THE COLD WAR ERA

(CHAPTER-1)
THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS
• THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS,
OR THE OCTOBER CRISIS OF
1962, WAS A 13-DAY
CONFRONTATION BETWEEN
THE TWO POST WORLD WAR-
ERA SUPERPOWERS, THE USA
AND THE USSR. IT IS
REGARDED AS THE CLOSEST
WHICH THE COLD WAR CAME
INTO BECOMING A FULL-
SCALE NUCLEAR WAR
BETWEEN THE TWO
NUCLEAR-ARMED
COUNTRIES.
 PRELUDE TO THE CRISIS
• THE ORIGINS OF THE CONFRONTATION CAN BE TRACED BACK
TO THE UNSUCCESSFUL INVASION OF CUBA BY A CIA-
SPONSORED PARAMILLITARY GROUP KNOWN AS BRIGADE 2506
ON 17TH APRIL 1961. THE CIA OR THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY OF THE USA, HAD BEEN TASKED WITH THE
ELIMINATION OF THE INCREASINGLY COMMUNIST REGIME IN
CUBA, LED BY REVOLUTIONARY LEADER FIDEL CASTRO.
• CASTRO HAD LED A REVOLUTION AGAINST THE FORMER
MILITARY REGIME LED BY GENERAL FULGENCIO BATISTA, AN
ALLY OF THE USA,BACK IN 1959.
• HE IMMEDIATELY TOOK CONTROL OF ALL AMERICAN INDUSTRIES
IN CUBA, AND NATIONALISED THEM, SEVERING TIES WITH THE
US. THE CUBAN GOVERNMENT UNDER HIM ALSO WENT ON TO
FORGE CLOSE ECONOMIC AND MILITARY TIES WITH THE USSR,
FURTHER WORSENING US-CUBA RELATIONS.

• COMING BACK TO THE FAILED INVASION OF CUBA (CALLED THE

BAY OF PIGS INVASION), THE US HAD GRAVELY
UNDERESTIMATED THE STRENGTH OF THE CUBAN
REVOLUTIONARY ARMED FORCES, AND THE CIA-FUNDED
PARAMILLITARY FORCES WERE DEFEATED WITHIN 3 DAYS,
RESULTING IN THE FAILURE OF THE INVASION, AND AN
ABSOLUTE DISASTER FOR US FOREIGN POLICY UNDER JOHN F.
KENNEDY.
HOW SOVIET MISSILES ENDED UP IN
CUBA
• IN RESPONSE TO THE USA’S ACTIONS, CASTRO AGREED TO THE
USSR’S PROPOSAL TO PLACE NUCLEAR-TIPPED MISSILES IN
CUBA, IN ORDER TO DETER A FUTURE INVASION OF CUBA FROM
THE USA OR ITS ALLIES.
• THE USSR HAD ITS OWN REASONS FOR DOING SO. THERE WAS
IMMENSE PRESSURE ON NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV, LEADER OF THE
SOVIET UNION TO REDUCE THE INCREASINGLY WIDENING GAP
IN THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE BETWEEN THE TWO NATIONS. THE
USA WAS QUICKLY RACING AHEAD OF THE SOVIETS IN
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, PUTTING
THE SOVIET UNION AT UNEASE. US MISSILES ALSO HAD A
SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER RANGE THAN SOVIET MISSILES OF THE
TIME, ALONG WITH BETTER RELIABLITY. MOST MISSILES WERE
 HOW US MISSILES ENDED UP IN TURKEY
AND ITALY
• THE USSR WAS ALSO APPREHENSIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE US HAD
STRATEGICALLY PLACED THEIR OWN MISSILES IN TURKEY AND
ITALY. THE NATIONS WERE ALL MEMBERS OF NATO, AND ONE OF
NATO’S PRIMARY CONCERNS DURING THE COLD WAR WAS THE
POSSIBILITY OF A SOVIET INVASION OF EASTERN EUROPE. IN ORDER
TO DETER SUCH INVASIONS, ITALY AND TURKEY, BEING NATO
ALLIES OF THE USA, AGREED TO PLACE US MISSILES IN THEIR
RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES.
• IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR THEIR INFERIOR TECHNOLOGY, THE
SOVIET UNION DECIDED TO PLACE ICBMS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO
THE US MAINLAND, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR QUICK RESPONSE
IN CASE OF ANY AGGRESSION FROM THE AMERICANS.
• IN ORDER TO DETER A POTENTIAL SOVIET INVASION OF EASTERN
EUROPE, THE US PLACED ITS OWN MISSILES IN ITALY AND TURKEY.
The Lockheed U-
2 reconnaissance
aircraft which
discovered the
Soviet missiles in
Cuba.
 THE CRISIS( OCTOBER 16-
28,1962)
• THE USA HAD EARLIER DISMISSED REPORTS OF SOVIET
MISSILES IN CUBA, BUT IMAGES CAPTURED BY AN AMERICAN
RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT IN SEPTEMBER AND EARLY
OCTOBER REVEALED STORAGE SITES FOR NUCLEAR
WEAPONS, ALONG WITH MEDIUM RANGE MISSILES,
EFFECTIVELY EXPOSING THE USSR’S ACTIONS. SUCH
DEPLOYMENT ALARMED THE US AND SEVERAL COURSES OF
ACTION WERE CONSIDERED, SUCH AS AN ALL-OUT INVASION
OF CUBA, OR AIRSTRIKES ON THE MISSILE SITES, OR FORMING
A NAVAL BLOCKADE OF CUBA.
• THE KENNEDY ADMINISTRATION EVENTUALLY RULED OUT AN
INVASION, SINCE IT COULD PROVOKE OPEN WAR BETWEEN
THE COUNTRIES, AND THE SUCCESS OF AERIAL ATTACKS WAS
• THE US EVENTUALLY WENT FOR THE OPTION OF FORMING A
NAVAL BLOCKADE OF CUBA, IN ORDER TO PREVENT ANY
FURTHER TRANSPORT OF MISSILES FROM THE SOVIET UNION TO
CUBA, AND TO SEND A MESSAGE TO THE SOVIETS, REGARDING
HOW SERIOUS THE PROBLEM WAS. BY OCTOBER 21-22, THE US
NAVY’S BLOCKADE WAS COMPLETED.

