From chanakya to modi evolution of india’s foreign policy

Choices: Inside the Making of India’s
Foreign Policy
, former foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon states that he
joined the foreign service so that he could travel the world.
48
Things have changed somewhat in terms of the calibre of recruits for the
Indian Foreign Service, in particular, and India’s civil services, in general,
since the 1990s. The civil service no longer attracts the crème de la crème
of Indian society as private sector jobs now offer higher pay and benefits.
Indians can travel the world on their own, while doing other jobs, and do
not need to be Indian Foreign Service officers to get that opportunity. There
has also been a decline in those who joined the services, military or civilian,
immediately after Independence out of patriotic motivations. None of this
stops the Indian Foreign Service from considering itself an elite within
India’s elite bureaucracy.
After selection through a highly competitive national exam, Indian
Foreign Service officers consider themselves as being among India’s best
and the brightest. They often view foreign policy as the domain of the
Ministry of External Affairs and not something to be left to the whims of
capricious politicians. According to professional civil servants, the function
of the MEA is to evolve, frame and implement policy. Despite the centrality
of the prime minister and the PMO, the day-to-day conduct of foreign
policy and routine administrative work remains with the MEA and its
professionals. These officials serve as key institutional input providers.
The relationship between the political structure and the ‘steel frame’
puzzles observers of India’s decision making. The question is often asked as

---

to how professionals at the ministry know what issues to handle on their
own and at what stage do they send them to the PMO for decision.
Diplomats assert that it is often a judgement call based on one’s experience.
‘How does the doctor know when to do this or that?’ observed a foreign
service officer, adding, ‘they learn through experience and from their
seniors.’ Routine matters are disposed of at a junior level within the
hierarchy while sensitive issues require attention up the chain of command.
Careers are destroyed by errors of judgement in assuming a question is
unimportant when later it becomes crucial.
Some diplomats deny that the relationship between the PMO and the
Ministry of External Affairs is in any way competitive. According to the
official version, the ministry’s role is to serve the political leadership. The
job of civil servants is only to list options for the prime minister along with
their opinion as to the most practical course under given circumstances. In
reality, permanent civil servants in the Ministry of External Affairs often
complain that with decision making increasingly centred in the Prime
Minister’s Office, the bureaucracy’s role is only to take blame for mistakes
or public relations disasters. An increasing number of interest groups –
political parties, state governments, local elites, corporate groups and media
– now exert influence on foreign policy, primarily through political
channels that influence the prime minister. The civil service in the MEA
sees this as intrusion in their sphere, insisting that apolitical bureaucrats are
better suited to make above- board choices and decisions on merit.
The appointment of a national security adviser since 1999 is designed as
an institutional bridge between the foreign service, intelligence services and
the PMO. Now, the Indian national security apparatus approximates the
American model. It comprises the national security adviser (NSA), the
National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) led by the deputy national
security adviser and the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) that
enables unofficial voices on foreign policy to be heard by the government.

---

India’s National Security Council comprises the prime minister, the
national security adviser, the external affairs minister, the defence minister,
the finance minister and the vice chairman of the NITI Aayog (earlier the
deputy chairman of the planning commission). The composition of the
National Security Council and the Cabinet Committee on Security is the
same, except for the addition of the national security adviser and vice
chairman of the NITI Aayog. It is argued that the Cabinet Committee on
Security always has three or four issues to deal with and has to make quick
decisions. It does not have time for elaborate presentations or brainstorming
on any issue. The National Security Council, on the other hand, is designed
to discuss one issue at a time in greater detail. In practice, however, the
National Security Council meets infrequently, often only once or twice a
year, and spends most of its time on dealing with strategic issues tied to
nuclear command and control.
Organizationally, the National Security Council comprises the Strategic
Policy Group (SPG), the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) and a
secretariat represented by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). The
deputy national security adviser heads the National Security Council
Secretariat. The Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), originally set up in
1948, analyses intelligence data from all intelligence agencies, domestic
and foreign, civilian as well as military. It was originally headed by an
MEA officer and rarely fulfilled its role of collecting, coordinating,
processing and evaluating intelligence inputs and reports from all
ministries. It was reconstituted in 1965 with officers both civilian and
uniformed military. When the National Security Council system was set up,
along with the appointment of a national security adviser, the Joint
Intelligence Committee was included within it.
India’s National Security Council has the advantage of being able to tap
into the National Security Advisory Board as an in-house think tank. The
Indian system has, in the past, failed to use local think tanks for inputs, and

