Comprehensive Study Material
Nehruvian Foreign Policy
Ideology, Strategy & Legacy — A UPSC Mains Perspective
Legacy IAS
Prepared by Legacy IAS — Bengaluru
01
Introduction: Nehru and India’s Foreign Policy Vision
India’s foreign policy at independence (1947) was shaped not only by the immediate demands of nation-building but also by its civilisational ethos and the ideological convictions of its first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. As both Prime Minister and External Affairs Minister, Nehru wielded unparalleled influence over shaping India’s engagement with the world.
Key Context
- Post-independence scenario: A newly decolonised nation amid Cold War bipolarity, seeking sovereign identity and development without external dependence.
- India’s civilisational outlook: Rooted in pluralism, tolerance, and a historical tradition of trade and cultural exchange — not conquest.
- Nehru as architect: His exposure to Fabian socialism, anti-imperialism, and Asian nationalism made him uniquely positioned to craft a foreign policy that was morally grounded yet strategically ambitious.
Conceptual Mind-Map
India’s Independence (1947)
→
Global Cold War Bipolarity
→
Nehru’s Foreign Policy Vision
↓
Anti-Colonialism
Strategic Autonomy
Non-Alignment
Asian Solidarity
Peaceful Coexistence
UPSC Relevance
GS-II Essay Interview
This topic is a perennial favourite in UPSC Mains. Questions often demand critical evaluation — not mere narration. Understanding Nehru’s vision holistically is essential for a nuanced answer.
02
Philosophical Foundations of Nehruvian Foreign Policy
Nehruvian foreign policy was not formulated in a vacuum — it was a synthesis of ideological streams that Nehru absorbed through his education, freedom struggle experience, and intellectual engagement with global affairs.
| Philosophy | Source / Influence | Policy Expression |
|---|---|---|
| Anti-Colonialism | Indian freedom struggle; Afro-Asian solidarity movements | Support for decolonisation in Africa & Asia; vocal critic of apartheid |
| Peaceful Coexistence | Buddhist traditions; Gandhian non-violence | Panchsheel Agreement (1954); opposition to military pacts |
| Moral Diplomacy | Gandhian ethics; Fabian socialism | Emphasis on UN-based dispute resolution; rejection of power politics |
| Asian Solidarity | Asian Relations Conference (1947); Bandung Conference (1955) | Leadership of newly independent states; advocacy for Asian voice in global affairs |
| Internationalism | Liberal education; engagement with League of Nations debates | Strong support for the United Nations; multilateral diplomacy |
Critical Evaluation
While these philosophical foundations gave India a distinctive moral voice, critics argue they sometimes prioritised idealism over material interests. The gap between moral posturing and strategic preparedness became evident in the 1962 Sino-Indian War.
03
Core Principles of Nehruvian Foreign Policy
- Strategic Autonomy: India refused to join any military bloc, preserving sovereign decision-making in foreign affairs.
- Non-Alignment: Not equidistance, but independent judgement on each issue — aligning with neither the US-led Western bloc nor the Soviet bloc.
- Peaceful Resolution of Disputes: Preference for diplomacy, negotiations, and UN mechanisms over military confrontation.
- Opposition to Military Alliances: Strong criticism of NATO, SEATO, CENTO, and bilateral military pacts as extensions of imperialism.
- Support for Decolonisation: Active advocacy for the independence of colonised peoples in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere.
Principles → Policy Choices → Outcomes
Strategic Autonomy
→
Refused to join NATO/SEATO
→
Independent diplomatic identity
Non-Alignment
→
NAM formation (1961)
→
Leadership of Global South
Peaceful Coexistence
→
Panchsheel (1954)
→
Template for bilateral treaties
Anti-Militarism
→
Low defence spending
→
Vulnerability in 1962 war
04
Panchsheel Agreement (1954)
The Panchsheel (Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence) were formally articulated in the preamble to the Agreement on Trade and Intercourse between the Tibet Region of China and India (1954). It became a cornerstone of Nehruvian diplomacy and a reference point in international law.
| Principle | Meaning | Contemporary Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Mutual respect for territorial integrity & sovereignty | No country shall violate the borders or sovereignty of another | Invoked in India-China LAC disputes; basis of UN Charter norms |
| Mutual non-aggression | States shall not attack or threaten each other | Relevant to India-Pakistan tensions; South China Sea disputes |
| Mutual non-interference | No intervention in internal affairs of other states | Debate over humanitarian intervention vs sovereignty (R2P doctrine) |
| Equality & mutual benefit | Relations based on reciprocal advantage | Foundation of South-South cooperation; BRICS, G-77 principles |
| Peaceful coexistence | States with different systems can coexist without conflict | Core of India’s multi-alignment; diplomacy with US, Russia, and China simultaneously |
Critical Limitation
China’s violation of Panchsheel principles in the 1962 war exposed the fragility of moral agreements without enforcement mechanisms. Critics argue Nehru’s trust in Panchsheel led to strategic complacency on border defence.
