Indian foreign policy

 India's foreign policy has been profoundly influenced by its unique geographical factors and the lasting legacy of its colonial past under British rule.

Geographical Factors in Indian Foreign Policy

India's geography has played a defining role in shaping its strategic outlook throughout history and continues to do so today.

• Ancient and Historical Context

• India's location at Asia's crossroads and its peninsular projection into the Indian Ocean made it a natural hub for international trade.

• Historically, the Indian subcontinent engaged in extensive trade, with connections spanning the reachable world from very early times.

• Invasions and influences typically entered India from the west or north (via the northwest), while India's cultural and broader influence often spread eastward, leading to the dissemination of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Indian trading communities as far as modern-day Indonesia.

• For centuries, Indian strategists predominantly focused on northern and western threats, a perspective influenced by the concentration of dominant political systems in the north, leading to a historical neglect of the Indian Ocean region and naval power. However, there was also a coastal tradition with outward projections of power, influence, and culture, challenging the "Delhi-centered" view.

• The Himalayas served as a significant barrier between India and other peoples, contributing to an introspective attitude for much of India's history. The south, with its Dravidian origins, was more insulated from invaders and developed a richer maritime tradition.

• The open geography of the Indian subcontinent has led to linked fates and open societies, characterized by strong cross-border ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural affinities that paradoxically fuel both high nationalism and ongoing nation-building processes.

Colonial Past: How the British Saw India as a "Crown"

The British viewed India as a vital asset within their empire, a perspective that profoundly influenced their strategic decisions and India's subsequent foreign policy.

• Strategic Importance of the Indian Empire

• The British government's foreign policy concerning India was fundamentally driven by British interests, aiming to ensure the Indian Empire's security and protect trade routes between Britain and India.

• London maintained a clear hierarchy of power, with decisions regarding the Indian Empire's external relations and security ultimately resting with the British government, even if the Indian treasury often bore the financial costs.

• The British viewed India as an "inexhaustible reservoir of manpower" for military and political deployment across the Indian Ocean basin, as articulated by Viceroy Nathaniel Curzon.

• The security of the Raj was seen as dependent on the "awe of British arms" rather than the consent of Indians. Thus, any perceived military defeat, even in a skirmish, could incite sedition, making defense of the Indian Empire a major component of Britain's overall foreign policy.

• From the British strategic perspective, India commanded the strategic center, and the balance in Asia was seen as hinging on India's power and the overall stability of the subcontinent.

How British Shaped India's Foreign Policy

The British Raj left an enduring legacy that continued to shape India's foreign policy choices and institutional structures after independence.

• Continuity in Policies and Institutions
  
  

• The colonial experience deeply impacted independent India's foreign policy, fostering lasting suspicion of Western hegemony (now led by the United States) and influencing Jawaharlal Nehru's lean towards import-substituting industrialization.

• Independent India inherited many institutions from the Raj, including the armed forces, bureaucracy, and diplomatic corps. The new Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and its personnel drew heavily upon the inherited wisdom and institutional memory from the British Empire, with many initial practices reflecting colonial precedents.

• Post-1947, India accepted the inherited boundaries as legal and sacrosanct and took over a vast number of treaties, conventions, and international organization memberships from the British.

• A school of thought within independent India's foreign policy establishment regarded India as the legatee of Britain's role in maintaining peace and stability in South Asia, leading to perceptions among neighbors of India's hegemonic ambitions.

• Frontier and Buffer State Strategies
  
  

• The British implemented a "ring fence" policy, creating a series of buffer states (a concept of British-Indian coinage) along India's landward periphery to prevent direct contact with formidable neighbors like Russia and China.

• This included maintaining Iran, Afghanistan, and Tibet as an outer ring, and Nepal, Bhutan, and Sikkim as an inner ring. These states were kept weak and underdeveloped to serve as buffers.

• The Wakhan Corridor was created to avoid a contiguous frontier with the Russian Empire.

• The MEA, for several years post-independence, continued to administer the Northeast region as a buffer zone between British and Chinese spheres of influence.

• Maritime and Economic Interests
  
  

• The British established control over crucial sea routes to India, notably in the Middle East and Indian Ocean, and extended the operations of the Indian army to secure these interests from the Suez Canal to Malaya and China.

• Despite London making the decisions, India shared the expenses for these extensive operations, highlighting its perceived role in maintaining the broader imperial system.

• India's current focus on developing its maritime strength and controlling energy choke points in the Indian Ocean (such as the Straits of Malacca and Hormuz) can be traced back to the strategic concerns that emerged during the British era, particularly during World War II when naval weakness became apparent.

• Impact on Bilateral Relations
  
  

• British policy towards China was marked by ambivalence: while British India resisted Chinese expansion, London avoided antagonizing Beijing due to perceived market potential. This complexity shaped future Sino-Indian relations.

• British hostility and "machinations" that favored Pakistan on the Kashmir issue had detrimental consequences for India's national security and bilateral relations post-independence.

