Indian Foreign Policy in Three Phases: An
Evolutionary Analysis
Introduction
Foreign policy is a critical extension of a nation’s domestic priorities and strategic worldview. Since
its independence in 1947, India’s foreign policy has evolved through three major phases—
Nehruvian idealism, realpolitik under strategic constraints, and pragmatic engagement in a
globalized world. Each phase has re ected a response to India's internal dynamics and changing
global realities.
India began its international journey amidst the Cold War, freshly decolonized and led by visionary
leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru. It sought to build an identity rooted in non-alignment, peace, and
South–South solidarity. Over time, however, geopolitical pressures and security imperatives
reshaped India’s global posture. As Sumit Ganguly puts it, India's foreign policy is an "incremental
evolution marked by periods of correction, consolidation, and recalibration."
This answer delves into the three phases of Indian foreign policy, examining their key
characteristics, events, criticisms, and the views of prominent scholars.
Phase I: Nehruvian Idealism and Non-Alignment (1947–1962)
Core Principles
The rst phase of Indian foreign policy was deeply in uenced by Jawaharlal Nehru, who believed
in a principled approach to international relations. Nehru’s worldview was shaped by anti-colonial
struggles, liberal internationalism, and an aversion to military blocs. His foreign policy emphasized:
• Non-Alignment: Refusing to join the U.S.-led or Soviet blocs.
• Moral Diplomacy: Support for peace, disarmament, and decolonization.
• Panchsheel Principles: Mutual respect, non-aggression, non-interference, equality, and
peaceful coexistence.
India took a leading role in the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and supported
newly independent nations in Africa and Asia.
Key Developments
• Recognition of People’s Republic of China (1950).
• Participation in the Bandung Conference (1955).
• Advocacy for nuclear disarmament at global platforms.
• Sino-Indian War (1962): The turning point in Nehru’s foreign policy.
fi
fl
fl
Achievements
• India gained moral credibility in the Global South.
• Laid the institutional groundwork for Indian diplomacy (e.g., Indian Foreign Service).
• Helped craft an independent identity in a bipolar world.
Criticisms
• Nehru’s faith in China’s peaceful intentions proved strategically naïve.
• Critics like C. Raja Mohan argue that India underplayed realpolitik and over-relied on
idealism.
• The lack of investment in military preparedness led to humiliation in 1962.
Thinkers' Views
• Sumit Ganguly: While Nehru established India's global voice, the absence of strategic
foresight regarding China was costly.
• K. Subrahmanyam: Described this phase as “strategic restraint” that came at the cost of
national security.
Phase II: Strategic Realism and Regional Assertiveness (1962–
1990)
Core Principles
The debacle of the Sino-Indian War marked a paradigm shift. India moved away from idealism
towards realist diplomacy grounded in military preparedness, strategic alliances, and regional
dominance.
This period saw:
• A pro-Soviet tilt during the Cold War.
• Emphasis on self-reliance in defense.
• Use of force to assert regional hegemony in South Asia.
Key Developments
• 1965 and 1971 Wars with Pakistan. The latter resulted in the creation of Bangladesh.
• Simla Agreement (1972): India committed to bilateralism with Pakistan.
• 1974 Pokhran-I nuclear test: Asserted India's nuclear aspirations.
• Interventions in:
◦ Sri Lanka via the IPKF (1987–90),
◦ Maldives (1988) against a coup.
India’s strategic partnership with the USSR deepened. The Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace and
Friendship (1971) ensured Soviet support during the Bangladesh war.
Achievements
• Regional dominance: India emerged as the preeminent South Asian power.
• Gained military strength and nuclear deterrence capability.
• Maintained a stable alignment amid Cold War pressures.
Criticisms
• India was isolated from the global economic order, missing out on the 1980s wave of
globalization.
• Over-reliance on the USSR limited diplomatic exibility.
• Economic stagnation undermined India’s global credibility.
Thinkers' Views
• Ganguly: This phase was a strategic correction to Nehruvian idealism.
• Shashi Tharoor: India's diplomacy became “high on rhetoric, low on substance”,
constrained by weak economic foundations.