05
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)
The Non-Aligned Movement, formally established at the Belgrade Conference (1961), was perhaps the most significant institutional expression of Nehruvian foreign policy. Alongside Tito (Yugoslavia), Nasser (Egypt), Sukarno (Indonesia), and Nkrumah (Ghana), Nehru was a founding architect of NAM.
NAM — Conceptual Mind-Map
Cold War Bipolarity
→
Pressure to join blocs
→
Third Way needed
↓
Non-Aligned Movement
↓
Anti-Imperialism
Sovereign equality
India’s leadership role
Nuclear disarmament advocacy
Economic justice for Global South
Benefits for Newly Independent States
- Provided a collective bargaining platform for ex-colonies in the UN and international institutions
- Enabled development aid and technical cooperation without political strings
- Strengthened the moral case for disarmament and decolonisation
- Preserved the right to independent foreign policy for smaller nations
Criticism of NAM
Key Criticisms
- “Unprincipled neutrality”: Critics (especially from the West) saw NAM as a cover for pro-Soviet leanings in practice
- Internal contradictions: Some NAM members had military alliances and authoritarian regimes
- Post-Cold War relevance: After 1991, the rationale for NAM weakened; some argue it became merely a talk-shop
- India’s own shift: Indo-Soviet Treaty (1971) and India’s nuclear tests (1974, 1998) complicated the non-aligned image
06
Nehru and the Kashmir Issue
Kashmir remains the most contested legacy of Nehruvian diplomacy. Nehru’s decisions on Kashmir — particularly referring the issue to the United Nations — continue to shape India’s foreign and domestic policy.
October 1947
Tribal invasion of Kashmir backed by Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh signs the Instrument of Accession with India. Indian troops airlifted to Srinagar.
January 1948
Nehru refers the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations Security Council under Article 35, seeking mediation — a decision later widely debated.
August 1948
UNCIP passes resolution calling for ceasefire, withdrawal of Pakistani forces, and plebiscite — conditions never fully met by Pakistan.
January 1949
Ceasefire comes into effect. Line of Control (then CFL) established. Pakistan retains control over PoK/AJK.
1950s–60s
Nehru’s approach oscillates between seeking a settlement and hardening India’s position. Sheikh Abdullah’s arrest (1953) signals internal complexities.
Critical Assessment
- Positive: The Instrument of Accession gave India legal backing; the UN referral demonstrated India’s commitment to international law.
- Negative: The UN referral internationalised a bilateral issue; the ceasefire froze the status quo with Pakistan occupying parts of Kashmir; the plebiscite promise became a propaganda tool for adversaries.
- Long-term: Kashmir remains India’s most sensitive foreign policy and security challenge, with the roots of the problem traceable to decisions made under Nehru.
07
Nehruvian Foreign Policy during the Cold War
Navigating the Cold War was the central challenge of Nehruvian diplomacy. Nehru sought to maintain equidistance from both superpowers while engaging with each on India’s terms — a difficult balancing act given the era’s intense ideological pressures.
| Dimension | Relations with USA | Relations with USSR | Relations with China |
|---|---|---|---|
| Political stance | Cordial but distant; US frustrated by India’s non-alignment | Warm; ideological affinity on anti-imperialism and planned economy | Initially fraternal (“Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai”); deteriorated sharply post-1959 |
| Economic ties | Received PL-480 food aid; but rejected strings-attached aid | Major donor for steel plants, heavy industry (Bhilai) | Limited economic engagement; border trade disrupted after 1962 |
| Military dimension | US armed Pakistan (SEATO/CENTO); strained ties with India | Defence cooperation grew, especially post-1962 | 1962 war — catastrophic military defeat for India |
| Key episodes | Korean War mediation; US tilt towards Pakistan | Support on Kashmir at UNSC; Nehru-Khrushchev bonhomie | Tibet issue; Aksai Chin road; 1962 border war |
| Nehru’s assessment | Respected US democracy but opposed its Cold War militarism | Valued Soviet support but avoided formal alliance | Trusted Panchsheel initially; felt personally betrayed after 1962 |
Balancing Act — Critical Note
Nehru’s Cold War diplomacy earned India respect as a mediator (Korean War, Indochina) but also criticism for moral posturing without material power. The US-Pakistan military alliance particularly undermined India’s security, while the trust placed in China proved catastrophically misplaced in 1962.
