Constraint to long-term strategy: Understaffing in the Indian Foreign Service
By Padmini Gopal*
India’s GDP of US$1.8
trillion[1]
and an expected growth rate of 6.4per cent in the year 2015[2]
is a testament to India’s present status as a rising world power. Moreover,
India’s present nuclear competence and clout, with almost 90-110 nuclear
warheads[3],
makes India’s current status unequivocal. Despite that, India seems to be
plagued with ‘interstate rivalries that resemble 19th century
Europe’[4]along
with a myriad of challenges that beset the 21st century, such as
terrorism, cyber security, climate change and maritime piracy. These challenges
are only amplified by the uncertainty omnipresent in the international arena,
with Pakistan reluctant to assure India of security from future terrorist
strikes, China unwilling to let go of its claim over Arunachal Pradesh, and a
Sinhalese led Sri Lanka refusing to give legitimacy to the wishes of the
Tamils. So is India capable of living up to its title given the uncertain
international arena it is a part of? Can India be taken seriously as a world
player when such hurdles bog it down? Lack of a long-term national strategic
plan addressing these issues and the role India should play as a world power
will soon make India’s status just a dream.
So has India
developed a long-term strategy in its foreign policy? Analysis of interviews
conducted with Government officials suggest that India has not been able to do
so as the officials, in this case the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officers,
are overburdened with multiple responsibilities and portfolios. The problem
seems to be attributed to an understaffing problem inherent within the IFS
system, which can affect India’s capability of creating a sound long-term
national strategy.
This civil
service, assigned with the task of conducting diplomatic relations with other
countries for India, is one of the most prestigious and powerful government
bodies in India. While being a part of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA),
the IFS also works with several other bodies that are tasked with formulating
India’s foreign policy, namely, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the
National Security Council (NSC). Ithas been recruiting a meagre number of 36
officers every year, double than what it used to be 30 years ago. The IFS have
been struggling with the problem of short staffing for decades now, so the
problem is not something new. However, India’s rise in the international arena
has brought this problem to the fore.
As of 2013,
around 930 professional diplomats staff India’s 120 missions and 49 consulates,
smaller than any of the BRICS countries[5].
Despite being the second most populous country in the world, India’s diplomatic
strength pales against that of world powers such as China and the US, which
have 4000 and 20,000 diplomats respectively.
The small
strength of India’s diplomatic cadre can prove to be a significant constraint
to formulating long-term national strategy when officers end up getting
encumbered with multiple responsibilities and dealing with present challenges,
leaving little or almost no time for proactive strategizing. One can only
wonder how five diplomats in charge of more than 30 Latin American and Caribbean
countries can possibly have the time for long-term strategizing.
The obvious
solution to this problem would be to recruit many more diplomats to ease each
officer’s burden. The division of labour
that would result from hiring more IFS officers would allow for some officers
to solely focus on the formulation of India’s long term strategy. However, this
may not strategically be the best way to go about addressing the issue. The IFS
would run the risk of further decreasing the quality of its workforce, another
issue the IFS seems to grapple with as a result of its lack of lucrativeness
and power in comparison to other corporate and government jobs, if it hires
more diplomats. Moreover, it may not be the best strategic move to rapidly
recruit more diplomatic personnel as it may compel other countries to stand on
their guard.
So what is the
alternative solution to the problem? While India may consider slowly increasing
its diplomatic personnel, it could also take the consultation of national
strategic expertise from Indian think- tanks to fill in the capacity gap that
seems to put a strain on the IFS’s capability to long-term strategize. However,
the IFS’s culture of privacy and security impede the ability of think tanks to
conduct useful policy research. Most Indian foreign policy and military
archives are classified and inaccessible to the public. ‘IFS officers are quite
candid about their lack of reliance on think tanks’[6],
writes ManjariChatterjee Miller in an article for the India Review. It is
imperative that the IFS change its attitude. It needs to become more
transparent and engaged with foreign policy think tanks. Consultations with
think tanks can facilitate the IFS in developing a long- term strategy while
the IFS recruits more officers dedicated to developing the same. And with a
group of IFS officers designated to long-term strategizing, India may be able
to live up to its title as a prominent global power.
* The Author worked as Research Intern at CPPR and is currently pursuing her Bachelors in International Relations from Trinity College, CT, USA
Comments