Historical Evolution of India's Foreign Policy

Evolution of India’s Foreign Policy

India’s foreign policy has evolved significantly since independence in 1947, shaped by historical experiences, ideological commitments, national interests, and changing global realities. From idealistic non-alignment in the early years to pragmatic multi-alignment in the contemporary period, India’s foreign policy reflects a continuous effort to safeguard sovereignty, promote development, and enhance its role in global affairs.

---

1. Historical Background

India’s foreign policy was deeply influenced by its colonial past and freedom struggle. The experience of imperialism created a strong commitment to anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism, and peaceful coexistence. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru believed that moral principles should guide international relations. As a newly independent nation, India sought to avoid entanglement in power politics and military alliances.

---

2. Nehruvian Phase (1947–1964)

The early phase of India’s foreign policy is closely associated with Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister. The main pillars of this phase were:

• Non-Alignment: India refused to join either the US-led capitalist bloc or the Soviet-led communist bloc during the Cold War. This led to the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 1961 along with Yugoslavia and Egypt.

• Panchsheel: Five principles of peaceful coexistence—mutual respect for sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference, equality, and peaceful coexistence.

• Anti-colonialism and support for freedom struggles in Asia and Africa.

• Faith in international institutions like the United Nations.

While Nehru’s policy enhanced India’s moral stature globally, critics argue that it was overly idealistic and underestimated security challenges, as evident in the 1962 Sino-Indian War.

---

3. Post-Nehru and Indira Gandhi Era (1964–1984)

After Nehru, India’s foreign policy became more realistic and security-oriented.

• The 1962 war with China and the 1965 war with Pakistan highlighted the importance of military preparedness.

• Under Indira Gandhi, India adopted a more assertive approach.

• The 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation marked a tilt towards the Soviet Union.

• India’s role in the Bangladesh Liberation War (1971) established it as a regional power in South Asia.

• India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974 (Pokhran-I), signaling strategic autonomy.

This period marked a shift from moral idealism to strategic pragmatism, though non-alignment remained a guiding principle.

---

4. Post–Cold War Transition (1984–1991)

The end of the Cold War brought major changes in the global order. During Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure, India began modernizing its foreign policy outlook.

• Emphasis on science, technology, and economic cooperation.

• Improved relations with the United States and China.

• Continued support for NAM, but with reduced relevance.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, India’s key ally, created economic and strategic challenges, necessitating a reorientation of foreign policy.

---

5. Economic Liberalization and Foreign Policy (1991 onwards)

The 1991 economic crisis marked a turning point. Under P.V. Narasimha Rao, India adopted economic liberalization, which strongly influenced foreign policy.

Key developments included:

• Shift from ideology-driven diplomacy to interest-based diplomacy.

• Look East Policy to strengthen ties with Southeast Asia.

• Improved relations with the US, Europe, and East Asia.

• Engagement with global institutions like the WTO, IMF, and World Bank.

India also sought to balance relations with major powers while maintaining strategic autonomy.

---

6. Nuclearization and Strategic Autonomy (1998)

The Pokhran-II nuclear tests (1998) under Atal Bihari Vajpayee marked a decisive moment.

• India declared itself a nuclear weapons state.

• Asserted the need for credible minimum deterrence.

• Despite initial sanctions, India gradually gained acceptance as a responsible nuclear power.

The Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement (2005) further integrated India into the global nuclear order without signing the NPT.

---

7. Contemporary Phase: Multi-Alignment and Global Engagement

In the 21st century, India’s foreign policy has adopted a multi-alignment strategy, engaging with multiple power centers simultaneously.

Key features include:

• Stronger ties with the United States (defence, technology, QUAD).

• Continued partnership with Russia (defence and energy).

• Engagement with China, despite border tensions.

• Leadership in forums like G20, BRICS, SCO, and Indo-Pacific initiatives.

• Emphasis on Neighbourhood First and Act East Policy.

• Promotion of soft power through culture, yoga, diaspora diplomacy, and digital public goods.

India increasingly projects itself as a responsible global power and a voice of the Global South.

---

8. Challenges and Future Direction

Despite progress, India’s foreign policy faces several challenges:

• Managing relations with China amid border disputes.

• Regional instability in South Asia.

• Energy security and climate change.

• Balancing great-power competition.

India’s future foreign policy is likely to focus on strategic autonomy, economic diplomacy, defence preparedness, and global leadership.

---

Conclusion

The evolution of India’s foreign policy reflects a journey from idealism to pragmatism, from non-alignment to multi-alignment, and from a regional actor to an emerging global power. While the core principles of sovereignty, peace, and strategic autonomy remain intact, India has adapted its foreign policy to changing international realities. This dynamic and flexible approach continues to shape India’s role in an increasingly multipolar world.

