Indian Foreign Policy Institutions

Previous Year Questions:

• 2021- How do the constituent states influence the foreign policy making process in
India? (15)
• 2020- Describe the structure and function of the National Security Council. What role
does it play in the formulation of the IFP? (10)
• 2015- How does Parliament determine and influence the making of India’s Foreign
policy?
• 2014- The Ministry of External Affairs is losing its importance in the making of India’s
Foreign Policy with the parallel rise of the PMO. Explain.
• 2012- Assess the scope and importance of setting up the Public Diplomacy Division in
the Ministry of External Affairs in strengthening India’s Foreign Policy.

Historical Antecedents

• On 13 September 1783, the Board of Directors of the East India Company passed a
resolution at Fort William, to create a department that would help “relieve the
pressure” on the Warren Hastings administration in conducting its “secret and
political business”. But soon after, in 1784, the Pitts India Act passed by the British
Parliament put limitations on the independent powers of the East India Company.
• By 1843, the British found it necessary to restructure the foreign department for
better management, and Governor General Ellenborough, therefore, carried out
administrative reforms and created four departments: Foreign, Home, Finance, and
Military.
• By September 1946, India had come close to Independence. Hence, there was a need
for a different name and a different structure for a newly formed country. The Indian
Foreign Service was created for India’s diplomatic, consular and commercial
representation overseas.
• As the first Foreign Minister of India, Nehru succeeded in forging a domestic
consensus on the definition of Indian national interests and foreign policy objectives.
Some of these objectives are: building a unified and integrated nation based on the
secular and democratic principles; defending Indian territory and protecting its
security interests; guaranteeing India’s foreign policy independence internationally
through nonalignment; and promoting national economic development.
 • Therefore, Nehru’s vision of the international system dictated many of the core
principles. His dominance limited the role of other influences upon foreign policy
making both within and outside the ruling government, effectively delimiting broader
bureaucratic voices.
• Nehruvian consensus i.e. attitude towards the principles and implementation of
foreign policy continues after his death in 1964. Key foreign policy decisions were
largely formulated via small groups of trusted advisors. (During Nehru’s period-K.M
Panikkar in Beijing, Krishna Menon in New York and Mrs. Pandit in Moscow)
• With a move towards greater real politik in the late 1980s, the foreign policy making
process gradually came to include more disparate influences like the MEA. However,
the institution of the PMO enshrines the dominant role of the ruling leader within the
overall foreign policy making process- a situation that continues till date.
• By late 1990s, trade and energy focus began to characterize Indian diplomacy which
led to more and different Indian ministries to become inclusive. India’s global
interaction continued to increase through the 2000s as her leaders focussed upon
restoring India’s great-power status via economic growth. In order to fulfil this aim,
MEA began to overcome India’s regional fixation through a policy of ‘total diplomacy’
with all states as a way to project India’s influence within the international system.

Dynamics
The formulation of foreign policy is a complex process, mediated by the participation of
various stakeholders. India is a federal country and the subject of foreign affairs is included
under the jurisdiction of Union or Central government.

Foreign policy making in India takes place at different levels involving different sets of
peoples and institutions in varying capacities. Foreign policy in India is made at two distinct
levels: macro and micro.

Foreign policy making at macro level involves the higher bodies and individuals responsible
for giving overall direction and control of the structures and processes of government in the
country. The institutions and individuals taking part in the process of foreign policy making
at this level are the ones who are not expected to be specialists in the theories and practices
of diplomacy and foreign policy.

The real actions with regard to the making of foreign policy in India takes place at the micro
level. At the core of this level lies the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) which gets active
support and inputs from the scientific and technical institutions and individuals working in
the field of strategic and foreign affairs.
Institutions

Ministry of External Affairs:

Staffed primarily with the members of the IFS, MEA is headed by the Minister of External
Affairs on the political side and Foreign Secretary on the administrative side. Foreign
Secretary is flanked by Secretary (East), Secretary (West), Secretary (Economic Affairs) and
Secretary (CPV and Overseas Indian Affairs). Foreign Secretary and each of the Secretaries
head and coordinate a number of Divisions and agencies.

There are 19 Territorial divisions- Americas, Gulf, Indo-Pacific

According to J. Bandyopadhyay, Administrative/ Functional Divisions play only an indirect

role in the process of policy formulation. Their importance depends on the relative
importance of the function like the Economic Division or Policy Planning Division which
makes them more important than a territorial division. The relative importance of a
Territorial Division depends on the significance of the region concerned in I R.

There are many Functional divisions- 3 are important.

