Some months ago, the former spokesperson of the Foreign Office ‘dismissed’ multiple reports of favouritism and sifarish-based diplomatic postings which almost led to an insurgency in the institution. Yet the official claim of ‘laid down criteria encompassing seniority, stability, regional expertise, diversity of experience, past performance, previous posting patterns and output in the current position of responsibility’remains superficial, as it’s common knowledge that one phone call can trump all these lofty words. And if one has nobody to make that call for themselves? Well, then they could be a grade 22 diplomat, and may have served the country well in important assignments, such as Ambassador to South Korea and Afghanistan, and still get posted to Cambodia — while watching many officers ten years or so junior in grade 20 being posted to much more important stations. On the other hand, in case of a call by the right person, someone could be sent to Muscat as ambassador, even with a below average career, and despite the fact that that someone was investigated, during a previous posting as a junior diplomat to the same country, for collecting funds from the community on spurious excuses and embezzling the same. Or a diplomat having been prematurely recalled from Moscow on disciplinary grounds and sacked from the position of Chief of Protocol because of serious allegations could be sent to Brussels as envoy to the European Union (EU), where two senior diplomats refused to serve under him and preferred to be back in the headquarters and there are many complaints him again, but have to be ignored because his backers are solid. Or a diplomat, whose earlier posing to London as a counsellor was only remarkable for the fact that the thenhigh commissioner had pulled him from the working of the mission because of unsatisfactory performance, could be posted back to London as high commissioner years later. One could go on and on with such examples. But suffice to say, the actual posting criteria in the Foreign Office these days is: ‘show me the face and I will tell you the criteria.’ But the reaction to this highhandedness has been growing on an unprecedented scale. There has been a virtual mutiny in the Foreign Office after the last posting plan for the officers other than ambassadors came out. Multiple representations have been made to the foreign secretary and the administration in a language unheard before. And some have gone viral on social media. Earlier, the previous Ambassador to Afghanistan had addressed a very strong letter to the Foreign Secretary rightfully complaining about his posting to Cambodia with no rhyme or reason, which was also splashed all over the media.Many other senior diplomats, including envoys have written to the foreign secretary protesting over the extreme highhandedness in postings. And finally, the matter of postings and appointments having been taken to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) by severaldiplomats, something that had never happened before, at least on this scale. No wonder more press reports calling for a need to reform the Foreign Office have been penned in recent times than ever witnessed, including by highly respected former ambassadors such as Dr.MaleehaLodhi. The deep-rooted crisis in the Foreign Office is not about the controversy over a dozen unfair ambassadorial postings, or a scores of other diplomatic postings. It is not even about any faux pas by its leadership. It is about the ruin of a national institution Suffice to say that while Foreign Office might have been through unenviable eras in the post, the current state of affairs is unparalleled. The deep-rooted crisis in the Foreign Office is not about the controversy over a dozen unfair ambassadorial postings, or a scores of other diplomatic postings. It is not even about any faux pas by its leadership. It is about the ruin of a national institution, which has historically performed better than many others. And one which has a critical role to play if the country has to grapple with the challenges it faces. Sadly, while the world with which the Foreign Office has dealt with, on behalf of the country, has changed dramatically, it’s still functioning with a Cold Warera thinking, with a stagnant perspective of a changing world. Equally importantly, where the institution has actually changed, it has changed for the worst — losing its internal harmony and power balance which had allowed some room for debate, critical thinking and credible policy advice in the past, besides merit-based postings to some degree. The new reality of a doormat bureaucratic head of the institution, beholden to the political master, just for being there, and for the carrot of a possible posting to Washington DC at the end of the current tenure, has robbed the institution of the balance which lent it some credibility. Many in the Foreign Office narrate stories of how he doesn’t even dare to look into the foreign minister’s eyes, what to talk of holding his own in a conversation. Important decisions are kept pending for months as the he doesn’t have the courage to discuss any subject with the foreign minister on his own initiative. In fact, in his address announcing the new secretary to the officers of the ministry, the foreign minister had proudly shared that he had picked the current foreign secretary because he waited outside his hotel room for hours while he was having a nap, during a trip to Bangkok several years ago. With its integrity compromised, Foreign Office cannot expect much role in the foreign policy making. It has only become a glorious building on the Constitutional Avenue with dignified clerks keeping busy pushing papers and writing letters or talking points for ceremonial occasions. PTI government with its agenda of change and reform has a responsibility to act and save this august institution. The way forward for that could be to make it mandatory to make all internal and foreign postings by the Foreign Office as per the laid-out policy, which is not being followed. Secondly, pay due regard to leadership qualities, besides seniority and experience, in the appointment of a foreign secretary. As used to happen in the past, two or three eligible candidates may be presented to the prime minister in person for a final selection. The next suggestion is that once a diplomat is appointed as foreign secretary, he or she should not be in line for a foreign posting at the end of the tenure, as this incentive becomes a one-point agenda for the incumbents to the neglect of everything else, compromise integrity and promoting toadyism. Crucially, institute a mechanism that would take the element of extraneous influence, arbitrariness and patronage out of the equation of ambassadorial postings, possibly by setting up a committee headed by the foreign minister,and include the commerce minister, foreign secretary, principal secretary to the prime minister and chairpersons of the foreign relations committees in the senate and national assembly. Heavyweight foreign secretaries, in the past, used to encourage debate on important policy issues through presentations and open meetings of all officers at the headquarters meetings with the foreign secretary. That was discontinued unfortunately by some insecure successors. This needs to be revived so as to give the diplomatic cadre a sense of participation and exposure and nurture talent. Prime Minister Imran Khan needs to focus on the Foreign Office’s internal mess urgently. The credibility of his agenda of change (for the better) is at stake since his party was voted into power with hopeful dreams of tangible reforms which have hardly materialised or been proposed. He mustprotect the diplomatic cadre from total degradation and degeneration before it’s too late. The writer is Associate Editor (Diplomatic Affairs), Daily Times. He tweets @mhassankhan06