KEYPOINTS OF INDIAS FOREIGN POLICY

P1 P2 P3 P4

1947 1962 1962 1962

. This period saw a
The first period The systemic constraints In October Indian´s pep´le
gradual shift away from
constituted the most on Indi’as foreign policy Liberation Arme (PLA)
the early idealism that had
idealistic phase of India’s steemend Frome onsert of attacked with considerable
characterized the
foreign policy under the the Cold War which forcé, the Indian military
country’s foreign policy
tutelage of India’s first virtually coincided with was grossly unprepared to
and the adoption of an
Prime Minister, India´s Independence. fase the onslaught
increasingly “self-help”.
Jawaharlal Nehru.
KEYPOINTS EXPLAINING SIXTY YEARS OF INDIA’S
FOREIGN POLICY

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

1962 1964 1964 1965 1966 1971 1973 1974

The military defeat Nehru’s demise in At a regional level, the United States Prime Minister the Soviet Union in India’s political the country’s
in marked nothing 1964, his India’s misgivings disengaged itself Indira Gandhi, August, with its choices at systemic economic weakness
short of a watershed successors still about its security from South Asia Shastri’s successor, northern flanks and national levels effectively
in the structure and could not formally increased in the after the second decided to seek a thereby protrectes, also did very little to prevented it from
conduct of India’s aftermath of the first Indo-Pakistani nuclear guarantee India had a free enhance it global carrying through a
abandon the stated
foreign and security Chinese nuclear test at conflict as it became from the great hand to intervene in stature. At a global viable nuclear
adherence to a
policies Lop Nor . increasingly powers. This effort East Paskitan. level, in the wake of weapons program
policy of prosecution of the proved to be quite the first oil crisis . even after it
nonalignment. a Vietnam War. fruitless managed to
staple of Indian successfully test a
foreign policy. nuclear weapon in
May .
EXPLAINING SIXTY YEARS OF INDIA’S FOREIGN
POLICY
1970’s
India became a marginal player in
the global order. Its influence
remained confined to the South
Asian region.
1979
The United States paid scant
attention to Indian sensibilities and
concerns when it chose to forge a
renewed strategic relationship with
Pakistan almost immediately after
the Soviet invasion. General Zia-
ul-Haq even rebuffed India’s
efforts at reassuring Pakistan in the
aftermath of the invasion.
1979
General Zia-ul-Haq, the military
dictator, quite astutely exacted a
significant economic and military
price for such cooperation
1990
the United States provided two
packages of foreign assistance: the
first for five years of $3.2 billion
and the second for six years of
$4.02 billion. (The second package
was not fully delivered because the
Soviets withdrew from
Afghanistan
1991
The Soviet collapse and the
transformation of the global order
forced India’s policymakers to
make drastic changes in India’s
foreign policy at multiple levels.
At a global level, nonalignment
ceased to have much meaning.
1992
in the wake of the Oslo Accord
between Israel and the
Palestinians, India upgraded its
diplomatic relations with Israel to
the ambassadorial level.
1993
Designed to reduce tensions along
the Line of Actual Control, little or
no progress was made in resolving
the border dispute
India’s policymakers have
responded with some dexterity to
those changes in the global order.
Their responses, at economic,
political and strategic levels have
enabled India to emerge as a
potential great power though it still
faces enormous developmental
challenges.
New Delhi needs to proactively
shape its regional environment in
tandem with its neighbors. Though
numerous and formidable, these
challenges are not beyond the
reach of India’s policy
establishment.
wever the main merit
CONCLUSION

The Policy was in force almost for eight years and during this period private
investmente industries increased considerably. The Government implemented the
policy in a pragmatic manner and in national interest the private foreign investors
were permitted to start oil refineries. There was, however one weakness in the
policy and its implementatin. No priorites werelaid down, and even if laid down
wer not foller in practice. The reslt was a drop of industrial production , slowing
down of the process of capital formation and a certain amount of industrial
depression.

re the ground for a mixed