INDIA IN WORLD AFFAIRS

Unit I: Foundations of India's Foreign Policy

a) Basic Determinants: Geography, Economic Development, Political Traditions
b) Ideational Influences: Civilizational, Historical (Anti-imperialism) and Cultural Influences
c) Structural-Institutional Dynamics
d) Debates on Indian Strategic Thought and Culture
Unit II: Principles and Conduct of Foreign Policy
a) Non-alignment and Nehruvian Consensus
b) Post Nehru Era: Modified Structuralism
c) India’s Neighbourhood: Regional Hegemony/ Asymmetry
Unit III: New Directions in the Post-Cold War Era
a) Impact of New Economic Reforms on Foreign Policy
b) From Non-alignment to Multi-alignments
c) India’s Security Challenges: traditional and non-traditional
d) Becoming a Nuclear Power
e) Aspirations of a Rising Power
Unit IV: India’s Foreign Relations
a) Re-working the Relations with USA and Russia
b) Sino-Indian Relations
c) Pakistan-Afghanistan-Iran
d) India’s ‘Look East’/ Act East Policy
e) India’s Outreach to Africa
Unit V: India and the Emerging World Order
a) Addressing Climate Change
b) India’s Role in the Global Economic Governance
c) Role of force
SOL 2022:
1. Examine and evaluate the philosophical, civilizational, and historical influences on Indian
Foreign Policy.
2. Do you think India’s relations with Russia have changed since the Putin regime? Give
appropriate rationale for your answer.
3. Critically analyse the imperatives, nature, and aspects of India’s nuclear policy.
4. Evaluate the economic and strategic dimensions of India’s Act East Policy in the context of
pot-Cold War international scenario.
5. Examine various dimensions of ideological, historical, and geo-strategic variables of Indo-
Pakistan relations.
6. What are the major threat perceptions of Indian security? Critically analyse various non-
traditional security threats to India in contemporary time.
7. Evaluate the global and regional dynamics that have shaped Indo-US relations from
engagement to partnership.
8. How the strategic nature of bipolarity in international relations has affected India’s foreign
economic policy? Examine.

Regular 2023:
1. Is India strategically autonomous? Examine the issue of autonomy in relation to India’s
position in multilateral institutions.
2. ‘Ultimately, foreign policy is the outcome of economic policy’. In light of this statement,
examine the enduring characteristics of India’s foreign policy.
3. How do the different schools of India’s grand strategic thinking look at the role of force? Do
you think that the idea of strategic restraint in India has undergone change in recent years?
4. ‘Strategic partnerships, rather than alliances, are the core foundation of India’s external
engagement’. Examine this statement in light of the nature of India’s external threat
environment.
5. India’s policy of multi-alignment shows that it has retained the essence of non-alignment.
Comment.
6. ‘The study of the influence of domestic factors over emphasizes the role of the Prime
Minster’. Evaluate this perspective in light of Foreign Policy Analysis approach with special
focus on the theory of constructivism.
7. How the strategic nature of bipolarity in international relations affected India’s foreign
economic policy? How did India respond to the change in the international system in the
1990s?
8. What are the reasons for India’s aversion to the third pillar of Responsibility to Protect
doctrine? What is the role of identity in it?
Regular 2022:
1. International Relations in India is policy oriented. What impact does it have on theorising
India’s foreign policy?
2. Domestic factors have minimal impact on shaping India’s foreign policy. Do you agree? Give
reasons in support of your answer.
3. Rather than alliances, India prefers to follow the policy of multi-alignment. Comment.
4. Is India strategically autonomous? Do you think that strategic autonomy is more important
than strategic partnerships? Evaluate in light of the policy of non-alignment.
5. India’s external threat environment is determined by its relation with Pakistan and China.
Analyse
6. India’s internal threats are a consequence of the inability of the state in redressing the root
causes of discontent. Discuss.
7. Examine the changing patterns in the India-US relations in the past decade. How do you
view this relationship in the context of the Russia-Ukraine crisis?
8. India’s ‘Act East’ policy is a diplomatic step that aims at promoting economic, strategic and
cultural relations with the Asia-Pacific region at different levels. Comment.
Unit I: Foundations of India's Foreign Policy
a) Basic Determinants: Geography, Economic Development, Political Traditions
b) Ideational Influences: Civilizational, Historical (Anti-imperialism) and Cultural
Influences
c) Structural-Institutional Dynamics
d) Debates on Indian Strategic Thought and Culture

Questions:
1. Examine and evaluate the philosophical, civilizational, and historical influences
on Indian Foreign Policy. (SOL 2022)
2. International Relations in India is policy oriented. What impact does it have on
theorising India’s foreign policy? (Regular 2022)
3. Domestic factors have minimal impact on shaping India’s foreign policy. Do you
agree? Give reasons in support of your answer. (Regular 2022)
4. ‘The study of the influence of domestic factors over emphasizes the role of the
Prime Minster’. Evaluate this perspective in light of Foreign Policy Analysis
approach with special focus on the theory of constructivism. (Regular 2023)
5. How do the different schools of India’s grand strategic thinking look at the role
of force? Do you think that the idea of strategic restraint in India has
undergone change in recent years? (Regular 2023)
Unit I: Foundations of India's Foreign Policy

a) Basic Determinants: Geography, Economic Development, Political Traditions

1. Geography
o India’s subcontinental size, long borders with adversaries (China, Pakistan), and
proximity to vital sea lanes (Indian Ocean) shape strategic priorities.
o Geographic compulsions include securing territorial integrity, maritime dominance,
and maintaining regional stability (South Asia, Indo-Pacific).
2. Economic Development
o Post-independence economic vulnerability made self-reliance and aid diplomacy
essential (Nehruvian socialism).
o Post-1991 liberalization shifted foreign policy towards economic pragmatism—trade
agreements, strategic partnerships, investment diplomacy.
3. Political Traditions
o Democratic ethos, constitutional values, and pluralism reflect in commitment to
peaceful coexistence and multilateralism.
o Non-alignment was rooted in India's desire to pursue independent foreign policy in
line with democratic sovereignty.
4. Relevant Readings
o Jayantanuja Bandopadhyaya and Appadorai trace domestic roots like political
ideology and economic conditions in shaping post-1947 foreign policy.
o V.P. Dutt highlights how internal development goals and national security concerns
shaped early diplomacy.

b) Ideational Influences: Civilizational, Historical (Anti-imperialism), Cultural Influences

1. Civilizational Ethos
o India's ancient traditions—Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, Ahimsa, and pluralism—shape
its image as a responsible, peace-loving state.
o Moral idealism influenced Nehru’s advocacy for global peace, decolonization, and
nuclear disarmament.
2. Anti-Imperialist Legacy
o India's anti-colonial struggle shaped solidarity with the Third World, support for
decolonization, and commitment to non-alignment.
 o Colonial experiences fostered a deep suspicion of power blocs and imperialist
interventions.
3. Cultural and Religious Diversity
o Internal heterogeneity (religious, linguistic, ethnic) fosters a foreign policy that
avoids aggressive or ideological postures.
o Preference for consensus and dialogue mirrors India's internal federal and
multicultural structure.
4. Relevant Readings
o Appadorai and A.P. Rana explore the civilizational and anti-imperialist ethos
underpinning India’s early diplomatic posture.
o David Malone et al. (Oxford Handbook) offers interdisciplinary insights into how
India’s identity informs external behavior.

c) Structural-Institutional Dynamics
1. Institutional Architecture
o Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) is the nodal agency; supported by PMO, NSA,
military, intelligence agencies, and Parliament.
o Increasing roles of think tanks (e.g., IDSA), diaspora networks, and economic
ministries post-1991.
2. Role of Leadership
o Prime Ministers have historically shaped foreign policy direction (e.g., Nehru – non-
alignment, Vajpayee – nuclear realism, Modi – diaspora and neighbourhood-first
diplomacy).
o However, institutional checks (Parliament, civil service, strategic community)
moderate personalized decisions.
3. Continuity and Change
o Despite leadership changes, certain principles like strategic autonomy and
multilateralism persist.
o Growing institutionalization allows more bureaucratic coordination, but
centralization under PMO is evident in recent years.
4. Relevant Readings
o Bandopadhyaya and C. Raja Mohan detail institutional evolution and the increasing
professionalization of India’s foreign policy machinery.
 o Stephen Cohen examines how leadership and institutional capacity influence India's
strategic execution.

d) Debates on Indian Strategic Thought and Culture

1. Is India Strategically Passive or Assertive?
o Debate between strategic restraint vs proactive assertiveness.
o Traditional view: India has avoided aggressive use of force and follows a defensive
realist approach.
o Critics argue India is transitioning toward offensive realism, evident in cross-border
strikes, maritime assertiveness, and closer defense partnerships.
2. Schools of Grand Strategy
o Nehruvian Idealists: Non-alignment, world peace, moral diplomacy.
o Neo-liberals: Focus on economic integration, soft power, regional engagement.
o Realists: Emphasize national interest, military modernization, strategic partnerships
(e.g., US, Israel, Japan).
3. Strategic Restraint in Transition?
o Shift visible post-Kargil and especially after 2016 Uri and 2019 Balakot strikes.
o Strategic restraint remains part of India's self-image, but is now complemented by
tactical assertiveness.
4. Relevant Readings
o Bajpai & Pant’s India’s Foreign Policy and National Security give typologies of Indian
strategic schools.
o Sumit Ganguly and Harsh Pant analyze the evolution of India’s strategic posture in
the post-nuclear, post-9/11 era.

Answers to End-of-Unit Questions

1. Examine and evaluate the philosophical, civilizational, and historical influences on Indian
Foreign Policy.
 Civilizational ideas like non-violence, pluralism, and Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam have deeply
informed India’s diplomatic language.
 Anti-colonial struggle shaped India's solidarity with the Global South and commitment to
non-alignment.
  These ideational sources created a unique foreign policy identity based on autonomy,
peace, and multilateralism (Appadorai, Rana, Malone).

2. International Relations in India is policy oriented. What impact does it have on theorising
India’s foreign policy?
 Policy-orientation limits theoretical innovation—most writings describe what India does
rather than theorize why.
 Lack of indigenous frameworks has led to over-reliance on Western IR theories.
 Scholars like Bajpai and Pant call for blending practice with theory—highlighting India's
unique mix of strategic culture, democratic values, and moral diplomacy.

