India'S Foreign Policy: V Semester Core Course

INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY
V SEMESTER
CORE COURSE
BA POLITICAL SCIENCE
(2011 Admission)
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Calicut university P.O, Malappuram Kerala, India 673 635.
255
School of Distance Education
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
STUDY MATERIAL
Core Course
BA POLITICAL SCIENCE
V Semester
INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY

Prepared by: Dr. Anil Kumar. P,
Asst. Professor,
Dept. of Political Science,
University College,
Thiruvananthapuram.
Scrutinized by: Dr. G. Sadanandan (Co-ordinator),

Asso. Professor and Head,
PG Department of Political Science,
SKVC, Thrissur.
Layout: Computer Section, SDE
©
Reserved
India’s Foreign Policy Page 2

Contents Page No.
MODULE I BASIC DETERMINANTS OF INDIA’S FOREIGN 5

POLICY
MODULE II INDIA AND HER NEIGHBOURS 10
MODULE III RECENT TRENDS IN INDIA’S RELATIONS 26

(WITH USA, RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN)
MODULE IV ENGANEMENT WITH REGIONAL AND 44

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
MODULE V INDIA AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER: 61

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES


MODULE – I
BASIC DETERMINANTS OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY
1.1 Introduction
The foreign policy of a country is the sum total of the principles, interests and
objectives which it seeks to promote through its relations with other countries. It is also
"for influencing and changing the behaviour of other states" and for 'adjusting' its own
"activities to the international environment". So, "the conduct and formulation of foreign
policy is governed by the interplay of numerous determinants, institutions, processes and
personalities".
The basic determinants of India’s’ foreign policy are:
 Political Tradition and philosophical basis
 Geography
 National Interest
 International Milieu
1.2 Political Tradition and Philosophical basis
The history of Indian foreign policy is short but active. It was after the
establishment of Indian National Congress that the politicization of the people and
formulation of policy orientation had its origin. After the World War I the Indians led by
Congress started taking more active interest in foreign affairs. In 1920 the Congress sent a
message of sympathy to the Irish people who were struggling for their independence. In
1921 the AICC at its Delhi meeting adopted a complete resolution on foreign policy and
affirmed India's desire to establish friendly and peaceful relations with others. The
Calcutta Conference of 1928 directed the All India Congress Committee (AICC) to open a
foreign department for developing contacts and organizing the anti-imperialist movement
of the dependent people. Nehru came to head this department and became the director of
the foreign policy of Congress. It was this experience that made him to act with precision
and efficiency. So Nehru could rightly be called the ‘architect’ of independent India's
foreign policy. However the historic declarations of the Congress were very fundamental
in providing roots to the attitudes of anti-Cold War, anti-imperialism, anti-racialism, anti-
power politics and peaceful relationships.

The philosophical basis of Indian foreign policy includes an account of such

moral ideals and values of India. Mutual love and faith in national and international peace
and friendship with other countries are regarded as possible and practical values by India.
In one of his characteristic expositions on foreign policy Nehru was of the opinion that
there were several schools of thought on foreign affairs. There was, first of all, the Indian
school which talked about negotiation through strength. Since this was also likely to be
reciprocated by the other party, there was in effect the possibility of a stalemate. The
school of ‘learned confusion’ talked learnedly of international affairs, but never got out of
its confused state of mind. Finally, there was the school of ignorant confusion. India's
foreign policy belonged to none of these schools of thought. “It was clear, simple and
straightforward policy which, of course, benefited her but which equally sought to
promote the cause of world peace. It might not be full of wisdom, but was simple and
innocuous”. The cultural-philosophical foundations of India's foreign policy are, in fact,
quite conspicuous. India has been the seat of a hoary civilization and a meeting place of
great cultures. In view of such a cultural-philosophical tradition and its reflection on the
personality of Nehru, the chief architect of independent India’s foreign and domestic
policies carry attention. It is but natural that India should prefer the golden mean or the
middle way between the two competing international ideologies of the day-Western
liberal democracy and Russian egalitarianism. Indeed as the then vice-president of India,
Dr. Radhakrishnan said: “India is profoundly convinced that power politics at any time
meant misery to mankind in a shrinking world, with disaster to humanity”.
1.3 Geography
Geography is the foremost determinant of Indian foreign policy. The prediction

that Lord Curzon made in 1903 has proved to be true. He observed, "The geographical
position of India would more and more push it into the forefront of International affairs.
Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru too was fully conscious of the geographical importance of India. On
17th March 1950, in a speech in the Indian Parliament, he observed, "We are in a strategic
part of Asia, set in the centre of Indian Ocean, with intimate past and present connection
with West Asia, South-Ent Asia and Far Eastern Asia. Even if we could we would not
want to ignore this fact." Himalayas and the Indian Ocean are determining factors of
India's security. To begin with, the Himalayas was considered to be natural security guard
for India. However, in the fifties and sixties it led to a new security orientation in Indian
foreign policy. To defend Himalayas came to determine India's security and defence
needs and consequently her relations with other nations. It is a determining factor of Sine-
Indian relations. Similarly, being the largest littoral state of the Indian Ocean area with
approximately 3500 km of coastal boundary, Indian security needs a strong and
modernized navy as well as an end to the superpower rivalry in Indian Ocean. India’s

strong opposition to superpower naval bases in the Indian Ocean particularly to the
American decision to develop Diego Garcia as a strong US. Naval base is governed by
India's geographical position. However, the topographical nature of its long sea coast has
not been very helpful for developing ports and naval facilities. India's strategic location
has placed it within easy reach of many sensitive areas including China, South-East Asia,
West and East Africa.
1.3 National Interest
A country's foreign policy, also called the foreign relations policy, consists of self-
interest strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve its
goals within international relations milieu. There has been a tremendous growth in
politico-intellectual interest in interpreting Indian foreign policy. On the one hand,
journals and newspapers are overflowing with analyses of India’s international activism,
and on the other, we find a rise in institutions or ‘think-tanks’ specializing in it, both
within India and abroad. However, it can be effectively contended that there is rarely any
novelty in the approaches taken by these intellectuals, institutions and politicians on the
issue. Most of them are restricted to producing permutation and combination of
preconceived and ill-defined notions of “national interests”, “security interests”,
“terrorism”, “pre-emptive measures” etc. Even progressive and ‘counter-hegemonic’
discourses are unable to go beyond conceiving the Indian policies as those of a
‘comprador’ third world ruling class, submitting to external pressures. This leads to
analyses limiting themselves to mere tautological descriptions of the policies, different
only in tone and of course in humanist tenor, but rarely disputing on the basic
foundations of policy-making, that informs even the rightist jingoism and centrist
pragmatism
The indigenous corporate capitalist interests (immaterial of the adjectives we might

choose to characterize them) today frame the agenda for the Indian state in the
international scenario, whether pro-US or otherwise. These interests are formidably
conscious and mature, as can be seen from the way the Indian state and capital combines
their various strategies – a militarist combination with the US-Israel nexus, supposedly
“progressive” alliance with various “third world” powers in WTO, independent oil
dealings with varied forces, investments in oil fields, offer of lines of credit to developing
countries in Africa and Tsunami affected countries, pipeline diplomacy and readiness to
militarily-politically support all these. We cannot simply isolate one aspect of the Indian
capitalist interests and generalize it to grasp their hydra-like nature. Competition and
collaboration are inherent in the capitalist political economy.

1.4 International Mileu
The broad currents of international politics at any given point of time have direct
bearing on foreign policies. The difficulty in conducting the foreign policy arises because
states do not have sure means of controlling the behaviour of other states. During the
inter-war period (1919-39), the quest for French security, followed by the rise of Fascism
in Italy and Nazism in Germany and militarism in Japan had their impact on foreign
policies. The US changed its policy towards the Soviet Union and recognised it because,
in 1933, Hitler’s emergence in Germany posed a threat to the world order created after
the War. The Japanese aggression in Manchuria (China) in 1931 provided a common
threat to USA as well as USSR in the Far East. The two Powers gave up their hostility.
The Cold War era (1945-90) has determined in a big way the foreign policy of most
countries. The fear of nuclearised United States brought the countries of Eastern Europe
under the control of the Soviet Union, with the result that all those countries adopted
socialism and came under the Russian wings. The entire policy of containment of
communism adopted by the US was evident in its setting up of NATO, SEATO and such
other military alliances/arrangements. India’s efforts in expounding the policy of non-
alignment was directly a response to this emerging polarisation in the international
environment. The Cold War was the defining characteristic of world politics for nearly 45
years. Arms race, especially in the nuclear field, typically represented the height of
suspicion and the impending disaster.
India’s policy to take up nuclear disarmament emanated from the imminent and
perpetual threat to human civilisation if those weapons were to be accidentally or
deliberately used. Related to nuclear field, India’s successful testing in 1998 of nuclear
weapons was justified as a necessary response to the fast changing international
environment that sought to dismiss the demand for nuclear disarmament and sanctify
the inequitable hierarchy between the nuclear weapon powers and non-nuclear weapon
powers. After the sudden end of the Cold War followed by the disintegration of the
Soviet Union, India’s foreign policy underwent appreciable shifts on numerous counts—
lack of enthusiasm towards the non-aligned movement, eagerness to accommodate the
American concerns, resumption of full diplomatic ties with Israel, emphasis on economic
aspects of relations with Europe, Southeast Asia and even South Asia. Again, in the post-
cold war era, the increasing sensitivity in international quarters to the issues of terrorism
and human rights (along with the widely spread claims of self-determination) impelled
necessary adjustments in India’s foreign policy. During the 1990s, the critical observers of
India’s foreign policy have noted the government’s preoccupation with the question of
Jammu and Kashmir in its contacts with major countries and in global forums. The 11
September 2001 terrorist attacks on American targets in New York and Washington
presented new opportunities to India to push its anti-terrorist foreign policy with greater
conviction.
1.5 Conclusion
The multifarious objectives of India’s foreign policy achieve a blend of national and
international interests. India has sought to achieve its security and socio-economic
advancement while at the same time working for peace, freedom, progress and justice to
all nations and peoples. Nonalignment, adherence to peaceful procedures for settlement
of differences, support to the initiatives for disarmament, and active participation in
international bodies constituted notable principles that flow from the objectives of the
country’s foreign policy.
As elaborated, among several determinants of foreign policy, the relevance of

factors like India’s geographical size, location, its historical experiences and traditions, the
state of economy, the nature of political institutions and structure, and the personality of
the country’s leadership have played significant role in shaping the country’s policy with
countries in its neighbourhood and outside. Moreover, the impact of the changing
international environment—be it the cold war politics, or the post-cold war trends—too is
something not to be missed while understanding shifts in our foreign policy. All in all,
India seems to have done pretty well in formulating and implementing a foreign policy
behind which the nation stood united and which projected the country as a peace loving,
mature, democratic, and law abiding country in the realm of world.

MODULE-II
INDIA AND HER NEIGHBOURS
2. INTRODUCTION
South Asia is a most complex, volatile and one of the most socially and politically
divided and region of the world. The region of South Asia mainly consists of eight states:
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. It is
home to 1.4 billion people, more than 20 percent of the world population. Thus, about
one-fifth of humanity lives between the western reaches of Afghanistan and Pakistan on
one side and the eastern reaches of Bangladesh and India on the other. It is a region that
lies between the sea routes of the Indian Ocean (Persian Gulf and the Asia-Pacific) and the
land routes of Central Asia connecting Europe to the East. It is a large reservoir of natural
and human resources, making it a prime destination for finance capital, a lucrative market
for trade and a source of cheap raw material. It also sits at the confluence of the richest
sources of oil, gas, rubber, manganese, copper, gold, tea, cotton, rice and jute and is the
transit point for most of the resources and manufactures that cris-cross the world.
Moreover, it is the most heavily militarized and bureaucratized zone in the world and it
has a variety of complex and violent primordial ethnic groups.
Geopolitically, the region of South Asia is identified as that which lies south of the
former Soviet Union and China, south of the Himalayas; bordering in the east by
Myanmar (Burma) and in the west by Afghanistan. In a sense Myanmar and Afghanistan
are border line states of the regions of South East Asia and South West Asia respectively.
The creation of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in 1985
represented the recognition of the geopolitical entity of South Asia. The methodologies
used for identifying the regional area as consisting of geographically proximate and
interacting states sharing some degree of common ethnic, linguistic, cultural, social and
historical bonds, became the basis of the formation of the association. The countries
included in this regional organisation are Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal,
Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
2.1 South Asian Regional State System: Basic Features
The basic characteristics of the South Asian regional state system are as follows:
i) India, by virtue of its geographic size and location, economic and industrial base and
military strength occupies a pivotal position in the region. The Indian aspirations for
leadership, dominance or hegemony are a product of these geopolitical conditions of the
region.
ii) South Asia, minus India, has two kinds of powers. Pakistan is one major power that can
limit Indian hegemonic aspirations. Pakistan’s own limitations come from its geographic
location and economic and military potentials. Unlike the pre 1971 Pakistan, the present
Pakistan without its eastern linkage lies on the border of South Asia. It shares close
ideological affinity with the Islamic West Asian State system. Pakistan may be described
as a major power of the region and classified as a ‘bargainer’ or a ‘partner’ in the South
Asian state system. Pakistan does not have the ability to substitute India as a leader of the
region, yet it can bargain with India for partnership in the decision-making of the region.
iii) The other type of countries would include the smaller countries like Nepal, Bhutan,
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Maldives. They can pose problems to the core power through
extra regional intervention, or their own internal stability. They can also legitimise the
dominance of the core power by acceptance of the balance of power in the region.
iv) The major and most active power relationships in South Asia are affected by the
intrusive powers. These extra regional powers, like the United States, Russia (formerly
USSR), China and others have influenced policies of the region. All the South Asian
countries, including India, have sought to use the extra regional powers’ ability to
influence to their advantage.
2.2. Emergent Order in South Asia
The initial impulse of the Asian States on attaining independence was to isolate
themselves from the Cold War bloc politics. The Indian approach under Nehru focused on
the need to develop an independent understanding of world affairs and a peace policy.
The application of these principles came in the series of conferences that took place in Asia
that sought to establish the framework of peace through regionalism. The Asian Relations
Conference (Delhi, 1947) was the first such conference that gathered the leaders of Asian
countries that were still in the process of emerging from the colonial fold. It sought to
establish an Asian identity and a common approach to such issues like peace and
development. The Conference on Indonesia (Delhi, 1949) sought to create an international
public opinion against colonialism and support the freedom movement in Indonesia. The
Colombo Conference (1954) and the Afro-Asian Bandung Conference (1955) laid the
foundations of regionalism. The former was a conference of South and South East Asian
countries and the latter that of Afro-Asian countries. These conferences represented the
growth of regionalism in the Third World, especially Asia. The Bandung Conference was
to spell out the principles of Peaceful Coexistence (Panchsheel) as principles that should
govern the relations between states. The movement towards regionalism did not create
any institutional arrangements in Asia. It remained as an effort in identifying the common
concerns of post colonial states focusing on the problems of development.

Unfortunately, regionalism never became a fundamental concern of the Afro-Asian

states. Some of the obstacles to regionalism came from colonial legacies like the presence
of large minorities within countries, unsettled borders, clash of elite, etc. The onslaught of
Cold War in Asia after the Korean war proved to be the turning point for regionalism in
the region. Bandung became the last Afro-Asian conference to be held. Though efforts
were made to revive the spirit of regionalism, they remained unsuccessful.
The mid-1950s saw a shift away from regionalism towards the development of non-
alignment. At one level, nonalignment became a redefinition of the basic principles of
regionalism as stated in the Panchsheel formulations, but with a distinct thrust on
independence and peace. At another level, it was a redefinition of independent
understanding of world affairs within the emergent framework of Cold War rivalry. What
is noteworthy is that both, regionalism and non-alignment, made no effort to translate
‘movements’ into a structure or an organisation. At the South Asian level, one can identify
two ‘models’ for order in the regional state system. The first was based on the realities of
the geopolitical situation of 1947. This model was based more on the potentials of India to
be a major power in South Asia, rather than actual power realities. This model appeared
to go unquestioned until the 1962 debacle at the hands of the Chinese. The India-China
war put into question the Indian claims for a great power status in the region of South
Asia. The second model was a product of the 1971 conflict with Pakistan. The creation of
Bangladesh and the Simla Agreement (1972) became the basis of this new model. The
1971-72 model was based on the recognition of India’s power status in South Asia.
Pakistan’s acceptance of this status was implicit in the signing of the Simla agreement.
Both the United States and the Soviet Union appeared to grant legitimacy to the new
Indian position in South Asia. New Delhi’s success in opening up a dialogue with China
indicated a similar legitimacy from China.
2.3 INDIA-PAKISTAN RELATIONS
Certain important historical and geographic compulsions that surfaced at the time
of the partition of India in 1947 have had significant bearing on the thinking of both the
countries. Islam was considered as a rallying point for national unity of a people who
claimed to hold a different national identity. It became a separatist force that was not in
line with the national mainstream of anti-colonial struggle. This has been accepted as a
root of the creation of Pakistan. There are three important issues these countries face in
their bilateral relations: (i) the difference in world views, (ii) the dispute over Kashmir and
(iii) the problem of nuclear confrontation.

2.3.1 World Views
India and Pakistan, as two core countries of South Asia had different worldviews
that determined their foreign policies. During the early years after independence, the
Indian worldview had been dominated by concerns about building a regional identity of
the post-colonial nations of Asia. One of the important aspects of this policy was
opposition to the extra regional intervention in South Asia. India sought to keep the South
Asian issues within the ambit of South Asian countries. Opposition to the entry of Cold
War alliances in Asia and eventual path of non-alignment is part of this worldview. The
period from 1947 to 1971 saw two trends in India’s approach towards South Asia. One
was the trend that was initiated by Nehru. It focused on regionalism as the dominant
theme. The second emerged during the Lal Bahadur Shastri years. This came in the
aftermath of the 1962 war and the need for resetting the Indian worldview keeping in
mind its capabilities. Shastri was to stress on bilateralism as the key to foreign policy,
especially in relation to South Asian countries. It is in the post-1971 period that India
developed a coherent South Asia policy that was to determine India’s approach towards
its South Asian neighbours. The base of this policy lay in India’s power status in South
Asia. The architecture of the policy rested on a combination of two approaches:
regionalism that was now restricted to South Asia and the consequent perception of South
Asia as a regional state system; and bilateralism, which was the basis of the Simla
Agreement of 1972.
Pakistan’s perception of its role emerged from the realisation of two simultaneous
forces—the geopolitics of the country that was divided between East and West Pakistan
and the Islamic worldview. The former placed Pakistan firmly in the South Asian regional
state system while the latter brought it close to the Islamic world of West Asia. Pakistan
thus saw itself as a nation with two distinct identities and roles, that of a South Asian
power and that of an Islamic West Asian power that was to eventually emerge as an
important country of the Organisation of Islamic Conference. One of the dominant
security concerns that Pakistan sought to address right from its inception is that of fear of
India. The problem of Pakistan’s foreign and defence policy revolved around this central
theme of Indian domination and safeguards that were to be instituted to counter this
threat. Pakistan’s attempts to establish linkages with the Islamic world, with China and
participate in the military alliances of the United States can be understood within this
security concern of Pakistan. These links provided an opportunity for Pakistan to
counteract India’s desire to dominate in what India considered its sphere of influence.

