Indian Foreign Policy
Determinants of Indian foreign policy, institutions of policy-making, continuity and change in India's foreign policy
Determinants of Foreign Policy
Meaning and Purpose of Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy denotes the strategy or approach adopted by the national government to achieve its goals in its relations with external entities. The idea is, that every country or state should have a foreign policy. While foreign policy may or may not be coherent or in an organized form, it always exists.
From the early days of recorded history, Indian thinkers have written on the significance and importance of foreign policy in governance. We see a codified approach towards political and diplomatic strategy in the Arthasastra of Kautilya, who strongly believed that nations act in their political, economic and military self-interest. Similarly, the contemporaneous Thirukkural has an entire chapter outlining the essential attributes of an envoy in the conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy.
The purpose of foreign policy is to safeguard and promote its national interests, in the conduct of its relations with other countries, bilaterally and multilaterally. Thus, national interest, which can be explained with the help of the country's political, economic, social and military objectives, forms the basis of foreign policy.
There are multiple internal and external determinants of foreign policy of a nation. Some thinkers give primacy to certain factors over others. For example, the English geographer Mackinder emphasizes the importance of land-based power. On the other hand, Alfred Mahan, an American historian emphasises the importance of naval power in international relations. There are always multiple factors at play, and the relative importance varies from nation to nation(spatially), and from time to time (temporally).
Internal Determinants of Foreign Policy
Internal/domestic determinants of foreign policy
External Determinants of Foreign Policy
External/systemic determinants of foreign policy
History and National Identity
The domestic history of a nation, as well as the history of its international relations play an important role in shaping foreign policy. Nations often draw important lessons from history. History also shapes the national perception and the national identity. And while one cannot make foreign policy solely based on historical knowledge, it is not wise to ignore history.
In the Indian case, history explains a lot about its foreign policy. The colonial experience, which created a lasting suspicion against Western hegemony, was largely responsible for the Indian foreign policy post-independence. This was reflected in India leading the NAM and then siding with Russia in 1971, at the time of crisis. This history also explains India's relations with Pakistan, and the disputed border issue with China, a legacy of British rule.
It is also not necessary that the present will continue along the lines of past. e.g. France & and Germany were historical rivals in WW I and WW II. However, the EU formation was led primarily by these two nations. Thus, if other factors are in favour of countries - then historical antagonism may not stand in between.
National Identity denotes the self-perception of a nation in the global order of things. While a superpower like the USA or China will have a different approach, a middle power like India or Brazil will go for different means.
The role of culture in shaping foreign policy is often explained by the use of the term 'soft power' . In the era of globalization assisted by the ICT revolution, there are many carriers of this culture. The movies, books, art forms etc. are all agents to project the culture and help in the generation of soft power. In the case of India, the ancient practice of yoga, the medicinal practice of ayurveda and rich philosophical and religious literature and practices, all contribute to its soft power, and in turn, affect foreign policy.
Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence, moral behaviour and Satyagraha was rooted in India's moral, ethical and philosophical traditions such as the Vedas, the Ramayana, Mahabharata as well as the teachings of Lord Buddha. Gandhiji's own experiences in South Africa contributed to his understanding that India's freedom was linked to that of other Asian and African colonies. Therefore, it is not surprising that the defining characteristics of India's foreign policy in the first few decades after Independence were non-alignment, anti-colonialism, antiracialism, non-violence, disarmament, and peacemaking.
Political Structure and Leadership
Based on historical preferences, there are a variety of government structures across the world. The decision-making process is quite different in democracies than in authoritarian regimes. Even in a democracy, there are factors like whether govt. agency handling the foreign policy is democratically elected or not, does it consist of specialists or generalists, whether the power relations are centralized or free and open, the nature of the executive-legislature relationship etc. These factors vary and shape the foreign policy accordingly.
As democratic peace theory explains, the incidences of war between two democracies are much lesser than between democracy and non-democracy. In democracy, the leadership is responsible for justifying its action, which becomes difficult when the adversary is also a democratic nation. This delays the decision-making and thus gives time for other stakeholders.
Among other factors, leadership plays an important role in the foreign policy of a nation. In one of the oldest examples of foreign policy analysis, Thucydides highlights how fundamentally important the nature of individual leaders and their styles were and how it contributed to the outcome of the Peloponnesian War. He contrasts the noble Pericles (who cautiously designed a winning military strategy against Sparta) and his successor, the reckless Alcibiades (who abandoned Pericles's plan and favoured military adventurism, eventually leading Athens to ruin).
Similarly, the writings of Machiavelli also illustrate how the 'individual leaders' are so important in international relations. His entire treaty, The Prince, is designed as a guidebook to young rulers, giving them, in essence, a template to guide their individual actions to help ensure their success. Closer at home, we also have the Saptang theory by Kautilya, which treats the king as a Nabhi (naval) of the entire state apparatus.
In the case of India, soon after independence, India's Pakistan policy had a lot to do with Gandhi's idealism, who although didn't assume office, was the leader (father) of the nation.
Under Nehru's leadership, we witness his personal traits in Indian foreign policy. The early decades carried on the idealism in Indian foreign policy and was evident in India's NAM and advocacy for decolonization in Africa and elsewhere. While NAM is certainly a legacy to be proud of, and it is difficult to tell which other course would have been better, the policy did not serve India well in solving the Kashmir issue and Indo Indo-China war.
The period of Nehru was followed by Indira Gandhi, who many have claimed was a strong leader. The highlights of Indira Gandhi's foreign policy are India's approach to the Bangladesh War of Liberation, the treaty of 'Peace, Friendship and Cooperation, 1971' between India and Russia, and the progress in India's nuclear program.
For Rajiv Gandhi, for whom politics was not the first choice, the leadership was marked by the failure of Indian foreign policy in Sri Lanka and his unfortunate assassination. However, the unorthodox approach of Rajiv Gandhi did help in easing India's relations with China, when the nations decided to separate the border issue from other bilateral issues. (1988)
Fast forward to the contemporary period, we see a remarkable difference in Indian foreign policy since the NDA government. Keeping politics aside, scholars across the gamut have agreed that there has been a change in India's global image since PM Modi assumed office. There is a change in the narrative, as Harsh V Pant suggests, "the story has moved from a balancing power to a leading power."
India has shown a willingness to exercise military power with Pakistan, it has been able to manoeuvre its relations with antagonistic partners like Russia and the USA, or Israel and Arab countries, and even the soft power has been leveraged to enhance India's global position. The recent success of Indian foreign policy includes India achieving consensus in the G20 declaration despite differing positions of members over the Ukraine War.
We can sum up with Kautilya, who suggests that if the leader is smart, he can convert all other elements into favourable ones. If the king is weak and lacks courage, other elements will not be able to play an important role.
Economy and Public Opinion
The role of economy in foreign policy has increased with globalization. As suggested by proponents of complex interdependency theory (Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane), globalisation has led to economic interconnectedness, which has created complex interdependence among nations. As a result, there are numerous stakeholders in nation-to-nation relations and this has made the conflicts/war less likely among parties.
A strong economy is a prerequisite for a strong military, which in turn is the most important factor that shapes foreign policy. We can say that India's limited economic capability at independence also contributed to its orientation with NAM, a non-military approach.
The economy also determines the ability of a country to offer aid or to extend soft loans to other nations, influencing foreign policy choices.
The economic model also matters, as post-independence India was closer to Russia with its socialistic model of economy and stayed away from the Western bloc and capitalism. Post 1991, with LPG reforms, there was greater integration of the Indian economy with the USA, leading to closer relations between the nations.
