From chanakya to modi evolution of india’s foreign policy

Saam, Daan, Dand
and
Bhed
(persuade,
gift, punish and divide).
For all its messianic idealism the Indian state has a Hobbesian view of
the world where India can depend only on itself. This explains the strong
desire for strategic autonomy, the push for economic autarky and the pursuit
of military self-sufficiency. Indian leaders from Nehru onwards have
recognized the importance of all elements of national power, including
military power. The emphasis on economic growth in recent years is also
tied to the realization that India’s great power ambitions would not be
realized without having the means to pay for a strong military, among other
things.
While desirous of playing a global role, India has also been reluctant to
be drawn into global issues or ideologies. There is a strong streak of
‘Isolationism’ in India’s global outlook. It is one of India’s many paradoxes
that it wants to be seen as a great power and is still often reluctant to do
what is required of most great powers. Ironically, the British were the first
power/empire in India that had an outward world view. Until the advent of
the Raj, with the exception of the ancient south Indian Chola dynasty, no
other Indian empire had sought to extend itself beyond the Indian
subcontinent. Indian philosophers too asserted that would-be emperors or

---

sovereigns must build an empire within the subcontinent and not outside.
Thus, to many Indians, external entanglements hark back to the imperial
outlook of the Raj instead of representing a genuinely swadeshi (home-
made) world view.
Modern India has consistently been reluctant to involve itself in
international conflicts and blocs though Nehru’s non-alignment ideology
was a way of being involved in the world without external commitments
that would bind India to specific choices. India was trying to get the best of
both worlds. Even now, India wants to be a permanent member of the UN
Security Council without building the power potential possessed by other
permanent members. For Indians influenced by isolationism, keeping India
territorially intact, building a strong economy, eradicating poverty and
creating a just society have often been more important than playing an
active role in global conflicts or choosing between ideologies and blocs.
While India wants to be considered a global power, not just a regional one,
there are limits to which India will exercise its hard power.
India remains reluctant to send its troops abroad except for UN-
mandated peacekeeping missions. The only wars India has fought have
been within the subcontinent demonstrating that for India the subcontinent
is still an extension of its civilizational homeland while the rest of the world
remains too distant. This was true under Nehru and is true under Modi
today, notwithstanding Modi’s apparent desire to align India more closely
with the United States and to create a grouping of Pacific powers aimed at
containing China.
Of all India’s prime ministers, Nehru best incorporated different strands
of thought in defining India’s global outlook. For that reason, Indian foreign
policy has sometimes been referred to as 
Nehruvian
– a combination of
Messianic Idealism with some parts of Imperial, Realist, and Isolationist
elements.

---

2
A Rich Heritage
INDIA IS AN ancient land unified by geography and tradition. Most Indian
languages use the same word for yesterday and tomorrow, reflecting belief
in life as an eternal cycle. Sceptics see this as the reason for contemporary
India’s failure in keeping pace with the times. ‘No people whose word for
“yesterday” is the same as their word for “tomorrow” can be said to have a
firm grip on the time,’ author Salman Rushdie observed acerbically in his
novel
, Midnight’s Children
.
1
Others argue that India’s rich heritage keeps it
going even if it is not up to par with the world’s currently developed
nations. As politician and author Shashi Tharoor put it, ‘India is not, as
people keep calling it, an underdeveloped country, but rather, in the context
of its history and cultural heritage, a highly developed one in an advanced
state of decay.’
2
Five thousand years of continuous civilization nurtured in the vast space
between the Himalayas to the north, the Indian Ocean in the south and the
Hindu Kush and Arakan mountains in the west and east has bred a sense of
Indian exceptionalism. Others might judge the modern Indian state by its
economic indicators, its low ranking on the human development index, or
its apparent political and social chaos. For Indians, however, the Indian
subcontinent represents one civilization and one indivisible historic entity,

---

whose past achievements are a source of immense pride and even cause for
a sense of superiority. Inspired by the concept of the eternal cycle of life,
Indians remain confident that their tomorrow will be as good as their
yesterday, if not better, and the Indian republic reflects the glory of past
dynasties and empires. India’s interaction with the rest of the world has
almost always been informed by this civilizational sense of India’s self.
Indians take pride in the ability of their culture to subsume others’
lifestyles, including those of invaders and conquerors. There is a
timelessness to what constitutes being Indian. Outsiders come to India and
end up staying, adopting Indian culture while Indian culture adapts to
external influences. The history of the empires in India, some indigenous
and others initiated by foreigners, is telling. Even when the ruling dynasty
comprised non-Indians, the empire in India retained a uniquely Indian
quality. Thus, the Mughals may have been Turkic but their empire was very
much Indian and British rule in India did not escape an Indian stamp. This
simple historic fact has led to a firm belief in the absorptive capacity of
Indian culture and civilization. In Indian thinking, India is too big to be
taken over by others; instead, others end up being Indianized.
Among India’s occupiers, the British were perhaps the least willing to go
completely native. They maintained a separateness that the Aryans, Scytho-