India is on the rise, thanks to its consistent economic growth, political stability, and a bold, autonomous foreign policy. Whether it is the success of its G20 presidency, its strategic autonomy during the Russia-Ukraine conflict, its leadership in vaccine diplomacy during COVID-19, or its initiative in voicing the concerns of the Global South, India has established itself as a major player in global affairs.
However, with this increased global stature comes the need for an organisational framework that supports and sustains such ambitions. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) needs to keep pace with the demands of this new era and evolve to meet them. A critical examination of its staffing, structure, and operational approach reveals significant gaps that must be addressed urgently.
Areas of improvement
The MEA is staffed with about 850 Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officers tasked with formulating and executing foreign policy across 193 embassies and consulates worldwide. While the annual intake of IFS officers has increased from 12-14 to 32-35 in recent years, it remains grossly inadequate. Comparatively, the U.S. has around 14,500 foreign service officers; the U.K., 4,600; and Russia around 4,500 officers.
Given the current intake rate, India would require decades to reach an optimal workforce of 1,500 officers. To address this challenge, the Ministry should consider lateral hiring and absorbing officers from other government services, including defence personnel with experience as defence attachés and academics specialising in international relations. Such recruitment should be subject to stringent selection criteria and probation periods to ensure quality. Additionally, consultants could be engaged for specialised roles. The current perception is that they are stop-gap appointees.
The MEA’s internal structure requires reorganisation to reduce fragmentation and improve coordination. It has many small divisions, especially territorial ones, which often result in inefficiencies. For instance, India’s immediate neighbourhood, a declared priority in its foreign policy, is managed by four separate divisions: the PAI Division (Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran), the BM Division (Bangladesh and Myanmar), the Northern Division (Nepal and Bhutan) and the IOR Division (Sri Lanka, Maldives, and other nations in the Indian Ocean Region). While inputs from these are collated at higher levels, such fragmentation increases the risk of oversight and hinders cohesive regional engagement.
Similarly, the Gulf Division oversees eight Gulf countries, and the WANA Division handles the rest of West Asia and North Africa. Surprisingly, Iran and Türkiye, two pivotal nations in the region, do not fall under either division. Instead, Türkiye is managed by the Central Europe Division, while Iran falls under the PAI Division. Many similar misalignments highlight the need for restructuring and consolidating divisions to create a more efficient and integrated approach.
While officers posted abroad enjoy substantial financial and administrative support, their counterparts in Delhi face significant challenges. Housing facilities have improved, but are still inadequate to accommodate the growing cadre. Furthermore, financial incentives and allowances for officers posted in India are limited, making domestic postings less appealing than foreign assignments. Providing better housing, medical coverage, and educational facilities for their families could work wonders for the morale of these officers. Also, offering financial incentives for Delhi postings could help. After all, this is where critical assessments are made, and key policies are formulated before being executed abroad.
The MEA has long debated the balance between generalist and specialist roles within the IFS. Language skills, a key aspect of diplomatic expertise, often fall victim to the rotational posting system. Officers undergo rigorous training in one foreign language during their initial years and are typically posted in countries where that language is spoken. However, subsequent postings often do not align with their linguistic expertise, reducing the long-term benefits of this training.
To address this, at least one language-trained officer should be posted in each embassy to reduce dependence on interpreters. Often, in tricky negotiations, language skills have proved to be a game changer, and the Ministry could leverage this aspect. Moreover, as officers progress in their careers, they should be encouraged to become specialists or subject matter experts.
As technology increasingly influences foreign policy, the MEA must build capacity in fields such as cybersecurity, space policy, and artificial intelligence. Expecting all IFS officers to master these highly technical areas alongside their core responsibilities is unrealistic. Instead, the Ministry should hire and retain domain specialists who can focus exclusively on these issues throughout their careers.
Steps in the right direction
Despite these challenges, the MEA has made significant efforts to evolve. The establishment of divisions such as Policy, Planning and Research, and the Centre for Contemporary China Studies, reflects its intent to adapt to emerging global trends. The dynamic leadership of Dr. S. Jaishankar has been instrumental in the display of innovation and greater assertiveness in foreign policy and also, as he emphasises, in aligning foreign policy with India’s aspirations to become a ‘Viksit Bharat’ (Developed India).
As India moves towards its 100 years of independence in 2047, its foreign policy must evolve in tandem with its global ambitions.
Col Rajeev Agarwal (retired) is former Director at Ministry of External affairs, New Delhi
Published – January 13, 2025 01:46 am IST
