ASSIGNMENT OF ‘INDIAN FOREIGN POLICY’ PAPER

● Name - Deepjyoti Barman

● College Roll - 1917242
● Course - B.A. (Hons) Political Science
● Paper - Indian Foreign Policy
● UPC Code - 12327907
● Assignment Topic - The war in Ukraine and Indo-US relations.
● Submitted to - Dr. Rupak Dattagupta.

INTRODUCTION :-
With the onset of 2022, Russia began a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine, resulting in over
900 civilian deaths and millions of Ukrainians fleeing to neighbouring nations, the majority of
which have arrived in Poland, a NATO member where US forces are preparing to aid refugees.
The current situation has strained relations between the US and Russia, heightening the
possibility of a larger European conflict. Tensions between Russia and adjacent NATO member
countries are expected to escalate as a result of alliance security commitments, with the United
States likely to be involved. Furthermore, the crisis in Ukraine will have far-reaching
consequences for future collaboration on vital issues such as weapons control, cybersecurity,
nuclear nonproliferation, energy security, counter-terrorism, and political solutions in Syria,
Libya, and elsewhere.

The two democratic powerhouses are India and the United States of America
but with a huge opposing strategic and economic power status in world
politics. However, no one can deny the significance of a close interaction between the two.
In this post-Cold War era, the two have become increasingly intertwined. Being the world's two
largest democracies, the two were expected to have a tight relationship. However, their
relationship began on a shaky footing, and has since seen ups and downs.
According to a former Trump Administration official, the India-US bilateral relationship is
entering uncharted terrain as a result of India's difficult stance on Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
In the absence of a New Delhi course correction, the two nations' defence and security ties will
become increasingly impossible to extend beyond a certain point. India's close links to Russia
have long been a source of friction in the US-India relationship. However, in the wake of Russia's
unlawful and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country, India's relationship with Russia is
expected to change. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has altered the US's expectations of India
in the future. There has been some recognition of India's tough position, which is that it cannot
abandon its reliance on Russian military hardware overnight and that it has legitimate security
concerns.

One can see in the Indo-Pacific strategy document that the Biden administration places great
value on its strategic partnership with India and it really views India as playing a central role in
the Indo-Pacific strategy, she observed. The Biden administration is taking a long-term approach
to India, recognising its importance in countering Chinese aggressiveness in the area. The Biden
Administration has been willing to accept several problematic Indian attitudes on the Russian
invasion of Ukraine, such as India's nine times abstention in the UN Security Council and UN
General Assembly, refusing to denounce Russia's truly unjustifiable and unprovoked invasion of
Ukraine.

As the US seeks to mobilise worldwide support to isolate Russia in the aftermath of its invasion
of Ukraine, India, a close Indo-Pacific friend and fellow democracy, has declined to join the
diplomatic alliance against Russia. New Delhi made it plain that it has no intention of harming
Russia's relations by neither condemning Russian actions nor joining UN resolutions against
Russia. Indeed, India's posture, which is at odds with its democratic nature and New Delhi's
commitment to the rules-based international order, has irritated its democratic allies in the
West, particularly the United States. Most notably, it casts doubt on the broad assumption and
rhetoric about shared principles that support India-US relations. relations and implies that
shared values aren't always more important than strategic interests, and that shared values
don't always become shared interests until mutual strategic objectives align.

The raw national mentality alluding to India's previous dissatisfaction with the West is buried
beneath the policy elites' and commentators' sophisticated justification of India's posture on
Ukraine as being driven by national interest. India's stance on the Ukraine conflict reflects
Russia's disproportionate domestic public support in comparison to the US, a reality that
Washington appears to have yet to realise.

Despite the fact that India is a like-minded democracy, the India-US dynamic during the Cold
War still big in popular consciousness, where there is a strong notion that Washington was
hesitant to empathise with India. The general perception is that, even as strategic proximity
between the two countries grew tremendously following the fall of the Soviet Union,
Washington failed to properly shake off its Cold War-era attitudes against New Delhi. The United
States' lukewarm response to India's requests to isolate Pakistan globally for its backing of
cross-border terrorism, as well as continuous military aid to Islamabad, bolster this view.

As the Russia-Ukraine crisis forces India to choose between Moscow and Washington, public
memory propels the belief that past US actions, which blithely ignored Indian concerns, place
no ethical demand on India to comply with Washington's call for support against Russia, unless
New Delhi's interests are in grave jeopardy. If anything, India's response to the Ukraine crisis
demonstrates that the US's growing strategic proximity to India has failed to reorient Indians'
public memory in its favour. This is extremely harmful to the United States.

