‘Localitis’ in State Diplomacy: A Study on Cultural Immersion and its Effects on the Indian Foreign Service

Duties of an Indian Diplomat

The core duty of the Indian diplomat is to act as an agent of the Government of India through the MEA and pursue activities that will further India’s national interests. In this regard, an Indian diplomat is expected to deepen ties between India and the host country in various spheres such as politics, economics, culture, defence and other areas of importance to Indian interests. For this purpose, a diplomat is expected to use persuasive tools at his/her disposal such as soft power, goodwill, negotiation and compromise to the extent that is allowed by their diplomatic principal. Another important duty is for the Indian diplomat to be an informational outpost in their host country, which can interpret events and access information that could be beneficial to India in their relations with the host country.

In this aspect, the diplomat is expected to interpret local events keeping cultural cues and attributes in mind, to provide contextually-appropriate advice to the MEA in New Delhi. To fulfil this role, diplomats are expected to cultivate large social networks with contacts across the spectrum, ranging from influential persons in positions of power to common people, to create connections in the host country and deepen ties with the host government.

These efforts in outreach also extend to India’s diasporic communities spread out around the world who are associated with the host state in different roles. Indian diplomats perform a variety of duties aimed at the welfare of the diaspora in line with India’s foreign policy vision. These duties could vary depending on the nature of the diaspora in the host country, especially with respect to their duration of stay and the status of citizenship in the host country.

The Diasporic Connection

The Indian diaspora is one of the largest in the world whose members are spread over 130 countries (Garha & Domingo, 2019, p. 9). As a diasporic community, Indians exhibit great diversity within themselves, with different points of origin from India, varying positions of citizenship in their host countries and different histories of migration (Hegde & Sahoo, 2018, p. 1). As a result, the relationship between the Indian government and the diaspora varies on a case-by-case basis. The needs of Non-Resident Indians in the Arabian Gulf are a lot different than the needs of Indian-Americans in the USA.

Services to the diaspora include consular services like providing travel documentation such as passports, Persons of Indian Origin (PIO) cards, registering births and deaths of Indian citizens, legal aid for Indian citizens imprisoned abroad and other measures for their welfare. Indian diplomats also have the responsibility to promote Indian culture by hosting cultural events to promote different facets of Indian culture through music, dance, films and cuisine. Catering to the Indian diaspora can also include the participation of Indian diplomats in the celebration of cultural ceremonies hosted by diaspora groups, some of which are tied to specific cultural markers such as religion, language or a combination of these.

At times, services for the diaspora can take on a political dimension as well, especially in countries where persons of Indian origin have higher participation in national politics (Sreenivasan, 2012). For instance, we have seen Indian diplomats play a mediatory role in places like Fiji where there have been disputes between Ethnic Indians and the Fijian government. Indian diplomats also help the diaspora by promoting their commercial interests by leveraging host country contacts as well as promoting investments back into India by highlighting attractive schemes and programmes by the Indian government.

In turn, the diaspora also serves critical functions for Indian diplomats. Influential members of the diaspora act as the gateway for establishing contacts and networks in the host country by way of introductions and referrals. They also guide the Indian diplomat through the local cultural norms and help them ease into it. Commercial enterprises of the diaspora may be leveraged to provide services that Indian missions require abroad, which could range from something as small as catering for embassy events to arranging for big-ticket items like chartered aircraft for evacuations or even acting as interlocutors in backchannel negotiations. ⁵

As a result, the role of the diaspora in an Indian diplomat’s life is significant and is characterised by a high frequency of interactions. The frequency of interactions also mean that both groups have overlapping social circles and activities, and more often than not, there is a symbiotic relationship between the two. This would mean that the Indian diplomat is firmly rooted with co-ethnics, which also influences their socialisation process. We see this influence where, on one hand, they can enable an easier transition into local culture, and, at the same time, could provide a more sheltered environment which could reduce the onus on the diplomat to make local contacts during their tenure in a particular country.

