The basic task of any diplomatist is to interpret his or her country to the country of his or her accrediation or services, and interpret that country back home to the Government on its cultural, economic and political attitudes. This is his basic function. We find there are deficiencies in the matter of area and language specialisation. This has led to other disadvantages. We will have to emphasize these two aspects so that the diplomatists can develop a deeper understanding of certain areas, their geopolitical problems, their economic problems and historic traditions, literature, art and culture. For example, sending only English-speaking people to the Arab world or to the Latin American world or even to the French-speaking Africa will lead us nowhere. Area specialisation and specialisation in different languages are very important.
Secondly, if the diplomatists have to have knowledge to interpret India correctly, I think it is necessary to bring them to India oftener so that they can review periodically their appreciation of resurgent India. I found that diplomatists were working outside India at a stretch for more than ten years, and when they had to interpret India, they interpreted half-heartedly the India of a decade ago.
Thirdly there is only a very narrow training base in national problems before officers are given a foreign posting. They are supposed to do one-year service in the secretariat in the country itself. When we consider the constitution and functions of this cadre, we will have to sec that their competence is enhanced by making them serve a little longer in India before they are launched abroad.
Fourthly, I find that we give less priority for posting better men to the neighbouring countries. There is some sort of competition to go to Europe and America, the reason being the advantage of language and facility and of getting better allowances. We keep repeating that we have to give priority to relations with Sri Lanka and Nepal. But there is less desire among the young officers to get a posting in these areas. Possibly we will have to make the posts in these areas a little more attractive.
Fifthly, in the management of foreign affairs, I find there is lack of continuous dialogue between the mission and the secretariat, except for a few cables on the immediate events or the replies to specific queries made. There needs to be initiative from the headquarters to know about a country from the ambassador in that country. This would possibly be helpful in preparing an assessment of the areas and in keeping options ready for the government for policy making processes.