Similarly, the United States' backing for India during the 1965 war against Pakistan, as well as its
reluctance to help Pakistan in the Kargil War in 1999, failed to leave an impression on the Indian
public, resulting in another missed chance for American public diplomacy. Worse, despite
Russia's expanding links with China and major advances in Pakistan-Russia relations in recent
years, the perception of Russia as a loyal friend continues to reverberate as a national narrative
in popular feeling. This, too, reflects a lack of maturity in US public diplomacy, which failed to
erode Russia's credibility in its dealings with India.
The unavoidable result of this sloppy public diplomacy, which has so far failed to address
Washington's image problem, is a growing emotional divide between Indians and the US. The
widespread negative opinion that US activities are motivated by an egocentric ambition for
power disguised as common objectives benefiting all reflects this disconnect. Ironically, even
now, American critics who say that India's backing for Russia in the Ukraine crisis is critical to
India's legitimacy as a democratic partner ignore Washington's own tarnished image in Indian
public opinion.

Significantly, such a contemptuous attitude toward Indian popular opinion could harm US
interests, not least because the unfavourable public image does not bode well for Washington's
efforts to stem the global rise of authoritarianism. Domestic political support is usually crucial in
maintaining the liberal international system led by the United States. While common strategic
interests bind states together, creating a broader public interest in advancing democracy,
safeguarding universal values, and upholding international norms and principles requires more
popular backing. As a result, the United States needs to step up its efforts to combat its
unfavourable image in India.

In terms of how the Indian public views the Ukraine crisis and India's policy response, the
unequal coexistence of political and sentimental considerations is instructive. Notably,
widespread sympathy for the Ukrainian people has not translated into an outspoken demand
for India's political support.

To make matters worse, new articles portraying the West as racist and hypocritical may serve to
strengthen anti-American sentiment. Such stories can feed the public's nationalist imagination,
as ethnonationalism involving anti-Western emotion is a potent reference point for them.

Two interconnected assumptions should be at the centre of Washington's policy contacts with
India as a result of this. First, given India's current political context, the concept that shared
ideals of democracy and the rule of law will inspire greater Indian involvement in the
international system is unlikely to bear fruit. Second, pleasing India's hyper-nationalist audience
through public diplomacy is impossible unless nationalist overtures are accompanied with
widespread public projection.
As a result, the United States should focus on publicly displaying what it can give to meet India's
concerns in order to be effective. Support for India's most pressing international concerns and
anxieties can influence the country's nationalist audience. It is critical for the United States to
provide unwavering assistance to India in its relations with Pakistan. In addition, the US might
step up efforts to increase defence cooperation and strengthen India's military capabilities, for
which New Delhi now relies heavily on Russia. The bottom line is that both parties must be
willing to make strategic sacrifices and prioritise in order to develop shared interests. As a first
step, the US should refrain from penalising India under the Countering America's Adversaries
Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) due to New Delhi's purchase of missiles.

CONCLUSION :-
India's foreign policy towards United State of America has been the byproduct of specific
historical background in which contribution of various leaderships, diplomats, military officers
and Indian Diaspora have been outstanding. This historical backdrop to a great extent has
influenced the growth of various principles and theories of India’s foreign policy towards
USA. That is why in the post independence era three basic objectives i.e., national security;
economic development and world order proved to be the core issues around which India’s
foreign policy revolved. After the analysis of history of bilateral ties between India and United
State of America, one can draw the conclusion that the main problem is related with the role of
India at World stage. US policy makers had never provided due space as India desired. The
fundamental cause is the American'small nation, great power' mentality. Relationships between
India and the United States are critical for a better world society. In many ways, this is a
healthier, more collaborative, and mutually advantageous relationship than either country has
experienced previously.
References :-
● Sumit Ganguly and Manjeet s. Pardesi (2009),
Explaining sixty years of India’s foreign policy.
● R. Hathway (2010), The US-India Courtship.
● https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/how-are-the-us-and-india-shapingtheir-relat
ionship-for-the-future-world/2228382/
● India’s Response to the Ukraine Crisis Is a Wake-up Call for the US – The Diplomat
● https://thediplomat.com/2017/03/3-areas-of-opportunity-for-the-us-indiarelationship/

-----X-----