Parliamentary Committee Criticises Foreign Ministry: Where Is MEA Falling Short?

The committee pointed out glaring errors in Diplomatic Services, the MEA's functioning, and India's development aid.

What did the committee say? What's going wrong at the MEA? The Quint brings you all the details.

(Photo: Altered by The Quint)

India's foreign policy ambitions are clear – begin its journey towards becoming a front-footed global leading power and emerge as a 'Vishwa Guru'. The signs of India's aspirations are also clear across the country, where G20 signboards are found featured in public spaces, online, and on official documents and communications.

India has stepped up its participation in international agencies such as the Quad, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has visited more than 80 nations since he took over the office in 2014.

However, the Indian Parliament's Committee on External Affairs, headed by the Bharatiya Janata Party's PP Chaudhry, on 21 March pointed out several glaring errors and gaps in the Indian Diplomatic Services, the Ministry of External Affairs' (MEA's) functioning, and India's approach towards giving development aid to its partners.

What did the committee say? What’s going wrong at the MEA? The Quint brings you all the details.

A Lack of Funding for the MEA 

According to the Parliamentary Committee, the MEA has a challenging mandate to establish India as a leading power and an influential entity on the global stage.

Despite this, the MEA remains one of the least-funded central ministries, with a revised budget of only 0.4 percent of the total budgetary allocation of the government since 2020-21. In budget estimates (BE) 2019-20, the MEA had a slightly higher share of 0.64 percent of the GoI's total budget.

The committee recommended that the allocation for the ministry should be increased to at least 1 percent of the overall budget of the GoI, especially considering India's current position as the G20 presidency. However, the budgetary allocation for BE 2023-24 has dropped by 0.04 percent from 0.44 percent in BE 2022-23, contrary to the committee's recommendation.

"Keeping in view the magnitude and extent of India's diplomatic outreach and foreign policy objectives, the Committee continue to feel that an allocation of at least 1 percent out of the overall Budget of the GoI to the Ministry is reasonable and achievable," said the Committee on External Affairs in its Demand for Grants (2023-24) report.

The committee emphasised that the ministry should strive to enhance its financial resources to fulfill its diplomatic responsibilities globally. Nevertheless, an increased allocation without the capacity to utilise the amount would be meaningless.

"The Committee, therefore, urge the Ministry to work out a roadmap for enhancing its capacities and capabilities, whether in the form of structural change in the Ministry or a complete revamp of its organisational structure," said the report.

Understaffed Foreign Services

The committee expressed that the number of IFS 'A' Officers in diplomatic services is extremely low – lower than what is needed to represent India's interest in its missions abroad and at different multilateral agencies and groups.

"We are at 1,011. That is the current strength of foreign service. Fortunately, with the great collaboration of the Ministry of Finance, DoPT, and the Cabinet Secretary, we are currently in an advanced stage of ensuring that this number increases to a number that the government thinks to be fit," Foreign Secretary Vinay Kawatra said.

The committee also noted that India's Diplomatic Service is, perhaps, the most short-staffed compared to many other countries whose economy and stature are much leaner than India's.

The report said that our missions abroad must be staffed with skilled diplomats to "work towards global leadership as envisaged and for executing foreign policy strategy effectively across countries."

But the reality of India's understaffed core diplomatic corps is obscured by the categorisation of diplomats into IFS (A) and other groups, according to critics. IFS (A) officers are the only trained diplomats produced by India, while other officers are either in ancillary roles or have been promoted to diplomat positions as part of the IFS (B) cadre.

The IFS' low count of just over a thousand diplomats is similar in size to Portugal or New Zealand and pales in comparison to the US and China. With the demands of daily diplomacy already consuming much of their time, Indian diplomats have little time left to plan and strategise for an increasingly uncertain world with new challenges.

However, FS Kwatara defended the low numbers and said, "I must present it to the hon. Committee that we are limited in our efforts because the recruitments are not done by us. It is done by the UPSC and the SSC. So, they have to recruit faster for us to be able to get more people on our side."

