[MC Chagla with Senator John F Kennedy, likely 1958-59]

Today’s Hindustan Times story about the appointment of the BJP politician Dinesh Trivedi as High Commissioner to Bangladesh mentioned several interesting things of import to the conduct of Indian foreign policy in the future. It “sends a message of accountability” to Foreign Service officers, the report said, adding that Trivedi’s is only the first of such postings of “heavy weights to the neighbourhood”, indicating that “the era of an ambassador for good times is over”.

It is hard to read this story and not see it as a severe indictment of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS), whose members, per this report, are manifestly not political or otherwise “heavyweights”, act as if not “accountable” to the political executive, and are in a diplomatic career mostly for “the good times”, in other words, to make whoopee!

But first the man: Trivedi is a workaday politician — of no great stature or accomplishment. But he was useful to the ruling party because of his past connections to Chief Minister Mamata Bannerjee’s Trinamul Congress in West Bengal, and appointing him was a way of needling her. Met Trivedi once at a usual Delhi dinner party and all I heard, when I was within earshot, was of his glorious achievements as Railways Minister in Manmohan Singh’s government, when actually his greater success lies in jumping from party to political party, being yet another “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” of Indian politics. He doubtless speaks Bangla bhasha, and has an appetite for Hilsa fish to match. But that’s not why Indian diplomacy may be looking up!

Trivedi’s prospective High Commissionership suggests the Modi dispensation is finally becoming more imaginative in its diplomatic outlook and practice. It was reported somewhere that the veteran journalist, M.J. Akbar, was also in the running for this job. That’s a pity. As a dyed-in-the-wool Bihari, an eloquent Bangla speaker, and an ardent Indian nationalist, Akbar would have opened up lines of communications among other sections of the Bangladeshi society, to the mostly Bihar-origin Muslims labelled “Pakistani” — victims of a double Partition, who eke out an existence on the margins, and would have made for a more effective plenipotentiary. You never know whom India might need in a crisis on our eastern flank!

I venture the view, entirely without evidence, that this positive turn in Indian diplomatic method happened despite, and not because, of a retired Foreign Secretary as External Affairs Minister (EAM).

But this is not so much an innovation as a return to the early days after Independence when Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister and concurrently EAM, barring the nepotistic appointments of his sister Vijayalakshmi Pandit as ambassadors successively in Washington, London, and Moscow, none of the public figures heading the embassy in Washington, MC Chagla during Nehru’s time, and later Nani Palkivala during the Morarji interregnum apart, were particularly distinguished or shone as India’s representative. But Nehru established the principle of Indian diplomatic presence in major countries being helmed by political appointees. However, he failed to sustain this policy because the first Director-General of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Girija Shankar Bajpai, prevailed on the Prime Minister to permit ICS/IFS to occupy the ambassadorial posts.

Political appointees are politically connected and personally known to the Prime Minister appointing them, as career diplomats are not. This makes a difference in how and with what commitment the PM’s agenda is furthered — something careerist diplomats schooled in hierarchical interaction and bureaucratic processes, cannot do. This is, perhaps, what is referred to in the news story as lack of “accountability” of the IFS. The political appointee knows that his job is co-terminus with the PM’s — a tremendous incentive to realise as much of the PM’s policy as possible in as small a period of time as possible.

The careerist, however, feels no urgency because the next posting awaits, may be as, Foreign Secretary! Jaishankar did it! Of late, this direction has been reversed; the trend now being to install a retiring Foreign Secretary as ambassador in Washington. Presently, Vinay Kwatra is holding fort who, the talk is, will be replaced by his successor and current FS, Vikram Misri. But if Kwatra has apparently disappointed because he was unable to trigger a Trump rapprochement with Modi, can Misri be expected to fare any better? After all, what inducements can be offered a person who made it to FS, and then ambassador to the US to excel? And more, it is not as if any careerist IFS officer has any intimate knowledge or familiarity of the social milieu he is operating in, in Washington, or that the Indian ambassador has any special reach to the top echelons of the “plum book” political appointees in any given Administration. And there’s the rub!

On the other hand, a Chagla or a Palivala did have a social reach into the American policy Establishment, into the rarefied Georgetown circles. The IFS man, KS Bajpai, in the mid-1980s did to an extent too because he successfully mined his schoolboy past in the elite St Alban’s school in Washington when his father, Girija Shankar Bajpai, of the Indian Civil Service (ICS), was Churchill’s “political agent” in the wartime Washington of the 1940s and, as such, advanced the British PM’s agenda of blunting the pressure by US President Franklin Roosevelt on London to immediately confer independence on India. Roosevelt felt that an independent India would more enthusiastically partake of the Allied war effort. In the event, Churchill, thanks to Bajpai, won out!

Not to go into that controversial part of MEA history (which is detailed in the book I am writing), but in major Indian embassies, this is the score of political appointees as ambassadors compared to ICS/IFS types who have hogged all significant ambassadorial posts. In the US, of the 29 Indian ambassadors so far, only 7 were non-careerists; in the Soviet Union/Russia of the 25 ambassadors, only 6; in China of the 27, only 2; in the UK of the 30 High Commisioners, 12; in France all ambassadors were ICS/IFS; and of the 27 High Commissioners/Chargé d’affaires to-date in Pakistan only 2-3 were non-careerists.

No country has proven the positives of political appointees as ambassadors than the United States. Of the 37 US ambassadors/Chargé d’affaires in Delhi since April 1947, 18 were/are political appointees. Notable among them being Chester Bowles, Congressman & Governor of Connecticut; Sherman Cooper — US senator; Ellsworth Bunker, businessman & US President Truman’s confidante; the economist John Kenneth Galbraith and the sociologist, Daniel Moynihan, both Harvard professors; Kenneth Keating US Senator; William Saxbe US Attorney General; Robert Goheen president of Princeton University; John Hubbard, president of the University of Southern California, Frank Celeste, Governor of Ohio, Robert Blackwill Senior adviser to President George W Bush, David Mulford — investment banker and international president of Credit Suisse, Tim Roemer Member of the 9/11 Commission, Richard Verma, assistant secretary of state, Kevin Juster, international head of global investment firm Warburg Pincus, Eric Garcetti – Mayor of Los Angeles (2nd largest city in the US), and now, Sergei Gore — senior adviser to President Trump.

Little wonder the Indian government has been awed, even overwgelmed, when dealing with such politically well connected US ambassadors, and why America has always had an out-sized impact and influence on Indian foreign policy and the government’s decisionmaking generally! Because as political appointees they can and often do make end-runs around the US State Department, and speed things up by talking directly with the US President.

It was because politial appointees are in a position to get things done with access to the boss back home in mind that I recall pleading with political bigwigs in Delhi in the 1980s for the appointment of Nusli Wadia as the Indian ambassador to Washington. The Pakistani embassy in the US then, as always, had success with its narrative, what with its special line to the Pentagon and the White House. Islamabad profited hugely from trumpeting, among other things, the alleged mistreatment by the Indian government of the Muslim minority in the country, etc.

My point simply was this: Appoint Nusli Wadia, head of Bombay Dyeing Company and, incidentally, the grandson of the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, as the Indian ambassador in Washington, and instantly see the Pakistani ambassador shrink and shut up. Wadia installed in the embassy at Massachusetts Avenue would have dampened the Pakistan embassy’s ardour for creating a ruckus, affording India the diplomatic edge it has never had in dealings with the US.

Naturally, my pleas went in one ear and out the other!