3. Domestic factors have minimal impact on shaping India’s foreign policy. Do you agree? Give
reasons.
 Disagree. Domestic factors like economic needs (e.g., post-1991 liberalization), political
ideologies (socialism vs neoliberalism), and public opinion (post-1962 nationalism, diaspora
politics) have influenced policy shifts.
 Leadership personalities and federal dynamics also affect regional diplomacy (e.g., Tamil
Nadu’s influence on Sri Lanka policy).
 Readings: Appadorai, Bandopadhyaya, Stephen Cohen.

4. The study of the influence of domestic factors overemphasizes the role of the Prime Minister.
Evaluate with reference to FPA and Constructivism.
 While PMs like Nehru and Modi have shaped foreign policy, this overlooks institutional and
ideational structures.
 Constructivism highlights that identity, norms, and national narratives shape preferences—
not just individuals.
 MEA, strategic community, media, and public discourses all co-construct foreign policy
(David Malone, Oxford Handbook; Bandopadhyaya).

5. How do different schools of India’s grand strategic thinking look at the role of force? Has
strategic restraint changed recently?
 Idealists de-emphasize force; Realists accept it as necessary for deterrence and national
interest.
 Strategic restraint—dominant from 1947 to early 2000s—has been recalibrated to include
calibrated force, as seen in surgical strikes.
 Yet, India avoids prolonged wars, preferring coercive diplomacy. (Bajpai & Pant; Ganguly; C.
Raja Mohan)
Unit II: Principles and Conduct of Foreign Policy
a) Non-alignment and Nehruvian Consensus
b) Post Nehru Era: Modified Structuralism
c) India’s Neighbourhood: Regional Hegemony/ Asymmetry

Questions:
1. India’s policy of multi-alignment shows that it has retained the essence of non-
alignment. Comment. (Regular 2023)
2. Rather than alliances, India prefers to follow the policy of multialignment.
Comment. (Regular 2022)
3. Is India strategically autonomous? Do you think that strategic autonomy is
more important than strategic partnerships? Evaluate in light of the policy of
non-alignment. (Regular 2022)
Unit II: Principles and Conduct of Foreign Policy

a) Non-alignment and Nehruvian Consensus

1. Core Philosophy of Non-Alignment
o Formulated during Cold War as a middle path between U.S. and Soviet blocs.
o Emphasized strategic autonomy, peaceful coexistence, and anti-colonial solidarity.
o Aimed to retain India’s independence in decision-making while promoting
disarmament and development.
2. Nehruvian Consensus
o Blended idealism with pragmatism—world peace, decolonization, anti-racism.
o Belief in moral leadership, multilateralism (UN), and diplomacy over military
alliances.
o Domestic imperatives (economic development, limited resources) also shaped the
preference for non-alignment.
3. Relevant Readings
o Appadorai: Highlights institutionalization of non-alignment in India’s early foreign
policy.
o A.P. Rana: Discusses the conceptual foundation of non-alignment as a normative
framework rooted in anti-imperialism and sovereign equality.
o V.P. Dutt and Sumit Ganguly: Assess how Nehru’s leadership molded India’s moral
and non-aligned stance.

b) Post-Nehru Era: Modified Structuralism

1. Shift in Strategic Thinking
o Post-1964, India adopted a more pragmatic and interest-based approach, especially
after military setbacks (1962 with China, 1965 and 1971 with Pakistan).
o Indira Gandhi’s era marked the institutionalization of realism—security and
economic concerns became more prominent.
2. Modified Structuralism
o Recognized power asymmetry, yet aimed to operate within a rules-based order.
o Foreign policy increasingly influenced by global power shifts (e.g., Indo-Soviet Treaty
of 1971, Pokhran I nuclear test in 1974).
 o Emergence of regional leadership ambitions and a move away from pure Nehruvian
idealism.
3. Strategic Pragmatism
o India's outreach to both blocs when required, while continuing to maintain non-
alignment as rhetoric.
o Indo-U.S. rapprochement in the 1990s and economic liberalization paved the way for
multialignment.
4. Relevant Readings
o Jayantanuja Bandopadhyaya: Analyses the institutional adaptation and changing
power calculus post-Nehru.
o Kanti Bajpai & Harsh Pant, and David Malone et al.: Document the evolution from
idealism to pragmatism in India’s foreign strategic posture.

c) India’s Neighbourhood: Regional Hegemony / Asymmetry

1. Geopolitical Context
o India’s size and power generate perceptions of hegemony among smaller neighbours
(Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh).
o Asymmetry is structural (military, economy), but India officially promotes “non-
reciprocity” and “Gujral Doctrine” of goodwill.
2. Regional Policy Approaches
o South Asia remains volatile—cross-border terrorism, border disputes, water-sharing
issues.
o India balances regional primacy with restraint, but has used interventions (e.g., Sri
Lanka IPKF, Maldives 1988, recent focus on Afghanistan and Myanmar).
o SAARC is limited; new focus on BIMSTEC, Act East, and bilateralism.
3. Changing Posture
o Recent years show greater assertiveness (e.g., CAA-NRC and Nepal’s map issue,
border clashes with China).
o India leverages soft power, trade, and connectivity while also countering China’s Belt
and Road in South Asia.
4. Relevant Readings
o C. Raja Mohan: Analyses the shift from strategic restraint to assertive regional
engagement.
 o Stephen Cohen: Highlights the contradiction between India’s desire for regional
leadership and its constraints.
o Rajen Harshe & K.M. Seethi: Critique India’s regional diplomacy and the asymmetry
in practice vs principle.

Answers to End-of-Unit Questions

1. India’s policy of multi-alignment shows that it has retained the essence of non-alignment.
Comment.
 Multi-alignment is a pragmatic reworking of non-alignment—India engages with all major
powers (U.S., Russia, EU, Israel, Japan) without entering binding alliances.
 Retains core Nehruvian principle of autonomy in decision-making (e.g., maintaining
defense ties with Russia while joining QUAD).
 Bajpai & Pant show that India's foreign policy now balances strategic interests with
traditional ideals, demonstrating continuity with change.
 Thus, essence of non-alignment—strategic independence—is preserved, even if the
method has evolved.

2. Rather than alliances, India prefers to follow the policy of multialignment. Comment.
 India avoids military alliances due to historical commitment to non-alignment and fear of
entrapment in great power rivalries.
 Multialignment allows flexibility—e.g., strategic cooperation with U.S. (LEMOA, COMCASA)
while continuing defense imports from Russia.
 Neighbourhood diplomacy, Indo-Pacific vision, and Look/Act East all reflect a multi-vector
approach rather than bloc alignment.
 As C. Raja Mohan argues, India’s foreign policy is increasingly shaped by issue-based
coalitions rather than permanent alignments.

3. Is India strategically autonomous? Do you think that strategic autonomy is more important
than strategic partnerships? Evaluate in light of the policy of non-alignment.
 India retains significant strategic autonomy, evident in:
o Refusal to condemn Russia over Ukraine war.
o Pursuit of energy deals independent of Western sanctions.
 o Non-alignment in U.S.-China rivalry despite participation in QUAD.
 Yet, partnerships are vital in a multipolar, interdependent world.
 Non-alignment advocated autonomy, not isolation; strategic partnerships (e.g., Indo-U.S.,
Indo-Israel) enable India to hedge risks while maintaining freedom.
 As per Malone et al., the new doctrine is "strategic autonomy within partnerships",
combining realist flexibility with normative consistency.
Unit III: New Directions in the Post-Cold War Era
a) Impact of New Economic Reforms on Foreign Policy
b) From Non-alignment to Multi-alignments
c) India’s Security Challenges: traditional and non-traditional
d) Becoming a Nuclear Power
e) Aspirations of a Rising Power

Questions:
1. ‘Ultimately, foreign policy is the outcome of economic policy’. In light of this
statement, examine the enduring characteristics of India’s foreign policy.
(Regular 2023)
2. How the strategic nature of bipolarity in international relations affected India’s
foreign economic policy? How did India respond to the change in the
international system in the 1990s? (Regular 2023)
3. What are the major threat perceptions of Indian security? Critically analyse
various non-traditional security threats to India in contemporary time. (SOL
2022)
4. Critically analyse the imperatives, nature, and aspects of India’s nuclear policy.
(SOL 2022)
5. What are the reasons for India’s aversion to the third pillar of Responsibility to
Protect doctrine? What is the role of identity in it? (Regular 2023)
Unit III: New Directions in the Post-Cold War Era

a) Impact of New Economic Reforms on Foreign Policy

1. 1991 Economic Reforms as a Watershed Moment
o Marked the shift from Nehruvian socialism to liberalization, privatization, and
globalization (LPG).
o Reshaped India’s external economic outlook—foreign policy became more market-
oriented and trade-driven.
2. Diplomacy Driven by Economic Interests
o Enhanced engagement with Southeast Asia (Look/Act East Policy), West Asia (energy
diplomacy), and Africa (development cooperation).
o FTAs, trade blocs, and global supply chains began to shape bilateral/multilateral
relations.
3. Strategic-Economic Nexus
o Economic goals are now central to India's global positioning (e.g., G20, WTO
negotiations, International Solar Alliance).
o Economic interdependence seen as a tool for strategic influence (e.g., ties with UAE,
ASEAN, EU).
4. Relevant Readings
o C. Raja Mohan, Crossing the Rubicon: India’s shift to pragmatism and economic
realism post-1991.
o Kanti Bajpai & Harsh Pant, India’s Foreign Policy: Tracks the deepening role of
economic diplomacy.
o David Malone et al., Oxford Handbook: Connects economic transformation to India’s
broader global aspirations.

b) From Non-alignment to Multi-alignments

1. End of Bipolarity → Recalibrated Non-Alignment
o Collapse of USSR and global unipolarity forced India to reinvent its strategic
framework.
o While not formally abandoning non-alignment, India adopted multi-alignment to
diversify partnerships.
2. Features of Multi-Alignment
 o Strong ties with diverse powers: U.S. (defense and technology), Russia (energy and
military), France (nuclear energy), Israel (security), and others.
o Emphasis on issue-based cooperation over ideological commitments.
3. Strategic Autonomy as Continuity
o India continues to maintain autonomy in decision-making (e.g., neutral stance in
Russia-Ukraine war, strategic ties with both U.S. and Iran).
o New foreign policy is flexible, transactional, and interest-driven.
4. Relevant Readings
o Harsh V. Pant, Indian Foreign Policy in a Unipolar World: Analyzes evolution of multi-
alignment as a strategic response to U.S. hegemony.
o Malone et al. and Bajpai & Pant detail the logic and execution of multi-alignment in
India’s contemporary strategy.

c) India’s Security Challenges: Traditional and Non-Traditional

1. Traditional Security Threats
o Border conflicts (China – LAC, Pakistan – LoC).
o Cross-border terrorism (especially from Pakistan).
o Nuclear environment in South Asia (triangular deterrence).
o Maritime threats in the Indian Ocean Region.
2. Non-Traditional Threats
o Cybersecurity, climate change, pandemics, water and energy security, internal
insurgencies (e.g., Naxalism).
o Rise in disinformation campaigns and challenges to digital sovereignty.
3. Policy Responses
o Doctrinal innovations (e.g., Cold Start Doctrine, Surgical Strikes).
o Institutions like NDMA (for disaster), CERT-IN (cybersecurity), and MoEF (for
environmental security).
o Strengthening of coastal and homeland security.
4. Relevant Readings
o Kanti Bajpai & Harsh Pant, India’s National Security: Offers detailed threat
perception and response framework.
 o Stephen P. Cohen, India: Emerging Power: Evaluates India’s evolving security
calculus.
o Ganguly (ed.): Highlights shift in security doctrine post-Kargil and Mumbai attacks.

d) Becoming a Nuclear Power

1. Nuclear Journey
o 1974: Pokhran I (“Smiling Buddha”)—peaceful nuclear explosion.
o 1998: Pokhran II—declared nuclear weapons capability and doctrinal clarity.
2. Key Features of Nuclear Policy
o No First Use (NFU) and credible minimum deterrence.
o Emphasis on restraint, survivability, and civilian oversight.
o Seeks global recognition while opposing discriminatory regimes (e.g., NPT, CTBT).
3. Global Reaction and Strategic Impact
o U.S. sanctions followed 1998 tests, but relations normalized post-2005 nuclear deal.
o Membership in export control regimes (MTCR, Wassenaar Arrangement), but still
outside NSG.
4. Relevant Readings
o Bajpai & Pant, National Security Reader: Strategic rationale and implications of
India’s nuclear doctrine.
o Sumit Ganguly, Retrospect and Prospect: Assesses domestic and global implications
of India’s nuclearization.

e) Aspirations of a Rising Power

1. Global Goals
o Permanent membership in UNSC, greater role in G20, BRICS, SCO.
o Climate leadership (ISA), digital diplomacy, defense exports.
o Cultural diplomacy (Yoga, diaspora, Buddhism).
2. Challenges to Rise
o Regional instability, China’s assertiveness, limitations in defense modernization.
o Domestic governance and economic inequalities may undercut global aspirations.
3. Balancing Identity and Realpolitik
 o Aspiration to be a “leading power” (not just balancing power) requires blending
national interest with global norms.
o India is cautious about concepts like R2P (Responsibility to Protect), favoring
sovereignty over interventionism.
4. Relevant Readings
o David Malone et al., Oxford Handbook: Frames India’s rise in terms of identity,
power, and diplomacy.
o Rajen Harshe & Seethi: Provide a critical lens on India’s rhetoric vs capabilities as a
rising power.
o Pant (ed.): India’s aspirations in the context of a shifting unipolar world order.

Answers to End-of-Unit Questions

1. ‘Ultimately, foreign policy is the outcome of economic policy’. Examine in light of enduring
characteristics of India’s foreign policy.
 Economic reforms (1991) reoriented foreign policy toward trade, FDI, and strategic markets.
 Economic compulsions now shape diplomacy (e.g., energy security in West Asia, trade
diplomacy with ASEAN, FTA push with EU).
 Enduring values like strategic autonomy and regional leadership remain, but are
increasingly guided by economic interests.
 Raja Mohan and Bajpai note that foreign policy has become an instrument of national
development.

2. How did bipolarity affect India’s foreign economic policy? How did India respond to changes
post-1990s?
 During Cold War, economic options were limited; India leaned on USSR for aid and trade.
 Collapse of USSR, BoP crisis led to LPG reforms and diversification of economic partnerships.
 India reoriented towards West and Southeast Asia for trade, energy, and technology.
 Pant and Malone highlight that India turned crisis into opportunity through multi-vector
engagement.

3. What are major threat perceptions to Indian security? Critically analyze non-traditional threats.
  Traditional threats: Cross-border terrorism, nuclear-armed neighbors, maritime
vulnerabilities.
 Non-traditional threats: Climate crisis (heatwaves, floods), cyberattacks (infrastructure and
elections), pandemics (COVID-19), energy and food security.
 Responses include internal resilience (NDMA, cybersecurity units) and international
cooperation (e.g., climate funds, Quad Cyber Working Group).
 Bajpai & Pant emphasize the growing salience of these multidimensional challenges.

4. Critically analyse the imperatives, nature, and aspects of India’s nuclear policy.
 Imperatives: Security (especially vis-à-vis China & Pakistan), international status, and
deterrence credibility.
 Nature: Civilian-led, cautious, strategic restraint. Based on NFU and minimum deterrence.
 Aspects: Emphasis on credible delivery systems, second-strike capability, and diplomatic
balancing (e.g., 123 Agreement).
 Bajpai & Ganguly argue that India’s nuclear posture is defensive yet asserts strategic self-
sufficiency.