Glaring Delays in Aid to Neighbours

The committee's report stated that India's assistance in development had been a catalyst for the creation of infrastructure, like railways, waterways, border-related infrastructure, transmission lines, power generation, hydropower, etc., in partner countries.

Given the increasing geo-political tensions with neighbouring countries like China, which continues to grow its global influence, it recommended that India's development partnerships with its partners be reinforced with provisions in the budget.

A troubling bit in the report was concerns raised with India's development approach, where in several cases, only 30-40 percent of allocated funds are utilised due to logistical, administrative, and geo-political delays.

They pointed out that major development projects have been delayed, such as aid to Bhutan, which was allotted close to Rs 2,200 crore but received only Rs 700 crore. It also pointed out the major under-utilisation of budgeted aid funds for Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, and other important geo-political partners.

Projects such as the Akhaura-Agartala Rail Link Project in Sri Lanka, Punatsangchhu-I and Punatsangchhu-II in Bhutan, and the High Impact Community Development Projects in Bangladesh still need to be completed, and funds lie unused.

Meanwhile, China continues to fund billions into Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, only showcasing the diversity of Beijing's investment engagement strategies.

It hit out at the ministry and said that while the committee is aware of the delays in the execution of projects and usage of funds owed to the COVID-19 pandemic between 2020 and 2022, it "fails to understand as to why the pace of implementation of projects and utilisation of funds has not picked up with the easing of the COVID-19 situation during 2022-23."

On the other hand, it also found that despite political upheaval and turmoil in Afghanistan and Myanmar, more than 50 percent of the allocated funds were utilised and acknowledged the presence of "certain gaps in project implementation and monitoring."

The committee members also urged the ministry to "strengthen its coordination with the Implementing Agencies so that in the post-COVID world, schemes that cater to India's global image may be executed smoothly and efficiently."

Using the Diaspora's Soft Power

The report reaffirmed the need to educate the Indian diaspora on their crucial role in exercising India's very own soft power diplomacy and using their economic and political influence in their host country to build stronger ties with New Delhi.

It recommended that the ministry and the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR), an autonomous government organisation that supplements the Indian diaspora's soft power, "should come out with a blueprint to utilise the Indian Diaspora as a 'resource' in projecting India's soft power, culture, and values abroad."

India owes the strength of its soft power to a culture of strong relationships within families, which leads the diaspora to maintain connections back home. Moreover, their durability arises majorly because of opportunities that arise abroad, not because they are forced to.

However, the committee took note of incidents of exploitation of migrant workers who moved abroad for work and said:

"Since more and more workers would seek employment abroad, the Committee expect the Ministry to help enhance the soft skills of such workers, sensitise them about the pathways to safe and legal migration, and educate them about the various government programmes for their welfare and protection through the Pre-Departure Orientation Training and Skill Upgradation programme."

While the MEA has begun making efforts to establish a system to regulate migration to countries where the possibility of exploitation and ill-treatment is greater – like the Gulf and countries where skilled workers migrate to – the committee wanted the exercise to be completed at the earliest.

Moreover, it also said that India's communication and engagement with its diaspora must be sensitive, and their realistic expectations should be set, as Indian-origin foreign citizens and those of mixed descent may tend to identify themselves more with their host countries.

"The opportunities to engage with these communities is more in the sphere of soft diplomacies like education, tourism, and religious pilgrimages."

The MEA responded that it aims to leverage the Indian diaspora's potential to build, influence, and fortify relationships between India and its host countries.

However, creating a brand state, which presents a stereotypical picture of India, may not be completely beneficial if a necessary part of the strategy – spreading goodwill across communities and boundaries – is not undertaken.

In a previous report, the committee found that New Delhi has not invested in a widespread review of soft power strategies used by different countries and is yet to produce a comprehensive document that details India's strategy.

The absence of such a strategy has led to India's diplomats and agencies facing problems when trying to develop an index to measure the effectiveness of India's soft power diplomacy efforts.