Tenure and Specialisation

Owing to the unique rotational structure of diplomatic postings, it is a challenging task for an Indian diplomat to acquire regional specialisation at par with the diplomatic corps of other countries. Regional specialisation, if any, is acquired inadvertently due to a diplomat’s own initiative and immersion. ⁶ A tenure of 3–4 years involves an initial familiarisation of the local culture, the leveraging of new-found knowledge and networks to enhance Indian interests and cater to the Indian community present there, and, finally, preparation to take up a new assignment as vacancies arise. In this process, incoming diplomats are ably assisted by lower-tier staff who have been in the same posting for a longer time and also the local staff whose services are contracted by the mission like translators.

The lack of regional continuity in a subsequent diplomatic posting creates a challenge in terms of transition from one culture to the other because of its glaringly vast differences, which need to be adapted to. Cultural shifts of such magnitudes require a lot more work towards acclimatisation. In a relatively short term of 3 years, readjusting to a completely new environment could take up more time for cultural immersion and also leave the diplomat prone to errors since the process of assimilation also requires significant unlearning of past habits and cultural mores.

While there have been times when officers would have their terms extended in countries which are considered relatively less prestigious, as a matter of policy, the MEA rotates diplomats regularly in most other countries, owing to administrative requirements. This is also done to ensure that those diplomats in prestigious postings do not overextend their terms and keep other diplomats from accessing these postings.

Indian diplomats generally favour the term of 3–4 years since they feel that it gives them adequate time to perform their duties after acclimatisation. ⁷ Diplomats generally did not prefer longer postings in any one country because they view longer postings as a gateway to a culture of complacency, which may hurt their professional trajectories and career development. While decisions on postings are finally made by the MEA, some diplomats who are keen on regional specialisation tend to prefer that their next bilateral posting would be a country within the same region. Preferences may also vary since there may also be postings in multilateral bodies with an issue-specific focus or, at New Delhi, through Ministerial and departmental liaisons within the Indian government.

While, on the one hand, it could be argued that this rotational policy has proved to be a hindrance in the way of Indian diplomats to acquire regional specialisation which is sorely needed (Sreenivasan, 2015), it could also be argued that it is these discontiguous postings that create the psychological barrier between the diplomats and conditions that may foster negative immersion, since every new posting requires experiencing larger culture shocks and overcoming larger learning curves on local culture.

This lack of regional continuity is not known to be a deliberate measure applied by the MEA to prevent Localitis since socialisation in any culture is imminent, and these subjectivities cannot be controlled. However, there is reason to believe that this rotational policy inadvertently creates longer assimilation times and steers the diplomats towards seeking familiarity in different cultural landscapes by looking inward.

The Personality of the Diplomat

Given that diplomacy is driven by individuals, the aspect of personality also determines the socialisation process. The IFS is far from a monolith, and it consists of individuals coming from different backgrounds. Indian diplomats represent a diverse group of individuals who come from an assortment of cultural backgrounds, live in diverse communities and family styles, practise different religious and cultural practices, and are generally attuned to syncretic and heterogeneous societies.

However, they are also subject to human biases, personal interests and differential rates of cultural assimilation. Given that the scheme of entry into the foreign services is not necessarily based on willingness to serve abroad, some diplomats may be a little more resistant to immersion of the local culture to the countries they are posted to. Affinity for certain cultures and willingness to immerse in them improve outcomes for the diplomat as they are able to navigate through cultural barriers and are better equipped to cultivate networks among locals by creating favourable perceptions of the diplomat as a representative of his/her home country. Actively resisting this process may have the opposite outcome for diplomats and their performance. This also means that pre-existing prejudices, racial biases, contemptuous behaviour may significantly inhibit a diplomat’s cultural immersion.

A diplomat’s political inclinations also impact the world view of the diplomat. Informally, several Indian diplomats serving during the Cold War years were known to harbour more pro-Soviet views, owing to the politics of its times, which was complemented by prevalent ideologies of anti-imperialism and the like. ⁸ This meant that some Indian diplomats aspired to be specialists in Russia, China and the communist bloc. On a related note, this also meant that some Indian diplomats did not favour Western postings like postings to Washington D.C. or London, owing to these countries being perceived as inimical to Indian interests. When we say ‘not favour’ Western postings, it does not mean that Indian diplomats rejected or refused such postings, but that Indian diplomats often kept a psychological distance against deep immersion and were more inclined to be more cautious and selective in their interactions with their hosts.

A History of Localitis

The incidence of Localitis, while not prevalent, was not entirely absent. There are accounts of India’s first-generation diplomats, who served just after independence, facing moments of questionable objectivity in their representation. One example is that of K. M. Panikkar who served as India’s first Ambassador to China. Panikkar was an academic with a great cultural affinity for China and could be considered a man who was truly immersed Chinese politics and culture. Reportedly, Panikkar would openly take the Chinese side even on matters where China posed a threat to India’s sovereignty. He earned the ire of his colleagues such as G. S. Bajpai (Arpi, 2018), who vehemently advocated against Panikkar’s very obvious China-tilt and his dangerous assessments that often advised the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s views on China.

Panikkar was not the only one who may have lost objectivity when dealing with a host country. Accounts of diplomats experiencing Localitis is also seen among officers who served in Soviet bloc countries towards the end of the Cold War, where Indian diplomats were not aligned with the view that the Soviet Union was inching towards collapse, which also reflected in their reportage to Delhi. ⁹ Panikkar’s affinity for the Chinese is seen as one of the worst cases of Localitis and is also considered one of the most damaging instances of Localitis in Indian Foreign Policy.

Accounts of diplomats having ‘suffered’ Localitis are not very common even when judged by their own colleagues. ¹⁰ Among diplomats, there is a wider margin of error when they make determinations of Localitis since erroneous characterisation of the degree of a colleague’s could land that colleague in trouble when it could very well be a misunderstanding or miscommunication.

Human Biases and Subjectivities

Subjectivities are an inevitability in a people-centric profession like diplomacy. While the diplomat frequently interacts with headquarters, diplomats are given a wider latitude to operate autonomously based on their best judgement of their circumstances and their perceptions. Much like diplomatic services around the world, the IFS operates on a decentralised basis where they receive broader principles and objectives from headquarters in Delhi, while details of its operationalisation is left to the diplomat on the ground. The job of any diplomat is to further and strengthen relations between the sending state and the host state and, to that end, must adopt a cordial and friendly approach to the furthest extent possible.

On the one hand, it is a difficult task to keep track of every development occurring in every diplomatic mission, much less in a service like the IFS, which operates over 190 missions around the world. The functional autonomy given to diplomats abroad is both a functional necessity and a reflection of the reality that headquarters does not have the capacity to influence all decisions and exercise micromanagement, which is neither possible nor effective.

On the other hand, decentralisation means that there is limited cross-referencing of a diplomat’s reportage and analysis of local events of importance to Indian interests. On their end, diplomats strive to ensure objectivity in their reportage, which is ultimately also influenced by their cultural immersion and the sources they are exposed to in the host country. Diplomats also have to deal with other problems in reportage, like complexity of events in host states, leading to higher prediction errors, ‘black swan’ events which are least predicted, a diplomat’s misreading of local nuance and culture, and other related problems. Accuracy errors in reportage could be misunderstood by headquarters as Localitis, especially if the reportage could be seen as favourable to the host country in general.

Perceptions at the level of headquarters also need to be understood in a similar vein. While diplomats on the ground make their analysis based on their host state as a unit of analysis, the MEA is more inclined to read the situation based on regional units of analysis, based on a mosaic of reportage from all their missions in the region. The MEA may not always be in a position to appraise every source that shapes the diplomat’s perceptions and, subsequently, their analysis.

On an analytical level, this becomes a question of intensive versus extensive sources, and a state versus regional level of analysis. Invariably, larger regional plays may affect individual countries in the process. For example, when India considers its relations in the Middle East and chooses to engage further with Saudi Arabia over Iran, it may undermine the work of the Indian mission in Tehran and, by extension, a diplomat’s progress with the Iranian government that would now contend with lesser access to power centres and lower social capital in the diplomatic community. It is also in the diplomat’s interest to elevate the prestige of their mission by increasing the host state’s importance to Indian foreign policy through intensified engagement (Faizullaev, 2006, p. 508). In such a scenario, a legitimate question would be whether any frustrations exhibited by the Indian mission in Tehran would constitute a demonstration of Localitis.

