From chanakya to modi evolution of india’s foreign policy

India: A Wounded Civilization
(1976)
Nobel laureate and Trinidadian of Indian descent, Sir Vidiadhar Surajprasad
(V.S.) Naipaul, argues that India’s problems are not external or caused
because of periodic invasions or conquest. He sees India as plagued with
the crisis of what he refers to as a ‘wounded old civilization’ that while

---

‘aware of its inadequacies’ is ‘without the intellectual means to move
ahead’.
2
Naipaul’s broad-stroke analysis, when applied to Indian foreign
policy, would suggest a desire for international respect without having the
resources to exercise global power and a refusal to accept that reality.
Another perspective is offered by Sunil Khilnani, who, in 
The Idea of
India
(1997), argues that contemporary India has been shaped by a ‘wager’
of India’s educated urban elite on modern ideas and modern agencies. ‘It
was a wager on an idea: the idea of India,’ Khilnani argues. India’s
‘nationalist elite itself had no single, clear definition of this idea and one of
the remarkable facts about the nationalist movement that brought India to
independence was its capacity to entertain diverse, often contending visions
of India … Indian nationalism before independence was plural even at the
top, a dhoti with endless folds. … It contains people from markedly
different backgrounds yet whose trajectories were often parallel.’
3
According to this standpoint, nationalism subsumed India’s diversity and its
advocates hoped to build a modern India inspired by the past but connected
to the present and looking towards the future.
In 
Emerging Power: India
(2001) Stephen Cohen classifies Indian
strategic thought as divided between those he styles Nehruvian (which
includes the Gandhian view), militant Nehruvian and finally Realists and
Revivalists.
4
Similarly, in his book 
India’s Foreign Policy: Retrospect and
Prospect
(2010) political scientist Sumit Ganguly argues that personal,
national and systemic factors framed Nehru’s views and were responsible
every time any of Nehru’s successors changed or adapted his policies.
5
 This
view casts Nehru and his ideas as the major point of reference in modern
India’s world view.
Indians take pride in the fact that India is a 5000-year-old civilization
even if its modern incarnation as a democratic state is only seventy years
old. Modern India’s founding fathers, Nehru being the most significant
among them, sought to craft policies that would incorporate both India’s

---

historical legacy as well as its future geopolitical ambitions. The Indian
desire to pursue modernity as well as exercise influence in the
contemporary world is inextricably linked with a world view shaped by
India’s rich history and a decision-making process heavily influenced by
tradition. India’s interaction with other nations is dominated by an Indian
world view that pays special attention to India’s civilizational heritage as
well as its colonial past. The Indian sense of self and of the world, as well
as the architecture of Indian institutions, has been profoundly affected by
the experiences of the colonial and post-Independence era.
At the core of India’s foreign policy lies a desire for autonomy in
decision making resulting from the impact of British colonial rule when that
autonomy did not exist. While every nation prefers freedom in foreign
policy decisions and actions, India emphasizes sovereignty in every policy
it makes and every action it takes. This explains the country’s unwillingness
to sign up as a formal ally of the world’s major powers. A strong moral
overtone is also visible in India’s foreign policy, which can be linked both
to its history as well as the extremely moralistic national struggle under
India’s founding father, Mohandas Karamchand (‘Mahatma’) Gandhi
(1869–1948). There is a strong belief not only that India is destined for
great power status but also that India is an example for the world, especially
the developing countries.
The vast legacy of India’s founding fathers is the direct result of its long
independence movement. India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru
(1889–1964), played a crucial role in the independence struggle and served
as foreign minister in addition to being prime minister for seventeen years.
He laid down the principles of Indian foreign and security policy in his
writings, speeches and policy decisions. For thirty-five years or so after his
death, Nehru’s successors preferred to continue with the Nehruvian
framework, making only cosmetic changes whenever required.

---

In the realm of institutions, the legacy of the British Raj seems
paramount. India is a strong federation with a Westminster style
parliamentary form of government where the permanent bureaucracy plays
a dominant role in both the making and execution of policies. The role of
individuals, especially the prime minister, is reflected in decision making
even where bureaucratic structures, such as cabinet committees, are
ostensibly in charge.
The British institutions of governance were modelled on the feudal
system of satraps that existed under India’s earlier empires, especially the
Mughals (1556–1857). In that system, the emperor was the