• KHRUSHCHEV AND KENNEDY, MEANWHILE HAD BEEN

CONSTANTLY EXCHANGING LETTERS AND NEGOTIATING AN
END TO THE CRISIS. ON OCTOBER 26TH, KHURSCHEV SENT A
LETTER TO KENNEDY, OFFERING TO REMOVE ALL NUCLEAR
WEAPONS FROM CUBA, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE USA GIVING ITS
ASSURANCE THAT IT WOULD NOT INVADE CUBA WITHOUT
DIRECT PROVOCATION. ALL THESE NEGOTIATIONS WERE NOT
MADE PUBLIC.
• KHRUSHCHEV SENT ANOTHER LETTER THE NEXT DAY, WHICH
PROPOSED THAT ALL SOVIET MISSILES WOULD BE REMOVED
FROM CUBA, AND IN EXCHANGE THE US WOULD ALSO REMOVE
ALL MISSILE INSTALLATIONS IN ITALY AND TURKEY. THE
TERMS OF BOTH LETTERS WERE EVENTUALLY ACCEPTED BY
THE US. THESE UNDERSTANDINGS CAME TO BE KNOWN AS THE
KENNEDY-KHRUSHCHEV PACT.
• THEREFORE, A DIRECT MILITARY CONFLICT WAS NARROWLY
AVOIDED, AND PEACE WAS RESTORED AFTER THE LAST BATCH
OF US MISSILES WERE DISASSEMBLED AND FLOWN OUT OF
TURKEY BACK TO THE US IN 1963.
 WHAT IS THE COLD WAR?

• THE COLD WAR WAS A DECADES-LONG STRUGGLE FOR

GLOBAL SUPREMACY THAT PITTED THE CAPITALIST UNITED
STATES AGAINST THE COMMUNIST SOVIET UNION. IT IS
GENERALLY CONCEDED THAT MID- TO LATE-1945 MARKS THE
TIME WHEN RELATIONS BETWEEN MOSCOW AND
WASHINGTON BEGAN DETERIORATING. THIS DETERIORATION
IGNITED THE EARLY COLD WAR AND SET THE STAGE FOR A
DYNAMIC STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE TWO LARGE POWER
BLOCS OF THE TIME. THE WAR HAD INVOLVED ALMOST ALL
THE MAJOR POWERS OF THE WORLD AND SPREAD OUT TO
REGIONS OUTSIDE EUROPE INCLUDING SOUTHEAST ASIA,
CHINA, MYANMAR AND PARTS OF INDIA’S NORTHEAST.
• A COMMON HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE CONFLICT BEGINS
BETWEEN 1946, THE YEAR U.S. DIPLOMAT GEORGE F.
KENNAN'S "LONG TELEGRAM" FROM MOSCOW CEMENTED
A U.S. FOREIGN POLICY OF CONTAINMENT OF SOVIET
EXPANSIONISM THREATENING STRATEGICALLY VITAL
REGIONS. THE 1991 COLLAPSE OF THE USSR LED TO ITS
END, WHEN NATIONS OF THE SOVIET UNION ABOLISHED
COMMUNISM AND RESTORED THEIR INDEPENDENCE. THE
TERM "COLD" IS USED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LARGE-
SCALE FIGHTING DIRECTLY BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES, BUT
THEY EACH SUPPORTED MAJOR REGIONAL CONFLICTS
KNOWN AS PROXY WARS. THE CONFLICT SPLIT THE
TEMPORARY WARTIME ALLIANCE AGAINST NAZI GERMANY
AND ITS ALLIES, LEAVING THE USSR AND THE US AS TWO
SUPERPOWERS WITH PROFOUND ECONOMIC AND
POLITICAL DIFFERENCES.
• THE END OF THE WORLD WAR II WAS ESSENTIALLY THE
BEGINNING OF THE COLD WAR. THE WAR HAD ENDED
WHEN THE UNITED STATES DROPPED 2 ATOMIC BOMBS ON
THE JAPANESE CITIES OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI,
 ATOMIC BOMBINGS OF
HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI
• BY AUGUST 1945, THE ALLIES'
MANHATTAN PROJECT HAD PRODUCED
TWO TYPES OF ATOMIC BOMBS, AND
THE 509TH COMPOSITE GROUP OF THE
UNITED STATES ARMY AIR FORCES
(USAAF) WAS EQUIPPED WITH THE
BOEING B-29 SUPERFORTRESS THAT
COULD DELIVER THEM. ON AUGUST 6,
ONE OF THE MODIFIED B-29S DROPPED A
URANIUM ("LITTLE BOY") BOMB ON
HIROSHIMA. THREE DAYS LATER, ON
AUGUST 9, A PLUTONIUM ("FAT MAN")
BOMB WAS DROPPED ON NAGASAKI.
 POSSIBLE CAUSES OF THE
COLD WAR
• ALTHOUGH THE U.S. AND SOVIET UNION WERE ALLIES DURING WWII,
THERE WERE MANY TENSIONS EARLY ON AND ONCE THE COMMON
THREAT OF GERMANY AND JAPAN WERE REMOVED, IT WAS ONLY A
MATTER OF TIME FOR THE SHAKY RELATIONSHIP TO FALL APART.
HERE ARE SOME POSSIBLE FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE
COLD WAR:
• THE SOVIET UNION REFUSED TO BECOME PART OF THE UN FOR A
LONG TIME
• STALIN FELT THAT AMERICA AND BRITAIN WERE DELAYING D-DAY,
CAUSING MORE SOVIET LOSSES IN A PLOT TO WEAKEN THE SOVIET
ARMY. ALMOST SIXTY TIMES MORE SOVIETS DIED IN THE WAR THAN
THE AMERICANS.
• AMERICAN AND BRITISH FEARS OF COMMUNIST
ATTACKS AND THE SOVIET UNION’S DISLIKE OF
CAPITALISM
• THE SOVIET UNION’S FEAR OF AMERICA’S
NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND REFUSAL TO SHARE
THEIR NUCLEAR SECRETS
• THE USSR’S AIM TO PROMOTE COMMUNISM
ACROSS THE WORLD AND THEIR EXPANSION INTO
EASTERN EUROPE.
 NUCLEAR STOCK OF US AND
USSR
• BY 1960, BOTH SIDES HAD INVESTED HUGE AMOUNTS OF
MONEY IN NUCLEAR WEAPONS, BOTH AS AN ATTEMPT TO
MAINTAIN PARITY WITH EACH OTHER'S STOCKPILES, BUT ALSO
BECAUSE THE IDEA OF DETERRING CONFLICT THROUGH
"MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION" HAD COME TO BE
REGARDED AS VITAL TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST OF BOTH. AS
NUCLEAR WEAPONS BECAME MORE PROLIFIC, BOTH NATIONS
SOUGHT TO POSITION MISSILE SYSTEMS IN EVER CLOSER
PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER'S BORDERS. ONE SUCH ATTEMPT BY
THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT IN 1962 PRECIPITATED THE CUBAN
MISSILE CRISIS(COVERED PREVIOUSLY), ARGUABLY THE
CLOSEST THAT THE WORLD HAS EVER COME TO A LARGE-SCALE
 MILITARY FEATURES OF THE
COLD WAR
• THERE WERE 2 RIVAL BLOCS LED BY 2 SUPERPOWERS OF THE
WORLD.
• THE FORMATION OF MILITARY ALLIANCES IN FORM OF NATO
BY USA AND ALLIES AND WARSAW PACT BY SOVIET UNION
FOR COLLECTIVE SECURITY.
• THERE WAS HUGE STOCKPILING OF ARMS BY EACH.
THE EMERGENCE OF TWO POWER
BLOCS
 SMALLER STATES AND THE
SUPERPOWERS
• THE TWO SUPERPOWERS: USA AND USSR, WERE KEEN ON
EXPANDING THEIR SPHERES OF INFLUENCE IN DIFFERENT
PARTS OF THE WORLD.
• THE WORLD WAS SHARPLY DIVIDED BETWEEN TWO ALLIANCE
SYSTEMS AND THE SMALLER STATES WERE SUPPOSED TO
REMAIN TIED TO ITS SUPERPOWER TO LIMIT THE INFLUENCE
OF THE OTHER SUPERPOWER AND ITS ALLIES.
 SMALLER STATES AND THE
SUPERPOWERS
(CONTD…)
• THE SMALLER STATES IN THE ALLIANCES USED THE LINK TO
THE SUPERPOWERS FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES:
• THE PROMISE OF PROTECTION
• WEAPONS
• ECONOMIC AID AGAINST THEIR LOCAL RIVALS, MOSTLY REGIONAL
NEIGHBORS WITH WHOM THEY HAD RIVALRIES.
 EUROPE IN THE COLD WAR

