India’s former Ambassador to Hungary, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago, Ambassador Dr. Malay MISHRA discusses with Anubandh KATÉ the intricacies of this very challenging profession. His diplomatic career spanned 37 years, with postings in more than 15 countries, including the very special one in France. Malay MISHRA deftly answers some tricky questions, unraveling the secrets and mysteries of the art of diplomacy.
Anubandh: Hello! My name is Anubandh KATÉ. I am an engineer based in Paris. Today I have a great pleasure to welcome Ambassador Dr. Malay MISHRA who has gladly accepted this invitation to talk to me. Welcome Malayji.
Malay: Thank you very much Anubandh. It is a great pleasure to see you after maybe a year and a half and restart again our bonds of friendship. I greatly look forward to not only talking here but talking to you in Paris as well when I visit you.
Anubandh: Thank you. I look forward as well. I will briefly introduce you and you could compliment me if I miss something. Your diplomatic career spans 37 years and you had postings in more than 15 countries. Importantly, you were the Ambassador to Hungary, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago. I hope I pronounced them all correctly.
Malay: That is right.
Anubandh: You have traveled to more than 80 countries as you love to explore and interact with different people. You are interested in their cultures.
Malay: Yes. Very much so. Let me tell you that Paris was my first posting. I began my diplomatic career with Paris. Thus, whatever I had read about Paris, whatever from history, Paris had occupied a big place in my heart and in my mind. Therefore, when I reached Paris it was for me a great discovery and exploration. I spent two years of my initial diplomatic career in Paris, learning the language and civilization. I also went to the Sarbonne. There I was as a student, during what we call as our probation days, which means our training period. Where in the foreign Service we are supposed to learn and acquire proficiency in a foreign language.
Anubandh: I do confirm that Paris is very enchanting (place) and I believe it to be to most people. So, I am glad that you had this beginning here and that you will be visiting us soon. I would now like to talk about your educational background. You have graduated from the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in the 1970s.
Malay: I postgraduate (there). My graduation actually was in Odissa where I was born. I graduated in political science honors and then I went to JNU in Delhi from where I postgraduated, (doing) Master of Arts and Master of Philosophy. Both in political studies and international relations.
Anubandh: I am quite curious because JNU is in the news for quite some time and it is a very prestigious institute (in India) which has seen quite turbulent times recently. So, how was the JNU of the 1970s and who were your batch mates? Perhaps, some prominent people?
Malay: Well, that was a different JNU. I must tell you that is a JNU when it was actually a fountain of knowledge. We had excellent professors, excellent study atmosphere, very good friends who were very enlightened people. My most important contemporary, I would name the present Foreign Minister of India, Mr. JAISHANKAR. He was my batch mate. He was my academic batch mate. We did political studies together. In the same centre, i.e. Centre for Political Studies. And we passed out in 1975. Then again we went to the school of International Studies in JNU. We passed out our Master of philosophy in 1977. So, we are of the same match. He was my most illustrious, now of course the Foreign Minister of India. There were many such people who have risen very high in their respective careers. Some have become great literary giants, some have become great activists, some have become great media people, so on and so forth. They have occupied prominent places not only in the IAS (Indian Administrative Services) but also in IFS (Indian Foreign Services), IPS (Indian Police Services). Thus, out of a batch of about 20+ in our time, at least half of them went into bureaucracy. The other half divided themselves into various professions. But they all ruled with distinction in their respective areas. Therefore, I always consider JNU as the soil which nurtured my latent talents and gave me that exposure because we met people from various parts of India, even of different countries. Also, there were free wheeling discussions, interactions. We used to talk to our professors as if they were (our) friends. Thus, there was no barrier between students and teachers. The teachers were like our friends. We used to walk into anybody’s quarters, at any time of the day and ask any questions. The best part was the library. The library was open until midnight. We used to enter the library after dinner, at 21h. And study and study and study! Because most of us were aiming at the competitive exams. You know, at the UPSC. People who came from average - affluent background like myself. You see, those days there were very few options. For example, there is not much of enthusiasm about going for teaching (today) or even Information Technology (IT) was not well known then. I am talking of the 1970s in India. We barely had a computer at that time. Therefore, our options were very limited. Either we went (to) the services, the bureaucracy, the civil services, what we call the Indian Civil Service (ICS) or you became a teacher or you joined one of those banks or other corporations. You tried to make best of your career. Thus, in this limited framework what I finally got was good. Actually, I joined the civil service two years before I joined the Foreign Service. I joined in the Customs and Excise service. It is the indirect financial service of India. I joined (Customs and Excise service) in the same year as S. JAISHANKAR, when he joined the foreign services. So, when I went into Foreign Services, two years later he was two years my senior, already in the foreign service.
Anubandh: There is another name from the present BJP government who was also in JNU, she is Finance Minister Nirmala SITHARAMAN.
Malay: Yes. Nirmala came later. She must be at least 4 to 5 batches junior to us. I did not know her at all at that time. Many people in and out of the government are associated (to JNU) in some other capacity. Some of them were our contemporary, some others as our juniors. Nirmala SITHARAMAN was a junior student. I think she was studying somewhere abroad and then she came to JNU. She did her PhD or something like that from JNU. I am not sure about her career graph.
Anubandh: Okay. Before we move on I must mention that you did your Master of Philosophy there (at JNU) and your dissertation was on “West Asian politics with reference to Iran's Gulf policy in the Shahara.” We will later come to this part because it is interesting, as I think, not many people know about Iran, at least (that is the case) in India. We will revisit this part later, but continuing with your educational assignments, I must tell that you retired in 2015 yet even after that you continued your studies. You did a post doctorate.
Malay: Well, I did a doctorate. I did not do a post doctorate. It was at the Corvinus University in Budapest. It is one of their national universities. I had the good fortune of enrolling myself as a PhD student. You would be surprised that while I was still in service I had joined as a student in there. With the permission of my government of course. So, I was doing some data collection and all that, while I was still in service. When I finally retired, that was in July 2015. (By then) I had collected ample data on the European side. Because my PhD had two parts. Marginalised communities, as they are situated in Europe, through a community called Roma community. And marginalised communities, as they are situated in India, through the Dalit communities. In Dalits, unlike the conventional Dalit theory, I had also included Adiwasis as the Dalits. Because I called them (as well) marginalized classes. Therefore, mine was a comparison between marginalized communities of India and Europe, with a particular reference to Roma in Europe and Dalits in India. Dalits including people who we know today as Scheduled Castes people. Adiwasis were the Scheduled Tribe people. Thus, that was a very comprehensive work. In addition, after I had finished my posting there in Europe, when I came back, I was already having a bunch of data on the European part. Therefore, it was easy for me to continue on the Indian side. My field part was in Odissa. Hence, I surveyed the situation of the Dalit communities, both Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in 3-4 districts of Odissa. These I traveled extensively. It took me about maybe 2 years to collect all the data. That being so, I joined for the PhD in 2015 and got my degree in 2020. It was in the thick of Covid, so I could not go to collect my degree in person because of the Covid restrictions at that time. As a consequence, the university asked me if I would be okay if they sent me the degree by post, which they did. However, I could not attend the convocation to receive my degree in person.
Anubandh: Talking about the Roma people I perhaps should also tell that I had the fortune to work in Romania for 2 years. There, I had also come across the Roma people who claim that they have a link with India.
Malay: That is right. Well, in fact Romania has the largest population of Roma in Western and Central Europe. Most of these Roma people from Romania migrated to Italy at some point of time. From Italy, they went to other parts like France, Germany. Moreover, wherever they went, they retained their own local folklore culture, religious traditions, and culture medians, all that, yet they were named differently. Roma being a general term, they were called “Sinti” for example in Germany and “Rome” in Italy and in France also they were called by some other name, and so on. But basically, they were a part of a group of people who had migrated from India, somewhere between the 9th and the 11th century, about 200 years of migration from out of India. If you want to know more about the migration pattern, they came from the northwest of India and a few from the south. These were people who were taken out by the Muslim invaders. Because Muslim invasion had started already, you know, in the 8th century. It had started already in the 7th century when the Arabs had started landing on the coast of Gujarat and there was trading going on between the West coast of India and the different Arab principalities in the Middle East. In consequence, that was an extension when we had this Muslim rulers invasion and when they left India, they took along with them a bunch of people who could be their help. You know for menial help like fixing the tanks, surrounding the horses or doing some magic, etc. Thus, these Roma people were initially trained into that and they served their masters. They started the immigration.
Anubandh: That is fascinating! Thank you. Closing on the education part, I have a question about the languages. If I am not wrong, you also learnt some French. Are there any other languages that you learnt during your career?
Malay: Besides French, I learnt a little bit of German while I was in Berlin. I tried to learn Spanish but never had an occasion to go to any Spanish-speaking country full time, so it stopped there. In Berlin, I was for three years, so I used to visit the Max Muller, the Goethe institute. I learnt a little bit of German. Nevertheless, my French, which I learnt as a compulsory foreign language, which is called the CFL. I was quite good at that. In fact, my batch of foreign students at Sarbonne, we called it “Paris V”. It still must be there. They have different campuses. Therefore, I was in Campus V and there I stood first in my class. I actually wrote a dissertation on a very intricate subject: “The resistance movement of France”, led by General de GAULLE and “The relationship between America and France”, during the initial part of the Second World War. Thus, it was a very complicated theme and I went to Normandy where the allies had landed, the American soldiers had landed. Thus, I treated the battle of Normandy also in that. In addition, the personality comparison between De Gaulle and the American president Roosevelt and all that. It was an interesting study.
Anubandh: This is amazing because I keep complaining to Professor Christopher JAFFRELOT that I don't find enough Indians who take interest in France, to reciprocate what professor is doing with India and Pakistan. Thus, I can now say that Ambassador Malay Mishra has done some work. I really look forward to speak to you in French when you are here!
Next, what I have on cards is your career in the Indian Foreign Services and the different postings you had. I think it would be a good chance also for the audience to improve upon their geography a bit. That is why I wish to share my screen so that we could visualize at least the three locations where you were ambassador. We could check those on the map. I hope you are able to see my screen.
Malay: Yes, I can see the screen. I was posted in Trinidad and Tobago. These are two islands together. Trinidad is one island and the smaller one is Puerto Rico.
Anubandh: To give the big picture, we are in the North of Latin America here, close to Venezuela. We have some French islands as well. We have Guadalupe and Martinique.
Malay: Guadalupe is a French Island. Martinique also is a French Island but other islands are all British colonies. Erstwhile British colonies. In fact, there was a very small island called Montserrat of which I was accredited. It was a British island. It (was) kind of an overseas territory of Britain. (It is still) today, and even when I was there. It did not have its full sovereignty. It is an independent island with some 50 – 60 thousand population. Therefore, I have served in big population countries and small population countries.
Anubandh: Ok, But it was in which year that you were in Trinidad?
Malay: Trinidad and Tobago, I went there in the year 2009. I was there until early part of 2013. Which means, I served about three and half years. During my time in Trinidad and Tobago I traveled vastly to other islands, which were also in my charge. Like you have just shown on the map, you see Grenada on the North. That was where I had been several times. It is a beautiful island. Then I had been to Barbados. It was not in my charge but I have been there. I have also been to ST Vincent and the Grenadines. I have been to Martinique. Dominica was in my charge, so I went to Dominica. Then, Guadeloupe I have been. I visited then Montserrat. This was besides the part of my overall territory in this region. Because of my frequent travels to these islands, I could study the island people, their mentality, the way they talk, what they grow, what they eat, their culture, the kind of dance forms and all that. Consequently, it was a very very different experience for me. The Islander experience, which was very different from the urban, you know metropolitan areas, like it is in Paris or Berlin or later on Washington DC where I spent three years. It was very very different experience. In addition, yes, Seychelles was my first posting as the head of mission. I was the high commissioner of this small island.
Anubandh: So this island is close to Somalia, and Madagascar as well.
Anubandh: Thank you. Moreover, the next country where you served is Hungary.
Malay: no next country as a High Commissioner was Trinidad and Tobago.
Anubandh: Okay.
Anubandh: When I read your biodata, you also mention that you were in charge of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Malay: Yes. I was actually in charge of Bosnia and Herzegovina as well. I used to visit Sarajevo maybe once in two months and spend some 10 days there. There they also find a good amount of Roma people in Bosnia. However, Bosnian and Herzegovina, as you know, was a breakout state from Yugoslavia. When Yugoslavia broke out, the six countries, which came out of it, you can see them all here.
Malay: As you know, the balkanization happened towards the end of the last century and it somehow continued for more than three years. There was this ethnic warfare and what we call as ethnic cleansing today. For instance, what you are seeing in Gaza. We could see similar situation in Bosnia. As you said, there are three distinct groups there. The Christians, the Orthodox people (the Russian Orthodox) and the Muslims. The Muslims are in majority there, but they are constantly, at least at that time, they were fighting for a separate state within. The Serbs, which later became Serbia, with Belgrade as the capital. Belgrade was the capital of Yugoslavia, in the breakup of Yugoslavia, Belgrade was retained as the capital and today it is the capital of Serbia. It is the largest state among all the other six states. The preeminent power, I would say were the Serbs. However, this battle between the Serbs and the Bosnian Muslims, which was basically on ethnic lines, it went on for more than three years. Until the US mediated this conflict and somehow had a ceasefire. Yet, it was a very fragile ceasefire. It stayed for some time, again broke up and again there were attacks from the Serbian side and so it went on and on till at least 2003-2004. Then Sarajevo has been a divided capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina. You will find different ethnic groups coexisting in Sarajevo. If you recall, Sarajevo was also the site from where the First World War began. Sarajevo has a historical connotation and I visited this place. I visited the actual location where the Archduke (Franz Ferdinand) was murdered and which led the war to break out between Austro-Hungarian Empire and some parts of Europe (the First World War). Sarajevo has a very rich history and it is a very interesting place. They have a very famous International film festival to which some of our Indian films also go. I participated in that film festival as the ambassador of Bosnian and Herzegovina. Thus, I love that place. There are beautiful locations there, in and around Sarajevo. Moreover, Herzegovina is a very pretty place. Most of these battles were taking place around Herzegovina and Sarajevo. Therefore, those were very rich in history for me and it was an eye opener how they fought and how they co-opted into each other's, way of life. They are now a composite group of people who are individuals.
