South Block Watch / The Sunday Standard/June 09, 2013

Bulldozing Diplomacy

With Indian diplomacy failing to deliver on crucial fronts, the cry for an overhaul is getting louder. The mechanism devised by the British to administer colonies is obsolete today. Designations and functional nomenclatures have changed, but old age has made India’s 650-member diplomatic structure fragile. The Indian Administrative Service Group, which controls the bureaucracy, has added perks and posts, but stopped other services, including IFS, from evolving their own structure. Before Independence, South Block functioned through a Secretary General, a Commonwealth Secretary and a Foreign Secretary. Jawaharlal Nehru retained the British system. Lal Bahadur Shastri decided to Indianise it. He abolished the Secretary General’s post, deciding that one Foreign Secretary and two secretaries could handle geographical divisions. Later, Indira Gandhi added another post—Secretary, Economic Relations. With the demise of non-alignment and marginalisation of Commonwealth diplomacy, India was hardly in a position to influence international confabulations. However, with its growing markets and envious growth rate, the West started perceiving India as a nation to engage with. But our mandarins were neither trained nor equipped to deal with diplomacy’s changing narrative. After 2000, all secretaries were reduced to being stenographers for the PMO and the office of the National Security Adviser.

For four decades, the three-plus-one model is being followed. No secretary has been allowed to take independent decisions, with the Foreign Secretary remaining the first among equals—East, West and Economic Relations. The enormity of each one’s responsibility is affecting performance. The Foreign Secretary deals with the US, Russia, China, France, UK, Japan, India’s neighbours and sensitive countries like Iran and Afghanistan. The Secretary (West) is the next most powerful, as he is lord of diplomatic relations with over 100 countries, including entire Northern Europe, Latin America, Canada and parts of Africa. The Secretary (East) has to look after interests in 80-odd countries in Asia. But the Secretary (Economic Relations) is not in charge of any country but is expected to protect India’s economic interests in the BRICS nations, international food security, energy security and WTO. It is only in India that one expects greying babus to fly almost every second night for diplomacy to survive. Since secretary-level officers remain at headquarters around three years, none are able to visit most countries even once.

Successive foreign secretaries have made serious attempts to induct more senior officers in South Block, only to be stalled by the IAS lobby. It has only agreed to increase the IFS cadre strength from 650 to 1,200 by 2015. It is ironic that the finance ministry has more than half a dozen secretary-level officers. Many other ministries have more than three secretaries but the external affairs ministry has been starved of financial and administrative autonomy. No wonder, India is unable to think and plan in advance when it comes to dealing with complex international conflicts. Former diplomats are mounting pressure on the PM to create an institutional mechanism to handle external affairs and minimise the role of individuals. From Nehru to Manmohan, Indian diplomacy’s journey has been downhill with powerful individuals bulldozing the system for personal interests.

Problem of Plenty

Since the PMO is hardly concerned with making systemic changes in the diplomatic machinery to make it more effective, individuals are lobbying hard to capture sensitive postings in South Block. The shortage of ambassadorial posts has led to numerous senior officers in junior positions abroad returning to HQ to fill secretary and additional secretary-level vacancies and then wait for plum posts abroad. Three officers have already expressed a desire to return to fill two of three posts that will fall vacant on October 1 with the retirement of Sudhir Vyas (1977 batch) and Pinak Chakravarty (1977). They are Virendra Gupta (1977), High Commissioner to South Africa, Dinkar Srivastava (1978), Ambassador to Iran, and Anil Wadhwa, Ambassador to Thailand—the topper of the 1979 batch. If the PM chooses a 1977-batch officer as the next FS, all three aspirants will become eligible for promotions to secretary-level posts. The present dispensation is, however, inclined to clear only Wadhwa and leave it to the next FS to decide on the other two. Sujata Mehta, envoy to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, is also slated to return to Delhi. She is likely to replace Ashok Mukherjee as Additional Secretary (Pol). She will be replaced by Venkatesh Verma, Joint Secretary (DISA). She and Navtej Sarna (1980)—AS (IO)—will be due for promotion in the next few months. If that happens, MEA could end up with more senior officers than it needs.

Women Power

The PM has reasons to be satisfied with his Tokyo and Bangkok visits. South Block mandarins are giving full credit to the highly effective Deepa Gopalan Wadhwa, India’s first woman envoy to Japan, and her husband Anil Wadhwa, posted in Bangkok. PMO claims that apart from the warmth and ceremonial welcome, both visits registered substantive pluses. If defence and civilian nuclear cooperation start with Japan and the collaborative ventures underway with Thailand take off, this visit will be remembered among the more successful of Manmohan’s recent overseas trips. An interesting sidelight of the Japan visit was when Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai was asked by his Japanese counterpart whether India had lady ambassadors in other countries as well. Mathai proceeded to reel off names, both past and serving. He also inquired politely how many Japanese lady ambassadors there were, catching the hosts off guard. After several minutes, they responded that they have one serving lady ambassador, in an insignificant country. Both Wadhwas will be in line for the Foreign Secretary’s job in 2015 when   successor retires.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

South Block Watch .... The Sunday Standard/ May 26, 2013

Chinese Checkers in Japan

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s frequent visits abroad in the last few months have raised scary expectations about India’s diplomatic expertise. His forthcoming visit to Tokyo from May 27 to 29, and Bangkok from May 30 to 31, would provide welcome opportunities, not only to strengthen important bilateral relationships but also to boost India’s Look East Policy. As Manmohan’s overseas sojourn comes close on the heels of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s visit to India, he will have to play it safe while discussing China with his Japanese counterpart. The Japan visit assumes added strategic significance because both countries, along with Philippines and Vietnam, have been at the receiving end of China’s military assertiveness and muscle flexing. Sino-Japanese relations have traditionally been difficult. The Japanese expectation that strengthening economic relations with China would facilitate contentious political disputes was belied when China suddenly announced on April 27 that the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea have always been its territory. The Chinese, referring to Diaoyu Islands—their name for Senkaku—said the issue concerns the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and constitutes its “core interest”, taking the dispute to a new level. The Japanese, who have administered the islands for decades, were taken aback but decided to respond assertively. Our Prime Minister and Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe will have an additional issue on their agenda. The Japanese will be looking forward to hearing a first-hand assessment of Manmohan’s impressions of Li Keqiang’s visit.

Slice of the American Pie

The desire of the establishment to wrangle an invitation for Manmohan Singh to make a state visit to the US is well known. Santa Claus finally arrived in the form of US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns. The invitation was accepted with alacrity. The PMO was so pleased that it could not resist the temptation of selectively leaking this godsend to the press even though a formal invitation was awaited and mutually convenient dates had to be decided upon. This raises a fundamental question. Since the visit—the last for Manmohan in his second term—is supposed to extract maximum mileage at home, bilateral dialogues must be held before July. But the Americans are in no hurry. The PMO has already scheduled the PM’s visit to correspond with the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in September. On this occasion, US President Barack Obama holds meetings with most visiting heads of governments. In that case, a separate meeting will have to be fixed for Manmohan in Washington. Moreover, there is talk of the general elections being advanced to be held along with the state Assembly polls towards the end of the year. Should that happen, a major foreign visit on the eve of elections would be neither feasible nor desirable. But the PMO is unable to reconcile to the idea of the Prime Minister losing an opportunity to break bread with the mightiest global power before completing his second, and perhaps last, term.

