NEW DELHI: Staff of the Indian embassy in a central American country faced a peculiar hassle. The Ambassador had odd working hours that stretched till three in the morning. The dozen-odd staff had no option but to stay put, throwing their lives out of gear.
This is one of the extreme examples of staff grievances which came to light through the revival of the Directorate of General Inspections (DGI), the Ministry of External Affairs’ (MEA) dedicated performance-monitoring department.
TNIE had first reported in February 2015 that reviving the inspections of missions would be one of Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar priorities. Previously, there had been only ad-hoc inspections, before DGI was formally set up in 2004. Even then due to lack of manpower, there had been no inspections from 2011 to 2014.
Currently under an additional secretary in MEA, DGI has been on a hectic regimen to achieve an ambitious target in 2015-16. “Our target was to inspect 35 missions. So far, we have completed 15,” said a senior government official.
During one such inspection in a Central American country, the MEA team found that the prevalent staff gripe was related to odd working hours. The envoy had the habit of reaching office at 4 pm and leaving at 3 am. “There were several complaints from the staff,” said another MEA official.
Staff grievances have come to light through the revival of the Directorate General of Inspectorate (DGI) of the Ministry of External Affairs’ performance-monitoring agency.
In a relatively liberal gulf country, mission officials were unhappy that the ambassador had put a total ban on alcohol usage. “Even if the host country has prohibition, it does not apply to diplomatic personnel and foreign citizens. Employees were annoyed at this diktat,” he said.
Most of the inspections had taken place in missions in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Pacific Islands. Indian embassies in Pakistan, China and Afghanistan have also undergone a thorough check.
The missions are chosen based on several factors — concerns raised by staff and members of Indian community, lack of response from local government, reporting inefficiencies and property issues. For example, the embassy in a Southern African country was selected due to almost complete “zero reporting”. “The problem was not commission, but complete omission,” quipped an official.
In an East African nation, staff complained of “concentration of powers” by the ambassador, who had received a number of ‘warnings’. Sometimes, the inspection teams ran into issues of more ‘sensitive’ nature, which required delicate handling. The wife of an ambassador in a gulf country had apparently thrown her weight around, which led to complaints from the staff.
With the Foreign Secretary directly supervising the DGI, special operating procedures (SOPs) had been drawn up to help tighten the entire method. It begins with questionnaire to the missions, which is then analysed in headquarters, followed by meetings of relevant stakeholders. “There is a lot of preparation which goes before the team actually goes into the field,” he said. At the mission, the three-member team interviews each employee, along with examination of accounts and files on reports. Before the team leaves, there is usually a feedback meeting, where the ambassador is often told candidly about what the inspectors observed.