Adopting a favourable view of the host state is a natural mindset to adopt when the overarching mandate of a diplomat is to further ties between the two states, even during periods of hostility. The point of divergence then lies in the perception of what constitutes national interest. The diplomat may perceive furthering of national interests in the furthering of ties between the host country and India, while the MEA may see the furthering of national interests in furthering relations with one country at the cost of the said host country, creating a clash of values since both do not perceive analysis at the same levels.

At a time of great change with the coming in of the Internet and 24-h news cycles, the MEA, much like other diplomatic services, can get information on a real-time basis, even faster than their missions on the ground. ¹¹ The traditional diplomatic services of reportage and analysis are being substituted by opinions of large media and research organisations that have the capacity to produce a much faster analysis which is qualitatively satisfactory. These sources of information may provide an alternative view to the MEA as opposed to relying solely on the mission’s reportage on the ground and in that sense provides alternative perspectives to the mission’s views. Such an avenue has provided an outlet for headquarters to cross-reference the views propounded by a diplomat serving in a mission.

It is at this juncture that questions may arise about the objectivity of the diplomat on the ground. Mutually, this is also the point where the diplomat on the ground feels that the MEA does not fully appreciate the facts and realities on the ground where they are stationed.

Determining Localitis

Whether a diplomat has ‘gone native’, is usually a determination made by the MEA in New Delhi. The most appropriate authority within the MEA is the joint secretary who oversees Indian missions in their designated regions. The joint secretary is also the direct supervisor of the heads of mission on the ground and remains the best arbiter to determine Localitis since they are the first point of contact with headquarters, and their interactions are frequent enough to make accurate assessments of ‘objectivity’. Joint Secretaries can compare the opinions of missions on the ground to identify differing viewpoints, deficiencies and inconsistencies. Joint Secretaries use this reportage in their discussions with political executives, other joint secretary colleagues and experts to give shape to the broad contours of Indian foreign policy, and to give direction for day-to-day diplomatic business through the Indian missions.

A joint secretary is usually an experienced Indian diplomat with experience of several years and fully understands the challenges associated with the job of an ambassador. The joint secretary therefore relies on their experience and instincts to see whether a diplomat remains objective and even-handed in their analysis.

The primary method by which Localitis can be determined is when Joint Secretaries review memos and diplomatic cables sent back to Delhi, which provide analysis of the situation on the ground and its implications for India. In this, the joint secretary tries to read the tonality of the document, the variation of their views from experts and also other diplomats in the region. The joint secretary also takes into account dissent expressed through the diplomat’s disagreements on foreign policy proposals, the nature of this disagreement and, wherever possible, the emotional charge associated with it.

The joint secretary also provides direction to the ambassador based on the ambassador’s own reportage and inputs from other states in the region, keeping in mind the larger geopolitical context and strategic goals. In fulfilling this role, the joint secretary is also expected to moderate the various positions and act as a bridge between all parties to operationalise the analysis from the ground into actionable tasks ahead and to frame priorities for foreign policy. ¹² Joint Secretaries also act as a cushion between upper management and the diplomat on the ground, often putting local reportage of the diplomat into context for the Foreign Secretary and political executives.

Diplomats also rely on their peers within the service to hold each other accountable. While this is not a formal instrument to bring about accountability or control, it has persuasive value and acts as critical feedback. The compact size of the IFS cadre along with their highly restrictive mode of entry into the services means that the IFS is a more tight-knit community in comparison to bigger diplomatic corps of other states.

It must be noted that a ‘diagnosis’ of Localitis has a fairly high threshold of evaluation. Most diplomats acknowledge that allegations like these could be attributed to misreading or misunderstanding the facts on the ground. Diplomats have noted instances where some actions by diplomats on the ground have been misconstrued as diplomats having ‘gone native’, and such charges may have undesirable effects for a diplomat’s career in the Foreign Service. Some of these instances include delegations visiting from India, most of whom are not trained in diplomatic life and protocol, complaining to the MEA about diplomats ‘going native’. ¹³ Such instances demonstrate to us the dangers of misunderstandings when it comes to such assessments because such allegations border on accusations of disloyalty, with such narratives having the potential to harm diplomatic careers.

