Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent criticism of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) was not merely an expression of frustration. It was a warning that India’s diplomatic establishment must adapt to a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape or risk falling behind.
The appointment of Dinesh Trivedi as India’s Ambassador to Bangladesh, an assignment he assumed last week, appears to reflect that thinking. It signals a preference for strategically driven choices at a time when India’s foreign policy priorities are becoming more complex and demanding.
Also Read
At the centre of the debate is a perception that parts of the diplomatic machinery remain overly cautious, process-driven and focused on protocol. Diplomacy, critics argue, has too often been reduced to a cycle of meetings, receptions, cultural engagements and carefully choreographed public appearances, useful as these may be.
The real test of diplomacy lies in securing influence, opening markets, building strategic partnerships, shaping narratives and advancing national interests. In an era of intense geopolitical competition, countries cannot afford diplomats who merely report developments. They need diplomats who help create them.
The government’s emphasis on “Smart Power Diplomacy” is meant to do just that. The expectation is that Indian diplomats will work beyond traditional babu silos, forging links across government, business, technology and security sectors to deliver tangible outcomes.
The message from the top is unmistakable. India’s rise demands a more agile and proactive diplomatic corps. The era when protocol could substitute for strategy is ending. What matters now is not how many events are attended, but what national objectives are achieved.
Who’s in running for NITI Aayog CEO?
The search for a new Chief Executive Officer of NITI Aayog appears to be gathering pace. Although no formal announcement is yet in sight, conversations in babu circles suggest that Madhya Pradesh Chief Secretary Anurag Jain has emerged as the leading contender for the post.
The position has been vacant since BVR Subrahmanyam completed his tenure in February 2026. Since then, senior IAS officer Nidhi Chhibber has been holding additional charge as CEO while continuing in her substantive role as Director General of NITI Aayog’s Development Monitoring and Evaluation Office (DMEO).
The Centre is understood to be keen on appointing a full-time CEO sooner rather than later. With a growing emphasis on policy execution, outcome monitoring and Centre-state coordination, the government’s premier policy think tank is expected to play an even more consequential role in the years ahead.
Among the names doing the rounds, Jain appears to have an edge. Over a career spanning both state and Central assignments, he has built a reputation as a hands-on administrator with a strong grasp of infrastructure planning and technology-driven governance. His role in driving the PM Gati Shakti National Master Plan, one of the government’s most ambitious infrastructure integration initiatives, is widely seen as a major plus.
That said, Chhibber remains very much in the reckoning. Currently serving as Secretary in the Ministry of Food Processing Industries, she brings considerable experience in public policy, governance, and programme evaluation. Her earlier stint at NITI Aayog as Additional Secretary and Adviser gives her an insider’s understanding of the institution and its workings.
The appointment is not merely about filling a vacancy. As NITI Aayog takes on a larger role in monitoring implementation, coordinating with states and helping steer the Viksit Bharat agenda, the choice of CEO could offer important clues about the government’s priorities for the next phase of governance.
A reality check for India’s Maharatnas
For decades, the Maharatna status has been the closest thing India’s public sector has had to a hall of fame. Once a company made it to the top tier, the honour seemed secure, almost permanent. Not anymore.
The Centre has reportedly given BHEL and SAIL a year to get their numbers back on track or risk slipping from Maharatna to Navratna status. The problem is not size or relevance. Both remain industrial heavyweights. The issue is profitability, a key criterion for retaining the coveted tag.
The government appears to be saying that Maharatna status is not a lifetime achievement award. It is a performance benchmark. That distinction matters. Maharatna companies enjoy greater financial freedom, including the ability to make larger investments without running to the government for approvals. Losing that status would mean more oversight and less room to manoeuvre.
There is, of course, another side to the story. BHEL and SAIL operate in sectors where market cycles, government spending and global conditions can dramatically affect results. Judging them solely by profit figures risks overlooking their wider strategic role in the economy.
Even so, the broader principle is hard to argue with. Autonomy without accountability eventually becomes entitlement. If special privileges are to continue, performance must remain part of the bargain.
The real significance of the move lies beyond the fate of two PSUs. It marks a subtle but important shift in thinking. Legacy, scale and past achievements may still count, but they are no longer enough.