• Post-independence, Nehru's foreign policy often continued British precedents, such as the treaties signed with Bhutan (1949) and Afghanistan (1950). India's approach to its neighbors, influenced by cross-border ethnicities and shared commonalities, often reflects a "neighborhood policy" with roots in this historical and geographical context.

India's foreign policy and security framework have undergone significant transformations, evolving from its historical roots and facing ongoing debates about its strategic culture and future challenges.

India's Strategic Culture - George Tanham

George K. Tanham's influential 1994 RAND monograph, Indian Strategic Thought: An Interpretive Essay, famously concluded that "Indians have not been great strategic thinkers or developers of strategy, although they have been profound thinkers in many other fields . . . (their) view of life as unpredictable did not lead Indians to see the need for strategy and even if they had, they would have been unlikely to pro-ceed because if the future is unknown and unknowable why plan?". K. Subrahmanyam, a prominent Indian strategic analyst, largely concurred with Tanham's assessment, often bemoaning the lack of strategic thinking among Indian leaders and officials.

This perspective suggested that India lacked a coherent way of dealing with security, leading to the belief that the terms "grand" and "strategy" were inappropriate when referring to India. However, the editors of the source material and other scholars challenge this view, arguing that no complex, modern society could be devoid of grand strategic thinking and practice. They contend that there is a respectable body of thinking on grand strategy and an identifiable set of policies that amount to grand strategic practice in India. Nicolas Blarel notes that while some scholars like Tanham concluded India's policy lacked a grand strategy, this often confused a lack of evident strategic planning with the absence of strategic culture.

Pre-independence Strategic Culture

Indian strategic thought draws on a rich heritage from its ancient and medieval past, influencing contemporary debates and the attitudes of its policy elite. This pre-independence heritage includes:

• Ancient Texts and Concepts: Elements of Indian strategic culture can be found in ancient texts like the Ramayana and Mahabharata, and linked to administrative experience during Mughal rule and elite worldviews during the colonial period.

• The concept of dharma (a set of rules binding the ruler and ruled, emphasizing moral and ethical undertones in statecraft) is central.

• Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the idea of seeing the entire earth as one family) and ahimsa (non-violence), which was key to Mahatma Gandhi's freedom movement, are also relevant.

• Historically, Indian strategic thought juxtaposed a realist tradition (focused on calculated power acquisition, akin to Kautilya's Arthashastra) with a moralist tradition (stressing ethical dimensions like peace and justice). While Arthashastra is often cited, its deep internalization by Indian leaders is questioned by some sources.

• An "abiding feature of India’s strategic practice" has been a taxonomy that prioritized negotiation, compromise, and sedition over the resort to force, often aiming to vanquish rather than annihilate enemies due to the practicalities of a fragmented political landscape.

• Mughal Influence: Mughal power rested on "ritual sovereignty," emphasizing the ruler's centrality in maintaining order and stability.

• Colonial Period and Indian Liberals: The colonial period, despite disrupting traditional strategic traditions, also saw the emergence of Indian liberal thought. Early 20th-century Indian liberals critiqued British military institutions from a political economy perspective, questioned the need for a large standing army, and successfully advocated for the Indianization of the military and civilian control. This significantly shaped modern India's view of civil-military relations. Views leading up to independence often saw "moral politik ideas" gaining the edge in international relations.

India's Strategic Culture - Post-independence

After independence, particularly since the end of the Cold War, Indian grand strategic thinking has been characterized by various "schools of thought". While India's foreign policy has shown a high level of consistency, indicating a shared strategic culture rooted in the quest for strategic autonomy and reconciliation of national and international interests.

Kanti Bajpai identifies three major schools and three relatively minor schools of grand strategic thinking in contemporary India:

• Nehruvianism: This was the dominant influence on India's grand strategy since 1947, with non-alignment as its principal feature.
  
  

• Core Beliefs: Rooted in internationalism, emphasizing the power of communication and negotiation to address security threats. It sought to protect India's sovereignty and interests while striving for international cooperation.

• International System View: Believes that international anarchy can be mitigated through international laws and institutions, military restraint, negotiations, compromise, and free intercourse between societies. It views arms spending as potentially impoverishing and balances of power as fragile.

• Approach to Adversaries: Generally dovish towards Pakistan and China, seeing them as fellow developing countries and victims of imperialism. It viewed adversaries as non-permanent, with war arising from misperceptions and ideological systems.

• US Relations: Shares a suspicion of the US with Hyperrealists, but recognizes the need for engagement. Non-alignment allowed India to navigate global tensions without compromising sovereignty, but it leaned towards the Soviet Union on strategic matters.

• Evolution: Though Nehruvian internationalism was gradually "abridged" (e.g., India's nuclear program), internationalism remains a cornerstone of its external policies.

• Neoliberalism: This school gained influence after the 1991 economic crisis and the end of the Cold War, becoming congruent with Indian policy.
  
  

• Core Beliefs: Places faith in economics and commerce, driven by market economics, trade, investment, and technology diffusion, adopting a mercantilist approach to external relations. It believes economic well-being is vital for national security, achievable through free markets and free trade.

• International System View: Emphasizes flexibility and pragmatism, believing that trade and economic interactions can transform international relations by trumping traditional quarrels over territory and identity.

• Approach to Adversaries: Less dovish than Nehruvians but more pragmatic than Hyperrealists, focusing on economic relations even with rivals. It has led to India tilting towards the US strategically and opening up to greater interactions with various regions and powers.

• Impact: While benefiting India's economic growth and global engagement, this strategic reorientation has not yet significantly improved India's security environment, particularly with Pakistan and China.

• Hyperrealism: This perspective advocates for a more assertive, power-oriented approach.
  
  

• Core Beliefs: Argues that peace and stability are best achieved through the accumulation of military power and a willingness to use force. It values force and unilateral methods more than prudential realism.

• International System View: Believes in a harsh, unforgiving world of international relations where sharp-edged machtpolitik (power politics) derived from ancient Indian statecraft (Vedas) is necessary.

• Approach to Adversaries: More hawkish towards Pakistan and China, advocating for military strength and potentially taking the fight to the opponent for "total victory". It criticizes India for being timid and pusillanimous.

• Practice: India has historically shown a "parabellum" or hardpolitik strategic culture, using force or the threat of force in various instances, such as the integration of princely states, the 1962 Sino-Indian War, and the 1971 intervention in East Pakistan. This aligns with a shift towards an offensive strategic doctrine at times.

• Minor Schools of Thought:
  
  

• Marxism: Prioritizes solidarity among progressive states and internal socialism for security. It views the US with great suspicion as the primary concern, while advocating military vigilance and bilateral negotiations for Pakistan and China.

• Hindu Nationalism (Hindutva): Believes in securing India through a "Hindu civilisational core" and a more muscular military stance. It perceives threats from the Christian West, Muslim world, and China, with Pakistan being a primary rival. This perspective calls for a "martial spirit" and "social cohesion based on an exclusionary nationalism". Modern Hindu nationalist foreign policy aims to fulfill India's "soft-power potential" by promoting Hindu culture and acting as a vishwaguru (world guru). However, Hindu nationalists have often been "foreign policy introverts" more focused on domestic security than grand strategy.

• Gandhianism: Proposes that security can only be achieved in a decentralized, non-violent, and morally true India that rejects industrialization and Western modernity. It considers modern industrial civilization (epitomized by the US) as the greatest threat due to its morally corrosive nature, while viewing Pakistan and China as lesser threats. It advocates for non-violent resistance and principled compromise, with military force only for purely defensive purposes if non-violence fails.

Future Security Concerns

India's foreign policy and security landscape continue to be shaped by complex factors and evolving challenges:

• Geopolitical Pivots: Asia is emerging as a critical geopolitical and economic center, with India having the potential to project comprehensive power. India's foreign policy will be defined by its active participation in shaping this environment.

• Protracted Conflicts: India's relationships with Pakistan and China remain conflict-ridden due to unresolved issues of sovereignty, alliance dynamics, power asymmetries, differences in political values, and domestic politics.

• Pakistan: Relations oscillate between aggression and moderation. Pakistan's capacity for balancing India (external or internal) and its use of terrorism as a strategic asset continue to be concerns. A shift from coercion to a more cooperative (Ashokan) framework is suggested to break the vicious cycle.

• China: Perceived as a threat, but policy combines military strength with negotiation, trade, and solidarity. India must actively engage with China and the US, avoiding choosing sides, and ideally having better relations with each than they have with each other. The US "Indo-Pacific strategy" is primarily maritime, which may not fully address India's continental security interests with China.

• Strategic Autonomy vs. Alliances: The consistent pursuit of strategic autonomy has been a defining feature of India's foreign policy since independence. This means maintaining decision-making power within India, avoiding alliances, and building internal capabilities while collaborating when interests align. Despite this, calls exist for greater reliance on external powers for security amidst uncertainties.

• Domestic Politics and Identity: Domestic factors significantly influence foreign policy, setting limits and creating opportunities. India's identity as a diverse, secular democracy, not based on religion or language, imposes unique responsibilities. However, the rise of polarized and communal politics, and leadership cults, can affect foreign policy.

• Economic Imperatives: Economic growth and development are central to India's national security and global aspirations. The "Manmohan Singh Doctrine" made economic diplomacy a centerpiece. India aims to shape its regional environment and influence the global order to foster sustained growth.

• Hard vs. Soft Power: There is a debate about India's hard power capabilities, with concerns about low defense budgets and insufficient military reforms despite worsening security. However, India increasingly leverages soft power through cultural diplomacy (e.g., Yoga Day), humanitarian aid (e.g., Vaccine Maitri), and diaspora engagement to strengthen global partnerships. This forms part of a "smart power" approach.

