This article argues that India’s foreign policy preferences cannot be understood without referring to its state identity as it has evolved over time. The ambivalence that is evident throughout much of India’s post-Independence history lies in deep-seated identity sources—a unique mixture of post-colonial nationalism, civilizational exceptionalism and secular democracy. India’s identity has played out in foreign policy to place an inordinate amount of importance to strategic autonomy but with a normative aversion to power politics and use of force. This has led to an ambivalence that many observers find hard to understand. This orientation is now coming under increasing strain, because of the rise of a realist strand of thinking challenging the country’s traditional normatively driven foreign policy outlook. Realist thinking is posing as a distinct alternative that calls for a more proactive and power infused policy stance. The rise of China in India’s neighbourhood is giving greater weight to realist arguments. Although India’s core value of strategic autonomy is still in force in Indian foreign policy, the article suggests that it is taking on a different form that is more nuanced, more flexible and adaptable. As such, India may now be particularly well positioned to play the role of a ‘bridging power’ more effectively, matching its state identity with a new evolving international role. India’s membership in groups ranging from G-20 and Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) to India, Brazil, South Africa (IBSA) and ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and its being a serious contender for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, gives India distinct opportunities and status to utilize a greater mix of soft and hard power options than in the past. India may well be at the moment of overcoming its historical ambivalence to power-driven policies and purposeful action.
AbdelalRawiHerreraYoshiko M.JohnstonAlastair IainMcDermottRose (2006). Identity as a variable. Perspectives on Politics, 4(4), December, 675–711.
2.
AbdelalRawiHerreraYoshiko M.JohnstonAlastair IainMcDermottRose (2009). Measuring identity: A guide for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AndersonWalter (2010). India: A growing congruence of interests with Korea. In GangulySumit (Ed.), India’s foreign policy: Retrospect and prospect (pp. 175–205). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
4.
AshizawaKuniko (2008). When identity matter: State identity, regional institution-building and Japanese foreign policy. International Studies Review, 10(3), September, 571–598.
5.
BajpaiKantiMattooAmitabh (Eds) (1996). Securing India: Strategic thought and practice. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers.
6.
BhargavaRajeev (Ed.) (1998) Secularism and its critics. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
ChackoPriya (2011). The new internationalist nationalist: Pursuing an ethical modernity with Jawaharlal Nehru. In ShilliamRobbie (Ed.), International relations and non-western thought: Imperialism, colonialism and investigations of global modernity (pp. 178–196). New York: Routledge.
8.
ChaturvediSanjay (2005). Indian geo-politics: ‘Nation state’ and the colonial legacy. In BajpaiKantiMallavarapuSiddharth (Eds), International relations in India: Theorizing the region and the nation (pp. 238–283). New Delhi: Orient Longman.
CohenStephenDasguptaSunil (2010). Arming without aiming. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
11.
FrankAndre Gunder (1998). ReOrient: Global economy in the Asian age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
GarverJohn (2001). Protracted contest: Sino-Indian rivalry in the twentieth century. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
13.
GlaserCharles L. (2010). Rational theory of international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
HolstiK.J. (1970). National role conceptions in the study of foreign policy. International Studies, Quarterly, 14(3), September, 233–309.
15.
HymansJacques (2009). India’s soft power and vulnerability. India Review, 8(3), July–September, 234–265.
16.
IkenberryG. JohnLakeDavid A.MastandunoMichael (1988). Introduction: Approaches to explaining American foreign economic policy. International Organization42(1), Winter, 1–14.
17.
JaffrelotChristophe (2003). India’s look east policy: An Asianist strategy in perspective. India Review, 2(2), April, 55–61.
18.
KaleSunila (2009). Inside out: India’s global reorientation. India Review, 8(1), January, 43–62. KarnadBharat (2012, 13September). Nuclear correctedness. Deccan Chronicle. Available at http://bharatkarnad.com/2012/09/13/nuclear-correctness/ (accessed on 15 April 2013)
19.
KhilnaniSunil (1997). The idea of India. London: Hamish Hamilton.
20.
KhilnaniSunil (2005). India as a bridging power. In India as a new global leader. The Foreign Policy Centre, Mimeo.
