Muchkund Dubey: A Scholar Diplomat Remembered (1933-2024) – OpEd
By K.M. Seethi
Diplomats sometimes find themselves fading into obscurity within the annals of official statute books, their names relegated to the routine sections that note the passing of old envoys. Their positions, both before and after retirement, determine their prominence or neglect. Those who choose to critique government policies may find themselves sidelined, their contributions and legacies overlooked in the foreign office proceedings. This mix of recognition and disregard highlights the challenging path diplomats must tread throughout their careers, especially as they transition into the twilight of their professional lives.
India’s former Foreign Secretary, Muchkund Dubey, passed away on June 26 in New Delhi, leaving behind a legacy rich in diplomatic achievements. Despite his significant contributions to shaping the nation’s foreign policy, the response from the current political dispensation was largely muted, with minimal official tributes. This reflects political differences and a careful distancing from his crucial role in previous administrations.
Dubey was a distinguished diplomat, admired for his intellectual prowess and honesty. His career exemplified a deep commitment to professionalism, truth, and integrity, even in the face of complex international challenges. His incisive analyses and principled stance earned him widespread respect among diplomats and policymakers. Whether as High Commissioner to Bangladesh or India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Dubey’s decisions were consistently guided by ethical responsibility and a profound understanding of global affairs. His legacy is that of a statesman who engaged the complexities of diplomacy with both intellectual rigor and moral clarity.
Though I was closely observing and understanding his diplomatic interventions, I first interacted with Muchkund Dubey in 1998, during the post-Pokhran-II period. This interaction took place at an event celebrating the 50th anniversary of India’s foreign policy, organized by the Kottayam IR School at Mahatma Gandhi University. Dubey, then a distinguished professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University and former Foreign Secretary, graciously accepted a role on the advisory board for the conference, though he was unable to attend in person. We kept him informed of the conference’s progress and the resulting publications. That was surely a time when his insightful perspectives and commitment to Global South issues established him as a respected and influential figure.
Dubey’s career was marked by numerous distinguished roles, including his post-retirement role as President of the Council for Social Development and professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University. Born in 1933 in undivided Bihar, he joined the Indian Foreign Service in 1957, serving as High Commissioner to Bangladesh and India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations. He also made significant contributions at the UNDP and UNESCO. Academically, Dubey held a Master’s degree in economics from Patna University and studied at Oxford and New York universities. His interests spanned international economy, trade, security, disarmament, and development, especially in South Asia and India. A prolific author and editor, Dubey significantly impacted both academic and policy-making fields through his extensive writings.
Championing the Global South Interests
One of Muchkund Dubey’s works that particularly impressed me was his book, An Unequal Treaty: World Trading Order after GATT. Published shortly after India joined the WTO in 1995, this book deeply addressed the concerns of Global South countries regarding their future in the new world trade order. Dubey’s arguments powerfully reaffirmed the sentiments of these nations, emphasizing the need to contextualize India’s Global South policy in light of the ongoing neglect of developing countries’ interests in global economic transactions and negotiations.
Dubey highlighted that despite numerous rounds of multilateral trade negotiations under GATT, Global South countries continued to face significant challenges with industrialized nations. By the time the Uruguay Round began, more than half of these countries had become dependent on developed nations, the IMF, and the World Bank. Dubey asserted that developed countries exploited this vulnerability and disunity among developing nations, successfully breaking their unity. His insights pointed to the persistent inequalities in the global trading system and the urgent need for solidarity among developing nations.
Dubey’s foresight proved accurate as Global South countries, including India, struggled to address their challenges effectively. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Group of 77 lost their effectiveness as platforms for coordinated action. Dubey noted that during critical negotiations, these groups often succumbed to bilateral pressure and abandoned their common positions. A key reason was the inability of individual Global South nations to maintain solidarity during North-South negotiations, frequently prioritizing immediate national concerns over collective interests. This lack of cohesion was exacerbated by diverse national priorities, making it difficult to resist selective pressures from developed capitalist nations. Additionally, there was a lack of understanding about the long-term implications of the negotiations, leading some nations to abandon their Global South allies, ultimately undermining the future interests of all involved.
As the 1990s evolved, India made substantial adjustments to its foreign policy, revising core principles, reordering priorities, and modifying approaches and methods. The government faced a clear choice: embrace globalization in line with the economic reform package adopted in 1991. As India integrated its economy into the global capitalist system, it became more susceptible to the influence of US-dominated international financial institutions, leading to increased dependency. This shift was largely driven by the escalating external payments crisis, which necessitated the New Economic Policy (NEP).
Long before the Final GATT Treaty was signed in 1994, India had already made significant decisions under pressure from the IMF and the World Bank. These included welcoming foreign capital, adjusting tariffs on manufactured imports, liberalizing the financial services sector, and reducing subsidies. Amendments to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) and the Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP) facilitated globalization in India. Dubey noted that this was part of a broader trend, with over 60 developing countries reporting unilateral liberalization measures to GATT between 1986 and 1994, 24 joining GATT, and another 24 in the process of accession. India’s signing of the Final GATT Treaty was in alignment with the New Economic Policy (NEP) development philosophy.
Throughout the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations, which began in September 1986, Global South countries faced considerable pressure from advanced capitalist nations such as the US, the European Union, and Japan. The negotiations expanded to cover new areas like services, agriculture, domestic investment policies, and intellectual property rights, aiming to reduce the sovereign space of Global South states. Surprisingly, India showed little interest in developing a strong negotiating position, either independently or in collaboration with other Global South countries. Dubey noted that India did not publicly take steps to renegotiate issues of national interest or rally support from other developing nations to bolster its stance.
This marked a significant departure from India’s stance in the 1960s and 1970s. The economic and communication policy changes contradicted earlier initiatives aimed at establishing the New International Economic Order (NIEO) and the New International Information Order (NIIO). The GATT Final Treaty, which became part of the WTO, introduced new dispute settlement procedures biased in favour of advanced capitalist countries, allowing them to continue exercising bilateral and unilateral options despite strict obligations. The regimes under Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS), and services posed threats to the country’s self-reliance, affecting public policy formulation in trade, agriculture, investment, and social welfare. Dubey highlighted that these regimes would severely curtail the economic sovereignty of developing countries, disrupt their development priorities, and hinder their pursuit of self-reliant growth using their own resources.
It can be seen that successive Indian governments developed a ‘consensus’ on economic reforms and globalization, often overlooking broader issues of equality and social justice. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), despite initially opposing India’s WTO membership on the grounds of compromising national independence and sovereignty, vigorously pursued neoliberal economic reforms once in power. This included structural changes in the insurance, telecom, and power sectors, as well as further liberalization of the export-import regime, following recommendations from the IMF, World Bank, and WTO.
Years later, Dubey observed that since adopting full liberalization and globalization policies in the early 1990s, India had rapidly shifted to a corporate-led development strategy. Both the current and previous governments have adhered to this strategy, with the current administration particularly eager to transfer control of the economy to the private sector, while steadily withdrawing from public services like education and health.
Dubey also noted that the multilateral world order, based on the United Nations, had inherent flaws and accumulated distortions over time. India has made significant efforts to strengthen and rectify this system, leveraging its moral and economic influence through institutions like the Non-Aligned Movement, G-77, and BRICS. However, this world order now faces an existential threat due to actions taken by the US. Dubey also criticized the Modi government for not collaborating with like-minded countries to address this looming crisis. Despite participating in numerous summits, Prime Minister Modi has not substantively addressed this critical issue with world leaders. Dubey considered this complacency a significant failure of India’s foreign policy.
A few years back, Dubey wrote that since the BJP-led government under Narendra Modi assumed power in 2014, India experienced significant degradation on multiple fronts. Minority communities, particularly Muslims, feel increasingly insecure and excluded from mainstream national life. Organized gangs, many affiliated with the BJP and its mentor, the RSS, have been harassing, terrorizing, and even killing members of these communities. Incidents of Muslims being lynched in the name of cow protection, including cattle trade and beef consumption, have become alarmingly frequent. He noted that minorities faced humiliation, physical assaults, and even death for practicing their religious rituals in public, while the majority community faces no such restrictions. The government also pursued a deliberate policy to take control of academic and research institutions, cultural organizations, and think-tanks. The aim is to align their objectives and programs with the BJP/RSS ideology and serve their political interests, he said.
Dubey’s diplomatic was career was viewed differently by various people. While some tend to see him as very tough and rough, others disagreed. For example, former diplomat Ambassador K.P. Fabian told this author that he was Joint Secretary reporting to the late Muchkund Dubey when he was Secretary (East) and later Foreign Secretary. He was “a great boss to work with.” Fabian recollected that Dubey “guided, but did not want to micromanage.” According to Fabian, “Dubey was rather workaholic and I remember that when Foreign Minister I K Gujral, Additional Secretary I P Khosla came back from Iraq on a special flight. Foreign Secretary Dubey had already prepared a draft statement to be made by EAM to the Parliament the next day. Our flight was delayed and we reached by 8 pm or so. FS insisted on a meeting in MEA making us go straight from airport. Fabian called him “a Renaissance Man who took interest in all that mattered to the human race.” Former Foreign Secretary Harsh V. Shringla lauded Dubey’s exceptional contributions, highlighting his vast literary works, profound knowledge of various subjects, and remarkable personal qualities. Shringla remarked that Dubey’s absence will be felt deeply both in India and around the world. Former diplomat Ramu Damodaran wrote that Dubey was open to fresh ideas and impatient when they were restricted. At the United Nations in 1985, as Chair of the preparatory committee for the conference on disarmament and development, Dubey confidently stated that the committee “fully discharged its mandate” and even made additional vital recommendations. He also resisted laziness and custom in drafting. As a UN delegate in the 1960s, when faced with a proposal for “men and women to be equally entitled to maternity leave,” Dubey suggested the term “parental leave,” anticipating modern terminology by decades.
In addition to his expertise in foreign affairs, Mr. Dubey was a celebrated translator and literary critic. He translated Rabindranath Tagore’s Geetanjali into Hindi in 1953 and later translated the poems of Shamsur Rahman, a prominent poet from Bangladesh. It was with his significant scholarly contributions that Dubey was awarded a D.Litt by Calcutta University in 2015. In 2017, he also translated the poems of Sufi saint Lalan Shah Fakir from Bangladesh.
Dubey also took great interest in several domestic issues, notably education. One of his remarkable accomplishments was delivering the Common School System Commission report within the deadline set by the Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. This report was a milestone in improving the conditions of school education in Bihar. Dubey’s legacy thus endures as that of an insightful and passionate development thinker, leaving a lasting impact on the field.