• Multilateralism: India actively engages with multilateral institutions like the UN (seeking Security Council reforms), BRICS, G20, and ISA to influence global governance and advocate for developing economies. However, it has been wary of certain arms control measures that could limit its security options.

• Leadership and Bureaucracy: Foreign policy has transitioned from being heavily influenced by individuals like Nehru and Indira Gandhi to being shaped by a more complex interplay of political leaders, bureaucratic institutions (MEA, MoD, NSC), the private sector, media, and public opinion. Criticisms persist regarding the bureaucracy's status quo orientation, reactivity, and lack of coordination.

Ultimately, India's future foreign policy will likely focus on strengthening strategic autonomy, expanding leadership in multilateral institutions, and leveraging technology for global development, while navigating complex regional security concerns and economic ambitions. There is a continuous debate on whether India should focus on an "outsize role abroad" or prioritize building itself internally.

India's foreign policy has undergone a significant evolution towards globalization, marked by a shift from its initial inward-looking approach to a more outward-oriented and integrated engagement with the world. This transformation has been driven by a confluence of economic imperatives, geopolitical shifts, and a desire for greater global recognition and influence.

Here's an overview of this evolution:

I. Early Years (Post-Independence to Mid-1980s): Limited Globalization

• Nehruvian Era: India's foreign policy was initially shaped by Jawaharlal Nehru's vision of non-alignment, emphasizing sovereignty, anti-colonialism, decolonization, and peaceful coexistence. This approach aimed to keep India independent of the Cold War blocs, focusing on self-reliance. While it fostered global peace and decolonization efforts, it led to an insular economy with limited interaction with the external world, particularly in trade and foreign investment. India's foreign policy in this period was above all anti-imperialist. India did engage with international organizations like the UN and was a major part of South-South cooperation, exemplified by the Bandung Conference.

• Economic Stagnation and Shifts: From the 1950s to the mid-1980s, India's state-controlled socialist model of growth resulted in economic stagnation. By the late 1970s and 1980s, Indian business began to seek global opportunities, and leaders like Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi started introducing minor shifts towards economic liberalization and outward engagement. This included outreach to the United States and China and an attempt to normalize relations with Pakistan and engage with Israel, preceding the major changes of the 1990s.

II. Post-Cold War Transformation (Since 1991): Accelerated Globalization

• Catalyst for Change: The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, which ended India's "proto-ally," and an acute balance of payments crisis forced India to undertake comprehensive economic reforms. This marked a radical shift from a state-controlled socialist model to a more open, market-friendly economy, abandoning autarky in favor of trade and investment.

• New Foreign Policy Priorities: India's outward orientation and increasing political and economic engagement with key global players became a natural corollary to economic liberalization.

• Re-engaging Major Powers: India prioritized repairing relations with the West, especially the United States, and deepening engagement with the European Union and Japan. The U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement in 2008 was a significant development, ending India's nuclear isolation and transforming ties into a strategic partnership.

• "Extended Neighborhood" Focus: India began to rediscover and intensify engagement with its extended neighborhood beyond South Asia, including:

• "Look East" (later "Act East") Policy: Initially focused on economic ties with Southeast Asia, this policy expanded to include East Asia (Japan, South Korea) and increasingly took on strategic dimensions, partly due to the rise of China.

• "Look West Asia" and "Connect Central Asia" Policies: Aimed at restoring historical connectivity and building new transport and energy corridors.

• Africa: India re-engaged with Africa, driven by economic interests (resources, markets), the diplomatic weight of African countries in international institutions, and competitive dynamics with China.

• Indian Ocean: A shift from a coastal to an ocean-going naval vision emphasized the Indian Ocean as an area of primary strategic interest, with a focus on choke point security.

• Multilateral Engagement: India became more active in multilateral fora like the G-20, BRICS, and the WTO, advocating for the interests of developing economies and seeking a greater voice in global governance institutions. India's approach to multilateralism has evolved from an anti-establishment stance to one that seeks to shape and participate in the established order.

• Redefining Strategic Posture:

• From Non-Alignment to "Strategic Autonomy": While non-alignment as a formal stance became less relevant, the concept of "strategic autonomy" emerged as a key driver, meaning India's ability to make independent decisions and respond to international events based on its own interests, even while engaging in strategic partnerships.

• Economic Diplomacy as Centerpiece: Economic growth and development became central to India's foreign policy, with economic diplomacy emphasized to foster trade, investment, and access to resources and technology.

• Pragmatism and Realism: The post-Cold War era saw a move towards a more "pragmatic" and "realist" foreign policy, prioritizing national interests over strict idealism or moralistic stances. This was evident in decisions like establishing full diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992.

• Soft Power Diplomacy: India has increasingly leveraged its cultural influence, historical ties, and developmental assistance as soft power tools, promoting yoga, Ayurveda, Bollywood, and humanitarian aid to enhance its global image and partnerships. The Indian diaspora also plays a significant role in this.