Musical Chairs at MEA

The search for a new foreign secretary remains shrouded in mystery. There is still some time left for a formal announcement, as the new candidate is always appointed a month before the current incumbent’s retirement. The Prime Minister has been considering various names, and would like to follow the seniority principle as was done while appointing Ranjan Mathai, cabinet secretary Ajit Kumar Seth, the new CVC, and CAG. According to insiders, the PM is under pressure to deviate from this well-tested policy. This became apparent when the government ignored seniority while appointing the new Home Secretary. Anil Goswami (1978 batch) was chosen to succeed R K Singh from the 1975 batch. Manmohan has been unable to firm up on the next foreign secretary because of the tug of war between various power centres. If seniority is to be the criterion, then our ambassador to Berlin, Sujatha Singh, should get the job. But going by the new home secretary’s appointment, an officer of the 1977 batch may well be considered. But there is a catch. Three officers of the 1977 batch are already serving as secretaries in the MEA—Sudhir Vyas, Pinak Chakravarty and Ashok Kantha, in that order of seniority. Two of them retire by September. If the choice falls on S Jaishankar, the ambassador to Beijing, the PM has to find an honourable exit for the three seniors. The only way would be to give a short extension to Mathai and let them retire before bringing in Jaishankar. In case he is appointed the next foreign secretary, the PM would have to find a credible explanation on why so many seniors, including Sujatha, have been superseded.

Learn it from Rio

The Congress is an expert at forging alliances abroad and breaking them at home. When it comes to the skill set of domestic agencies, it should learn from Brazil. Both India and Brazil have been partners in many global initiatives. The summit-level meeting of the three large democracies of Latin America, including Brazil, Africa and Asia meant to be held in New Delhi in the first week of June has been postponed because of scheduling difficulties from Brazil. As and when it is rescheduled, it would be appropriate for South Block mandarins to use the opportunity to ascertain from the Brazilians the secret of how they managed to register splendid victories in two prestigious elections in the multilateral system. Brazilian candidates won decisively in the elections to the top jobs in the Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome and the Geneva-based World Trade Organization. They have demonstrated without doubt that their foreign policy machine is second to none, and surely better than ours.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

South Block Watch .... /The Sunday Standard/May 12, 2013

Mind the Language

In the armoury of diplomacy, language and selection of words have pride of place. Over centuries, diplomatic engagement has come to mean delivery of messages couched in dignified courtesies—in a way the intended recipient understands its spirit and purpose. Diplomats over the world are taught to disarm counterparts with warm hugs and pleasant words. Moreover, the colour of the message is dictated by the level and venue of the dialogue to avoid damage to the relationship. Explanations, strong or frivolous, are handed out only in exceptional situations. Hence, South Block mandarins were left scratching their heads about the source who advised various MEA officials and even the PM to explain away the Chinese incursions as a “localised issue” and “acne” which could be cured by the ointment of dialogue. Foreign diplomats handed the briefing were aghast at India’s attempt to trivialise such a border violation. While the defence establishment favoured a strong rebuff, the invisible adviser counselled the government to show restraint and offer an apologetic justification for the amicable resolution to the standoff. Those who manage foreign policy made sure that pliable opinion-makers accepted their formulations that a solution could be found only after giving a face-saving exit route to the Chinese. The first briefing made it seem China had dismantled its five tents after India decided to remove its posts from the other side. Though a vague clarification followed, the damage was done. A five-decade-old convention of following the Line of Perception was broken and India accepted the revised border management mechanism it was opposing. India indirectly accepted that it was equally responsible for morning walk incursions as the Chinese. How and why India’s wise diplomats sorted out the standoff is another story.

Security Hazards

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s decision to set up a National Security Council (NSC) and National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) after the Kargil war was well thought out. The NDA government found that various defence establishments and foreign policy wonks were not on the same page on operational issues. The NSC was expected to offer the political leadership sound sectoral and strategic advice backed by professional and technical inputs. Vajpayee instructed his National Security Adviser to pick the best brains from defence, diplomacy and academia to collate information and provide a comprehensive assessment of the security scenario. But of late, the NSC has been packed with individuals who have personal interests to protect and have hardly made any contribution to formulating policies. After the China fiasco, the Congress leadership advised the Prime Minister to review the NSC’s composition and get rid of globetrotting members who are using the body to promote personal agendas. The leadership is particularly livid with some members writing signed articles in the media. Nothing is more comical than an NSAB member outlining options available on dealing with the recent border standoff with China in a newspaper article. While it is entirely the government’s prerogative to determine who should be appointed as a member of NSAB or its sub-committees, those concerned with the vanishing credibility and effectiveness of India’s strategic policies feel a review is needed to define the desired qualifications and work experience of NSAB members and, most importantly, safeguards to ensure that the system is insulated from undesirable elements.

Top Secret.com

The UPA government takes pride in hawking its tech-savvy image. Most of its departments are active on the official website, providing details about officials and decisions. But the NSAB is an exception. Even after spending hours, one is unable to locate or glean even basic information about the board’s composition, its sub-committees and such elementary information on how many times in a year do these bodies meet. Neither the PMO’s nor the NSAB’s website are of help. A telephone call to a senior functionary elicited sweet words but no information. The only explanation could be that it allows NSAB members to use their visiting cards to peddle themselves as spin doctors for the government in the media and at international forums. For instance, a recent incumbent who has just retired did not have even a nodding acquaintance with strategic issues, let alone any hardcore experience. Some credible officers like Vijay Nambiar were packed off prematurely to the UN. Another officer, Satish Chandra, was denied an extension. Yet another diplomat, Alok Prasad, who reportedly did not get along with the NSA, was dispatched as ambassador to Japan. Some ministers have already demanded full disclosures about the qualifications of various NSAB members and asked the PMO to direct all those who write for the media or appear on TV to either resign or disclose their relationship with the NSAB.

Retire Unhurt

The government’s decision to give yet another term in office to N N Vohra, Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, was widely viewed as appropriate and in the best interest of the state. The decision, however, dampened the hopes of several other aspirants—including a few in the PMO, along with the Deputy National Security Adviser. They were expecting any one of them to go to J&K so that others could move up the ladder. But they haven’t lost hope of extension. Deputy NSA Latha Reddy may move on to higher responsibilities, clearing the way for any of the other retiring Foreign Office mandarins. Among those in the running are serving secretary Sudhir Vyas, recently retired Ambassador to Paris, Rakesh Sood, and some others. Going by past experience, the primary qualification for the post would be—like the Foreign Secretary—a high level of ideological compatibility, functional comfort and acceptability to those who call the shots on security and diplomatic matters. Watch this space.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

SOUTH BLOCK Watch /The Sunday Standard/April 28, 2013

Choking of the MEA

Even though the last Viceroy left Raisina Hill decades ago, the imperious nature of South Block remains. It houses the ministries of Defence, External Affairs and the PMO. From Nehru’s days, the PM and PMO have dictated diplomacy’s direction. However, when Manmohan Singh took over in 2004, he wanted a lean, mean PMO, which allowed different ministries—including MEA—functional autonomy; and confine itself to the allocation of business. The PMO and Cabinet Secretary were expected to perform only a coordinating function. But what started well hasn’t ended well. In seven years, the MEA has been emasculated. It finds itself boxed between the defence ministry and PMO. Perhaps the root of this problem lies in Pranab’s Mukherjee tenure as foreign minister. He would act only according to his wisdom and not take directions. He was shifted in 2009 because the PMO felt that he should only be a ceremonial figure, crisscrossing the globe for protocol PR. S M Krishna, the suave, foreign-educated politician was next. But he proved a liability, as he forgot to walk the dotted line. The search for another external affairs minister began. The choice fell on Oxonian Salman Khurshid. Soon after taking over, he made a categorical statement that he would act independently, guided only by the PM and Congress leadership. South Block scuttlebutt says he hasn’t got the elbowroom he wanted. Though Khurshid is travelling widely, PMO factotums—who don’t want him to discover their engagements with American diplomats—are discouraging his visits to important countries. Recently, a proposed US visit was inexplicably scuttled. According to insiders, the PM’s minders feel that festering bilateral issues and a comprehensive agenda for Indo-US talks should be decided by the PMO. MEA cynics argue that if the PMO is working on Manmohan’s US itinerary without the involvement of the MEA and its minister, why not wind up the ministry altogether? Better still, why not merge the MEA formally with the PMO? Watch this space.

Extension tension

Extensions after retirement are rewards of loyalty. They also signify the utility of the person seeking the extension. Often, a thin dividing line exists between extensions that are solicited and those given on merit. Now, even senior diplomats are willing to sacrifice their dignity to get short-term extensions. For example, former ambassador to Islamabad, Sharad Sabharwal, was given a short extension in September 2012. When his extended tenure came to an end, he reportedly lobbied for another six months but settled for two. The previous envoy to Paris, Rakesh Sood, was happy with just a month. Both cases contrast sharply to Nalin Surie’s, the former High Commissioner to London. S M Krishna offered him a five-month extension, which he politely declined. Surie’s response was that if the government thought he was doing a good job, he could be given a proper tenure. Whimsical extensions have led to delays in new postings and disturbed posting cycles. Arbitrary distribution of favours is making the entire system vulnerable to misuse and crippling diplomatic credibility. It is due to the lack of a transparent system of granting extensions and giving new postings that those in charge are clearly overlooking several officers who have been languishing at their desks well after their tenures have ended. Among the luminaries in this list are Mahesh Sachdev, High Commissioner to Laos since 2008; P K Kapur, ambassador to Santiago since 2009; and Divyabh Manchanda, ambassador to Sofia since 2009. Have they been forgotten or is it a strategy to let them retire without an extension?

Corner room conundrum

South Block mandarins are watching out for the next occupant of the Foreign Secretary’s corner room. Current occupant Ranjan Mathai’s term expires in July. They were expecting the PM to announce his successor after his return from Germany. Top diplomats were given clear indications that Sujatha Singh, ambassador to Germany, would land the job. But the delay in announcement indicates the battle and lobbying going on within the PMO. It was speculated that the PM would personally inform Sujatha on his German visit. Besides her diplomatic acumen and seniority, she is considered a most credible Foreign Service officer with vast experience in handling sensitive diplomatic issues. But her assertive demeanour could be her nemesis. In case her claim is ignored, the beneficiary would be Mathai, who enjoys the support of the Kerala lobby. But the 1976-batch Sujatha has made it clear that she would not report to any Foreign Secretary who is junior to her. Earlier, when Sudhir Vyas, a 1977-batch IFS officer, was appointed secretary, West, Sujatha insisted she would deal directly with the Foreign Secretary. However, two other officers of her batch—Bhaswati Mukherjee and Sushmita Thomas—who are serving as ambassadors to The Netherlands and Turkey had no such compunctions. But the PM hasn’t frozen the name of the new Foreign Secretary yet. Since his advisers are opposing Sujatha’s candidature, a name being mentioned is that of S Jaishankar, ambassador to Beijing. But he is no pushover either. One of the PM’s principal advisers feels Jaishankar is even more unpalatable than Sujatha. Mathai promoters are confident that the current incumbent will continue in the corner room.

Conflict of interest

The government has rules and procedures to ensure that unscrupulous officials do not use their official positions to negotiate lucrative post-retirement deals. The MEA is confronted with a novel problem. How to deal with a retired IFS officer—now employed by a London-based group—who is officially designated the India head of a European defence consortium and yet writes prolific articles, insisting on being identified with his previous designation? There are other retired officers who are associated with corporates, but also work closely with the government. Is it because persona non grata doesn’t apply to all after retirement?

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me  on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

SOUTH BLOCK Watch / The Sunday Standard/April 14, 2013

Four is a crowd

A list has finally been cleared. Among those who figure in it are Yash Sinha to Sri Lanka, Ranjit Rae to Nepal, Preeti Saran to Vietnam, Radhika Lokesh to Ireland, Rajesh Prasad to the Netherlands, and Heads of Missions Gauri Shankar Gupta and Malay Mishra currently posted in Budapest and Port of Spain respectively who will be swapping places.

