From chanakya to modi evolution of india’s foreign policy

part of Asia, the responsibility of being some kind of guide to vast numbers
of people all over the world’. Nehru had no doubt that one day India would

---

‘play a part on the world stage, even on the narrowest plane of material
power, and I should like India to play that great part in that plane’. 
142
Over the years, Indian leaders have lived by Nehru’s belief that ‘India has
the right to lead because of her heritage, and also because of her present,
when, in the face of the complexity of her own problems, she has stood up
and estimated values and not let go all those ideals which she had placed
before her’.
143
Nehru’s personality and charisma ensured that the basic tenets of India’s
foreign policy remained unchanged for over five decades.
144
Now Modi
hopes to build on his own popularity and charisma for a similar lasting
legacy. Nehru’s impact resulted in defining the underlying principle of
India’s foreign policy as a desire for independence of action and autonomy
of decision making. The belief that India, a great civilization, will one day
be a great power has meant that not only has India sought a seat at the
global high table but has been unwilling to allow the big powers of the day
to dictate to India.

---

4
Principles and Interests
A DAY BEFORE Independence, on 14 August 1947, the president of
India’s Constituent Assembly, Rajendra Prasad, declared that India had ‘a
great part to play in the shaping and moulding of the future of a war
distracted world’. It could play that part, he said, ‘not by mimicking, from a
distance, what others are doing, or by joining in the race for armaments and
competing with others in the discovery of the latest and most effective
instruments of destruction’. As an independent country, India now had the
opportunity and Prasad expressed the hope that it would have ‘the courage
and strength to place before the world’ an ‘infallible substitute for war and
bloodshed, death and destruction’.
1
Prasad became the first president of the
Republic of India, serving from 1949 to 1962. His independence-eve
declaration reflected values that have resonated in India’s interaction with
the rest of the world.
In the view of most Indians, their fervent desire to safeguard
independence and autonomy of decision making is the most significant
principle underlying their country’s foreign policy. The colonial experience
has left an indelible mark on India’s collective personality. More than six
decades after Independence, seeking freedom from external pressures is as
much at the core of India’s external relations as it was when India was a

---

colony. Territorial integrity and economic autarky, championing of anti-
colonialism, aversion to military alliances and seeking a South Asia free
from foreign influence are deemed critical to India. These, above
everything else, are the defining elements of India’s national interest.
The pursuit of an independent path has always been tied to moral
certitude that India ought to be a beacon not only for Asia but also for the
entire world. India’s policies have generally been framed to build a world
based on ideals of peace and international friendship. To create this
idealized world, India championed non-alignment; encouraged multilateral
cooperation through the United Nations and regional organizations; and
supported decolonization and disarmament, including nuclear disarmament.
The importance that India attaches to its place in the world is an essential
theme of the annual addresses delivered by the president of India to the
joint session of India’s parliament at the start of the budget session. The
presidential address, modelled on the queen’s address to parliament in
Britain, gains greater relevance when it is the first speech soon after
elections as it lays out the policies of the incoming administration
In his first address as president of the Constituent Assembly, Prasad had
voiced hope that the world needed India and would welcome it, unless the
world was ‘prepared to reel back into barbarism from which it boasts to
have emerged’. He assured all countries of the world on behalf of India that
‘we propose to stick to our historic tradition to be on terms of friendship
and amity with all, that we have no designs against anyone and hope that
none will have any against us. We have only one ambition and desire, that
is, to make our contribution to the building up of freedom for all and peace
among mankind.’
2
To modern India’s founding generation, these were not
mere platitudes but a description of substantive policy ideas.
Following Prasad’s precedent, every presidential address to the joint
session of parliament reaffirms the aims of India’s foreign policy as being
‘peace and friendship in the world, non-alignment and the building of a just

---

and equitable world order’. Starting with discussion of ties with neighbours
in South Asia, these speeches progress outward to other parts of the world:
Central Asia, China, East and South-East Asia, Middle East and the Gulf,
Russia, Europe, the United States, Africa and Latin America.
3
Also, the
head of state reminds members of India’s parliament that independence in
making decisions on foreign policy remains India’s topmost priority in
external relations.
STRATEGIC AUTONOMY
The emphasis on independence and strategic autonomy is a throwback to
the struggle against British rule. During the Raj, Indians were kept out of
decision making and the key demand of India’s freedom struggle was the
right for Indians to make decisions that affect their lives and their future.
The Raj forced Indians to fight distant wars with which they had little to do.
While Indians were involved in local government and administration, they
had nothing to do with foreign policy, which remained firmly in the hands
of colonial officers and administrators.
‘What does independence consist of?’ Nehru rhetorically asked the
Constituent Assembly in March 1949. He then proceeded to reply, ‘It
consists fundamentally and basically of foreign relations. Once foreign
relations go out of your hand into the charge of somebody else, to that
extent and in that measure you are not independent.’
4
Thus, freedom was
only possible if you could think freely for yourself while making decisions
of war and peace and regarding friend or foe. India’s founding elite was
adamant that independent India would make its own decisions, even if it
resulted in occasionally treading a somewhat lonely path. Standing alone at
times or standing up to the dominant superpowers has been perceived as a
badge of honour by India’s leaders.
India’s championing of non-alignment followed directly from this desire
to make decisions without having to take directions from others. Non-

