Why is India craving for a place at the high table?

It is a shortcoming which troubles Indians even as the nation is courted by powerful world leaders, as global investors continue to be astonished by the increasing spending power of the middle class and as the nation is toasted as one of the fastest-growing economies. It’s a shortcoming which the country is almost restless about.
Why does India fail to attain the exalted positions at the helm of world bodies? Why do these top jobs like those of the UN secretary-general or the IMF managing director continue to elude Indians long after the Cold War is over and there is no reason to believe that India’s foreign policy is too one-dimensional?
Till recently, Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia’s name was doing the rounds as a possible candidate for the IMF leadership.But then it became clear that the Europeans, who have maintained a strong control over the organization since its inception, were not ready for a big change. Former Indian diplomat MV Bhadrakumar insists that the age bar of 65 ,which appeared to have dissuaded Ahluwalia, should have been relaxed. “What’s the harm if Ahluwalia is older as long as he is fit and able to deliver,” asks Bhadrakumar. Another former diplomat Ronen Sen is far from convinced. He thinks Ahluwalia himself was reluctant for the position from the beginning.
There are some diplomats who attach great significance to Indians acquiring crucial assignments in international bodies. They believe that India is not doing enough to change the architecture of these bodies which had been designed and choreographed by the Americans. Some of them say that every UN secretary-general has been a careful choice of think-tanks in Washington. Yes, a few of them like Dag Hammarskjold have exhibited a far more independent spirit than what had been anticipated earlier but Indians have always lost out or have never figured in the competition because they were never politically trustworthy enough.
There are other former ambassadors who think that “big nations” like India should never really vie for these important positions. They cite the example of the Chinese. The Beijing establishment does not really care for occupation of these so-called coveted posts because it believes that individual appointees will never be able to serve the overriding national interests. Ronen Sen says: “Our desire for these posts is a reflection of our colonial hangover which hasn’t gone away even after 65 years. Of course, they are leaving institutions like the IMF out of the equation. European political and economic interests are too deeply entrenched in the IMF and that explains why the continent is unwilling to slacken its control.”
Not that Indians have never really headed international bodies. Old-timers recall the role played by Binay Ranjan Sen, who was chosen to head the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) between 1956 and 1967. In fact, for his immense contribution in turning around FAO from a “study organization’ to a “development agency”, it even instituted an award in Sen’s name. But few would say that B R Sen’s elevation to that significant job in the mid-1950s was supported by the Indian government of the day. Similarly, Kamalesh Sharma became the Commonwealth secretary-general in 2008 without the Indian government making any effort.
Should India work harder to get a seat at the high table? Bhadrakumar says it’s time India took the lead to unsettle the structures put in place by the Americans. But experts like Ronen Sen suggests India should Indians stop “yearning for meaningless status” and instead focus on building the country into a real economic powerhouse. Maybe India should try both.