---

Democracy and its Theories

 

Democracy: Meaning and Its Various Theories

Democracy is a form of government in which supreme political power lies with the people, who exercise it either directly or indirectly through their elected representatives. The basic principle of democracy is popular sovereignty. Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

The term democracy is derived from the Greek words ‘Demos’ (people) and ‘Kratos’ (power), meaning rule of the people.

---

Theories of Democracy

1. Classical (Direct) Theory

This theory originated in ancient Greek city-states, particularly Athens, where citizens directly participated in law-making and administration.
Limitation: It is impractical in modern large and complex societies.

---

2. Liberal (Representative) Theory

According to this theory, democracy functions through elected representatives who govern on behalf of the people. It emphasizes individual liberty, rule of law, constitutionalism, and fundamental rights.
Thinkers: John Locke, J.S. Mill.
Criticism: Real power often remains in the hands of political elites.

---

3. Elite Theory of Democracy

This theory argues that democracy is essentially the rule of a minority elite, while the masses play a limited role through elections.
Thinkers: Pareto, Mosca.
Criticism: It undermines mass participation and popular control.

---

4. Pluralist Theory

Pluralist theorists believe that power in a democracy is distributed among various interest groups, and politics is a process of bargaining and compromise.
Thinker: Robert Dahl.
Merit: Prevents concentration of power.
Criticism: Overlooks inequalities among groups.

---

5. Marxist Theory of Democracy

Marxists argue that liberal democracy is a bourgeois democracy that protects capitalist interests. True democracy can exist only in a classless socialist society.
Thinkers: Karl Marx, Lenin.
Criticism: Often results in authoritarian rule in practice.

---

6. Participatory Theory

This theory emphasizes active participation of citizens in political decision-making beyond periodic elections.
Thinkers: Rousseau, C.B. Macpherson.
Criticism: Difficult to implement on a large scale.

---

Conclusion

Democracy is a multi-dimensional and evolving concept. Each theory highlights different aspects such as liberty, equality, participation, and power distribution. Together, these theories help in understanding the complex nature of modern democratic systems.

What is the difference between latent and manifest political socialisation? Explain with example?

 Political socialisation is the process through which people acquire political beliefs, values, attitudes, and behavior.

1. Latent Political Socialisation

• Meaning:
  Latent political socialisation is indirect and unintentional learning of political values.

• It happens when individuals absorb attitudes and ideas without being consciously taught politics.

• It usually occurs in early life through family, school environment, religion, culture, and social norms.

Example:

• A child learns to respect authority by obeying parents and teachers. Later in life, this develops into respect for political authority such as the government or the constitution.

• Celebrating national festivals in school (like Independence Day) creates a sense of patriotism without formal political teaching.

---

2. Manifest Political Socialisation

• Meaning:
  Manifest political socialisation is direct and deliberate political learning.

• It involves explicit teaching about politics, government, laws, rights, and duties.

• It commonly occurs through schools, political parties, media, and civic education.

Example:

• Studying civics in school about the constitution, elections, and fundamental rights.

• Political parties campaigning and educating citizens about their ideology before elections.

---

Difference in Tabular Form

Basis	Latent Political Socialisation	Manifest Political Socialisation
Nature	Indirect and unconscious	Direct and conscious
Intention	Unintentional	Intentional
Method	Informal social interaction	Formal political instruction
Example	Learning obedience at home	Learning voting rules in civics class

In short:

• Latent socialisation shapes political attitudes silently and gradually.

• Manifest socialisation teaches politics openly and directly.

Recognition of Political parties

​

Political Culture (Sem 2)

 

Political culture is the set of shared attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments that give order and meaning to a political process.¹ Think of it as the "personality" of a country's politics—it dictates how people view their government, what they expect from it, and how they interact with it.²

While a "political system" refers to the actual structures (like parliaments or courts), "political culture" refers to the psychological orientations people have toward those structures.³

---

1. The Classic Classification (Almond & Verba)⁴

In their seminal 1963 work, The Civic Culture, Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba identified three "pure" types of political culture based on how much citizens know about and participate in their government.⁵

Type	Description	Citizen Role
Parochial	Citizens have low awareness of the central government. They identify more with local tribes or villages than the nation.	Unaware/Indifferent
Subject	Citizens are aware of the government and its laws but see themselves as passive subjects. They obey but don't participate.	Passive Obedience
Participant	Citizens are highly aware and believe they can influence the system through voting, protesting, or joining parties.	Active Engagement

Note: Almond and Verba argued that a healthy democracy requires a "Civic Culture"—a mix of all three where people are active enough to be heard but passive enough to allow the government to actually govern.