Public opinion can said to be the collective preference of the nation's population, gauged through polling data or other such measures. There is a debate on the role of public opinion in shaping foreign policy. The realist tradition treats the public as unaware of the nuances of foreign policy decision-making and suggests it to be the domain of elites. Further, they also fear the compromise on 'rationality' in foreign policy, if public opinion is considered. Liberal tradition, on the other hand, suggests that public opinion plays an important role in foreign policy, just like it influences the domestic policies of government.
We can see the disapproval of India's China policy by people post-1962 war, which set the public sentiment against the Chinese. The relations improved only with Rajiv Gandhi's visit to the nation in 1988, where it was decided to pursue the border issue separately.
We also see the influence of strong public opinion in support of the Sri Lankan Tamil issue in Tamil Nadu. The public sentiment forced India to side with the Tamils in Sri Lanka and led to the 1987 India-Sri Lanka accord.
Further, it also becomes difficult to make any concessions in foreign policy due to vote bank politics. For example, China has offered to settle the border issue since 1961, by giving up its claim on the NEFA region, if India is willing to secede Aksai China to it. The issue has not yet been settled since it will affect the domestic politics.
International Power Structure and Alliances
The international power structure can vary with time. The Cold War period was characterised by a bipolar world order, and countries were forced to choose from either of the blocs. India innovated the option of NAM since it didn't want to compromise its sovereignty. By pursuing NAM India performed a leadership role, especially for the global south or newly independent countries (NICs).
Post-Cold War was characterised by American hegemony and the unipolar world order. India rapidly had to adjust to this shift. From Vajapeyi to, Manmohan to PM Modi, India's US relationships have improved to a large extent. Or they have 'overcome the hesitations of history' as PM Modi remarks. The major achievements include Indo-US Nuclear Deal 2008, and the agreements in defence cooperation (GSOMIA, LEMOA, COMCASA, and BECA). While the USA is important for India to counter China, India also matters to the United States for the same purpose.
The current period, as Prof Sreeram Chaulia remarks is an 'emergent multipolar world order' , and thus we see India exercising the option of multiple alliances or 'issue-based alliances' in the words of S Jaishankar.
The powers across the globe can be classified in three categories i.e., great powers (like USA and China), middle powers (India, Brazil, Indonesia etc.) and small powers (Quatar, Malaysia etc).
Great powers are aware of their position in global hierarchy. The main aim of foreign policy for these powers is to maintain the status quo and prevent the rise of other nations. The whole world is a backyard for such powers, and their foreign policy is truly global. These nations often go for unilateralism and there is moral deficit in their actions. Such countries engage in competition and conflict with other great powers, what Mearsheimer describes as ' the tragedy of great power politics. '
The middle powers are neither in the strong nor weak zone, but there is a strong aspiration to become a great power one day. Such states seek policy of making themselves stronger and behaving toughly even if it is seen as provocative by the world because it is "better to err on the side of being too powerful than not being powerful enough." The sphere of influence for such powers is typically the geographical region, not the whole world. They seek smaller but steadily extending sphere of influence and such powers are not unilateral since they're not economically or militarily strong enough.
Weak states or small powers have to strike a "balance between security and independence." Survival is the biggest concern for such nations and band-wagoning to a great power or playing off one great power against another, is their strategy. Such powers are less ambitious. For the authoritarian states, there is also an additional concern of regime security (North Korea). They have to be creative and innovative and often go for unorthodox means and unconventional pursuits.
The present era is marked by globalization and regionalization. Consequently, there are numerous regional, global, military and trade alliances that countries participate in. These institutions have a significant influence on foreign policy.
Being a part of the grouping, the choices of member states are often limited. As in the case of NATO, EU, ASEAN, or OPEC, the member countries try to achieve consensus, to project themselves as a cohesive union. This involves aligning foreign policy in a manner such consensus is possible. While the powerful members do try to influence the agenda of such grouping, they can only do it to a certain degree. For smaller members, the choices are often constrained in such forums.
India is a member of multiple such organizations. It has sought membership in SCO in the recent past, to keep close with China. It has stayed away from the coalitions that don't serve its interests and would constrain its foreign policy choices. e.g. NPT, APEC.
Further, being a member of certain alliances also influences the foreign policy of other nations towards it. The security umbrella of NATO has served as a deterrent against Russia for decades, serving all the member countries. And Russia is fighting hard to ensure that Ukraine is not engulfed by NATO, which will limit the foreign policy options of Russia.
Geopolitical Location
India's geopolitical location has been a major factor shaping its foreign relations for millennia. With a tall Himalayan barrier to the north and east and a vast coastline to the south, a large part of India remained immune to foreign invasions for centuries.
Further, geopolitical location also determines the neighbouring countries, which in turn influences foreign policy choices. It is said that while we can choose our friends, we cannot choose our neighbours. Being surrounded by neighbours like Pakistan and China doesn't leave many options for India. India's closeness with the United States should be particularly seen from this perspective.
We can also see the case of Israel, which had to go for a nuclear program since it is surrounded by a harsh militant region. India's relations with Latin America owe a lot to the inter-alia, the geographical distance between the regions.
Further, being a landlocked country also leads to compromise on sovereignty as in the case of Poland, Belgium etc.
Mackinder and Mahan are two prominent scholars who talk about geography and foreign policy. Alfred Mahan, the American historian emphasizes the importance of being a sea-based power. He gives an example of Britain, which in the 18 th and 19 th centuries, was a global power due to its supremacy in naval power. The spirit is reflected in contemporary politics with nations acquiring bases across the globe through military arrangements. (Chinese string of pearls strategy, The US-UK naval base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, France, USA, China having naval bases in Djibouti, India having a naval base at Duqm (Oman) and Indian efforts to develop the naval base at Sabang in Indonesia etc.)
Mackinder, the English geographer, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of being a land-based power. He gives the example of Russia, which enjoys a stronghold in Eastern Europe. He suggests that East Europe is centre of the world. It is a 'heartland'. One who controls the heartland will control Rimland (the Rest of Europe) and he will control the whole world. Attack on Eastern Europe is possible only via land route thus it is important to be a land-based power.
Geography also determines the resources at the disposal of the nation and the dependence on others. India's relations with the Middle East are largely based on its need for crude oil from the region. On the other hand, we see the indifference of USA to the region post discovery of shale gas, and the reduction in import of crude oil from middle east.
With global communication becoming quicker, public opinion across the globe has become one of the factors that influence foreign policy. For certain issues, we see either solidarity across the globe or sometimes even dissonance. Since global public opinion matters for the soft power of the nation, states care about it. Thus, countries like China tightly control the flow of information to the outside world, and often create narratives to woo the global audience. However, since sovereign nations are not answerable to the global citizens, we see that the role of global public opinion in foreign policy is limited.
Ministry of External Affairs
Institutions of Foreign Policy Making
No single institution or personality can be attributed with having exclusive rights or influence in the arena of foreign policy in India. There are several contributing actors, who collectively build up India's foreign policy consensus and at different times, one or the other actors play a dominant role.
The various institutions of foreign policy making in India can be broadly categorized into two sectors i.e., formal and informal sector.
Formal Sector
Informal Sector
Role of the Ministry of External Affairs
MEA is the pivotal player in India's foreign relations. In the 'allocation of business rules' of GOI, MEA has been empowered with the task of planning, formulating and managing India's external relations with other nations to protect and promote national interests in the global stage.
However, MEA is not the sole agent charged with making India's foreign policy. The ministry acts like the foreign policy secretariat, which receives numerous policy inputs from various sources. It analyses and channelizes the different options to the political leadership, i.e., the Cabinet headed by the PM, and then implements decisions taken at this apex level.
These inputs come from information gathering primarily by Indian diplomatic missions (embassies, high commissions and permanent representative offices) abroad. Other sources include relevant ministries, departments and agencies in India, think tanks and research centres like the IDSA and IWCA, from trade and industry associations like CII, FICCI and ASSOCHAM, from academic institutions, and from individual subject specialists.
In line with issues that have become important in recent times, MEA has established specialized divisions catering to counter terrorism, cyber diplomacy, e-governance, etc,. There is also an Economic Diplomacy Division, and a division looking after Multilateral Economic Relations (MER). There is also a division to deal with nuclear proliferation, disarmament and related issues, including India's bid for membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and related bodies.
Then there is External Publicity Division of MEA, which is the chief source of dissemination of information on India's foreign policy objectives and measures, a key player in the Indian diplomacy initiatives.
The MEA is also the primary department responsible for all passport, visa and consular issues. Passport and visa policies are also piloted by the MEA. The ministry also discharges citizen-centric services like issue of passports and provision of consular services to all Indian nationals in India and those living abroad. It is the principal source of visas for foreign nationals desiring to visit India for various purposes like tourism, business, studies, medical services, etc. The OCI cards are issued mainly by diplomatic missions abroad to eligible persons of Indian origin. And in effect all Diaspora issues, including the safety and security of Indian nationals residing abroad, are under the policy making purview of MEA.
National Security Council
NSC is an apex body of the Government of India, which advices the Government on matters of India's National Security, Foreign Policy and Defence. Although the final decisions rest with the PM and the Cabinet, in recent years, the National Security Council has emerged as an important stakeholder in the shaping of India's foreign and security policies.
Chaired by the PM, the NSC consists of the Ministers of External Affairs, Defence, Home and Finance, Chief of Defence Staff, the National Security Advisor (NSA), Deputy NSAs and Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog. NSA is the Secretary to the National Security Council.
The NSC is a three-tier organization consisting of the Strategic Planning Group, the National Security Advisory Board and the Joint Intelligence Committee.
Strategic Planning Group (SPG) - This is the top most decision making body at the bureaucratic level, The SPG is responsible for formulating and implementing India's strategic policies. Headed by the Cabinet Secretary, the SPG is also assigned to make long term strategies for India's military doctrine. Its members include secretaries of all important ministries and departments. This Group meets periodically and continuously observes national and international security environment and takes necessary steps to neutralize possible threats.
National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) - the Board consists of members from outside the government, and advises it on matters related to national security and development. It does long term analysis and provides perspectives on issues of national security. Its membership includes eminent professionals, academics, scientists, administrative experts and retired bureaucrats. It is important to note that NSAB played an instrumental role in formulation of draft Nuclear Policy of 1999.
Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) - this committee receives intelligence inputs from the IB, R&AW, and the Directorates of Military, Naval and Air Intelligence. It is the highest intelligence assessment organization, tasked with inter-agency coordination, collection and analysis of intelligence data. Headed by a Chairman (usually an Additional Secretary from the Cabinet Secretariat), the JIC has representatives from MEA, MoD, MHA, IB, R&AW, and some other departments. At times, the JIC also directs the relevant intelligence agencies to conduct certain intelligence gathering tasks, based on the input or demand from the Government. The JIC is an important and effective advisory body to the PM and Cabinet in decision making on matters related to foreign affairs and defence.
National Security Council was established by the former Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1998. The council hosts members from various ministries and has filled the gap for the need for a deliberative body to enable a more strategic decision-making process. The utility of the institution can be said to be as
However, it is also suggested that National Security Council must have a legislative backing as in the case of USA, which will ensure accountability check arbitrary independence.
With institutionalization of strategic thinking, National Security Council has contributed to a more strategic and futuristic policy making, ending the knee jerk reactions. With two antagonistic neighbours, growing external terrorism threat, and a plethora of internal problems like left-wing extremism, radicalization and economic offences, the role of National Security Advisor & National Security Council will be significant in times to come.
Role of Parliament & PM
Prime Minister's Office and the Cabinet
The PMO, consisting of senior level bureaucrats provides secretarial assistance and advice to the PM and functions as the centre of all the policy making in India. It coordinates various central agencies like the Cabinet, Cabinet Committees, Council of Ministers and other stakeholders to sort out interdepartmental hurdles in domestic and foreign policy execution. During PM Nehru's time, since he was both PM and EAM, the Prime Minister's Secretariat (as PMO was known then), became the centre of foreign policy decision making.
This trend has continued with each PMO assuming the central role in all policy, including foreign policy decision making, often bypassing the Cabinet, Cabinet Committees and Council of Ministers. The current PMO consists of the Principal Secretary to PM, the National Security Advisor (NSA), an and several other officers at various levels.
The Prime Minister, almost without exception, has been the central figure in foreign policy decision making since Independence. All important matters on foreign policy and security need PM's approval before implementation. The NSA is an important and influencing factor in the advice reaching the PM.
The successful foreign policy formulation and execution depends on the degree of coordination between the PMO and MEA. PM's approval is crucial in appointment of Indian Ambassadors and High Commissioners abroad, though the formal letter of appointment is issued by the President in his capacity as Head of State. In other words, on all major foreign policy issues, the buck stops at the door of the Prime Minister.
The Cabinet being the top most decision making body of the government, determines the course of India's external relations by giving necessary directions. Cabinet Ministers are the most trusted colleagues of the Prime Minister and assist and advise him or her on major foreign policy issues, including during times of crisis. Cabinet decides on measures to strengthen India's external security in consultation with MHA, MoD and MEA. Regarding foreign trade and investment issues, the prime consultants are the Ministries of Commerce and Industry, Finance and External Affairs.
The main function of the relevant cabinet committee(CC) is to examine the various activities of the ministry and to give policy directives to the respective departments. Though none of the current cabinet committees (like the CC on Security or CC on Economic Affairs) deal exclusively with foreign affairs, the issues dealt by such CCs, directly impact India's foreign policy and practices. EAM, Mr. S Jaishankar is a member of two cabinet committees i.e. CC on Economic Affairs, CC on Security.
Parliament and Foreign Policy
Indian Parliament has the power to legislate on foreign affairs, one of the subjects in the Union List. This authority includes legislation or amendment of any law for the successful implementation of international treaties, agreements and conventions. The executives are accountable to Parliament, which can seek information and clarification on policies and issues.
Theoretically, by exercising budgetary control and passing necessary resolutions, Parliament can force the government as per its will. However, the government of the day normally enjoys the support of the majority of members of Parliament, and such a situation normally does not occur, unless the government has lost the confidence of the House.
Further, the government can enter the treaties without the need for a vote in the Parliament, and a war could be declared without its formal authorization.
Thus, there is no legal mechanism by which the government is required to seek the approval of Parliament in pursuit of foreign policy.
Among its important oversight functions, Parliament has a Standing Committee on External Affairs and a Standing Committee on Defence, which grill the officials on issues pertaining to foreign relations and external security. Parliament may also constitute ad hoc committees to look into specific issues. Since the parliament is the forum for discussion and debate at the highest level, it plays significant role in awarding the legitimacy to foreign policy. Nehru had little hesitation in acknowledging that external affairs will follow internal affairs.
