Class 12 Political Science Book 2 Chapter 4 India’s External Relations Short Notes

Article 51 lays down Directive Principles of State Policy on ‘Promotion of international
peace and security’. “The State shall endeavour to –

1. Promote international peace and security
2. Maintain just and honourable relations between nations
3. Foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised
   people with one another; and
4. Encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.”

The box then asks how well the Indian state lived up to these principles in the first two decades
after Independence. The chapter’s own aim statement echoes it: India decided to conduct its
foreign relations so as to respect the sovereignty of all other nations and to achieve
security through the maintenance of peace.

The Indian national movement was not an isolated process. It was part of the worldwide
struggle against colonialism and imperialism, and it influenced liberation movements in many Asian
and African countries. The clearest proof of the linkages with overseas Indians was the creation of
the Indian National Army (INA) by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose during the Second World
War.

Nehru was his own foreign minister and shaped policy from 1946 to 1964. His three
objectives: preserve the hard-earned sovereignty, protect territorial integrity,
promote rapid economic development, all through the strategy of non-alignment.

Not everyone agreed. Dr Ambedkar was among those who thought India should be more friendly
with the US-led bloc because it claimed to be pro-democracy, and the Bharatiya Jan Sangh and
later the Swatantra Party, both opposed to communism, wanted a pro-US foreign policy. But
Nehru possessed considerable leeway.

Nehru, letter to K. P. S. Menon, January 1947. “Our general policy is to avoid
entanglement in power politics and not to join any group of powers as against any other group…
We must be friendly to both and yet not join either.” He adds that both America and Russia
are suspicious of each other and of everyone else, so “This makes our path difficult”.

Nehru, Constituent Assembly, March 1949. “What does independence consist of? It
consists fundamentally and basically of foreign relations. That is the test of independence. All else
is local autonomy.” This is the quote Exercise Question 3 is built on.

Given India’s size, location and power potential, Nehru envisaged a major role in
world affairs. March 1947: the Asian Relations Conference, five months before independence.
1949: an international conference for Indonesia’s freedom from the Dutch colonial
regime. Throughout, India was a staunch supporter of decolonisation and firmly opposed
racism, especially apartheid in South Africa. Then Bandung 1955, and Belgrade,
September 1961.

The margin quote from C. Rajagopalachari’s letter to Edwina Mountbatten, 1950:
“a country without material, men or money – the three means of power – is now
fast coming to be recognised as the biggest moral power in the civilised world …her word
listened to with respect in the councils of the great.”

The cover photograph belongs here too. Taken at a meeting of nonaligned nations in New
York, October 1960, it shows Nehru with Nkrumah from Ghana, Nasser from Egypt, Sukarno from
Indonesia and Tito from Yugoslavia, and the caption says these five comprised the core
leadership of the NAM.

Tibet is the plateau of the central Asian region. From time to time China had claimed
administrative control over it, and from time to time Tibet was independent too.

• 1950 China took over control of Tibet; large sections of the population opposed the
  takeover, and India tried to persuade China to recognise Tibet’s claims for
  independence.
• 1954 Through the Panchsheel clause on respecting each other’s territorial
  integrity and sovereignty, India conceded China’s claim over Tibet.
• 1956 The Dalai Lama accompanied Zhou Enlai to India and told Nehru the situation was
  worsening, although China had assured India that Tibet would get greater autonomy than any
  other region of China.
• 1958 An armed uprising in Tibet, suppressed by the Chinese forces.
• 1959 The Dalai Lama crossed the border and sought asylum, which was granted;
  China strongly protested.
• Tibetan refugee settlements grew, particularly in Delhi; Dharmashala in Himachal
  Pradesh is perhaps the largest, and the Dalai Lama’s home in India.
• In the 1950s and 1960s the Socialist Party and the Jan Sangh supported the cause
  of Tibet’s independence.
• The sub-box: China created the Tibet autonomous region. Tibetans oppose the Chinese
  claim on the territory, oppose the policy of bringing in more and more Chinese settlers,
  dispute that autonomy is really granted, and think China wants to undermine the traditional
  religion and culture of Tibet.

The box’s photograph, of the Dalai Lama entering India with his followers, is credited to
Homai Vyarawalla.

The chapter’s illustration of the India-China border carries the caption: “Border
disputes with China erupted in 1960. Talks between Nehru and Mao Tsetung proved futile.”
That fixes 1960 as the year the dispute came into the open, two years before the war.

The same illustration carries its own printed note: it is not a map drawn to scale and should
not be taken to be an authentic depiction of India’s external boundaries. Learn the two
disputed sectors by name, not by picture.

On the facing page is a separate cartoon headed 1962, credited to R. K. Laxman, and
beside it the profile box on V. K. Krishna Menon. Both are examinable exactly like body text.

Diplomat and minister. Active in the Labour Party in UK between 1934-1947; Indian High
Commissioner in UK and later head of India’s delegation to the UN; Rajya Sabha
MP and later Lok Sabha MP; member of the Union Cabinet from 1956; Defence
Minister since 1957; considered very close to Nehru; resigned after the India-China war
in 1962.

Early 1999: points on the Indian side of the LoC in the Mashkoh, Dras, Kaksar and
Batalik areas were occupied by forces claiming to be Mujahideens. Suspecting involvement
of the Pakistan Army, Indian forces reacted. The conflict ran through May and June
1999, and by 26 July 1999 India had recovered control of many of the lost points. It drew
worldwide attention because only one year earlier both countries had attained nuclear
capability, and it remained confined only to the Kargil region. In Pakistan it became a
controversy because the Prime Minister was kept in the dark by the Army Chief; soon after, the
government was taken over by the Pakistan Army led by General Parvez Musharraf.

A decisive victory led to national jubilation, seen as a moment of glory and a sign
of India’s growing military prowess. Indira Gandhi had already won the Lok Sabha
elections in 1971; her personal popularity soared further, and assembly elections in
most States afterwards brought large majorities for the Congress.

Although there are minor differences among parties about how to conduct external relations,
Indian politics is generally marked by a broad agreement on national integration, the
protection of international boundaries and questions of national interest. That is why
through the decade of 1962-1971, and later too when different parties came to power, foreign
policy has played only a limited role in party politics. This is Exercise Question
6(b).

• 1977, the Janata Party government announces genuine non-alignment, meaning the
  pro-Soviet tilt would be corrected.
• Since then, all governments, Congress or non-Congress, have worked for better
  relations with China and closer ties with the US.
• India’s foreign policy is popularly judged on two questions: its stand vis-a-vis
  Pakistan, and Indo-US relations. After 1990 the ruling parties have often been
  criticised for a pro-US foreign policy.
• Why the shift: foreign policy is always dictated by ideas of national interest, and after
  1990 Russia, though still an important friend, has lost its global pre-eminence. The
  international situation is now more influenced by economic interests than by military
  interests.
• With Pakistan, Kashmir continues to be the main issue, but there have been efforts at
  cultural exchanges, movement of citizens and economic cooperation; a train and a bus
  service between the two countries is called a major achievement of recent times. None of it
  avoided the near-war situation of 1999, and efforts at durable peace continue.