• Raja Mohan: This era revealed India’s desire to be a "status quo regional power", rather
than a transformative global player.
Phase III: Economic Liberalization and Strategic Engagement
(1991–Present)
Core Principles
The 1991 balance-of-payments crisis was a watershed, forcing India to liberalize its economy.
With this came a new approach to foreign policy—one that prioritized economic interests,
strategic partnerships, and global engagement.
Core ideas included:
• Multi-alignment: Engaging with all major powers without exclusive dependence.
• Pursuit of strategic autonomy.
fl
• Leveraging diaspora diplomacy, technology, and trade.
• Evolving from Look East to Act East to engage Southeast Asia and the Indo-Paci c.
Key Developments
• India–U.S. Civil Nuclear Agreement (2005) under Manmohan Singh.
• India's increasing role in multilateral forums: BRICS, SCO, G20, Quad.
• Maritime assertiveness in the Indo-Paci c.
• Border clashes with China (e.g., Galwan 2020) and recalibration of China policy.
• G20 Presidency (2023): Highlighted India's ambition to lead the Global South.
Achievements
• India transitioned to a globally engaged power with signi cant economic and technological
capabilities.
• Maintained ties with U.S., Russia, Israel, and Iran simultaneously.
• Built strong partnerships in the Indo-Paci c as a counterbalance to China.
Criticisms
• India still lacks a clear grand strategy, often reacting rather than leading.
• Domestic issues (e.g., democratic concerns, internal unrest) sometimes erode global
credibility.
• Balancing ties with Russia amid Western sanctions and the Ukraine war tested India's multi-
alignment model.
Thinkers’ Views
• Tanvi Madan: India’s foreign policy is shaped as much by China as it is by domestic
constraints.
• Shivshankar Menon: Emphasizes a “pragmatic autonomy” model where India selectively
aligns without being aligned.
• Ganguly: Applauds the shift toward realism but warns against complacency and domestic
political in uencesundermining foreign policy coherence.
Comparative Table of the Three Phases
Phase Key Strategic Focus Major Developments Key Thinkers
Doctrine
fl
fi
fi
fi
fi
1947– Non- Moral diplomacy, UN Bandung, Panchsheel,
Nehru, Krishna Menon
1962 Alignment activism 1962 War
1962– Regional hegemony, 1971 War, Pokhran-I, Indira Gandhi, K.
Realism
1990 Soviet alignment IPKF Subrahmanyam
1991– Pragmatis Multi-alignment, economic Civil Nuclear Deal, Rao, Vajpayee, Modi,
Present m diplomacy Quad, G20 Menon
Conclusion
The trajectory of Indian foreign policy re ects a nation that has adapted and evolved based on
changing realities. From Nehru’s moral leadership in the decolonized world, to Indira Gandhi’s
regional realism, and then to post-1991 economic pragmatism, each phase built on and
sometimes corrected the previous one.
Sumit Ganguly rightly observes that Indian foreign policy is now characterized by continuity in
strategic autonomy but with greater willingness to engage globally. As India seeks a greater role
in shaping the 21st-century order, the challenge lies in crafting a consistent, long-term vision that
balances domestic priorities, strategic challenges, and global aspirations.
India and the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM): Evolution from
1947 to Present
Introduction
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was born in the crucible of the Cold War, as newly
decolonized states sought to chart an independent path in a world polarized between the United
States and the Soviet Union. India, under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, emerged as one of
NAM's founding pillars, promoting a vision of peaceful coexistence, anti-colonialism, and strategic
autonomy.
From its inception, NAM has evolved from a moral-political statement into a platform for
developing countries to advocate for a more equitable global order. However, as global power
dynamics shifted, and especially after the end of the Cold War, the relevance of NAM has been
persistently debated.
This answer traces the evolution of NAM from 1947 to the present, focusing on India’s role, key
events, criticisms, and scholarly evaluations.
fl
Phase I: Foundational Phase (1947–1962): NAM as Moral
Diplomacy
Context and Ideology
In the immediate post-independence years, India’s foreign policy was shaped by its anti-colonial
ethos, its desire for strategic autonomy, and a commitment to global peace. India refused to align
itself with either the capitalist or communist blocs.
