India’s ambassador to Ireland Akhilesh Mishra stirred up a row recently following his comments in a letter he had written while replying to an editorial published by Irish Times. (Photo: X/@AkhileshIFS)
In response to an Irish Times editorial on April 11 on the Lok Sabha elections, India’s ambassador to Ireland, Akhilesh Mishra, wrote an extraordinary letter carried by the newspaper on April 15. It is unprecedented in the annals of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS), especially in the context of the country amidst elections. Mishra is a secretary-rank officer and cannot be dismissed as an inexperienced official seeking to win brownie points. Therefore, his fulsome praise of the persona of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his swipe at “a single dynastic party” ruling India for the first 30 years after independence and the party’s role in entrenching an “ecosystem of corruption” was bound to become politically controversial, which it did.
The Congress has strongly objected to Mishra’s letter while the ruling dispensation has maintained a studied silence. This may be considered as part of the pull and push of the condition of India’s current electoral politics. However, beyond the political territory, Mishra’s letter raises a host of very disturbing questions that go to the core of the IFS’s ethos and the functioning of India’s institutional structures. Surprisingly, IFS’s leadership has not publicly responded to Mishra’s grave indiscretion. Nor, for that matter has the Election Commission of India (ECI). But, first The Irish Times letter and Mishra’s reply to it.
An editorial, and the rules of response
The Irish Times predicts that Modi will win a third term with a greater majority than in 2019 on the strength of his popularity and India’s economic progress. But it laments that cases have been instituted against Opposition politicians, accounts of parties frozen and curbs placed on free speech. It also notes that “Modi’s embrace of Hindu nationalism… has stoked anti-Muslim tensions” and “eroded” Nehru-inspired secularism. All this leads the newspaper to claim “India’s democratic credentials have been seriously tarnished”.
It is an Indian ambassador’s duty to refute disinformation about the country and to clarify the government’s policies. It is his/her function to project India and its constitutional foundations, functioning and democratic structures. While seeking to accomplish these objectives he/she has to ensure that he/she keeps far away from politics. This is even when he/she is a political appointee; it is certainly so when he/she is a serving IFS officer, which Mishra is.
Defend country, don’t campaign for leader
In keeping with these propositions, particularly when the country is in election mode, an ambassador must not comment on the persona of the prime minister or be critical of the Opposition. Indeed, no prime minister and certainly not one as powerful as Narendra Modi needs praise for his qualities from an ambassador. These can never benefit him politically; if anything, they can only embarrass him. Finally, it is not an ambassador’s duty to focus on, let alone, sing the praises of any faith, including Hinduism.
Mishra’s letter to The Irish Times failed on these foundational IFS principles. Mishra notes Modi’s family background and that his personal life has inspired millions of ordinary people. He also relays Modi’s leadership qualities. Instead of doing so, all that Mishra could have done was to state that Modi won decisive mandates in 2014 and 2019. That would have been a factual, unobjectionable and non-political statement.
Mishra could have emphasised that India’s concerned institutions have been taking action according to the law. That is not what he did. Instead, he commented in a political manner on the current Opposition and once-ruling party in the context of corruption. This is unacceptable. It is also not his place to propound on the virtues of Hinduism.
Mishra’s letter can be said to be directed at the Irish people and therefore not impact the Indian electorate. However, India-based personnel of Indian Missions are allowed to vote. This is in accordance with section 20 (7) (d) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1950. It entitles persons employed under the Government of India, holding a post abroad, to vote from their place of posting. The ECI has made the process of voting for them easier through the introduction of the electronically transferred postal ballot facility (ETPBS).
Undue influence
Mishra’s letter can potentially influence the political choices of officials working under him — that, no head of a government organisation is permitted to do. This should in itself make ECI take suo motu notice of his letter and find fault with it. It should also lead it to issue appropriate guidelines to Heads of Indian Missions on how to respond to criticism of the government and specifically to the policies, persona and actions of ruling party leaders once the Moral Code of Conduct becomes operational. This is all the more necessary because CEC Rajiv Kumar is on record as suggesting that NRIs should participate in elections with the introduction of ETPBS.
Eventually, it is for Foreign Secretary (FS) Vinay Kwatra as head of the IFS, to express his strong disapproval of Mishra’s letter. He would also, no doubt, have the backing of the other secretaries and senior officers to issue guidelines on how Missions abroad should respond to criticism of the government and the country once the national electoral process begins with the announcement of the polls. In doing so, FS and his senior colleagues not only do not need to but also should not seek approval at the political level.
The political neutrality of the IFS is a national asset. It has to be preserved. Mishra’s letter should serve as a warning signal. The service cannot ignore it.
The writer is a former diplomat