08
Idealism vs Realism: A Critical Debate
This is the central intellectual debate surrounding Nehruvian foreign policy and a frequent theme in UPSC Mains. Was Nehru an idealist who ignored hard power, or a pragmatist who used idealism as a strategic tool?
| Dimension | Idealist View (Moralpolitik) | Realist View (Realpolitik) |
|---|---|---|
| Core belief | International relations should be governed by moral principles, law, and cooperation | International relations are driven by power, interests, and security |
| Evidence for Nehru as idealist | Panchsheel; NAM; UN referral on Kashmir; opposition to military alliances; low defence spending | — |
| Evidence for Nehru as realist | — | Annexation of Hyderabad & Goa (use of force); accepting Soviet aid; intelligence operations in Tibet; refusing plebiscite in practice |
| 1962 as turning point | Exposed failure of trust-based diplomacy with China | Forced India to accept need for military preparedness and realpolitik |
| Scholarly view | Nehru was primarily an idealist who misjudged China | Nehru was a “selective realist” who used idealism when it served India’s interests |
Balanced UPSC-ready Assessment
Nehru was neither a pure idealist nor a thoroughgoing realist. He used moral diplomacy as a force multiplier for a materially weak, newly independent country. However, his over-reliance on trust (especially vis-à-vis China) and insufficient investment in defence capacity represented genuine strategic failures. The 1962 war was a corrective moment that pushed India towards greater realism — a shift consolidated under subsequent leaders.
09
Successes of Nehruvian Foreign Policy
Key Achievements
- Global stature for India: Despite being a newly independent, economically weak nation, India gained a voice in major global forums — UN, Bandung, Geneva — far exceeding its material capabilities.
- Leadership of the Global South: India emerged as the de facto leader of decolonised nations, shaping the discourse on development, disarmament, and sovereignty.
- Strategic autonomy preserved: India successfully resisted immense pressure from both the US and USSR to join military blocs — a feat unmatched by most post-colonial states.
- Mediation & peacemaking: India played constructive roles in the Korean War armistice, Indochina peace process, and Suez Crisis — enhancing its diplomatic reputation.
- Institutional foundations: Nehru established IFS, strengthened MEA, and built diplomatic infrastructure that continues to serve India.
- Moral authority on decolonisation: India’s consistent stand against apartheid (South Africa), colonialism (Algeria, Congo), and racial discrimination earned widespread respect.
10
Failures & Criticisms
Key Failures
- China policy & 1962 debacle: The most significant failure. Nehru’s trust in Panchsheel, failure to address the border issue seriously, and the “Forward Policy” led to India’s humiliating military defeat. This shattered the Nehruvian paradigm.
- Military preparedness neglected: Defence spending remained low (~1.7% of GDP); military modernisation was neglected in favour of development spending and moral diplomacy.
- Over-reliance on moral diplomacy: Morality without power was seen as ineffective — India’s principled positions on Korea, Hungary, and Suez earned respect but not material gains.
- Kashmir internationalisation: The UN referral gave Pakistan and external powers leverage on an issue India considers bilateral.
- Tibet policy: India’s recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet (while hosting the Dalai Lama after 1959) created a contradictory position that angered China without protecting Tibetan autonomy.
- Neglect of neighbourhood: Relations with smaller neighbours (Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar) did not receive adequate strategic attention — a gap that China later exploited.
Scholarly Criticism
Scholars like Rajesh Rajagopalan and Srinath Raghavan argue that Nehru was aware of the China threat but underestimated its timeline and intensity. Others, like B.R. Nanda, maintain that Nehru’s choices were rational given India’s limited resources and the global environment. The debate remains central to understanding Indian strategic culture.