Founding of NAM
India, along with Yugoslavia (Tito), Egypt (Nasser), Indonesia (Sukarno), and Ghana
(Nkrumah), laid the groundwork for the Non-Aligned Movement. The Bandung Conference
(1955) and the First NAM Summit (1961, Belgrade) were foundational events.
India’s Role
• Nehru provided the intellectual leadership for NAM.
• NAM was envisioned as an assertion of independent foreign policy, not isolationism.
• India used NAM to support decolonization, racial equality (e.g., South Africa), and
peaceful coexistence.
Criticism
• NAM’s early years were accused of moral posturing, with little strategic depth.
• India’s own tilt towards USSR during the 1962–90 period would later invite charges of
hypocrisy.
Thinkers' Views
• Sumit Ganguly acknowledges NAM as a natural extension of India’s post-colonial
worldview but criticizes its strategic naivety.
• C. Raja Mohan calls it “moralpolitik” that lacked realism in a polarized world.
Phase II: Strategic Use of NAM (1962–1990): Between
Idealism and Realism
Geopolitical Context
This period saw heightened Cold War tensions, decolonization in Africa, and regional con icts.
India faced wars with Pakistan (1965, 1971) and China (1962) and began to prioritize national
security and economic aid.
fl
India’s Role in NAM
• Despite signing the Indo-Soviet Treaty (1971), India maintained its commitment to NAM,
hosting the NAM Summit in Delhi (1983).
• NAM became a forum for South-South cooperation, opposing apartheid, and advocating
for the New International Economic Order (NIEO).
• India increasingly used NAM to consolidate regional leadership and secure diplomatic
support in international fora like the UN.
Key Achievements
• Global advocacy on disarmament, development, and decolonization.
• NAM became a bloc of 100+ nations, representing the “Third World” voice.
• Provided India a leadership platform distinct from both superpowers.
Criticism
• India’s Soviet tilt post-1971 contradicted its non-aligned stance.
• NAM began to lose coherence as member states aligned informally with either bloc for aid
and defense.
• The movement failed to prevent major con icts involving member states.
Thinkers’ Views
• K. Subrahmanyam saw NAM in this era as “strategic autonomy in disguise,” a balancing
act with built-in contradictions.
• Shashi Tharoor argues that NAM was increasingly rhetorical, with India using it more as
a diplomatic theatrethan a strategic guidepost.
Phase III: Post-Cold War Relevance and Pragmatic
Engagement (1991–Present)
Context
The collapse of the Soviet Union, unipolarity under U.S. dominance, and the emergence of
globalization raised questions about the relevance of NAM. India's foreign policy simultaneously
underwent a transformation with the 1991 economic liberalization, pushing it toward economic
diplomacy and strategic partnerships.
India’s Changing Posture
fl
• India distanced itself from ideological non-alignment, favoring multi-alignment with the
U.S., Russia, Israel, EU, and East Asia.
• Despite diminished centrality, India did not formally exit NAM. It continued to attend
summits and use the platform to address Global South concerns.
Key Developments
• NAM Summit in Havana (2006): India reaf rmed commitment but stressed reform of
global institutions.
• India used NAM to support:
◦ Multilateralism at the UN,
◦ WTO equity for developing countries,
◦ Climate justice for the Global South.
• COVID-19 response (2020): India supported vaccine diplomacy under the broader spirit of
NAM cooperation.
Criticism
• Relevance crisis: With ideological bipolarity gone, NAM’s role has become diffuse.
• Internal divisions: Member states often pursue divergent strategic interests (e.g., Iran vs.
Saudi Arabia).
• India’s closer ties with the U.S. and Quad membership raise questions about its continued
non-aligned identity.
Thinkers’ Views
• Tanvi Madan: India's approach is no longer non-alignment, but “issue-based alignment.”
• Shivshankar Menon: Argues India has transitioned to “strategic autonomy without
ideological baggage.”
• Raja Mohan: NAM is “dead as a strategic doctrine, alive as a political community.”
NAM in the Contemporary World: Is It Still Relevant?
Arguments for Relevance
• Represents 120+ countries, home to 55% of the world’s population.
• Useful for coordinating voices on:
◦ UN reform
fi
◦ Global South development
◦ Debt relief
◦ Vaccine equity and health diplomacy
• Offers a counter-narrative to neo-imperialism, surveillance capitalism, and strategic
coercion.
Arguments Against Relevance
• Lacks cohesion, leadership, and strategic clarity.
• Member states have diverse and con icting interests.
• No longer a decisive geopolitical bloc in a multipolar world.
India's Approach Today
• India does not abandon NAM but also does not prioritize it.
• Uses NAM as a soft-power platform for diplomacy, particularly in Africa and the Global
South.
• Advocates for “strategic autonomy” rather than classical non-alignment.
Comparative Summary Table
India's
Phase Strategic Goals Key Events Criticisms
Approach
1947– Moral Avoid bloc politics, support Bandung (1955), Belgrade Idealism, China
1962 Diplomacy decolonization (1961) miscalculation
USSR tilt
1962– Strategic Use NAM for legitimacy, Delhi NAM Summit
undermined
1990 Realism promote South-South voice (1983)
neutrality
1991– Pragmatic NAM seen as
Maintain strategic autonomy, Havana Summit (2006),
Presen Engagemen obsolete in
focus on economic interests COVID diplomacy (2020)
t t multipolarity
Conclusion
India’s engagement with the Non-Aligned Movement has been a mirror of its foreign policy
evolution. From Nehru’s idealism to Indira Gandhi’s realism, and now to Modi’s multi-
alignment pragmatism, India's role in NAM has been symbolic, strategic, and at times,
sidelined.
fl
While NAM’s relevance as a geopolitical doctrine has undoubtedly diminished, its utility as a
political and diplomatic platform for the Global South remains signi cant. India continues to
participate, albeit with less enthusiasm, keeping NAM as part of its soft power toolkit in
international forums.
As Sumit Ganguly aptly notes, India no longer follows “non-alignment” in the classical sense, but
its legacy of strategic autonomy lives on—repackaged for a multipolar, interest-driven world.
✅ Key Sources & Thinkers
• Sumit Ganguly – Indian Foreign Policy: Oxford Short Introductions
• C. Raja Mohan – Crossing the Rubicon, commentary on strategic evolution
• Shashi Tharoor – Pax Indica
• Tanvi Madan – Fateful Triangle
• Shivshankar Menon – Choices: Inside the Making of Indian Foreign Policy
Determinants of India’s Foreign Policy: A
Comprehensive Analysis
Introduction
Foreign policy is the strategic articulation of a state's external behavior based on national interests,
international conditions, and domestic compulsions. It is neither static nor ideological in isolation—
it evolves in response to geopolitical realities, leadership vision, and structural capacities.
For India, a country born amidst Partition and the Cold War, its foreign policy has re ected an
attempt to balance idealism and realism, moral leadership and strategic interest, sovereignty
and global integration. Over the decades, India’s foreign policy has been shaped by a combination
of geopolitical, historical, economic, ideological, and institutional determinants.
As Shivshankar Menon aptly states, "Foreign policy is not about grand slogans, but the disciplined
pursuit of national interest, which itself is shaped by many con icting forces."
This answer outlines the major determinants of India's foreign policy, critically evaluates their
in uence, and includes perspectives of leading scholars and strategists.
fl
fl
fi
fl
1. Geopolitical Location and Strategic Geography
🔹 Explanation:
India's unique geographic position in South Asia, bordered by China, Pakistan, and the Indian
Ocean, is a primary driver of its foreign policy.
• Northern borders: Security challenges with China (e.g., Galwan, Doklam) and Pakistan
necessitate constant strategic engagement.
• Maritime concerns: The Indian Ocean Region (IOR) is central to India’s naval diplomacy
(e.g., SAGAR doctrine, Indo-Paci c strategy).
• Neighborhood: India's relations with Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Myanmar are
in uenced by proximity, migration, and ethnic linkages.