III. Contemporary Approach (Modi Era): Assertive and Multi-Aligned

• "Multi-Alignment" and Assertive Diplomacy: Under Narendra Modi, India adopted a "multi-alignment" strategy, actively engaging with multiple global powers (U.S., Russia, Japan, EU) while safeguarding strategic autonomy. This is distinct from passive neutrality, emphasizing proactive engagement. The government has pursued a more robust approach to national security and defense modernization, demonstrating an assertive defense posture.

• Domestic-International Linkages: Domestic factors, including economic growth initiatives ("Make in India," "Atmanirbhar Bharat") and nationalist rhetoric, continue to shape global engagements.

• Challenges: Despite progress, India's foreign policy still faces challenges such as capacity constraints within the Ministry of External Affairs, a need for more policy coherence, and the ongoing influence of domestic politics on international decisions. There is also a debate about the extent to which Modi's Hindu nationalist ideology has truly "reinvented" foreign policy, with some scholars arguing for significant continuity despite the rhetoric.

In essence, India's foreign policy has moved from an initial anti-colonial, non-aligned, and somewhat isolationist stance to one that is deeply integrated with the global economy, actively seeks strategic partnerships, champions multilateralism, and projects its influence through a combination of hard and soft power, all while aiming to secure its continued development and rise on the world stage.

India's foreign policy has undergone a significant evolution towards globalization since the 2000s, building upon the foundational shifts initiated in the post-Cold War era. This period has seen India move from a relatively inward-looking, non-aligned stance to a more outward-oriented, pragmatic, and multi-aligned engagement with the world, driven largely by economic imperatives and a desire for greater global influence.

This evolution can be broadly understood through the lens of key phases and their defining characteristics:

Early 2000s (Vajpayee Government, 1998-2004)

Building on the economic reforms initiated in 1991, this period saw a more assertive yet pragmatic foreign policy.

• Nuclear Assertiveness & Pragmatic Engagement: Following the 1998 nuclear tests, India declared itself a nuclear weapons power but accompanied this with a voluntary moratorium and a "no-first-use" doctrine. This move, initially leading to international sanctions, paradoxically opened avenues for diplomatic negotiations and transformed India's global strategic stature.

• Re-engagement with Major Powers: There was purposeful engagement with the United States, a historic visit to Lahore (Pakistan), and renewed dialogue with China. The Indo-US Track II Strategic Dialogue, for instance, was initiated in 2002 involving the private sector. This period also saw a "marked cooling off" of government-to-government relations between India and major global powers due to sanctions, which the private sector (e.g., through the CII) helped manage via Track II diplomacy.

Manmohan Singh Era (2004-2014): Deepening Globalization and Strategic Partnerships

This decade solidified India's outward orientation, with economic growth becoming a central priority.

• Economic Diplomacy as a Priority: Economic growth was declared a national priority to be achieved through liberalization, trade, and foreign direct investment, making economic diplomacy central to India's foreign policy. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh emphasized that India's approach to regional trade agreements and free trade agreements (FTAs) was based on "geo-political as well as economic interests," recognizing the growth potential of trade and economic cooperation with the global economy.

• Transformative Relations with the US: A hallmark achievement was the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement in 2008, which ended India's nuclear isolation and allowed it to access nuclear technology and fuel, transforming the relationship into a strategic partnership. This marked a significant acceleration of ties that long-term trends might have brought about gradually.

• "Look East" Policy Momentum: The "Look East" policy, initiated in 1992, gained further momentum, expanding India's economic and strategic ties with Southeast and East Asian nations, including Japan and South Korea. This policy, initially focused on economic ties, increasingly took on strategic dimensions.

• Expanded Multilateral Engagement: India became highly active in multilateral fora such as the G-20, BRICS, and the World Trade Organization (WTO), advocating for the interests of developing economies and seeking a greater voice in global governance. India’s membership in the G-20 was seen as a sign of its expected greater part in world affairs.

• "Strategic Autonomy" Principle: While "non-alignment" as a formal stance became less relevant, the concept of "strategic autonomy" emerged as a key driver, signifying India's ability to make independent decisions and pursue its interests even while forming strategic partnerships. This also reflected the significant growth in India's economic weight in the international system, providing greater room for maneuver.

• Redefining Neighborhood Policy: India sought to restore the subcontinent's economic integrity through bilateral and multilateral means, as seen in the free trade agreement with Sri Lanka and efforts to develop South Asia into a single economic space. It also began to develop a "new template for strategic and economic cooperation" with neighbors, as demonstrated by agreements with Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Maldives in 2011.

Narendra Modi Era (2014-present, as per sources): Assertive and Multi-Aligned Diplomacy

This period is marked by a more assertive diplomacy and a shift to a "multi-alignment" strategy, characterized by proactive engagement rather than passive neutrality.

• Continuity and Ideological Shifts: While some scholars like Ian Hall argue that Modi's efforts to "reinvent" Indian foreign policy, rooted in Hindu nationalism, have largely resulted in continuity with past approaches, others emphasize the "drama and noise" generated and the distinct discursive shifts. There is a debate about the influence of Hindu nationalist ideology, with some suggesting it prioritizes domestic security and may lead to "foreign policy introversion".