Anubandh: I think it also needs to be told that the United States, along with the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) forces attacked Serbia in 1999, including France, which was not part of NATO at that time. France had quit (NATO in 1966) and it reintegrated it in 2009. Of course, there was (a huge) violence and there was a conflict, nevertheless, it seems that the accusations of ethnic cleansing were exaggerated. There were not concrete evidences to it. (It was something similar to) the way we know now about the (alleged) presence of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. I happened to visit Kosovo where you have the largest military base of United States (outside USA). I could see Bill Clinton’s statue there and I was really surprised. Therefore, it is a complicated history. There are claims and counter claims. Yet, it is interesting to see how in the heart of Europe, you have a very different set of countries and they are (geographically) close to Europe, yet (they are) very different. In some aspects, they quite resemble to India.
Malay: Let me (as well) add to what you said. The very breakup of Yugoslavia was on ethnic lines. Each of these six countries have predominant their own population, their own citizens who refuse to coexist with the Serbs. Therefore, that was the main reason. In addition, Marshal (Josip Broz) TITO was then the head of Yugoslavia. He had formed the Non Alignment Movement along with (Jawaharlal) NEHRU and other luminaries. He had given way to his successors who could not handle this pressure on an impending breakup of Yugoslavia. You are right in a way that the Americans had also been behind this breakup. Because they were part of that whole scheme. Ironically they came to mend and tried to terminate this long pestering dispute. Bill Clinton was the president at the time. He took a very active role in that. In fact, I encountered Bill Clinton in one of their biggest funerals which they had organized for thousands of Bosnian soldiers. They were slaughtered by Serbians in a border town. I had been once there and I happened to meet Bill Clinton. He was no longer the President (of the USA) but he used to visit every year for that commemoration. As thousands of soldiers were killed and civilians also.
Anubandh: Two things on this and then we move on because I have many questions for you on another topic. First, that both United States and NATO attacked Serbia without the consent and accord of the United Nations. Second, it seems “accidentally” they also bombarded the Chinese embassy in the capital of Serbia. Well, we will not go into that because otherwise it is an unending subject.
My next question to you is about how long is the tenure of an Indian Ambassador?
Malay: For an Indian ambassador, the normal tenure is of three years. However, it is flexible. Sometimes one spends longer period, sometimes less. In addition, in some places like Paris, I spent two years only then I was posted to Senegal where I spent two years again. Afterwards, I went to Mauritius where I spent four years. Therefore, it is not hard and fast but the average tenure is of three years.
Anubandh: So, during more than 30 years of your service you have seen different governments. You have seen the Congress governments, then the UPA governments; you have seen the NDA government under Vajpayee and now the NDA under Mr. MODI. How was that experience as an ambassador to be working for different governments of different colours?
Malay: Well, we are basically civil servants or who are mandated to carry out the foreign policy of our country. When I say that I mean to represent our country in an overseas territory whether it be an island, whether it be a big country, but we have to represent India's interests in that particular place. And all that comes with it. Which means you have to handle multifarious, not only political but also economic relations, cultural relations, diasporic relations. Basically, get across to leaders of that country, to send a message of what India is, what India can do, how we can do. We always have had a constructive attitude towards the world and wherever India has gone, it has gone through our appetites of development aid. For example, through our line of credits where we support developing countries like us in their growth process. Unlike other countries who may be having different kind of angles, India doesn't have that kind of agenda. India goes straight and builds friendships. It extends exchange aid and does other collaborations. We have this High Tech program. It is a very important program. Indian Technical and Economic Corporation program under which we send out our experts in various fields to those countries who need them. The government of India pays them while the hospitality is taken care of by those countries concerned. It is a very big global program and at the last count, I think we had about more than 120 countries where we have posted high technical experts in various capacities. Moreover, this is besides the mission, which will also have a military wing, an economic wing and a railway wing, if they are big missions. In my case, I worked more in small missions.
Anubandh: Okay. Ambassador, I have also a question from the point of view of a lay citizen. Because when we talk about a consulate, an embassy, an ambassador, there is a lot of seriousness that is attached. There is a lot of enigma, curiosity. So how is the life of an ambassador? What kind of restrictions you have to respect? Do you have a possibility of a normal life? How does it work?