2.3.2 Kashmir Problem
This fundamental diversity in the views of India and Pakistan manifests on the
issue of Kashmir, an issue that has come to be identified by Pakistan as the core of the
bilateral divide. Kashmir, like Junagadh and Hyderabad, opted to decide its future as to
whether to join India or to merge with Pakistan. In case of Hyderabad and Junagadh, the
Indian government took steps to ensure that the wishes of the overwhelming local Hindu
populace were respected and hastened the process of merger of these two states in the
Indian Union.
Kashmir had a peculiar problem. It had distinct distribution patterns of its

population, with the Ladakh area being predominantly Buddhist, the Jammu region
Hindu and the Kashmir valley Muslim. Pakistan sought to force the pace of the decision
making on Kashmir by permitting the ‘irregular army’ to enter Kashmir. Maharaja Hari
Singh, realising the potential problems, signed the Instrument of Accession with India,
thus merging the state of Jammu and Kashmir with the Indian Union. The first Indo-
Pakistan war that followed the merger of Kashmir into India left the state partitioned.
India took the matter to the United Nations and agreed to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir to
ascertain the wishes of the Kashmiris. According to the cease-fire resolution adopted by
the UN Security Council, the plebiscite was conditional upon the withdrawal of Pakistani
troops from Kashmir and the restoration of the situation to the pre 1947 position. This
condition was never met by Pakistan and the plebiscite also never came to be conducted.
Kashmir has seen a tumultuous history since the first war of 1948. The new
government formed by Sheikh Abdullah, a Kashmiri leader of long standing, came to be
dismissed in 1953. Sheikh Abdullah was relieved of his post as his party the National
Conference refused to accept the accession to India as final and vaguely talked of the final
settlement of the state of Kashmir in the future. Sheikh Abdullah was brought back to
head the government in Kashmir in 1975 after he and Indira Gandhi signed an agreement.
Now Sheikh Abdullah had given up the earlier separatist demand and had accepted
Kashmir to be legitimately a part of India. In 1965, India and Pakistan fought a war over
Kashmir. This war, as the Pakistani Air Marshal Asghar Khan put it, was a war to solve
the problem once and for all. The Tashkent Conference (1966) also failed to provide any
results. Though, the 1971 war was more a war about the future of East Pakistan and the
creation of Bangladesh, it had a definite aspect of Kashmir about it.
The Simla Agreement of 1972 formalised the emergent situation on Kashmir. The
agreement sought to establish some basic principles of Indo-Pakistan interaction. The
Agreement specifically refers to bilateralism and acceptance of durable peace as the
framework of resolving future India-Pakistan problems. On the very vital issue of

Kashmir the agreement states: ‘In Jammu and Kashmir the line of actual control resulting
from the cease fire of 17 December 1971, shall be respected by both sides without
prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it
unilaterally irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further
undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line’.
The Simla Agreement sought to create a new framework of interaction for India
and Pakistan and freeze the issue of Kashmir along the Line of Control indefinitely. One
understands from the writings of Indian leaders involved in the making of this agreement
that there was an implicit understanding of converting the LOC into a boundary in the
eventual future. It is in this context that the return of Sheikh Abdullah became significant.
Now India had a Kashmiri leader, heading a Kashmiri party the National Conference,
taking the position that Kashmir is part of India. This was tantamount to a plebiscite. This
was the test of the right to self-determination that the Kashmiris had been promised by
the plebiscite. India could now talk of political legitimacy for the accession of Kashmir to
India.
Several developments appear to complicate the problem in Kashmir in the 1980s.

Global Islamic resurgence came to be a force to reckon with. The growth of
fundamentalist Islamic groups and the spread in their activity had become a matter of
concern even for the United States. Pakistan was in a unique position in those days. Given
its relatively liberal Islamic posture and the possibility of emergent democratic
governments in Pakistan led it to retain a relatively close relationship with United States.
On the other hand, it had excellent relations with the core Islamic world. It had an
excellent access to the new Afghan government of Taliban and also to other radical
Islamic organisations. Pakistan thus appears to have benefited from the then international
situation.The post-1975 developments on Kashmir constitute the beginning of an entirely
new chapter in its history. Adverse reactions to Sheikh Abdullah rule started in the late
1970s. Partly it was a product of the growing divide between the ruling class in Kashmir
and the common populace that remained deprived of the fruits of development that the
state sought to create. Partly, it was the product of resultant frustration that came to be
created in the minds of the Kashmiri about the utility of Indian rule. One of the significant
popular level movements came in the form of the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front
(JKLF). As an organisation that had strong Pakistani connections, the JKLF demanded the
right to self-determination for the Kashmiris to join Pakistan.
The 1980s saw two significant developments that had their impact on the
developments in Kashmir. One was the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan that led to the
massive arms supply by the United States to the Afghan rebels (Mujahideen) situated in
Pakistan. Second was the change in Pakistani strategy regarding Kashmir. The American
arms supply to the Afghans had a spillover effect in Kashmir. This was linked to the
change in Pakistani tactics in terms of shifting from direct conflict to insurgency.
Infiltration and insurgency has been a long pattern in Pakistani strategy on

Kashmir. Prior to the 1965 war Pakistan had used this approach with little success. The
failure to solve the problem through the use of force in 1965 and 1971 had led to a change
in strategy. Now infiltration took the shape of low intensity conflict. Efforts to paralyse the
local law and order situation and create uncertainty in the region came to be the tactics of
the day. The large scale exit of the Kashmiri pundits from the valley was part of this
protracted strategy.
This Pakistani strategy was buttressed with a new clarion call of human rights
violation. In the early 1990s, concern about violation of human rights had suddenly
acquired newly found acceptance. In Bosnia, Chechnya and elsewhere, the world
appeared to have suddenly become sensitive to human rights. In Kashmir too, the old
paradigm of self-determination was fast replaced by the new paradigm of human rights
violation. Suddenly the situation in Kashmir came to be analysed almost entirely along
the human dimension. Demands came to be made by the Organisation of Islamic
Conference (OIC), followed by the European powers for an on-thes pot survey of violation
of human rights by the Indian forces. The Indian government was persuaded enough to
create a National Human Rights Commission of its own to monitor the problem. It took
several years for the international community to acknowledge that terrorist outfits also
violate human rights and that the responsibility of violation cannot be that of the
Government alone.
In 1999 India and Pakistan came into conflict over an intrusion by Pakistan into
Kargil. Was the crossing of the LOC by the Mujahideens, and the Pakistani troops a logical
culmination of the ongoing approach taken on Kashmir? Did it represent an assessment
by Pakistan that time was ripe to exert direct force by crossing the LOC and force India to
resolve the Kashmir problem? Several explanations may be given for this Pakistani
adventurism. One, that Pakistan must have assessed the time as being ripe for such an
action to achieve its goal about accession of Kashmir. The political uncertainty in India
and the obvious lack of consensus across the political spectrum in India would have also
been one of the considerations. Two, this assessment must have been a military and
intelligence assessment based on the active participation of the militant outfits. It was
quite likely that the civil government was pulled into this decision after it was in place. If
this be true it confirms the pattern of Pakistani politics that is dominated by competing
interests of the army, the civilian representative elite, the intelligence units and the Islamic
groups. The Pakistani premier’s constant disclaim about the involvement of Government
in the Kargil action may not be entirely true. Such actions cannot take place without the
knowledge and participation of the government (and that includes the army). But his
statement may also indicate the truth that he has very little control over the Pakistan army
and militant groups in Kargil. History shows that the creators of such groups eventually
cease to control them as they tend to have a momentum of their own.
Having committed itself in Kargil, Pakistan appeared to have taken on more than it
could digest. The international public opinion has shifted away from Pakistan. Its old and
trusted ally China took a neutral position and advised restraint and dialogue. The
Pakistani Premier was not able to move the United States either. The US visit of Premier
Sharif proved counterproductive. The Americans asked Pakistan to withdraw its troops to
the LOC and begin a dialogue with India. Eventually, India did manage to push back the
Pakistani infiltration.
2.3.3 Nuclear Issue
The nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in 1998 had generated a great
deal of debate on the rationale and implications of these actions taken by both the
governments. Much of the debate focused on the security considerations of this action, the
regional threat dimensions and internal political compulsions. The Indian articulation
focused on the threats from Pakistan and China, while Pakistan targeted India. The central
questions raised about the Indian tests had been in the ‘why’ and ‘why now’ category. The
debates used two distinct paradigms for analysis, the first using the security rationale and
the second, the developmental rationale. The debates based on the first focused on the
perceived threats from the regional order as manifested by Pakistan and China. The
positions about the exact nature of threats and the methods of tackling these threats
would vary from party to party at a political level. In case of the Pakistani tests, the
answers would be more specific, in that they would point to India as the central culprit.
Further, in both cases there would be very strong internal political compulsions. Now that
the tests have confirmed the nuclear weapon capability (or actual weapon status) it may
be safe to presume that the nations have achieved whatever minimal nuclear ambitions
they had cherished.
The Indian nuclear tests of May 1998 represented a demonstration of capabilities—

technological and political. Technological capabilities were in the context of the denial of
access to advanced technologies that India experienced over the years. The political
capability represented the demonstration of political will of the elite to take on the G-7
regime. It is this reassertion of the ability to take independent decisions in face of
anticipated sanctions that makes the nuclear test a symbol of a resurgent Third World. It is
at that level that both, the Indian and Pakistani tests, demonstrate a commonality of
approaches.

The Draft outline of Indian Nuclear Doctrine released on 17 August 1999 argued
for autonomy in decision making about security for India. It takes the long established
Indian line that security is an integral part of India’s developmental process. It expresses
concerns about the possible disruption of peace and stability and the consequent need to
create a deterrence capability to ensure the pursuit of development. It argued that in the
absence of a global nuclear disarmament policy, India’s strategic interests required an
effective credible deterrence and adequate retaliatory capability should deterrence fail. It
continues to hold on the ‘no first use doctrine’ and the civilian control of nuclear decision-
making.
The utility of nuclear deterrence (at whatever level) between India and Pakistan
may be still unclear. But the Kargil conflict presented a threshold (a ‘glass ceiling’, to
borrow from feminist terminology) beyond which the two powers may not be able to
escalate their conflict. This threshold, in the form of the Line of Control was adhered to by
India and was also imposed by the United States and China on Pakistan. In the short run,
one may have to make a distinction between conventional security considerations which
include border conflicts and internal security problems on the one hand, and nuclear
strategies on the other. Therefore, there is the need to reinitiate the nuclear dialogue of
1985 that sought to create an agreement on not attacking each others’ nuclear installations.
This can now be supplemented by a declaration on ‘no-first-use’ policy.
Both India and Pakistan would have to stress on the need to develop their peaceful-
uses programme for its economic and industrial growth. This may require the two
countries to bargain with the developed world for the transfer of advance technology. The
threat of sanctions on dual use technologies and the limited room for negotiations make it
necessary for India and Pakistan to pool their resources for bargaining with the developed
countries.
2.3.4. Dialogue
One must make a specific reference to the various attempts to establish a dialogue
between the two countries and discuss their success and failures. India and Pakistan have
signed two important treaties after they had fought border wars. The Tashkent Agreement
(1966) saw a meeting of Indian prime minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistani
president Ayub Khan. The agreement succeeded in freezing the Kashmir dispute but did
not resolve the problems. The Simla Agreement (1972) saw an interaction between Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi and Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who eventually went on
to become the prime minister of Pakistan.

There have been other occasions when the leaders of these two countries have had
an opportunity to exchange views. One of these has been on the occasion of SAARC or
Non-aligned Movement summit meetings. Such meetings were usually carried on the
sidelines of the summits. Perhaps the more well-known recent meetings have been those
between Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Pakistan Premier Nawaz Shariff at
Lahore (1999) and Vajpayee’s meeting with General Pervez Musharraf at Agra (2001). The
former saw the inauguration of the Delhi- Lahore Bus service and the signing of Lahore
Declaration which reiterated the principle of bilateral approach to Indo-Pak problems,
while the latter ended without any significant gains. In 2003 Prime Minister Vajpayee once
again called for a comprehensive dialogue with Pakistan. This initiative saw some
forward movement with the exchange of parliamentary delegations and some informal
talks that began between the two countries. Both, India and Pakistan share some common
post colonial legacies. Both have attempted to address the problems of pluralistic societies
and overcome the resistance of feudal tendencies in their efforts at political and economic
modernisation. Both have strained their political institutions to accommodate socio-
political upheavals. One may argue that the Indian experiment appears to have survived
the test of time and that its political institutions have been able to cope with the demands
placed on them. On the other hand Pakistan still continues to experiment with its
institutions in search of stability.
2.4. INDIA AND OTHER NATIONS OF SOUTH ASIA
British colonial policies have influenced India’s approach towards the small powers
of South Asia. Two important legacies have been carried over in Indian thinking: One, it is
the Indian ‘responsibility’ to look after the security needs of the small powers. This
‘responsibility’, in terms of security, is understood in the context of an ‘extended frontier’
or a ‘defence perimetre’ approach. This meant that care would have to be taken to ensure
that these countries do not become open to outside intervention. Two, India sought to
avoid interference in the internal affairs of these countries except in exceptional
circumstances. These circumstances were security considerations as interpreted by India.
For example, following the creation of Bangladesh the Indian position has always been
that the security and integrity of these states would be of vital national interest to India.
2.5. INDIA-NEPAL RELATIONS
Indian policy towards Nepal is determined by the following considerations: (i) the
geopolitics of Nepal makes it a landlocked country sandwiched between India and China.
Access to Nepal is easier from the Indian side; (ii) historically, both countries have shared
a common security perception; (iii) there exists a great deal of cultural affinity between the
two countries; Nepal is not only the birth place of Gautam Buddha but is also the only
Hindu kingdom in the world.

The parameters of bilateral relations came to be defined in the context of two

treaties that India and Nepal signed in 1950: The Treaty of Peace and Friendship and the
Treaty of Trade and Commerce. The former was a security arrangement that took into
account the possible threat of the Chinese from across the border. It provided for a close
cooperation between India and Nepal on matters relating to Nepal’s security, thus
ensuring that Nepal does not come under the Chinese sphere of influence. The second
treaty provided for trade and transit arrangements with Nepal. The terminology of this
treaty was subject to several discussions over the years. Since this was a ten year treaty
that was to be renewed regularly, the discussions became important. One major change
came in the phraseology of the treaty in 1971. The term ‘freedom of transit’ was replaced
by ‘right of transit’. Another important change that took place during the Janata
Government was the splitting up of this treaty into separate treaties, one for trade and
dealing with transit.
In 1970s Nepal came forward with a fundamentally new approach to its foreign
policy. In aformal announcement in 1975 Nepal proposed the establishment of a Zone of
Peace for the region of Nepal. The proposal sought to adhere to the policy of peace, non-
alignment and peaceful coexistence. The central purpose of this policy appeared to be the
reassertion of Nepal’s sovereignty and its identity that it feared was being submerged by
Indian domination. While this proposal still stands as an objective of Nepal’s foreign
policy today, India did not accept it. Instead, India favours the entire South Asia as zone
of peace.
The movement towards restoration of democracy in Nepal began in 1980s. The

creation of the new constitution providing for a constitutional monarchy in 1990 was a
welcome step in the restoration of democracy. Since 1990 Nepal, like the UK, is a
constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy.
The Indian attitude towards Nepal is linked to several factors. One concerns
Nepal’s attitude towards China. Nepal has awarded building contracts to Chinese
companies close to the borders. Nepal also purchased some armaments from the Chinese.
In fact what was of critical concern to India was the reported agreement between China
and Nepal for sharing of intelligence. India is also concerned about the open access that
Pakistani militant organisations are suspect of getting in Nepal. The highjacking of an
Indian Airlines plane from Nepal is just one example of the I.S.I. using Nepal’s territory
for terrorism against India. On the part of Nepal, it views India as a dominant neighbour
that it would like to balance by making some overtures with China. Nepal has broadly
accepted the ‘special relationship’ with India. The strong historical and socio-cultural links
ensure that this relationship will continue. However, Nepal is looking for greater
economic flexibility from India in its economic/trade related issues.
2.6. Bangladesh
India had actively participated in the freedom struggle of Bangladesh in the wake
of the Pakistani repression of the people of erstwhile East Pakistan in 1971. India also had
an interest in ending a ‘two frontier threat’ that East and West Pakistan had posed to it
since its independence. The 1972 Indo-Bangladesh Friendship Treaty was an attempt to
assert India’s interest in the security and integrity of the new nation. The Treaty stipulated
that the two countries would not enter into or participate in military alliances directed
against one another. However, the goodwill in Indo- Bangladesh relations did not stay for
long.
Between 1972 and 1975, India had a fairly good relationship with Bangladesh.
Bangladesh was the largest recipient of the Indian aid. India also concluded various
border demarcations that had been pending for long with Pakistan. The agreements
involved the incorporation of various Bengali Muslim enclaves into Bangladesh without
compensation. Later, in 1982, India agreed to lease the Tin Bhiga corridor to Bangladesh
‘in perpetuity’. But it did not materialise due to Indian Parliament’s refusal to amend the
Constitution to lease the Tin Bigha. India’s relations with Bangladesh deteriorated after
the killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman in 1975. There have been three important points of
dispute between India and Bangladesh. One concerns the problem over the Farakka
Barrage; two is the issue of the New Moore or the Purbasha Island and third is the
question of the Bangladeshi infiltration from across the borders, especially the Chakma
refugees.
The construction of the Farakka barrage had started in 1962. The aim of the project
was to divert the water from the Ganges to the Hoogly so as to flush out and desilt the
Calcutta port. The then government of Pakistan had objected to this as it would have
created water scarcity for the area in East Pakistan. In 1972 India and Bangladesh agreed
to create a Joint Rivers Commission; however, the talks on the Farakka barrage continued
to fail. It was only in 1978 that an agreement was signed between the two countries on the
sharing of waters. But it lapsed after five years. Eventually in 1996 a treaty on sharing of
Ganga waters was concluded, between India and Bangladesh, for 30 years. It takes care of
the needs of water for both the countries during the ‘lean period’. In 1981, the Indian
Navy laid claim to the island of New Moore that had been emerging in the mouth of the
Ganga delta. This became a bone of contention between the two countries. The island
called Talpatty by Bangladesh and Purbasha, by West Bengal is not inhabited. It can be
resolved on the basis of the principle of mean line. Bangladesh has also objected to India’s
attempts to fence the border to prevent infiltration of Bangladeshis into the North Eastern
territories of India. This, besides the flow of the Chakma refugees into India, has created
border tensions between the two countries.
2.7. Sri Lanka
Bilateral relations between the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the
Republic of India have been generally friendly, but were controversially affected by the
Sri Lankan civil war and by the failure of Indian intervention during the war. India is the
only neighbour of Sri Lanka, separated by the Palk Strait; both nations occupy a strategic
position in South Asia and have sought to build a common security umbrella in the Indian
Ocean. Historically and culturally, the two nations have been considerably close, with
70% of Sri Lankans continuing to follow Theravada Buddhism to this day
2.7.1 Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan civil war
In the 1970s-1980s, private entities and elements in the state government of Tamil
Nadu were believed to be encouraging the funding and training for the Liberation Tigers
of Tamil Eelam, a separatist insurgent force. In 1987, faced with growing anger amongst
its own Tamils, and a flood of refugees, India intervened directly in the conflict for the
first time after the Sri Lankan government attempted to regain control of the northern
Jaffna region by means of an economic blockade and military assaults, India supplied
food and medicine by air and sea. After subsequent negotiations, India and Sri Lanka
entered into an agreement/13th amendment. The peace accord assigned a certain degree
of regional autonomy in the Tamil areas with Eelam People's Revolutionary Liberation
Front (EPRLF) controlling the regional council and called for the Tamil militant groups to
lay down their arms. Further India was to send a peacekeeping force, named the IPKF to
Sri Lanka to enforce the disarmament and to watch over the regional council. Even though
the accord was signed between the governments of Sri Lanka and India, with the Tamil
Tigers and other Tamil militant groups not having a role in the signing of the accord, most
Tamil militant groups accepted this agreement, the LTTE rejected the accord because they
opposed the candidate, who belonged to another militant group named Eelam Peoples
Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF), for chief administrative officer of the merged
Northern and Eastern provinces. Instead the LTTE named three other candidates for the
position. The candidates proposed by the LTTE were rejected by India.The LTTE
subsequently refused to hand over their weapons to the IPKF.The result was that the
LTTE now found itself engaged in military conflict with the Indian Army, and launched
their first attack on an Indian army rations truck on October 8, killing five Indian para-
commandos who were on board by strapping burning tires around their necks. The
government of India then decided that the IPKF should disarm the LTTE by force, and the
Indian Army launched number of assaults on the LTTE, including a month-long campaign
dubbed Operation Pawan to win control of the Jaffna peninsula from the LTTE. When the
IPKF engaged the LTTE, the then president of Sri Lanka, Ranasinghe Premadasa, began
supporting LTTE and funded LTTE with arms. During the warfare with the LTTE, IPKF
was also alleged to have made human rights violation against the civilians. Notably, IPKF
was alleged to have perpetrated Jaffna teaching hospital massacre which was the killing of
over 70 civilians including patients, doctors and nurses. The ruthlessness of this
campaign, and the Indian army's subsequent anti-LTTE operations made it extremely
unpopular amongst many Tamils in Sri Lanka. The conflict between the LTTE and the
Indian Army left over 1,000 Indian soldiers dead.
The Indo-Sri Lankan Accord, which had been unpopular amongst Sri Lankans for
giving India a major influence, now became a source of nationalist anger and resentment
as the IPKF was drawn fully into the conflict. Sri Lankans protested the presence of the
IPKF, and the newly-elected Sri Lankan president Ranasinghe Premadasa demanded its
withdrawal, which was completed by March 1990. on May 21, 1991, Rajiv Gandhi was
assassinated and the LTTE was alleged to be the perpetrator. As a result India declared
the LTTE to be a terrorist outfit in 1992. Bilateral relations improved in the 1990s and India
supported the peace process but has resisted calls to get involved again.
India has also been wary of and criticised the extensive military involvement of
Pakistan in the conflict, accusing the latter of supplying lethal weaponry and encouraging
Sri Lanka to pursue military action rather than peaceful negotiations to end the civil war.
2.7.2. Commercial ties
India and Sri Lanka are member nations of several regional and multilateral
organisations such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC),
South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme, South Asian Economic Union and
BIMSTEC, working to enhance cultural and commercial ties. Since a bilateral free trade
agreement was signed and came into effect in 2000, Indo-Sri Lankan trade rose 128% by
2004 and quadrupled by 2006, reaching USD 2.6 billion. Between 2000 and 2004, India's
exports to Sri Lanka in the last four years increased by 113%, from USD 618 million to
$1,319 million while Sri Lankan exports to India increased by 342%, from $44 million to
USD $194 million Indian exports account for 14% of Sri Lanka’s global imports. India is
also the fifth largest export destination for Sri Lankan goods, accounting for 3.6% of its
exports. Both nations are also signatories of the South Asia Free Trade Agreement
(SAFTA). Negotiations are also underway to expand the free trade agreement to forge
stronger commercial relations and increase corporate investment and ventures in various
industries. The year 2010 is predicted to be the best year for bilateral trade on record, with
Sri Lanka's exports to India increasing by 45% over the first seven months of the year.
India's National Thermal Power Corp (NTPC) is also scheduled to build a 500 MW
thermal power plant in Sampoor (Sampur). The NTPC claims that this plan will take the
Indo-Sri Lankan relationship to new level.

