India's all-party delegations show a problem with our embassies

The Print

2 days ago

Governments regularly send foreign affairs ministers or senior officials to convey important and special messages. But the use of all-party parliamentary delegations is a rare practice in diplomacy. I cannot recall any recent example of a country taking such a step. That such delegations were needed to convey India's position on terrorism reflects the limitations of Indian missions abroad in performing this task effectively.
My view is that the government was compelled to send these delegations because Indian missions abroad are unable to aggressively promote India's national interests.
The decision of the Modi government to send all-party parliamentary delegations to different countries for mobilising support against terrorism, following the ceasefire with Pakistan, has attracted significant public attention. As these delegations are reaching various countries, questions are being raised about why such a step was necessary in the first place.
This situation can be attributed to two interrelated factors. One is that successive governments have failed to carry out necessary reforms in the Indian missions abroad. The other is that officials working in Indian embassies get little public recognition back home, which impacts their performance.
As a result, the government has to resort to temporary mechanisms such as sending all-party delegations. However, the long-term solution lies in the structural reform of India's missions abroad.
Also Read: Sanskrit to satellites, embassies in Delhi are using culture to show ties, get close to India
Decolonising the structure of Indian embassies
The Indian missions abroad, called high commissions in Commonwealth countries and embassies in others, are primarily responsible for conveying the message of the Indian government.
Increasing the efficiency of these missions is crucial, but unfortunately, successive governments have not paid any attention in this regard. Reforms are needed in two directions—decolonisation of the structure of Indian embassies, and the promotion of active over passive leadership.
First, the structure of Indian embassies. For example, the Indian High Commission in London still seems to be organised along colonial lines. Presently, six of its officials are designated as ministers. They are minister (counsellor), minister (audit), minister (economic), minister (coordination), and minister (Nehru Centre). Interestingly, the designation of minister is not used by the Indian High Commissions in Australia, New Zealand, or Canada. And only India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh have this designation in their London-based high commissions.
This practice appears to have been inherited from the office of the Secretary of India during colonial rule. While the positions of secretary and deputy secretary may have been replaced with High Commissioner and Deputy High Commissioner, the remaining designations are unchanged. The designation of minister also creates confusion when Union or state ministers officially visit London. Usually, the embassy 'ministers' receive and accompany them. It causes great confusion for those unfamiliar with the bureaucratic hierarchy.
The second issue relates to leadership style. The government needs to ensure that Indian embassies show active rather than passive leadership. Presently, embassies tend to act only after receiving instructions from the government, and their engagement remains very formal. However, they need to be encouraged to engage with the Indian diaspora and other stakeholders informally.
Based on my six years of experience in London, I have noticed that purely bureaucratic appointments reduce such engagement. Therefore, the government needs to diversify its officials in Indian missions. It should incorporate professors, journalists, writers, and other young leaders into the pool.
I have found, for instance, that the appointment of Amish Tripathi as the Chair of the Nehru Centre in London significantly increased social activities. The centre acts as the cultural wing of the Indian High Commission in London, and it emerged as a premier institution engaged in India's cultural interface with the UK. Coming from a literary background, Tripathi, who served until October 2023, did not concern himself with bureaucratic protocols and met people both formally and informally. This led to a rise in cultural activities and social gatherings at the Nehru Centre.
The appointment of diverse professionals in Indian missions abroad is needed for two further reasons. First, the missions increasingly need to engage with the Indian diaspora, which is itself diverse in terms of region, ideology, caste, and profession. A broader mix of professionals in missions will improve outreach. Second, the appointment of diverse professionals will provide them with exposure to foreign policy and diplomacy, which would be beneficial for developing future leaders.
Also Read: Countering Pakistan isn't India's only challenge. We need doctrinal clarity on China factor
The problem of invisibility
The lack of public recognition for the good work done in Indian embassies also discourages officials from showing active leadership. For example, the current Indian High Commissioner in London, Vikram Doraiswami, is the most active one I have seen in comparison with his predecessors. He frequently meets people and actively participates in community events. Yet most Indians would not know his name.
Similarly, the security officer of the Commission, Kiran Bhosale, was injured while protecting the Tricolour during a Khalistan protest in 2023. Yet this news found no space in the media.
All of these point to a lack of recognition for the work being done in the Indian mission. This too acts as a disincentive to active leadership.
To sum up, decolonising Indian missions, promoting active leadership through professional diversification, and increasing recognition for officials would go a long way in making embassies better equipped to fulfil the role they were set up for.
Arvind Kumar is a Visiting Lecturer in Politics & International Relations at the University of Hertfordshire, UK. He tweets @arvind_kumar__. Views are personal.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)