After Ashok K Kantha takes over as secretary in South Block, three officers of the 1977 batch will be occupying secretary-level jobs in the MEA. The other two are Sudhir Vyas and Pinak Chakravarty. With yet another officer S Jaishanker, India’s ambassador to China, being considered for appointment as fourth secretary, situation is likely to get messy. A piquant situation bordering on the messy. It has rarely happened that four officers of same seniority have been posted at the headquarters. With big egos, most of them don’t even share their views with each other on sensitive issues. Is bringing in so many people at the Centre, part of some strategy or conspiracy to influence future appointments of senior diplomats?

The corner room

The dirty diplomatic war for capturing the corner room has already begun. The Prime Minister has just completed a visit to Germany and will be visiting China in June. Insiders are now speculating whether the Prime Minister will announce the new foreign secretary only after his visit to China, or has he already chosen a person? MEA watchers believe the ultimate appointing authority will insist on due diligence on all the candidates being pushed by various lobbies within the government. The saner elements are convinced that the Prime Minister will strictly follow the principle of seniority and appoint Sujatha Singh as the new foreign secretary. If she is ignored, the Congress leadership and the Prime Minister would have to bear in mind the political fallout of not following seniority and ignoring a legitimate claim of a woman as well.

Heartbreak hotel

Diplomats are known to suffer from many professional ailments, localitis, egomania, clientitis and so on. The present lot, unless they watch out, may succeed in adding to this unique lexicon. It is a well-established procedure that accommodation and logistics for a VVIP visit are worked out in minute detail by what is known as an Advanced Security Liaison (ASL) team comprising representatives from the SPG, PMO, foreign office, IB and other agencies. Was this also not the case for the Prime Minister’s visit to Durban for the BRICS summit?

Because Durban has very few five-star hotels, the 300-strong Chinese delegation chose to stay in a three-star establishment. With the two remaining small five-star hotels Beverly Hills and Oyster Box Hilton 20 minutes away from the conference venue, the ASL team reportedly settled for the Fairmont Zimbali. A story fed by a senior diplomat accompanying the PM delegation, known to be close to the highest in the land, placed the blame for this squarely on the hosts. The alleged discourtesy even agitated Members of Parliament. Can someone stand up and set the record straight? The new ailment is called absurdities.

Communication gap

MEA has a well-structured Foreign Service Institute (FSI) headed by a senior officer, somewhat pompously designated as Dean. Current incumbent is Nengcha Lhouvum Mukhopadhayay. Young entrants to the world of diplomacy are prepared for what lies ahead through a broad-based programme. There would appear to be a need for officers at policy-making levels being given basic training by the FSI in the art of communication and outreach, especially when the handling of policy in relation to Maldives, Sri Lanka, and the flip-flops on the Italian marines case are beginning to raise questions. Is the problem one of policy, its implementation or of failure to effectively communicate to the rest of the world the rationale for the decisions taken? Most of the current senior officials lack the art of communications and also briefing their former colleagues who have now started writing extensively as experts for the media. Even some of them are poorly informed about the latest diplomatic developments. The political class has reason to be worried. If South Block mandarins fail to acquire communication skills, most of the ruling dispensation’s allies already alienated for one reason or the other coupled with problematic relations with countries in our neighborhood could add to many more problems for the UPA in the run-up to May 2014.

Dash for the post

With the US, UK and many others pulling out of this Vienna-based United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO), there is very little interest in the real world among professionals to head the agency. Not so in the Foreign Service biradri. As soon as the word got out that the post of DG was going to fall vacant, two serving officers, Hamid Ali Rao, India’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, a wife of a serving diplomat and another retired officer T P Sreenivasan threw their hats into the ring. MEA did what comes naturally to it. It acted like the Post Office and sent the list to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry for its final approval. But the ministry rejected all of them and decided to suggest M Ganapathy’s name, who recently retired as secretary in the MEA and had hardly any experience of handling UNIDO. But the PMO applied its own yardstick. It overruled both the MEA and the industry ministry. Last heard, no Indian candidate for the post which is currently held by a diplomat from Sierra Leone.