Malay: First, we are all governed by the Vienna Convention in terms of our behavior part, the protocol part. And we are also governed by the Geneva Convention. These are two important conventions. Vienna Convention came first, even before the termination of the Second World War. While Geneva Convention came in the early 1950s. Therefore, these two conventions guide the life and conduct of diplomats residing outside the country. I cannot say that we have full freedom as normal citizens. We work within certain boundaries. For example, the foreign ambassador, he has the ultimate responsibility of the mission in which he is the head. Thus, any kind of disturbance inside the mission or outside the mission would reflect on the personality of the master, that he has not been able to function properly. Consequently, my approach has always been a very coordinated and transparent approach. I always delegated many tasks to my subordinates, this way there is some kind of a group working together. Moreover, everybody feels responsible. That has been my style of working. However, there are other ambassadors, even in our service who want to take everything on themselves. Thus, when the credit comes, it goes to them and when the blame comes, it also goes to them. Nevertheless, in my kind of system, the blame often times comes to the head of mission whether you work alone or you work in a group. All the same, it was my style to work in a group, which means I used to let others also feel participating in those discussions. We had weekly discussions within the mission and how should we fan out the week and what work we should and do all that.
Anubandh: Since you also consider it important to interact with young people and you guide them, what would you say if someone aspires to become to go into the foreign services? What kind of education he or she should have? What is the age limit there? Are there exceptions or not? Could you tell us a bit about this?
Malay: The foreign services comes as part of the overall civil services examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission New Delhi, UPSC, in short. Thus, there are three categories. One is IAS clubbed with IFS and the other is IPS. And the other categories are the Centre services. So, IPS stands for Indian Police Service. IAS is Indian Administrative Service or Indian Foreign Service (IFS), both are in the same category. Because those who are high up in the merit list they can choose either IAS or IFS, depending on the preferences they had put in their application form. I chose IFS because I had always dreamt of becoming a diplomat in my life and taking a career as a diplomat. Because from the beginning of my studies I had studied international law, international relations. I researched on international relations. Therefore, I always had an outgoing temperament within myself. Therefore, I thought if I joined the Foreign Service and if I were lucky, then I would have an opportunity to see the world, to see different cultures, which I did. I navigated various cultures, in various parts of the world through my career as well as it my own interest. As you said, I have visited 80 countries. That is true, because 80 countries big and small, as part of my life has been a very big credit to me.
Anubandh: But sometimes we see in different ministries, you know, be it a BJP, a Congress or any other government, there are some ministers who are parachuted. Thus, are there also such instances where people have been parachuted into foreign services? As ambassadors or as the foreign ministers?
Malay: Yes. At one time, there used to be a lateral entry. We had taken some ambassadors in the past even from the army. However, most of them have been phased out now. There was a move by the MODI government to take lateral entries into various services. There have been efforts by the government to laterally introduce specialists, from different branches of governance into the IAS or the IFS or other services. Thus, the idea is that you get specialized domain knowledge. These are experts in their own domains. They come into Foreign Service and they can contribute in their domain, what they have achieved proficiency to the concerned service. This was not generally found favour with people who are in the service. Because they feel that, they will take away the jobs of the career diplomats, the career administrators. Therefore, it is not a very popular scheme. Somehow, even the scheme of introducing private sector people into the government was resisted initially. However, the present government, they were very keen on that. So they disallowed. At various levels, they were bringing in these people. Thus, they disallowed entry at the senior levels, joint secretaries and above. Nevertheless, even at junior levels, many people are coming. They come for a fixed tenure, like for three years and that is the mandate. After that, they have to go back to their parent service or whatever they were doing. However, in our part, we are a professional career servant so we will come as a fixed term. The way I did 37 years’ service continuously in the Foreign Services. Similarly, my batch mates have done from 35 to 40 years, depending on which year they joined. Our retirement age is 60, so the day you become 60 years old you have to superannuate.
Anubandh: As an Ambassador you are in a position of power. You are in a position of influence. I will not be surprised if you confirm that you get to meet people from business community, from political community. There could be instances of gifts, of conflicts of interest, or of perks. So, how do you handle such situations? I would say possibilities (situations) where you could be lured into something of this sort.
Malay: Actually, there have been instances where a
few of our diplomats have fallen prey to such situations. The temptations are
enormous. As you well said when you are abroad, there are many kinds of people
coming and wanting to meet you with their own interest. You have to filter out
within your mind. You have to apply your
mind that why is this person asking me to do this. Again you have to go back to
the fact that, does it serve our country's interest? For example, an
industrialist comes to you and he wants to invest in India and he has got money.
You are not generally asking him in the beginning where did you get that money?
We do not much bother about that money is from his own account or from others
account. He says I want to put a certain amount of money and (perhaps) build an
industry in India. We will see if that industry favours India's growth. We will
send a message to our government if that is okay for them. The background check
is done by other agencies, not by us. However, we oversee that because we are
there on the spot. There are certain very tricky situations as well, as you
very rightly said. One has to navigate between these sometimes-embarrassing
situations. However, mostly in my career I have seen that if you are
straightforward and if you are honest with yourself, you can overcome the
situations very well.
