NCERT Solutions For Class 12 Political Science Chapter 7 India's External Relations

(a) Nehru had always put his faith in science and technology for rapidly building a modern India. A significant component of his industrialisation plans was the nuclear programme initiated in the late 1940s under the guidance of Homi J. Bhabha. India wanted to generate atomic energy for peaceful purposes. Nehru was against nuclear weapons. So he pleaded with the superpowers for comprehensive nuclear disarmament. When India conducted its first nuclear test in May 1974, it was termed as a peaceful explosion. India argued that it was committed to the policy of using nuclear power only for peaceful purposes.

India has opposed the international treaties aimed at non-proliferation since they were selectively applicable to the non-nuclear powers and legitimised the monopoly of the five nuclear weapons powers. Thus, India opposed the indefinite extension of the NPT in 1995 and also refused to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). India conducted a series of nuclear tests in May 1998, demonstrating its capacity to use nuclear energy for military purposes. India’s nuclear doctrine of credible minimum nuclear deterrence professes “no first use” and reiterates India’s commitment to global, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament leading to a nuclear weapons free world.

(b) Although there are minor differences among political parties about how to conduct external relations, Indian politics is generally marked by a broad agreement among the parties on national integration, protection of international boundaries, and on questions of national interest. Therefore, we find that in the decade of 1962-1972, when India faced three wars, or even later when different parties came to power from time to time, foreign policy has played only a limited role in party politics.

I would like to retain the policy of favouring peaceful world because war or terrorism is not the permanent solution of any problem. Lakhs of people lose their life due to the wrong policy decisions of policymakers. Deliberation, consultation, and diplomatic maneuvering can solve most of the problems.

I would like to retain the Nehru’s foreign policy to preserve the hard-earned sovereignty, protect territorial integrity, and promote rapid economic development because it is a result of sacrifices made during India’s struggle for freedom. Every human being deserves to be free from economic political or social constraints that retard the development of the individual. A free nation is the cherished dream of every citizen.

I would like to change the way we were dealing with India’s immediate neighbours. I would suggest policymakers to rethink and devise a long term innovative strategy for the neighbourhood.

The international community must realize its role in world peace and they must send clear cut messages that no terrorist activities are tolerated on any national soil. Once the world community is assured of a cooperative, peaceful environment, steps should be taken to intermingle the best influential citizens of these nations. A lot of cultural and economic activities are organized so that people can understand each other's similarities and differences. Sania-Shoaib kind of marriages creates an environment of friendliness. As SEZs are created to develop economic activities among nations similarly Special cultural Zones (SCZs) are created where passport less tourist access is given to neighboring nations citizens. In these places, they will share their ways of life (Festivals, rituals, etc.)

Another change I would like is a freeing up of self-imposed, historical and mental constraints on developing the relationship with any country to its full potential. Thus, India’s economic relationship with potential adversaries can be independent of its security relationship. For Example, the relationship with one country will not constrain that with others — cooperation with China will not affect that with Japan. Both will be evaluated in terms of India’s objectives of building national power.

Just as both internal and external factors guide the behaviour of an individual or a family, both domestic and international environment influence the foreign policy of a nation. The 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 foreign policy of a nation reflects the interplay of domestic and external factors. Therefore, the noble ideals that inspired India’s struggle for freedom influenced the making of its foreign policy.

India advocated non-alignment as the ideal foreign policy approach. This was a 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 protest against this neo-colonial invasion. But in the same year when the USSR invaded Hungary, India did not join its public condemnation. This proves that the conduct of foreign affairs is an outcome of a two-way interaction between domestic compulsions and prevailing international climate.

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 realisation of freedom of Indonesia from the Dutch colonial regime by convening an international conference in 1949 to support its freedom struggle. Bandung Conference marked the zenith of India’s engagement with the newly independent Asian and African nations. The Bandung Conference later led to the establishment of the NAM. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 changed the prospects for India. India made new approaches such as its ‘Look East’ policy towards the miracle economies of ASEAN.

India extended moral and material support to the freedom struggle in Bangladesh. Within ten days the Indian army had surrounded Dhaka from three sides and the Pakistani army. With Bangladesh as a free country, India declared a unilateral ceasefire. In this incident, India was not attacked by Pakistan but India intervened for the freedom of Bangladesh. This reflects India’s foreign policy has the desire to be an important regional power

As said by Jawaharlal Nehru, What does independence consist of? It consists fundamentally and basically of foreign relations. That is the test of independence. All else is local autonomy. Once foreign relations go out of your hands into the charge of somebody else, to that extent and in that measure you are not independent.

Sovereignty of the state means exercise of supreme or paramount power. It is sovereignty which gives to the state a legal status and vests it with supreme, final, ultimate and legally unlimited power over all persons, organisations and groups which inhabit its territory. Sovereignty has two dimensions i.e. internal sovereignty and external sovereignty.

By internal sovereignty means the exercise of supreme power over all the people and in the whole territory of the state. External sovereignty means supreme power of the state in the international system. External sovereignty really means sovereign equality of all the states. Sovereignty resides with the state. It is the original, absolute and indivisible supreme power of the state. Once foreign relations go out of state’s hands into the charge of somebody else the state ceases to exist.