2.7.3. Fishing disputes
There have been several alleged incidents of Sri Lankan Navy personnel firing on
Indian fishermen fishing in the Palk Strait, where India and Sri Lanka are only separated
by 12 nautical miles. Indian Government has always taken up the issue of safety of Indian
fishermen on a priority basis with the Government of Sri Lanka. Presently there is no
bonafide Indian fisherman in the Sri Lankan custody. A Joint Working Group (JWG) has
been constituted to deal with the issues related to Indian fishermen straying in Sri Lankan
territorial waters, work out modalities for prevention of use of force against them and the
early release of confiscated boats and explore possibilities of working towards bilateral
arrangements for licensed fishing. The JWG last met in Jan 2006. India officially protested
against Sri Lanka Navy for its alleged involvement in attacks on Indian fishermen on
January 12, 2011. Even after the official protest, another fisherman was killed in a brutal
manner on Jan 22, 2011. Over 530 fishermen have been killed in the last 30 years. The
apathetic attitude of the Indian government and the national media towards the alleged
killing of Tamil Nadu fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy is being strongly condemned.
Several Tamil Nadu politicians like Vaiko and Jayalalitha have condemned the federal
government for not doing enough to stop the killing of Indian Tamil fishermen
Development Cooperation
India is active in a number of areas of development activity in Sri Lanka. About

one-sixth of the total development credit granted by Government of India is made
available to Sri Lanka. In the recent past three lines of credit were extended to Sri Lanka:
US$ 100 million for capital goods, consumer durables, consultancy services and food
items, US$ 31 million for supply of 300,000 MT of wheat and US$ 150 million for purchase
of petroleum products. All of these lines of credit have been fully utilized. Another line of
credit of US$ 100 million is now being made available for rehabilitation of the Colombo-
Matara railway.
A number of development projects are implemented under ‘Aid to Sri Lanka’

funds. In 2006-07, the budget for ‘Aid to Sri Lanka’ was Rs 28.2 Crs. A training
programme for 465 Sri Lankan Police officers has been commenced in Dec 2005. Another
400 Sri Lankan Police personnel are being trained for the course of ‘Maintenance of Public
Order’. Indian governments have also showed interest in collaborating with their Sri
Lankan counterparts on building tourism between the two countries based on shared
religious heritage.

Other areas of Cooperation
The India-Sri-Lanka bilateral agreement on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons was

signed on June 9, 2010. The agreement provides for the conditions under which such
transfers can take place and the various obligations of the transferring state and the
receiving state. Accordingly, the requests made by eligible persons are processed by the
Sri Lanka and forwarded to India for completion of the necessary legal procedures. The
transferred persons would be completing the remainder of their terms in India. Sentenced
Persons belonging to Kerala and Tamilnadu have been transferred under the agreement
from Srilanka to India. But later Sri Lanka changed its position that it will prosecute
Indian fishermen arrested for poaching instead of arranging for their early release.
Conclusion
To conclude, the Indian policy towards the smaller powers of South Asia has been
more explicitly seen since the Indira Gandhi days. India supports and encourages regional
democracies and has sought to tie up its regional primacy through series of regional, and
bilateral arrangements, covering a wide range of agreements in the areas of defence, trade
and science and technology. Yet difficulties continue to remain in coming to an
understanding with India. Divisions and mistrust continues to dominate the region. The
commonality of the region leads the small powers to continue to assert their differences so
as to regain a sense of identity and independence.

MODULE III
RECENT TRENDS IN INDIA’S RELATIONS
(WITH USA, RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN)
3.1 INDO-US RELATIONS: FROM ESTRANGEMENT TO ENGAGEMENT
3.1.1 Introduction
India and the United States are widely recognised as the worlds largest and the
most powerful democracies respectively. The relationship between these two countries is
thus one of the most fascinating interactions witnessed in the relations among nations.
The added significant features are marked by the fact that India is one of the oldest
civilisations in the world, whereas the United States is relatively a younger civilisation.
However, in terms of statehood experience, it is the US, which is considerably older than
India. When India took birth as a newly independent country in 1947, the US was already
more than a century and a half old. And by the time of Indian independence, it had
emerged as a global superpower. Factors related to civilisation, statehood and governance
thus made the relations between India and the US as one of the most complex bilateral
relations in world history. Soon after independence, India chose not to join any of the two
power blocs, and adopted the policy of non-alignment.
As and when the US promoted the formation of military blocs and security
alliances, India vehemently opposed them. India was particularly critical about the
formations of South East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and Central Treaty
Organisation (CENTO). These two organisations brought Cold War to India’s door-steps
with Pakistan becoming an active member in them.
As the alliance politics conditioned the US thinking on a series of political events

and armed conflicts around the world and non-alignment conditioned the Indian
thinking, New Delhi and Washington differed on majority of such issues. The Cold War-
related political divergences between India and the US were particularly visible and
pronounced on issues related to decolonisation of colonial territories, the Korean War,
Vietnam War, Suez crisis, Hungarian Crisis, Czechoslovakia Crisis, and the People’s
Republic of China’s membership in the United Nations. However, India and the US also
strongly differed on certain issues related to India’s national security. These were the
Kashmir problem, American arms transfer to Pakistan and the nuclear issues.

Kashmir Problem: The Kashmir problem began with the Pakistan backed tribal
invasion of Kashmir in 1947. As the Maharaja of Kashmir agreed to Kashmir’s accession to
India and requested the Indian military help, the first war between India and Pakistan
began soon after India’s independence. The US failed to recognise Pakistani aggression,
imposed arms embargo against both India and Pakistan and supported the UN Security
Council resolution that did not condemn aggression. India complained that the US
equated the victim with the aggressor through its policy. The US took a similar stand
during the second Pakistani aggression on Kashmir in 1965. The US tilt towards Pakistan
in the third round of Indo-Pak war in 1971 was an act of hostility towards India. But after
the Indian victory in the war, the US began to support the Simla Agreement, which called
for the resolution of the issue through bilateral dialogue. Nonetheless, Washington
continued to view Kashmir as a disputed territory and did not accept the Indian point of
view that it was an internal affair of India.
US Arms Transfer: Six years after the first Indo-Pakistan war, the US signed a
Mutual Defence Agreement with Pakistan in 1954. It signed another agreement in 1959 on
military cooperation. And in between, Pakistan had joined the SEATO and CENTO.
Consequently, Pakistan received millions of dollars of military assistance from the United
States. A substantial amount of that assistance was spent by Pakistan in procuring
advanced weapons from the US. India, time and again, brought to the notice of
Washington that its arms transfers policy encouraged arms race in the subcontinent and
generated regional instability. Washington assured India that the US-supplied weapons to
Pakistan were meant to contain communism rather than to be used against India.
However, Pakistan did use those weapons during its war against India.
Nuclear Issues: The nuclear issue came to dominate India’s relations with the US
ever since China went nuclear in 1964. Washington suspected that India would follow
China and detonate its own bomb sparking off further proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The US, along with several other countries soon started a process to deal with
proliferation, which culminated in the signing of a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in
1968. India refused to be a party and opposed this treaty on the ground of its in-built
discrimination against non-nuclear weapon states. It sought to prevent others from going
nuclear, while allowing vertical nuclear proliferation by five nuclear weapon states—the
US, USSR, Britain, France and China. Disregarding this discriminatory document, India
conducted a Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) in 1974. It created yet another round of
political hostility between India and the US, since India did so after about three years of
defeating Pakistan in 1971 War and in the midst of American decline indicated by US
withdrawal from Indochina.

Notwithstanding the military distance and political differences between India and
the US during the Cold War, the two countries had good working relations in other areas.
New Delhi and Washington never perceived each other as enemies. In fact, when Sino-US
détente coincided with Indo-Soviet friendship and cooperation in early 1970s, the political
distance between India and the US further widened. But even this development did not
lead to a serious fracture in the bilateral relationship. India had been a recipient of
American food assistance during drought and famine and token economic assistance
through the Cold War years. The US used food aid as political weapon occasionally
creating resentment in India, but there is little doubt that India benefited from the US
assistance as well
3.1.2 Evolving ties under Cold War climate
India’s entry into the international community of nations as an independent

political entity almost coincided with the spread of the Cold War between the two
erstwhile superpowers—the United States and the Soviet Union. As the two superpowers
clashed and competed for spreading their influence around the world, India was faced
with a Hobson’s choice to take sides in the Cold War. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru
decided against making a choice and announced a policy of Non-Alignment. This policy
challenged the ethical basis of the Cold War, aimed at preventing the Cold War and
sought to adopt a policy that would facilitate India’s friendly relations with both the US
and the USSR. Nevertheless, at times the Indian position was disliked by the U.S. and it
went out of the way to support Pakistan and adopted anti-India posture
3.1.2 Relations at the End of the Cold War
Although there was a relaxation in the Cold War since the mid-1980s with the rise
of Gorbachev to power in the former Soviet Union, the Cold War practically came to an
end with the disintegration of the Soviet Union in December 1991. India’s relations with
the US had considerably improved during the relaxation of Cold War, but the collapse of
the Soviet Union brought in unprecedented uncertainties to international relations,
including Indo-US relations. With the US emerging as the only superpower in the world,
there was little doubt that it would not be able to give attention to its relations with India
at this time of great transition in world affairs. Some analysts argued that South Asia was
an area of low priority during the Cold War and it was unlikely that it would get any
high priority in the new context of the post-Cold War era. In fact, as Bill Clinton became
the first post-Cold War US president, India found its relations with that country in
doldrums. The new Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel, who was in charge of
South Asia, created new irritants in the Indo-US relations by challenging the legal
validity of Kashmir’s accession to India. India was also put on the watch list of the US

Commerce Department under the Super 301 Clause of the Omnibus Trade Act. The only
strategic comfort for India was that both Pakistan and China had lost their strategic
relevance to the US in the aftermath of the Cold War.
3.1.3 Beginning of a Change
While the Clinton administration was dealing with the emerging challenges of the
post-Soviet world, the American think tanks were aware of the importance of crafting a
new approach to US-India relations. The Asia Society and the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace brought out reports indicating the need for an intense and
cooperative relations between the US and India. Two developments influenced the
American debate on India’s policy. First, India had embarked on a policy of economic
liberalisation months before the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The economic
openness was bound to enhance the attractiveness of the Indian market with a huge
middle class to foreign business community. The second development was president
Clinton’s emphasis on the economic issues in the US post-Cold War foreign policy
initiatives. In the backdrop of all these events, the US Commerce Department identified
ten big emerging markets in the developing world that would facilitate American trade
and investment. India was considered to be one of such emerging markets. Prime
Minister Narashimha Rao first took the initiative to reshape India’s relations with the US
and visited Washington in May 1994.
The economic issues dominated his agenda and he called for enhanced ties in the
field of trade and investment between India and the US. In November 1994, the US
Undersecretary of Commerce Jeffery Garten visited India to prepare the ground for the
visit of US Commerce Secretary to India. Visiting India in the third week of January
1995, Commerce Secretary late Ronald Brown signed a Memorandum of Understanding
with the Commerce Minister Pranab Mukherjee to create a “commercial alliance”
between the two countries. It was to be a super forum for consultation to facilitate closer
business ties between the two countries. Chief Executives of 25 big corporations had
accompanied Brown who concluded 11 business deals with India in four days of his
stay. Since that time, economic factors have brought India and the US together. The US
has become the largest source of foreign investment and the largest destination of the
Indian exports.
3.1.4 Defence Co-operation
The most significant change in the Indo-US relations in the post-Cold War era,
however, is the increasing defense cooperation between the two countries. Cooperation in
this field was almost a taboo in the Cold War days. The first milestone in this direction

was laid by a visit to India by the US Defence Secretary William Perry in early 1995. He
signed “Agreed Minutes on Defence Cooperation” with his Indian counterpart paving the
way for bilateral security cooperation to deal with the post-Cold War uncertainties.
Although it did not signify making of an alliance, it opened up a hitherto closed avenue
for cooperation at least in principle. This agreement in the backdrop of US-Pakistan
strategic differences was a significant security scenario in the subcontinent. Pakistan had
been reeling under the American sanctions under the Pressler Amendment since 1990.
Although the Brown Amendment gave a one-time waiver to the Pressler Amendment,
Islamabad had lost all its strategic relevance to the US since the withdrawal of the Soviet
troops from Afghanistan. But today even though Pakistan continuing as a launch pad for
their war on terror the trust deficit between the Pakistan and US are increasing. At the
same time the defence and strategic engagement between US and India are increasing.
The best example is Indo-US Cilivilian Nuclear Agreement.
3.1.5 After Pokhran II
Increased economic cooperation and beginning of defence cooperation between

India and the US did not mean that the two countries had no differences in the post-Cold
War era. The Kashmir issue, now complicated by Pakistan sponsored cross-border
terrorism, continued to haunt the Indo-US relations. India expected the US to declare
Pakistan as a terrorist state. Washington refused to do that despite adequate evidence
provided by its own intelligence community and the Indian Government. Simultaneously,
some US legislators continued to raise the issue of human rights violation in Kashmir
generating unease in India.
The differences over the nuclear issues also continued, as the Clinton
administration adopted a policy of “cap, freeze and roll back” of nuclear programmes of
India and Pakistan. India had broadly four grievances against the US non-proliferation
policy. First, Washington kept on providing military and economic assistance to Pakistan
in the 1980s amidst intelligence reports about Islamabad’s quest for a nuclear weapon
capability. As and when the Pressler Amendment was imposed, it was no punishment
since Pakistan had already acquired nuclear weapon capability. The amendment required
the US president to certify that Pakistan did not want to possess nuclear weapons (or
nuclear weapons technology) before US aid could be released to that country. Moreover,
the Clinton Administration was instrumental in the enactment of the Brown Amendment
by the US Congress, which diluted the effect of the Pressler Amendment and amounted to
rewarding a proliferator. India also accused Washington of inaction in the face of Indo—
Pakistan cooperation in WMD programmes. Secondly, Washington, while showing laxity
on Pakistani nuclear weapons programme, took a hard line on India’s indigenous nuclear
and missile programmes. It scuttled the cryogenic rocket engine deal between India and
Russia. Thirdly, the US occasionally made common cause with China to address the
South Asian nuclear issue, while India felt that China’s nuclear weapons were part of the
problem of proliferation in the region. Finally, the US failed to appreciate the Indian
sincerity to back a truly non-discriminatory comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and
once again sought to craft a discriminatory document to target, among other things,
Indian nuclear programme.
In the midst of the perceived discriminatory US non-proliferation policy and

nuclearisation of India’s security environment with rising cooperation between China and
Pakistan on nuclear weapons programmes, New Delhi conducted a series of nuclear tests
in May 1998. Known as Pokharan II tests, it heralded the open nuclear age in South Asia,
as Pakistan also followed Indian footsteps and conducted several nuclear tests of its own.
The United States imposed comprehensive sanctions against the nuclear tests and Indo-US
relations came to pass through a sky of dark clouds. Although India voluntarily declared
that it was not going to conduct any more tests, the US continued pressurising India to
sign the NPT and CTBT.
3.1.6 Relations in the New Millennium
The dark clouds over the Indo-US relations however, did not have a prolonged
existence. It was soon realised by the Clinton Administration that the nuclear
developments in the subcontinent could not be reversed. The American sanctions, the
Asian economic meltdown and a period of global recession could not prevent the
commendable growth of Indian economy. Washington saw positive benefit in engaging
an economically vibrant, democratically stable and militarily powerful India. President
Bill Clinton visited India in March 2000 and laid the foundation of a new relationship
between the two countries.
The American position on the Kargil War between India and Pakistan in mid-1999
had removed yet another irritant in Indo-US relations and president Bill Clinton was
heartily welcomed in India. New Delhi had appreciated Clinton’s pressure on Pakistan
to stop its misadventure in the Kargil Sector of Kashmir in 1999 and Washington had
praised India’s restraint in not crossing the Line of Control (LoC) and responsible
conduct of the Kargil war. By visiting India for five days and Pakistan for four hours,
Clinton made it clear where American stakes lay in the new millennium. The Indian and
the American officials signed several cooperative agreements during Clinton’s visit and
one of the most significant developments was a joint vision statement on the future
course of the relationship.

As Bill Clinton came to India at the fag end of his presidential career, some analysts
argued that Indo-US relations would once again enter the uncharted waters after the next
presidential election. But as history is now witness, the victory of the Republican
candidate George W Bush in the 2000 presidential election took the relationship to the
new heights. President Bush considered China a strategic competitor and India a
democratic strategic partner. India, in his view, is a major world power and the US-
Indian relations would be important to maintain Asian and global stability in the 21st
century. India’s quick support to Bush’s concept of national missile defence (NMD)
surprised the whole world. But it symbolised the birth of a new and more intense strategic
relationship between India and the US.
3.1.7 September 11 and After
As Indo-US relations kept improving and the Bush administration was about to lift
nuclearrelated sanctions from India and at the same time the US-Pakistan strategic
distance was widening, terrorist strike on the US on 11 September 2001 shook the entire
world. India declared unconditional support to the US war against terrorism. But when
Bush decided to make Pakistan a frontline state in his war against global terrorism,
doubts were again expressed about the future cooperative ties between India and the US.
The growth of the terrorist strikes in India, especially on Kashmir legislature in October
2001, and the futile attempt by Pakistan-backed terrorists to storm the Indian Parliament
on 13 December 2001 created complications in the Indo-US relations. Washington
considered Pakistan’s support crucial in its war against terrorism and failed to restrain
Pakistan from continuing its cross-border terrorism against India. Mobilisation of troops
along the border by India and Pakistan in the wake of 13 December event and
Washington’s call for Indo-Pak dialogue was interpreted in India as America’s double
standard in dealing with terrorism. Meanwhile, India had also snapped air, rail and bus
links with Pakistan.
However, India decided to pull its troops back and normalise the situation along
the border after successfully making the international community aware of cross-border
terrorism in Kashmir. This policy also removed an American worry over a full-scale war
in the subcontinent, which could escalate into a nuclear war. The developments in Iraq,
which led to the American military action against Iraq was another issue that created a
little political hiccup in the Indo-US relations. The US did not accept in good spirit the
Indian Parliament’s unanimous resolution calling for ending the war and the withdrawal
of the US and coalition forces from Iraq. India later refused to send its troops to Iraq for
its stabilisation, on the ground that there was no UN request for the deployment of the
Indian troops, and that the Indian troops could not function under the command of
anybody (meaning US). India would consider the issue as and when the UN called for it.
3.1.8 Current trends
India emerged in the 21st century as increasingly vital to core US foreign policy
interests. India, the dominant actor in its region, and the home of more than one billion
citizens, is now often characterised as a nascent Great Power and an "indispensable
partner" of the US, one that many analysts view as a potential counterweight to the
growing clout of China. The Indo-US civilian nuclear Agreement is also considered as a
part of this strategy. Since 2004, Washington and New Delhi have been pursuing a
"strategic partnership" that is based on shared values and generally convergent
geopolitical interests. Numerous economic, security, and global initiatives - including
plans for civilian nuclear cooperation - are underway. This latter initiative, first launched
in 2005, reversed three decades of American non-proliferation policy. Also in 2005, the
United States and India signed a ten-year defence framework agreement, with the goal of
expanding bilateral security cooperation. The two countries now engage in numerous and
unprecedented combined military exercises. The value of all bilateral trade tripled from
2004 to 2008 and continues to grow, while significant two-way investment also grows and
flourishes. The influence of a large Indian-American community is reflected in the largest
country-specific caucus in the United States Congress, while from 2009-2010 more than
100,000 Indian students have attended American colleges and universities.
During the tenure of the George W. Bush administration, relations between India
and the United States were seen to have blossomed, primarily over common concerns
regarding growing Islamic extremism, energy security, and climate change. In November
2010, President Barack Obama visited India and addressed a joint session of the Indian
Parliament, where he backed India's bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations
Security Council. From all the above analysis, it is very clear that India and US are moving
from estrangement to engagement in this post Cold War period.
3.2 INDO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS
3.2.1 Introduction
Russia as a new country in the modern political map of the globe is a little more
than ten years old. It is actually the principal successor state to the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republic (USSR), which disintegrated in December 1991. Russia was given the
permanent seat in the UN Security Council (with a right to veto) which was held till 1991
by the USSR. Since Russia inherited the lion’s share of benefits and burdens of the USSR,
Indo-Russian relations of today must be understood in the backdrop of Indo-Soviet
relations.

India’s relations with the Soviet Union during the early years of its liberation from
the British Raj were not very cordial. In fact, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was
initially wary of the Soviet Union. Nor was the Soviet Union keen to establish any
meaningful ties with the newly independent India. However, the spread of the
superpower rivalry around the world motivated the Soviet Union to reexamine its
relations with India, which followed a non-aligned foreign policy. India, on the other
hand, suspicious of the emerging security ties between the USA and Pakistan,
reconsidered its views of and policies towards the Soviet Union particularly in the post-
Stalin period. By the mid-1950s India and the Soviet Union appeared all poised to
establish closer relations. This trend was considerably strengthened in 1956 when, during
a visit to India, Soviet leaders Nikolai Bulganin and Alexei Kosygin referred to Jammu
and Kashmir as an integral part of India. Kashmir being a core national security issue
with India, the Soviet gesture was highly appreciated by the Indian leaders. In response,
India voted with the Soviet Union in 1956 in the UN General Assembly, on the resolution
calling for democratic elections in Hungary which was then under Soviet occupation.
However, it was after the Sino-Indian war of 1962 that the Indo-Soviet relations
assumed added importance. Although the Soviet Union did not have strategic relations
with the non-aligned India during the Chinese invasion, Sino-Soviet rift had become
crystal clear by that time. The refusal of the US-led Western camp to assist India in
expanding its military capability led to the establishment of formal military cooperation
between India and the Soviet Union. The two countries in 1962 agreed to begin a
programme of military-technical cooperation. India was not keen to enter the Cold War
politics. For India, the agreement with the Soviets was a commercial one based on
economics and the dire necessity to modernise its armed forces after the 1962 debacle.
After all, Soviet military contracts usually had favourable financial terms and provided
for licensing of production.
India’s long term self-reliance in military procurement and search for strategic
autonomy guided India’s security cooperation with the Soviet Union. In other words,
India did not choose to join the Soviet camp, it only sought to use the Soviet supplied
arms as a stepping stone to achieve strategic autonomy. The Indian non-alignment was,
in fact, demonstrated a few years later, when Pakistan agreed to Soviet peace mediation
at Tashkent after the 1965 Indo-Pakistan War.
The seismic shifts in regional geopolitics in the late 1960s and early 1970s
culminated in an enhanced Indo-Soviet security cooperation. The US approach to
befriend China with the help of Pakistan was interpreted in India as the emergence of a
new axis of power consisting of those three countries. The simultaneous political
upheaval in East Pakistan adversely affected India’s national security and economy.
Before India and Pakistan would fight the third round of war in 1971, the Soviet Union
and India signed a historic Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation in August 1971.
Since then the two countries developed a kind of mutual trust and cooperation,
which appeared solid and durable until the disintegration of the USSR. India met most of
its defence needs from the Soviet Union. By a rough estimate, almost 60 per cent of the
Indian army’s military hardware, 70 per cent of its naval hardware, and 80 per cent of air
force hardware originated from the Soviet Union. Moreover, the two countries
developed a convergence of views and interests on most of the international issues of the
Cold War days.
3.2.2 Tensions after the Collapse of the USSR
The dissolution of the USSR and the emergence of Russia led to several changes in
the traditional foreign policy objectives and goals. As the new Russian Federation began
to grope for new principles and practices of its foreign relations, three factors led to the
sidelining of India in Moscow’s policy circles. First, president Boris Yeltsin emphasised a
need for the “deideologisation” of its foreign policy, which resulted in a “wait and see”
policy towards India. The new relationship with India was to be guided by “pragmatism
and flexibility” and there was no hurry to devote much time to India.
Secondly, Russian political establishment was divided between two groups—

“Westerners or Atlanticists” and “Asia first” groups. Both Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris
Yeltsin were “Atlanticists” who pinned their hopes on a renewal of the Russian economy
with the help of a new version of the Marshall Plan.
Thirdly, a school of thought concerning future relations with India, headed by

Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, believed that Pakistan was a more valuable
asset in fulfilling Russia’s immediate foreign policy and security concerns. They argued
that Pakistan could become an effective middleman for Russia in dealing with Islamic
fundamentalism. The views of this group prevailed in the early 1990s. Consequently, the
Russian foreign ministry considered Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey as having a higher
priority than India.
Another school of thought comprising some academics, members of the Duma and
the defence industry strongly believed that Russia should maintain its “special”
relationship with India. A strong India, in their view, could be a better bulwark against
Islamic fundamentalism and the hegemonic status of the United States. But this school
failed to influence the course of foreign policy making.
As the anti-India school of thought dominated Russian foreign policy-making, a

major shift in Soviet/Russian policy towards South Asia took place during transition
days. In November 1991— about a month before the final dissolution of the Soviet Union,
Moscow suddenly supported the Pakistan-sponsored UN Resolution calling for the

establishment of a nuclear-free zone in South Asia. It almost gave a political shock to

India, since it would mean that India, along with Pakistan, would have to abandon its
nuclear programmes. The support to the Pakistani proposal was partly guided by the
desire to get the Soviet prisoners of war released from the “custody of the Pakistan-
backed Mujahideen factions.” In December 1991, when the Soviet Union was breathing its
last, a delegation of Afghan Mujahideen travelled to Russia. In January 1992, the new
Russian government severed all “military supplies, ordnance and fuel for military
transport” that were sustaining the war efforts of president Najib’s government of
Afghanistan against the Mujahideen. India once again was seriously concerned over the
reversal in the Soviet/Russian policy.
Another event creating stress in the Indo-Russian relations centred on a contract

dispute between the Russian space directorate Glavkosmos and the Government of India
for the purchase of cryogenic engines and the related technology. The contract, signed on
18 January 1991, would have helped India gain knowledge of the liquid oxygen
propulsion system of Russian cryogenic engines in order to advance India’s geo-
synchronous satellite launch vehicle (GSLV) programme. When the United States
threatened to impose sanctions under the MTCR on both India and Russia, President
Boris Yeltsin promised that he would not give in to US diplomatic pressure. But when
the US actually applied sanctions in May 1992, and threatened further economic
measures, Yeltsin in July 1993 agreed to suspend the transaction with India and to alter
the nature of the transfer to the sale of only the cryogenic engines and not the
technology. In return, Glavkosmos received bidding rights on more than $950 million
worth of future US space projects. During the same time yet another controversy, the
“rupee versus rouble” debate, negatively affected Indo-Russian relations. India had
accumulated a debt of more than $12 billion owed to the Soviet Union for arms
purchases. While India was prepared and willing to pay off its debt, a dispute emerged
with the new Russian government over the nature of the currency and the exchange rate
that would be used. This dispute led to a collapse of trade relations between the two
countries in 1991-92. After considerable negotiations, a resolution was reached in January
1993 that called for India to repay Russia $1 billion a year in Indian goods until 2005 and
the remaining thirty-seven percent of the debt would be repaid, interest free, over a span
of fortyfive years.
3.2.3 Revival of Close Co-operation
Russia realised before long that its hopes of Marshall Plan type assistance from the
West were misplaced. The expansion of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the
crisis in the Balkans and several other instances of American unilateralism induced
Moscow to reprioritise its foreign policy agenda. Those who supported closer ties with
Asian powers could vindicate their ideas. In January 1996, when Yevgeny Primakov
replaced the pro-Western Andrei Kozyrev as Russia’s foreign minister, Indo-US relations
began to change quickly. India once again came under Russian strategic focus.
At a time when US president Bill Clinton put pressure on India on the nuclear
issue, Moscow sent a new signal to New Delhi by concluding an agreement to build two
Russian light-water nuclear reactors (LWR) in India in defiance of a Nuclear Suppliers
Group ban. The accord paved the way for the construction of two 1,000 MW light water
nuclear reactors at Kudankalam in Tamil Nadu. It seemed that Russia would not
succumb to external pressure this time. While Russia did criticise India for its nuclear
tests in 1998, it refused to apply any sanctions against India. Besides, Russia fully
supported India during the Kargil conflict of 1999, and it called upon Pakistan to pull
back its troops on its side of Line of Control (LOC). President Putin has fully supported
Vajpayee government’s position on cross-border terrorism, urging Pakistan to destroy its
infrastructure of terrorism.
India would no longer face the military difficulties it faced after the Soviet
disintegration. India’s concern in the early 1990s was its limited supply of spare parts
and supplies for its Soviet produced armaments. Lacking the indigenous capability to
produce spare parts and supplies for the Soviet built equipment, India’s military faced an
immediate crisis. On the reverse side, Russian inability to continue the flow of military
hardware, coupled with the sharp reduction in the Indian military expenditures,
“weakened the primary bond that had united India and the Soviet Union during the
Cold War”. By the mid-1990s, in fact, the Indian economic growth and the financial
needs of Russia’s military-industrial complex quickly mended the “hiccup” in the Indo-
Russian military cooperation.
3.2.4 Terrorism
On international terrorism, India and Russia agree that there is no justification for
terrorism, and this must be fought against, without compromise and wherever it exists.
Russia has supported the Indian draft at the UN on Comprehensive Convention on
International Terrorism [CCIT]. The two sides signed a MoU on co-operation in
combating terrorism in December 2002. A Joint Working Group on Combating
International Terrorism meets from time to time and its fourth meeting was held in Delhi
on 24 October 2006.Both Russia and India have faced the problem of terrorism, India has
seen it in the context of its military presence in Kashmir and Russia has seen it in
Chechnya and both the countries are supportive of each other on the issue of terrorism.

3.2.5 Nuclear Deals
On 7 November 2009, India signed a new nuclear deal with Russia apart from the
deals that were agreed upon by the two countries earlier.[29] India and Russia are in
discussion for construction of two more nuclear power units at Kudankulam. The two
units already set up are ready for operation.[30]During Russian president Vladimir Putin's
visit to India for the 13th annual summit, a co-operative civilian nuclear energy road map
was agreed to. Running until 2030, sixteen to eighteen new reactors will be constructed,
with installed capacity of 1000 MW each. A 1000 MW reactor costs around $2.5 billion so
the deal may touch $45 billion in worth
3.2.6 Conclusion
India and Russia cannot afford to dilute their bilateral relations and they both
require each other. Therefore, they need to synergise co-operation in the economic and
security arenas in particular. In the present context, the challenge is to reexamine the
current state of the partnership. As Russian Ambassador Kadakin aptly put it ‘India is
Russia’s closest friend’. The reverse also holds true.
3.3. INDIA –CHINA RELATIONS
3.3.1. Introduction
The history of Sino-Indian relations left the fact that relations are not cordial
always. Chinese were not happy with the Indian policy of Non-Alignment. Chinese
expansionist policy, Mao-Nehru identity clash, Tibetan problem, Dalai Lama’s asylum
and border problem between two nations finally lead to the Sino-Indian War of 1962,
which ends the “honeymoon” between India and China. From 1976 onwards, India
followed a policy of ‘normalisation’ towards China. But Chinese response to it was very
slow and sharp. After war ambassadorial level relationship were restored in 1976. In
December 1988, Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India made a five day break
through visit to China. This was considered as an important one in the post 1962 phase
was concerned. Initiatives to settle border problem were also started during this period.
3.3.2 Normalisation after the war
Sino-Indian relationship from 1988 to 1998 can be termed as a period of

“normalisation’. But in May 1998, India’s Defence Minister of the time George Fernandez
made a statement that China is “potential threat No.1.” Just before this he had accused
China of being the “mother” of Ghauri, Pakistan’s Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles
and of intruding in to Indian territory to build a helipad in Arunachal Pradesh. In
addition to this for rationalising the PokhranII explosion, Vajpayee government also
choose to target China as one of the two ‘threat” factors. This brought a temporary set
back in Sino-Indian relations. As a response to New Delhi’s allegations and to
demonstrate its credentials as a responsible power supporting global non-proliferation
principles, Beijing used its rotating presidency of the UN Security Council to undertake a
series of initiatives. It includes the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1172,
condemning the nuclear tests in South Asia and calling on India and Pakistan to stop their
nuclear programs immediately and refrain from weaponisation. China also cancelled the
November 1998 Sino-Indian Joint Working Group (JWG) meeting in Beijing to express its
displeasure.
The Indian External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh’s visit to Beijing in June 1999
brought back the normalisation in Sino-Indian relations. Later Indian President K.R
Narayanan’s week long visit to China between May 28 and June 3, 2000 was a significant
one as far as the bilateral relations were concerned. China has adopted a policy of
developing friendly relations with India on the one hand, and with Pakistan and other
South Asian countries on the other. It has expressed its desire for South Asian countries to
be friendly with each other. After several other high-level visits, the JWG resumed its
regular meetings in April 1999. In November 2001, Beijing and New Delhi for the first
time exchanged maps on the middle sector of the disputed border area, covering the
Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh boundaries with Tibet. At the suggestion of
President Jiang Zemin and his counterpart Narayanan, a bilateral China-India Eminent
Persons Group composed of former diplomats, scholars, scientists, and others from each
country held its first meeting in New Delhi in September 2001. The group provides advice
on how to improve bilateral relations and other issues. Defence Minister George
Fernandez’s weeklong visit to China in April 2003 held tremendous symbolic significance.
His China trip was the first by an Indian Defence Minister in more than a decade.
Fernandez’s trip paved the way for a more substantive June 2003 visit by Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, during which Beijing and New Delhi forged a consensus on
a wide range of bilateral, regional, and global issues. They vowed not to view each other
as security threats and reaffirmed their determination to resolve disputes through
peaceful means. They also found converging interests in the development of a fair and
equitable international political and economic order, the role of the United Nations, and
global arms control processes, including efforts to prevent the weaponisation of outer
space. Two years later, during Premier Wen Jiabao’s April 2005 visit to India, the two
governments issued a joint statement characterizing their relationship as a “strategic and
cooperative partnership for peace and prosperity”. These high-level visits have produced
marked results in several areas. Most noticeably, bilateral trade has grown from $117
million in 1987 to $25 billion in 2006.

3.3.3. Issues
Although Chinese-Indian relations have achieved major progress over the last
decade, obstacles to future development remain. Unresolved territorial disputes, mutual
suspicions, and growing rivalry in the areas of energy, regional influence, and
realignment of great-power relations, could deny the two rising Asian giants the
opportunity to cooperate and realize their potentials as the engines of growth and pillars
of stability in Asia and beyond. India’s strengthening alliance with U.S, Chinese
strengthening alliance with Pakistan and the unsettled border problem between India and
China will increase the mutual suspicions between the two. Many strategic analysts in
India argued that China is ‘encircling’ and ‘containing’ India; by maintaining more than
cordial relationships with Pakistan and other South Asian countries. Their current
nuclear deal between Pakistan is an effort to equate with Indo-US Civilian Nuclear deal.
Border intrusions and manoverings played against India in many ways by China created a
trust deficit among Indian’s towards China.
3.3.4 Conclusion
In short, the current political relations between India and China can be termed as
“strategic competition and strategic partnership”. It is clear that there is a great amount of
trust deficit between two nations and the unsettled problems will remain as a stumbling
block to a cordial co-operation. There is also many assertive policies from the part of
China. Recent Arunachal Pradesh intrusions, stapled visa problems to Kashmiri Citizens
are some examples. But the rapid growing economies know about the benefits of co
operation and there are many possibilities in the midst of these issues.
3.4 INDIA-IRAN RELATIONS
3.4.1 Introduction
Relations between India and Iran date back to the Neolithic period. The existence of
several empires spanning both Persia and northern India ensured the constant migration
of people between the two regions and the spread and evolution of the Indo-Iranian
language groups. As a consequence, the people of Northern India and Iran share
significant cultural, linguistic and ethnic characteristics.
Independent India and Iran established diplomatic links on 15 March 1950. In

addition to the Embassy in Tehran, India currently has two Consulates in Iran - Bandar
Abbas and Zahedan. The Shah visited India in February/March 1956 and Prime Minister
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru visited Iran in September 1959. Prime Minister Smt. Indira
Gandhi visited Iran in April 1974 and Prime Minister Shri Morarji Desai visited in June
1977. The Shah, in turn, visited India in February 1978.