Localitis As a Non-Issue

In the realm of Indian Foreign policy, it can be safely said that there is little fear of diplomats ‘going native’. For one, the advent of the communications revolution that has facilitated real-time two-way communication between the diplomatic mission and the home country has created a feedback loop, which allows the diplomat to access the views of the headquarters and vice versa. Globalisation has brought about a homogenisation of culture, which has led to aspects like Foreign Language Training to be less important than it once was, since English as a link language between diplomats has become prevalent. These have acted as moderating influences on a diplomat’s socialisation process.

Inadvertently, the MEA’s rotational policy creates a psychological barrier to immersion as diplomats tend to have postings that are culturally discontinguous and require a longer immersion period.

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence concerning Localitis as a non-issue is the fact that no diplomat acknowledges that they indulge in any form of self-censorship during their reportage and analysis to headquarters. This candour indicates that they are not scared of being perceived as sympathetic to local interests when necessary, and that they trust their superiors to not misinterpret their comments and reportage.

The discussion on Localitis as a non-issue serves a few purposes. For one, it demonstrates that fear of a diplomat ‘going native’ may be an outdated concept whose fears may be rooted in ethno-centricism and an irrational fear that exposure to foreign cultures may corrupt one’s own. When we see that expressions of Localitis is a matter of perspective, its treasonous undertones have very little evidentiary basis, and it could potentially be used as a weapon to malign well-intentioned diplomats reminiscent of the McCarthyism in the USA during the 1950s.

Second, Localitis as a non-issue also negates any argument against the prospect of regional specialisation, which might claim that staying in any one region may create conditions of Localitis. While this may be true for long terms. which may be in excess of 5 years, the same cannot be said about terms that last 3–4 years. It also discounts the fact that national cultures have their own distinctions despite their similarities with cultures of nearby states, which would require time for immersion. Staying within the region may give the diplomat a better edge in grasping the basics rather than completely starting from scratch in a state that looks completely different than the last posting. In the case of the IFS, the problem of discontiguous postings will continue till the size of the corps is not increased along with specialised positions in diplomatic missions. Having higher numbers of vacancies also allow for the flexibility of having diplomats serve longer in more isolated posts if they want to specialise.

Currently, Indian diplomats are expected to wear many hats, including political, commercial, cultural and administrative work, a lot of which requires specialist expertise developed in-house. The expansion of the diplomatic corps has been a long-standing recommendation by several scholars and policy experts. Indian diplomats currently are considered overworked and stretched thin, which invariably means that there are few postings to begin with and, therefore, even fewer positions to rotate out of, ensuring that the discontiguous postings will continue as a structural problem.

On this basis, it could be well argued that the sole raison d’être of maintaining a diplomatic mission abroad is for diplomats to have a more nuanced view, which accounts for local sensibilities. Objectivity then renders itself irrelevant since the analysis would have no value added and would be indistinguishable if it was written at headquarters without information from the ground. An alignment with an objective standard merely creates incentives for diplomats to self-censor, create prediction errors and reduce the morale of the diplomatic corps.

Immersion as a Function of Foreign Policy Decision-making

Given the polarity of circumstances, there will always be a conflict where, on one hand, the diplomat on the ground perceives and analyses the situation with a local lens, but does not always have the big picture laid out by the MEA, and, on the other hand, the Ministry, in its broader frame of mind, will miss out the subtleties involved in different cultures, leading it to make suboptimal choices on a bilateral level.

Ultimately, the diplomat’s assessment is the most authoritative source for the MEA to rely on while taking foreign policy positions. A diplomat’s assessment is called into question only when it is inaccurate, which may prompt questions of objectivity. The ability of a diplomat to provide accurate reportage and analysis is no longer as prized as it was in the yesteryears, owing to competing sources like international media and think tanks. This does not mean that the diplomat’s job has been rendered unimportant or that analysis by media and think tanks has replaced the analytical and reportage duties, especially since the diplomat is the best source to parse through the deluge of information, collate insights from insiders and report back directly on how events may influence Indian national interests and make suitable recommendations.