• MOST COUNTRIES OF WESTERN EUROPE SIDED WITH THE US.

• THOSE OF EASTERN EUROPE JOINED THE SOVIET CAMP.
• THIS IS ALSO WHY THESE WERE CALLED THE ‘WESTERN’ AND
THE ‘EASTERN’ ALLIANCES.
 NATO

The western alliance was

formalized into an
organization known as
the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO),
which came into
existence in April 1949.
 NATO
(CONTD…)

• IT WAS AN ASSOCIATION OF 12 STATES. NATO

WORKED ON A PRINCIPLE WHICH DECLARED
THAT AN ARMED ATTACK ON ANY ONE OF
THEM IN EUROPE OR NORTH AMERICA
WOULD BE REGARDED AS AN ATTACK ON ALL
OF THEM. EACH OF THESE STATES WOULD
THUS, BE OBLIGED TO HELP THE OTHER.
WARSAW PACT

The eastern alliance,

known as the Warsaw
Pact was lead by the
Soviet Union. It was
created in 1955 and
its principal function
was to counter
NATO’s forces in
Europe.
 INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCES
• INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCES DURING THE COLD WAR ERA
WERE DETERMINED BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
SUPERPOWERS AND THE CALCULATIONS OF THE SMALLER
STATES.
• THE SUPERPOWERS USED THEIR MILITARY POWER TO BRING
COUNTRIES INTO THEIR RESPECTIVE ALLIANCES. SOVIET
INTERVENTION IN EAST EUROPE PROVIDES AN EXAMPLE.
 INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCES
(CONTD…)
• IN EAST, AND SOUTHEAST ASIA AND IN WEST ASIA (MIDDLE
EAST), THE UNITED STATES BUILT AN ALLIANCE SYSTEM
CALLED – THE SOUTHEAST ASIAN TREATY ORGANIZATION
(SEATO) AND THE CENTRAL TREATY ORGANIZATION (CENTO)
• THE SOVIET UNION AND COMMUNIST CHINA RESPONDED BY
HAVING CLOSE RELATIONS WITH REGIONAL COUNTRIES SUCH
AS NORTH VIETNAM, NORTH KOREA AND IRAQ.
 WHY DID THE SUPERPOWERS NEED
ALLIES?

Control Over Vital Resources: The smaller countries like those located in the
Middle-East were a source of vitals resources like oil and minerals, which
would be beneficial for the superpowers to develop their arsenals and wage war.

Location: The superpowers formed alliances with such countries which were
near to each other, so that they could spy and keep an eye on each other’s
development.

Control Over Territory: The superpowers could establish control over the
territories of smaller nations which would enable them to mobilise troops and
launch weapons against their adversaries.

Economic Support: The smaller countries were regarded as economic support,

i.e. at times of need the small allies could collectively help pay for military
expenses.

Ideological Influence: The superpowers also wanted to spread their ideological

influence by forming alliances with smaller nations.
 ROLE PLAYED BY THE NON-
ALIGNED
• SOMETIMES, COUNTRIES OUTSIDE THE TWO BLOCS, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE NON-ALIGNED COUNTRIES, PLAYED A ROLE IN
REDUCING COLD WAR CONFLICTS AND AVERTING SOME GRAVE
CRISES.
• JAWAHARLAL NEHRU: ONE OF THE KEY LEADERS OF NAM,
PLAYED A CRUCIAL ROLE IN MEDIATING BETWEEN THE TWO
KOREAS.
• IN THE CONGO CRISIS, THE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL PLAYED A
KEY MEDIATORY ROLE.
 LOGIC OF RESTRAINT

• THE COLD WAR LED TO SEVERAL SHOOTING WARS, BUT THESE

DID NOT LEAD TO ANOTHER WORLD WAR.
• A GREAT MANY LIVES WERE LOST IN SOME OF THESE ARENAS
LIKE KOREA, VIETNAM AND AFGHANISTAN, BUT THE WORLD
WAS SPARED A NUCLEAR WAR AND GLOBAL HOSTILITIES.
• IT WAS THE REALIZATION ON THE SUPERPOWERS’ PART THAT
WAR BY ALL MEANS SHOULD BE AVOIDED THAT MADE THEM
EXERCISE RESTRAINT AND BEHAVE MORE RESPONSIBLY IN
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.
 ARMS RACE AND ARMS CONTROL

• SINCE THE COLD WAR DID NOT ELIMINATE RIVALRIES BETWEEN

THE TWO ALLIANCES, MUTUAL SUSPICIONS LED THEM TO ARM
THEMSELVES TO THE TEETH AND TO CONSTANTLY PREPARE FOR
WAR.
• HUGE STOCKS OF ARMS WERE CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO
PREVENT WARS FROM TAKING PLACE.
• THE TWO SIDES UNDERSTOOD THAT WAR MIGHT OCCUR IN
SPITE OF RESTRAINT. MISCALCULATION OF WEAPONS IN
POSSESSION, MISUNDERSTOOD INTENTIONS, NUCLEAR
ACCIDENTS AND ACT OF SABOTAGE ETC., WERE A CONSTANT
SOURCE OF THREAT.
 THE COLD WAR TIMELINE
• 1950-53: KOREAN WAR; DIVISION OF KOREA ALONG THE 38TH
PARALLEL.
• 1955: SIGNING OF THE BAGHDAD PACT, LATER CENTO.
• 1962: CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS.
• 1979-89: SOVIET INTERVENTION IN AFGHANISTAN.
• 1985: GORBACHEV BECOMES THE PRESIDENT OF THE USSR;
BEGINS THE REFORM PROCESS.
• 1990: UNIFICATION OF GERMANY.
• 1991: DISINTEGRATION OF THE SOVIET UNION
END OF COLD WAR ERA
 CHALLENGE TO BIPOLARITY

• THE COLD WAR HAD A TENDENCY TO DIVIDE THE WORLD’S

NATIONS INTO 2 RIVAL ALLIANCES, THE EASTERN AND WESTERN
BLOC. SEVERAL NEW COUNTRIES EMERGED DURING THE YEARS
OF THE WAR, AND MANY HAD APPEARED SHORTLY BEFORE IT, AS A
RESULT OF DECOLONISATION. THESE NATIONS COULD JOIN EITHER
OF THE ALLIANCES.
• THE COUNTRIES WHICH WISHED TO NOT FORMALLY JOIN EITHER
OF THE SIDES, CAME TOGETHER TO BECOME THE FOUNDING
MEMBERS OF THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT, AN INTERNATIONAL
FORUM OF NATIONS WHICH DO NOT OFFICIALLY ALLY
THEMSELVES WITH OR AGAINST ANY POWER BLOC. IT HAS 120
MEMBER STATES TODAY.
 ORIGINS OF THE NON-ALIGNED
MOVEMENT
• THE ALLIANCE WAS INITIALLY THOUGHT OF BY THREE
LEADERS-
1. PM OF INDIA, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
2. PRESIDENT OF EGYPT, GAMAL ABDEL NASSER
3. PRESIDENT OF YUGOSLAVIA, JOSIP TITO.
• THESE LEADERS WERE SUPPORTED BY GHANA’S LEADER
KWAME NKRUMAH, AND INDONESIA’S PRESIDENT SUKARNO.
• ALL THE LEADERS SHARED A COMMON DESIRE TO GUARD THE
INDEPENDENCE OF THEIR COUNTRIES IN A “COMPLEX
INTERNATIONAL SITUATION DEMANDING ALLEGIANCE TO
EITHER OF THE SUPERPOWERS”.
• THE FIRST SUMMIT OF NAM WAS HELD IN BELGRADE,
SERBIA IN 1961. THE NAM FORMALLY CAME INTO
EXISTENCE AS A RESULT OF THE INITIATIVE OF THE 5
AFOREMENTIONED LEADERS AT THE BELGRADE
CONFERENCE, BUILDING UPON THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE BANDUNG CONFERENCE, 1955 KNOWN AS THE
“TEN PRINCIPLES OF BANDUNG.” IT WAS THE ZENITH
OF INDO-AFRICAN COOPERATION.
• IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE BASIS OF-
a) MUTUAL CO-OPERATION AMONG THE NATIONS
b) INCREASING TENSIONS OF THE COLD WAR.
c) THE ENTRY OF SEVERAL NEW NATIONS INTO THE
INTERNATIONAL PICTURE DUE TO DECOLONISATION.
THE BELGRADE CONFERENCE WAS ATTENDED BY 25 NATIONS. THE
LATEST SUMMIT WAS HELD AT PORLAMAR, VENEZUELA FROM 13TH-
18TH SEPTEMBER, 2016.
 PRINCPLES OF NAM
🞂 THE NATIONS WISHED TO ESTABLISH A FORUM WHICH WOULD
ALLOW THEM TO NOT SIGN ANY PACT OR TREATY WITH ANY POWER
BLOC.
🞂 THE POLICY OF REFRAINING FROM AN ALLIANCE IS NOT TO BE
CONSIDERED AN ISOLATIONIST POLICY. ISOLATIONISM IS A FOREIGN
POLICY WHICH CONSIDERS THAT NATIONAL WELFARE IS POSSIBLE
ONLY IF THE AFFAIRS OF OTHER NATIONS ARE KEPT DISTANT. FOR
INSTANCE, MANY CONSIDER THE US FROM 1787 TILL THE WORLD WAR
ERA TO HAVE PRACTICED ISOLATIONISM.
🞂 THE NAM COUNTRIES WERE NOT ISOLATIONIST, SINCE THEY
ENTERED INTO VARIOUS AGREEMENTS AND PACTS WITH THE
SUPERPOWERS AND THEIR ALLIES. ISOLATIONISM IS ALSO MARKED
BY REFUSAL TO TRADE OR ACCEPT FOREIGN AID.
• THE NAM COUNTRIES ENTERED VARIOUS PACTS SUCH AS THE
INDO-SOVIET TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND COOPERATION, AND
PURCHASE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE US BY
PAKISTAN UNDER USA’S FOREIGN MILITARY SALES SCHEME.
• THE NATIONS WERE ALSO NOT ENTIRELY NEUTRAL DURING
CONFLICTS. NEUTRALITY IS THE POLICY OF NOT TAKING ANY
SIDES IN A CONFLICT. THE NAM COUNTRIES HAVE HOWEVER
OPENLY SIDED IN CONFLICTS THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
• FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WERE SEVERAL DISAGREEMENTS
AMONG THE NAM COUNTRIES DURING THE SOVIET-AFGHAN
WAR. WHILE SOVIET MILITARY ACTION WAS CONSIDERED
JUSTIFIED BY SOME AS AN “INTERVENTION” TO PROTECT THE
AFGHAN PEOPLE, OTHERS SAW IT AS AN “INVASION” TO ALLOW
THE SPREAD OF COMMUNISM.
• NAM COUNTRIES HAVE ALSO
INTERVENED TO RESOLVE FOREIGN
CONFLICTS. FOR INSTANCE, THE
INDIAN ARMY WAS SENT IN TO
MALDIVES IN 1998 TO PREVENT A
COUP OF THE COUNTRY BY FOREIGN
MERCENARIES. THE INDIAN ACTION
WAS CALLED OPERATION MEGHDOOT.
• THEREFORE, THE NON-ALIGNED
MOVEMENT WAS NOT AN
ISOLATIONIST, NEUTRAL POLICY
PRACTICED BY THIRD WORLD
COUNTRIES, BUT A POLICY OF
FORMAL NON-ALLEGIANCE, BUT
WITH ACTIVE INTENT TO INTERVENE
IN CASE OF CONFLICT AND MUTUAL
COOPERATION, ALL TO PROMOTE
 NEW INTERNATIONAL
ECONOMIC ORDER
• THE COUNTRIES OF NAM FACED CHALLENGES OF
THEIR OWN. MANY COUNTRIES OF THE NON-
ALIGNED MOVEMENT WERE LDCS( LEAST
DEVELOPED COUNTRIES) AND WERE FACED WITH
PROMOTING DEVELOPMENT AND REDUCING
POVERTY. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WAS
CRUCIAL TO REDUCE DEPENDENCY OF LDCS ON
WEALTHY NATIONS FOR AID, AND BE TRULY
INDEPENDENT.
• THE ABOVE NOTION LED TO THE ORIGIN OF THE
NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER OR NIEO.
 LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
• THE LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCS) IS A LIST OF DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES THAT, ACCORDING TO THE UNITED NATIONS, EXHIBIT
THE LOWEST INDICATORS OF SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
• A COUNTRY IS CLASSIFIED AMONG THE LEAST DEVELOPED
COUNTRIES IF IT MEETS THE THREE CRITERIA:
• POVERTY – ADJUSTABLE CRITERION BASED ON GNI PER CAPITA
AVERAGED OVER THREE YEARS. AS OF 2018 A COUNTRY MUST HAVE
GNI PER CAPITA LESS THAN US$1,025 TO BE INCLUDED ON THE LIST,
AND OVER $1,230 TO GRADUATE FROM IT.
• HUMAN RESOURCE WEAKNESS (BASED ON INDICATORS OF
NUTRITION, HEALTH, EDUCATION AND ADULT LITERACY).
• ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY (BASED ON INSTABILITY OF
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, INSTABILITY OF EXPORTS OF GOODS
AND SERVICES, ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF NON-TRADITIONAL
ACTIVITIES,ETC.).
• THE UN CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
BROUGHT OUT A REPORT IN 1972, ENTITLED “TOWARDS A NEW
TRADE POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT”. IT PROPOSED REFORMS
IN THE GLOBAL TRADING SYSTEM TO BENEFIT THE LDC
NATIONS. THE PROPOSITIONS WERE:
• GIVE THE LDCS CONTROL OVER THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES
WHICH THE WEST EXPLOITED.
• OBTAIN ACCESS TO WESTERN MARKETS SO THAT LDCS COULD
SELL THEIR PRODUCTS THERE, AND MAKE TRADE MORE
BENEFICIAL FOR POOR NATIONS.
• REDUCE COST OF TECHNOLOGY FROM THE WEST.
• GIVE LDCS A GREATER ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC
INSTITUTIONS.
 EMERGENCE OF NIEO
• DURING THE BELGRADE CONFERENCE OF 1961, THE PRIMARY
ISSUE HAD BEEN THE COLD WAR, AND ISSUES OF FINANCE AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WERE NOT GIVEN MUCH ATTENTION.
HOWEVER, BY THE 1970S ECONOMIC ISSUES WERE ONE OF THE
MAJOR TOPICS OF DISCUSSION AMONG THE NAM COUNTRIES, AND
NAM BECAME AN ECONOMIC PRESSURE GROUP REPRESENTING
THE INTERESTS OF THIRD-WORLD COUNTRIES.
• THE NIEO HAD DEMANDED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW TRADE
SYSTEM IN FAVOUR OF NAM COUNTRIES, TO REPLACE THE
BRETTON WOODS SYSTEM, WHICH WAS A SYSTEM WHICH
MANAGED COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL RELATIONS OF
DEVELOPED WESTERN NATIONS.
 DECLINE OF NIEO
• THE NIEO HOWEVER, WITNESSED A DECLINE AS A RESULT OF
OPPOSITON FROM WEALTHY COUNTRIES. THE REASON FOR
ITS FAILURE IS DEEMED TO BE THE EXPECTATION OF LDCS
FOR GREATER ECONOMIC AID THAN WESTERN COUNTRIES
WERE ALREADY GIVING THEM.
• THE NIEO ALSO WISHED TO ESABLISH A PLANNED ECONOMY,
OR CENTRALISED ECONOMY, WHERE INVESTMENT OF
GOODS AND CAPITAL TAKES PLACE ON THE BASIS OF A RIGID
PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE ECONOMY, INSTEAD OF THE FREE
MARKET SYSTEM. MOST OF THE NIEO’S PROPOSITIONS WERE
NEVER IMPLEMENTED.
INDIA AND THE COLD
WAR
 India’s response to the
cold war