3.4.2 During cold war Period
During much of the Cold War period, relations between the Republic of India and
the erstwhile Imperial State of Iran suffered due to different political interests—non-
aligned India fostered strong military links with the Soviet Union while Iran enjoyed close
ties with the United States. Following the1979 revolution, relations between Iran and India
strengthened momentarily. However, Iran's continued support for Pakistan and India's
close relations with Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War impeded further development of Indo–
Iranian ties. Relations between the two countries warmed in the 1990s when India
collaborated with Iran to support the Afghan Northern Alliance against the Taliban.
Eventhough the two countries share some common strategic interests, India and
Iran differ significantly on key foreign policy issues. India has expressed strong
opposition against Iran's nuclear programme and whilst both the nations continue to
oppose the Taliban, India supports the presence of NATO forces in Afghanistan unlike
Iran. Despite the decline in strategic and military links, the two nations continue to
maintain strong cultural and economic ties. Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh, India, continues to
be a major centre of Shia culture and Persian study in South Asia. Iran is the second
largest supplier of crude oil to India, supplying more than 425,000 barrels of oil per day,
and consequently India is one of the largest foreign investors in Iran's oil and gas
industry.
In 2011, the US$12 billion annual oil trade between India and Iran was halted due to
extensive economic sanctions against Iran, forcing the Indian oil ministry to pay off the
debt through a banking system via Turkey.
India and Iran have friendly relations in many areas, despite India not welcoming
the 1979 Revolution. There are significant trade ties, particularly in crude oil imports into
India and diesel exports to Iran. Iran frequently objected to Pakistan's attempts to draft
anti-India resolutions at international organisations such as the OIC and the Human
Rights Commission. India welcomed Iran's inclusion as an observer state in
the SAARC regional organisation.
There is a small Indian community in Iran. There are Hindu temples in Bandar
Abbas and Zahidan as well as a Sikh Temple (Gurdwara) located in Tehran,. They were
built in the 19th century by Indian soldiers in the British Army. There are also small
communities in India who trace their ancestry to Iran.
A growing number of Iranian students are enrolled at universities in India, most

notably in Pune and Bangalore. The growing Iranian film industry looks to India's
Bollywood for technical assistance and inspiration. The clerical government in Tehran sees
itself as a leader of Shiites worldwide including India. Indian Shiites enjoy state support

such as a recognised national holiday for Muharram. Lucknow continues to be a major

centre of Shiite culture and Persian study in the subcontinent.
In the 1990s, India and Iran supported the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan
against the Taliban regime. They continue to collaborate in supporting the broad-based
anti-Taliban government led by Hamid Karzai and backed by the United States. The two
countries signed a defense cooperation agreement in December 2002.
In August 2013 , while carrying oil in the Persian Gulf , Iran detained India’s largest
ocean liner Shipping Corporation (SCI)’s vessel MT Desh Shanti carrying crude from Iraq
. But,Iran stood firm in its stand that the detention of the oil tanker was “purely a technical
and non political issue”.
3.4.3 Economic relations
Iran's trade with India crossed US$13 billion in 2007, an 80% increase in trade
volume within a yearVia third party countries like UAE this figure touches $30 billion
3.4.4 Oil and gas
In 2008–09, Iranian oil accounted for nearly 16.5% of India's crude oil imports.
Indian oil imports from Iran increased by 9.5% in 2008–09 due to which Iran emerged as
India's second largest oil supplier. About 40% of the refined oil consumed by India is
imported from Iran. In June 2009, Indian oil companies announced their plan to invest
US$5 billion in developing an Iranian gas field in the Persian Gulf. In September 2009, the
Mehr news agency reported a Pakistani diplomat as saying "India definitely quitted the IPI
(India-Pakistan-Iran) gas pipeline deal, in favour of Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement for
energy security. Iranian officials however said India is yet to make an official declaration.
In 2010, US officials warned New Delhi that Indian companies using the Asian Clearing
Union for financial transactions with Iran run the risk of violating a recent US law that
bans international firms from doing business with Iranian banks and Tehran's oil and gas
sector, and that Indian companies dealing with Iran in this manner may be barred from
the US The United states criticises the ACU of being insufficiently transparent in its
financial dealings with Iran and suspects that much of their assets are funnelled to
blacklisted repressive organisations in Iran such as the Army of the Guardians of the
Islamic Revolution. The United States Department of the Treasury also believes that Iran
uses the ACU to bypass the US banking system.[68] On 27 November 2010, the Indian
government, through the Reserve Bank of India, instructed the country's lenders to stop
processing current-account transactions with Iran using the Asian Clearing Union, and
that further deals should be settled without ACU involvement. RBI also declared that they
will not facilitate payments for Iranian crude imports as global pressure on Tehran grows
over its nuclear programme. This move by the Indian government will make clear to

Indian companies that working through the ACU "doesn't necessarily mean an Iranian
counterpart has an international seal of approval". As of December 2010, neither Iran nor
the ACU have responded to this development. India objected to further American
sanctions on Iran in 2010. An Indian foreign policy strategist, Rajiv Sikri, dismissed the
idea that a nuclear armed Iran was a threat to India, and said that India would continue to
invest in Iran and do business. Despite increased pressure by the US and Europe, and a
significant reduction in oil imports from Persian oil fields in 2012, leading political figures
in India have clearly stated that they are not willing to stop trade relations altogether. To
the contrary, they aim at expanding the commodity trade with the Islamic republic.
3.4.5 Decrease in import of oil
India has cut oil imports from Iran, after sanctions imposed by the US and the EU.
India’s crude imports from Iran plunged by more than 26.5 per cent in the 2012-13
financial year (April-March) as US and European sanctions on Tehran combined to make
it difficult for Indian refiners to ship Iranian oil. Imports of Iranian crude fell to 13.3
million metric ton(mt), or close to 267,100 barrels per day(b/d), in 2012-13 from 18.1
million mt, or around 362,500 b/d, in 2011-12. Imports from Iran were as high as 21.2
million mt, or 425,000 b/d, in 2009-10 before dropping to 18.5 million mt, or 371,520 b/d
in 2010-11. India’s total volume of imported crude rose to 182.5 million mt, or 3.67 million
b/d, in 2012-13 from 171.7 million mt (3.44 million b/d) in 2011-12, 163.4 million mt (3.28
million mt) in 2010-11 and 159.2 million mt (3.2 million b/d) in 2009-10.
3.4.6 India's nuclear vote with Iran and after
India, despite close relations and convergence of interests with Iran, voted against
Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005, which took Iran by surprise.
The USA considers support from India – which is on 35-member board of

Governors at the International Atomic Energy Agency – crucial in getting a sizeable
majority for its proposal to refer the matter to the Security Council for positive punitive
action against Iran. Greg Schulte, US ambassador to the IAEA, said "India's voice will carry
particular weight...I hope India joins us in making clear our collective concerns about Iran's
nuclear program". Schulte did not deny that the Indo-US nuclear deal was conditional to
India supporting the US on the Iran issue. Appraising of the situation vis-a-vis Iran, a
senior U.S. official told the New York Times that The Indians are emerging from their
nonaligned status and becoming a global power, and they have to begin to think about their
responsibilities. They have to make a basic choice.
The Bush administration, however, recognised India's close relations with Iran and
tempered its position, stating that India can "go ahead with a pipeline deal involving Iran
and Pakistan. Our beef with Iran is not the pipeline."

MODULE IV
ENGANEMENT WITH REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL

ORGANISATIONS
4.1 Introduction
Regional Organizations (ROs) are in a sense, international organizations (IOs), as

they incorporate international membership and encompass geopolitical entities that
operationally transcend a single nation state. However, their membership is characterised
by boundaries and demarcations characteristic to a defined and unique geography, such
as continents, or geopolitics, such as economic blocks. They have been established to
foster cooperation and political and economic integration or dialogue amongst states or
entities within a restrictive geographical or geopolitical boundary. India’s engagement
with the regional and international organisations increased tremendously in the post Cold
war Period. Increasing interdependence and emergence of new kinds of security threats
and challenges accelerated the significance of the engagement of regional and
international organisations. India’s engagement with ASEAN, SAARC, EU and UNO are
anlysing here.
4.2 INDIA AND ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH EAST ASIAN NATIONS (ASEAN)
4.2.1 Introduction
The Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was born in 1967 and was
aimed at promoting regional trade, investment and joint ventures. It proved to be the
nucleus of regional cooperation, was booming and looking for new markets and
investment opportunities. It found India and Vietnam complementary, now attracting
investment opportunities. It also perceived India and Vietnam complementary for
strengthening regional political and security profile. Vietnam had started the process of
Doi Moi (Renovation) aimed at liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation. India on the
other hand, adopted the policy of economic liberalisation under the stewardship of P V
Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister and Finance Minister respectively,
in 1991. The new government in India also started initiating the process of liberalisation,
privatisation and globalisation. India too announced tax-free incentives for foreign
investors. These policies encouraged the ASEAN for further consolidation of its co-
operation with India.

ASEAN offered sectoral dialogue partnership to India in 1992. Accordingly, four

core sectors of co-operation were recognised, namely trade, investment, tourism, science
and technology. Sectoral partnership was instrumental in establishing the institutional
linkage between India and ASEAN and the partnership proved so useful that the ASEAN
upgraded it within two years to full dialogue partnership in 1995. This facilitated the
growth of relationship in different areas with economic, security and political
implications. India was invited to participate in the post-ministerial conferences of the
ASEAN and also in ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the security forum of ASEAN.
Subsequently, both India and ASEAN began to talk of a common vision and a shared
destiny.
ASEAN-India co-operation committee was established to function as a key

institutional mechanism to provide substantive content to different sectors of co-
operation. ASEAN-India working group was also established to find out the areas for co-
operation in science and technology, trade and investment, human resource development
and culture. The Joint co-operation committee recognised the Indian expertise in the field
of science and technology, especially in biotechnology and IT (Information Technology).
Proposals were given to co-operate in food processing, health care, agriculture,
engineering, electronics, communication and service sectors. The meeting of the ASEAN-
India co-operation committee decided to set up theIndia- ASEAN fund to develop co-
operation in trade, investment, tourism, computer technology, solar energy and
environmental protection. This fund was placed at the disposal of ASEAN Secretariat and
administered by a joint management committee. Joint co-operation committee also agreed
to set up an ASEAN-New Delhi committee consisting of the heads of diplomatic missions
of the ASEAN countries. The then Indian foreign secretary J.N. Dixit announced the
scheme of scholarship and said that each side could offer six post-doctoral fellowships
upto six months in the area of science and technology. India and the ASEAN region also
started ASEAN lecture series from eminent persons under which prominent ASEAN
leaders and intellectuals delivered their lectures in India and vice versa. This has proved
useful in the confidence building and objective understanding of the issues in the foreign
policy and diplomacy of the ASEAN vis-a-vis dialogue partners.
4.2.2 Trade and investment
Economic paradigm is the main thrust of co-operation with the ASEAN. India has
one billion population of which a major section is comprised of the middle class. As India
believed in the socialistic drives and the nationalisation for decades, its relationship with
ASEAN was limited. In 1991-92, when India embarked on the policy of liberalisation, the
ASEAN group accounted for six per cent of India’s total exports but for ASEAN it was less
than 1 per cent of their global trade. This situation started changing in the post-Cold War
era. Indian expertise in IT, software development, small and medium enterprises and
development of infrastructure, particularly in the area of power generation, transportation
and construction were appreciated. Certain areas on the territorial borders of Southeast
Asia were planned to be included in the growth areas. These included Andamans and
Northeast part of India. Though, these proposals have not been operational so far, the
potentials for future cooperation are streamlined. Trade turnover and the growing
investments between India and ASEAN display confidence in each other and enhanced
scope for closer partnership. India’s trade with Thailand has touched more than $ 1 billion
per year. India exports gems, precious stones, cotton and fabric, urea and fertilizers etc.
and imports pulses (urad and moong), rubber, synthetic fibre and inorganic chemicals.
The two-way trade between India and Malaysia which amounted to $ 772 million
in 1994, has also touched billion plus now. India imports palm oil, petroleum, crude
rubber and non-ferrous base metals and exports engineering goods, building materials,
textile, yarn, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, molasses, fruits and vegetables. India’s trade
with Singapore, which accounted for nearly $ 44 million in the past rose to $ 1.5 billion in
1992 and is increasing at the rate of 10 per cent per year. India imports engineering goods,
oil rigs, palm oil, organic chemicals, glass and telecommunication equipments and exports
textiles, spices, fodders, inorganic chemicals, jute, fruits and vegetables.
Trading figures with Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia have
also shown increasing trends. Burma is also emerging as an important trading partner
after the opening of Tamu-Moreh borders. India is supporting a constructive engagement
policy vis-à-vis the Burmese military regime and it is treated as an important gateway of
trade especially with the ASEAN region. India and Burma signed an MoU on 20 May 2001
agreeing to the maintenance of Tamu- Kalemyo-Kalewa road. Multimode transport
projects concerning the upgradation of Sittwe port, navigation on the river Kaladan, and
highway development from Kalewa to India-Burma border in Mizoram were other areas
of co-operation. Energy related projects including solar, fossil fueland hydroelectric
energy remained items for future co-operation
Bilateral trade figures between India and Burma stood at US $ 7 million, with
Indonesia at $ 1,186 million, and with Malaysia $ 1,544 million in 1996-97. The Indian
exports to the ASEAN region has been largely in the areas of animal feed, cotton, rice,
groundnut, synthetic fibre, machinery and bio-chemicals. There is a great potential for
trade in a range of products such as auto parts and components, electronic components,
railway equipment, computer and software, synthetic and organics. Indian steel, herbal
products, textiles and yarns are in great demand in the region

The bilateral trade with the Indo-Chinese countries is also increasing. In 1997-98,
bilateral trade with Cambodia amounted to Rs. 10.3 crores. India donated medicines
worth Rs. 5 lakhs for humanitarian assistance and evinced interest in assisting agricultural
development. On the other hand, bilateral trade with Laos increased to Rs. 2.9 crores in
1998 compared to Rs. 1.3 crores in 1996. Several Indian companies such as Kirloskar, Tata,
BHEL., etc. showed interest in exploring Laotian market. Kirloskar exported irrigation
pumps valued at US $ 30 million in 1998. Again bilateral trade with Vietnam registered a
marginal increase of 12.5 per cent over the 1996-97 volumes of Rs. 425.2 crores. As far as
Indonesia was concerned, bilateral trade amounted to Rs. 4330.3 crores as compared to Rs.
4226.2 crores in 1996-97. However trade with the Philippines showed a downward trend
in 1998. India’s export to the Philippines at $ 90 million was down by 31.36 per cent in
1996-97
4.2.3 Conclusion
India-ASEAN relations reached a new high on 20-21 December 2012 during the
commemorative summit celebrating twenty years of dialogue partnership and ten years
of summit partnership. There is growing acknowledgement on the part of ASEAN that
India has a much larger responsibility and much greater role to play in Southeast Asia in
the second decade of the 21st century. New Delhi’s role is becoming critical in shaping the
regional strategic discourse that has been drifting towards uncertainty, multi-layered
rivalry and multipolarity. While both Manila and Hanoi called for New Delhi’s active
participation in the regional security discourses, such as resolution of the South China Sea
issue, Phnom Penh requested India for the financial assistance of US$57 million. This
trend gained traction during the proceedings of the Delhi Dialogue III at the track-II level
in March 2011 when demands for India’s active role in the region were sought by the
experts and leaders in the backdrop of China’s growing assertion in the South China Sea
since May 2010.
New Delhi cannot shy away from its responsibilities as a regional stakeholder.
Perhaps, the most important contribution from India can come in the form of (a) acting as
a positive force for regional peace and stability, (b) rallying its strength – material,
diplomatic, and normative – behind the ASEAN cooperative architectures, and (c)
engaging in capacity-building in the CLMV(Cambodia, Lao PDR, Burma, and Vietnam)
countries. India has also agreed to ‘support and cooperate closely with ASEAN to realise
the ASEAN Community in 2015.’
India must match its new-found profile either in terms of economic or strategic role
by its tangible actions on the ground and ameliorate ASEAN’s precarious position of
strategic uncertainty and instability. It is time for New Delhi to come true on promises

and start implementing the policy pronouncements. Perhaps, the early implementation of
the setting up of Nalanda University and an ASEAN-India Centre can set in motion the
wheel of an integrated India-ASEAN community.
4.3 INDIA AND SOUTH ASIAN ASSOCIATION FOR REGIONAL CO-OPERATION

(SAARC)
4.3.1 Introduction
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is an organisation

of South Asian nations, which was established on 8 December 1985 when the government
of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka formally adopted
its charter providing for the promotion of economic and social progress, cultural
development within the South Asia region and also for friendship and cooperation with
other developing countries. It is dedicated to economic, technological, social, and cultural
development emphasising collective self-reliance. Its seven founding members are Sri
Lanka, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Afghanistan joined the
organisation in 2007. Meetings of heads of state are usually scheduled annually; meetings
of foreign secretaries, twice annually. It is headquartered in Kathmandu, Nepal.
4.3.2 Formation
The first concrete proposal for establishing a framework for regional cooperation in
South Asia was made by the late president of Bangladesh, Ziaur Rahman, on May 2, 1980.
Prior to this, the idea of regional cooperation in South Asia was discussed in at least three
conferences: the Asian Relations Conference in New Delhi in April 1947, the Baguio
Conference in the Philippines in May 1950, and the Colombo Powers Conference in April
1954. In the late 1970s, SAARC nations agreed upon the creation of a trade bloc consisting
of South Asian countries. The idea of regional cooperation in South Asia was again
mooted in May 1980. The foreign ministers of the seven countries met for the first time in
Colombo in April 1981. The Committee of the Whole, which met in Colombo in August
1985, identified five broad areas for regional cooperation. New areas of cooperation were
added in the following years
4.3.3 Objectives
The objectives in the SAARC Charter include: promotion of welfare of people of

