Place For An Advisor?
The search for an ‘advisor’ on foreign policy is proving to be a tricky exercise for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. After his decisive victory in the parliamentary elections, Modi did not waste much time in appointing former Intelligence Bureau chief Ajit Doval as his National Security Advisor (NSA). But Doval’s experience and expertise is widely seen to be in matters of internal security and sleuthing. The need arises, therefore, to look for someone who will be able to guide and advise the prime minister on issues pertaining to foreign policy and issues which have wider international ramifications.
Surprisingly, no name has yet been finalised for the proposed post, though the pool consisting of serving and retired diplomats who can be considered for such a job is quite wide. Some of the aspirants, who in the past months rarely missed any opportunity to run down the Manmohan Singh government to show their closeness to the BJP and Narendra Modi, have been disappointed. Smarting under Doval’s appointment as the NSA—a position which they had probably been eyeing for themselves—some of the contenders have gone into a deep sulk and embarked on extended foreign trips.
In this backdrop, the arrival in New Delhi of India’s ambassador to the United States, S. Jaishankar—said to be a frontrunner for the proposed advisor’s post—has created quite a stir among foreign policy denizens in South Block. Jaishankar is also scheduled to meet the prime minister in the coming days, adding to the buzz.
Some try to play down Jaishankar’s arrival as part of a “routine consultation” which has come into media focus because of the forthcoming summit in Washington DC between the Indian prime minister and US President Barack Obama in September. But others point out that Jaishankar has been invited by Modi to discuss whether he can play the role of a foreign policy advisor.
Opinion among former diplomats and the Indian foreign policy establishment is divided on whether there can be any meaningful requirement for the post of an advisor on foreign policy for the prime minister, especially when he already has a foreign minister, a foreign secretary as well as an NSA.
Some sections say the NSA should have been chosen from a diplomatic background. They say that people from other services, like the police or intelligence, would have a tendency of looking at most developments merely through the security prism, whereas diplomats have the advantage of being able to look at the bigger picture. K.C. Singh, former secretary in the MEA, agrees. “The NSA balances diplomatic, intelligence and defence considerations to delineate options for matching means to ends, without directly dabbling in any of them,” he told Outlook. “While Indian diplomats, as ambassadors, oversee the other two (defence and intelligence) in sensitive countries, our defence and intelligence community gets little experience of high-level diplomacy.”
Photograph by Narendra Bisht
But irrespective of what knowledge and experience a diplomat or security wonk brings to the prime minister’s table as his advisor, the possibility of such an appointment has raised several questions, both on the functioning of the foreign ministry and on the future relations between the foreign minister and the prime minister.
There is no doubt that when Narendra Modi decided to appoint Sushma Swaraj—one of his most vocal critics in the party—as the Union external affairs minister, it came as a surprise to both his detractors as well to his camp-followers. The high-profile portfolio not only gives Sushma the opportunity to engage with the outside world as the new government’s face, it also makes her a member of the elite decision-making body—the cabinet committee on security (CCS).
To some, the move was reminiscent of Barack Obama’s decision to appoint his arch-rival Hilary Clinton as secretary of state in the first term of his presidency. But as the dust settles down, questions are being raised on how important a role will Sushma be playing in formulating and articulating the BJP-led NDA coalition’s foreign policy.
Indian prime ministers have played an important role in formulating the country’s foreign policy. For much of the time, they have done so in consultation with the foreign minister. However, the extent of the dependence on and engagement with the foreign minister depended on who occupied the chair and the equation the incumbent had with the prime minister.
“You need a team that works together, not against each other,” says former Indian diplomat Veena Sikri. Expressing cautious optimism, she said, “It is just the beginning, lets us see how it evolves.”
If Jaishankar were to be appointed in the prime minister’s team as foreign policy advisor, there might be a problem over what designation he may have. A deputy national security advisor’s post may be too little for the current incumbent in the Washington embassy to give up for relocating to New Delhi. But if he is made an advisor, he would technically be brought above the foreign secretary, Sujatha Singh, who is a batch senior to Jaishankar in the service. Moreover, it might be tough to decide if a senior politician like Yashwant Sinha or a career diplomat like Ranjit Rae (India’s current ambassador to Nepal), should replace Jaishankar as ambassador to the US.
Some in South Block point out that though Modi may need an advisor or a group of advisors to deal with key foreign policy issues and to engage with world players, Jaishankar may be asked to continue in Washington DC—at least till the forthcoming India-US summit for which Modi will travel to the US.
But whoever gets to don the coveted advisory cloak, there is little doubt that, as on domestic issues, Narendra Modi would like to put his personal stamp on foreign policy too. For all one knows, such an individual or team of experts, instead of being shapers of foreign policy, might be doing no more than help the new prime minister deliver his message to the outside world.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Modi will be judged by the decrease in corruption in his government and increase in its efficiency.
His foreign policy will be largely ignored, and in the initial stages, will be only seen as a media attempt to divert attention of the Indian masses from real issues.
One possible outcome would be for the Foreign Secretary to move to Washington DC with enhanced status and perquisites, with a fixed three year term, and for Mr. S. Jaishankar to move in as Foreign Secretary.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT