Countries of the World/COUNTRYS.BIN/dp/0169/01694.txt

Text File | 1991-06-25 | 47KB | 703 lines

$Unique_ID{COW01694}
$Pretitle{221}
$Title{India
Chapter 9A.   Foreign Relations}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Surjit Mansingh}
$Affiliation{HQ, Department of the Army}
$Subject{india
pakistan
foreign
india's
indian
international
kashmir
government
nehru
policy}
$Date{1985}
$Log{Pillars of Diwan-i-Khas*0169401.scf
}
Country:     India
Book:        India, A Country Study
Author:      Surjit Mansingh
Affiliation: HQ, Department of the Army
Date:        1985

Chapter 9A.   Foreign Relations

[See Pillars of Diwan-i-Khas: Pillars of Diwan-i-Khas, Delhi]

     The basic determinants of Indian foreign policy in the mid-1980s
continued to be, on the one hand, India's large size, power potential,
strategic location, and unique struggle for independence and, on the other
hand, the external circumstances of global great power rivalry in the
post-World War II era. Whereas the first set of factors impelled India to
participate actively in world affairs, the second set constrained both the
impact of that participation and the directions it took. At the time of
independence, the partition of the country and its abysmal poverty also
imposed constraints on foreign policy. Thus, India's role and status in the
international system has not been constant and has been affected both by its
own capabilities and by the tensions within the international system at any
given time.

     India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, articulated foreign
policy goals and national interests in terms of independence of
decisionmaking, peace, insulation of the South Asian region from great power
conflict, and international cooperation, especially for economic development.
These tenets were summed up in the stance of nonalignment. Nehru refused to
commit India either to those military alliance systems created by the United
States or to the one formed by the Soviet Union. He cultivated solidarity with
Asian and African countries emerging from colonial rule and supported the
United Nations and its agencies, as well as other cooperative multilateral
organizations, such as the Commonwealth of Nations. Although his successors
did not sustain the same high international profile for India that Nehru
gained, they drew on the national consensus he had built around nonalignment.
They made adjustments of content in dealings with the United States and the
Soviet Union in response to changing needs and circumstances, but the
continuity in the themes of Indian foreign policy with respect to the global
powers has been striking. Changes have arisen in specific relationships,
especially with such middle-ranking states as Canada, Japan, or the
oil-exporting countries, as interests and capacities have altered. Pragmatism,
rather than ideology, has shaped India's foreign policy.

     India's unusually large number of neighbors show a great variety in size,
power, and perspective on India. This fact has added to India's difficulty in
evolving a consistent pattern of neighborly behavior and in working out
regional solutions to chronic social and economic problems. Ideological and
territorial conflicts with Pakistan and China have resulted in wars and
prolonged periods of tension, notwithstanding attempts to resolve disputes and
establish peaceable norms of interstate dealings. A solid base of Indian
assistance to, and tolerance for, the vagaries of its smaller neighbors has
been disturbed from time to time by disagreements with some of them on issues
that arouse strong emotions on both sides, such as the treatment of minority
communities. Charges have been levied against India for harboring hegemonic
ambitions. For reasons of proximity, cultural similarity, and the
socioeconomic pressures of modernization, the countries of South Asia were
likely to command the continued attention of the Indian government.

     In nearly four decades since independence, India has substantially
increased its tangible assets of military and economic power, diversified its
international relationships, and developed highly trained personnel. At the
same time, both internal and external challenges to national security have
persisted and may have increased. According to several analysts, India's
strategic environment in the mid-1980s was less stable and more threatening
than it had been in the 1950s. Tension existed, therefore, between national
aspirations for external peace and internal development and the capability of
achieving conditions conducive to their fulfillment. Aware of this tension,
Rajiv Gandhi, as the head of a new government that was elected in December
1984, and which had an unprecedented majority in Parliament, stated his
intention of seeking friendship with India's neighbors and all other
countries. He said he expected to continue the foreign policy he had
inherited.

The Foreign Policymaking Establishment

     In India, as in most countries, foreign policy has been made by the
national leadership. Among the national leaders of the independence struggle,
Nehru had the most long-standing interest in world affairs. From the late
1920s onward, he drafted statements on international issues for the Indian
National Congress (see Glossary). As a member of the interim government in
1946, he outlined India's approach to the world. During his tenure as prime
minister-1947 to 1964-Nehru was also foreign minister and set the pattern of
direction and control. His successors, too, chose to exercise considerable
control over India's international dealings, although they appointed separate
foreign ministers for most of the period. The varying personalities and
perceptions of successive prime ministers no doubt influenced policy
decisions, but they did not alter the definitions of national interest and
foreign policy goals that Nehru articulated.

     Because of Britain's historic monopoly over the security and external
functions of government, the number of Indians capable of contributing to
making foreign policy or influencing it was extremely small at the time of
independence. With Nehru's encouragement, specific issues were debated in
Parliament, and divergent viewpoints found expression in the press. As
political participation increased, controversies arose, and as experience
spread, international affairs received more attention from an informed public.
But, for several reasons arising from the generally low level of literacy and
political development in India, institutional connections between public
opinion and foreign policymaking remained weak. Actual implementation of
policy and daily conduct of international relations were the responsibility of
the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), and diplomatic missions abroad were
manned largely by members of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS).

     Nehru's command of foreign policymaking has been affirmed by contemporary
accounts of impartial observers, the official record, memoirs of foreign and
Indian diplomats, and works by his biographers. In historian Michael Brecher's
words, Nehru was "the philosopher, the architect, the engineer, and the voice
of his country's policy towards the outside world." Every major decision-from
remaining within the Commonwealth as a republic to committing troops for
United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations-was his. Nevertheless, Nehru
consulted many different people and relied on the advice of a few trusted
individuals. Prominent among them were his Congress colleague Maulana Azad,
the philosopher S. Radhakrishnan, the historian K.M. Panikkar, his sister
Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, and his brilliant but caustic friend V.K. Krishna
Menon. The administration of the foreign office and the conduct of
international affairs were entrusted to senior members of the Indian Civil
Service-G.S. Bajpai, N.R. Pillai, and K.P.S. Menon.

     The consequences of Nehru's preeminence were not all beneficial. Despite
his numerous speeches and personal touches, Indian officials were not fully
inculcated in the unique blend of idealism and realism that Nehru had
achieved. There were frequent gaps and some contradiction