• The Policy Planning and Research Division is responsible for conducting research and
preparing briefs and background papers for policy makers. The background papers
provide information on various issues related to international developments.
• The Economic Division has the responsibility of managing and conducting foreign
economic relations. For ex: It established the Economic Coordination Unit in 1990 to
assess the impact of the Persian Gulf crisis arising from Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait,
changes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and formation of a single market in
the European Countries and other similar changes having an impact on India. It also
tries to promote foreign investment in India.

Economic Diplomacy is a major element of foreign policy formulation. Every country has its
own special units in their Foreign offices for dealing with the economic aspect of foreign
policy. There are 3 agencies in the US Dept. of State- Agency for International Development,
Bureau of Economic Affairs and the Inspector General of Foreign Assistance.

In India, as early as 1947, an economic Affairs Division was created in the MEA but it was
abolished in 1950. It was only in 1961 that the Division was revived. Following the Pillai
Committee, steps were taken to expand the division and have two or more than two Joint
Secretaries heading it. In recent years, the Division has taken a keen interest in South-East
Asian Economic relation due to the conflict in Indo-Pacific.
 • The Public Diplomacy division was established in 2006 to initiate programmes for
enlisting popular domestic and international support to India’s foreign policy
measures. The broad mandate of this division is to organize outreach activities inside
and outside India to effectively project India’s foreign policy to the wider public. It
works in close collaboration with researchers, think-tanks, civil society, media, and
industry to attain its objectives. It also supports TRACK II interactions with other
countries.

In 2020, the MEA undertook a major overhaul, empowering seven different Additional
Secretaries and reorganising their tasks along verticals like culture, and trade and
development, amongst others. The seven verticals are designed to give more power to
Additional Secretaries, thereby, taking pressure off the Secretaries to handle the big ticket
issues. The following are the seven verticals of the MEA:

• Cultural Diplomacy
• Economic and Trade Coordination
• Multinational Organisations and Global Summits
• Development Partnership
• West Asia and Africa
• Indian Ocean and Indo-Pacific
• Europe

Important inputs in the making of India‘s foreign policy are also provided by the external
intelligence of the country, namely, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). Though the
controlling agency of RAW is the Cabinet Secretariat, its functions very much relate to the
core activities of MEA.

The MEA is headed by a Cabinet Minister and assisted by the Deputy Foreign Minister.

The Secretariat staff of Foreign Ministry provides information and analysis to the Prime
Minister and Minister of External Affairs, recommends specific measures when necessary,
plans policy for the future, and maintains regular communications with foreign missions
located in India and Indian missions located in other countries.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) maintains 171 Indian Missions abroad, largely
manned by officers of Indian Foreign Service. The Foreign Service Training Institute, New
Delhi (established in 1986) provides training for officers of India Foreign Service (IFS). This
includes training in a basic professional course, a comprehensive course in diplomacy and
international relations, a refresher course for commercial representatives, and training in
foreign languages.

The Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) and Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA)
are also run by the MEA. The ICCR arranges exhibits, visits, and cultural exchanges with
other countries and oversees the activities of foreign cultural centers in India. The ICWA aims
to develop a think-tank and works as an important platform for discussion on various
aspects of foreign affairs of India.

Issues and Challenges of MEA

Markeys (2009)- “ the IFS was too small due to its highly selective recruitment policy; mid-
career training was “inadequate”; outside expertise was not usually consulted, and India’s
think tanks and universities lacked information, access to government, or funding; and the
media and private business were not positioned to “undertake sustained foreign policy and
ability.”

Kanti Bajpai and Bryon Chong- “India’s Foreign Policy Capacity” in the journal Policy
Design and Practice (2019)

• Assessing Indian foreign policy capacity at the individual level

a. Managerial and leadership skills of the officers

The softer, managerial and leadership skills are essential for IFS officers and
they are often quickly acquired in the rather challenging work environment at
home in headquarters but perhaps even more so in the embassies abroad.
They are usually generalists. Need of the hour is specialists. * Read the note
on Lateral Entry.
b. Individual political knowledge/experience of dealing with political actors
The IFS is thought to live in its own “bubble” by the other services, and IFS
officers themselves admit to not knowing the administrative byways of India
as intimately or shrewdly as the officers of the various domestic services. IFS
rivalry with the wider Indian Administrative Service at times undercuts
synergies and coordination.

b) Assessment of Indian foreign policy capacity at the organizational level

a. Critical mass of capable officials and the information infrastructure
As Markey notes, the IFS is extremely small compared to other major Foreign
Services. Even the MEA accepts that the current strength of the service is
unable to meet the needs of India’s external commitments (941 in 2017)-
Lambah Report of 2002. China has around 4500 servicemen. India has the
 smallest number of diplomats amongst G20 and BRICS country. US Foreign
Service ‘s total diplomatic personnel is around 20 to 30 times larger than
India’s.