Indo-Pak Negotiations: After the war of 1962, there was pressure on the government to enter into negotiations with Pakistan on Kashmir issue, in exchange for western arms and military assistance. However, due to strong opposition in parliament, any concessions remained out of question. Opposition member, Vajpayee even warned US & UK against interfering in Kashmir issue.
Enclave Exchange with Bangladesh: The legislature check on foreign policy was also exercised in exchange of enclaves with Bangladesh. The agreement merely reflected formalizing lines and boundaries accepted by the Radcliff Award. However, since the agreement would alter the national boundaries, a constitutional amendment, in accordance with Article 368 was necessary. The passing of bill demanded a 2/3rd majority in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The Constitution Amendment bill, initially introduced in 2013, was ultimately passed in 2015. This case highlights the enhanced role of Parliament on certain issues like those involving national boundaries.
Civil Nuclear Deal: The role of parliament also becomes important under coalition or minority governments. This almost happened in 2008 when four Left Front parties threatened to withdraw their support from the coalition government on issue of civil nuclear agreement with the USA.
Later, the opposition's views also played a key role in the Nuclear Liabilities Bill in pushing the government to include clauses in the bill (section 17(b) and 46). This ensured that legal action could be taken against suppliers in the event of an action caused by malfunctioning equipment. This event highlights the importance of parliamentary oversight and the role of Standing Committees in foreign policy.
Paradiplomacy of States
Paradiplomacy refers to the diplomacy that non-central governments undertake. In simple words, when sub-national governments such as states, provinces, or even cities conduct international affairs to further their interests, it is known as Paradiplomacy. The increasing usage of terms like 'town twinning' or 'sister cities', etc. displays its growing trend. In India, the process has accelerated, especially since 2014 when PM Modi assumed power.
From a scholarly perspective, Paradiplomacy is a recent phenomenon. The terms substate diplomacy, decentralized cooperation, people-to-people diplomacy, and intermestic affairs are also used synonymously. Its study began as a subset of the study of federalism in countries like Australia and Canada.
Since Paradiplomacy involves greater autonomy of the substate governments, federal countries naturally take a lead in it. For example, Canada and Australia have taken huge strides in this direction. However, this is also not to suggest that it is alien to quasi-federal or non-democratic countries. The impressive FDI performance of China owes its success to Paradiplomacy, which combines central coordination with municipal diplomacy.
Canadian scholar, Panayotis Soldatos, while describing the essence of Paradiplomacy, says that it "is a result of a crisis at the level of the nation-states' systemic process and foreign-policy performance." Thus, according to him, Paradiplomacy is an attempt to remedy the crisis. He holds that "decentralization could enhance unity and efficiency in external relations" because "actor segregation does not become policy segregation and a subnational Paradiplomacy helps to rationalize the whole foreign policy process."
Paradiplomacy serves various purposes on the ground that make it desirable. Usually, regional governments depend on the Union's resources for their functions. But any government has limited resources. Thus, through substate diplomacy, a regional government can attract FDI. Also, for a diverse country like India, Paradiplomacy offers regional governments alternatives to develop a growth model that caters to its local needs. Thus, scholars often say that Paradiplomacy leads to the 'globalisation of local issues.'
The major forces behind the rising trend of Paradiplomacy are the twin phenomena of globalisation and liberalization. With the growth of an integrated world economy, even state governments are impacted by global phenomena. Thus, to further their interests, state governments too engage in foreign diplomacy.
If we look around the world, several countries are adopting and benefitting from economic Paradiplomacy. For example, the city of Sao Paolo in Brazil is the richest city in Latin America, and the municipal Paradiplomacy helped it witness a meteoric rise.
In India, Paradiplomacy came into play post-1967, when regional coalition governments led to an increase in states' autonomy. However, it remained lacklustre. It gained impetus post-liberalisation in the 1990s. For example, in 1992, when the power sector was first opened to private foreign investors, the government of Maharashtra entered into an agreement with Texas electric giant, Enron, and General Electric to finance its Dabhol Project. The project operationalized only after the then Central government actively supported it.
At present, several states are increasingly willing to utilise this opportunity to pursue economic reforms and outreach. Vibrant Gujrat, Magnetic Maharashtra, Invest Odisha and similar efforts by UP, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Haryana, North-East etc. are indicative of this. Border states are incidental in promoting trade with neighbouring countries. Punjab, for example, has built additional trade routes at the Wagah border. Tripura has excelled in organising border haats.
The foreign diplomacy of substates, however, is not limited to economy. They are also important in subjects such as security, environment and resource management.
Paradiplomacy also brings with it some difficulties. We have seen incidents when the Union and state governments differ on a policy, jeopardising the nation's interests. For instance, Mamta Bannerjee, the CM of West Bengal, stopped then PM Dr. Manmohan Singh from signing the Teesta Water Agreement with Bangladesh. Similarly, Tamil Nadu had insisted that India should not support the US resolution against Sri Lanka in the UNHRC. Also, Kerala had insisted on punishing the Italian marines who killed two fishermen, souring relations between India and the EU ( Enrica-Lexie Case ).
Such incidents, however, do not negate the benefits offered by paradiplomacy and can be resolved by establishing formal institutions and framing clear guidelines. Currently, paradiplomacy is still in a nascent phase in India. The MEA has risen to the occasion and set up State Divisions. However, more institutional setup is required to fully harness Paradiplomacy in India. The centre should act as an observer and a monitor to ensure that the foreign policy goals of the states and the Union are in sync, especially in non-economic matters.
Paradiplomacy holds immense potential, especially for a diverse country like India. With clear policies and institutional infrastructure, it has the potential to accelerate India's growth.
Informal Actors: Media, Diaspora and Think Tanks
The established media in India particularly, newspapers, journals and television are taking an increasingly greater interest in foreign affairs issues than in the past. This is a healthy development as the Government is forced to factor in the views from the ground before deciding on issues that may affect the lives of its citizens. In the recent past, Indian media as a whole has emerged as a significant business opportunity and attracted large investments. This has helped the media to become more autonomous players in the foreign policy debates in the country.
The media hold the capacity to draw and sustain attention to a particular policy issue. It can also alter the discourse around a policy by framing or defining the issue in a particular way. The media's impact on foreign policy can also be understood with the larger role that it plays in providing an understanding of foreign countries and their foreign policies to the domestic audience. While it is also true that Indian media continue to view developments abroad through the eyes of foreign news agencies since Indian news agencies have just a handful of correspondents abroad.
There can be little doubt that the media play a significant role in informing, shaping or skewing the foreign policy debate. But it remains questionable as the whether it can actually lead a government to adopt, modify, or abandon a chosen foreign policy discourse. Since people often depend to a greater degree on the media to report and explain foreign policy developments, media practitioners and policymakers have a close relationship which is a two-way street. This is exercised by the government exerting a certain degree of pressure to guide (and manipulate) information concerning policy and the National interest; and the media, through its reportage and commentary, nudging policy in certain directions.
Voices of non-political groups, associations and organizations are important sources of influence in shaping government policies, including foreign policy and security issues. Some of these groups, like friendship associations, are formally established and registered with the concerned authorities and have greater access to the policymakers, while others are informal but wield influence primarily through making their views known through various media, including through writings in influential journals and magazines, and lately through social media.
NGOs are growing in stature not only for their work among the masses in India but also for significantly influencing policy decisions, some of which have a bearing on India's external relations. NGOs dealing with environment, human rights and migration issues are very active in India. The importance of garnering domestic support for foreign policy is recognized and underscored by the fact that the Ministry of External Affairs Public Diplomacy Division and External Publicity Decision goes into the management of what has been referred to as India's 'media diplomacy', 'soundbite diplomacy', 'instant diplomacy' & 'real-time diplomacy'.
