We need to rejig our diplomatic practices to meet the challenges of an ever-changing world which is undergoing a paradigm shift

The central government has, from time, stated that seventy-five years have passed since independence. A reform of India’s diplomatic network is much needed. As far as is publicly known, foreign policy has been handled in the last nine years better than ever before. The diplomatic network, however, is indeed of up-gradation.

The nations our foreign policy and establishment engages with need to be divided into three categories. Those requiring continual contact, political as well as economic, would be about ten or twelve, which the US, Russia, China, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Australia, etc., and possibly Brazil too, would figure. These may be designated as category ‘X’ countries.

Then there would be many countries that commercially have a lot of potential. For the moment though, these might require only occasional political or diplomatic attention like say, Taiwan, Vietnam, Mongolia, Spain, Argentina and some countries in Africa like Egypt. The interaction with such countries would have significant commercial potential, which would also include tourist inflow from these countries. They may, therefore, be categorized as belonging to ‘Group A’. The rest of the countries, small or medium sized could be categorized under ‘Group B’.

There could be a category ‘C’ that would include those countries with who India presently does not have any significant diplomatic contact, but which in the foreseeable or medium-term future could turn important. While no immediate name comes to mind, countries like Moldova in Eastern Europe or a few in Africa could be cases in point. In the coming years, India should avoid being out of contact with any country. The Indian Diaspora in this context should be useful, if necessary, to represent New Delhi on an honorary basis. Indian representatives in category ‘C’ countries must be in telephonic contact with their counterparts in the neighbouring countries under the category ‘C’.

The ‘X’ category states could continue to be run as hitherto, with reinforcement with an officer familiar with making, exports, imports as well as tourism. It hardly needs to be emphasized that tourism is one sure way of earning foreign exchange. The government hardly needs to make any capital expenditure here. The sights to be seen by foreign visitors are aplenty; for example, the Taj Mahal at Agra or the Ajanta and Ellora Caves in Maharashtra are already there. The expenditure on infrastructural improvement would be financed mostly by the private sector.

What is needed to be done by the government is mostly promotion of the heritage and attractions, as well as the facilities, but the marketing function should ideally be handled by the respective marketing divisions of the embassies. Similarly, this division should remain in touch with the exports and imports of the country concerned as well as the local conventions and peculiarities of the country concerned. These would be a guide to aspiring traders from India. Information about the local traders keen to deal with India could be a useful guide for those in India who would be keen to exploit or import.

This implies that new entrants to the country’s foreign service should pick up a sufficient working knowledge of international trade and local conditions before they plunge into responsible work. Such officials would be better suited to head Indian missions in category ‘A’ countries as distinct from categories ‘B’ or ‘C’. They need not be super-experts in international affairs, which is highly essential for the ‘X’ category countries.

We then come to the level of category ‘B’ countries, which need diplomats only at the level of charge d’affaires. But they should be in contact with senior ambassadors in the region, to report as well as obtain guidance. In short, our aim should be to remain in touch with the goings-on in nearly all countries in the world, especially to not miss out on commercial opportunities, however apparently small. The small countries, let us say in Group ‘C’, could have local citizens friendly with the Indian embassy or establishment, and they could be appointed as honorary envoys who would bear all the local costs.

Many earnest well to-to-do individuals may be attracted to such appointments for the sake of local status, as well as the few privileges a diplomat would enjoy. Such envoys would likely be better informed about local developments than the conventional diplomatic representatives, who in any case, would cost the country’s exchequer quite a bit. Also, such informal appointees would know the local language (s) spontaneously.

My own experience has been that it is difficult to understand a person’s mentality fully unless one knows his or her language. How many languages can a professional career diplomat learn? Not many. It is, therefore, food for thought whether every embassy should have an honorary member diplomat who is a local. However, it bears iteration here that knowledge of the languages of non-English speaking countries in category ‘X’ countries is a must, to accurately understand the milieu of those countries and to be able to gauge the ongoing developments and potential changes likely to happen in those countries, which are bound to cast a profound impact on India. The lack of such linguistic proficiency in the country’s diplomatic core has cost us in the past.

(The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal)