India’s Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: in a Post-Cold War World Perspective

See Rajan M.S. , “The Emerging World Order”, in World Focus (New Delhi), November-December 1992 issue.

See ‘India’s Foreign Policy: The Continuing Relevance of Nonalignment”, in Rajan M.S. , Nonalignment and Nonaligned Movement in the Present World order (New Delhi, 1994), pp. 120–371.

See Rajan M.S. , “Need for a New Freedom, Freedom from foreign debt”, Mainstream (New Delhi), 8th May 1993. There is a perception (in official and some sections of non-official opinion too) that Indian economy is much stronger than other Third World countries (e. g., in Latin America) and so can resist long-term political implications of heavy indebtedness, might turn out to be an exercise in self-deception. But (as I.G. Patel observed some time ago, the Indian Government is not making arrangements simultaneously with receipt of loans for repayment of some times, one feels that the Government is not concerned (at least adequately) with the political implications of our new economic policy, to wit, to India’s nonaligned status, that indeed, we are pursuing the two policies in, so to say, two separatist compartments. This situation is not conducive to India’s long term interests and standing in world affairs.

See Rajan M.S. . India and the Commonwealth (New Delhi, 1990).

And it is also worth noting in this context that NATO forces (including Russian forces!) have taken over “Peace keeping” role from UN operations. Recently, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were admitted to the NATO membership; more states of Europe are also likely to be admitted soon.

A collateral fact is that US Cold War military alliances and the physical presence of US defence forces in various parts of the world has largely remained unaltered elsewhere-in Diego Garcia, in East Asia and the Pacific Ocean area, in Southeast Asia. Partly as a reaction to this Western move, Russia and the CIS states (most of them at least) are in the process of creating a “Eurasian Alliance”.

I am only raising a query, not seeking to suggest a solution; others would go into this issue in greater detail.

More recently, in 1997, Russia overcame this US restraint and agreed to supply these engines to India.

See Rajan M.S. , “Pragmatism in India’s Foreign Policy”, South Asia Survey (New Delhi) Vol. I, No. 1 (1994). pp. 87–100.

“The emerging World Order,” World Focus, (See also, Krauthammer’s Charles piece in Foreign Affairs (New York), 1991. He says: “The alternative to unipolarity is chaos…. The best hope for safety … is in [our] strength and will to lead a unipolar world unashamedly, laying down the rules of world order and being prepared to enforce them”. See also draft of a US Pentagon Paper published in the New York Times, reproduced in the Times of India , 9 March 1992.

This cooperation that emerged after the end of the Cold War originated in the so-called Kichleighter Proposals (September 1991) which included exchange of visits by senior military officers, a Joint Army Executive Steering Council, Staff Information Exchange, Collective Draining Information Exchange, Combined Training Activities, and so on. Strategic Analysis (New Delhi) April 1994. Formally and publicly, this cooperation is stated to be of no political significance. This can hardly be true, considering India’s opposition to such cooperation during the Cold War years. One also suspects that the educational/technical benefits might well be exaggerated for wider political reasons. It is, of course, possible (but difficult to confirm) that there was a sort of trade-off between the US proposals to nonaligned India and American softening on the Kashmir issue in recent years. But, then, such “Cooperation” would not also include equipment or technology of a high order, the US opposed Russia transferring to India the technology of the cryogenic engines for ISRO and even instituted sanctions against ISRO.

A new “Eurasian Alliance” between Russia and the CIS States is in the offing, in order to promote economic/defence cooperation, with political implications too. See N. H. 5 above.

See Rajan M.S. “India and the making of the UN Charter”, International Studies (New Delhi), Vol. 18 (3), July 1973.

One other issue on which India could take a more forthright stand (than we have actually taken) is the lack of transparency in the functioning of the Security Council since the end of the Cold War.