---

the NSAB is now tasked with analysing issues of critical importance for the
National Security Council. Over the last several years, the NSAB, like the
national security adviser, has spent the bulk of its time on issues of internal
security. It has also written reports on defence preparedness, on the threats
from China, the growing importance of Myanmar and even a draft national
security doctrine. Ideally, the think tank’s reports should find their way to
the Cabinet Committee on Security for consideration in policy discussions.
However, incumbent officials tend to ignore the analysis of non-
governmental experts and retired officials who make up the NSAB, making
it less effective as an advisory body than was intended.
COORDINATING NATIONAL SECURITY
The reluctance of an entrenched bureaucracy to yield space is the reason
why India took so long after 1947 to create additional structures for
policymaking. For example, the idea of an adviser to the prime minister on
foreign and security policy issues is not new and has been around since
Independence. Nehru’s appointment of a Secretary General at the Ministry
of External Affairs was meant to put in position someone having trust of the
prime minister and knowledge of the Indian system. Nehru rarely sought
advice and the Secretary General ended up becoming just another tier in the
MEA bureaucracy created by the British. Indira Gandhi created the position
of chairman of the Policy Planning Committee to help her formulate foreign
policy while other prime ministers relied on advisers within the PMO.
However, it took several decades before a national security adviser could be
appointed and the edifice left in place by the British was subjected to any
serious revision.
Even now, bureaucratic rivalries persist as to whether the national
security adviser should always be a foreign service officer or the task can be
handled by someone other than a civil service mandarin. Those favouring
reservation of the position for an eminent former diplomat claim that it is

---

natural to appoint a former Indian Foreign Service officer as national
security adviser, given that the job entails conducting diplomacy on behalf
of the prime minister. The problem with that argument manifests in the fear
that the national security adviser would end up encroaching on the powers
of the foreign secretary and would end up like the erstwhile Secretary
General, a kind of super foreign secretary.
In any case, the Ministry of External Affairs is not the only remit of the
national security adviser. Internal security issues also take up a large part of
their daily routine. This includes internal security and intelligence matters
as well as defence and nuclear issues as the national security adviser is part
of the nuclear command and control structure. Since 1999 there have been
five NSAs, of whom three came from the foreign service while the other
two – including the current one – were police service officers with
intelligence backgrounds. Officials complain that just as former diplomats
tend to meddle in the working of the Ministry of External Affairs while
serving as national security adviser, former police or intelligence officers
end up acting as super cop or super intelligence official.
Over the years the national security advisers have attempted to take
powers, especially those related to intelligence, away from the Ministry of
Home Affairs and a power struggle has periodically ensued between the
national security adviser and the home minister. Like all bureaucratic fights,
the outcome of that battle has varied depending on the strength of
individual actors. One arena for contention relates to whomever gets to
brief the prime minister on a daily basis. Former police officers designated
as national security adviser have sought to wrest control of the daily
briefing from the heads of the Intelligence Bureau (IB – the domestic
intelligence service) and Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW – the
external intelligence service). Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, tired of
having to decide the dispute, discontinued the practice of being briefed

---

daily by his intelligence chiefs and instead asked them to brief his national
security adviser. 
49
The emergence of the national security adviser has created a new centre
of power in addition to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of
External Affairs. The national security adviser is an all-round adviser to the
prime minister. He handles foreign and security policy as well as domestic
issues. As the key foreign policy adviser to the prime minister, the NSA