Two reasons for conduct of foreign relations are:

The creation of the Indian National Army (INA) by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose during the Second World War was the clearest manifestation of the linkages established between India and overseas Indians during the freedom struggle. This establishment of relations with international community paved the way for India’s independence.

In order to counter the US-Pakistan-China axis, India signed a 20-year Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the Soviet Union in August 1971. This treaty assured India of Soviet support if the country faced any attack. Maintaining such relation helped India liberate Bangladesh from Pakistan and win a war.

(a) India wanted to keep away from the military alliances led by the US and the Soviet Union against each other. The foreign policy of independent India vigorously pursued the dream of a peaceful world by advocating the policy of non-alignment. India wants to keep off military blocs to act independently and try to maintain friendly relations with all countries.

(b) My view is that India needed diplomatic and possibly military support during the Bangladesh crisis and that in any case, the treaty did not stop India from having good relations with other countries including the US.

India’s non-alignment is rooted in her national interest which consists of development domestically and independence of action internationally. It has also meant a non-bloc policy, rejecting the concept of naturally on the one hand and theory of mechanical equidistance from blocs on the other.

The terms of the Indo-Soviet treaty did not violate the contents and the spirit of non-alignment as pursued by India. Article I of the treaty pledged the two parties to maintain mutual friendship and to respect each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Article IV of the treaty-bound soviet Union to respect India’s non-alignment. Under Article IX it was agreed that neither party should support any third state in a military aggression against the other party and should enter into mutual consultations, in case of such aggressions. This was the essence of non-alignment, any political and military commitments to another nation or bloc of nations, especially the great power, in the context of the cold war. Consultations certainly do not imply commitment. To say therefore that in the indo soviet treaty, ‘consultations’ alone or to take ‘effective measures’, is a commitment, in violation of India’s non-alignment is a distortion of the plain meaning of words.

The treaty is not a military alliance or even a military assistance agreement of the kind that the United States had for many years with Pakistan; nor is there in the treaty, the provision regarding co-operation in the military field. It is a treaty of non-aggression. It is a treaty-based on the sovereign equality of India and the Soviet Union.

(c) 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, nonalignment contained some core values and enduring ideas. It was based on the 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 pursue an independent foreign policy. It was also based on a resolve to democratise the international system by thinking about an alternative world order to redress existing inequities. These core ideas remain relevant even after the Cold War has ended.

Foreign policies of states may change slightly with a given leader, but ultimately, the polarity and stability of the international system will dictate how they will behave.  Foreign policy debates in minor or middle powers are virtually unnecessary because their policies are influenced more by who they are allied with and their bandwagoning preferences, rather than a given leader’s belief system.  States that are classified as major or great powers have greater flexibility in their ability to change the course of world events in some cases, but they are more concerned with the balance of power.  If they were to ignore the balance of power in the international system, they risk their power position and can precipitate war.  At the highest end of the spectrum would be a systemic hegemon, whose actions can seriously alter the landscape of the system at any given time.  In a unipolar system, the hegemon is most concerned with maintaining its position and in extending its sphere of influence to dissuade other powers from trying to balance against their power.

All of this is to say that foreign policy is not nearly as leader-centric as observers tend to believe.  The role of national leaders in foreign policy is important to note, as they typically have constitutional (or authoritarian) powers to execute foreign policy decisions.  However, all leaders are forced to make policy in the same self-interested, competitive and distrustful system.

The first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru played a crucial role in setting the national agenda. He was his foreign minister. Nehru possessed considerable leeway in formulating the foreign policy.

The 1962 war with China was a failure of India’s foreign policy. Jawaharlal Nehru as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, he exercised a profound influence in the formulation and implementation of India’s foreign policy from 1946 to 1964. Some of his colleagues, like Vallabhbhai Patel, were worried about a possible Chinese aggression in future. But Nehru thought it was ‘exceedingly unlikely’ that India will face an attack from China. For a very long time, the Chinese border was guarded by para-military forces, not the army. China launched a swift and massive invasion in October 1962 on both the disputed regions of Arunachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. Defeat in this war induced a sense of national humiliation and at the same time strengthened a spirit of nationalism. Nehru was severely criticised for his naïve assessment of the Chinese intentions and the lack of military preparedness. This incident reflected that this was a failure of the foreign policy.

In April 1965 Pakistan launched armed attacks in the Rann of Kutch area of Gujarat. This was followed by a bigger offensive in Jammu and Kashmir in August -September. Shastri ordered Indian troops to launch a counter-offensive on the Punjab border. In a fierce battle, the Indian army reached close to Lahore. UN intervened and Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistan’s General Ayub Khan signed the Tashkent Agreement, brokered by the Soviet Union, in January 1966. This was a strategic war that was won by close relations with the Soviet Union. This was a success of India’s foreign policy.

Beginning in 1970, Pakistan faced its biggest internal crisis that resulted in the Bangladesh war of 1971. To counter the US-Pakistan-China axis, India signed a 20-year Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the Soviet Union in August 1971. A full-scale war between India and Pakistan broke out in December 1971. The signing of the Shimla Agreement between Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on 3 July 1972 formalised the return of peace. A decisive victory in the war led to national jubilation and proved the success of India’s foreign policy.