This aspect generates two important questions. For one, is it incumbent on a diplomat on the ground to be ‘objective’? Second, what is the standard of objectivity and how do we measure it?

On the examination of the question of whether it is incumbent on a diplomat on the ground to be ‘objective’, it could be argued that it is an unrealistic standard to attain, given that it varies in perspective depending on how one sees it, and given the number of actors involved in foreign policymaking, such a standard may straitjacket a state’s options. It is beneficial, then, for a diplomat to fully immerse in the local culture and go native to the extent that is possible, to see how their hosts think and perceive the world. While foreign policy decision-making cannot be dictated by the views of the diplomat on the ground alone, deprivation or dismissal of such a view on the basis of objectivity results in a valuable insight lost due to artificial concerns like adherence to the view from Delhi.

On the question of defining a standard for objectivity in the diplomatic realm, it could be described as the closest adherence to the foreign policy objectives and principles outlined and mandated by the MEA. Given its rather broad mandate and the subjective factors that shape it, an argument could be made that objectivity is what the diplomat makes of it. In this respect, anything a diplomat does to further relations between India and the host state, which they perceive to be favouring India in either the short term or the long term, could be considered fulfilling the mandate set out to them. The variance between the diplomat on the ground and the policymakers in Delhi is only a matter of differing spatial and temporal perspectives. Quantitative metrics to measure objectivity then becomes a fruitless endeavour.

Accuracy errors in prediction could also be attributed to an incomplete or inadequate process of socialisation. There is no reason to believe that ‘objective’ analysis, which conforms to views of headquarters, is more accurate. All assessments must comply with the same burden of proof. Diplomats advocating in favour of their host countries adds to the richness of the discourse within the Indian foreign policy-making apparatus. Consensus-building based on these diverse views and opinions can bring about a balanced foreign policy. India’s pursuit of strategic autonomy and balance requires this kind of diversity in foreign policy discourse, especially by its practitioners. Where shifts in foreign policy may upset certain states, inability to decipher the emotive root of the problems will limit India’s ability to diagnose and find alternatives, for which cultural immersion can play a key role.

Ministerial Take

There is little evidence to suggest that Localitis is a widespread problem within the IFS as a corps. There is no training module for Indian diplomats that specifically addresses the problem of Localitis although trainees are advised against ‘undue influences’ from elements in the host country. This is mainly aimed towards specific host state-induced influences and concerns of espionage and does not necessarily emanate from fear of cultural assimilation as it were.

The informal peer review set-up of fellow diplomats and the supervision of the Joint Secretaries, who are more than familiar with the process, act as effective moderating influences. Mild influences of Localitis have been noticed, but even those who notice it do believe that, more often than not, it is merely a matter of perspective.

On the contrary, decision-makers in foreign policy are worried about the opposite problem, which is that diplomats hold back on their cultural immersion in the countries that they are posted to, resulting in unlived potential and the inability to access wider networks of contacts and influence. This problem was echoed by the Parliamentary Committee on External Affairs, which noted in its Seventeenth Report (2017) in its concerns about the linguistic skills of its diplomatic corps where it said:

There is considerable anecdotal evidence of Indian Ambassadors in Arabic-speaking countries being handicapped by their lack of knowledge of Arabic, and similar examples in a variety of countries, Indian diplomats being unable to appear on television discussions in the countries to which they are accredited because of a lack of fluency in the local language, and so on.

While on its part, the MEA has emphasised on further training, including refresher courses and mid-career training, a question does emerge as to whether the inception of the problem comes from a lack of general unwillingness to engage in foreign culture and whether this forms a trend of general apathy, which maybe a more complex problem to address. While there can be remediation for a lack of language skills, it could be a far more challenging problem for any diplomatic corps to address the lack of interest in engaging in a foreign culture on a large scale.

There are emerging concerns within the Indian diplomatic community that newer generations of diplomats are increasingly looking inward and are more resistant to engage in cultural immersion, which is also increasingly being linked to the ‘drop’ in quality of entrants into the IFS (Parliamentary Committee on External Affairs, 2017).

