Distinguished Lectures

Journey of Indian Foreign Policy: From Cold War Perceptions to Nuclear Capability and Beyond

  • Amb (Retd) J K Tripathi

    By: Amb (Retd) J K Tripathi
    Venue: IIT Ropar
    Date: December 19, 2014

Dear Director, Registrar and Faculty of IIT Ropar,

My young friends,

It is my singular pleasure to stand in front of this august gathering to speak on India’s foreign Policy. The subject is vast but I will try to capsule it in the given time limit. I am going to take you to a journey through the last 67 years of our independence and I will try to highlight the watershed events in our foreign policy.

As you all know, India is an ancient civilization but a very young nation. 67 years may mean two third of a human being’s life, but for a nation, it doesn’t denote a very old age. At the best it means that the independent India has come of age.

The foreign policy of any country, especially a democracy like ours, does not undergo any sudden and drastic change. The reason is that any democracy’s foreign policy is entirely and exclusively guided by its national interest irrespective of however the country tries to justify it. Yes, the tools to obtain this end may vary depending on their need and suitability from time to time but the goal remains the same which is to serve national interest and India is no exception to this empirical rule.

The new-born nation of independent India found itself, thanks to WW II, in the world full of chaos- divided into two diametrically opposite camps –each trying to score over the other through scheming, security pacts, high degree of espionage and positioning of their forces strategically to counter the power of the other. Though the barbaric display of mass destruction in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atom bomb that stopped the WW II had refrained the warring factions from open warfare, the atmosphere world over was that of deep mistrust and clandestine warfare which marked the beginning of the cold war era. Almost entire world was divided, willingly or unwillingly, into two opposite camps, led respectively by the United States of America and the Soviet Union. These camps kept on trying to consolidate their power through the carrot of regional security pacts, economic assistance and other means to their partner countries. In this scenario, most of the newly independent weak nations had no other option than to join either of the blocks. During the era of cold war, getting any form of assistance or aid-even civilian in nature- normally resulted in joining one or the other camp- NATO, CEATO and CENTO led by the USA on one side and Warsaw Pact led by the USSR on the other- which would invariably result in the member country allowing the power bloc use of its territory and part of its resources for military purposes.

The leaders of independent India had a daunting task of shaping the country’s foreign policy which could ensure the nation’s steady albeit slow progress. The economically deprived India needed assistance for its infrastructure, agriculture, modernization of education etc. from other developed nations but certainly not at the cost of its pride and independence. India’s national interest lay in getting optimum assistance for its developmental needs from the countries of both blocks without conceding even a small part of its independence in decision -making led to the birth of the Non Alignment Movement or NAM. Who else could have been better suited to lead this movement than Nehru who was educated and brought up as capitalist but had an inclination towards socialism. Independent India had now found an efficient tool for conduct of its foreign policy in the strongly bipolar world in form of NAM.

The word non-alignment is different from neutrality. While the later connotes absence of any ties with any block like Switzerland practices, non-alignment propagated and stressed on keeping its independence intact and deciding on issues not based on the relation a country has with a nation or a group but based strictly on merit and morality. This means a non-aligned country could receive economic assistance from any bloc but would not bind itself with the donor bloc when it comes to decide on any issue. In theory, it looks impossible as there is no free lunch, but it proved to be practical for quite a long time. India and many other countries who adopted this doctrine did receive economic assistance without supporting or even by opposing action of the donor bloc on the grounds of principle. This tool of non-alignment worked well for India as well as for many poor countries for quite a long time. India received substantial economic assistance from both blocs though the Russian bloc was more forthcoming than the NATO bloc in its support to developmental needs of India. The much needed assistance came in form of developmental assistance-dams, industries, institutions of higher education, power plants, steel plants etc. etc. As against the axes of western and soviet bloc, NAM produced the formidable axis of Nehru, Nassir and Tito. Membership of NAM swelled steadily and soon it became the biggest group of countries. Paradoxically the movement formed to oppose any groupism, itself emerged as the largest group in the world. However, NAM continued to wield substantial power in the U.N. Though the non-aligned nations, even if put together, stood nowhere near the economic or military power of either of the blocs, they were certainly proving to be an effective nuisance for these blocs. However, USSR’s preparedness to provide assistance to India in form of donation/sale of technology and food grains to starving India or advance loans at terms much softer than those from the western bloc, always kept Nehru little closer to the soviet bloc than the other one.