5. Why is India averse to the third pillar of R2P? What role does identity play?
 The third pillar (intervention) is seen as a threat to sovereignty and a tool of Western
dominance.
 India’s post-colonial identity and historical support for non-intervention shape its stance.
 India supports R2P pillars I and II (prevention, capacity-building) but opposes military
interventions without UNSC mandate.
 Malone and Harshe show that identity as a civilizational state prioritizes peaceful diplomacy
over coercion.
Unit IV: India’s Foreign Relations
a) Re-working the Relations with USA and Russia
b) Sino-Indian Relations
c) Pakistan-Afghanistan-Iran
d) India’s ‘Look East’/ Act East Policy
e) India’s Outreach to Africa

Questions:
1. Do you think India’s relations with Russia have changed since the Putin
regime? Give appropriate rationale for your answer. (SOL 2022)
2. Examine various dimensions of ideological, historical, and geo-strategic
variables of Indo-Pakistan relations. (SOL 2022)
3. India’s external threat environment is determined by its relation with Pakistan
and China. Analyse. (Regular 2022)
4. Examine the changing patterns in the India-US relations in the past decade.
How do you view this relationship in the context of the Russia-Ukraine crisis?
(Regular 2022)
5. Evaluate the global and regional dynamics that have shaped Indo-US relations
from engagement to partnership. (SOL 2022)
6. India’s ‘Act East’ policy is a diplomatic step that aims at promoting economic,
strategic and cultural relations with the Asia-Pacific region at different levels.
Comment. (Regular 2022)
7. Evaluate the economic and strategic dimensions of India’s Act East Policy in the
context of pot-Cold War international scenario. (SOL 2022).
Unit IV: India’s Foreign Relations

a) Re-working the Relations with USA and Russia

India-USA Relations
 Post-Cold War transformation: From estranged democracies to strategic partners.
 Key milestones:
o 2005 Civil Nuclear Deal.
o Strategic and defense pacts (COMCASA, BECA, LEMOA).
o Quad revival (with Japan, Australia).
 Shifts post-2014:
o Focus on Indo-Pacific strategy.
o Greater defense cooperation (e.g., arms sales, joint exercises).
o Trade frictions but deepening ties in digital tech, climate, and energy.
 Ukraine war impact:
o India's neutrality strained US expectations.
o India’s strategic autonomy emphasized.
Reading insights:
 C. Raja Mohan (2003) highlights India's pivot towards the US as pragmatic realism.
 Harsh V. Pant (2009) explains India’s pursuit of strategic autonomy in a unipolar world.
 Oxford Handbook (2015) and Bajpai & Pant (2013) trace evolution from engagement to
partnership.
India-Russia Relations
 Historical ties: USSR supported India during 1971 war, defense cooperation.
 Under Putin:
o Strengthened military and nuclear collaboration.
o Russia’s tilt towards China and Pakistan, and India’s growing closeness to US strained
ties.
 Ukraine conflict:
o India balances strategic ties with Russia while aligning with US-led order.
Reading insights:
  Stephen P. Cohen (2001) notes India's balancing act.
 Oxford Handbook (2015) outlines defense and diplomatic continuity despite global
realignment.

b) Sino-Indian Relations
 1949–1962: Initial bonhomie → 1962 war → long-lasting mistrust.
 Post-1988 normalization: CBMs and border agreements.
 Border tensions persist:
o Doklam (2017), Galwan (2020), Arunachal issues.
 Strategic rivalry:
o Belt and Road Initiative vs. India’s connectivity alternatives.
o India’s alignment with US and Indo-Pacific groupings fuels Chinese apprehensions.
Reading insights:
 Bajpai & Pant (2013): Geo-strategic competition and mutual suspicions.
 Oxford Handbook (2015): China seen as both partner (economic) and challenger (strategic).

c) Pakistan-Afghanistan-Iran
India-Pakistan
 Ideological and historical roots:
o Partition trauma, Kashmir dispute, religious nationalism.
 Geo-strategic dimension:
o Cross-border terrorism, wars (1947, 1965, 1971, 1999).
o India’s outreach to Balochistan, support for Afghanistan irritates Pakistan.
 Limited engagements: Composite Dialogue, Track II diplomacy.
Afghanistan
 Strategic importance:
o Connectivity to Central Asia, countering Pakistan’s influence.
 India’s role:
o Development aid, infrastructure (e.g., Parliament building).
o Post-Taliban return: challenges to India’s investments.
Iran
 Strategic energy and transit partner.
 Chabahar Port: Gateway to Central Asia bypassing Pakistan.
 US sanctions complicate India-Iran ties.
Reading insights:
 Appadorai (1981): Roots of foreign policy embedded in partition and Cold War.
 Bajpai & Pant (2013) and Ganguly (2012): Pakistan as India’s persistent external threat.

d) India’s ‘Look East’ / Act East Policy

 Look East (1991) → Act East (2014).
 Objectives:
o Economic integration with ASEAN.
o Maritime security in Indo-Pacific.
o Connectivity (Trilateral Highway, Kaladan project).
 Engagements:
o Summit-level ASEAN interactions.
o Strategic ties with Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia.
o BIMSTEC, Mekong-Ganga Cooperation.
 Act East Policy goes beyond economics to strategic balancing against China.
Reading insights:
 C. Raja Mohan (2003): Act East as India’s eastward geopolitical reorientation.
 Oxford Handbook (2015) and Pant (2009) discuss India’s alignment with US and ASEAN as
part of larger Indo-Pacific calculus.

e) India’s Outreach to Africa

 Historical links: Non-Aligned Movement, Gandhi’s legacy.
 Recent developments:
o India-Africa Forum Summits.
o Cooperation in health, IT, peacekeeping.
o Competition with China’s Belt and Road in Africa.
  Strategic motives:
o Access to natural resources.
o Political support in multilateral fora.
o Maritime security in western Indian Ocean.
Reading insights:
 Harshe & Seethi (2009): India’s engagement shaped by South-South solidarity.
 Oxford Handbook (2015): Africa policy reflects blend of idealism and strategic necessity.

