After the Second World War, colonies began gaining independence and creating countries that had either been destroyed by the War or by the years of exploitation committed by the colonial rulers. Among all of these newly independent countries, some opted for constitutional democracy, while others had military or authoritarian administrations, and some required some time to achieve some degree of political stability.
India, one of the biggest colonies to gain independence, established one of the most stable democracies built on a constitution that has been protecting its citizens’ rights and developing an independent foreign policy for these 76 years, despite having to endure genocide as a result of the 1947 partition of the Indian subcontinent, as planned by its colonial rulers. Protecting national security, advancing economic development and its national interests, and projecting India’s influence on global issues were the three main goals of Indian foreign policy at the time of independence, and since then, India has displayed significant dynamism in its foreign policy decisions while maintaining its strategic autonomy.
The land of Bharat, or, India is today seen as an up-and-coming world power and significant “influencer.” India has committed to achieving economic development by 2047. Since the turn of the century, it has had rapid economic growth, surpassing Britain to take fifth place in terms of nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, the economy cannot be the only factor in a nation’s development. The foundation for a country’s future as a powerhouse and leader in the world lies in its foreign policy.
A global leader is someone who can play a significant role in world affairs, work to maintain peace and tranquillity, and offer all forms of assistance in preventing global crises like climate change, food insecurity, hunger, and poverty, among others. Although there is no clear-cut definition, it can be summed up as someone who can do all of these things. By condensing the definition provided above, we can say that leadership is the act of leading the way. To lead is to assist a team in achieving a goal. Although there are many different styles and levels of leadership, they all have a bond with their followers. Consequently, there is a strong link between power and leadership.
In reality, India’s foreign policy began to take shape shortly after gaining its independence in 1947. The country, which was a satellite of the vast British Empire before, shunned the precepts of a foreign policy that was prescribed by the country’s former rulers and lacked a robust diplomatic identity. Prevalent British pressures limited both India’s participation in the First World War and the subsequent trajectory of its crude diplomatic efforts. What we are today, has a long and interesting history which clearly culminates to the point where we can conclude the fact that “once we were the underdogs, but now, we are the solid favourites!”
The foreign policy can be practically explained in multiple phases, from time to time (which is covered in the later part of this article) but the significant changes and turns took place in the times of two prominent PMs of India – Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi. Hence, to understand these phases, we need to understand what changes and transformations occurred during the tenures of these two Prime Ministers of India.
The Nehruvian Era and the Non-Alignment Movement (1947-1966)
When Jawaharlal Nehru served as prime minister from 1947 to 1964, Krishna Menon frequently assisted him in shaping the new country’s foreign policy. While concurrently serving as the minister of external affairs, Nehru made all significant decisions about foreign policy himself after consulting with his advisors. He subsequently delegated the management of foreign affairs to senior officials in the Indian Foreign Service.
The five major issues that were focussed upon in this period were: Coping with the partition & the newly formed Pakistan, Relations with the Chinese, Maintaining the ‘Non-Aligned’ status in the Cold War era, Dealing with the Kashmir conflict on a global level and the Economic Development of the nation.
Despite significant antipathy towards Britain from his Congress party, Nehru maintained India’s participation in the British Commonwealth. Popular complaints included the British UN delegation’s open backing for Pakistan in the Kashmir conflict, Britain’s counsel to Pakistan on military matters, and London’s assistance to the Dutch campaign to stifle Indonesian nationalism. The Commonwealth was primarily a debate organisation at the time, but one goal was to use it as a sounding board for Third World concerns. Pakistan would be in a better position if it were not a member.
The blatant need for American assistance in the form of aid, loans, and commerce was another issue. Nehru wanted to avoid having too much debt to the Americans, thus the ties to the British and Commonwealth would act as a sort of counterbalance. He did urge that the King’s symbolic significance be rigorously constrained so that India had no semblance of a regal hegemony.
A summit of nations surrounding the Indian Ocean, including the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as Egypt and Ethiopia, was Nehru’s goal. It was an ambitious proposal that provided Nehru the chance to offer guidance to the recently decolonized nations in the area, particularly Burma and Ceylon (Sri Lanka), but it was fruitless.
Initially, the Indians and the Americans were on the same page because of the staunch opposition of PM Nehru to the stringent socialist and communist policies of the USSR and the communism-influenced nations. But, the Korean War caused Nehru to make a significant change in direction in 1950. After initially supporting the US in opposition to North Korea’s invasion of South Korea, India declared that the only viable solution was for Communist China to be admitted to the UN.
Moscow and Beijing were pleased with this decision, but Washington was upset. He declined to sign the 1951 Japanese peace treaty because he saw it as an American imperialist attempt to grab control of Japanese policy.