While India was leading the NAM, a serious development compelled India to rethink about its tools of carrying out its foreign policy. Nehru, the visionary, but not a diplomat, was taken by surprise by the aggression from its northern neighbor. The communist China, which Nehru was among the firsts to recognize and express India’s affinity with the slogan "Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai” invaded militarily weak India’s northern border and captured about 22,000 miles of India’s territory claiming it as the Chinese land. With USSR and NATO powers fiercely occupied over the Cuban crisis, none of them came for India’s rescue. India learnt its lesson very hard way! The doctrine of ‘peaceful co-existence’ was shattered in India’s own neighborhood. A disappointed Nehru could not bear the shock of "brother” China’s betrayal which took his life in May 1964. Soon was another incidence to follow which strengthened India’s determination to review its foreign policy tools. Encouraged by its proximity to both, USA and China, Pakistan invaded India in September, 1965. This time Indian armed forces not only repelled Pak attack but also marched deep into Pak territory and were just 10 kilometers short of Lahore when the ceasefire was announced. USSR, which helped India during this war by vetoing US sponsored Security Council resolution, brokered the Tashkent Agreement between Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and President Ayub Khan in January, 1966. Shastri died of cardiac arrest while still in Tashkent. The new incumbent Smt. Indira Gandhi was quick to realize that though it was good to propagate non-alignment, the time had come for India to show its strength and self respect as a weak India was not in a position to effectively raise its voice in favor of peace. India’s refusal to accept the aid of American wheat under the humiliating conditions of PL 480 gave birth to India’s Green Revolution.

The developments in Pakistan in 1971 following the refusal of its leadership to accept the landslide victory of Awami League in its eastern province led to genocide by the Pak military in East Bengal. The resultant unprecedented influx of nearly one crore refugees from Eastern Pakistan raised tensions between the two countries to an alarming level. Pakistan’s role of playing broker between USA and China compelled India to negotiate a long term treaty for military cooperation with the USSR. This was indeed a landmark development in Indian foreign policy. The flash point of the Indo-Pak tension came in December, 1971 when Pakistan attacked India from both fronts. A militarily and morally superior India not only liberated Eastern Pakistan by convincingly crushing Pak army, it also captured a sizable territory of western Pakistan and took over ninety three thousand Pakistani soldiers as ‘Prisoner of war’. However, India returned all the territory occupied in the truncated Pakistan through the Simla Agreement. But it showed that India could now negotiate and preach peace from the position of strength. That peace is more meaningful when it is assured by a strong country was abundantly clear from the nuclear test in 1974 after which India assured the world that it would use its nuclear power for peaceful civil purposes only. The newly acquired strength was soon to become an important tool of India’s foreign policy. The test of nuclear weapon in the nineties initially brought us criticisms and bans but it all subsided when our credentials and commitment for no first use of nuclear weapons were established. Though we are a nuclear nation, we advocated a time bound reduction of nuclear arsenal with the final aim at their eradication. This is why we have not signed the NPT and CTBT so far. Now, that our nuclear commitments have been accepted, we have started receiving fuel for our nuclear plants from the nuclear donor club. Recent agreements with USA, Australia and Russia on supply of nuclear fuel have paved way for smooth functioning of our nuclear power plants.

The cold war ended in the 80s with the disintegration of USSR. It gave India a bigger room to practice its foreign policy. Now India could have greater cooperation with the developed western world. NAM became less effective in the global arena. Instead of two power blocs, the post cold war world saw emergence of many regional blocks aimed mainly at economic cooperation. In south Asia, SAARC was formed. Though it has not been as successful as it was aimed to, we have been trying to take all the members along. Here I would like to stress upon our belief that bilateral issues must be solved bilaterally and not taken to any third party, regional or international organization. This is why we always rebut Pakistan’s attempt to internationalize the Kashmir issue.

The 80s also saw the rise in Pak-sponsored terrorism in India. First Pakistan unsuccessfully tried to destabilize Punjab and then started sending terrorist outfits in Kashmir and other parts of the country. We kept on warning international community of the growing state sponsored terrorism in our neighborhood but our cries met deaf ears as no western nation especially U.S.A. had experienced terrorist attacks on its soil. However, 9/11 changed the situation and the US realized the gravity of the problem as its own Frankenstein attacked the master. Now with latest massacre of 132 school children in Pakistan by Taliban has vindicated our stand that Pakistan is allowing its territory to be used, willingly or unwillingly, for training terrorists and directing their attacks.

The opening up of Indian economy in 1991 gave the country a big boost in terms of investment potential. An economically resurgent India could now play a more intense role at various regional fora. The IT revolution in India in the nineties raised India’s profile in the world as an IT giant with the capacity to supply ITES for any and every problem. This newly found image of India was ably backed by engineers, doctors and finance experts.