11
Nehruvian Legacy in Contemporary Indian Foreign Policy
Despite the criticisms, Nehruvian foreign policy left an enduring imprint on India’s diplomatic DNA. Many of its core principles — strategic autonomy, multilateralism, South-South cooperation — continue to animate Indian foreign policy, albeit in adapted forms.
| Dimension | Then (Nehru Era) | Now (Contemporary India) |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic autonomy | Non-alignment with any bloc | “Multi-alignment” — engaging US, Russia, and others simultaneously |
| NAM | Active leadership, ideological pillar | Formal membership retained; substantive engagement reduced; India prioritises BRICS, G20, SCO |
| China policy | Trust and moral engagement; Panchsheel | Competitive coexistence; border deterrence; economic interdependence with strategic caution |
| US relations | Distant; strained over Pakistan | Strategic partnership; defence cooperation; QUAD; yet, maintained Russian ties |
| Global South leadership | Through NAM and Bandung | Through G20 presidency (2023), Voice of Global South Summit, IBSA |
| Defence posture | Low spending; moral disarmament advocacy | Significant defence modernisation; nuclear deterrence; indigenous capability (Make in India) |
| Diplomacy style | Moralpolitik dominant | Pragmatic realism with principled rhetoric (“Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”) |
Continuity & Change
The core Nehruvian principle of strategic autonomy has survived — what has changed is its operationalisation. India today engages with all major powers without formal alliances, which is essentially non-alignment adapted for a multipolar world. The shift is from “moralpolitik” to “issue-based pragmatism.”
12
Comparative Perspective (India vs USA / China / Soviet Bloc)
| Parameter | India (Nehru) | USA | China | Soviet Union |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guiding philosophy | Moral diplomacy; non-alignment | Liberal hegemony; containment doctrine | Revolutionary nationalism → pragmatic realism | Communist internationalism; bloc solidarity |
| Alliance system | None (NAM) | NATO, SEATO, CENTO, bilateral alliances | Sino-Soviet alliance → independent path post-1960 | Warsaw Pact, bilateral communist alliances |
| Use of force | Selective (Hyderabad, Goa); mostly restrained | Extensive (Korea, Vietnam, covert operations globally) | Assertive (Korea, Tibet, India 1962, Vietnam 1979) | Extensive (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan 1979) |
| Approach to Global South | Leader and advocate | Selective engagement; Cold War proxy approach | Revolutionary solidarity → BRI-driven engagement | Aid and ideological export |
| Outcome | Moral authority, but limited material leverage | Global hegemony; but moral costs (Vietnam, CIA interventions) | Rising power; authoritarian modernisation model | Collapse (1991); overextension |
Key Insight for UPSC
India’s Nehruvian path was unique — it prioritised moral authority and multilateralism at a time when great powers relied on alliances and military force. While this limited India’s hard power, it gave India a distinctive diplomatic identity that no other post-colonial state achieved to the same degree.
13
PYQ Heat Map
Understanding Past Year Question (PYQ) trends is critical for identifying high-probability themes. Below is an indicative heat map of Nehruvian foreign policy-related questions in UPSC Mains.
| Year | Question Theme | GS Paper | Marks | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | India’s approach to non-alignment in the changing world order | GS-II | 15 | High Frequency |
| 2022 | Relevance of NAM in the contemporary multipolar world | GS-II | 15 | High Frequency |
| 2021 | India’s foreign policy — continuity and change since independence | GS-II | 15 | High Frequency |
| 2020 | Evaluate India–China relations in light of border disputes | GS-II | 15 | Moderate |
| 2018 | India’s strategic autonomy in foreign policy | GS-II | 15 | High Frequency |
| 2017 | Panchsheel and its relevance in India’s bilateral relations | GS-II | 10 | Moderate |
| 2015 | India as a leader of the developing world — assess | GS-II / Essay | 15 | Moderate |
| 2014 | Nehruvian foreign policy: idealism vs pragmatism | GS-II | 12.5 | High Frequency |
| 2013 | UN’s role in India’s foreign policy since independence | GS-II | 10 | Occasional |
| 2011 | Evaluate the foreign policy legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru | GS-II | 30 | High Frequency |
Trend Analysis
- Most frequently asked: Strategic autonomy, NAM relevance, idealism vs realism, India-China relations
- Emerging trends: Multi-alignment, Global South leadership, India in multipolar order
- Pattern: Questions have shifted from descriptive (explain Panchsheel) to analytical (critically examine relevance in today’s context)
14
UPSC Mains Questions with Answer Frameworks
10-Mark Question
“Explain the principles of Nehruvian foreign policy.”
1
Introduction (2–3 lines): Nehru shaped India’s foreign policy as PM and External Affairs Minister. His approach was rooted in anti-colonialism, moral diplomacy, and strategic autonomy.
