Centralised setup weighing down MEA

THE BJP’s bench strength in the realm of foreign affairs has been boosted by the entry of Bhaswati Mukherjee, who joined the party three weeks ago. Mukherjee specialised in European affairs and multilateral diplomacy during her distinguished diplomatic career. Two other leading former diplomats, Hardeep Puri and S Jaishankar, are Cabinet ministers. Jaishankar has been Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s choice as External Affairs Minister (EAM) since 2019.

Jaishankar was not among those who took time to understand the significance of the ‘plus one’ factor in bilateral relations.

Clearly, Modi has great confidence in Jaishankar’s diplomatic abilities for he chose him as the Foreign Secretary (FS) when he was only a few days away from retirement in 2015. That led to the premature end of then FS Sujatha Singh’s term. She adopted the honourable course of retiring and refused to accept any office. Puri’s considerable talents and experience of multilateral and commercial diplomacy, including extraordinary expertise in World Trade Organisation matters, have not been consistently used, though he served for a while as the Minister of State in the Commerce Ministry. As a Cabinet minister, he has managed the portfolios of Urban Affairs and Petroleum; now, only the latter. Puri, Mukherjee and Jaishankar belong to the 1974, 1976 and 1977 batches, respectively, of the Indian Foreign Service.

Modi now has two persons in the party, apart from Jaishankar, with substantial diplomatic experience to take soundings on any foreign policy matter, should he want to do so. Many leaders look for fresh ideas and consult other knowledgeable persons in the government as well as the party on critical issues. This does not detract from the authority of the ministers concerned. Also, it is entirely Modi’s prerogative as the Prime Minister to choose the Cabinet members and allot portfolios to ministers. As he is now heading a government in which the BJP does not enjoy a majority on its own, this, at least, applies completely to his own party.

For almost a decade, Jaishankar has had a substantial influence on India’s foreign policy. Over the same period, he has had a decisive say in the complexion of the policymaking framework in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). In both areas, Jaishankar has followed Modi’s instincts.

Two points would serve as illustrations. Modi places great emphasis on the value of personal rapport between leaders. In May 2015, while addressing the Indian community in Shanghai, he had referred to his relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Modi had said: “The heads of two states sharing such affinity, such closeness, such brotherhood! This is ‘plus one’ to what is traditionally discussed in world relations. And many will need time to understand this. I believe that India and China have a special responsibility towards the welfare of the humanity. Both India and China, in order to fulfil this responsibility, will need to prepare their own people and work hand in hand with each other.”

Jaishankar was not among those who took time to understand the significance of this ‘plus one’ factor in inter-state relations. While delivering the IISS (International Institute of Strategic Studies) Fullerton lecture in Singapore two months after Modi’s China visit, Jaishankar, then the FS, dwelt on India-China ties as well. He said, “That the two neighbours, whose parallel, if differential, rise offers a somewhat unique situation in world history, agreed on a constructive model of relationship is no small thing. Past precedents in global history have been largely otherwise. This is not just a conceptual proposition. Those of you who would have watched the Modi-Xi interaction in Xian would have noted that this approach was reflected in their demeanour. The mood today allows for frank and direct conversations between the leaderships. Their shared appearances — including the ‘world’s most powerful selfie’ — and utterances would have been difficult to envisage a year ago.”

Jaishankar’s imprint on the foreign policymaking setup in the MEA has a background. The ministry’s work is so vast that it requires a number of secretary-level officers to supervise it. These MEA secretaries were traditionally led by the FS as the ‘first among equals’. The FS had always been the MEA’s administrative head and also coordinated work, where required, but all secretaries were independent in terms of the work allotted to them. They reported and also directly advised the political leadership in matters relating to their charge. This balance was disturbed after Jaishankar became the FS.

It was often seen that he was present at the PM’s meetings with foreign leaders, especially abroad, even if the leader belonged to a nation where another secretary was responsible for the bilateral engagement. In the past, only the secretary concerned was present to assist the PM during his interactions with such leaders. With Jaishankar as the FS being there too, the importance of the dealing secretary diminished in the eyes of the foreign interlocutors, both within the MEA and in other sections of the Indian bureaucracy.

With Jaishankar acting as a ‘funnel’ of information and the assessments on foreign policy issues being directly brought to Modi’s attention, a greater element of ‘centralisation’ occurred in the MEA. This was contrary to what was needed because the work of the MEA — as in the Finance Ministry — is too complex to be handled by one secretary. Besides, it is the secretary handling an issue or a bilateral relationship continuously who has far greater knowledge of it than the FS. This process of undermining the role of other secretaries has continued even after Jaishankar became the EAM. This led to some of them preferring to accept the kind of ambassadorial assignments which, in the past, no secretary-level officer would have done.

Jaishankar, both as the FS and the EAM, has had a unique opportunity to decentralise and strengthen the functioning of the ministry. But that has not happened so far, and it is doubtful if it would happen in the future.