According to UN International Migration Report 2019, India was the leading country of origin of international migrants, with 17.5 million persons living abroad . Migrants from Mexico constituted the second largest "diaspora" (11.8 million), followed by China (10.7 million).
Soon after independence, the Prime Minister adopted the policy of distancing itself from Indian diaspora, as it was worried that the support would be seen as interference by host country. However, since early 1990s, India has launched various initiatives to engage with this diaspora. Pravasi Bharatiya Divas, Bharatiya Prawasi Sanman Award, corporate internships for diaspora youth, Know India and Study India programmes, scholarships for diaspora youth, etc.
The diaspora has sent regular remittances ($89 bn in 2021-22), made investments, lobbied for India on crucial issues, promoted Indian culture and, in general, created a positive image of India and Indians through their intelligence, hard work and entrepreneurial attributes, adding to India's brand value. India has actively championed the cause of the Indian diaspora/NRIs whenever they face problems or discrimination and conducted emergency evacuations from war zones/conflict areas. The overseas Indians/diaspora, enthused by India's efforts to engage with them, have in turn, responded to our overtures to participate in India's development initiatives, including in the Make in India and Digital India programmes, as also promoted the cause of India with their host governments.
Prime Minister (PM) Modi has taken this policy further and made diaspora diplomacy a central part of his foreign policy and on his visits abroad, PM has made it a point to address the diaspora community in each country, outlining India's needs and priorities and urging the diaspora to invest in India.
India is bound by its diaspora through invisible threads and 'diaspora diplomacy' is an intrinsic part of India's foreign policy.
Along with mainstream media, there are significant groups outside the government that exercise a significant level of influence in foreign affairs. These include the dons various universities, research centres and think tanks.
The significant think tanks include, the School of International Studies at JNU, MEA supported Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA) and the Defence Ministry supported Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA). Other players are the Institute of Chinese Studies (ICS), the RIS (Research and Information System for Developing Countries), ICRIER (Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations), the Centre for Policy Research (CPR), Observer Research Foundation (ORF), and Vivekananda Foundation, all based in Delhi. Then there are international relations studies departments in universities and colleges, and a few private higher educational institutes, also contribute inputs towards India's foreign policy calculus.
Big business, particularly the house of the Tatas and Birlas played a benevolent hand in the shaping of the newly independent nation and its national and global outlook. In the post reform period, business organizations, like FICCI, CII, ASSOCHAM, NASSCOM, etc., could be regarded as akin to US lobbyists groups, which engage with the government to create a favourable business environment to suit the interests of their members.
Foreign trade and investment as a component of India's GDP has been on the rise since the 1990s. Obviously much of this interaction seeks to influence government to adopt policies that favour Indian exporters, importers, recipients of FDI and Indian investments abroad. Government in turn uses the expertise and resources available with such business groups to conduct its economic diplomacy.
It is now customary for senior leaders, including Presidents, Vice Presidents, PMs and relevant ministers to have business delegations accompany them on their official visits abroad. Similarly, during visits of foreign leaders to India, who are also seeking to advance their ties with Indian businesses, the concerned country embassy and MEA or MoC seek the participation of such business groups to organize and conduct the business related events. Such activities not only enhances Indian businesses to influence policy at home but also with governments abroad. A case in point is the favourable environment created for Indian IT companies in the US through sustained lobbying there by NASSCOM.
Continuity & Change
Statism and Dynamics in Foreign Policy
The foreign policy of any country, unlike domestic policy, is usually considered to be staid and stable not subject to revolutionary change. However, foreign policy is both static and dynamic and Indian foreign policy is no exception to it.
Statism (continuity) in foreign policy: 'Statism' in foreign policy denotes the maintenance of the status quo, e,g., sending Indian troops for peace-keeping operations in conflict zones, only under United Nations resolution and command. Static foreign policy elements reduce risks.
Dynamics (change) in foreign policy: Changing dynamics in foreign policy mean the ability to change or mould policy according to changes in the country's external environment or a revolutionary change in the country's domestic political scenario. A concrete example of such dynamism would be the presence of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the inauguration ceremony of President Ibrahim Mohammad Solih of Maldives in November 2018. This came in as a reversal of the earlier policy of avoiding visits at the level of President or PM to Maldives during the regime of former President Abdulla Yameen, who was known to be inimical to India's interests. A dynamic foreign policy shows a greater appetite for risk-taking.
Foreign policy of any country, including India, contains both static and dynamic features.
Three Phases of India's Foreign Policy
We can divide the global political and security order and India's Foreign Policy response to the same in three phases.
From 1947 to 1991, the world was characterised by a bipolar world order. The League of Nations had withered away, and the United Nations was born, moulded by the victorious World War II allies namely, the US, USSR, UK and France. Global economic and financial power was usurped by the Western developed countries primarily the US and its European allies who developed the Bretton-Woods arrangement with the World Bank and IMF duo controlling the global financial system and the GATT (later replaced by WTO) shaping global trade.
In this environment, India's response was to adopt the policy of non-alignment. Being non-aligned meant not being identified with either superpower while aiming to get political, security and economic support from both camps. The purpose behind this stance was so that the young nation could overcome its severe political, social and economic stress and degradation, after two centuries of colonial rule. This was the staid and stable phase of India's foreign policy, perhaps best suited for the times.
In the second phase from 1991 to 2008 , two major events in 1991 kick-started the process of change. The former Soviet Union collapsed and splintered into many independent countries, Russia being the largest among them, and successor to the USSR in the UN. The second was the foreign currency crisis faced by India, the likes of which we had never experienced before. We witnessed a changing world order with only one country remaining as the major political, economic and military power, viz., the USA. Multiple other lesser poles of global power started sprouting from this period onwards in the EU, Russia, China, dynamic Asia including Japan and India and in South America, particularly Brazil.
India responded to these catatonic changes by weaning itself away from non-alignment to a multipolar alignment, adjusted its previous, often adversarial relations, with the remaining major power, the USA, incorporated globalization and paid greater attention to its immediate neighbourhood.
The third period is from 2008 to the present times . In 2008, the US and the global banking and financial systems were severely jolted, starting with the collapse of the Lehman Brothers. This led to a severe economic meltdown in the advanced economies of the world, and even among most of the erstwhile champion emerging economies like South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. In this period, the United States' economic and military superiority is being chipped away, with most of the slack taken up by China, which is also becoming a more attractive political model for some developing countries. The rise of multiple poles in the EU, ASEAN, Russia, Japan, India, BRICS, IBSA, SCO, etc., has been much faster than in the previous period. The fulcrum of global power is gradually, but surely shifting from the West to the East, particularly to Asia.
Indian foreign policy has responded vigorously to these changes with non-alignment dropped altogether. Today, Indian diplomacy is primarily focused on the USA, China, other P-5 member countries, and our neighbourhood. Look East has been expanded to Act East. Africa has loomed into focus and Latin America does not look so distant anymore. Economic diplomacy has taken the pole position in India's foreign policy above that of political and security issues.
Sources of Continuity
Challenges and the Road Ahead
The danger posed by an increasingly weaponized world, including the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology is a challenge with no immediate remedy. The US-Russia nuclear weapons roll back programme and the Iranian nuclear deal are in disarray. The effort to restrict such weapons and its technology from the hands of irresponsible states and non-state actors is also not going anywhere. The two Indian neighbours already possess nuclear weapons, and this further forces India to maintain its nuclear deterrent.