The MEA’s annual budget similarly mimics this relative disparity and as such is
underfunded and overstretched body. This understaffing leads to few key foci
in terms of issues and a downplaying of military and strategic matters in
favour of economic and social issues.

India maintains a cadre strength of around 330 executive level officers in New
Delhi and stations another 600 officers spread across 184 embassies,
consulates, and missions abroad (Ministry of External Affairs 2018, p 2). This
means that the average number of IFS officers in a mission is 3 to 4.

MEA also lacks infrastructure for collecting and, more importantly, processing
information. It needs its own think tank. In the 1960s, it briefly had an active
Policy Planning Review Division (later renamed), but without academia or
think tank expertise and with the proliferation of “internal squabbles,
personality clashes, and ministerial rivalries”, the unit went quickly into
eclipse. It remains a career graveyard. (Mattoo 2015)

Shashi Tharoor Committee (2016) points out that there is a serious disconnect
between the foreign policies priorities of India and the language skills of its
diplomatic corps (559 out of 770 officers have proficiency in any non-Indian
language.) For Ex: India has over 2 dozen embassies in Africa but there is a
lack of language skills of the region among the officers.

There is a lack of regional knowledge and expertise- “bound to hobble the

country’s efforts to effect changes in the global system.”

b. Relationship to political institutions

The External Affairs Minister is a key member of the Cabinet and its inner
circle in the Cabinet Committee on Security as also the National Security
Council (NSC). It has personnel seconded to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
and the National Security Council (NSC) including most importantly the
Foreign Secretary who is a member of the Strategic Policy Group (SPG) within
the Council.
 A senior IFS officer has been Deputy National Security Advisor or National
Security Advisor since the inception of the NSC. MEA also works with the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, which is one of nearly
50 such committees.

The relationship of MEA to political institutions is based on:it is accountable

and is firmly under political control; and it is, in turn, nonpartisan and
autonomous from political parties.

India’s fluctuating political system in conjunction with a diversifying range of

policy influences, however continues to frequently produce inconsistent and
incoherent policy. Furthermore, Indian prime ministers continue to desire
control of the MEA through personal influences.

c. Coordination with other actors and sectors

Rather poor coordination between MEA and other parts sections of the
government on one hand, and the private and people sector, on the other
hand.

K. Bajpai: MEA has a rather imperial and exclusivist view of foreign policy and
does not trust entities outside the government, indeed, outside the IFS. At the
same time, the private and people sectors find MEA rather heavy-footed and
old- fashioned as well as ill-informed in their areas of operation

c) Assessment of Indian foreign policy capacity at the systemic level

Foreign policy capacity is also problematic at the systemic level. Here factors such as the
general state of knowledge and educational capacities/facilities in society at large on foreign
policy issues, coordinative capabilities between MEA and the private and people sector, and
public trust in political, social, economic, and diplomatic processes and institutions are
relevant.

The general awareness and knowledge of international affairs in the wider public is quite
low. The education sector, including policy institutes, is also quite weak in producing high-
quality international studies teaching and research. In addition, MEA’s partnering of
business and NGOs is quite “thin”.

** Lateral Entry
Lateral Entry refers to the recruitment of experts in government agencies, primarily those
from the private industry.

MEA experimented with lateral entry in 2015 following a suggestion by a parliamentary

committee headed by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor. The panel had called for expanding the
foreign service as the staff shortage was hampering India’s diplomatic outreach. Reforms in
the UK, on which we modelled our civil service system, have made room for lateral entry. The
US gives its president the freedom to people both his cabinet and bureaucracy with leading
doctors, bankers, scientists, teachers – top experts from different fields. In India we had
short term experiments on very few positions like For example, Nandan Nilekani beat many
odds to set up the Aadhaar scheme and Raghuram Rajan has won global accolades for
steering RBI steadily through turbulent times.

In 2015, the ministry hired some 12 officials as subject experts in the policy planning and
research division. However, the difference is that these officials do not have decision-making
or administrative powers, which are extended to officials who come on deputation from
other departments.

Benefits of Lateral Entry:

a) Specialists
b) Increasing number and diversity
c) Larger democratic participation in policy making

Issues:

a) Lack of Transparency
b) Closed networks on Civil Servants
c) Difference in organisational values
d) Profit motive vs. public service

Cabinet
The Cabinet being the top most decision making body of the government, determines the
course of India’s external relations by giving necessary directions. Cabinet Ministers are the
most trusted colleagues of the Prime Minister and assist and advise him or her on major
foreign policy issues, including during times of crisis.