---

alignment meant India did not need to consider someone a friend or enemy
because of the friendship or hostility of a superpower. It also enabled India
to safeguard its territorial unity by staying out of disputes it might be drawn
into through alliances. Above all, non-alignment provided a platform from
which India could attempt to lead other developing countries at a time when
India lacked resources to be a superpower itself. Nehru argued that other
countries would respect India only if it was not ‘a camp follower’.
The expansion of India’s economic and military capabilities, coupled
with the end of the cold war and the blocs it spawned, have diminished the
need for India to emphasize non-alignment and to seek leadership through
rhetorical moralizing. The pursuit of strategic autonomy, however, persists
and has become the reason for a diverse foreign policy that enables India to
deal with the world’s major issues without being tied down to a single great
power or set of powers.
In a recent article, Itty Abraham, disagrees with the view that non-
alignment was the rational outcome of a calculated policy. According to
Abraham, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) did not emerge ‘fully blown
from the collective minds of Nehru, Nasser and Tito in Brioni in 1956’.
5
Abraham asserts that NAM was rather the ‘outcome of a sophisticated
analysis of world order as well as the difficult political choices facing a
leadership that was very much on the defensive in contemporary regional
affairs during the late 1950s and early 1960s’. 
6
Worried about global
conflict arising from the two blocs, non-alignment was seen as the buffer
that would reduce friction and allow peaceful outcomes.
Often critiqued for adopting a moralistic or preachy foreign policy, this
policy actually served key goals: India sought leadership of Asia and
believed it was a future great power but it lacked the resources to achieve
this goal through military or economic means. As Werner Levi states: ‘For a
nation with few effective means and little spare energy to influence
international events, the idea of making a virtue of staying out of

---

international troubles is practical and wise.’
7
Following a principle-based
moralistic foreign policy helped India project itself as a leader of fellow
developing former colonies, and helped India punch above its weight. It
also tied in to India’s goals of decolonization, anti-racialism and
disarmament.
While non-alignment fulfilled a moral dimension of India’s policy it did
not provide India with the critical support needed when faced with war and
conflict. During the 1962 India–China war, the non-aligned countries
remained non-aligned and it was the West that really supported India, both
with economic and military resources. As Mansingh states, the Non-
Aligned Movement ended up becoming ‘an aggregation of states with
disparate interests’ that had nothing in common except that they were
former colonies. This led to a ‘dynamics of group behaviour’ that was not
always in tune with India’s needs and interests.
8
While Indian leaders
sought global peace and nuclear disarmament, other countries had their own
set of problems.
Non-alignment also clashed with the reality of living in a world where a
country could only defend itself with economic and military power. India’s
policy of non-alignment posed problems in achieving these goals. Non-
alignment was more anti-Western capitalism and imperialism than it was
against Soviet communism. Some analysts ascribe that to Nehru’s sympathy
towards Soviet socialism and scepticism and cynicism towards American
capitalism. Others blame America’s pro-Pakistan policy and Soviet support
especially their veto on the Kashmir issue in the Security Council. The
balancing act sought was how to receive economic and military aid from
both blocs while not becoming too dependent on either.
With the end of the cold war and the break-up of the Soviet Union, India
has built closer ties with the United States. Russia no longer occupies the
position it did. Still the Indian elite remains suspicious and sceptical of
American intentions. Knee-jerk criticism of American foreign policy and

---

the desire to maintain autonomy often lead to a reluctance to describe India
as an American ally, preferring to use the phrase ‘strategic partner’.
Even today, when the world is no longer aligned the way it was during
the cold war, India still remains a prominent member of the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM) and often uses that platform to demonstrate its
independence from great powers. The anomaly led former Indian prime
minister Inder Kumar Gujral to remark, ‘It is a mantra that we have to keep
repeating, but who are you going to be non-aligned against?’
9
Over the years, the desire for decision-making autonomy that led to non-
alignment has tied into the concomitant goal of ensuring India’s territorial
integrity and unity. As a country that was colonized piecemeal by a distant
power that initially sought trading privileges, India has been vigilant about
safeguarding its territory against foreign encroachment. The legacy of