🔹 Impact:
• Geopolitics compels India to maintain high defense preparedness and strategic autonomy.
• Drives "Neighborhood First" policy, and maritime initiatives like IORA and Quad.
🔹 Thinker’s View:
• C. Raja Mohan: Geography compels India to be a “regional power with global
ambitions.”
• K. M. Panikkar: Emphasized India's historical control over the Indian Ocean as vital to its
security.
2. Historical Legacy and Colonial Experience
🔹 Explanation:
India’s experience with colonialism, especially British imperialism, deeply informed its early
foreign policy—focusing on non-alignment, anti-imperialism, and self-determination.
🔹 Impact:
• Under Nehru, India championed decolonization and opposed military alliances.
• This legacy fostered India's leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and its
support for Palestinian and African liberation movements.
🔹 Criticism:
fl
fi
• Sometimes led to moralistic overreach and underpreparedness, especially evident in 1962
Sino-Indian War.
🔹 Thinker’s View:
• Sumit Ganguly: The anti-colonial ethos laid the foundation for India’s early foreign policy
but constrained realism.
3. Political Leadership and Ideology
🔹 Explanation:
Foreign policy often re ects the personality, ideology, and worldview of a country’s leadership.
🔹 Examples:
• Nehru: Internationalism, non-alignment, Afro-Asian solidarity.
• Indira Gandhi: Assertive realism (1971 Bangladesh War, Pokhran I).
• Narasimha Rao: Economic diplomacy, Look East.
• Atal Bihari Vajpayee: Strategic balancing with nuclear assertiveness.
• Narendra Modi: Assertive diplomacy, diaspora focus, branding India as a “Vishwaguru.”
🔹 Impact:
Leadership changes result in policy recalibrations—e.g., shift from NAM to multi-alignment.
🔹 Thinker’s View:
• Shivshankar Menon: Leadership de nes "how" to pursue national interests, even when
interests remain constant.
4. Economic Interests and Development Goals
🔹 Explanation:
India’s foreign engagements are increasingly shaped by economic needs: access to markets, energy
security, investment, and technology.
🔹 Impact:
• Post-1991 liberalization shifted focus toward economic diplomacy.
fl
fi
• Partnerships with ASEAN (Act East Policy), Gulf States, and Africa are rooted in trade,
investment, and resource access.
• India’s participation in BRICS, G20, and WTO negotiations highlights its development-
centric diplomacy.
🔹 Criticism:
• Economic interests may at times con ict with strategic or ethical positions, e.g., relations
with Myanmar’s junta or Iran.
🔹 Thinker’s View:
• Shashi Tharoor: India’s foreign policy today is “trade-led, investment-driven, and
technology-seeking.”
5. Security and Strategic Concerns
🔹 Explanation:
India faces traditional and non-traditional security threats that shape its external engagement.
🔹 Threats Include:
• Cross-border terrorism (Pakistan)
• Border disputes (China)
• Cybersecurity, piracy, climate change
• Nuclear deterrence and strategic balance (especially post-Pokhran II)
🔹 Impact:
• Led to defense partnerships (e.g., India-U.S. 2+2 Dialogue, S-400 deal with Russia)
• Modernization of military and space capabilities
• Greater engagement in Quad, Indo-Paci c security architecture
🔹 Thinker’s View:
• K. Subrahmanyam: Strategic autonomy must rest on credible deterrence and power
projection.
6. Domestic Politics and Identity
fl
fi
🔹 Explanation:
Domestic pressures, identity politics, and electoral compulsions often in uence foreign policy
decisions.
🔹 Examples:
• Diaspora diplomacy targeting Indian communities abroad (e.g., Howdy Modi event in the
U.S.)
• Cross-border water and migration issues (e.g., Teesta River with Bangladesh)
• Use of foreign policy for nationalistic mobilization (e.g., Balakot airstrikes)
🔹 Criticism:
• Politicization may undermine diplomatic consistency.
• Some decisions are seen as symbolic posturing for domestic gains.
🔹 Thinker’s View:
• Tanvi Madan: Domestic politics have “increasingly blurred the lines between internal
legitimacy and external assertion.”
7. International System and Global Order
🔹 Explanation:
India’s foreign policy is shaped by the structure of the international system—from bipolarity
(Cold War) to unipolarity (1990s) to emerging multipolarity (21st century).
🔹 Impact:
• During Cold War: Emphasis on non-alignment.
• Post-Cold War: Shift to multi-alignment and strategic partnerships.
• Present: India seeks a seat at global high tables—UNSC, NSG, and reform of multilateral
institutions.
🔹 Criticism:
• India's ambitions often face obstruction from global power politics, e.g., China blocking
India’s UNSC seat.
fl
🔹 Thinker’s View:
• C. Raja Mohan: India's ability to shape outcomes is dependent on its capacity to adapt to
and in uence the changing global order.
8. Diaspora and Soft Power
🔹 Explanation:
India’s 30+ million-strong diaspora, its cultural appeal (yoga, Bollywood), and democratic
credentials form an essential tool of soft power diplomacy.
🔹 Impact:
• Diaspora lobbying helps in U.S., UK, Gulf policy formulation.
• Cultural diplomacy fosters goodwill in Africa, Southeast Asia.
• Institutions like ICCR, MEA’s Public Diplomacy Division, and International Yoga Day
promote India’s image.
🔹 Criticism:
• Soft power is underutilized or inconsistently projected.
• Diaspora management during crises (e.g., COVID-19) exposed administrative limitations.
🔹 Thinker’s View:
• Joseph Nye (applied to India): Soft power is valuable, but must complement—not substitute
—hard power.
9. Institutions and Bureaucracy
🔹 Explanation:
The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), embassies, and intelligence agencies play a critical role
in policy formulation and implementation.
🔹 Impact:
• IFS cadre has historically been elite but small; now expanding through reforms.
• Think tanks (e.g., ORF, IDSA) and academic institutions in uence strategic thinking.
fl
fl
• Bureaucratic inertia sometimes slows policy innovation.
🔹 Criticism:
• Coordination gaps between MEA, MOD, MHA, and PMO.
• Diplomacy still over-centralized in the PMO, limiting institutional agility.
🔹 Thinker’s View:
• Shivshankar Menon: Emphasizes need for inter-agency cohesion and strategic capacity-
building
India-USA Relations: An Evolution Through Three Phases
India and the United States, the world’s largest democracies, have shared a complex and evolving
relationship. Despite early American support for India’s independence, the bilateral ties did not
immediately ourish due to Cold War geopolitical dynamics and India’s commitment to strategic
autonomy and non-alignment. The relationship can be broadly analyzed in three distinct phases:
during the Cold War, post-Cold War, and in the context of the post-9/11 world and the rise of China
as a global power.
1. India-USA Relations During the Cold War (1947–1991)
The Cold War era was marked by ideological polarization, with the US and USSR competing for
global in uence. India, as a newly independent nation, chose to follow a policy of non-alignment,
refusing to join US-led military alliances such as SEATO and CENTO. This decision, while
preserving India’s strategic autonomy, led the US to develop closer ties with Pakistan, which
became a key ally in the region.
This alliance had signi cant consequences:
• Pakistan received substantial military and economic aid from the US, fueling regional
tensions.
• The US often supported Pakistan in con icts such as the Kashmir dispute and the 1971
Indo-Pak war.
• India’s nuclear test in 1974, the “Smiling Buddha,” was met with US sanctions and
international isolation.
• Despite political differences, limited cooperation continued through US food aid (PL-480)
and loans from the World Bank during India’s economic dif culties.
fl
fl
fi
fl
fi
Thinkers’ Views:
John W. Garver notes the US-Pakistan alliance deepened India’s mistrust toward the US. Stephen
Cohen highlights India’s non-alignment as a principled yet complicated stance during bipolar global
politics. According to Kalyanaraman, this period cemented India’s insistence on strategic autonomy
and self-reliance.
