This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Q1. Discuss psychological approach in analysing foreign policy. Answer: The psychological approach: According to the psychological approach, the dimension of cognition affects the foreign policy of a country. As per the definition provided by Oxford’s Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, cognition is ‘the process by which knowledge and understanding is developed in the mind’. It is the process by which humans select and process information from the world around them. Due to cognition, important problems are introduced to the decision-making process. Therefore, a policy-maker’s decision is influenced by cognition. The policy-maker will formulate the foreign policy based on his understanding and perception of the world. Various studies conducted in the past show that the perception and understanding of the policymakers have indeed affected their decision making process. When looking at the cognitive approach of foreign policy the belief system of the decision makers has to be understood. The foreign policy of a country may remain the same for years, however, as the policymakers change, each according to his or her understanding contribute to the formulation of the policy in a certain way. The psychological approach is a contrast to rationality. While there are those who debate that the policy-makers are rational and they rationally take all the decisions, yet the supporters of the psychological approach feel otherwise. They assert that each policy-maker has a different psychology and the decisions of policy making are affected by it. However, according to Jervis one ultimately seeks to downplay the significance of psychological factors in foreign policy by stressing the importance of the operational environment as a determinant of foreign policy, independent of the psychological environment. He further says that foreign policy cannot be usefully explained if one does not take into account several levels of analysis in addition to the individual level. At the individual level considerations of perception, cognition and personality do matter, namely bureaucratic constraints, domestic influences and the external environment. Moreover, images, perceptions and ideology are not the products of individuals but rather emerge out of society, i.e., they are ‘socially constructed’, and therefore it is not especially relevant to focus on individuals alone. It would be more meaningful to focus on the social context within which they operate. Q2. Explain the principle of non-violence or ahimsa which has helped in shaping India’s foreign policy. Answer: The principle of non-violence or ahimsa Non-violence or ahimsa was not only an uncompromising faith of Mahatma Gandhi, but it is also deeply rooted in Indian tradition. Ahimsa does not only mean non-killing or abstention from doing harm to others. It indicates harmlessness in thought, word and deed and also promotion of bondless love in the entire universe. Perfect non-violence is not always possible because nonviolence is a virtue. It was the view or opinion of Gandhiji that the use of force by a democratic state or nation was immoral. Democracy and violence cannot coexist at the same time. Gandhiji would apply nonviolence to international relations too. The acceptance of non-violence ensured lasting world peace. Jawaharlal Nehru took inspiration from Gandhiji; but followed him only to a certain extent. The application of the tradition of non-violence in India’s foreign policy was explained by Appadorai, as ‘the deliberate acceptance of a method of approach to foreign policy problems which emphasized reconciliation, and the temper of peace, as opposed to a spirit of revenge and hatred’. World peace is a commitment made by the Government of India and has also been included in Part IV of the Constitution, a directive to the state to seek peaceful settlement of international disputes. The impact of British rule in India and the influence of national movement and freedom struggle are clearly evident in shaping India’s foreign policy. Appadorai said that, the British rule in India had a three-fold impact on India’s foreign policy. First, it gave a stimulus to the national movement for
Gah. which calls for Pakistan to vacate all occupied territories. headed by Jawaharlal Nehru. the Punjab Provincial Government announced the development of his birth place. Evaluate the Afghanistan crisis. led to India’s emphasis on racial equality in its foreign policy. while Pakistan maintains that UN resolutions demanding self-determination of the people of the state/province must be considered. equality and democracy. Second. In 1946. which in turn. However. it chooses to ignore that part of the resolution. In May 1998 India conducted nuclear tests followed by Pakistan. Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Rajiv Gandhi signed a pact to not attack each other’s nuclear facilities. Non-alignment policy is not only the outcome of keeping aloof from bloc politics. high-level talks between India and Pakistan resumed. led to India’s support for the freedom of dependent people. Q3. . This brought about opposing political opinions. Nehru secured India under the name of Commonwealth and redefined the relationship between Britain and other sovereign members of the Commonwealth. the villagers have resisted.freedom. In June 1997. Nehru had said. India did not oppose the socialist countries either. they valued liberty. the Indian National Congress had clearly opposed dictatorship and racial discrimination. The Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India met twice and three rounds of talks were conducted by the foreign secretaries. and the secret nuclear weapons programme. Pakistan lent support to the Afghan resistance against the Soviet Union. as a model village in his honour. the talks were reduced to dealing with the issues of Kashmir. Following Man Mohan Singh’s prime ministership. The foreign policy-makers of India gave a lot of importance to these ideals. They also named a school after him. India’s response was to suggest that the two issues be taken up simultaneously with six others. India maintains that Kashmir is an integral part of the Indian union. Pakistan lent support to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan while India not only opposed the Taliban but also criticized Pakistan for lending support to it. the Kashmir dispute continues to remain the major hurdle in dialogues ever since Independence. Although there has been pressure to change the name. While cooperating with liberal democratic countries. Pakistan wished for the issues to be addressed by separate working groups. and peace and security. ‘One of the pillars of our foreign policy is to fight against racial discrimination’. In the years that followed. Through its foreign policy department. and third. After a pause of three years. In December 1988. over the years. racial inequality that existed during the British Rule made India realize the evils of racial discrimination and. However. the Indo-Pak relations were further strained. which had friendly ties with India. in 1979. Gandhi directed the Indian people not to hate the sinner but to hate the sin. Answer: Afghanistan crisis Following the Soviet War in Afghanistan. the two nations formed a joint commission to look Into the disputes. In accordance with the western pattern of education. To ease out the tension. There is also a village in India called Pakistan. Agreements were initiated towards encouraging cultural exchanges and civil aviation. American military support to Pakistan. but is also the result of adhering to the goals and ideals of freedom struggle cherished by the people. in turn. Therefore. In September 1997. India voluntarily chose to remain a member of the Commonwealth even after becoming a Republic. India continued to oppose and voice concern over Pakistani arms purchase. eight ‘outstanding issues’ were identified around which talks were to revolve. ‘We repudiate utterly the Nazi doctrine of racialism whosesoever and in whatever form it may be practised’. Most of the leaders of the freedom movement were educated in Britain. he declared in 1949 in the constituent assembly.
his successor Lal Bahadur Shastri appointed a regular foreign minister. in return it wanted India to support the Vietnam policy. that is ‘neutralism’ in its original Nehru-Menon conception. a cargo plane carried 82 tons of army medicines. This consignment comprising. These gestures signalled a new age of confidence. Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. India’s policy changed (i) from ‘equidistance’ in relation to Super Power to ‘equal proximity’ to Moscow and Washington. This enhanced the prestige of India. Nehru. This relief work was conducted using one of the points on the LoC between India and Pakistan at Chakan da Bagh. as well as to the policy of non-alignment. dynamic involvement in world politics. America was ready to help India with its food shortage problem. Harold Macmillan. thousands of blankets. President Johnson postponed Shastri’s scheduled visit to the United States. . however. He further concluded that ‘non-alignment almost toppled as the pillar of India’s foreign policy.000. On October 12. refused to give up the nonalignment policy. Unfortunately when Nehru died in 1964. and (ii) ‘from an active. even after the Chinese aggression. It was pointed out by the critics of non-alignment that this policy was not a guarantee against aggression. The Chinese aggression was not condemned by most of the non-aligned countries. in Poonch. This naturally. India despatched 25 tonnes of relief material to Pakistan.000 Blankets. amicable relations and cooperation between the two nations. Answer: The Third phase (1962–1971) The Chinese aggression on India proved to be a very big shock to India’s international prestige. Michael Brecher. This view was supported even by the Britain Prime Minister. following the earthquake. blankets as well as medicines. Indian companies like Infosys offered aid up to $226. who said that the Chinese aggression on India demonstrated that ‘neutrality’ was no guarantee against aggression and that ‘neutralism’ was unrealistic as a policy of international affairs. in which both USA and China gave moral support to Pakistan. author of Non-alignment Under Stress: The West and the India-China Border War. in the presence of Soviet Prime Minister Kosygin. all ready to carry a second consignment of relief material which was sent on October 14.In 2001. India later pledged $25 milliion as aid to Pakistan. India passed through severe food shortage. The consignment comprised food. When Shastri refused to oblige. Pakistan announced a war against India in September 1965. moved India towards the USSR. He argued that economic assistance from both the blocs could be undertaken by India. The Soviet Union did not support India during this period. The term was retained but it became an empty shell’. The Prime Minister further said that to give up non-alignment would be a ‘terrible moral failure’. The Pak President also expressed his sympathy to the Indian PM over the loss that resulted. Unexpectedly Britain and the United States offered help and assistance to India. This was followed by a third similar consignment.000 blankets and 50 tents and returned to New Delhi. if it remained nonaligned. The consignment comprised 200 tents and over 2. The Chinese betrayal of the Panchsheel raised a protest against China in India. morale of the people and armed forces of India. Q4. hundreds of tents and tonnes of plastic sheets and medicines was despatched by rail through the Wagah Border. unfortunately died soon after signing the Tashkent Agreement with Pakistani President Ayub khan. For him. 15. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf sent a plane full of relief supplies to India from Islamabad to Ahmedabad. Relief work was conducted in mutual consultation with the Indian and Pakistani High Commissioners. India offered generous aid to Pakistan. to a more passive …non-alignment ‘. concluded two points about what he called ‘nonalignment under stress’ during 1962 war. India inflicted a crushing defeat on Pakistan. During Shastri’s brief tenure of 18 months. In response to the 2005 earthquake.Explain the third phase of non-alignment.
Nasser and Indira Gandhi discussed the progress of the movement. The success of the non-alignment can be further explained by conducting a comparative study of the working of the policies of alignment and nonalignment. Non-alignment can help to a great extent in the solution of problem of politics and for this reason we can say that NAM is relevant in the present international scenario as well. have preferred to leave alignment in favour of non-alignment. in the context of these far-reaching developments. Some critics of non-alignment need to remember that although NAM had emerged as a new additional foreign policy choice in the years of Cold War and the bipolar world. With the onset of economic globalization. The US alliance system has suffered many setbacks. While decolonization was the central basis of the NAM. Later a summit of the three pioneers of NAM took place in Delhi when Tito. she tried to recognize the unity of Afro-Asian countries. the power alliances or alignment of powers have become weak. Russia and many others realize the importance of relations with India. France. North America and the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). the Cold War or rather the aversion of Cold War bipolarity only helped the course that the government would take in the years to come. non-alignment and most of the policies associated with it have become irrelevant. the West showed its displeasure towards India. the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). China has an observer status in NAM. Prominent among them are the European Union (EU). However. and several other nations are now keen to join non-alignment. Former socialist countries of Europe. It is a mere coincidence that the policy originated and evolved at the time that it did. The differences show that non-alignment has been a . the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). It is being argued that in the changed situation. its continued relevance had little to do with either of the two contexts. The non-alignment is one of the biggest international movements of our times. these countries formed an agenda of regional economic cooperation. like Pakistan. Most countries. In 1961 only 25 states participated in the non-aligned conference at Belgrade while the number of non-aligned countries has now increased to over 100. Therefore.In January 1966. The disintegration of the erstwhile Soviet Union and break-up of the Socialist bloc created a new global situation. and the Soviet Union is dead. As against this. Today. Germany. when Mrs Indira Gandhi became the Prime Minister of India. questions have been raised about the relevance of NAM. The Soviet bloc has been dissolved. Many countries. France is almost out of the alliance system and is desirous of getting an observer status in the NAM. humanitarian aid to the developing world was greatly reduced. almost all the countries like USA. China. In 1967. The aid to the South was affected by factors like allowing access to transnational companies or the development of an open market policy. the republics of erstwhile Soviet Union. It is indeed fundamentally wrong to describe the Indian non-alignment as unrealistic and idealistic. Japan. Warsaw Pact is over and NATO has become weak. The increasing number of non-aligned countries in the world is proof that Cold War and the belief in system of alignment is fast losing ground. Elucidate Answer: The disintegration of the erstwhile Soviet Union and break-up of the Socialist bloc created a new global situation. The success with which India has practiced nonalignment in the course of its relations with super powers as well as with other like-minded countries of the third world bears ample proof of the realistic and pragmatic nature of non-alignment. The number of the non-alignment countries has been registering a regular upward trend and at the moment a large number of states follow nonalignment. even NAM members have started taking decisions pragmatically and individually. These have failed to be active and operative in the real sense. when the Arab Nations fought against Israel and India whole heartedly supported the Arab nations. Q5.