India's dependence on hydrocarbon sources such as coal and crude oil, continues to be very high. India's dependence on imports of oil and gas, in the absence of large recoveries at home, has only grown over the years. Such dependence on imports has exposed the Indian economy to the oil price and availability shocks that take place from time to time. Thus, Indian foreign policy has to tread carefully so that our supplies of crude oil from the Middle East and Iran are not upset. The current sourcing of oil from Russia has proved to be particularly tricky with India conscious of its strategic dependence on the US and the need to keep its centuries-old relations with Russia on an even keel. The situation repeats somehow in a similar fashion when it comes to oil imports from Iran and Venezuela.
Water, it is said, will be the principal source of conflict in this century. The stressed water situation across the globe is increasing day by day, the problem being more acute in large emerging economies like India with its growing population and ever-increasing demand for water. Foreign policy and diplomacy ensures that India's legitimate claims are not surrendered when negotiating multilateral or global water sharing agreements. However, the problem remains persistent while dealing with Indian neighbours.
The steady rise in the global population, finite resources like land and water, and anticipated future decline in food productivity increases, means that we have to be alert to this problem and the global scramble for food that may occur in the future.
Terrorism hardly respects international boundaries. Despite the best effort nationally, without international cooperation, it is impossible to stamp out this global menace. Asia remains the most terrorism-active region of the world. In the Indian neighbourhood, while one state is ruled by a terrorist organization (Taliban in Afghanistan), the other state actively promotes cross-border terrorism, while remaining a victim itself (Pakistan).
Climate change and environmental degradation is not in any one's interest. However, the highly industrialized countries which have had centuries of head start in their growth and prosperity path, are the principal cause for today's situation. Unfortunately, without deft diplomacy, traditional polluters seek to curb the growth path of emerging and developing economies by imposing mitigation measures, which are unfair to those who started industrialization late. India is fully committed to resolving the negative aspects of climate change and environmental degradation, but cannot be forced to accept the same conditions as those imposed on the more developed countries.
In recent times, India has clearly demonstrated its will to play a leading role in the global arena and be counted as 'pole' in its own right. Continued stability and prosperity at home and political consensus on broad foreign policy parameters, will help India reach this goal.
Panchsheel & Non-Alignment
Panchsheel and the 1954 Agreement
When China forcibly occupied Tibet in 1950, India did not do anything beyond protesting. In April 1954, both countries signed an agreement concerning trade between India and 'Tibet Region of China'. The agreement incorporates the principal of 'Panchsheel', which later became an important set of principals in Indian foreign policy discourse.
Origins of the Non-Alignment Movement
Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) was the movement of third-world countries that emerged after the 2nd WW. The movement primarily focused on preserving the newly earned freedom and sovereignty of these countries. During the early days, its actions were key factors in the process of decolonization. And it has played an important role in preserving world peace and security.
According to Prof. T V Paul, McGill University, the Non-Alignment Movement is an example of 'soft balancing' by weaker states towards great powers. As these countries had little material ability to constrain superpower conflict and arms race, they adopted the method of soft balancing through normative power. Normative power denotes a new set of values like peace, disarmament, development, autonomy of choice and the new world order.
Bandung Asian-African conference in 1955 is considered as most immediate antecedent to the creation of NAM. The meeting was attended by 29 Heads of states belonging to the first post-colonial generation. The objective was to identify and assess world issues and pursue joint policies in international relations. However, there was also another important reason. These countries had newly attained independence. Development and increasing standard of living was the main concern for them. Thus, they did not want to be part of either the Western or Eastern block and get dragged into the cold war.
The 'Ten Principles of Bandung' were proclaimed at the conference. Such principles were later adopted as the main goals and objectives of NAM.
Six years after Bandung, the Movement of Non-Aligned countries was founded at the First Summit Conference of Belgrade, on Sep 1-6, 1961. The conference was attended by members of 25 countries from Asia, Africa Europe, and Latin America (Cuba). The newly created grouping, NAM was declared as a 'movement' and not an organization to avoid the bureaucratic implications of the latter. Further, the word 'movement' denotes the dynamism and the ever-evolving agenda in response to the global world order. The NAM was conceived to play an active role in international politics and to have its own stand on international matters. Which will reflect the interest of its members.
At present, the membership of NAM includes 120 member states and 20 observer states along with the participation of 10 international organisations. The below map shows the members and observer states of NAM.
Since its inception, the NAM meetings have been held every three years. The latest Summits being the 2016 Venezuela Summit and 2019 Azerbaijan (Baku) Summit. The 2022 NAM summit has been postponed and is scheduled in January 2024, in Uganda. Meanwhile, a virtual NAM summit was held online on 4 May 2020 titled "United Against COVID-19".
Objectives and Agenda of NAM
The Primary objective of NAM focused on the support of self-determination, national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, opposition to apartheid, non-adherence to multilateral military pacts, struggle against imperialism and colonialism, racism, foreign occupation etc. Strengthening of United Nations, democratization of International Relations, socio-economic development as well as international cooperation on equal footing.
In the 1950s the movement played an important role in support of nations struggling for independence and against colonization. Third World showed great solidarity under the leadership of NAM and the movement gained considerable diplomatic prestige.
In the 1960s and 70s , the movement expanded to include nearly all Asian and African countries. The issues raised by the movement also evolved. It now included the struggle for the respect of economic and political rights of third-world countries. The Algiers conference in 1973 launched the concept of the 'New International Economic Order' (NIEO). The new order was proposed in the context of neo-colonialism, the drain of wealth from peripheries to the core (dependency theory).
Thus, the agenda of NAM was to
Critiques of NAM
Unfortunately, there was no outcome. There was a lack of solidarity among third-world countries. Western countries were successful in creating geopolitical conflicts among third-world countries. Further, the proposals were also utopian. It was not possible to get equal value to the raw materials and manufactured goods. It was an attempt to apply socialism in international trade. Although inspired by the Oil diplomacy of OPEC countries, the NAM didn't have similar bargaining power, nor could it get the OPEC countries on board with its agenda.
By end of 1980s, the world observed the end of Cold War and collapse of the Socialist Block. It was assumed that the bipolar world order was the prime reason for NAM, and therefore scholars started asking questions about the relevance of movement. Some of the member countries like Egypt proposed the dissolution of NAM. Yugoslavia, one of the founding member, disintegrated and NAM countries played no role in handling the crisis. Further, NAM countries had no position on the issue of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, both of whom were NAM members. Thus, it is said that since the end of Cold War, NAM has been in search of the agenda.
Prof. Hans Koechler , a leading expert on NAM suggests that "NAM is not relevant today, it was relevant only during the Cold War era Bi-polar world. Now there is only one dominant global power (the U.S.) and in this unipolar world, NAM has lost its relevance. Further, since most of the NAM countries are heavily dependent on the US, it does not really leave them non-aligned.
The most significant case against NAM is that the cold war has ended and so has NAM's raison d'etre. There is no more fear of two military blocs possibly destroying the world in the heat of the moment. The military blocs like SEATO, CENTO and Warsaw have become redundant and tumbled down. moreover, Military bases have become a thing of the past owing to advances in science and technology and its use for military purposes. The most crucial part of NAM's agenda was that of pushing for the decolonization of all the colonized countries. As this task has been achieved there seems no reason to continue with the NAM.