In their 1963 landmark study, The Civic Culture, Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba sought to understand why democracy flourished in some countries (like the UK and US) but struggled or failed in others (like Germany, Italy, and Mexico).¹

They proposed that a political system’s stability depends on how well its political structures (institutions) align with its political culture (the people's psychology).

---

1. The Three Psychological Orientations

Before defining the "kinds" of culture, Almond and Verba identified three ways citizens relate to political objects:

• Cognitive Orientation: What do people know? (Knowledge of the constitution, the roles of officials, and how the system works).

• Affective Orientation: How do people feel? (Emotions like pride in their nation, or perhaps anger or distrust toward the government).²

• Evaluative Orientation: How do people judge?³ (Moral judgments or opinions on whether the government is performing its job fairly and effectively).⁴

---

2. The Three "Pure" Types of Political Culture

They categorized societies based on how citizens relate to four "objects": the system as a whole, the inputs (how we influence the state), the outputs (laws and policies), and the self as a political actor.

A. Parochial Political Culture

In this culture, there is no specialized political role.⁵ People are generally unaware of the central government’s existence or its impact on their lives.⁶

• The Vibe: "The government is a distant thing that doesn't affect my village; my loyalty is to my family or tribe."⁸

B. Subject Political Culture

Here, citizens are highly aware of the central government and the laws it produces (the outputs). However, they do not see themselves as having any power to change those laws (the inputs).

• Where it's found: Centralized authoritarian regimes or colonial administrations.

• The Vibe: "I know who the leader is and I obey the laws to avoid trouble, but I have no say in how those laws are made."

C. Participant Political Culture

Citizens are aware of both the inputs and the outputs. They believe they have the right and the responsibility to participate in the political process.

• Where it's found: Modern liberal democracies.

• The Vibe: "I pay taxes and follow laws, but I also vote, protest, and demand that the government listens to me."

---

3. The "Civic Culture" (The Ideal Mix)

The most famous takeaway from their study is that a pure "Participant" culture is not actually the most stable. If every single citizen was constantly active, demanding, and protesting, the government would be overwhelmed and unable to make decisions (a "gridlock"). Instead, they argued that the most stable democracies have a Civic Culture, which is a "mixed" culture:⁹

• It contains enough Participants to keep the government accountable.

• It contains enough Subjects and Parochials to provide "ballast" (stability), allowing the government the "quiet" it needs to actually implement policy.¹⁰

• It balances the tension between government power and citizen control.¹¹

---

4. Key Criticisms

While revolutionary, the theory has faced pushback over the years:

• Anglo-American Bias: Critics argue Almond and Verba treated the UK and US as "ideal" models, implying other cultures were "underdeveloped" if they didn't look like them.

• Static View: The theory was criticized for not explaining how a culture changes over time (e.g., how a Subject culture becomes a Participant one).

• Neglect of Subcultures: It often ignored the fact that within one country, different classes or ethnic groups might have wildly different political cultures.

Core Definitions

• Political Culture: The set of attitudes, beliefs, and sentiments that provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behavior in a political system.

• The Civic Culture: The specific "mixed" political culture that Almond and Verba identified as the most stable foundation for a liberal democracy.

• Political Socialization: The process by which these political orientations are transmitted from one generation to the next (e.g., through family, schools, or media).

The Three Orientations (Psychological Pillars)

• Cognitive Orientation: Knowledge of and belief about the political system, its roles, and its incumbents.

• Affective Orientation: Feelings of attachment, involvement, or rejection regarding political objects.

• Evaluative Orientation: The judgments and opinions about political objects that typically involve applying value standards to political information.

The Three Pure Types

• Parochial Culture: A culture where citizens have low expectations of the government and no awareness of their ability to influence it.

• Subject Culture: A culture where citizens are highly aware of the government's outputs (laws/benefits) but remain passive and do not participate in the inputs (voting/activism).

• Participant Culture: A culture where citizens are actively engaged in both the input and output processes and believe they can influence the system.

Systemic Objects

• System as General Object: How the citizen views the nation as a whole (e.g., "I am proud to be [Nationality]").

• Input Objects: The channels through which citizens' demands are communicated to the government (e.g., political parties, interest groups).

• Output Objects: The process by which the government applies rules and policies (e.g., bureaucracy, courts, police).

• Self as Object: How the individual views their own role, competence, and power within the political system.