2
Principle 1 — Non-Alignment: India refused to join either the Western or Soviet bloc, preserving sovereign decision-making. Led to NAM formation (1961).
3
Principle 2 — Panchsheel / Peaceful Coexistence: Five principles articulated in the 1954 India-China agreement — mutual respect, non-aggression, non-interference, equality, and peaceful coexistence.
4
Principle 3 — Anti-Colonialism & Decolonisation: Active support for independence movements in Africa and Asia; opposition to apartheid; Asian solidarity (Bandung Conference).
5
Principle 4 — Multilateralism: Strong faith in the United Nations and international institutions for dispute resolution and collective security.
6
Conclusion (2–3 lines): Nehruvian principles gave India a distinctive diplomatic identity. While some were tested (1962), their core — especially strategic autonomy — continues to guide Indian foreign policy.
15-Mark Question
“Critically examine Nehruvian foreign policy in the context of the Cold War.”
1
Introduction — Context (3–4 lines): India gained independence amid the emerging Cold War bipolarity. Nehru rejected bloc politics and crafted an independent path — non-alignment — seeking to maximise India’s autonomy and global influence without military entanglements.
2
Body Part A — Ideals & Approach: Panchsheel; NAM; mediation in Korea and Indochina; opposition to SEATO/CENTO; multilateral diplomacy at the UN. Nehru positioned India as a moral voice in a militarised world.
3
Body Part B — Achievements: India gained global stature disproportionate to its material power. Successfully avoided military entanglements. Led the Global South. Played constructive mediating roles.
4
Body Part C — Failures & Criticisms: Trust in China misplaced (1962 war); military unpreparedness; Kashmir internationalised via UN; moral posturing sometimes lacked strategic backing; US-Pakistan alliance undermined India’s security.
5
Body Part D — Balanced Analysis: Nehru’s policy was neither purely idealist nor entirely naive. Actions like Hyderabad/Goa annexation and accepting Soviet aid show pragmatic dimensions. The policy suited India’s constraints as a newly independent, resource-scarce nation.
6
Conclusion — Balanced View (3–4 lines): Nehruvian foreign policy was a product of its time — a creative response to Cold War pressures by a weak but ambitious state. Its greatest legacy, strategic autonomy, endures in India’s multi-alignment approach. However, the 1962 lesson — that moral diplomacy must be backed by material power — remains equally relevant.
Essay / Interview
“Is non-alignment still relevant for India in the 21st century?”
1
Define & contextualise: Distinguish between non-alignment (Cold War-era framework) and strategic autonomy / multi-alignment (contemporary practice).
2
Arguments for continued relevance: Multipolar world order; India’s need to engage with both US and Russia; avoiding entanglement in US-China rivalry; Global South leadership.
3
Arguments against: Cold War context no longer exists; India’s QUAD membership and Indo-Pacific strategy suggest closer alignment with the West; economic interdependence demands clearer positioning.
4
Conclusion: The label “non-alignment” may be outdated, but its essence — strategic autonomy and independent decision-making — remains the bedrock of Indian foreign policy. India practises “non-alignment 2.0” or “multi-alignment” — engaging all major powers without being beholden to any.
15
Conclusion & Way Forward
Lessons from Nehruvian Diplomacy
- Moral authority matters — but it must be backed by material capabilities (military, economic, technological).
- Strategic autonomy is enduring — India’s refusal to join formal alliances has served it well across changing global orders (Cold War → unipolar → multipolar).
- Trust must be verified — Panchsheel’s failure with China teaches that diplomatic agreements require enforcement mechanisms and strategic hedging.
- Multilateralism remains relevant — India’s influence in the UN, WTO, WHO, and newer groupings (BRICS, G20, SCO) traces back to Nehru’s institutional faith.
Way Forward: Pragmatism with Principles
- Multi-alignment over non-alignment: Engage with all major powers based on issue-specific convergence, not ideological affinity.
- Hard power + soft power: Continue building military and economic capabilities while leveraging India’s civilisational soft power (yoga, democracy, diaspora).
- Neighbourhood first: Address the gap Nehru left — invest deeply in South Asian and Indian Ocean region engagement to counter Chinese influence.
- Reform multilateralism: Push for UNSC reform, WTO modernisation, and Global South representation — carrying forward Nehru’s institutional legacy.
