure has gone up to 160 now and these missions have been staffed largely by members of IFS. That time the total cadre strength of IFS was 3490 out of which 1890 had been posted abroad and more than 1600 served in MEA head quarters in New Delhi. That strength has grown by 16 per cent by now. In 2007, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon had announced that actual strength of the IFS engaged in task of performing diplomacy management was just 660 and he wanted to double the number because of its increasing role and presence as an emerging global power at various levels. It remains to be seen how much implementation of his plan was implemented in actual terms.
Apart from the management of day to day affairs of over 160 embassies and consulates abroad, MEA has more than 13 territorial divisions, each covering a large area of the world. It also has functional Divisions dealing with external publicity, protocol, consular affairs, Indians abroad, the UN and other international organizations and international conferences. Two other divisions among the total of 18 have special role to play. One is the policy planning and research division whose task is to conduct research and prepare briefs and background papers for top policy makers and Ministry officials. The second is the Economic Wing, entrusted with the task of handling foreign economic relations.
Despite all these support systems, Mr Krishna was found faltering in his role as EAM, whether it was racial attacks on Indian students in Australia, or Sri Lanka and even on Pakistan. His utterances have proved that he is out of depth in grasping the basics of foreign policy, let alone its nuances. He still needs the help of handouts to speak on specific issues and at press conferences, he has developed the habit of side-stepping even the most pertinent questions.
He refused to speak even in Lok Sabha on Pakistan saying “most of the issues have been answered by the PM and Mr Pranab Mukerjee”. That he was very uncomfortable in his role as MEA was proved in the joint Press Conference with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In hindsight, the wisdom of appointing Shri S.M Krishna, who hitherto had not stepped outside the state of Karnataka, as EAM, is seriously under a cloud. It might as well be asked why Dr. Karan Singh could not have been considered. Today, no other person seems to possess better credentials to be the EAM than Dr. Singh.
On the other hand, National Security Advisor MK Narayanan appears to be the Super External Affairs Minister, as he has been actively involved inMEA even on matters of routine posting, a terrain that apparently interests him more than policy matters that he is expected to handle.


But this state of affairs points towards a bigger malaise and the buck stops at the door of the Prime Minister himself. It is this that provoked historian Ramchandra Guha to say that the men in their ‘70s are handling India’s foreign policy in the complex scenario of 2009 when we live in a global world of shifting alliances, where the sole superpower status of US is being challenged by a rising China, a combative Russia and a less than deferential European nations.
He underscores the need for a more seasoned handling of foreign policy by experienced people fromthe diplomatic corps who have a better understanding of diplomacy and foreign policy. Mr Krishna is 77 years old and his professional acquaintance in international affairs has been scanty beyond Karnataka. Dr Manmohan Singh is 76 years and his area of expertise has by and large, remained economics and finance. National Security Advisor Mr MK Narayanan is 75 years comes from the police Service and many experts have gone to the extent of saying that “his police background promotes a tunnel vision that impedes a wider understanding of regional and global issues and forces”, says Guha.
As compared to them, the overall age of their US and European counterparts is much younger (in 50s and 60s) be it Hillary Clinton (61) British Foreign Secretary David Milliband (44), his German counterpart Frank Walter Steinmeier (53) and Pakistani Foreign Affairs Minister Makhdoom Qureshi is of the same age.(53). To this one might add the ‘kid on the block’ – 48 year old President of the United States of America.
If one were to trace the Indian foreign policy, particularly from ‘90s onwards, one would be at wit’s end if asked to count foreign policy successes. India is surrounded by a hostile neighbourhood and we cannot count even one nation as our friend – a fact at which our foreign policy mandarins should hang their heads in shame. The only instance of success that would possibly come to mind is the Indo-US nuclear deal. This too, however comes with a rider. The government could not even sell the deal properly within the country. Our political class too needs to understand that politicisation of foreign policy issues comes at the peril of the international prestige of the nation.
“To work in the realm of foreign affairs or national security requires one to be awake at all hours and alert to all possibilities, to be comfortable with modern technology and to be interested even in the obscure parts of the world and finally, to be willing to travel long distances at the drop of a hat” says Mr Guha.
This, according to some experts, was one of the reasons why Mr Pranab Mukherjee opted out of MEA because he could not take on the rigours of frequent travel abroad.



Under these circumstances, it is pertinent that the conduct of diplomacy and foreign policy is entrusted into competent hands where India’s national and external security, economic and business interests are secured and acted upon as per its capacity for ambitious and effective international actions.
It remains open to debate whether the Indian ship of State could sail in the rocky ocean of global politics by even one old man in his seventies and in India we still have a trio? The naked truth remains that neither of the three Stalwarts have theproven credentials as a good diplomat, a foreign policy expert, or a strategic thinker.
If the likely contours of Indian foreign policy were to be summed up in one sentence it would be that it should – “Try to resemble tea leaves and show its colour when in hot water.” The immediate need of the hour therefore, is to find an EAM who can steer the ship of foreign policy out of the choppy waters it presently is in.