21.
KrishnaS.M. (2012). India now. Speech delivered at the Carrington Endowed Lecture Series, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, 3October. Available at http://www.indianembassy.or/includes/page.php?id=2038 (accessed on 15 April 2013)
22.
KumarSatish (Ed.) (2011). India’s national security annual review 2010. New Delhi: Routledge.
23.
MahbubaniKishore (2011). Will China and India grow together or grow apart?Rediff, 13January.
24.
MahtabBharatruhari (Biju Janata Dal, Orissa) & ChowdhuryAdhir (Congress, West Bengal) (2010). Discussion for demands for grants for the ministry of external affairs. 20April. Available at http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/Debates/debatearchive.aspx (accessed on 15 April 2013)
25.
MehtaPratap Bhanu (2007). Globalization and India’s sense of self. Current History, 106(869), April, 186–187.
26.
MehtaPratap Bhanu (2009). Still under Nehru’s shadow? The absence of foreign policy frameworks in India. India Review, 8(3), July–September, 209–233.
MohanC. Raja. (2004). Crossing the Rubicon: The shaping of India’s new foreign policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
29.
MuniS.D.MunChak (2012). ASEAN-India relations: Future directions. ISAS Special Reports, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore.
30.
MuniS.D.YongTan Tai (2013). A resurgent China: South Asian perspective. New Delhi: Routledge.
NarlikarAmrita (2006). Peculiar chauvinism or strategic calculation? Explaining the negotiating strategy of a rising India. International Affairs, 82(1), January, 59–76.
33.
NorbuDawa (2005). After nationalism? Elite beliefs, state interests and international politics. In BajpaiKanti P.MallavarapuSiddharth (Eds), International relations in India: Theorising the region and nation, Vol. 2, pp. 85–91. New Delhi:Orient Longman.
34.
OllapallyDeepa (2000). India’s strategic doctrine and practice. In ThomasRaju G.C.GuptaAmit (Eds), India’s nuclear security (pp. 67–86). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
35.
OllapallyDeepa (2008). The politics of extremism in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
OllapallyDeepa (2010). The evolution of India’s relations with Russia: Tried, tested and search for balance. In GangulySumit (Ed.), India’s foreign policy: Retrospect and prospect (pp. 240–243). New Delhi: Oxford University.
37.
OllapallyDeepa M.RajagopalanRajesh. (2011). The pragmatic challenge to Indian foreign policy. The Washington Quarterly, 34(2), Spring, 145–162.
38.
OllapallyDeepa M.RajagopalanRajesh. (2012). India: Foreign policy perspectives of an ambiguous power. In NauHenry R.OllapallyDeepa M. (Eds), Worldviews of aspiring powers (pp. 73–113). New York: Oxford University Press.
PantHarsh V. (2010). India-Japan relations: A slow, but steady, transformation. In GangulySumit (Ed.), India’s foreign policy: Retrospect and prospect (pp. 206–225). New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
PardesiManjeet (2010). Southeast Asia in Indian foreign policy—positioning India as a major power in Asia. In GangulySumit (Ed.), India’s foreign policy: Retrospect and prospect (pp. 106–131). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
42.
RanaA.P. (1969). The intellectual dimensions of India’s nonalignment. Journal of Asian Studies, 28(2), February, 299–312.
43.
SchottliJivanta (2012). Vision and strategy in Indian politics: Jawaharlal Nehru’s policy choices and the designing of political institutions. London: Routledge.
44.
SenAmartya (1998). Secularism and its discontents. In BhargavaRajeev (Ed.), Secularism and its critics (pp. 454–485). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
45.
ShambaughDavid (Ed.). (2006). Power shifts: China and Asia’s new dynamics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
46.
SinghJaswant (1998). What constitutes national security in a changing world order? India’s strategic thought. Centre for the Advanced Study of India (CASI) occasional paper, No. 6, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
SkocpolTheda (1985). Bringing the state back in: Strategies of analysis in current research. In PeterEvansRueschemeyerDietrichSkocpolTheda (Eds), Bringing the state back in (pp. 3–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WendtAlexander (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), Spring, 391–425.
55.
WendtAlexander (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