The main function of the relevant cabinet committee is to examine the various activities of
the ministry and to give policy directives to the respective departments. Though none of the
current cabinet committees (like the CC on Security or CC on Economic Affairs) deal
exclusively with foreign affairs, the issues dealt by such CCs, directly impact India’s foreign
policy and practices.

The committee entrusted with the task of taking collective decision relating to the issues of
national security and foreign policy is known as the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS). It
is headed by the Prime Minister and consists of all the important ministers heading the
ministries critical to national security of the country. In India, as a customary practice, the
decisions relating to India‘s foreign policy and finalized at the level of MEA, PMO, etc. are
placed before the CCS for its consideration and final approval. Though CCS has never been
heard of reversing any of the foreign policy decisions initiated by MEA and finalized by PMO,
it surely retains the right of discussing the issues at hand and members could indeed offer
valuable suggestions if they feel strongly on that.

Example: Due to coalition nature of government during UPA period, the Nuclear Liability Act
(2010) was passed with major amendments.

Parliament
India's Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) has the power to legislate on foreign affairs,
one of the subjects in the exclusive domain of the central/union government. This authority
includes legislation or amendment of any law for the successful implementation of
international treaties, agreements and conventions. Government is accountable to
Parliament, which can seek information and clarification on policies and issues.

Among its important oversight functions, Parliament has a Standing Committee on External
Affairs and a Standing Committee on Defence, which grill the officials on issues pertaining to
foreign relations and external security. Parliament may also constitute ad hoc committees to
look into specific issues.

Example: During the Doklam Crisis (2017), questions were raised in the Rajya Sabha which
resulted in the EAM to offer an explanation on government moves and future strategy.

Example 2: Berubari Union Case 1960-

There was a region called Berubari in Jalpaiguri district in West Bengal, and Radcliff gave
this region to India, but unfortunately, he forgot to mention it in his written map. Due to this
reason, Pakistan took advantage of the situation and started claiming Berubari, and because
of this particular reason, a dispute arose between India and Pakistan.

To solve this issue, the Nehru-Noon Agreement was introduced in 1958. By way of this
agreement, it was decided that the Berubari region would be equally divided between India
and Pakistan. However, the President took the matter under Article 143 of the Indian
Constitution, and he consulted the case with the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the parliament does not have the power to give the territory of
any state to another country under Article 3 of the Indian Constitution. Moreover, Article
1(3)(c) mentions that the parliament can acquire territories but cannot give any territory to a
foreign country.

Generally, parliament contributes to making of the foreign policy of India in three ways.
Firstly, while debating the decisions of government, members of parliament articulate
different perspectives on the subject. Secondly, on occasions, parliament also acts to suggest
modifications in a particular policy decision of the government. Finally, when parliament
accords its approval to the policy decisions of the government, such decisions become
consensual approach of the country towards a given subject and tend to carry much more
weight than a policy measure offered without the approval of parliament.

Military

It plays a minimal role in the political decision making process, remaining detached and
marginalised from politics. This detachment underscores a historical fear amongst India’s
leaders that the military may be inspired by several coups carried out in Pakistan. All 3
military branches are subordinated to the civilan defence minister and the chiefs of the
armed forces are not routinely consulted about foreign policy.

Among major powers, this is an anomaly. Cohen argues, “probably no military of equivalent
importance or size has lessinfluence.” In recent years, the emergence of new assertive think
tanks manned by retired military officials has provided a new voice.

**Parliamentary Committees:

The Parliament of India transacts a great deal of its business through Committees which are,
in fact, microcosms and extensions of the Houses. The Committees have contributed a great
deal in making the Parliament more effective in exercising control over and giving direction
to the executive functioning and thereby making the executive more accountable. Apart
from facilitating consideration of complex and technical issues in a non-partisan manner,
which the House as a whole may find difficult to discuss, the Committee may provide to the
Members additional time for detailed deliberation on the legislative and financial business of
the House.
The Departmentally-related Standing Committee (DRSC) system in Indian Parliament came
into force in August, 1989 with the setting up of three Subject Committees on Agriculture,
Science & Technology and Environment & Forests. The successful functioning of these
Committees led to the constitution on 8 April, 1993 of 17 DRSCs. After watching the working
of the DRSC system for over a decade, the system was re-structured in July, 2004 wherein the
number of DRSCs was increased from 17 to 24.