Answer to Questions

1. Do you think India’s relations with Russia have changed since the Putin regime? Give appropriate
rationale.

 Yes, the relations have evolved significantly.

 Continuity in defense: Russia remains India’s largest defense supplier.
 Strategic shifts:
o Russia’s tilt towards China and Pakistan (e.g., military exercises with Pakistan).
o India’s growing ties with USA and Quad.
 Energy cooperation: Nuclear energy deals, oil supplies continue.
 Ukraine war: India’s neutral stance strained Western ties but reaffirmed strategic
autonomy.
 Conclusion: Relations remain strong but no longer exclusive or unchallenged.

2. Examine ideological, historical, and geo-strategic variables of Indo-Pakistan relations.

 Ideological:
o Two-Nation Theory vs. India’s secularism.
o Islamic identity vs. pluralist democracy.
 Historical:
o Partition (1947), wars (1947, 1965, 1971, 1999), and enduring Kashmir dispute.
 Geo-strategic:
o Cross-border terrorism, LoC violations.
 o Pakistan’s alliance with China and US at times.
o India’s strategic presence in Afghanistan, Baluchistan rhetoric.
 Nuclear factor: Deterrence and stability-instability paradox.
 Conclusion: Relations remain conflict-prone with intermittent peace efforts.

3. India’s external threat environment is determined by its relation with Pakistan and China.
Analyse.
 China:
o Border disputes: 1962 war, Galwan (2020).
o Strategic rivalry in Indo-Pacific and South Asia.
o Economic dependence complicates strategic calculus.
 Pakistan:
o Terrorism (e.g., Pulwama, Uri), Kashmir conflict.
o Proxy wars and ideological hostility.
 Two-front threat:
o Growing China-Pakistan nexus (CPEC, joint military drills).
 India’s response:
o Military modernization, diplomatic assertiveness, regional alliances (Quad).
 Conclusion: China and Pakistan are core to India’s threat perception and defense strategy.

4. Examine changing patterns in India-US relations in the past decade. View in context of Russia-
Ukraine crisis.
 Past decade:
o From strategic partnership to comprehensive global strategic partnership.
o Key pacts: LEMOA, COMCASA, BECA.
o Deepening defense, tech, energy cooperation.
o Shared Indo-Pacific vision.
 Challenges:
o Trade frictions.
o Differing views on Russia, Iran.
  Russia-Ukraine crisis:
o US urged India to condemn Russia.
o India maintained neutrality → strategic autonomy upheld.
 Conclusion: Partnership deepening despite occasional divergences.

5. Evaluate global and regional dynamics shaping Indo-US relations from engagement to
partnership.
 Global factors:
o Post-Cold War unipolarity → convergence on terrorism, economy.
o US “pivot to Asia” aligns with India’s rise.
 Regional:
o China’s assertiveness → mutual interest in Indo-Pacific.
o Pakistan’s duplicity on terrorism brings India closer to US.
 Strategic partnership elements:
o Defense, civil nuclear deal (2005), Quad cooperation.
o High-level dialogues and military interoperability.
 Conclusion: Indo-US ties transformed by strategic convergence and mutual democratic
interests.

6. ‘Act East’ policy as a diplomatic step promoting relations with Asia-Pacific at different levels.
Comment.
 Diplomatic:
o Regular summits with ASEAN, East Asia.
o BIMSTEC, Mekong-Ganga cooperation.
 Economic:
o Trade, investment, connectivity (Trilateral Highway, Kaladan).
o Participation in RCEP talks (though India exited).
 Strategic:
o Engagement with Japan, Vietnam, maritime security.
o Counterbalance to China’s influence.
  Cultural:
o Buddhism, historical linkages revived through soft power.
 Conclusion: Comprehensive engagement reshaping India’s eastward focus.

7. Evaluate economic and strategic dimensions of Act East Policy in post-Cold War scenario.
 Economic:
o Market diversification post-1991 liberalization.
o Strengthening ties with ASEAN economies.
o Infrastructure initiatives (e.g., IMT Highway).
 Strategic:
o Countering China’s dominance in South China Sea, Indo-Pacific.
o Defense partnerships with Japan, Australia, Vietnam.
 Multilateral engagement:
o Participation in ASEAN-led forums (ADMM+, EAS).
o Quad as a strategic pillar.
 Conclusion: Act East Policy aligns India’s regional ambitions with global realignments post-
Cold War.
Unit V: India and the Emerging World Order
a) Addressing Climate Change
b) India’s Role in the Global Economic Governance
c) Role of force, Humanitarian Intervention and Terrorism