The liberalization of economy gave India another strong tool to conduct its foreign policy. Our emerging economy was now in a position to extend assistance to our neighbors and other underdeveloped nations in a better and more liberal way. Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Myanmar and many countries in the third world received more assistance in form of projects in infrastructure, health and capacity building. Our involvement with such projects increased to such proportions that the ministry of external affairs had to establish a large division to look after the work related to development partnership.

Besides the project based assistance, India had been providing short term courses ranging from three weeks to one year to the professionals of other nations to improve their skills. These courses, run under the ”Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation” or ITEC program provide training in many disciplines ranging from Computing, IT, power generation, highway development, auditing, rural development and women empowerment to even basic skills in English. For these courses, run in more than forty institutions, the government of India pays everything from airfare to accommodation, tuition fees, health care and a stipend @ Rs. 25000 per month. This soft power of our foreign policy is further strengthened by more than 800 scholarships granted by the Indian council for Cultural Relations to foreign students for regular academic courses run by Indian universities and other institutions of excellence. A large number of professionals and students, who have benefited from the ITEC and ICCR scholarships, have risen to occupy prominent positions in their respective countries thus giving India long time friends who could, in long term, influence their foreign policies more in favor of India. Former President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is one such scholar. Africa has been the biggest beneficiary of these training programs and scholarships and we can perhaps leverage this situation to get minerals and contracts at favorable terms.

Another almost invisible and slow working but effective tool of foreign policy is to mould in its favor the public opinion in foreign country which, in turn, builds confidence and enhances bilateral relations. This can be achieved by three means- direct lobbying, working through the Diaspora and thirdly disseminating positive information through various cultural, social and educational programs/exhibitions. In case of India, all the three tools are used. However, lobbying through pressure groups and lawmakers is comparatively a new phenomenon for us and its practice has so far been restricted in few western countries. Though a large number of persons of Indian origin have been living in foreign countries for long time, in some cases more than two centuries, there was hardly any mechanism to ensure regular interaction with them. This was perhaps due to the lack of information in absence of means of transport and communications.

The meaningful interaction and engagement of Indian Diaspora living abroad stated only in the last decade when, realizing their potential, the Government of India established a new ministry for Indian Diaspora called Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs and developed programs like Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas, Know your India, PIO and OCI card schemes etc. Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas, which is organized in January every year for 2-4 days, gives the persons of Indian origin a common platform in India to discuss various issues relating to them. Those who have risen high in the social ladder of their country of residence and have made significant contribution are also conferred with Pravasi Bharatiya Samman. These PIOs (Persons of Indian Origin) naturally carry a positive impression of India which can be translated into influencing the policy of the country of their residence towards India when the occasion arises. Under the "Know your India” program, youths of Indian origin are invited to visit India for a fortnight so that they remain connected with the country of their forefathers. The effect of engaging the Indian Diaspora is evident from the recent visits of the prime Minister to USA and Australia.

The third means to influence the public opinion is through cultural programs, cuisine and films. Programs in performing arts and exhibitions of paintings, photographs, live demonstration of their arts by artisans etc. had been regularly organized abroad with state of private sponsorship. These events have helped a lot ward off the image of India as an underdeveloped country of snake charmers monkey catchers and rope climbers. Indian cuisine is popular world over and Indian restaurants have opened almost in every country. I have tasted Indian dosa even in Brazil. Bollywood movies are much in demand all over the world-more for their entertainment quotient than their quality. While visiting Peru four years ago, I was surprised when a Peruvian asked me in Spanish whether I know Shahrukh Khan and whether I had met him! When I replied in negative, he gave me a contemptuous look as if I had committed a crime by having not met Shahrukh. While these feature films cater mainly to the hunger for entertainment, the documentary films produced by the Ministry of External Affairs are shown on the national TV channels of many countries thus disseminating information on India which in turn results in the quest for more information on India. As I have stated earlier, These tools work very slowly but steadily and produce stable results in long run.

As regards our position on trade and commerce, our refusal to advance to the contentious issue of Trade Facilitation Agreement without a final and just decision on food security had angered many nations but we refused to compromise with the interests of our weaker sections and finally USA, the main proponent of TFA, saw our point and accepted our stand.

In conclusion, I would like to state that our foreign policy has, by and large, remained strongly tied to our national interest. There had been some minor deviations but those did not affect the overall picture that we wanted to draw.

I am grateful to all of you for a patient listening. I would be happy to invite your comments, criticism and questions and would try to answer to the best of my capability and knowledge.

Thank you very much.

Disclaimer :-The opinions/views expressed in the Lectures are author's own and do not represent the views of the Ministy of External Affairs.