2. Post-Cold War Relations (1991–2008)
The end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the USSR fundamentally altered global
geopolitics. India’s economic liberalization in 1991, in uenced by the global triumph of capitalism
and free-market ideology, opened new avenues for US-India engagement. However, challenges
persisted:
• India’s 1998 nuclear tests led to US sanctions under the “cap, freeze, and rollback” policy.
• Nevertheless, economic and diplomatic ties grew, highlighted by Prime Minister Narasimha
Rao’s 1994 visit to Washington and subsequent trade agreements.
• Defense cooperation emerged with US Defense Secretary William Perry’s visit to India in
1995 and the initiation of joint military exercises.
• The 1999 Kargil War marked a turning point, with the US supporting India diplomatically
against Pakistani aggression.
• President Bill Clinton’s visit in 2000 further strengthened bilateral relations.
Thinkers’ Views:
Sumit Ganguly emphasizes that economic reforms allowed deeper engagement, while Michael
Krepon views Kargil as pivotal for strategic cooperation. Kalyanaraman observes that pragmatic
diplomacy enabled India to balance sovereignty with partnership.
3. Post-9/11 and the Rise of China Era (2001–Present)
The September 11 attacks transformed global security priorities, and India became an important US
partner in the global war on terror. However, US support for Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan
complicated India’s security concerns due to terrorist attacks on Indian soil.
The emergence of China as a strategic competitor reshaped the US-India partnership:
• The landmark 2008 Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement ended decades of India’s
nuclear isolation, recognizing India as a responsible nuclear power.
• Defense cooperation deepened with the 2005 Defense Framework Agreement, joint naval
exercises (Malabar), and India’s designation as a Major Defense Partner in 2016.
• The Indo-Paci c region gained prominence as both countries worked to ensure freedom of
navigation and counter China’s assertive claims in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean.
• Despite growing closeness, India maintained its strategic autonomy, balancing ties with
Russia and the US.
fi
fl
• Economic ties ourished, with bilateral trade surpassing $150 billion.
Thinkers’ Views:
Ashley J. Tellis calls India a “credible partner” to balance China’s ambitions. Shivshankar Menon
highlights India’s nuanced diplomacy based on strategic autonomy, engaging powers without formal
alliances. Prime Minister Narendra Modi reiterated India’s commitment to strategic autonomy while
nurturing partnerships.
Conclusion
India-US relations have evolved from suspicion and divergence during the Cold War to a
comprehensive strategic partnership today. Shared democratic values, converging economic
interests, and mutual concerns about regional security underpin this growing partnership. India’s
strategic autonomy—the ability to independently chart its foreign policy—remains central,
enabling it to cooperate with the US while maintaining diverse global relationships.
The partnership not only strengthens bilateral ties but also contributes signi cantly to regional
stability, particularly in counterbalancing China’s rise and safeguarding the Indo-Paci c, a region
vital for global trade and security.
India–Russia Relations during Cold War and Post-Cold War
Periods
Introduction
India–Russia relations represent one of the most signi cant bilateral partnerships in Indian foreign
policy history. Forged during the Cold War under the larger context of ideological blocs and
geopolitical competition, Indo-Soviet ties were grounded in strategic convergence, shared economic
goals, and mutual distrust of Western dominance. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union in
1991, this relationship faced momentary uncertainty but was soon recalibrated to suit a multipolar,
pragmatic world order. The Cold War era was marked by high strategic and ideological alignment,
whereas the post-Cold War phase is de ned by exibility, strategic autonomy, and complex
multipolar diplomacy.
I. India–Russia Relations during the Cold War (1947–1991)
Despite India's formal commitment to non-alignment, the Cold War period witnessed a strong and
steadily growing partnership between India and the Soviet Union (USSR), rooted in political,
economic, and military cooperation.
1. Political and Strategic Convergence
fl
fi
fl
fi
fi
fi
• The ideological af nity between India’s socialist-leaning economic model and Soviet
communism created a natural alignment.
• The 1962 Sino-Indian War pushed India closer to the USSR as Western powers failed to
provide meaningful support.
• The USSR supported India's stance on Kashmir, often using its UN Security Council veto
to block anti-India resolutions.
2. The 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty
• The Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation (1971) marked a diplomatic milestone.