With the formation of standing committees of parliament, Parliamentary Committee on

External Affairs has become the most important committee to look into the issues of foreign
affairs on behalf of the parliament. Consisting of members of both the houses, this
committee keeps a constant watch on the working of the MEA and reviews the policies and
decisions taken by the ministry with regard to the external affairs of the country.

The Standing Committee on External Affairs consists of 31 members out of which 21

members are nominated by the Hon’ble Speaker from amongst the Member of Lower House
(Lok Sabha) and 10 Members are nominated by Chairman, Rajya Sabha from amongst the
Members of the Upper House (Rajya Sabha).

Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)

J. Bandyopadhyaya noted that Prime Ministers play a critical role in steering the direction of
Indian Foreign Policy. From Narasimha Rao’s pragmatism to Gujral Doctrine, Manmohan
Singh’s foreign policy to Modi’s assertive India First policy outlook – all typify the diplomatic
style and policy substance of different Indian Prime Ministers.

The PMO consisting of senior level bureaucrats provides secretarial assistance and advice to
the PM and functions as the centre of policy making in India. It coordinates various central
agencies like the Cabinet, Cabinet Committees, Council of Ministers and other stakeholders
to sort out interdepartmental hurdles in domestic and foreign policy execution. During PM
Nehru’s time, since he was both PM and EAM, the Prime Minister’s Secretariat (as PMO was
known then), became the centre of foreign policy decision making. This trend has continued
with each PMO assuming the central role in all policy, including foreign policy decision
making, often bypassing the Cabinet, Cabinet Committees and Council of Ministers.

The current PMO consists of the Principal Secretary to PM, the National Security Advisor
(NSA), an Additional PS to PM, Secretary to PM, two Additional Secretaries, five Joint
Secretaries and several other officers at the levels of Director, Deputy Secretary and Under
Secretary.

The Prime Minister, almost without exception, has been the central figure in foreign policy
decision making since Independence. All important matters on foreign policy and security
need PM’s approval before implementation.
National Security Council (NSA)
This is an apex body of the Government of India, which advices the Government on matters
of India’s National Security, Foreign Policy and Defence. Although the final decisions rest
with the PM and the Cabinet, in recent years, the National Security Council has emerged as
an important stakeholder in the shaping of India’s foreign and security policies. Chaired by
the PM, the NSC consists of the Ministers of External Affairs, Defence, Home and Finance,
the NSA and the Deputy Chairman of Niti Ayog (successor to Planning Commission). The NSA
is the Secretary to the National Security Council.

The NSC is a three-tier organization consisting of the Strategic Planning Group, the National
Security Advisory Board and the Joint Intelligence Committee.

Strategic Planning Group (SPG) – this is the top most decision making body at the
bureaucratic level, The SPG is responsible for formulating and implementing India’s strategic
policies. Headed by the Cabinet Secretary, the SPG is also assigned to make long term
strategies for India’s military doctrine. Its members includes secretaries of all important
ministries and departments like Home, Defence, External Affairs, Defence Production,
Revenue, Atomic Energy, Space, the heads of R&AW and IB, the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and
Air Force, Chairman CBDT, RBI Governor, Scientific Advisor to RM and Chairman JIC. This
Group meets periodically and continuously observes national and international security
environment and takes necessary steps to neutralize possible threats.

National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) – the Board consists of members from outside the
government, advises it on matters related to national security and development. It does long
term analysis and provides perspectives on issues of national security. Its membership
includes eminent professionals, academics, scientists, administrative experts and retired
bureaucrats.

Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) – this Committee receives intelligence inputs from the IB,
R&AW, and the Directorates of Military, Naval and Air Intelligence, respectively. It is the
highest intelligence assessment organization, tasked with inter-agency coordination,
collection and analysis of intelligence data. It sometimes directs the relevant intelligence
agencies to conduct certain intelligence gathering tasks, based on the input or demand from
the Government. The JIC is an important and effective advisory body to the PM and Cabinet
in decision making on matters related to foreign affairs and defence.

National Security Advisor: NSA is the executive head of the National Security Council (NSC)
created during the reign of Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1998. In the place of NSA, all the Prime
Ministers before Vajpayee used to have one of his/her close confident substituting for NSA to
advise the Prime Ministers on critical issues of national interests.
In present times, NSA seems to be the extended persona of the Prime Minister given his very
activist role in shaping the security and foreign policies of the government. Prime Minister
Narendra Modi‘s foreign policy acumen and forays are presumably based on the inputs
provided by NSA Ajit Doval.