Anubandh: Yes. I was about to say that personal convictions, integrity are the values which are important in such kind of jobs.
Malay: Yes.
Anubandh: In your career, who do you look as someone as a role model, as a diplomat, as an ambassador or a foreign minister? It could be from India or some other country. What kind of qualities does such a person personify?
Malay: The first quality you look for is the leadership quality. It could be an Indian or it could be a foreigner. Somebody who has instilled leadership quality in his people, in his nation. Let us say, I just give you out a name like (Nelson) MANDELA. Let us say MANDELA he is a perfect example of what leadership quality would mean by. For me, Mahatma GANDHI has been a forbearer of my inspiration. I have taken GANDHI along with me. I believe in the Gandhian principles of truth and nonviolence. I exercise that in my life. It is not theory for me. I exercise that.
Anubandh: But sticking to the foreign services, which
example you could give us as a foreign minister or a diplomat? Who comes to
your mind?
Malay: Well, yes you have. I have a few senior colleagues who were very good in the jobs. Initially, my first ambassador was one Mr. (Maharaja Krishna) RASGOTRA who was my ambassador in Paris, during my first posting. He was an exceptional ambassador and he handled (well). You see, those old-timer ambassadors and there were quite a few of them who were appointed by Jawaharlal NEHRU, our first Prime Minister, personally. They were men of immense integrity and immense honesty. They were chosen because of that. KR NARAYANAN, who rose to be the President of India. He is a role model. Because, although he came from a backward caste, he could rise up to the top. He was also a diplomat. I can give many such illustrious names. From outside (India) as well, we have seen so many other diplomats who played a part. (Henry) KISSINGER is one. I mean he has certain flaws in his character but in terms of diplomacy, he was solid. He worked for his country's interest all the way.
Anubandh: I have now two questions and I would club them together. Which period would you consider as a golden period of Indian diplomacy? And perhaps you could also identify a period of difficulty for the Indian diplomacy. How would you distinguish these two?
Malay: I would rather answer this question by saying the (different) phases of diplomacy in India. The initial phase was NEHRU’s period of diplomacy where he kept foreign ministry portfolio to himself, besides being the Prime Minister. Thus, that was one phase where India was clearly going into this broad movement of non-alignment. That was an ideal phase where India’s image in the so-called Third World grew, above its capacity. India became the role model for many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Because India’s Independence triggered the decolonization movement. Therefore, I would say this initial period was the period of India's beginning of her foreign policy. (In fact), even before the independence, Congress had a foreign policy and Congress had taken certain stands, which in the post-independence period Mr. NEHRU took it upon himself. We became part of and we agitated against apartheid. We are among the first countries to take the issue of apartheid in South Africa to the United Nations. We are among the founding members of United Nations. We were also one of the founding members of the British Commonwealth. After we got our republic - our separation from Britain - we chose still to be a member of the Commonwealth. Those were the good heady days of India's foreign policy. That was one phase. I am just giving you the main periods. Then comes Mrs. Indira GANDHI’s phase. Of course, Lalbahadur SHASHTRI came for a little period. He also had a very bold leadership. However, he exited very soon. Then comes Mrs. Indira GANDHI’s. Her period was a period of very strong foreign policy and we had to handle Pakistan. She was also a part when Pakistan broke up and Bangladesh was born. At that time, he USA was very close to Pakistan. Pakistan was in their camp. In addition, the seventh (USA) Fleet had come very close to the Bay of Bengal. They were threatening India that they may even come and fight the Bangladeshi Mukti Vahini, who had been trained by the Indian Army. Yet, Mrs. Gandhi stood her ground. She was very firm. At that time, (Richard) NIXON was the president of USA. (Both) NIXON and (Henry) KISSINGER were virulently against India and to Mrs. GANDHI. Nevertheless, she fought her way and Bangladesh did become independent on 6 December 1971. Of course, now there is turbulence in Bangladesh. The wheels are being turned back again. However, India had a very warm and cozy relationship with Bangladesh, following its liberation. This is one (particular) phase. Then came the phase of P.V. NARASIMHA RAO. That is a very significant phase because that was where the entire paradigm of India was changing as the world's paradigm was changing. We had globalization, we had liberalization. Our rupee had fallen. We had to borrow money. We had to keep our gold as deposit in the bank of England to get money. That was a very lean period for the Indian economy. In spite of that, Mr. NARASIMHA RAO and Dr. Manmohan SINGH, his finance minister, pulled up India by liberalizing many things. By integrating India into the global economy. That was the biggest thing, which happened. In addition, that led to many changes during Mr. NARASIMHA RAO’s time. He went to China. He opened a negotiation process with China. Special representatives were appointed on both sides to handle the border management. He recognized Israel. Earlier, there was an Israeli representation only in Mumbai. There was a consulate of Israel there. However, we had state-to-state relationship during Mr. NARASIMHA RAO’s tenure. Moreover, Mr. NARASIMHA RAO visited USA. That is the beginning of what we call the India-US bonhomie, which started from that time. In addition, the one that Dr. Manmohan SINGH carried further. It was during Dr. Manmohan SINGH’s time that you had this civil nuclear agreement in 2008 (with the USA). The ABC agreement and all that happened. India became apart despite its two nuclear explosions. The second one was clearly (quite) bitter, during Atal Bihari VAJPAYAI’s time in 1998. This was when India was castigated throughout the world, particularly from developed countries, because they did not want to have India nuclearized. Nevertheless, we could still get our ground. Atal Bihari VAJPAYAI was another leader who stood his ground. Mr. Jaswant SINGH was his Foreign Minister at that time. He sent Jaswant SINGH to various parts of the world, including to the USA. He had long; I think 15 or 16 bilateral sessions with Mr. Strobe TALBOTT, his counterpart in the US administration. The Strobe TALBOTT - Jaswant SINGH talks broke the ice in India-US relations. After that, it was more a sailing and even many Americans thought that India would be a good strategic partner for USA. This (momentum) discontinued.