Overall, India acquired respect in the Third World, which paved the way for a strong alliance with the Soviet Union. While this was happening, Pakistan got significantly closer to the United States and even gave thought to sending troops to fight with them in Korea. This paved the way for the United States to shift its support from India to Pakistan, and it also provided the groundwork for the Non-Aligned Movement, which was led by Nehru’s India and mostly comprised of “third-world” nations.
The Non-Alignment Movement…
India and Yugoslavia, who both refused to support any side in the multiple alliances involved in the Korean War, coined the phrase “non-alignment” in 1950 at the United Nations. The Non-Aligned Movement was established as an organisation in 1956 on the Brijuni islands in Yugoslavia, building on the tenets set at the Bandung Conference in 1955. The organisation was formally established by signing the Declaration of Brijuni on July 19, 1956. Josip Broz Tito, the president of Yugoslavia, Jawaharlal Nehru, the prime minister of India, and Gamal Abdel Nasser, the leader of Egypt, all signed the Declaration.
It eventually became a forum of 120 countries, which (apparently) weren’t reported to be formally part of any ‘power-bloc’, i.e. neither with the capitalist US nor with the communist USSR. Nearly two-thirds of the United Nations’ members and 55% of the world’s population reside in the nations that make up the Non-Aligned Movement. Although the Non-Aligned Movement includes many industrialised countries, membership is disproportionately concentrated in what are considered poor countries.
The Non-Aligned Movement gained its greatest popularity in the 1950s and early 1960s, when the international policy of nonalignment achieved great success in the areas of decolonization, disarmament, resistance to racism, and against apartheid in South Africa, and remained throughout the Cold War, despite several conflicts among members and although some members developed closer relations with the Soviet Union, China, or the United States.
Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the movement has focused on developing multilateral relationships & linkages and unity among the world’s developing countries, particularly those of the Global South.
Foreign Policy under Indira Gandi (1966-1984)
Between 1967 and 1977, the foreign policy of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi included a focus on security by battling insurgents overseas and bolstering border defences. Gandhi stated on October 30, 1981, “A country’s policy is shaped by many forces – its position on the map, the nations that are its neighbours, the policies they adopt, the measures they take, as well as its historical experiences in total and terms of its particular successes or traumas”.
East Pakistan declared its independence as Bangladesh at the beginning of 1971 as a result of disputed elections in Pakistan. Over the following months, 10 million people crossed into India due to repression and bloodshed by the Pakistani army. Gandhi finally joined actively in the fight to defeat Pakistan’s troops in Bangladesh in December 1971.
India won the next struggle, rising to become South Asia’s dominating force. While Pakistan got active backing from the United States during the fight, India and the Soviet Union signed a pact pledging to provide one another with aid in the event of war. Gandhi was loathed by American President Richard Nixon personally. Gandhi’s links to the U.S. grew more distant after the war as he forged greater ties with the Soviet Union. The latter developed as India’s top trade partner and armaments supplier.
Phase-wise furcation (Summarising) the Foreign Policy and the conclusion
The first phase lasted from 1946 to 1962 and was characterised by an upbeat non-alignment during which India fought the weakening of its sovereignty, concentrated on reviving its economy, and helped states in Asia and Africa create a more just international system.
The second phase lasted from 1962 to 1971 and was characterised by realism and recovery, particularly following the two conflicts in 1962 and 1965. Despite having few resources, India responded to security and political concerns practically.
The third phase spanned the years 1971 to 1991, a time when Bangladesh’s formation marked a rise in Indian regional assertiveness. India’s prospects were significantly endangered by the US-China-Pakistan axis during this time, and the fall of the Soviet Union and the 1991 economic crisis forced a review of the foundational elements of both its domestic and foreign policies.
The fourth phase, which lasted from 1991 to 1999, saw India concentrate on preserving its strategic autonomy. Following the fall of the USSR, India opened up its economy to the rest of the world, which had an impact on its new diplomatic objectives and approaches. India obtained nuclear weapons during this time, and it also resisted Pakistan’s military explorations.
From 2000 to 2013, India underwent its fifth phase, during which time it steadily developed the characteristics of balancing power. It was able to establish the Nuclear Deal with the US, enhance relationships with the West, strengthen those with Russia, and come to an agreement with China on trade and climate change during this time.
The current phase, which began in 2014 and continues now, is one of active diplomacy for India. With a rapidly developing China, an unsteady US, a healing global economy from the 2008 Financial Crisis, and a rapidly expanding multipolar world, India realised that it was about to enter a world of issue-based agreements. India’s economy has become one of the fastest-growing in the world throughout this phase, greatly expanding India’s capacities as a development partner and increasing its duties to help address local and global concerns. In an increasingly multipolar world, India, the largest democracy in the world, is poised to become a political and economic pole.
India has long had a distinct worldview and served as a symbol of stability and progress. India has continually made a significant contribution to establishing the global order throughout the course of these 76 years. It has served as a positive influence and a voice for common sense.