State Governments
Para diplomacy is international relations conducted by subnational, regional or local
governments.

The geographical expanse of India mandates a role for border states greater than New Delhi
in matters of sub-regional cooperation. West Bengal and all the North-Eastern states
become crucial in this regard.

The States adjoining our neighbouring countries have a major say in cross border issues. For
example, the Ganges Water Sharing Treaty with Bangladesh would not have been possible
without the support of the West Bengal Government. Similarly the issues of enclaves
(sovereign territories of India and Bangladesh surrounded entirely by the territory of the
other) which was left hanging over since the boundary treaty with Bangladesh in 1972, could
be sorted out only recently with the active cooperation of the States which share a boundary
with Bangladesh, including Meghalaya. Water and land boundary issues with Pakistan have
to take into account the views of the adjoining states of J&K, Punjab and Gujarat. In our
dealings with Nepal, UP and Bihar are key dialogue partners. Tamil Nadu has had a
disproportionate influence on India's policies towards Sri Lanka due to the Tamil factor.
Other states, which historically took a back seat on foreign affairs in the past, are more
active in this century, particularly on issues that have a direct bearing on their populace. For
example, Kerala is quite active on NRI and PIO issues for obvious reasons. Trade, investments
and national and international security issues bring forth the views of states on these
matters.

Academia/ Think Tanks

In the making of India‘s foreign policy, policy think tanks have special role to play. These
think tanks are non-governmental, non-profit organisations engaged in study and research
on different aspects of India‘s strategic and foreign affairs. Contemporaneously, important
of such think tanks are Observer Research Foundation (ORF) and Vivekananda International
Foundation (VIF). Other examples are the Institute of Chinese Studies (ICS), the RIS (Research
and Information System for Developing Countries), ICRIER (Indian Council for Research on
International Economic Relations), Centre for Policy Research (CPR).

1950- ICWA

1955-SIS (merged with JNU in 1970)

1965- IDSA (funded by MoD)- MEA continues to outsource many analytical and speech
writing tasks to the IDSA but due to Official Secrets Act (the relation is limited).

“India’s think tanks lack sufficient access to the information or resources required to conduct
high quality, policy relevant scholarship.”

According to the Global Go-To Think Tank Index 2020 prepared by the University of
Pennsylvania, US, India is home to 612 think tanks — making it the third largest country in
terms of the number of think tanks, after the United States of America (2,203) and China
(1,413). The same study lists five Indian think tanks among the top 100 to watch in 2021 —
the ORF at number 5, Dialogue India at 9, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA)
at 23, Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations at 47, and Council on Energy,
Environment and Water (CEEW) at 61.

International relations studies departments in universities and colleges, including in Delhi

and Mumbai and in a few upcoming private higher educational institutes, contribute inputs
towards India’s foreign policy calculus.

There have been some outstanding statesmen, scholars, civil servants and diplomats whose
guiding hand in shaping India's foreign policy, particularly in the initial decades, must be
acknowledged. They are K. M. Pannikkar, KPS Menon Sr., KR Narayanan, K Subhramanium,
G Parthasarathy, JN Dixit and Brajesh Mishra, among others. Their bold outlook and
perceived influence with leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Narasimha Rao, IK
Gujral, and Atal Bahari Vajpayee, gave them the platform to induct crucial inputs in the
evolving foreign policy architecture of India.

The vitality of these think tanks in the formulation of India‘s security and foreign policies
could be gauged from the fact that a number of individuals working with these organisations
have now been given important responsibilities in the present government. At the same
time, these organisations are also roped in by the government to act as the co-sponsors of
important policy dialogues such as Raisina Dialogue on strategic and foreign policies of
India.

Pressure Groups
T. C. Schelling claimed, “Aside from war and preparations for war, and occasionally aside
from migration, trade is the most important relationship that most countries have with each
other.”

Richard Cooper- ‘Trade Policy is Foreign Policy’- while traditionally trade policy had
dominated ‘high foreign policy’, the Cold War had brought political issues to the fore and
reduced the salience of business interests in shaping foreign policy.
Voices of non-political groups, associations and organizations are important sources of
influence in shaping government policies, including in foreign and security issues.

Manmohan Singh (2004): It is on foundation of people-to-people and business-to-business

that we in government try to build state-to-state relations.”

Big business, particularly the house of the Tatas and Birlas played an important hand in the
shaping of the newly independent nation and its national and global outlook. In the post
reform period, business organizations, like FICCI, CII, ASSOCHAM, NASSCOM, etc., could be
regarded as akin to US lobbyists groups, which engage with government to create a
favourable business environment to suit the interests of their members.

