Thursday, January 22, 2026

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.

Wednesday, January 21, 2026

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

BasisLatent Political SocialisationManifest Political Socialisation
NatureIndirect and unconsciousDirect and conscious
IntentionUnintentionalIntentional
MethodInformal social interactionFormal political instruction
ExampleLearning obedience at homeLearning voting rules in civics class

In short:

  • Latent socialisation shapes political attitudes silently and gradually.

  • Manifest socialisation teaches politics openly and directly.