Anubandh: But how do you assess the last 10 years of the Indian government, under S. JAISHANKAR and Mr. Narendra MODI?
Malay: Well, Mr. MODI came on the plank of anti-corruption. As the UPA-2 was marred in corruption. He came with 12 years of experience as the Chief Minister (CM) of Gujarat. When he came, he showed a lot of promise. He said that we would get the Gujarat model, which was according to him, a perfect model of communal harmony, of development, of industrial, economic, social capital. He said that this model would be well suited to India.
Anubandh: Sorry to interrupt. However, I mean his foreign policy.
Malay: His foreign policy. We found that Mr. MODI follows a very personalized foreign policy. He has a Foreign Minister, no doubt, my good friend S. JAISHANKAR. Yet, I know what happened was that the Prime Minister's office, what we call the PMO, took center stage in terms of formulating India's foreign policy. The decision making in India's foreign policy, was somehow taken over by the PMO. The foreign ministry, the external affairs ministry was left to execute that policy. There has been a good rapport between our earlier foreign ministers, Mrs. Sushma SWARAJ and Mr. MODI. However, they fell out. After some time, there were some problems. Then came S. JAISHANKAR. His equation with Mr. MODI has been very good. The chemistry is good. He carries out the task, which Mr. MODI has given (to him). However, the difference now in MODI's foreign policy, on which many books have been written, is that it is more of a personalized foreign policy. It is more of a “touching my heart” foreign policy that Mr. MODI goes around. He has visited more than 60 odd countries by now. He travels far and wide. Wherever he goes, he tries to get a personal report with the leader of that country. Through him, he then makes further in roads on how to protect India's interest. And how to go after that.
Anubandh: I have some comments about India's foreign policy. I would like you to confirm or reject what I am going to say. In recent years, I somehow think that with this stress on India being a “Vishwaguru” (Master of the World), India being the mother of democracy and all these high, tall claims that we have seen in the last few years. To me, it is a sign of insecurity where you really wish that you are heard and that your importance is recognized. I see it in contrast with what China is doing with its foreign policy. We know that they concentrated on the economic development, not just within China but when they had surplus money, they invested it in different countries in the world including Europe, South Africa. In particular Africa and Asia. Once they became strong enough, and it is only now that we see China is everywhere. Even in the (recent) deal with Iran. They also (mediated) in the Israel conflict, in the Ukraine conflict. China has a say. They do not have to claim and go overboard. Thus, I see this as a contrast and I believe it is somewhere related to an inherent insecurity. Do you agree?
Malay: To some extent, I agree with you. It is not exactly insecurity but I think a kind of self-importance, which Indian leadership has given to itself. Because we always had a very high moral ground. We started with Mr. NEHRU where our Non Alignment policy, which is still here. It is only Non Alignment 2.0. The so-called strategic autonomy, which we often talk about in foreign policy, is nothing but an enhancement of Non Alignment. As our idea is that, we are not aligning with any country but we are looking at our own national interest to befriend various countries in the world. Where we try to be equally friends with Russia or USA or China, depending on what our national interests are. Therefore, our foreign policy is operating in this paradigm. This “Vishwaguru” thing, it has a recent coinage. It came, I think in second phase of Mr. MODI's government, post 2019. Then Mr. MODI was elected the second time. It came more and more. It was heard more and more. Basically to satisfy your domestic constituency. All the supporters of MODI. It had some kind of, let us say Hindu touch in that. That Guru, is typically a Hindu word. That you are the master. You are the master of the world! This talk about being the “Vishwaguru”, that you are the master of the world, this also is part of that flow. However, I do not think people in India, currently, in contemporary scenario; they take that “Vishwaguru” thing very seriously. Thus, it became “Vishwbandhu” (Brother of the World). That “Vishwaguru” transformed into “Vishwbandhu”. The point is that India wants to be a friend of every country. We speak of peace, we speak of diplomacy. Mr. MODI went across to meet Putin, as well as Zelensky. To both, he advocated dialogue and diplomacy. Therefore, that is the approach of India. Even with China. Recently, you must have heard that famous interview of MODI in a podcast with Lex FRIDMAN. I do not know whether you have seen it. It is a three-hour plus, a long podcast. In this, he spells out various things about himself, his background and he talks about China. He talks about Trump, America and all that. He speaks very high of China. He says that we should not allow our differences to be transformed into disputes and that we should carry on. This means he says that we can be friends with China. As China is the largest trading partner. Many dependencies are there between India and China. Therefore, you should keep it going.