Sanjay Baru (2009)- Growing Influence of Business and Media on Indian Foreign Policy- the
Nehruvian era in economic policy was one of central planning and the public sector
occupying the ‘commanding heights’ of the Indian economy. Hence, business-to-business
relations willy-nilly became state-to-state relations. It was only in the 1980s that Indian
business, especially the private corporate sector, came into its own and began to influence
political thinking on foreign policy issues.

The liberalisation of economic policy in 1991 opened a new chapter in government-business

interaction in India. Not only did business leaders accompany the Prime Minister, External
Affairs Minister and Union Finance and Commerce Ministers on their visits abroad, but their
views began to be better articulated through the two principle chambers of business, the
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Confederation of
Indian Industry (CII).

Several factors contributed to increased business engagement in Indian diplomacy:

a) the economic crisis of 1990-91 and the end of the Cold War;
b) the change in India’s negotiating stance at the World Trade Organization (WTO);
c) though only towards the end of the 90s, the outward orientation of large Indian
companies;
d) India’s success in software and the globalisation of Indian information technology (IT)
and software business.

Ex: CII embraced enthusiastically India’s new ‘Look East’ policy, inviting Singapore’s
Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong as the Chief Guest to its Centenary Celebrations in
Calcutta in January 1995.

Media
 The media has an obvious role in shaping public opinion on foreign policy issues in a
democracy. However, the influence of media on foreign policy is shaped by two
important factors, first, the extent of domestic political disagreement or consensus on
foreign policy issues; and second, the relationship between the government of the day
and the media.

A substantial part of the work of the Public Policy Division of the Ministry of External
Affairs has in fact been in dealing with domestic media rather than international media.

The current role of Media:

i) the gradual erosion of the domestic political consensus on foreign policy, giving
the media the role of an arbiter and an independent analyst of contending
political views;
ii) The media revolution and expansion, with the rise of television and business
journalism and the growing importance of private corporate advertisement
revenues, as opposed to government support for media, in influencing media
economics;
iii) the increasing influence of the middle class and the business class in the media
has also influenced media thinking on foreign policy.

Another issue is of misinterpretation by the Media leads to confusion. Defence Minister

George Fernandes in 1998 was misquoted as naming China as Enemy no. 1 when he had
infact stated Potential Enemy No. 1.

Diaspora
The Non Resident Indians (NRIs) and the Persons of India Origin (PIOs), most of whom today
hold the OCI card giving them access and facilities similar to NRIs, are an established factor
in Indian politics. Growing in wealth and influence and India's quest to use its diaspora
population across the globe for its national and international priorities, the NRI and PIO
lobby is gaining influence in ensuring national and international policies are tilted in their
favour.

For ex: Narinder Singh Kapany- Father of Fibre Optics; Amartya Sen; Vinod Khosla (Sun
Microsystems)

Prime minister Modi calls Indian diaspora as our 'Rashtradoots'. Considering the size of
Indian diaspora it is aptly mentioned that the ‘sun never sets in the Indian diaspora’. They
are the informal ‘ambassadors’ for India.

2022 UN World Migration Report:

 India has the highest number of migrants living abroad with over 18 million.
UAE (3.5 million), the US (2.7 million) and Saudi Arabia (2.5 million)

The Indian diaspora is looked at as a “model minority” and comprises many accomplished
individuals. One-third of the engineers in Silicon Valley are Indians, whereas 10% of the
world’s high-tech business CEOs also come from India. Nikki Haley, Kamla Harris, Rishi
Sunak, Parag Agrawal as the CEO of Twitter, Sundar Pichai, Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, and
IBM’s Arvind Krishna , Gita Gopinath Deputy MD, International Monetary Fund.

Diaspora includes:

• Non-Resident Indians (NRIs),

• Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) and
• Overseas Citizens of India (OCI).

PIO and OCI card holders were merged under OCI category in 2015. Overseas Citizen of India.

Overseas Citizen of India(xxxOCI)

• Not an Indian citizen.

• No voting rights in India, nor can contest elections or hold any constitutional office.
• Benefits - multiple-entry, life-long visa to visit India, all rights in parity with NRIs
except, the right to acquisition of agricultural or plantation properties.

Non-Resident Indian(xxxNRI)

• An Indian citizen who is ordinarily residing outside India and holds an Indian
Passport.
• A person is considered NRI if She is not in India for 182 days or more during the
financial year Or; If he/she is in India for less than 365 days during the 4 years
preceding that year and less than 60 days in that year. (IT Act)

Can NRIs cast their vote in India?