South Asia and improving their quality of life; accelerate economic growth, social
progress and cultural development; promote and strengthen collective self-reliance;
contribute to mutual trust and understanding; promote active collaboration and mutual
assistance in economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields and strengthen

mutual cooperation. The Charter also sets out the following principles: respect for
principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, political independence,
noninterference in internal affairs and mutual benefit. Such cooperation was not to
substitute, but to supplement bilateral and multilateral cooperation and was not to be
inconsistent with bilateral and multilateral obligations. The Charter has two important
General Provisions that are of significance. One, decisions are to be taken on the basis of
unanimity and bilateral and contentious issues are to be excluded from deliberations.
The first SAARC Summit was held at Dhaka in 1985. Despite the brief references to
some bilateral issues, the Summit kept clear of controversies. There appeared a deliberate
effort made 14 to ensure that the formation of the SAARC does not come into controversy
at its inauguration. The second summit at Bangalore in 1986 sought to continue the efforts
at broad based cooperation. Some of the mutual bickering surfaced again. The bilateral
issues between India and Pakistan surfaced in indirect references. Indo-Nepal issues also
became a matter of debate. On the positive side, the Bangalore Summit decided to
establish the permanent secretariat at Kathmandu. The Kathmandu Summit of 1987 took
the bold initiative of signing a Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism in South Asia.
It was for the first time that a ‘political’ issue had been made the part of SAARC
deliberations. These nations pledged to refrain from organising, instigating, and
participating in civil strife or terrorist acts in member countries. However, the Convention
did not provide for extradition facilities. SAARC also established the South Asian Food
Security Reserve and the SAARC Audio Visual Exchange Programme. The Kathmandu
Summit also saw the discussion on the possibility of including such issues like money,
finance, banking and trade in SAARC deliberations. The fourth summit at Islamabad in
1988 is of particular significance to India as it afforded the opportunity for a direct
dialogue between the Indian and the Pakistani Prime Ministers on Pakistani soil.
Islamabad Summit suggested the preparation of a regional plan called ‘SAARC 2000’ to
provide for basic needs of shelter, education and literacy. The summit took up
environmental issues of the ‘green house effect’ for study. It also called for a war against
narcotics. Islamabad is known for its action oriented programmes and also because it saw
a spread of democratic order in South Asia.
The period 1989-90 saw some uncertainty in the process of co-operation in SAARC.
The all round interest and enthusiasm that SAARC had been able to generate in the early
years was marred by the uncertainty over holding of the fifth summit. Sri Lankan
reluctance to hold the summit on account of Indo-Sri Lankan bilateral issues put serious
obstacles in the progress of SAARC. Sri Lanka raised the issue of the presence of Indian
Peace Keeping Forces as reason for its inability to hold the annual summit. The IPKF,
despite having been sent on the invitation of the Sri Lankan government, became a bone

of contention. Eventually, the 1989 summit never took place and the fifth summit was
then convened at Male in 1990. The Sri Lankan episode appears to have set a kind of a
precedent. The subsequent years have seen the cancellation or postponement of annual
summits for relatively minor reasons.
The Male summit of 1990 took place at the backdrop of an attempted coup in
Maldives. India had assisted Maldives in its return to democracy. The major outcome of
the Male summit was the signing of the convention on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances. SAARC leaders also decided to initiate a dialogue with the European Union
and the ASEAN. The sixth summit was held in Colombo in 1991. The preparations for the
summit had witnessed some political bickering. Sri Lanka itself was facing internal
political turmoil in the Tamil regions of the north. The uncertainties were further
complicated by the lack of consensus on the dates. Eventually the summit came to be held
in December 1991. Colombo started the talk on the liberalisation of intra regional trade.
The Sri Lankan president, in an interview, stated that his proposal for developing a
preferential trading system in South Asia had been accepted. The period from 1991 to 1993
was to eventually see the emergence of trade as the central concern of SAARC.
The Seventh SAARC Summit meeting at Dhaka in 1993 reaffirmed the need to
liberalise trade as early as possible through a step by step approach. The agreement on
SAARC Preferential Trade (SAPTA) was the first step in this direction. A preferential
trading arrangement is the first, and perhaps, the mildest form of regional economic
integration. The agreement aimed at promoting and sustaining mutual trade and
economic cooperation among the states of SAARC through the exchange of various
concessions. The New Delhi Summit (tenth, 1995) took this discussion further.
The Ninth Summit at Male held in 1997 was concerned about acceleration of
economic cooperation in all areas. The leaders noted with satisfaction the progress of
SAPTA but stressed upon the need to achieve the goal of free trade by the year 2001. The
Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee announced some major trade concessions at the Tenth
SAARC Summit at Colombo in 1998. As a special gesture to SAARC nations, India
announced the lifting of import curbs on over 2000 products on a preferential basis. India
was also willing to consider bilateral free trade agreements with those countries which
were interested in moving faster. In the wake of military coup in Pakistan in October 1999,
India refused to attend the next summit. Thus, no summit meeting was held during 1999-
2001. Trade relations continued to be addressed at the eleventh summit meeting held at
Kathmandu in 2002. But, then again the next Summit meeting proposed for January 2003
at Islamabad could not take place due to India’s reluctance to attend it. Meanwhile,
progress was made in the direction of achieving/enhancing free trade (SAFTA) in the
SAARC Summit Meeting at Islamabad in early 2004.
4.3.4 Challenges of SAARC
Since its creation in December 1985, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
(SAARC) has sought after to boost economic unity between India, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. The organization was designed to improve
both the economic and social progress of its member states. Unlike the EU or ASEAN,
however, trade between the seven SAARC States has remained limited despite the fact
that all are positioned within a close proximity of one another and all are part of the
World Trade Organization (WTO).
A growing emphasis on attracting foreign investment and seeking access to new

markets in SAARC states indicates that economic progress is central to the future of South
Asia. SAARC, however, is likely to play only a limited role in that future because of
India’s considerable position of power over the other SAARC states. This imbalance of
power within SAARC allows conflicts between India and its neighbors to undermine
organizational unity. Clashes between South Asian countries end up jeopardizing the
formation and effectiveness of regional trade agreements. They also lead individual
SAARC countries to advance their economic interests through bi-lateral agreements,
reduce the incentive to connect in multi-laterally.
It seems that SAARC will act more as a forum to encourage regional discussion
through conferences and seminars than as an architect for economic policy in South Asia.
There are some challenges to the effectiveness of this regional organization. SAARC is
structured in a way that often makes regional cooperation difficult. In the case of SAARC,
India is the most powerful country in terms of its economic might, military power and
international influence. Thus, India’s potential as a regional hegemony gives SAARC a
unique dynamic compared to an organization such as ASEAN.
Pakistan was initially hesitant to join SAARC due to fears of SAARC succumbing to
Indian hegemony. Indeed, if India does take a prominent role in SAARC, it could further
fears that India will use SAARC for hegemonic purposes. While the smaller states in
South Asia recognize that they will need India’s help to facilitate faster economic growth,
they are reluctant to work with India, fearing that such cooperation will admit Indian
dominance in SAARC.
Aside from a few overtures to its neighbors, India has done little to dispel the fears
of other South Asian states. The core of these fears is likely derived from the displays of
India’s power by New Delhi in the past. Realizing its considerable advantage in military
and economic power, India has consistently acted in an - arrogant and uncompromising -
manner with its neighbors. Bangladesh is afraid of India exploiting its geographical
position to redirect water flows vital to Bangladeshi agricultural production. Nepal and
Bhutan are still worried about India’s control over their world trade and transit links as
their geographical position will always make them dependent on India. These disputes
between India and its neighbors have directly affected SAARC.
The disputes between South Asian states have undermined SAARC efforts to
promote regional trade. These disagreements make consensus building and cooperation
among SAARC states complicated. Attempting to promote regional cooperation while
doing little to resolve regional conflicts makes SAARC mission looks nearly impossible.
Moreover, SAARC has no institutional mechanisms or punishments capable of preventing
or fully resolving a dispute. Two examples illustrate how conflicts in South Asia have
proven detrimental to SAARC.
Indian intervention in Sri Lanka from 1986-1990 can be quoted. The Indian military
intervention to suppress an insurgency by The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam made
Indo-Sri Lankan relations tense during these four years. Subsequently, the apprehension
between India and Sri Lanka was considered a primary reason behind Sri Lanka’s
lukewarm support for SAARC into economic and social spheres of its member states until
relations improved with India.
A second, more prominent example of a conflict tremendous SAARC progress is

the Indo-Pakistani conflict. Pakistan has demanded a resolution to its dispute with India
over the Kashmir Valley before discussing trade relations with New Delhi. India has
recently attempted to improve its relationship with the rest of South Asia. Under the
Gujral Doctrine established by former Indian Prime Minister I.K Gujral, India signed 30
years water sharing treaty with Bangladesh and a trade and transit treaty with Nepal.
India also joined a sub regional group within SAARC comprising of Bangladesh,
Bhutan, Nepal and India. Despite political impediments to trade, value of goods
smuggled from India to Pakistan via a third party generally totals 250-500 million per
year. If trade between the states was opened, Pakistan would receive cheaper imports due
to lower transport costs and the absence of payments to a middleman.
SAARC is planning establishment of a South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA).

However, the agreement to establish this free trade zone will take 10 years of gradual
tariff reduction. For a proposal that has already been delayed, it will take some genuine
political cooperation for the tariff reduction process to run smoothly.
Comparing with the experience of ASEAN, an organization with a better track

record in producing economic coordination among member states than SAARC, creating a
free trade zone could become difficult. The ASEAN free trade agreement (AFTA) has been
criticized for not producing substantial economic interdependence among the region.This
lack of success results from distrust and protectionism among its member states.

4.4 INDIA AND EUROPEAN UNION (EU)
4.4.1 Introduction
The European Union is today one of the world’s most successful regional
organisations. It is the largest trade bloc in the world, accounting for about one-fifth of the
global trade. It is a major market for the developing countries and a major source of
development assistance for them too. Two of its member states, France and UK, are
nuclear powers and permanent members of the UN Security Council. Another country—
Germany—is one of the strongest candidates for membership once the Council is
expanded. Four EU countries are members of the G-8 and all are among the most
advanced economies in the world today. The Treaty of Rome, which established the
European Community, in March 1957 finally culminated through a long process of
evolution in the creation of, what is today known as the European Union. The European
Union was the outcome of European nation’s desire to minimise trade barriers and travel
restrictions, and to have a common currency. This may eventually pave the way for a
political union. While the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was to take care of
military and security problems, the EC (now EU) was to concentrate on economic and
commercial cooperation among the member states. However, the two structures were
ultimately meant to deal with the issues of the larger Cold War politics.
The members of the erstwhile EC were in the US-led Western camp during the
Cold War. While the EC struggled for a common political and foreign policy platform, it
was clear that neither the organisation nor some of the members individually would forge
cooperation with India, which followed a non-aligned foreign policy. Secondly, as long as
Britain was not a member of the EC, the then EC members always considered South Asian
issues, including that of India as largely an area of British and American influence and
took little interest in them. It was only when Britain joined the EC in 1973 that the foreign
policy outlook of this organisation encompassed the South Asian and Indian affairs to
some extent. It all began with the signing of a Commercial Cooperation Agreement
between India and the EC in 1973. Thirdly, India’s mixed economic system and socialist
rhetoric and massive economic problems left little for substantive economic interactions
between India and the EC.However, India was one of the first Asian nations to accord
recognition to the European Community in 1962 while initially, India’s contacts with the
Community were limited to economic and commercial links on the basis of the
Community’s competence. As the Community took on a political dimension as well, India
decided to establish a closer political relationship with it.

All the members of the EC were democratic countries and the vibrant Indian
democracy had no major problem in interacting with them. Accordingly, in 1983, it was
agreed to formally institute the India-EC political dialogue. There are several institutional
mechanisms that foster India-EU relations: India-EU Summit Meeting, India-EU Troika
Ministerial Meeting, Senior Official Meetings, India-EC Joint Commission, India-EU Joint
Working Group on Terrorism, India-EU Joint Working Group on Consular Affairs, India-
EU Round Table etc. But as in domestic politics in democracies, there always remain
differences over political issues. India and the EU are no exception to it.
4.4.2 Political Differences
There were broadly three areas of political differences between the EC and India till
1993, and between the EU and India since 1993 (it was since 1 November 1993 that the EC
came to be known as the EU). They are the Kashmir issue, the Nuclear issue and the issue
of Human Rights. During the formative years of the EC, the member states considered the
Kashmir issue as a dispute to be handled by the Americans and the British. But
subsequently, especially after the conclusion of the Simla Agreement, the EC sought to
take an even-handed approach towards India and Pakistan. After the emergence of
militancy and terrorism in Kashmir, the EU expresses concern about terrorism, but
simultaneously shows its disquiet about the handling of the situation by the Indian
security forces. The language of the statement issued by the organisation is carefully
crafted to “deplore the continuing violence and abuse of human rights in Kashmir” and to
call for resisting the terrorist forces in ways that would not neglect “full respect for human
rights and the rule of law”.
In other words, it tries to avoid taking a stand that would raise irritants in its
relations with either India or Pakistan. But India does not appreciate the lack of adequate
EU response to the deadly menace of terrorism and tries to urge the EU to take a stronger
position on the issue. The terrorist strike on the US in September 2001 could have awaken
the EU to the dangers of Pakistan’s role in abetting terrorism across the border, but
Pakistan soon became a front-line state in the US-led war against terrorism. Consequently,
India’s appeal to the international Community, including the EU to take a harder look at
terrorism in Kashmir appears to have fallen on deaf ears.
India and the EU also differ on the issue of the human rights question. The EU
often raises the question of violation of human rights in Kashmir in its dialogue with
India. India feels that the EU reaction does not take into account the gross violation of
human rights by the terrorist outfits and does not take note of the compulsions and
limitations of the security forces while dealing with the terrorist violence. The third major
area of political differences between the EU and India is on the question of nuclear

proliferation. All the members of the EU are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT). India considers the NPT a discriminatory document. India and the EU also
differ on the question of signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The EU
desires India to sign both the NPT and the CTBT. India instead went ahead and conducted
a series of nuclear tests and declared its status as a nuclear weapon power in May 1998.
The EU strongly condemned the Indian nuclear tests, but unlike the US and Japan,
refrained from imposing any sanctions. However, it made common cause with the G-8
and the UN Security Council in urging nuclear restraint in South Asia. Later, however,
some individual members of the E U clearly stated that it was India’s sovereign right to
decide how to ensure its security.
4.4.3 Economic Cooperation
While the European Union has been striving hard to evolve a common foreign and
security policy than its predecessor—the EC and seeking a political role too in
international affairs, it is the economic clout of this organisation that is key to its existence
and growth. In a globalising world, politics cannot be separated from economics and the
EU has realised that it has to have a larger political role even in its economic strategy in
the context of the post-Cold War era. Consequently, it has opened up lines of political
communications with a large number of countries including India in recent years. The
idea is to enhance bilateral understanding and comprehend the complex politico-security
issues with those countries the EU members are increasingly interacting with.
India’s primary interaction today with the EU, however, is economic and not
politico-security issues. India formalised its bilateral cooperation with the EC in 1973 and
1981 and third such agreement was signed in 1994. The 1994 agreement was important in
the emerging context of the evolution of the EU and India’s policy of economic
liberalisation since 1991. With the new opportunities provided by India’s economic
liberalisation and the EU’s search for a new relationship with the Asian countries, Indo-
EU economic interactions became very dynamic and vibrant in the 1990s. The EU today is
India’s largest trading partner, biggest source of foreign direct investment, major
contributor of developmental aid, important source of technology and home to a large and
influential Indian diaspora.
The EU-India trade has experienced a steady growth in volume and diversity since
1993, with a third of Indian exports reaching the EU destinations. Bilateral trade was
approximately Euro 25.02 billion in 2001. It accounts for 26 per cent of our exports and 25
per cent of our imports. However, India is the EU’s 17th largest supplier and 20th largest
destination of exports. India’s trade still lies in its traditional exports like textiles,
agricultural and marine products, gems and jewellery, leather, and engineering and

electronic products. Some sectors like chemicals, carpets, granites and electronics are,
however, showing considerable growth since the last five years. Indian imports have been
dominated by gems and jewellery, engineering goods, chemicals and minerals. The EU is
one of the major sources of foreign direct investment for India, with countries like the UK,
Germany, France, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands accounting for a large proportion of
the investment. FDI flows from the EU to India amounted to Euro 1.1 billion in 1999 while
FDI from India to EU was Euro 69 million. On the positive side of economic interactions,
the pattern of EU investment in India has shifted towards the infrastructure, mainly
power and telecommunications developments.
The EU has also a substantial stake in the industrial machinery, transport, electrical
and electronics, textiles, chemicals and consultancy sectors. Significantly, the European
Commission has a large number of development-oriented programmes in India, with
education, health and environment as priority sectors. The main objective is to enhance
human development by providing assistance for projects, which benefit the economically
weaker and deprived sections of the society.
4.4.4 Economic Limitations
It is nonetheless clear that the European Union is more important for India than the
other way around. There are several limitations faced by India in its economic interactions
with the EU.
 First of all, there is an asymmetrical trade relationship between India and the EU.
Although the EU happens to be India’s largest trading partner, India is yet to
become an important target of EU’s trade, especially imports, and accounts for a
little over 1 per cent of EU imports.
 Secondly, the EU is yet to make India an important investment destination. India

accounts for less than 1 per cent of EU’s global investments and its investment in
India actually got reduced in the 1990s with the rise of the new economies in
Western Europe and Central Asia.
 India has not been able to take advantage of the vast EU market, as more than 70
per cent of its exports are concentrated in only four member countries, such as UK,
Germany, Italy and Belgium-Luxembourg.
 Indian exports, moreover, are concentrated in a few resource-based items such as

textiles, leather and pearls.

4.4.5 Trade disputes
India faces considerable problems in enlarging its exports market in the EU because
of a series of barriers imposed by the EU. First of all, Indian exports of items such as
textiles, footwear and clothing face double disadvantage in the form of high tariff as well
as some non-tariff barriers. Of late, high tariff barriers are being reduced periodically, but
protectionism is being practiced through the imposition of several non-tariff barriers.
Indian exports to the EU face a spate of non-tariff barriers in the form of health, sanitary
and phyto-sanitary standards. Quantitative restrictions under the Multi-Fibre
Arrangement (MFA) have been imposed on Indian textiles since 1972. Technical barriers
have also been recently erected in the form of greater harmonisation of technical
standards and regulations. There are also labour and environmental standards on goods
and anti-dumping measures, which have led to effective protectionist measures in the EU
adversely affecting India’s trade.
4.4.6 Conclusion
India’s relations with the European Union during the Cold War days were largely
economic in nature, since that organisation had little role to play in international political
issues. The European Union not only constitutes the largest combined regional market for
Indian goods but also is the biggest source for Indian imports. India too benefits a great
deal from the economic developmental assistance and foreign investment from the
member countries of the European Union. There are some trade related disputes between
the EU and India. But these have not been allowed to disrupt the overall friendly relations
between India and the EU.
India has taken note of the EU’s desire to play larger political role in world affairs
since the end of the Cold War. Consequently, it has sought to engage the EU in a series of
political dialogue. The bilateral political dialogues aim to address the problems of
misperceptions on political issues and to enhance political understanding.
The growing importance of the EU as a major player in world affairs has coincided
with the increasing importance of India as a major power. The first ever summit meeting
between India and the EU started in the year 2000 and has indicated the determination of
India and the EU members to elevate the level of political and economic understanding
among one another. The summit, in fact, highlighted the opportunities in the emerging
areas of energy, telecommunications and information technology where India and the EU
can benefit from cooperative arrangements.