It ensured Soviet backing during the Bangladesh Liberation War, when India intervened
militarily against Pakistan.
• This treaty not only deterred external interference (especially from China and the US) but
also signi ed deep trust and a quasi-alliance.
3. Defense and Military Ties
• The USSR became India's largest defense partner, supplying MiG ghter jets, T-series
tanks, submarines, and missile systems.
• Around 70% of India’s military equipment came from the USSR by the 1980s.
• Technology transfer and joint production began, setting the groundwork for future military-
industrial cooperation.
4. Economic and Industrial Cooperation
• The USSR aided India’s planned economy by supporting Five-Year Plans and establishing
major public sector enterprises like the Bhilai Steel Plant.
• Trade was conducted using the rupee-rouble mechanism, making it resilient to global
currency uctuations.
5. Cultural and Educational Exchange
• There was a strong cultural connection through scholarships, academic exchanges, and
translations of Russian literature.
• The USSR’s support was instrumental in projecting India as a leading voice in the Non-
Aligned Movement.
Thus, Cold War India–USSR relations were marked by strategic depth, mutual trust, and
ideological camaraderie.
II. India–Russia Relations in the Post-Cold War Era (1991–
Present)
fl
fi
fi
fi
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 introduced challenges and opportunities, leading to a
pragmatic rede nition of bilateral relations.
1. Initial Setbacks
• Russia’s internal economic crisis and pivot to the West led to diplomatic drift.
• India’s 1991 economic reforms also led to a foreign policy diversi cation, with increased
engagement with the US and Europe.
• Russia brie y engaged Pakistan and Iran, and its support for nuclear non-proliferation
created tensions with India, especially after India's 1998 nuclear tests.
2. Strategic Revival
• By the late 1990s and early 2000s, both nations recognized the enduring value of their
relationship.
• In 2000, Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Putin signed the Declaration on Strategic
Partnership, upgraded in 2010 to a “Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership.”
3. Defense Cooperation Reaf rmed
• Russia remains India's largest defense supplier, with new areas of cooperation including:
◦ S-400 Triumf air defense system
◦ BrahMos supersonic missile (jointly developed)
◦ INS Vikramaditya aircraft carrier
◦ AK-203 assault ri e production
• Unlike Western nations, Russia has consistently offered technology transfers and local
production, respecting India’s strategic autonomy.
4. Nuclear Energy and Space Collaboration
• Russia supports India's civilian nuclear program, especially the Kudankulam Nuclear
Power Plant in Tamil Nadu.
• It also aids India’s space missions through satellite launches and space science cooperation.
5. Energy and Economic Engagement
• India is investing in Russia’s Far East region (Eastern Economic Forum).
• Trade is expanding in sectors like pharmaceuticals, oil & gas, and defense
manufacturing.
• Efforts are ongoing to revive the rupee-rouble trade mechanism, especially after Western
sanctions on Russia.
fl
fi
fl
fi
fi
6. Multilateral Cooperation
• Russia strongly backs India’s permanent membership in the UN Security Council and the
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).
• India and Russia work closely within BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
(SCO), and G20, pushing for a multipolar world order.
• Both oppose Western unilateralism and support global governance reform.
7. Emerging Challenges
• Russia’s growing closeness with China poses strategic dilemmas for India, especially post-
Galwan clashes in 2020.
• Russia’s limited criticism of Chinese expansionism has caused unease.
• India is also diversifying its defense imports, increasing reliance on US, France, and Israel,
but maintains its partnership with Russia.
Conclusion
India–Russia relations have evolved from a Cold War strategic alignment driven by ideology and
defense needs to a post-Cold War pragmatic partnership rooted in shared global interests and
multipolarity. While the Cold War era saw unprecedented trust and cooperation, the post-Cold War
world has required both countries to adapt to new geopolitical realities. Despite Russia's China tilt
and India’s outreach to the West, both continue to value their historical trust, defense collaboration,
and shared vision for a balanced international order. As global tensions rise, India–Russia relations
remain a cornerstone of India’s strategic autonomy and multipolar diplomacy.
