Skip to main content

Indian Foreign Policy Evolution (1857-1947): Universal Brotherhood to Moral Nationalism



George Tanham (1992) famously argued that political elites in India showed "little evidence of having thought coherently or systematically about national strategy." This narrative is build upon the old idea of India under British rule but no doubt; it holds some merit in saying this. Indian foreign policy objectives were never clearly defined. It doesn't make sense advocating 'non-alignment' policy and securing a friendship treaty with one of the powers. Neither it makes sense having a closer ties with the US but expecting Russia to remain friend. India always has this contradictory foreign policy approach since late 19th century. Indian view on world politics still resembles the precedents rooted in the past.
If we have a closer look between 1857 to 1947, we might get some clue on why India lacks a cohesive foreign policy outlook.

The 19th Century India
The Indian view on International Relations was shaped by three underpinning thoughts:
1. Universal Brotherhood
2. The Ancient Wisdom on Statecraft
3. Liberal Nationalism 

1. Universal Brotherhood

Om Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah
Sarve Santu Niraamayaah |
Sarve Bhadraanni Pashyantu
Maa Kashcid-Duhkha-Bhaag-Bhavet |
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

Meaning: 
1: Om, May the entire Humanity be Happy & Prosperous ,
2: May entire Humanity be Free from blemish /filth,garbage physically /mentally
3: May the entire Humanity See what is Auspicious,
4: May no one pass through Pain /Agony and Suffering .
5: Om Peace, Peace, Peace.

The 19th century thinkers like Keshub Chandra Sen and Swami Vivekananda professed spiritual and moral unity of human race. After 1857 Indian Revolution, the Britishers consolidated India and its boundaries and imposed harsh regulating acts. Sen once gave a lecture on a topic titled Jesus Christ: Europe and Asia, examining how Indians and Englishmen might regulate their relations. He argued that English instead of forgiveness inculcated by Christ, took the road of repression of Indian masses. Similarly, in another lecture (Asia's Message to the Europe) given in Calcutta 1883, he argued for peaceful coexistence. 

Swami Vivekananda forwarded Hinduism as a way to universal brotherhood. He observed that Europe was trying to understand: "how much a man can have, how much more power a man can possess by hook or crook".  Nations continue to fail and rise, what makes them survive - by "giving up senses". This was where India stood out. India was the "only nation that never went beyond its frontiers to cut the throats of its neighbors". To sum up, he professed "the spirtiualization of human race" as a way out of world-conflict.

2. The Ancient Wisdom on Statecraft
Long-before the influential book on statecraft, The Prince, by Nicholas Machiavelli, Indian ancient books such as Hitopadesa, Manu Smirti, Nitisara, Agni Purana and Arthashastra provided in-depth prescriptions on how a ruler should conduct foreign affairs. For instance, in the Book VII of Manu Smirti, the rulers are instructed to 'strive to gain' what they have not yet gained, and to carefully preserve 'what they have already gained'. 

3. Liberal Nationalism
Liberal nationalism were propounded by Dadabhai Nauroji, Pherozshah Mehta and Gopal Krishna Gokhale, deeply influenced by French Revolution and American independence. For instance, Nauroji called on British to refrain from Opium Trade with China. 

In the next blog titled "Moral Nationalism", I will cover this topic with special reference to Tilak, Bankimchandra and Aurobindo Ghosh. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is Mercantilist Theory of International Political Economy?

  Mercantilists slogan was "export more, import less." During the 16th and 17th centuries, states were the main players of global economies and they encouraged exports over imports to finance their huge armies. Similar to realists, mercantilists argued that economic policies should advance state power.  They believed accumulation of metals (gold and silver) was more important than trade as it increased the national wealth. So national economies that time were measured on how much gold one country had not how much trade they had. Spain's conquest of Latin American countries: Panama, West Indies, Venezuela and Peru, provided abundance of gold mines and Spaniards became extensively rich. Spain also put restriction on the colonial trades. colonies couldn't trade with other countries. Mercantilism thrived in Europe from the exploitation of colonies. Soon other European countries joined the loot of colonies in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.  Mercantilists as with realists arg...
Post a Comment
Read more

A short note on US Sub-Prime Lending Crisis 2007-8

 The “Great Recession” in 2008 showed the weaknesses in Western economic models. The crisis highlighted the differences in political and economic paths adopted by Western and Asian countries. It all started in late 1990s, when American real estate prices were soaring and banks provided mortgages to anyone without income guarantee until 2007 when the real estate prices fell and borrowers defaulted on their repayments. But before we analyze the crisis, it’s necessary to understand the western economic liberal policies which led to it. After decades of government intervention, the US President Ronald Reagan and the UK PM Margret Thatcher started to “roll back the state” from national economies. They demanded a return to Adam Smith’s liberal policies which were encourage individual realization and reducing the social welfare spending. The renewed belief in ‘market’ and ‘invisible hand’ led them to believe that market itself would provide welfare for all. Western Liberal Economy Lib...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is US Indo -Pacific Strategy?

  The US President Donald Trump release a document named "Free and Open Indo-Pacific" (FOIP) in 2017 at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. The Trump administration sees "Indo-Pacific Region" as a central foreign and economic policy for dealing with China. However, there are still fewer countries who have adopted the term "Indo-Pacific", they still term the region as "Asia-Pacific". Why the US is focused on Indo-Pacific region? Is it to counter China or something else is going on? The US partners such as Japan and South Korea have been cautious in their approach. So why does the US changed the name from Asia to Indo-Pacific? The term Indo-Pacific has enjoyed growing popularity in Japan, the US, Australia, India and France. It has become a kind of geopolitical nomenclature, which has nothing to do with term itself, rather it perceives as a US strategy to counter China in the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean. The ever-expanding Chine...
Post a Comment
Read more