4.5 INDIA AND UNITED NATIONS
4.5.1 Introduction
India was a founding member of the United Nations, joining in October 1945, two
years before acquiring independence from the United Kingdom. In 1953, the chief
delegate of India at the time, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit was elected the first woman President
of the UN General Assembly.
As a prominent member of the Non-Aligned Movement that started in 1955, India

had traditionally represented the interests of the developing nations (or third world
nations, as they were known at that time) and supported the struggle against colonialism
and apartheid, its struggle towards global disarmament and the ending of the arms race,
and towards the creation of a more equitable international economic order. In the early
1950s, India attempted, like the Soviet Union, unsuccessfully to help the People's Republic
of China join the UN but was rebuffed by Western powers. India also had a mediatory
role in resolving the stalemate over prisoners of war in Korea contributing to the signing
of the armistice ending the Korean War in 1953. India chaired the five-member Neutral
Nations Repatriation Commission while the Indian Custodian Force supervised the
process of interviews and repatriation that followed. The UN entrusted Indian armed
forces with subsequent peace missions in the Middle East, Cyprus, and the Congo (since
1971, Zaire). India also served as chair of the three international commissions for
supervision and control for Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos established by the 1954 Geneva
Accords on Indochina. India also has served as a member of many UN bodies —
including the Economic and Social Council, the Human Rights Commission, and the
Disarmament Commission — and on the board of governors of the International Atomic
Energy Agency. In addition, India played a prominent role in articulating the economic
concerns of developing countries in such UN-sponsored conferences as the triennial UN
Conference on Trade and Development and the 1992 Conference on the Environment and
Development in Rio de Janeiro. It has been an active member of the Group of 77, and later
the core group of the G-15 nations. Other issues, such as environmentally sustainable
development and the promotion and protection of human rights, have also been an
important focus of India's foreign policy in international forums.
4.5.2 India and UN Security Council
India has been elected seven times to the UN Security Council. Only three countries
have served longer than that (Japan, Brazil, and Argentina), except for the Permanent
Five, and Colombia has served the same amount of time.

India has been seeking a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council as
a member of the G4, an organisation composed of Brazil, Germany, Japan, and India, all
who are currently seeking permanent representation. According to their proposal the UN
Security Council should be expanded beyond the current fifteen members to include
twenty-five members. If this actually happens, it would be the first time permanent
Security Council status is extended to a South Asian nation and supporters of the G4 plan
suggest that this will lead to greater representation of developing nations rather than the
current major powers.
India makes a number of claims to justify its demand. India has the world's second
largest population and is the world's largest liberal democracy. It is also the world's ninth
largest economy and third largest in terms of purchasing power parity. Currently, India
maintains the world's third largest armed force. India is the third largest contributor of
troops to United Nations peacekeeping missions after Bangladesh and Pakistan, all three
nations being in South Asia. Although in absolute numbers the troops supplied by India is
only 3000 more than that from Nepal, a small country in comparison with India.
Washington Post reported that "India was offered a permanent seat on the council
55 years ago, in 1955. But that offer, made by the United States and the Soviet Union, was
declined by India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru said the seat should be
given to China instead." The council seat then was held by Taiwan (ROC). This decision
by Nehru is seen as a blunder and the loss of an opportunity to attain a stronger
diplomatic stature by India.
If India were to accept this offer it would have required the United Nations charter
to be amended to include India in place of Republic of China (Taiwan) in the Security
Council or to expand the Council. It is not known whether the Taiwanese government
representing China's seat at the time in the Security Council would have vetoed the
amendment or accepted the amendment under US pressure as Taiwan was solely
dependent on the US for its protection from mainland China.
Although the U.S. and other permanent Council members were not very
supportive of expanding the Security Council, in his visit to India President Obama has
offered his support for India to become a permanent member of the Council. However the
reaction from other Council members are not very clear, particularly from China. Thus it
is uncertain whether the demands by G4 nations will be implemented anytime soon.
4.5.3 India and UN Peace keeping
India is regular contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions. The number

of troops contributing to UN peacekeeping operations as of March 2007 were 9,471. It also

suffered the death of 127 soldiers, who died while serving on peacekeeping missions.
India also provided army contingent for performing peacekeeping operations in Sri Lanka
between 1987 and 1990 as Indian Peace Keeping Force. In November 1988, India also
helped restore the government of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in the Maldives under
Operation Cactus.
India is one of the main contributors to the UN regular budget. Indian contribution
to United Nations Democracy Fund was USD 16 million for 2009.
India has a permanent mission to the UN, which is led by the Permanent
Representative (UN Ambassador. India, running unopposed in the Asian Group, was
elected in 2010 as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council for
the period 2011-2012, after it garnered 187 votes in the then-192 member General
Assembly.

MODULE V
INDIA AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER: CHALLENGES AND

OPPORTUNITIES
5.1 THE CRISIS OF NON ALIGNMENT POLICY
5.1.1 Introduction
The NAM dates from the early Cold War, when many nations, particularly newly
independent states, were determined to avoid choosing between Moscow and
Washington. Its early leaders—Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Gamel Abdel Nasser of Egypt,
Josef Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, Kwame Nkumrah of Ghana, and Sukarno of Indonesia—
were giants of the era. In 1955, Sukarno hosted a landmark Afro-Asian conference in
Bandung, Indonesia—the first summit not dominated by major powers. The conferees
pledged to uphold the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all nations, embraced the
equality of all nations and races, championed national liberation movements against
colonial powers, and insisted on non-aggression and non-interference in international
relations.
What began to emerge in Bandung was a distinctive, “Southern” vision of world

order, in which the developing world would offer an independent center of gravity apart
from the crumbling European empires and the colliding superpowers. Not all observers
approved. The doctrine of non-alignment “pretends that a nation can best gain safety for
itself by being indifferent to the fate of others,”former U.S. Secretary of State, John Foster
Dulles railed in 1956. “It is an immoral and short-sighted conception.”
The NAM really took shape in 1961, when Tito hosted the first “Conference of the
Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries.” For that first decade, the
NAM’s substantive agenda focused on decolonization, moderating Cold War tensions,
promoting nuclear disarmament, and pursuing greater equity in North-South relations. In
the 1970s, the bloc increasingly attacked a world economy it perceived as fundamentally
stacked against poor, developing nations. Under the influence of dependency theory,
NAM members (as well as the parallel Group of 77) endorsed radical, redistributionist
plans for a New International Economic Order—and the even more utopian vision of a
New International Information Order. Neither scheme went anywhere, given resistance
from the West, but the critique persisted, particularly as the “Washington consensus”
triumphed in the 1980s. Politically, the NAM’s agenda focused on unredeemed national
liberation movements, such as the anti-apartheid struggle and the Palestinian quest for
statehood.

For good or ill, the NAM was an influential force in world politics during the Cold
War. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has been a movement adrift. One possible
ambition for the group, until recently, was to foil U.S. “unipolarity” and its (alleged)
neoimperalist tendencies—typified by the “unilateral” invasion of Iraq and militaristic
global war on terrorism. But the advent of a more conciliatory Obama administration, and
the increasingly obvious diffusion of global power away from the United States, has
undercut this narrative. Another NAM track has been to rail against the inequities of a
Western-dominated global economy. But these claims ring hollow in the aftermath of the
global financial crisis, which has seen the United States, Europe, and Japan staggering
under debt and struggling to regain growth, while much of the developing world (even
sub-Saharan Africa) grows at an impressive clip.
The NAM today includes some of the world’s most dynamic economies, like Chile,
Malaysia, and Singapore, not to mention four members of the Group of Twenty. India,
South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia now have a curious split identity, with one seat
at the “head table” of global economic governance and another in the NAM, alongside the
likes of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, and Papua New Guinea. The NAM’s
political diversity is equally striking, combining vibrant democracies devoted to human
rights like Botswana and Panama with unreconstructed autocracies like North Korea,
Sudan, and Zimbabwe.
Given this complex make-up, it is no surprise that the NAM faces increasing
problems of coherence and cohesion. Agreement on basic principles like non-intervention
and global economic justice is one thing, agreement on concrete plans of action and hard-
hitting resolutions quite another. Accordingly, NAM summits tend to be glorified
gabfests.
5.1.2 Crisis of Non Alignment Policy
The first challenge facing non-aligned states has been the increasing instability of
many developing states within the developing world. Kennedy and Russett have termed
these states as “ failed states “. Failed states as characterised by them are states wherein
“authority implodes… ethnic and religious conflicts erupt and millions flee across
international borders.This has consequently resulted in an increasing demand for
peacekeeping operations by developing states to implement cease-fires and agreements
from disputants within a conflict. This was witnessed in the United Nations Transitional
Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) which was mandated by the Security Council to
oversee the 1991 Paris Accords. The UNTAC operation can be seen as a model for United
Nations peacekeeping operations in the post-Cold War era, that will increasingly be
demanded by developing states in resolving intra-state conflicts.

The second challenge facing non-aligned states has been the increasing prominence
of global environmental issues, such as the protection of the ozone layer, on the
international agenda. The significance of these issues for the NAM has been the
increasing perception on the part of northern states that these issues adversely impact on
their interests. The NAM has therefore voiced concerns that the Northern states may use
these issues to impose further conditionalities on developing states with respect to issues
such as market access. Whilst the NAM has viewed these issues with suspicion and
hostility, they have increasingly come to recognise that these issues can impact
favourably on their interests by enabling them to link Northern concerns with these
issues to developing states’ concerns with development. This was reflected in
negotiations within the Montreal Protocol wherein the developed states recognised that
the absence of developing state participation within the Protocol would significantly
weaken the Protocol. This resulted in the London Conference of the Parties to the
Protocol, wherein the support of the developing states such as India and China were
secured by the establishment of an Interim Multilateral Fund of 160 million dollars to aid
developing states to implement the Protocol. Whilst the developed states did not live up
to their commitments entirely, this issue did emphasise that these issues provide
developing states with an opportunity to attempt to place their developmental concerns
onto the global agenda. The international agenda can be defined as the sum of the
various access points by which issues are brought onto the global agenda.
The third issue relates to the developmental concerns of developing and non-
aligned states within the global economy. This is seen in the fact that developing and
non-aligned states continue to be in a dependent position within the global economy.
Dependency can be defined as an “exploitative relationship between the advanced
capitalist societies and the underdeveloped periphery, whereby peripheral states are
forced to specialise within a hierarchical world division of labour . This is seen in the
fact the majority of non-aligned states remain primary commodity exporting states,
wherein agricultural trade remains their primary source of trade income.
Furthermore most nonaligned states remain dependent on Northern markets. It is

in this context that the emergence of agricultural trade conflicts amongst the United
States and the European Community in the 1980’s consequently destabilised global
agricultural markets and adversely affected the interests of developing and non-aligned
states. Furthermore the United States and the European Union were unable to come to an
agreement within the Uruguay Round in bringing agricultural issues into the GATT.
The increasing participation of developing states within the Uruguay Round signalled
that they recognise that a weakening of the GATT would adversely impact on their
interests. The emergence of these issues on the international agenda, which have
assumed greater significance for the NAM, requires new forms of leadership with which
to deal with them.
5.1.3 Conclusion
So why does the NAM persist? Undoubtedly, the tenacity of post-colonial

mindsets, combined with a persistent belief that the structure of global politics remains
stacked in favor of major powers, contributes. These dynamics are most clearly at play at
the United Nations. The NAM members object to the exorbitant privilege enjoyed by the
permanent membership of the UN Security Council (UNSC), the composition of which
has not changed since 1945. To be sure, NAM members are deeply divided on how to
reform the UNSC, but their resentment is palpable. (Similar criticisms apply to the
structure of the main international financial institutions.)
Meanwhile, in the nuclear field, NAM members criticize the discriminatory nature of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). That treaty rests on a bargain between the
nuclear haves and have-nots. In return for foreswearing such weapons, non-nuclear
weapons states were assured under Article 6 of the NPT that nuclear weapons states
would move steadily toward disarmament. That has not happened.
5.2 INDIA’S NUCLEAR POLICY: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT
5.2.1 Introduction
India’s nuclear policy is evolved from the vision and aspirations of the people who
dedicated their lives for the freedom of the nation. Like the foreign policy, the chief
architect of India’s foreign policy was Jawaharlal Nehru. Indigenous nuclear programme
is the significant feature of India’s nuclear programme. The evolution of India’s nuclear
policy can be summarized under the following phases.
5.2.2 Phase I: The Nehru Era, 1947 to the Mid-1960s
This was a period of voluntary nuclear abstinence. Nehru was not only deeply committed
to the complete elimination of all nuclear weapons, but also opposed to their manufacture
and possession by any state, including India. He was opposed to nuclear weapons on
moral, political and strategic grounds, calling their possession a “crime against
humanity”. He integrated this opposition into India’s foreign policy, giving it an activist
edge. he was the first world leader to call for an end to all nuclear testing following U.S.
bomb,b tests in the Pacific in 1954. However, India’s civilian nuclear energy programme
under the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) also had a dual-use capacity; major
figures such as Homi Bhabha were not unaware of this. Bhabha himself was not as
categorically opposed to a possible future Bomb as was Nehru.

On July 24, 1957, Nehru said in the Lok Sabha: We have declared quite clearly tht
we are not interested in making atom bombs, even if we have the capacity to do so and
that in n event will we use nuclear energy for destructive purposes...I hope that will be the
policy of all future governments.And just months before his death, when reports were
pouring in of China’s nuclear preparations, Nehru rejected the suggestion that India
should follow China and acquire nuclear weapons for “deterrence”.
5.2.3 Phase II: Mid-1960s to 1974
In this period New Delhi became increasingly disenchanted with the prospect for
global disarmament. Quiet preparations were being made to acquire a nuclear weapons
capability, while retaining a strong opposition to deterrence and weaponisation. India’s
nuclear programme under Homi Bhabha underwent a significant shift at the ground level.
Bhabha commissioned a plant to reprocess spent fuel from the CIRUS “research” reactor
built with Canadian and U.S. assistance. In his speech in October 1964 following China’s
first test, he said tht India too could conduct a test in 18 months. But such changes were
not articulated at the policy level. In October 1965, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri
told Parliament: Despite the continued threat of aggression from China which has
developed nuclear weapons, the government has continued to adhere to decisions not go
in for nuclear weapons but to work for their elimination instead.
In April 1968, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi said in the Lok Sabha: “ India’s nuclear
policy is framed after due consideration of the national interest, specifically with regard to
national security... we do feel that the events of the last twenty years clearly show that the
possession of nuclear weapons have not given any military advantage in situations of
bitter armed conflict. She argued that “The choices before us involves...engaging in an
arms race with sophisticated nuclear war beads and an effective missile delivery
system..Such a course, I do not think would strengthen national security... it may well
endanger our internal security by imposing a very heavy economic burden...”
Indian policy pronouncements in this post-Nehru period underwent a subtle shift

from a categorical oppositon to a “no Bombs now” orientation. The new uncertainties
were relflected in the Indian attitude to the NPT negotiations, an arena where India had
initially played a significant role. The final draft diluted what India and other non-nuclear
weapons-states wanted - a better balance between the obligations of the nuclear weapons-
states signatories and the non nuclear weapons-states signatories. Despite this watering
down, the other non-nuclear weapons-states went along with the treaty, but India did not
sign.

Why? First, there was China’s decision not to sign the NPT and India’s new
reluctance to commit itself to complete or permanent future abstinence. Subsequent
Indian opposition to the NPT is invariably and repeatedly stated in terms of India’s
“principled” opposition to the discriminatory character of the NPT, or the very fact of its
enshrining differential obligations for nuclear weapons-states and non-nuclear weapons-
states.
The ground level preparations, and accumulation of unsafeguarded plutonium

form CIRUS, gave Indira Gandhi an opportunity to conduct Pokharan-I in May 1974-a test
which the DAE scientist had long been demanding. the test, purportedly for “peaceful”
civilian purposes, or a peaceful nuclear explosion (PNE) was carried out for primarily
domestic political reasons. Yet India continued to strongly reject nuclear deterrence or
grant any kind of legitimacy to nuclear weapons.
On May 22,1974, four days after Pokharan-I, Indira Gandhi wrote to Bhutto to
assure him: I am aware that in popular parlance a nuclear explosion evokes an awesome
and horrifying picture. however, this is because our minds have been conditioned by the
misuse of nuclear energy for the development of weapons and by the use of these
weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We in India have condemned and will continue to
condemn military uses of nuclear energy as a threat to humanity. Mrs. Gandhi
emphasised that “it is strictly in this context that our scientists have launched on this
experiment... There are no political or foreign policy implications of this test.”
5.2.4 Phase III: 1974 to 1995-96
Further work on India’s nuclear weapons capability was suspended after adverse
fallout. A conscious policy of nuclear ambiguity was adopted by New Delhi. This
consisted in both affirming and denying tht India had/could have nuclear
weapons/capability and seeking a special status as a Nuclear Threshold State. Meanwhile,
in 1978, under Prime Minister Morarji Desai, the Indian government distanced itself from
the 1974 PNE, and Desai emphasised the “peaceful” side of ambiguity while expressing
misgivings about the safety of nuclear power.
After the mid-1980s, pressure mounted on New Delhi to go overtly nuclear in

response to Pakistan’s reported nuclear preparations. India rejected seven proposals by
Pakistan for nuclear restraint and regional disarmament, saying it would only discuss
nuclear disarmament in “global, multilateral” fora, and in a “non-discriminatory” frame
work.
India’s sole strategy of containing an alleged “Pakistani threat” was to entreat the U.S. to
exert pressure on Pakistan, through the Pressler Amendment, for instance. Meanwhile, its
own stockpiling of high-grade plutonium continued, with an estimated 300 to 450 kg
accumulated by the mid-1990s enough for 60 to 90 fission bombs.

However, in 1986, India joined the Five-Continent Six-Nation Initiative for Nuclear
Disarmament and in 1988 put forward the Rajiv Gandhi Plan for the elimination of
nuclear weapons in the UN. This involved a step-by-step process including restraint at an
early stage by the threshold states, including India. This was not energetically pursued. As
the negotiations for a CTBT, which India had pioneered, entered their final phase, New
Delhi stalled, making signing the CTBT conditional upon “time-bound” disarmament by
the P-5. It tried to hedge the treaty in with clauses that appeared radical, but were meant
to delay negotiations and prepare the ground for non-accession to a test ban agreement.
Domestically, New Delhi came under growing pressure to oppose the CTBT and
then “logically” proceed to conduct test explosions: why reject the CTBT as a “trap” and
“conspiracy” and then behave as if it were still in place; why bear the cost of opposition
without reaping the “benefits” of nuclearisation?
In 1995, before the CTBT “rolling text” acquired its penultimate form, the
Narasimha Rao government launched preparations for a test at Pokharan. The Cabinet
was divided, and US military satellites detected preparations. Publicity, as well as the fear
of economic sanctions, deterred Indian from testing. But a big shift had occurred at the
ground level.
Yet, at the stated doctrinal level, there was no change. In 1995 Indian argued
passionately before the International Court of Justice that “use of nuclear weapons in any
armed conflict... even by way of reprisal or retaliation...is unlawful... Since the production
and manufacture cannot under any circumstances be considered as permitted...The threat
of use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance, whether as a means or method of warfare
or otherwise, as illegal and unlawful under international law.” At the height of the CTBT
debate, in March 1996, India’s Foreign Secretary Salman Haider made a special
appearance before the Conference on Disarmament to say: “We do not believe that the
acquisition of nuclear weapons is essential for national security, and we have followed a
conscious decision in this regard. We are also convinced that the existence of nuclear
weapons diminishes international security. We, therefore, seek their complete elimination.
These are fundamental precepts that have been an integral basis of India’s foreign and
national security policy.”
However, slippages from India’s professed commitment to nuclear restraint and

disarmament had by now become evident. “Ambiguity” degraded significantly. India
blocked the CTBT’S passage at the CD, but the text was taken to the UN General
Assembly and signed. Hawks within and outside the government raised the level of
rhetoric in favour of India crossing the threshold. The BJP and right-wing commentators
in the media seized on the anti-CTBT rhetoric, to which there was little organised
resistance.

