The cosmopolitan standard of civilization: a reflexive sociology of elite belonging among Indian diplomats.

Between them and IFS officers exists what one millennial officer called "another kind of caste system", with elite-trained diplomats largely keeping to themselves.[32] In fact, a crucial component of the declinist narrative of old-school diplomats fearing the end of an age of enlightened cosmopolitan elites is precisely that supposedly culturally inferior Indians from outside the IFS are ascending the ranks of the MEA. Diplomacy was an inherently elitist endeavour, a renowned former Foreign Secretary argued defensively - "in my time, "elite" wasn't a bad word".[87] Democratization constituted a lowering of standards, complicating the quest for recognition from fellow members of the cosmopolitan elite. The most traditional Western diplomats may have expected "the right mix of drinks, flowers, cheese", but nobody in Moscow seemed to care much for such conventions, an officer wary of his Service's cultural convictions recalled.[90] While suits may work in Geneva, in Kathmandu wearing kurtas 'made it easier to talk to the Nepalis, who were not part of the elite' of international society, one former Ambassador to both believed.[91] Even the epicentre of multilateral posturing and Anglophone socializing was less Eurocentric than IFS elites often intimated: "People in New York speak bad English!" Approximating this theoretical orthodoxy, Indian diplomats, too, occasionally tie their cosmopolitanism to abstract ideals like respect for the Other[3] or articles of liberal faith like universal human rights.[4] Yet ideal theory is not the primary modality in which Indian diplomats practise their cosmopolitanism. [Extracted from the article]