Anubandh: But which is kind of a surprise because there are proofs now, we know that China (recently) did encroach, and attacked and took a considerable portion of the Indian Territory (in the Himalayas). The trade balance between India and China is in favour of China.
Malay: A lot. A lot in favour (of China).
Anubandh: In spite of that, we are being hard more to
Pakistan, but with China, we seem to be accommodating, from what you just said
about Mr. MODI's comments.
I now have two examples. They are diplomatic faux pas or blunders. You will confirm if it is true or not for you. When Mr. MODI, few years earlier, went to the USA and supported Mr. Trump, saying: “Ab Ki Bar Trump Sarkar” and campaigned for him. We also saw another example when ZELENSKY went and supported Kamal HARRIS. So, how do you see this? How risky is it to go all out, go and support one candidate in a foreign country’s election?
Malay: No, in my view, it is not very correct. This entire thing which happened in 2019 in Texas where both Mr. TRUMP and Mr. MODI were going around and (saying) “Ab Ki Bar Trump Sarkar”. I think for a foreign leader to advocate openly that he is getting backed again, getting reelected, I think it was not well thought out. I think it was purely a personal initiative of Mr. MODI. I don't think the foreign office had advised, would have advised him that way. And the second year, the next year 2020, that Howdy MODI. The same thing happened, because at that time, if you recall, we had this agitation going on for citizenship. Against you know, India's stand on citizenship and disallowing Muslims from various countries (Indian) citizenship and all that. Therefore, there is a big agitation going on at the time. TRUMP came in February 2020. At the height of that agitation, there was again a kind of spectacle of Mr. MODI and Mr. TRUMP going around. They went around in that stadium that is named, “Narendra MODI Stadium”. It is very very interesting that a living Prime Minister's name is given to that stadium instead of “Vallabhai Patel’s” name.
Anubandh: We are reaching the end of this interview. Since you mentioned about citizenship, my next question is about citizenship. It is about the long standing demand of the Indian diaspora regarding the dual citizenship. A lot of countries in the world do allow it. There are also certain countries which do not. However, our neighbours , for example Pakistan, Srilanka, Bangladesh,etc. they do allow and recognise it. Since in the last few years we have seen that there are more and more Indians who are leaving India for good. Some for economic reasons, some perhaps for political reasons. How important do you think it would be to consider this possibility for the Indian parliament?
Malay: There are two things here. When you say dual citizenship means you have to hold two passports. One is the passport of your own country where you are and the other a passport of the other country. This makes you a dual citizen. Our Citizenship Act does not permit giving dual citizenship to an Indian citizen. It does not. In fact, when I was in charge of the Diaspora Ministry as a joint secretory, it was called Ministry of overseas Indian affairs. (That time) we had researched a lot. We had interacted with the Home Ministry at that time. The Home Ministry was of the view that in no circumstances we can give dual citizenship to Indian citizens. Period. That was so. Thus, a via media was found out in the Overseas Citizenship card , OCI. Thus, we gave status of OCI to Indians who were in some where the other linked to India, post-independence. Therefore they could apply for OCI and they could get OCI status which is somewhat is like a green card. Thus, if you have an OCI, you are a green card holder for India. Which means your movements are unrestricted. You can come and go, except for applying for government jobs. You can study. You can have your children come and study in India. And not only you, but your spouse as well, even if your spouse is a non-Indian. She could be also be a cardholder. Therefore, this was a via media found. As we do not get full dual citizenship, we can give one and a half citizenship. Let us say it is not a full citizenship but it is a green card ship.
Anubandh: That is still a surprise for me and I am not able to understand because a lot of non-residential Indians, especially from United States supported prior to 2014 and even afterwards, Mr. MODI's (election) campaign. Financially, morally and with all possible means. Yet, it seems it was difficult for them to convince Mr. MODI and his government to grant the dual citizenship. It is not possible presently (for India) but other countries have done it. How do you explain this?