• Enhanced Global Partnerships: India has strengthened defense cooperation and economic ties with major powers like the United States, Russia, and Japan. This includes signing foundational defense agreements with the US (e.g., LEMOA, COMCASA). India's relations with China remain complex, balancing economic interdependence with border tensions.

• Neighborhood First and Act East Policy: Modi initiated a "neighborhood-first policy," inviting SAARC leaders to his swearing-in, and intensified the "Look East" policy by renaming it "Act East", expanding its scope to include strategic dimensions and the wider Indo-Pacific region. However, relations with neighbors have faced challenges and "marked deterioration" in some cases.

• Domestic-International Linkages: Domestic initiatives like "Make in India" and "Atmanirbhar Bharat" (Self-Reliant India) are explicitly linked to foreign policy objectives, aiming to bolster manufacturing and reduce import dependency. The government's firm stance on issues like cross-border terrorism and the revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir have also influenced external relations.

• Soft Power and Cultural Diplomacy: There's a significant emphasis on soft power diplomacy, leveraging India's cultural heritage (e.g., Yoga Day), humanitarian aid (e.g., Vaccine Maitri during COVID-19), and diaspora engagement to enhance global partnerships and image. The Indian diaspora, though historically marginal in policy formulation, has become more visibly embraced by the state.

• Multilateral Leadership Ambitions: India continues its active role in multilateral organizations, advocating for UN Security Council reforms and playing leadership roles in the G20, BRICS, and the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue). India's commitment to climate change mitigation is also demonstrated through its participation in agreements like the Paris Agreement and initiatives like the International Solar Alliance (ISA).

Overall, India's foreign policy since the 2000s has been characterized by its increasing globalization, marked by a shift towards a more pragmatic, economically driven, and multi-aligned approach that actively seeks to shape the international order while safeguarding its national interests and promoting its distinct identity on the world stage.

India's foreign policy decision-making involves a complex interplay of various institutions, with the Parliament playing a crucial, though sometimes limited, role alongside a powerful executive branch. Since the 2000s, this institutional framework has navigated India's evolution towards a more globalized, pragmatic, and multi-aligned foreign policy.

Here's a breakdown of the roles played by key institutions and the Parliament:

I. Key Institutions in Foreign Policy Decision-Making:

While the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) is the primary institution responsible for India's foreign policy, managing diplomatic affairs, gathering intelligence, and coordinating efforts, its role often remains secondary to the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

• Prime Minister's Office (PMO):
  
  

• Considered one of the most powerful institutions in foreign policy decision-making. All important foreign policy and national security matters require the Prime Minister's approval.

• Historically, Prime Ministers like Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi left a significant personal imprint on foreign policy, often centralizing decision-making.

• The PMO has expanded its role over time, with MEA officials seconded to it as advisors and the Prime Minister appointing special envoys on critical issues. The tenure of Principal Secretary Brajesh Mishra under Prime Minister Vajpayee, for example, demonstrated the PMO's increased involvement in public foreign policy pronouncements.

• National Security Council (NSC):
  
  

• Established to address the ad-hoc nature and lack of effective policy coordination in foreign and national security policy-making.

• It includes a Strategic Policy Group, with the Defence Minister being an integral part.

• The creation of the NSC was seen as necessary because Prime Ministers, if they chose, could bypass collective decision-making mechanisms like the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA).

• Ministry of Defence (MoD):
  
  

• A crucial stakeholder in India's foreign policy, primarily focused on national security and territorial sovereignty.

• It provides strategic inputs, participates in decision-making, and engages in military diplomacy, including joint exercises and arms sales.

• Despite its importance, the MoD's direct role in shaping overall foreign policy is comparatively minimal when compared to its counterparts in major powers like the US, Russia, or China.

• Other Ministries and Agencies:
  
  

• Ministry of Finance (MoF) is involved in economic diplomacy, multilateral financial organizations (like the World Bank and IMF), and approving budgets for other ministries involved in external relations.

• The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) plays a role in climate change discussions and can influence relations with neighbors through decisions on border infrastructure projects.

• The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MPNG) engages internationally due to India's growing oil and gas imports, conducting "oil diplomacy" and supporting state-owned companies in acquiring assets abroad.

• Intelligence agencies, such as the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) and the Intelligence Bureau (IB), provide crucial inputs into policy-making on external relations.

II. The Parliament's Role in Indian Foreign Policy:

The Parliament is empowered by the Indian Constitution to legislate on foreign affairs, reflecting its role as the ultimate voice of the people in a democracy.

• Constitutional and Legislative Authority:
  
  

• Article 246 of the Indian Constitution grants Parliament exclusive power to make laws on all aspects of external affairs, listed under the Union List (e.g., diplomacy, war and peace, the UN, international treaties, citizenship).

• Article 253 specifically empowers Parliament to legislate or amend laws for the implementation of international treaties, agreements, and conventions.