- Technology diplomacy: In the 21st century, strategic autonomy increasingly means technological sovereignty — semiconductors, AI, space, and cyber are the new frontiers of Nehruvian autonomy.
Final Word
Nehruvian foreign policy was neither a perfect blueprint nor an obsolete relic. It was the foundation upon which India built its diplomatic identity. Its greatest gift — the principle that India shall think and act independently — remains the most important inheritance for Indian policymakers in the 21st century.
16
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Nehruvian foreign policy refers to the diplomatic approach shaped by India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Its core tenets include non-alignment (not joining any military bloc), peaceful coexistence (Panchsheel), anti-colonialism, strategic autonomy, and multilateral diplomacy through the United Nations. It was designed to give newly independent India a distinctive and respected voice in global affairs without compromising sovereignty.
Non-alignment was a Cold War-era concept where India refused to formally join either the US-led Western bloc or the Soviet-led Eastern bloc. Multi-alignment is the contemporary adaptation — India engages actively with all major powers (US, Russia, EU, Japan, etc.) based on issue-specific interests rather than ideological alignment. The underlying principle of strategic autonomy is shared, but multi-alignment is more proactive and pragmatic.
Nehru placed excessive trust in Panchsheel and the “Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai” rhetoric, underestimating China’s strategic ambitions on the Tibetan plateau and Aksai Chin. He also did not invest adequately in military infrastructure along the northern borders. The 1962 war exposed these gaps — India was militarily unprepared and diplomatically shocked. The lesson: moral agreements without enforcement mechanisms and strategic hedging are insufficient for national security.
NAM’s formal relevance has diminished since the Cold War ended. However, its founding principles — sovereignty, anti-imperialism, and resistance to bloc politics — resonate in today’s multipolar world. India continues to participate in NAM but has shifted its energies to newer platforms like BRICS, G20, and the Voice of Global South Summit, which offer more tangible economic and strategic outcomes.
This is a central debate in Indian foreign policy scholarship. Nehru is often labelled an idealist due to Panchsheel, NAM, and his faith in the UN. However, his actions — annexation of Hyderabad and Goa using military force, acceptance of Soviet economic and later military aid, intelligence operations — reveal pragmatic dimensions. A balanced assessment is that Nehru was a “selective realist” who used idealism as a strategic tool for a materially weak country, but whose idealism sometimes blinded him to hard-power realities (especially regarding China).
Nehruvian foreign policy is directly relevant for GS Paper II (International Relations), Essay, and Interview. Questions frequently ask about non-alignment, Panchsheel, India-China relations, strategic autonomy, and idealism vs realism. The key to scoring well is to provide critical analysis (not just narration), use specific examples and dates, present balanced views, and link historical decisions to contemporary relevance.
The five Panchsheel principles, articulated in the 1954 India-China agreement, are: (1) Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, (2) Mutual non-aggression, (3) Mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, (4) Equality and cooperation for mutual benefit, and (5) Peaceful coexistence. These became a template for India’s bilateral treaties and influenced the Bandung Conference’s ten principles.
Nehru accepted the Instrument of Accession from Maharaja Hari Singh in October 1947 and deployed Indian troops to defend Kashmir from the tribal invasion backed by Pakistan. Controversially, he referred the matter to the UN Security Council in January 1948, which internationalised what India considers a bilateral issue. The UN resolutions called for a plebiscite (conditional on Pakistan’s withdrawal, which never happened). This decision is widely debated — while it demonstrated India’s commitment to international norms, it gave Pakistan and external powers permanent leverage on the issue.
The Forward Policy was India’s military strategy of establishing border outposts in disputed areas along the India-China border, particularly in Aksai Chin and NEFA (now Arunachal Pradesh), to assert territorial claims. The policy was implemented without adequate military backing, intelligence assessment, or strategic preparation. China responded with a massive military offensive in October 1962, resulting in India’s humiliating defeat. The Forward Policy is widely seen as a case study in the gap between political ambition and military capacity.
For a 10-mark question: Brief intro (2–3 lines) → 3–4 core points with examples → Conclusion linking to contemporary relevance. For a 15-mark question: Contextual intro → Body with sub-sections (ideals, achievements, failures) → Critical analysis → Balanced conclusion. Always include specific dates, agreements, and events. Use keywords like “strategic autonomy,” “Panchsheel,” “non-alignment.” Critically evaluate — don’t just narrate. Link past to present (e.g., NAM to multi-alignment). Diagrams/timelines can earn bonus marks if time permits.