Took careful and Raised its voice

particular care of against the newly
staying away from the decolonized countries
two major alliances becoming a part of
(USA and USSR) these alliances
 INDIA’S POLICY REGARDING
THE COLD WAR
• INDIA HAD GAINED INDEPENDENCE A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE END
OF THE COLD WAR, IN A TIME IN WHICH THE WORLD WAS STILL
SUFFERING FROM IT’S EFFECTS. THE COUNTRY’S ECONOMY WAS IN
SHAMBLES AND AGAINST THIS BACKDROP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TOOK
OVER THE COUNTRY WITH HOPE OF FORGING AMICABLE RELATIONSHIPS
ACROSS THE WORLD.
• INDIA HERE, ADOPTED THE POLICY OF NON ALIGNMENT, A POLICY THAT
WAS NEITHER NEGATIVE NOR PASSIVE. NEHRU REMINDED THE WORLD
THAT THIS POLICY WAS NOT ONE OF “FLEEING AWAY”.
• INDIA, ON THE CONTRARY, WAS IN FAVOUR OF ACTIVELY INTERVENING
IN WORLD AFFAIRS IN ORDER TO SOFTEN THE COLD WAR RIVALRIES.
• INDIA OFTEN TRIED TO SOFTEN THE DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE COLD WAR RIVALRIES IN ORDER TO
PREVENT THE DIFFERENCES FROM ESCALATING
INTO A FULL BLOWN WAR.
• MOREOVER, INDIAN DIPLOMATS AND OFFICIALS
WERE OFTEN MEDIATORS WHO COMMUNICATED
BETWEEN THESE RIVALS. AN EXAMPLE OF THAT
BEING THE KOREA WAR IN THE EARLY 1950S.
 ‘A GENUINE COMMONWEALTH
OF FREE AND COOPERATING
NATIONS’
• INDIA WANTED TO INVOLVE OTHER
COUNTRIES THAT HAD RECENTLY
REGAINED FREEDOM INTO THE
NON ALIGNMENT MOVEMENT
DURING THE COLD WAR.
• INDIA REPEATEDLY TRIED TO
ACTIVATE THOSE REGIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
WHO WERE NOT A PART OF EITHER
OF THE ALLIANCES OR
SUPERPOWERS.
• THIS WAS BECAUSE NEHRU
STRONGLY BELIEVED THAT THESE
UNITS COULD PLAY AN IMPORTANT
ROLE IN SOFTENING, IF NOT
ENDING THE COLD WAR
How did the non alignment
movement serve India’s
interests?
The NAM allowed India to take international decisions
and stances that served its interests rather than the
interests of the superpowers and their allies

India was also able to balance one superpower against

the other. If one superpower ignored or pressurized India,
it could easily tilt towards the other. Hence, neither
superpower could take advantage of India.
 CRITICISMS OF THE NON-
ALIGNMENT POLICY
1. 'UNPRINCIPLED’- IT WAS SAID THAT IN THE NAME OF PURSUING
NATIONAL INTERESTS, INDIA REFUSED TO TAKE A PROPER
CONCRETE STAND ON IMPORTANT INTERNATIONAL ISSUES.
2. INCONSISTENT- INDIA WAS CONSIDERED TO BE INCONSISTENT
AND TOOK CONTRADICTORY STANCES. EVEN THOUGH IT
CRITICIZED OTHER COUNTRIES FOR JOINING ALLIANCES, INDIA
ITSELF SIGNED THE TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP WITH USSR IN
AUGUST 1971 FOR 20 YEARS. THIS WAS VIEWED BY OTHERS AS
VIRTUALLY JOINING THE SOVIET UNION
--> THE GOVERNMENT’S VIEW ON THE OTHER HAND WAS THAT
INDIA NEEDED MILITARY AS WELL AS DIPLOMATIC SUPPORT
DURING THE BANGLADESH CRISIS. THIS HOWEVER, DID NOT STOP
INDIA FROM HAVING GOOD RELATIONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES.
 EVOLUTION OF THE NAM
• THE EVOLUTION OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY HAS BEEN SHAPED BY ITS
EXPERIENCE IN BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS DURING THE
COLD WAR. THIS CONTINUES TO INFLUENCE CONTEMPORARY POLICY
DEBATES AS INDIA SEEKS TO SHAPE ITS ROLE IN ASIA AND THE WORLD.
• WITH THE DISINTEGRATION OF THE USSR AND THE END OF THE COLD
WAR IN 1991, NON-ALIGNMENT, BOTH AS AN INTERNATIONAL
MOVEMENT AND AS THE CORE OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY, LOST SOME
OF ITS EARLIER RELEVANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS.
• HOWEVER, NON- ALIGNMENT CONTAINED SOME CORE VALUES AND
ENDURING IDEAS. IT WAS BASED ON A RECOGNITION THAT
DECOLONISED STATES SHARE A HISTORICAL AFFILIATION AND CAN
BECOME A POWERFUL FORCE IF THEY COME TOGETHER.
• IT MEANT THAT THE POOR AND OFTEN VERY SMALL COUNTRIES OF THE
WORLD NEED NOT BECOME FOLLOWERS OF ANY OF THE BIG POWERS,
THAT THEY COULD
LIMITED TEST BAN TREATY (LTBT)