• Advisory Role (Parliamentary Committees):
  
  

• Departmental Related Standing Committees (DRSCs), particularly the Standing Committee on External Affairs (SCEA), are crucial advisory bodies.

• They scrutinize budgetary demands of the MEA, examine referred proposals, conduct research, and provide expert inputs for foreign policy formulation.

• These committees regularly seek briefings from MEA officials and meet visiting foreign delegations, enhancing parliamentary control over the bureaucracy. Their establishment in 1991 has gradually improved Parliament's role.

• Influential Role:
  
  

• Parliamentarians can influence foreign policy through debates, question hours, motions, and resolutions.

• The rise of strong opposition and national parties since the 1960s has increased Parliament's influence compared to the earlier Nehruvian era where parliamentary involvement was limited.

• For instance, Nehru's policy towards China in the early periods, initially soft, was restructured in the late 1950s due to constant pressure in Parliament. Similarly, Indira Gandhi adjusted her stance during the Hungarian and Czechoslovak crises under parliamentary criticism.

• Treaty Ratification:
  
  

• While Parliament has the power to approve treaties, its approval is generally not mandatory for the implementation of international agreements in India, unlike some Western democracies.

• Treaties are often seen as matters of "secrecy for optimum result," and discussions in Parliament might be avoided if they are perceived to endanger the goal of the treaty. Notable treaties like the India-China Agreement of 1954 and the Indo-Soviet Agreement of 1971 were not referred to Parliament for debate before conclusion.

III. Impediments and Challenges to Parliament's Full Influence:

Despite its constitutional powers, Parliament's influence on foreign policy decision-making faces several impediments:

• Executive Dominance and Secrecy: Foreign policy is largely considered the exclusive domain of the executive, with many crucial policies formulated and implemented without direct parliamentary approval.

• Personality Cult and Party Affiliation: Historically, the dominant personality of the Prime Minister (e.g., Nehru) and the majority of ruling party members supporting government decisions have minimized Parliament's influence in debates.

• Low Prioritization by MPs: Foreign affairs is often a less preferred issue for discussion among most Members of Parliament, who tend to focus more on regional and national domestic concerns. This limits the depth and breadth of foreign policy debates.

• Lack of Expertise: Many MPs may lack specialized knowledge on complex foreign policy issues, affecting the quality of debate and their ability to influence long-term policy changes.

• Understaffed MEA: India's diplomatic corps is significantly understaffed compared to other major powers, which can hinder the comprehensive formulation and implementation of foreign policy, affecting the information flow to Parliament.

• Decentralization and Regional Politics (Last 10 Years):

• Since the 2000s, and particularly in the last decade, the fragmentation of India's political landscape and the rise of coalition governments have led to regional parties and state legislatures exerting pressure on central foreign policy decisions.

• While these regional demands are now heard, they can complicate the articulation of India's "national interest" and lead to inconsistencies, as seen in relations with Sri Lanka or water-sharing agreements with Bangladesh.

• Prime Minister Modi's government has sought to "ring-fence" foreign policy from state-level interference, but the historical pattern suggests that dissent and opposition cannot be easily ignored.

IV. Broader Domestic Influences on Foreign Policy (Beyond Parliament):

• Public Opinion: While foreign policy was historically an elite domain, the rise of an educated urban middle class and 24-hour news cycles mean public opinion is likely to play a greater, though still somewhat unpredictable, role.

• Private Sector: While largely uninfluential in security and political foreign policy, the private sector has played a facilitating role in economic and commercial diplomacy, notably in the Indo-US Civilian Nuclear Treaty.

• Media: The media's influence is limited by secrecy and depth of reporting, but the expansion of regional language newspapers and technology has diversified the foreign policy discourse.

• Think Tanks and Universities: Their direct impact on policy-making has been limited due to government's tight control and academic distancing from policy. However, they serve as crucial platforms for debate and Track II diplomacy, with influential individuals often bridging the gap between academia and policy.

• Ideology and Identity: India's foreign policy is deeply rooted in its post-colonial identity and a quest for strategic autonomy. While committed to democratic values internally, India has generally refrained from actively promoting democracy abroad, prioritizing non-interference and national sovereignty. In the Modi era (since 2014), there's a debate about the influence of Hindu nationalist ideology on foreign policy, with some arguing it has led to more assertive diplomacy and a focus on soft power, while others suggest it largely represents continuity with past approaches, sometimes prioritizing domestic security.

In summary, India's foreign policy since the 2000s has been shaped by the powerful executive (PMO, MEA), which, while seeking to enhance India's global role and strategic partnerships, operates within a parliamentary framework that provides oversight, but often falls short of directly dictating policy due to institutional and political dynamics. Domestic factors, including public opinion, the private sector, media, and ideological currents, increasingly contribute to this complex and evolving foreign policy landscape.

India's approach to foreign policy is a complex and evolving synthesis shaped by its history, geography, capabilities, and leadership. It has been subject to continuous transformations in response to global political shifts, economic changes, and security challenges since its independence.