A Case for Localitis

If the fear of Localitis was about a diplomat going native and being overly enthusiastic about the host country rather than their own, a bigger fear is that of not engaging with the host country and its people. After all, the idea of representation and having a diplomatic mission is about outreach and generate goodwill through positive interactions. Diplomatic missions led by inward-looking diplomats is a negation of the very purpose of a diplomatic mission.

Diplomats who are not very enthusiastic in engaging with the local culture is not a phenomenon unique to the IFS as it is naturally faced by diplomatic corps of other countries as well (Malone, 2012, p. 227). First, the idea of learning the local language is no longer given as much priority as it once used to, given the growing prevalence of English as a global business language and as a bridge to various cultures (Munat, 2005). Second, diplomats posted to any country often have the choice of remaining within a tightly knit diplomatic circle, which includes diplomats from other countries and select local contacts mostly consisting of national elites. With such an alternative being available and also more appealing, diplomats may not find it worthwhile to expend more time in public outreach when a closed circle like this provides adequate information.

At a time when most Indian missions are stretched thin when it comes to manpower, diplomatic personnel have to prioritise making contacts among people who are most useful to Indian interests abroad, which invariably consist of members of the Indian diaspora and national elites consisting of politicians, business leaders and the like. Diplomats may consider that national elites are increasingly global citizens, and that the cultural gap between them has reduced, especially since many of them may already have substantial interests outside the country through education, business or other links. Cultural immersion is still important, perhaps even more so when outreach is targeted, as national elites cannot be divorced from their national culture, and influences like Westernisation and globalisation cannot be taken for granted.

Misreading cultural nuances can have disastrous consequences, and where making impressions is now concentrated only on a few, getting it wrong can have cascading effects without being able to balance it out among a larger audience. A diplomat’s inability or unwillingness to engage in local culture results in unrealised potential as it may play out in the diplomat’s analyses, which could be lacking in contextual depth. This results in analysis, which may be superficial or even worse, misleading. Unwillingness to immerse has the potential to create erroneous perceptions of the diplomat as being hostile to the host country, which is mostly not the case.

But a more likely consequence is that of indifference by the host state, which defeats one of the primary purposes of setting up a mission in the first place. Any notion of a diplomat being hostile or indifferent to the host state creates a self-fulfilling prophecy with a shrinking network of contacts, which leads to lesser importance, and it goes on. It could also be particularly damaging if such behaviour would be transposed as a community trait, furthering ugly stereotypes and xenophobia, which is a possibility since a diplomat is a representative of the nationals of the sending state and acts as a figurehead of the community. For an Indian diplomat, dispelling any notions of community inwardness becomes even more important, given the size of the diaspora and the kind of prejudices they face around the world, especially on questions of assimilation (Carsignol, 2014).

One of the biggest purposes of a diplomatic mission on the ground is to have access to large networks that can further the national interests of the sending state. Effective networks are characterised by its diversity, and it does not necessarily have to be elite-dominated. Less-immersive diplomats are doomed to have fewer sources, such as diplomats of other countries, small sections of local elites and direct governmental contacts. Diplomatic activity is likely to be limited to more formal aspects without significant room to expand the scope of relations through informal engagements. This can prove to be a setback, especially since the scope of diplomatic actors has widened to include a much larger range of non-state actors.

Where trade promotion is a fundamental purpose of setting up a diplomatic mission, larger local networks become even more important for the interests of the sending states. Smaller commercial enterprises often rely on their country’s diplomatic networks to further their business prospects since they may not have the necessary resources to invest in independent large-scale marketing and advertising. Smaller networks for a mission then lead to suboptimal performances in trade promotion. Such a problem is also applicable to specialised trade offices and not limited to embassies/High Commissions or consulates.

Diplomats who were interviewed for this article cited several instances where influence with local contacts and networks has even proved crucial for the protection of life and property of the Indian mission there. ¹⁴ For a country which is not financially as endowed as bigger countries like the USA, leveraging India’s soft power and its good offices becomes even more crucial for the work of its diplomatic missions.