Questions:
1. Is India strategically autonomous? Examine the issue of autonomy in relation
to India’s position in multilateral institutions. (Regular 2023)
2. Is India strategically autonomous? Do you think that strategic autonomy is
more important than strategic partnerships? Evaluate in light of the policy of
non-alignment. (Regular 2022)
UNIT V: India and the Emerging World Order

a) Addressing Climate Change

 India’s international role:
o Active participant in UNFCCC, Paris Agreement, and COP Summits.
o Key advocate of “common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR)”.
o Leadership in International Solar Alliance (ISA).
 Domestic initiatives:
o National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC).
o Promotion of renewables (target: 500 GW non-fossil fuel capacity by 2030).
 Global stance:
o Balancing development needs with climate responsibility.
o Push for climate finance and technology transfer from the Global North.
 Strategic autonomy aspect:
o India chooses independent environmental pathways, not dictated by Western
models.
Relevant Readings:
 Oxford Handbook (2015): Highlights India’s role as a “responsible stakeholder” in climate
negotiations.
 Pant (2009): Explains India's climate diplomacy as part of strategic autonomy.

b) India’s Role in Global Economic Governance

 Multilateral Institutions:
o G20: Advocates for inclusive economic growth, global South interests.
o IMF/WB: Seeks quota reform, better voice for developing nations.
o WTO: Champion of food security, patent exemptions (e.g., COVID vaccines).
 Global South leadership:
o India as bridge between developed and developing world.
o Promotes South-South cooperation.
 Strategic autonomy:
 o Opposes Western economic dominance while engaging in reforms.
o Uses multilateralism to assert independent positions (e.g., vaccine diplomacy).
Relevant Readings:
 Bajpai & Pant (2013): Detail India’s engagement with global economic norms while
preserving policy space.
 Malone et al. (2015): India’s G20 participation as assertion of economic sovereignty.
 Stephen Cohen (2001): India’s aspirations to be a norm-maker, not just a norm-taker.

c) Role of Force, Humanitarian Intervention, and Terrorism

 Use of Force:
o India adheres to UN Charter principles, emphasizes sovereignty.
o Selective use: Balakot airstrikes (2019) showed calibrated military response to
terrorism.
 Humanitarian Intervention:
o Cautious approach: Opposes Western-led regime change (e.g., Libya, Iraq).
o Supports UN-led interventions with multilateral legitimacy (e.g., peacekeeping).
 Terrorism:
o Faces cross-border terrorism, particularly from Pakistan.
o Advocates for Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) at UN.
o Global counter-terror partnerships (e.g., with US, Israel, EU).
 Strategic autonomy:
o India supports global norms but resists unilateral interventions and selective
application of R2P (Responsibility to Protect).
Relevant Readings:
 Pant (2009): Analyzes India’s realist balancing between national interest and liberal norms.
 Oxford Handbook (2015): Shows India’s cautious multilateralism in conflict and
intervention.

Question Answers
1. Is India strategically autonomous? Examine the issue of autonomy in relation to India’s
position in multilateral institutions. (Regular 2023)
Yes, India exhibits strategic autonomy through its multilateral engagements.
Climate Change
 Advocates CBDR instead of Western climate mandates.
 Leads ISA without aligning with Western bloc agendas.
 Refuses net-zero deadlines that conflict with development needs.
Economic Governance
 At G20, IMF, WTO: India resists Western protectionism.
 Pushes for equity in global trade and finance.
 Supports vaccine equity, waivers on IPRs (TRIPS).
 Champions Global South concerns, e.g., food security.
Global Security and Intervention
 Opposes Western unilateral humanitarian interventions.
 Emphasizes multilateral legitimacy (UN) in peacekeeping.
 Firm yet autonomous stance on terrorism (e.g., post-Uri/Balakot strikes).
 Balances US partnerships with continued ties to Russia and Iran.
Overall Strategic Autonomy Elements
 Non-alignment legacy reinterpreted as “multi-alignment”.
 Uses global platforms to enhance sovereignty, not dilute it.
 Avoids binary alignments (e.g., US vs. Russia, China vs. Quad).

2. Is India strategically autonomous? Do you think strategic autonomy is more important than
strategic partnerships? Evaluate in light of the policy of non-alignment.
Yes, India is strategically autonomous.
1. India and Strategic Autonomy
 Yes, India maintains strategic autonomy—independent decision-making based on national
interest.
 Example: Neutral stance on Russia-Ukraine conflict, balanced ties with both US and Russia.
 Climate policy shows independence (no binding net-zero, leadership in International Solar
Alliance).
2. Strategic Autonomy vs. Strategic Partnerships
 Strategic partnerships (e.g., with US, France, Quad) are important for defense, trade, and
technology.
 However, strategic autonomy is more fundamental:
o It ensures flexibility.
o Avoids entanglement in great power rivalry.
o Protects long-term sovereignty.

3. Non-Alignment and Contemporary Policy

 Original non-alignment aimed to avoid Cold War blocs.
 Today, it's evolved into “multi-alignment”—engaging all major powers without exclusive
allegiance.
 India maintains autonomy while building issue-based partnerships.

4. Conclusion
 Strategic autonomy is essential for independent global positioning.
 Strategic partnerships are tools, not substitutes for autonomy.
 India balances both effectively in line with its evolving non-aligned legacy.