• Till the year 2010, NRIs were not allowed to vote in the elections
• Post 2010 an through an amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1950
permitted NRIs to vote at their particular constituency in India but the voting
required the direct presence of the NRI in India.
• Eligiblity 18 years + Must not have acquired foreign citizenship.

Modi Doctrine on Diaspora is often described in terms of 4 Cs: Care, Connect, Celebrate and
Contribute.
Programs of Indian Government to engage its diaspora:

• Scholarship Programme for Diaspora Children (SPDC) under which 100 scholarships
per annum are granted to Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) and Non Resident Indians
(NRI) students for undergraduate courses.
• Know India Program (KIP) is a flagship initiative for Diaspora engagement which
familiarizes Indian-origin youth (18-30 years) with their Indian roots and
contemporary India.
• Under Minimum Referral Wages (MRW), applicable to Emigration Check Required
(ECR) countries, India has increased the minimum wages (in 2014) of Indian workers
employed as industrial workers, domestic servants, cleaners and labourers.
• E-migrate system launched in 2015 requires all foreign employers to register in the
database. It ensures the welfare and check on exploitation met to emigrants. UAE
who claim it is a “breach of our sovereignty”→ e-Migrate system and the Minimum
Referral Wages policy have been detrimental to India as companies now find it easier
to hire labour from countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan.
• Madad Portal to take timely and speedy action on grievances addressed by people
living abroad.
• Indian Community Welfare Fund
• Pravasi Bharatiya divas , Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Awards ,Pravasi Teerth Darshan
Yojna
• Study India Program
• Skill Banks and PKVY - There is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Ministry of Skill Development and
Entrepreneurship (MSDE) for implementation of the Pravasi Kaushal Vikas Yojana
(PKVY).
• The Government of India has given several incentives to NRIs for investing their funds
in India. They are exempt from several taxes and other charges. NRI seats are
reserved in all the medical, engineering and other professional colleges.
• VAJRA (Visiting Advanced Joint Research) Faculty Scheme is a dedicated program
exclusively for overseas scientists and academicians with emphasis on NRI and PIO /
OCI to work as adjunct / visiting faculty for a specific period of time in Indian Public
funded academic and research institutions.
• Other youth-centric outreach programmes include scholarships to pursue
undergraduate courses in recognised University Grants Commission universities in
India, as well as Bharat Ko Jano online quizzes that test the participants’ knowledge
of India’s heritage, history and culture.

Role played by Diaspora in India’s foreign policy goals:

• Building translational networks: The Diaspora provides important links not only
emotional, but also cultural, social, and political. For example Ireland's Prime
 Minister Leo Varadkar and Portugese Prime Minister Antonio Costa are of Indian
origin.
• Lobbying for India: Act as Informal Ambassadors and help cultivate soft power
.Examples - In USA - Indian community lobbied for support - during Kargil war,1998
Pokhran Nuclear tests and Civil Nuclear deal
• Defence and security goals: Groups like the United States India Political Action
Committee (USINPAC), Friends of India, Canada India Foundation (CIF) and Canada
India Business Council (CIBC), are actively pushing for India's interests.
• Messenger of India’s soft power: Yoga, Bollywood, Indian cuisine among others is
famous across the world. The Diaspora plays an important role in it.
• Return of stolen artefacts: For example- The Indian Pride Project successfully lobbied
to bring back the Nataraja from Australia, and sandstone Yakshi from the United
States.
• Contribution in other fields:
o Source of Capital and Investment
o Helpful in transfer of technology
o Boosts foreign trade
o Development of soft power

Conclusion:
Foreign policy in any country has generally been a matter of consensus amongst all the
sections of society as well as academia. But in view of the vast diversity in the social,
economic, linguistic and territorial dimensions of India, there arises occasions with regard to
specific policy measures, when certain sections of people try to look at the issue from a
parochial or minority perspective.In such cases, the government of India needs to be
assertive enough to push for the policy which it deems appropriate despite spirited
opposition to such policies.

For example: Overwhelming media support for the civil nuclear agreement, with the
exception of The Hindu, under the pro-Communist Party of India editorship of N. Ram, and
The Asian Age, during the editorship of M. J. Akbar, strengthened the government’s hand in
politically defending its case at home, against political criticism from Left and Right
opposition.

For a long period of time, Indian foreign policy has generally been reactive to the unfolding
of circumstances both within and outside the country. Such a policy perspective need not be
the preferred method of conducting a foreign policy especially for an aspiring great power
like India. Almost all the major countries seeking greater role for themselves in the
international relations have been found to be pursuing a proactive foreign policy.