. the officer would not require a visa to visit his own country. saw China and India engaged in a verbal conflict over the control of Arunachal Pradesh. 2006. The Nathula Pass. In a speech. According to India. While there is competition involved in such ventures. in the north-eastern part of India. Sino-Indian bilateral trade crossed the $10 billion mark in 2004. there is also a level of cooperation involved because the two nations have to inevitably confront bigger players in the international oil market. Q6. In December. one hardware and one software. November 2006. we can take the leadership position in the world. PM Man Mohan Singh met President Hu Jintao and PM Wen Jaibao in China to have bilateral discussions on trade. The move was expected to reduce the economic isolation of the area by reopening border trade. For the first time. the re-opening of the trade route was initiated and finally a formal agreement was signed in June. the same year. is one dimension that forms the foundation of the evolution of Sino–Indian relationship. the Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister. culture and economy. a computer science professor born in Arunachal Pradesh. While other member nations were willing to consider China for permanent membership in SAARC. paid a visit to Beijing to sign an agreement that suggested that joint bids be placed by ONGC Videsh LTd (OVL) and the China Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) for good projects in other locations. was re-opened by India and China. Wen stated that ‘Cooperation is just like two pagodas (temples). Mani Shankar Aiyar. an Indian IAS officer in Arunachal Pradesh was refused a visa by China. On January 12. Discuss on the proposal to open up the Nathula and Jelepla Passes Answer: Proposal to Open up the Nathula and Jelepla Passes The two countries proposed to open up the Nathula and Jelepla Passes in Sikkim in 2004. Central Asia and Africa. In 2003. This pass that went through the Himalayas was shut when the Sino-Indian War broke out in 1962.more dynamic policy than alignment.000 square kilometres of Indian territory was being occupied by China in Kashmir while China claimed that the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh was its possession. The energy required to feed their rapidly expanding industries. and their investment in oilfields in the Middle East. which was a flourishing trade route in ancient times and part of the Silk route. India did not seem to wholeheartedly support the idea. which was considered to be mutually beneficial to both countries and was expected to be a witness to gradual improvement in ties between the two countries in the international arena. While the Chinese premier seems in favour of the idea of India’s permanent seat in the UN Security Council. 38. commerce. PM Wen Jiabao came to India to visit Bangalore and improve India-China cooperation in the field of technology. military and other issues. China granted a visa to Marpe Sora.’ This high-level visits was also aimed to many agreements that could help strengthen ties between China and India that would benefit politics. They reversed their own policy! The following year. he took a neutral stand by the time he went back to his country. In May 2007. Their argument was that since Arunachal Pradesh was part of China. China was given an observer status in the SAARC Summit in 2005. the Indian leadership was farsighted enough to foresee the gains and value of nonalignment.’ Wen further stated that the 21st century will be ‘the Asian century of the IT industry. Combined. defence. 2006.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.