NUCLEAR NON PLORIFERATION

TREATY

STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATIONS

TALKS I

STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION

TALKS II

STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION

TREATY I

STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION

TREATY II
 LIMITED TEST BAN TREATY
(LBT)
• BANNED NUCLEAR
WEAPON TESTS IN
THE ATMOSPHERE,
IN OUTER SPACE
AND UNDER
WATER. SIGNED BY
THE US, UK AND
USSR IN MOSCOW
ON 5 AUGUST 1963.
ENTERED INTO
FORCE ON 10
OCTOBER 1963
 NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION
TREATY (NPT)
• ALLOWS ONLY THE
NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES
TO HAVE NUCLEAR
WEAPONS AND STOPS
OTHERS FROM AQUIRING
THEM. FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THE NPT, A NUCLEAR
WEAPON STATE IS ONE
WHICH HAS
MANUFACTURED AND
EXPLODED A NUCLEAR
WEAPON OR OTHER
NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE
DEVICE PRIOR TO 1 JANUARY
1967. THERE ARE FIVE
NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES:
US, USSR (LATER RUSSIA),
UK, FRANCE AND CHINA.
SIGNED IN WASHINGTON,
LONDON, AND MOSCOW ON 1
JULY 1968. ENTERED INTO
FORCE ON 5 MARCH 1970.
EXTENDED INDEFINITELY IN
1995.
 STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATIONS TALKS I
(SALT I)
• THE FIRST ROUND OF THE
STRATEGIC ARMS
LIMITATION TALKS BEGAN
IN NOVEMBER 1969. THE
SOVIET LEADER LEONID
BREZHNEV AND THE US
PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON
SIGNED THE FOLLOWING IN
MOSCOW ON 26 MAY 1972 –
A) TREATY ON THE
LIMITATION OF ANTI-
BALLISTIC MISSILE
SYSTEMS (ABM TREATY);
AND B) INTERIM
AGREEMENT ON THE
LIMITATION OF STRATEGIC
OFFENSIVE ARMS. ENTERED
INTO FORCE ON 3 OCTOBER
1972.
 STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION TALKS II
(SALT II)
• THE SECOND ROUND
STARTED IN
NOVEMBER 1972. THE
US PRESIDENT JIMMY
CARTER AND THE
SOVIET LEADER
LEONID BREZHNEV
SIGNED THE TREATY
ON THE LIMITATION
OF STRATEGIC
OFFENSIVE ARMS IN
VIENNA ON 18 JUNE
1979
 STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION TREATY I
(START I)

• SIGNED BY THE USSR

PRESIDENT MIKHAIL
GORBACHEV AND
THE US PRESIDENT
GEORGE BUSH
(SENIOR) ON THE
REDUCTION AND
LIMITATION OF
STRATEGIC
OFFENSIVE ARMS IN
MOSCOW ON 31 JULY
1991.
 STRATEGIC ARMS REDUCTION TREATY II
(START II)
• TREATY SIGNED BY
THE RUSSIAN
PRESIDENT BORIS
YELTSIN AND THE US
PRESIDENT GEORGE
BUSH (SENIOR) ON
THE REDUCTION AND
LIMITATION OF
STRATEGIC
OFFENSIVE ARMS IN
MOSCOW ON 3
JANUARY 1993.
 INDIA’S EXTERNAL RELATIONS
• INDIA EMERGED AS A FREE NATION IN A VERY TRYING AND
CHALLENGING INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT. THE WORLD WAS
GRAPPLING WITH ISSUES OF RECONSTRUCTION HAVING
WITNESSED A DEVASTATING WAR.
• FREE INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY REFLECTED ALL THE CONCERNS
IN THE PERIOD IMMEDIATELY AFTER INDEPENDENCE.
 INDIA’S OWN IMMEDIATE
•
CONCERNS
THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT LEFT BEHIND THE LEGACY OF
MANY INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES; PARTITION CREATED ITS
OWN PRESSURES, AND THE TASK OF POVERTY ALLEVIATION
WAS ALREADY WAITING FOR FULFILLMENT.
• THIS WAS THE OVERALL CONTEXT IN WHICH INDIA STARTED
PARTICIPATING IN THE WORLD AFFAIRS AS AN INDEPENDENT
NATION-STATE.
 INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
• INDIA DECIDED TO CONDUCT ITS FOREIGN RELATIONS WITH AN
AIM TO RESPECT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF ALL OTHER NATIONS
AND TO ACHIEVE SECURITY THROUGH THE MAINTENANCE OF
PEACE.

• THIS AIM IS EVIDENT IN THE DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE

POLICY (DPSP).
 FOREIGN POLICY
• DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LACK THE REQUIRED RESOURCES TO
EFFECTIVELY ADVOCATE THEIR CONCERNS IN THE INTERNATIONAL
SYSTEM. SO THEY PURSUE MORE MODEST GOALS THAN THE ADVANCED
STATES.
• THE FOCUS IS MORE ON PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR OWN
NEIGHBORHOOD. MOREOVER, THEIR ECONOMIC AND SECURITY
DEPENDENCE ON THE MORE POWERFUL STATES OCCASIONALLY
INFLUENCES THEIR FOREIGN POLICY.

• IN THE PERIOD IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR,

MANY DEVELOPING NATIONS CHOSE TO SUPPORT THE FOREIGN
POLICY PREFERENCES OF THE POWERFUL COUNTRIES WHO WERE
GIVING THEM AIDS OR CREDIT. THIS RESULTED IN THE DIVISION
OF COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD INTO TWO CLEAR CAMPS:
• UNITED STATES AND ITS WESTERN ALLIES
 THE POLICY OF NON-ALIGNMENT
• THE INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT WAS NOT AN ISOLATED
PROCESS. IT WAS A PART OF THE WORLD WIDE STRUGGLE
AGAINST COLONIALISM AND IMPERIALISM. IT ALSO
INFLUENCED THE LIBERATION MOVEMENTS OF MANY ASIAN
AND AFRICAN COUNTRIES.
• PRIOR TO INDEPENDENCE THERE WERE CONTACTS BETWEEN
THE NATIONALIST LEADERS OF INDIA AND THOSE OF OTHER
COLONIES. FOR INSTANCE , THE CREATION OF THE INDIAN
NATIONAL ARMY ( INA) BY NETAJI SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE
DURING THE 2ND WORLD WAR WAS THE CLEAREST
MANIFESTATION OF THE LINKAGES BETWEEN INDIA AND
OVERSEES INDIANS.
 THE POLICY OF NON-ALIGNMENT
(CONTD…)

• THE NOBLE IDEAS THAT INSPIRED INDIA’S FREEDOM STRUGGLE

INFLUENCED THE MAKING OF ITS FOREIGN POLICY. BUT
INDIA’S ATTAINMENT OF INDEPENDENCE COINCIDED WITH THE
BEGINNING OF THE COLD WAR ERA.
• THE SAME PERIOD ALSO WITNESSED DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UN, THE CREATION OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS, THE EMERGENCE OF COMMUNIST CHINA AND THE
BEGINNING OF DECOLONIZATION.
 PT. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU’S ROLE

• THE FIRST PRIME MINISTER, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PLAYED A