5.2.5 Phase IV: 1996 to May 1998.
Having yielded so much ground to hawkish positions and stoked jingoistic

nationalism. New Delhi had now became a prisoner of its own devious manoeuvres. The
nuclear and defence establishments got hyperactive in lobbying for explosions and a
policy break to permit full weaponisation.
The BJP articulated this point of view most vociferously at the political level. By
1997, its demands for overt nuclearisation became insistent. Its manifesto for the February
1998 general elections promised to “re-evaluate the country’s nuclear policy and exercise
the option to induct nuclear weapons.”
Till March 1998, the BJP was the sole the Indian party to advocate nuclearisation.
But the situation changed with the BJP-led coalition’s “National Agenda for Governance”
which repeated the precise formulation of the BJP manifesto. The BJP issued orders to the
DAE, Defence Research & Development Organisation and the armed forces t prepare for
and conduct tests - without consulting its coalition allies. But the RSS was privy to the
decision.
The first statement of the strategic rationale of the tests was offered by Prime
Minister Vajpayee, not to the people of India, but to the President of the United States. His
statement made no reference whatever to the “unequal global nuclear order”, “nuclear
apartheid” and the failure of the P-5 to disarm. Instead, it offered “close cooperation” to
Washington to promote “the cause of nuclear disarmament” ... thus wrongly conceding
that the U.S. has such a commitment. It only spoke of the threat form China and Pakistan,
heightened by Sino-Pakistani nuclear and missile collaboration.
On May 27, the government made an attempt to raionalise its reversal of earlier
nuclear policies through a paper entitled “Evolution of India’s Nuclear Policy” laid in the
Lok Sabha. This strung together half-truths and distortions to claim continuity - much in
the same way that hawks seek to paint Mahatma Gandhi as a legitimiser of the Indian
Bomb.
5.2.6 India after Pokhran II
But India’s stand on the role of nuclear weapons is quite clear. India has
emphasized at the conference of disarmament that Pakistan has been involved in nuclear
blackmail and the South Asian region is confronted with aggressive nuclear positioning
and irresponsible threat of use of nuclear weapons by irresponsible military leadership. It
is evident that India is not in race with any other nuclear power. India has exercised its
nuclear option without violating any international obligations in order to the threats that
world have compromised its national security.

India has its own nuclear doctrine which affirms its commitment to no-first-use of
nuclear weapons and not using these weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. The
defensive nuclear doctrine has a command and control system under certain political
authority. Land marks of India’s nuclear doctrine are-
 Building and maintaining a credible minimum deterrent.
 A posture of no-first-use: nuclear weapons will only be used in retaliation against a

nuclear attack on Indian Territory or on Indian forces elsewhere.
 Nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict

unacceptable damage.
 Nuclear retaliatory attack can be authorized by a certain political leadership only

through NCA.
 No-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon state.
 In the event of a major attack against India or Indian forces anywhere by biological
or chemical weapons. India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear
weapons.
 Continuance of strict control on export of nuclear and missile related materials and
technology, participation in the fissile material cut off treaty negotiations and
continued observance of the moratorium on nuclear tests.
 Continued commitment to the goal of a nuclear-free world through global

verifiable and no discriminatory nuclear disarmament.
5.2.7 Then the three pillars of India’s nuclear doctrine are:
1. No first use.
2. Credible minimum deterrent.
3. Civilian control (NCA).
All other components of the doctrine survivability strategic trend, punitive

retaliation in rapid response and shift from peace time deployment to fully employable
forces in the shortest possible time are all strict mathematical derivations of the above
three basic principles.

5.2.8 No-first–use
The nuclear doctrine states that India is committed to a no-first-use of nuclear

weapons. The theory of deterrence and no-first-use go together. The first aggressive use of
a nuclear weapon will be a confession that deterrence has failed and use of nuclear
weapons was the only recourse left. It is globally recognized that nuclear war between
two nuclear powers would not lead to any meaningful military decision beyond appalling
losses to both sides. In these circumstances no-first-use is the most appropriate policy.
5.2.9 Credible minimum deterrent
The concept of minimum nuclear deterrent will include sufficient survivable and
operationally prepared nuclear forces, a robust command and control system, effective
intelligence and early warning capability and comprehensive planning and training for
operations in line with the strategy and the will to employ nuclear forces and weapons.
The nuclear doctrine envisages a deterrent that has the capability of inflicting destruction
and punishment to the aggressor. The principles of credibility, effectiveness and
survivability will be central to India’s nuclear deterrent. The nuclear doctrine does not
quantify the minimum deterrent. It calls for highly effective military capability. The
nuclear doctrine stresses upon effective, enduring diverse forces which are based upon a
nuclear tread of air-craft, mobile land-based missiles and sea-based assets.
5.2.10 Nuclear command authority (NCA)
On January 4, 2003 India revealed a three tier nuclear command authority (NCA) to
manage its nuclear weapons. This broad frame work was approved in the nuclear doctrine
prepared by the National Security Board set up after the May 1998 nuclear tests. The NCA
comprises of (a) political council, (b) executive council and (c) strategic forces command.
Political council is headed by the Prime Minister. It is the body which authorizes the use
of nuclear weapons. Executive council is headed by the National Security Adviser to the
Prime Minister. Its function is to provide inputs for decision making by the NCA and to
execute the directives given to it by the political council. The executive council may
comprise of the chiefs of defense services, the IIC chairman, the convener of the NSAB, the
cabinet secretaries, heads of intelligence agencies and secretaries of ministers represented
in the Cabinet Committed of Security (CCS).The strategic force command(SFC)would be
responsible for the administration of the nuclear forces and will be actually entrusted with
the firing of nuclear weapons. SFC is the second tri-service command after the first one in
Andaman and Nicobar Islands was established in 2001.

Indian's nuclear doctrine is the most responsible doctrine which aims at providing
minimum credible deterrent. It is a consensus document which does not limit the country
in any way in exercising its nuclear weapon options. It provides complete elasticity in
deciding the number of nuclear weapons India should possess and classifies the emphasis
on the survivability of the deterrent. Establishment of the NCA will add credibility to
India's nuclear posture. The NCA stands out in its firm commitment to deterrent stability
through civilian control over nuclear weapons. Most significant aspect of India's nuclear
doctrine is that it is intimately tied up with continued commitment to total nuclear
disarmament. The five major nuclear powers are reluctant to give up their monopoly over
production and deployment of nuclear weapons while denying a similar privilege to other
countries.
In contrast with India's nuclear doctrine there are ambiguous, questions about
nuclear capability, precise doctrine and delivery systems of Pakistan. There is a
fundamental difference between the nuclear policies of India and Pakistan. Whereas no-
first-use of nuclear weapons remains the key element of India's nuclear policy Pakistan
maintains the first strike option in its nuclear doctrine and has refused to sign an
agreement no-first-use. With India's over-whelming superiority over Pakistan in
conventional forces, Pakistan looks towards nuclear weapons as a Safe bet to overcome its
disadvantages in a conventional view.
In its first ever meeting the nuclear command authority under the chairmanship of
the Prime Minister reviewed the arrangements in place for the strategic forces
programmed. In a significant departure from the earlier stand the government warned
that India would retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons if attacked with
chemical or biological weapons by even non-nuclear adversaries. It also said that WMD
attack on Indian forces outside Indian Territory would result in a nuclear response.
5.3 THE THREAT POSED BY CROSS BORDER TERRORISM
5.3.1 Introduction
The terrorism means all kinds of violent acts, undertaken by a person, group or a
state with an aim to create fear/terror for a religious, political or ideological goal. This is
aimed towards government and civilians equally. It can be broadly classified into Political
terrorism for political purposes (This could be domestic or cross border and for ideology
or control of state) and Non-Political terrorism – Terrorism that is not aimed at political
purposes but which exhibits “conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of
fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the
achievement of a political objective.”

India has been facing threat of cross border terrorism since independence, when
Pakistan sponsored Azad Kashmir forces comprising of local militia of POK and FATA
attacked J&K in 1947. The very fact that India shares its border with many nations, it
makes its task of internal and external security more difficult. The ethnic mix of
population also adds fuel to the fire, when ideology and aspiration of all religion in India
are not met concurrently by the govt. This has been seen in Punjab terrorism in 1980s,
followed by Assam and J&K problem in 1990s and now as Maoism in state of
Chhattisgarh, Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Orissa. India shares ethnic,
religious and cultural affinities with its neighbours and in times of conflict, certain portion
of tension flows inward in form of state sponsored terrorism. Since these states can
unleash the terrorist activities in different capacity, they may use their own directly
recruited and controlled terror squads, or may choose to work through proxies and client
movements across the border.
The terrorist menace from across the border is supported financially and materially
by the government and institutions of these countries. Therefore there are number of
problems which poses a serious challenges to the national security of India, unless
immediate measures for border areas are taken. Without peaceful borders with its
neighbors, India can hardly play its legitimate role in global affairs.
5.3.2 Reasons for Cross Border Terrorism
India is emerging as economically and military strong nation in both continental

Asia as well as the Indian Ocean region. In the present scenario, India faces a great threat
from all the countries with which it has borders, in one or the other form. The form of
threat varies from pure military to a combination of military and non-military. Today
India faces more security threat from Pakistan than any of its neighbours, because of
multiple conflicts since 1947 partition on issues like J&K, water sharing, Sir Creek etc.
Pakistan has not accepted regional supremacy of India and undertaken many military
and terrorist actions to destabilise India since independence. The dynamic nature of the
problems concerning management of borders is brought out by manner in which the
sensitivity of the India- Pakistan, Indo-Bhutan and India- Bangladesh borders have
changed over a period of time. These borders, which have been open, were once peaceful
and trouble-free. However, with the increasing activities of the Inter Services Intelligence
(ISI) in Pakistan and frequent movement of militants in other States, the nature of the
borders has changed completely. The Pakistan is resorting to Cross border terrorism, to
covertly bringing pressure to bear on India across the border through violence, so as
keep it engaged in proxy wars, divert its resources from other development and garner
support of Muslim community in India for creating separate Muslim state and finally to
degrade India’s conventional superiority through a process of strategic fatigue.
5.3.3 Security Challenges for India
India is very sure that terrorist activities of Pakistan will extend far beyond the
confines of J&K and will cover all parts of the country. There is credible information of
ongoing plans of terrorist groups in Pakistan to carry out fresh attacks. Hence, India needs
to be prepared for encountering more sophisticated technologies and enhanced
capabilities of all terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan. India has been emphasizing
at international level the need for combating terrorism and called for global action to
counter terrorism and enactment of various political and economical sanctions against
state responsible for sponsoring terrorism across international borders. However, due to
political and military interest of super powers like USA and China in and around Pakistan
nothing much has been done to control rogue activities of Pakistan. India has to fight this
war alone by strengthening its military, police and paramilitary forces and at the same
time garner international support for combating terrorism. There is also a need to keep
Pakistan politically engaged on bilateral conflict issues, so that Pakistan is motivated to
reduce/stop their support for terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan. This three
prong strategy will ultimately reduce cross border terrorism in India. If India wants to
assert itself globally in international politics and power game, it must control such
misadventures from Pakistan.
India is a growing nation and in few years from now it will be an international
power to reckon with, for which it must concentrate in economic, trade, infrastructure
and agriculture development, but at same time keep Pakistan under check and well
humored. India's Counter-Terrorism Set-Up
The state police and its intelligence set-up: Under India's federal Constitution,
the responsibility for policing and maintenance of law and order is that of the individual
states. The central government in New Delhi can only give them advice, financial help,
training and other assistance to strengthen their professional capabilities and share with
them the intelligence collected by it. The responsibility for follow-up action lies with the
state police.
The national intelligence community: This consists of the internal intelligence

agency (Intelligence Bureau), the external intelligence agency (Research and Analysis
Wing), the Defence Intelligence Agency that was set up a year ago, and the intelligence
directorates general of the armed forces. The IB collects terrorism-related intelligence
inside the country and RAW does it outside. The DIA and the intelligence directorates
general of the armed forces essentially collect tactical intelligence during their counter-
terrorism operations in areas such as Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, etc, where they are
deployed.

Physical security agencies: These include the Central Industrial Security Force,
responsible for physical security at airports and sensitive establishments; the National
Security Guards, a specially trained intervention force to terminate terrorist situations
such as hijacking, hostage-taking, etc; and the Special Protection Group, responsible for
the security of the Prime Minister and former Prime Ministers.
Paramilitary forces: These include the Central Reserve Police Force and the Border
Security Force, which assist the police in counter terrorism operations when called upon
to do so.
The Army: Their assistance is sought as a last resort when the police and
paramilitary forces are not able to cope with a terrorist situation. But in view of Pakistan's
large-scale infiltration in Jammu and Kashmir and the presence and activities of a large
number of Pakistani mercenaries, many of them ex-servicemen, the army has a more
active, permanent and leadership role in counter-terrorism operations here. In recent
months, there have been two additions to the counter-terrorism set-up:
(a) A multi-disciplinary centre on counter-terrorism, headed by a senior IB officer,

within the IB, expected to be patterned on the CIA's counter terrorism centre. Officers of
various agencies responsible for intelligence collection and counter-terrorism operations
will work under a common umbrella and be responsible for joint analysis of the
intelligence flowing in from different agencies and co-ordinate follow-up action.
(b) A counter-terrorism division in the ministry of external affairs, expected to be

patterned after the counter-terrorism division of the US State Department. It will be
responsible for co-coordinating the diplomatic aspects of counter-terrorism, such as
briefing other countries on Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism against India, processing
requests for extradition and mutual legal assistance, servicing the work of various joint
working groups on counter-terrorism which India has set up with a number of countries,
etc.
5.3.4 Options for India
India has to understand that there is a need to collectively address this problem
through military means, bilateral diplomacy and international political support. At the
same time India has to ensure that internal stability especially religious one is maintained
and support of all religious groups is strengthened to fight the cross border terrorism.
5.3.5 Military Option
India needs to consider the military option seriously. This would not only enhance
the deterrence in place against such attacks, but would ensure that the state-jihadi nexus
is constricted. The state element would likely be more sensitive to the likely hurt that
India could inflict militarily and therefore exercise restraint over jihadi impulses. Any
such consideration would enable execution of the military operation better and integrate
it with the political and diplomatic prongs of the strategy that would likely unfold in real
time. India must invest more in strengthening its security forces including army by
procuring state of the art weapon and equipment, surveillance devices, mobility vehicles
including helicopter and aircrafts and logistic support. There should be more cooperation
and inter- operability amongst all security elements for synergy of operation. All sensitive
areas along the border must be guarded and infiltration routes covered by deploying
adequate forces. The intelligence must be shared by all to detect and counter any form of
terrorist activity in time.
5.3.6 Diplomatic Dialogue
India must diplomatically engage not only Pakistan, but also Nepal, Bhutan,
Bangladesh and Myanmar, so as to formulate policies for cooperation in economic,
military, cultural and terrorism fields and ensure mutual quest for regional peace,
prosperity and stability. As far as Pakistan is concerned India needs to adopt test and
trust policy in all future relations and engage them actively by giving more economic
facilities and trade concessions. India must also ensure that Pakistan remains politically
viable nation so that it is not taken over by non state forces.
5.3.7 International Support-
India has initiated many dialogues in international forum for formulation of

combined policy and guidelines for combating terrorism, some of which are in force and
being implemented. India needs to especially motivate and convince USA and China to
keep Pakistan under control, so that ISI can be checked for sponsoring and supporting
various terrorist groups operating out of Pakistan. In wake of recent attack by Taliban on
naval base of Pakistan, the security of their nuclear arsenal is threatened. If Taliban and
Al Qaeda are successful in securing nuclear weapon from Pakistan, then India will be the
nation to face the brunt of their hatred.
5.3.8 Internal Stability
India need to understand the importance of maintaining peace and harmony

amongst all religion and community in India, with special reference to Muslim and
people belonging to NE states and RED CORRIDOR( Maoism). Over last decades ISI has
targeted these people and fuelled insurgency in these regions. The importance of good
grievances detection, monitoring and redressal machinery so that the build-up of
grievances in any community is detected in time and the political leadership alerted and

advised to take prompt action to redress them. The intelligence agencies have an
important role to play as the eyes and ears of the government in different communities to
detect feelings of anger and alienation which need immediate attention.
5.3.9 Conclusion
The fight against terrorism is very difficult and challenging task, for which
concerted efforts by various responsible agencies, both national and international, is
required. For fighting a successful war against cross border terrorism, an international
political support and cooperation and coordination among the neighboring States is
required. It is unfortunate that various states are pursuing cross border terrorism in spite
of its prohibition, as International Law regarding the implementation and enforcement of
its rules is not as strong as it should be. India- Pakistan relations have deteriorated over
period of time even though continuous processes by both nations are being initiated for
peace, harmony and cooperation. However, due to ideological and historical differences
not much has been gained by either side. Pakistan policy to degrade India’s conventional
superiority through a process of strategic fatigue is the main stumbling block in all peace
process. ISI of Pakistan has taken up one point agenda of spreading terrorism in India by
all means, and unless India takes all necessary actions to check its activities now, the
threat of nuclear terrorism looms ahead.
&&&&&&&

India'S Foreign Policy: V Semester Core Course

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

India'S Foreign Policy: V Semester Core Course

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

India'S Foreign Policy: V Semester Core Course

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY

SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY

Scrutinized by: Dr. G. Sadanandan (Co-ordinator),

Layout: Computer Section, SDE

India’s Foreign Policy Page 2

Contents Page No.

MODULE I BASIC DETERMINANTS OF INDIA’S FOREIGN 5

MODULE II INDIA AND HER NEIGHBOURS 10

MODULE III RECENT TRENDS IN INDIA’S RELATIONS 26

MODULE IV ENGANEMENT WITH REGIONAL AND 44

MODULE V INDIA AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER: 61

India’s Foreign Policy Page 3

India’s Foreign Policy Page 4

BASIC DETERMINANTS OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY

The basic determinants of India’s’ foreign policy are:

 Political Tradition and philosophical basis

1.2 Political Tradition and Philosophical basis

India’s Foreign Policy Page 5

The philosophical basis of Indian foreign policy includes an account of such

Geography is the foremost determinant of Indian foreign policy. The prediction

India’s Foreign Policy Page 6

1.3 National Interest

The indigenous corporate capitalist interests (immaterial of the adjectives we might

India’s Foreign Policy Page 7

1.4 International Mileu

As elaborated, among several determinants of foreign policy, the relevance of

India’s Foreign Policy Page 9

INDIA AND HER NEIGHBOURS

2.1 South Asian Regional State System: Basic Features

2.2. Emergent Order in South Asia

India’s Foreign Policy Page 11

Unfortunately, regionalism never became a fundamental concern of the Afro-Asian

2.3 INDIA-PAKISTAN RELATIONS

India’s Foreign Policy Page 12

2.3.1 World Views

India’s Foreign Policy Page 13

2.3.2 Kashmir Problem

Kashmir had a peculiar problem. It had distinct distribution patterns of its

India’s Foreign Policy Page 14

Several developments appear to complicate the problem in Kashmir in the 1980s.

Infiltration and insurgency has been a long pattern in Pakistani strategy on

2.3.3 Nuclear Issue

The Indian nuclear tests of May 1998 represented a demonstration of capabilities—

India’s Foreign Policy Page 17

India’s Foreign Policy Page 18

2.4. INDIA AND OTHER NATIONS OF SOUTH ASIA

2.5. INDIA-NEPAL RELATIONS

India’s Foreign Policy Page 19

The parameters of bilateral relations came to be defined in the context of two

The movement towards restoration of democracy in Nepal began in 1980s. The

2.7. Sri Lanka

2.7.1 Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan civil war

2.7.2. Commercial ties

India’s Foreign Policy Page 23

2.7.3. Fishing disputes

India is active in a number of areas of development activity in Sri Lanka. About

A number of development projects are implemented under ‘Aid to Sri Lanka’