Today the NAM is not in a position to act even as a forum for displaying solidarity. The NAM has no charter and there are no strict rules on whether the member countries have to defend each other's actions. Today, the NAM competes with similar international organisations like the G-7, ASEAN, and the Commonwealth. However, due to the fact that they focus on business and trade, other organisations are more productive. This is not something the NAM does, nor does it engage in any diplomatic activity.
NAM has no actual issues either. Along with other social and economic challenges, it may have shown some leadership in the areas of nuclear nonproliferation, child labour, poverty, and terrorism. To be able to continue to have an impact on global politics, NAM urgently needs fresh topics and themes to concentrate on. If not, it will be yet another pointless conference. NAM has failed to make any progress even on issues where there is general agreement, like the drug trade, international terrorism, and non-proliferation.
Relevance of NAM Today
According to Jagat S. Mehta , a former Indian Foreign Secretary; NAM was started to advocate for the independent rights of nations and that has been achieved, hence, the mission should be declared accomplished and NAM should be discontinued.
Dr. S. Jaishankar recently said that NAM was an idea born in a particular temporality, and believes that India, taking the concept of independence of action from NAM, should move beyond it to respond efficiently to contemporary developments.
According to C Rajamohan , an Indian academic and foreign policy analyst, the end of Cold War was the best time for a graceful exit from a platform that had no achievement in the past and no prospects in future. It was the best time as the NAM issue had taken the credit of ending the Cold War. NAM countries should have declared the 'mission accomplished', and disbanded it. Now, the movement is in a comma. NAM was irrelevant even before the end of the Cold War. After the Cold War, it was put into a coma because countries were not ready for its burial. They prefer to maintain the triennial rituals.
According to Prof. T V Paul, NAM never got the credit it deserved. There has been an intellectual bias against NAM. Despite all criticism, NAM acted as a limited soft-balancing mechanism. It has used 'naming and shaming' tools against great powers. The intellectual bias against NAM, a coalition of weaker states is as natural and expected as there is a bias against the subaltern class movements among upper classes and upper castes in hierarchical societies.
While it is easy to dismiss the NAM as redundant, it is also important to note that it is the biggest organization exclusively of third-world countries. In the dynamics of international relations, it is not possible to predict when the need will arise to revive it. Since its formation, NAM has maintained its regular schedule of summits. Moreover, the steadily growing memberships of NAM have eliminated all doubts as to the relevance of the NAM.
However, this increasing number is also a bane to the organisation as it is turning NAM into a club where one can discuss and debate international issues rather than resolve them. The summit declarations don't include anything particular that suggests the movement is really grappling with the problems caused by a unipolar strategy intended to retain the North's hegemony over the South. Most importantly, the NAM's progress towards its two primary and consistent goals, the development of the third world and the eradication of poverty, continues to lag behind.
Despite the fact that the bipolar world has ended, Washington should not become the political Mecca for individuals who had shied away from aligning themselves with either of the two blocs. It is clear that the assertion that "NAM is dead", actively promoted by some Western commentators is nothing less than a canard. A severely Euro-Center-centric international political landscape characterises the current unipolar world and is becoming increasingly featureless. The NAM, which saw the transition of the world from bipolar to unipolar and now a multipolar one, is possibly more important now than it has ever been in the history of international relations and development.
The end of one block has not done away with the problems of the world. New issues like terrorism and climate change have emerged which necessitate global coordination.
Today, more than ever, NAM has a plethora of work to do. It has to set up a new international order through the UN, restructure and democratize the UN; enhance South-South cooperation and coordination with the G-77; foster cooperation in the areas of food cooperation, population, trade and investment; ensure equitable international flow of trade and transfer of technology; and oppose interventionism and imposition of economic conditions on developing countries. Given that more than half of the world still suffers from the issues relevant to NAM, it is pointless to question the relevance of the same. As diplomat N. Krishnan reminds us, "dynamics of globalization have produced a whole set of new problems which the Non-Alignment Movement must take note of."
According to T V Paul, there is a space for the resurrection of the old movement as a soft balancing mechanism against powerful states. As great powers are once again in the arms race, militarization of oceans and territorial expansions, there is a need for weaker countries to come together to delegitimize imperial ventures. If third-world countries do not act as cushioning forces, international order will spiral into a hot war. Great powers always need to be restrained and balanced. Soft balancing by smaller states has a key role to play because military conflicts will ultimately bring suffering to them. There is a need to revive the 'Bandug' spirit. There is no hope from China and India to revive the movement because they are in the race of superstardom. The onus is on smaller countries.
India and NAM
India is a founding member of the NAM. And since its birth NAM has been playing a very active role in fostering cooperation among nations, particularly among developing countries. India has felt it useful to continue to support and actively engage with the movement because it has provided a high profile and strong voice to India in international fora and affairs.
After the disintegration of USSR, the then Indian PM PV Narasimha Rao had laid out the vision for NAM. In his words, "the main concern of NAM is not related to superpower rivalry, rather it is to give voice and address concerns of third world countries."
If India has the ambition to play a major role in the global economy, it must necessarily think of taking the leadership of the Non-aligned while taking into account the norms of international relations. NAM provides a basis to build India's soft power and even at present India needs third world solidarity.
Especially, after the Covid-19 pandemic, India and most third-world countries have realised the need for solidarity against powerful institutions to avail even the basic necessities like healthcare. India's Prime Minister, Mr Modi, also participated in the virtual NAM summit in 2020 and called NAM 'the moral voice' of the world. Moreover, in the emerging cold war between the US and China, it will be in favour of India to hold the leadership position in the Global South.
According to T P Srinivasan , NAM did benefit India because it allowed to promote our national interest as per our preferences, NAM has allowed India to manage through the situation of bipolarity. The movement is still relevant for India and India has stakes in the integrity of NAM. India has to seek partnerships with the countries so that it is able to exercise its freedom of thought and action, away from the influence of great powers like the US, Russia and China.
Martand Jha suggests that whether NAM is relevant for India or not depends on the prism through which we look at NAM. It would be a mistake if we just see NAM as a rejection of block politics. NAM was a policy for autonomy, to establish peace and security, and to contain the superpower's hegemonic ambitions. Thus NAM needs to be reinvented. It is the biggest platform for developing countries outside United Nations. It provides a platform for the natural leadership of India. However, India needs to provide a concrete program of action, goals and leadership.
C Rajamohan , as quoted earlier, suggests that NAM was never relevant for India. NAM countries never supported India e.g. In the 1962 war, countries like Indonesia, and Ghana took a pro-China approach. NAM countries gave Colombo proposals that were favourable to China. In the 1965 war, NAM countries like Indonesia not only supported Pakistan but even supplied weapons to Pakistan. 1971 war, NAM countries of West Asia, South Asia, and South East Asia fiercely supported Pakistan and Sri Lanka provided re-fuelling to the Pakistani aircraft.
The time is ripe to evaluate the past and formulate future policies for the Non-aligned countries to change the existing international order. None of the NAM countries or groups of countries, however, big or rich they may be, can face these new realities alone. Hence, the countries of NAM must continue to stay and act together for common thought and action.
This means that the unidimensional and unipolar version of the new international system needs to be contested by the NAM as a whole. Unity and solidarity among the Non-aligned countries are all the more necessary in the present crisis in international relations.
The realities of current politics make non-alignment equally relevant today for the developing countries of the world as it was during the Cold War period. In the words of former Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, "Nonalignment basically consists of the espousal of the right of nations to independence and development, regardless of the bloc phenomenon. Whether there is one bloc or more at a given moment, the urge for a nonaligned country would continue to be to maintain its independence, to take decisions according to its light, not tagging along itself, in advance to others."
