Name – Akshit Mahajan

Father’s Name – Mr. Mukesh Mahajan

Programme – B.com(a&f)
Name & Address of University – Indira Gandhi
National Open University, Maidan Garhi, Newdelhi-
110068, India
Residence Address – 169-A, Indra Park, Jalandhar,
Punjab, India (Pin-144003)
Mobile No. – 9815753140
Email Address – firstsquad25@yahoo.com
 Conflict, Religion and Foreign Policy

Before proceeding with the topic, it is very important to first understand and know what actually
is foreign policy. According to Business Dictionary.com, foreign policy is plan of action adopted
by one nation in regards to its diplomatic dealings with other countries. Foreign policy is
established as a systemic way to deal with issues that may arise with other countries. In the
modern era, no country can afford to live in isolation in this age of interdependence. In recent
times, due to the deepening level of globalization and transnational activities, the states will also
have to interact with non-state actors. The aforementioned interaction is evaluated and monitored
in attempts to maximize benefits of multilateral international cooperation. Since the national
interests are paramount, foreign policies are designed by the government through high-level
decision making processes. National interests accomplishment can occur as a result of peaceful
cooperation with other nations, or through exploitation.

The development of foreign policy is influenced by domestic considerations, the policies or

behaviour of other states, or plans to advance specific geopolitical designs. Leopold von
Ranke emphasized the primacy of geography and external threats in shaping foreign policy,
but later writers emphasized domestic factors. Diplomacy is the tool of foreign policy, and
war, alliances, and international trade may all be manifestations of it. So must of us would
agree that conflicts do shape and affect nation’s foreign policy. But as far as religion is
concerned , In the modern era it has played a relatively small or insignificant role in foreign
policy, especially among academics and professionals. International relations are assumed to
be subject to rational processes and the primary motivating force is not religion but
maximization of gain and minimization of loss. But the Iranians following the revolution of
1979 have been the first significant departure from this trend. Iranians have defined
themselves as fundamentally Islamist and any effort to organize against them, any war or
confrontation, is considered an attack on Islam. Global jihad and pressures on other Islamic
countries not to partner with non-Muslim governments are part of the growing entanglements
between foreign-policy and religion.

Academic and policy discussions of international issues generally ignore religion or, at most,
treat it as part of some other problem to be solved. But despite the conventional expectations
of inexorable secularization, according to the World Values Survey, religion remains an
influential aspect of public life around the world. To be relevant, therefore, foreign policy
must acknowledge the place religion occupies in global politics and engage in candid
conversations that include both secular and religious voices. Religion can make a positive
contribution in preventing and resolving conflict. Examples range from post-World War II
Germany and France to South Africa, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, and the Philippines. It
assists policymakers in understanding how religion and spirituality factor into foreign politics
and societies and its function in statecraft and peacemaking. Religious freedom should be a
central tenet of foreign policy. Nations that violate religious human rights in the name of
security will ultimately leave themselves vulnerable to destabilization. A major paradigm
shift in international relations theory is needed in order to explain the global resurgence of
religion and its effects on key concepts and theories -- conflict, diplomacy, civil society,
democracy, and economics. Modern liberal conceptions that reduce religion to an ideational
variable fail to grasp the essential function religion has always played as a marker of
community integrity and identity -- an identity that has become increasingly important as
social and religious groups struggle to reconcile faith and modernity. Instead, religion must
be understood as a "cognitive script" that can override rational choice or utility-maximizing
behavior. Throughout history there have been varied approaches to the relationship between
religious beliefs about the "sacred" and political prerogatives of the "sovereign." These
approaches range from theocracies to religious or ethical movements that reject the authority
claimed by secular nation states. New tensions have surfaced as the Westphalian system --
created in the aftermath of Europe's religious wars -- struggles to respond to both the
damaging and beneficial influences of religion in the world today such as humanitarian
military intervention, terrorism, and war crimes tribunals.

