Yearning for synergy

Foreign policy debate

Some wonder wistfully as to why we can’t have a system more like the US where both sides benefit from each other’s insights.

Ask almost any adult Indian about how India should deal with Pakistan and a view will be expressed, often a strong one.

It may be less definitive with the other foreign policy priorities for India -- China, America, or other neighbours -- but in general, educated Indians are not shy of a policy prescription. This is public opinion but today there is a plethora of more informed or expert opinions as well: a mix of reporters with views, informed analysts, and recognised experts with experience or domain knowledge. What effect has all this on the players and practitioners, the policy shapers and the policy makers: the political class, the negotiators, the diplomats?

Since the last decade, we are seeing a steady rise of thinktanks and institutions specialising in international relations and foreign policy. (‘IR’ as international relations is known among the academics, Area studies, and foreign policy are not all synonymous, but they form a cluster and for the sake of simplicity and brevity are considered together in this column). The striking growth in commentary and analysis on foreign affairs is to be welcomed as it mirrors India’s rising profile, range of interests and capabilities in the world today. 

From the very early years of our independence, thanks to Nehru, we have been interested in the world, have had a ‘world view’ right or wrong, and come to judgments on global issues including on those that did not concern us. Nevertheless, studying IR or analysing foreign policy was not a natural choice for bright Indians, like studying medicine or engineering. It was not a ‘vocational’ choice at all. It must be noted with satisfaction that this position has changed.

Today those familiar with this field can readily name several thinktanks or research centres dedicated in a broad sense to IR and related fields. Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) one of the first to develop a School of International Studies is now seeing its second generation of students becoming professors. Other universities like Jadavpur or Baroda have their specific IR programmes and the subject itself is coming to be accepted as a distinctive branch of  studies, though scholars may fret about the overlapping areas between international studies, area-specific studies and IR.

 Looking at institutions, the Indian Council for World Affairs (ICWA),  perhaps the first intellectual centre in Delhi focused on international issues has been revived after many years of neglect and even disrepute. It has a research agenda and a journal. The prestigious Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA) nurtured and led for many years by India’s foremost strategic guru, the late K Subramanyam, is now housed in an impressive premises and is buzzing with activity. Another trend is the corporate supported centres like the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) in Delhi and the ‘Gateway House’ in Mumbai. Multidisciplinary institutions like the Centre for Policy Research (CPR), Vivekananda Institute, have some specialists with expertise in foreign policy. Fortunately the interest seems to be slowly spreading beyond Delhi as seen in the Centre for China studies in Chennai and the Kerala International Centre.

So much for quantity and variety. What about the impact?

Pessimistic answer

Ask either the analysts or the practitioners about the synergy between the two groups and one is likely to get a pessimistic answer. Both groups will readily admit that they are professionally important for each other but having said that are likely to express disappointment about the current levels of interaction and influence. The academics feel that the practitioners are indifferent and at times even disdainful towards analysts and are reluctant to share any information with ‘outsiders.’ The ‘doers’ tend to accuse the academics of sitting in their ivory towers and pontificating without the constraints or the complexity of the real world.  Some wonder wistfully as to why we can’t have a system more like the US where both sides benefit from each other’s insights and experiences.

Even while accepting the legitimacy of such complaints, some trends in the slowly changing  equations may be noted.  First, it may be stated, however, that the US system among other factors is a result of a presidential form of government in which professionals including academics are hired by a president to executive posts for a period. This in a society with career mobility and job security enables the so called ‘revolving door’ system wherein an academic star, say, a Henry Kissinger or a Condoleezza Rice is hired for a certain number of years, serves in the government and returns to a university or vice versa. There is also a tradition of consultancies or projects funded by the government to thinktanks and the two thus working in tandem. We must also note, in passing, that despite all the advice by academics, the US on occasion makes colossal mistakes in getting the policy wrong, which raises some scepticism about the values of synergy.

The good news in India is that we too seem to be enhancing the level of engagement and interaction, however slowly. Some pointers: For the first time the ministry of external affairs took the initiative in 2011 of organising a seminar of over a 100 scholars in IR from all over India. The practitioners, and I say this as one who belongs to that group, do monitor and pay attention to the views of noted commentators and scholars. In more specialised negotiations, say climate change, WTO, or  intellectual property rights, we are beginning to see bureaucrats and academic experts working together.

There is still a great deal to be done to bring theory and practice closer in the area of IR, but much will depend on the quality of research. How we fare today in terms of quality and relevance has to be a subject for another analysis.

(The writer is India’s Ambassador in Brazil)