The movement has succeeded in creating a strong front representing countries of the third world. Current challenges for NAM include protecting international law, eliminating weapons of mass destruction, making the United Nations more effective, defending human rights, security, stability and justice in the international economic system. The long-standing goals of peace, development, and economic cooperation, remain to be realized. Thus we can expect the movement to play an even bigger role in coming times.
Non-Alignment as Indian Foreign Policy
Non-alignment is often termed as 'Indian exceptionalism'. It has been India's 'grand strategy' to protect its national interest. According to Martand Jha, in his article Decoded: India's Role In A Multipolar World. Non-alignment remained a highly ambiguous term as the Indian elites never attempted to explain the substance of the policy of non-alignment. India never formally abandoned non-alignment but there has always been a question mark on the status of India as a non-aligned country. During the Cold War, India was in quasi-alliance with USSR, after the Cold War India strengthened strategic partnership with USA to the extent that there is a huge interoperability between their armed forces.
During the time of Cold War, the assertion of non-alignment as a choice by India was termed by John Foster Dulles, the then US Secretary of State, as immoral, an example of Indian opportunism . It was also an example of Indian utopianism. India was trying to gain the best of both worlds, without offering anything in return. India was soon to realize that there is no free lunch. Non-alignment was India's arrogance to challenge US hegemony. India was successful to some extent as it could build a coalition of non-aligned nations. US policymakers have always been allergic to the idea of non-alignment. They never recognize the integrity of India's status as a non-aligned country. They viewed India as team B of the USSR.
On the other hand, Stalin was also critical of the non-alignment in a very categorical manner. He held that 'those who are not with us are against us'.
On a theoretical premise, Non-alignment was a new concept. At times, the scholars of international politics compared non-alignment with 1) the USA's policy of isolationism or 2) The policy of neutrality or equidistance adopted by some countries.
However, it is to be noted that non-alignment should not be seen as an isolation or equidistance but rather principled distance. The concept of non-alignment of Nehru comes near to India's concept of secularism. India declared that it would stay away from blocks. India will be strengthening international law and the United Nations. Pandit Nehru clarified to the Indian parliament that no government can sacrifice national interest, not for the sake of ideology or anything else. According to him, non-alignment was the policy most conducive to India's national interest.
Aparna Pandey in her book Chanakya To Modi, suggests that Nehru aspired to play a leadership role. India was weak militarily and economically. Non-alignment was an option that allowed India to 1) Maintain its independence yet be a part of world politics. 2) Maintain a relationship with both the superpowers without coercion.
K Natwar Singh, a former Indian diplomat suggests that Non-alignment was a doctrine. It was never a dogma. There was enough flexibility in the idea which allowed India to maintain its independence rather than becoming a camp follower. It would not have been wise if India had put 'all eggs in one basket'.
Paul Power gives the domestic reason for adopting non-alignment. Domestic consensus in itself is a basis of sound foreign policy. Considering internal divisions e.g. Rightist favoured west, leftist favoured east, non-alignment gave Nehru a free hand in handling divisive domestic approach to foreign policy.
Henry Kissinger in his book 'The World Order' remarks that although non-alignment was irritating for the USA, it was the best course of action that India could have followed.
Throughout its history, except for the phase of Pandit Nehru, India has never been genuinely non-aligned. ( C Rajamohan ). Non alignment during the Cold War became synonymous with 'reflexive anti-Americanism of south block'.
After the Cold War, the growing strategic partnership with the USA again put a question mark on India's integrity towards non-alignment. Among the political parties, Congress was favouring non-alignment till the cold war. However, both right and left were against it. After the end of the Cold War, both Congress and the right left non alignment, and the chief advocate of non alignment became left. The Congress maintained the rhetoric without substance. The rightist party BJP never had illusions with non-alignment. Vajapeyi had no hesitation in openly calling the USA and Israel as India's natural allies. Similarly while describing the state of Indo-US relations, Prime Minister Modi had mentioned that the relationship has gone beyond 'hesitations of history'. Similarly, Modi and the Israeli Prime Minister describe the relationship as a marriage conceived in heaven, evident in the recent outburst of emotions of Indian leaders on the attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip.
Presently, we're witnessing a shift in Indian foreign policy. From being too close to the USA, India reasserting 'strategic autonomy'. In his 2018 speech at the Shangri La dialogue, Prime Minister Modi emphasized the importance of cooperation with Russia and China, on the other hand, he expressed India's support for working with the USA to maintain peace and rule-based order in Indo-Pacific. The more significant was the Prime Minister praising Singapore for being 'fair.' 'Singapore has taught the world that when nations do not take sides, stand on principles, they earn respect.'
We can say that India is trying to rebalance. According to South African experts, India is playing a delicate geopolitical game with the US, Russia and China as their influence is waxing and waning across the continent.
According to civil society experts, the non-alignment of the Cold War era should be changed into a multiple alignment known as non-alignment 2.0. Martand Jha suggests that India should come up with a clearer idea about the essence of its policy of non-alignment.
The essence of the policy is protecting India's own national interest. If India joins any alliance that protects its core national interest, it does not contradict its status as non-aligned. Since non-alignment is a Nehruvian legacy, the rightist party and its officials prefer using the term strategic autonomy.
The NITI Aayog Report and the Future of Non-Alignment
In the year 2012, some eminent Indian scholars; like Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Nandan Nilekani, Srinath Raghavan, and Shyam Saran; released the Non-Alignment 2.0 report. The report identified the basic principles that should guide India's foreign and strategic policy for the upcoming decade.
The purposes of the document were three-fold:
The views it sets out are rooted in the conviction that the success of India's internal development will depend decisively on how effectively we manage our global opportunities to maximize our choices - thereby enlarging our domestic options to the benefit of all Indians.
The report deals with India's approach towards the 'Asian theatre,' the international order, hard power, internal security, non-conventional security issues like energy and nuclear options, the knowledge and information foundations of power as well as the state and democracy.
The report emphasises that for its strategic and foreign policy to be successful, India must sustain domestic economic growth, social inclusion and democracy. Its approach must be to secure the maximum space possible for its own economic growth in order for the country to become reasonably prosperous and equitable. Although India's competitors will put roadblocks in its path, "the foundations of India's success will depend on its developmental model."
It appears that the report was not so influential in affecting Indian foreign policy, particularly after the rightist party assumed leadership in 2014. Since then, India's approach has often been described as a multi-alignment or issue-based alliance.
We can also say that NAM itself, as an expression of Indian foreign policy, has evolved. Non-alignment had given way to multi-alignment. However, multi-alignment has not found universal favour, since it may convey the impression of opportunism, whereas India seeks strategic convergences.
Former Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale has stated that India is ideologically non-aligned, but can seek issue-based alignment. That gives it the capacity to be flexible and maintain decisional autonomy. He adds that hedging is a delicate exercise, whether it is the non-alignment and strategic autonomy of earlier periods or multiple engagements of the future. But there is no getting away from it in a multipolar world.
India's External Affairs Minister and a former diplomat S. Jaishankar, describes the present foreign policy of India as an 'issue-based alliance', building strong partnerships with like-minded states on specific subjects. India, he says will have to "nimbly expand the space to pursue its interests and not be caught flatfooted by dogma" . The nation will have to position itself by optimizing ties with all major players and this will include "cultivating America, steadying Russia, managing China, enthusing Japan and attending to Europe".