Religion -- like economics, ideology, and culture -- is a key determinant of behavior and
must therefore be fully grasped and frankly addressed if problems are to be solved. However,
while religious principles can provide a framework for moral authority, a singular reliance on
religious precepts as a guide to political action can be unrealistic and a cause for conflict.
Religion can play both positive and negative roles in international relations and must be
approached cautiously and pluralistically . The recent instance of U.S. visa policy was
literally a shock to the whole world. It targeted a direct attack on the Islamic community in
the name of terrorism prevention. Obviously, this didn’t go well with the public. Another
such example is that of Israel-Palestine conflict. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in a
dispute over land claimed by Jews as their biblical birthright and by the Palestinians, who
seek self-determination. Despite repeated attempts to end the conflict between the Israelis
and the Palestinians, there is no peace settlement in sight.

Now , let us talk about the scenario in India. India's foreign policy has always regarded the
concept of neighbourhood as one of widening concentric circles, around a central axis of
historical and cultural commonalities. As many as 22 million people of Indian origin live and
work abroad and constitute an important link with the mother country. An important role of
India's foreign policy has been to ensure their welfare and well being within the framework
of the laws of the country where they live. Hindu nationalism means many things to many
people today in India. On the foreign policy front, contemporary Hindu nationalism is poorly
understood. Salient features of Indian foreign policy , such as non- alignment and strategic
autonomy, emerge from the Nehruvian tradition of international relations(Hindutva). Hindu
nationalists have a markedly different view of the world. The principles of nonalignment, as
articulated by Nehru and his successors, were preservation of India's freedom of action
internationally through refusal to align India with any bloc or alliance, particularly those led
by the United States or the Soviet Union; nonviolence and international co-operation as a
means of settling international disputes. Nonalignment was a consistent feature of Indian
foreign policy by the late 1940s and enjoyed strong, almost unquestioning support among the
Indian elite.

India's territorial disputes with neighbouring Pakistan and People's Republic of China have
played a crucial role in its foreign policy. India is also involved in minor territorial disputes
with neighbouring Bangladesh, Nepal and Maldives. Whenever there is a conflict, the first
thing that comes to any layman’s mind is that the country should break all the trade relations
and bilateral agreements and have a war with the opponent country. However , foreign policy
wants exactly the opposite of all this, that peace should be restored without any war and
therefore more emphasis should be given in diplomatic relations with that country. Now ,
first of all, lets discuss about the scenario we have with Pakistan.

 The unresolved Kashmir conflict and the status of Kashmir with India: Pakistan claims
that it is a disputed territory with India, meanwhile Pakistan claims its side of the
disputed territory and calls it as Azad Kashmir, yet ironically violating human rights.
 Dispute over Kori Creek and the maritime boundary regarding the Rann of Kachchh area
of southern tip of Sindh.
 Water-sharing problems with Pakistan over the Indus River (Wular Barrage). (Indus
Waters Treaty)
 Pakistani sponsorship of Terrorism in India more recently Mumbai, Pathankot and Uri
attacks.

Kashmir conflict has a religious colour in it and Pakistan fully exploits this. Kashmir has
both hindu and muslim population but Pakistan instigates the muslims residing in
Kashmir by illegal funding and supply of arms and ammunition. But India is also trying
to ease the communal tension in Kashmir and have diplomatic talks with Pakistan to not
to interfere in this issue. As far as terrorism is concerned, India’s foreign policy has been
improvising a lot . India now has got a lot of allies like United States, European Union,
Australia,etc. which support the cause of terrorism elimination by any means . Pakistan’s
diplomatic policy is shaped by ideology instead of being based on pragmatism. To
counter a US-India axis, an isolated Pakistan befriended China but the country could not
tip the balance in Pakistan’s favour on its own. Its natural ally America changed stance
and joined hands with India while Pakistan sat fingers crossed. Pakistan, which was
created on the basis of religion, has failed to fight against terrorism and is at cross roads –
to fight Taliban or not. Time has come for Pakistan to come out of the denial mode now.
 Now lets discuss the dispute between India and China.

 India claims Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract, as part of Jammu and Kashmir.
 China claims most of Arunachal Pradesh, a contested disputed territory of north-east
India by not recognising the McMahon Line.