CRUCIAL ROLE IN SETTING THE NATIONAL AGENDA. HE WAS
BOTH THE PM AND THE FOREIGN MINISTER AND THEREFORE,
EXERCISED PROFOUND INFLUENCE IN THE FORMULATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY FROM 1946 TO
1964.
• THERE WERE PARTIES AND GROUPS IN THE COUNTRY THAT
BELIEVED THAT INDIA SHOULD BE MORE FRIENDLY WITH THE
BLOC LED BY THE US BECAUSE THAT BLOC CLAIMED TO BE
PRO DEMOCRACY. AMONG THOSE WHO THOUGHT ON THESE
LINES WERE LEADERS LIKE DR. AMBEDKAR.
 NEHRU’S ROLE (CONTD…)
• SOME PARTIES WHICH WERE OPPOSSED TO COMMUNISM ALSO
WANTED INDIA TO FOLLOW A PRO US FOREIGN POLICY. FOR
EXAMPLE,THE BHARATIYA JAN SANGH AND LATER THE
SWATANTRA PARTY.
• BUT NEHRU POSSESSED CONSIDERABLE LEEWAY IN
FORMULATING FOREIGN POLICY.
 THREE OBJECTIVES
• THE THREE MAJOR OBJECTIVES OF NEHRU’S FOREIGN POLICY
WERE :
1. TO PRESERVE THE HARD EARNED SOVEREIGNTY
2. PROTECT TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, AND
3. PROMOTE RAPID ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
• NEHRU WISHED TO ACHIEVE THESE OBJECTIVES THROUGH THE
STRATEGY OF NON ALIGNMENT.
 DISTANCE FROM TWO CAMPS
• THE FOREIGN POLICY OF INDEPENDENT INDIA VIGOROUSLY
PURSUED THE DREAM OF A PEACEFUL WORLD BY ADVOCATING
THE POLICY OF NON-ALIGNMENT, BY REDUCING COLD WAR
TENSIONS AND BY CONTRIBUTING HUMAN RESOURCES TO THE
UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS.
• INDIA DID NOT JOIN EITHER OF THE TWO CAMPS DURING THE
COLD WAR ERA. IT WANTED TO KEEP AWAY FROM THE
MILITARY ALLIANCES LED BY US AND SOVIET UNION AGAINST
EACH OTHER.
 DISTANCE FROM TWO CAMPS
(CONTD…)
• INDIA ADVOCATED NON-ALIGNMENT AS THE IDEAL FOREIGN POLICY
APPROACH. THIS WAS THE DIFFICULT BALANCING ACT AND
SOMETIMES THE BALANCE DID NOT APPEAR PERFECT.
• IN 1956 WHEN BRITAIN ATTACKED EGYPT OVER THE SUEZ CANAL
ISSUE, INDIA LED THE WORLD AGAGINST THIS NEO COLONIAL
INVASION. BUT IN THE SAME YEAR WHEN THE USSR INVADED
HUNGARY INDIA DID NOT JOIN IT’S PUBLIC CONDEMNATION.
• WHILE INDIA WAS TRYING TO CONVINCE THE OTHER DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES ABOUT THE POLICY OF NON-ALIGNMENT, PAKISTAN
JOINED THE US-LED MILITARY ALLIANCES.
• THE US WAS NOT HAPPY ABOUT INDIA’S INDEPENDENT INITIATIVES
AND THE POLICY OF NON-ALIGNMENT. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A
CONSIDERABLE UNEASE IN INDO-US RELATIONS DURING THE 1950S.
THE US WAS ALSO RESENTFUL OF GROWING RELATIONS BETWEEN
INDIA AND THE USSR
 AFRO-ASIAN UNITY
• NEHRU ENVISAGED A MAJOR ROLE FOR INDIA IN WORLD
AFFAIRS AND ESPECIALLY IN ASIAN AFFAIRS. HIS ERA WAS
MARKED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTACTS BETWEEN
INDIA AND OTHER NEWLY INDEPENDENT STATES IN ASIA AND
AFRICA.
• THROUGHOUT THE 1940S AND 1950S, NEHRU HAD BEEN AN
ARDENT ADVOCATE OF ASIAN UNITY. UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP,
INDIA CONVENED THE ASIAN RELATIONS CONFERENCE IN
MARCH 1947, FIVE MONTHS AHEAD OF ATTAINING ITS
INDEPENDENCE.
• . INDIA MADE EARNEST EFFORTS FOR THE EARLY REALIZATION
OF FREEDOM OF INDONESIA FROM THE DUTCH COLONIAL
REGIME BY CONVENING AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE IN
1949 TO SUPPORT ITS FREEDOM STRUGGLE.
• INDIA WAS A STAUNCH SUPPORTER OF DECOLONIZATION
PROCESS AND FIRMLY OPPOSSED RACISM, ESPECIALLY
“OUR GENERAL POLICY IS TO AVOID ENTANGLEMENT IN POWER
POLITICS AND NOT TO JOIN ANY GROUP OF POWERS AS AGAINST
ANY OTHER GROUP. THE TWO LEADING GROUPS TODAY ARE THE
RUSSIAN BLOC AND THE ANGLO-AMERICAN BLOC. WE MUST BE
FRIENDLY TO BOTH AND YET NOT JOIN EITHER. BOTH AMERICA
AND RUSSIA ARE EXTRAORDINARILY SUSPICIOUS OF EACH
OTHER AS WELL AS OF OTHER COUNTRIES. THIS MAKES OUR
PATH DIFFICULT AND WE MAY WELL BE SUSPECTED BY EACH, OF
LEANING TOWARDS THE OTHER. THIS CANNOT BE HELPED.”
- JAWAHARLAL NEHRU
 THE CONSTITUTIONAL
•
PRINCIPLES
ARTICLE 51 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION LAYS DOWN SOME
DPSP ON ‘PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND
SECURITY’.
“THE STATE SHALL ENDEAVOR TO –
(a) PROMOTE INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
(b) MAINTAIN JUST AND HONORABLE RELATIONS BETWEEN
NATIONS
(c) FOSTER RESPECT FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TREATY
OBLIGATIONS IN THE DEALINGS OF ORGANIZED PEOPLE
WITH ONE ANOTHER; AND
(d) ENCOURAGE SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES BY
ARBITRATION.”