Two regions are claimed by both India and China. Aksai Chin is in the disputed territory of
Jammu and Kashmir, at the junction of India, Tibet and Xinjiang, India claims the 38,000-
square-kilometre territory, currently administered by China after Sino-Indian War. India also
considers the cessation of Shaksam Valley to China by Pakistan as illegal and a part of its
territory. Arunachal Pradesh is a state of India in the country's northeast, bordering on Bhutan,
Burma and China's Tibet, though it is under Indian administration since 1914, China claims the
90,000-square-kilometre area as South Tibet. Also the boundary between the North Indian states
of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand with China's Tibet is not properly demarcated with some
portions under de facto administration of India. India's foreign policy is based on protecting and
furthering the national interests. With China we have tried to tread a similar line. China is India's
largest trading partner and this consideration has guided the policy in recent times. Maintaining
strong and vibrant trading relations along with efforts to settle the long standing boundary
disputes shall be the priorities for India. The recently set up Boundary Defence Cooperation
Arrangement and special representative level talks are the notable efforts to amicably settle the
boundary questions and not a full scale war in the present times of nuclear weapons. India's
insistence on opening the chinese pharma and IT sector to Indian industries is guided by the
notion of furthering the domestic interests. The slowdown in the western economies has
increased India's dependence on regional economies especially China.

India is well aware of the fact that cooperation with China is beneficial for both India and China
while the costs of any disruption in ties will be huge. The principles of mutual cooperation and
coexistence(based on ideals of Panchsheel) guide India's foreign policy towards China. However
there have been high tensions between India and china due to the Doklam issue. There have been
even incidents of face-to-face heat between both the border forces. There is also a religious and
ethnic events in this whole incident as china instigates people of Arunachal Pardesh to revolt the
mainland India due to their culture , traditions and religion.

There are conflicts whose urgency and importance rise above. Half of the conflicts involve
extremist groups whose goals and ideologies are difficult to accommodate through negotiated
settlement, complicating efforts to plot a path to peace. The failure of U.S. foreign policy
confirms that order based solely on state coercion is not sustainable i.e. when the enemy comes
from within a given region, military action directed from abroad is more likely to aggravate than
assuage. There is an alternative to this approach: States could work pragmatically at managing
differences rather than overcoming them while leaving political space open for local actors to
speak up. This will require courage, patience, and creative diplomacy, but the two most
important diplomatic successes of 2015 — the Iran nuclear deal and the agreement on climate
change — give reason to believe an international approach based on finding common interests
could work. There are other glimmers of hope, too: major strides forward in Colombia’s peace
talks, a cease-fire in Ukraine bolstered by the Minsk process, progress in Myanmar’s democratic
transition, and a welcome, if long overdue, resolution from the U.N. Security Council on Syria.

Most of the conflicts require action at several levels — between major powers, regionally and
locally — and none are amenable to a quick fix. Given the challenges of ending conflicts amid
the upheaval of a revolutionary era, it is all the more urgent to provide humanitarian aid and to
mitigate the human toll of violence — evidenced starkly in the hundreds of thousands of
refugees who have fled toward Europe in the past year. States must also redouble efforts to forge
political agreements, taking advantage of even the narrowest openings to find opportunities for
compromise. The fluidity of the present moment can and must be used to shape a new, better-
balanced order.

As a concluding remark, I would like to say that it is high time that we consider “religion” while
making foreign policy. This era shouldn’t be defined as the era in which religion creates conflicts
rather as an era in which religion helps in bringing people close and understanding and
respecting each other’s culture and traditions. Not only will this bring world peace but it will also
help in economic growth of the nations by formulating an effective foreign policy. Also, past
conflicts and frictions should be forgotten to strengthen the ties and trade. It is only through this
that inhumane activities like terrorism can be stopped for once and all. A developing nation like
India can only progress if it focuses on its economic activities instead of defence and war. This
can only be achieved through good foreign policy implementation. Looking ahead to 2017, it’s
time to dispense with the notion that fighting against violent extremism suffices as a plan for
world order.