I) Idea of Foreign Policy

The concept of foreign policy in India encompasses both theoretical understandings and practical objectives, centered around the nation's core interests.

• National Interest At its simplest, foreign policy is defined as "The way a country handles the outside world". More scientifically, it involves "activities evolved by communities for changing the behaviour of other states and for adjusting their own activities to the international environment". The essence is always the protection and promotion of one’s own national policy, with power serving as the means to achieve an effective foreign policy. Foreign policy is ultimately the outcome of economic policy, with a foreign minister primarily considering the country's interests.
  
  Historically, Indian policymakers have asserted that their approach, while often misunderstood as idealistic or ethical, was always fundamentally about promoting India’s national interests. These interests, broadly conceived, align with the mutual interests of other nations and the overall needs of a progressive world society. India's foreign policy is considered "amoral" like any other country's, focusing on the means to achieve desired ends.
  
  The core interests guiding India's foreign policy include:
  
  

• Territorial integrity, freedom to make foreign and domestic policy, military stability with rivals, a preferred way of political, economic, and cultural life, economic well-being, and regime survival. India has a "hard" view of sovereignty, resisting international agreements that might loosen its control within its borders.

• A quest for strategic autonomy and equality of status, stemming from its post-colonial identity and aiming for an independent international personality consistent with its size, heritage, and vision for a post-colonial world order.

• Reconciliation of national goals with internationalism, viewing nationalism as vital for national energy and internationalism as an antidote to parochialism.

• The pursuit of cooperative behavior through peaceful resolution of international conflicts, preferring non-violent means like dialogue and international law over military force.

• A quest for political, social, and economic justice for all peoples, particularly decolonized nations.

• Since the 1990s, the single most important objective has become the creation of a global environment conducive to India's economic development and the well-being of its people. This requires widening, deepening, and expanding interactions with all economic partners, neighbors, and major powers. The ultimate goal is to assist India's transformation by creating an enabling external environment, focusing on domestic strength and avoiding overextension abroad.

• Goals of Foreign Policy The overarching goals of India's foreign policy, as derived from its national interests, have been:
  
  

• Ensuring National Security and Survival: This includes protecting territorial integrity, addressing threats from neighbors like Pakistan and China, and maintaining internal order.

• Promoting Economic Development and Prosperity: Economic growth became a national priority after the 1991 reforms, emphasizing liberalization, trade, and foreign direct investment. Economic diplomacy is now a central component.

• Achieving Strategic Autonomy and Global Recognition: To secure its place as a rising power and shape global governance, India has consistently sought to maintain independent decision-making without being constrained by alliances. This involves engaging with all major powers and influencing the global order.

• Advocating Multilateralism and Global Norms: India actively participates in institutions like the UN, WTO, BRICS, and G20, pushing for reforms (e.g., UN Security Council permanent membership) and advocating for the interests of developing countries.

• Projecting Soft Power: Leveraging its cultural heritage (e.g., yoga), historical ties, and developmental assistance to enhance its global image and strengthen partnerships.

• Fostering Regional Stability and Cooperation: Engaging with its immediate and extended neighborhood through trade, security partnerships, and infrastructure initiatives (e.g., "Look East" policy, later "Act East").

II) Environment of Indian Foreign Policy: Non-alignment to Multi-alignment & Strategic Thought

India's foreign policy has evolved through distinct phases, marked by shifts from non-alignment to multi-alignment, influenced by changing geopolitical landscapes and strategic thinking.

• From Non-Alignment
  
  

• Nehruvian Era (1947-1962): Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister, laid the foundation of India's foreign policy, rooted in principles of sovereignty, anti-colonialism, peaceful coexistence, and self-reliance. He envisioned India as a leader among newly decolonized nations. Nehru's most significant contribution was his role in co-founding the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), aiming for independence from the Cold War blocs and establishing an "area of peace". This period saw him advocating for disarmament and decolonization at the UN. Despite its idealistic approach, Nehru's policy was also a mixture of realism, with strategic engagements and personal imprints on decisions. However, challenges like the Kashmir conflict and the 1962 Sino-Indian War exposed military vulnerabilities and dealt a severe blow to his credibility, forcing a reassessment of defense policies.

• Post-Nehru to Cold War End (1962-1991): This period saw a shift towards a more pragmatic and security-oriented approach. Lal Bahadur Shastri adopted a more decisive military response during the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War. Indira Gandhi, contradicting Nehru's idealism, embraced "hard realism". She deepened ties with the Soviet Union through the 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation, signaling a strategic alignment. India's decisive role in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War reinforced its regional dominance. Her administration also pursued nuclear capabilities, conducting the "Smiling Buddha" test in 1974 for strategic deterrence. While facing economic strains and strained US relations, this era solidified India's position as a formidable power. Rajiv Gandhi further initiated economic liberalization and outreach to the US and China, laying groundwork for future reforms. The Cold War era compelled India to navigate complex geopolitical challenges while maintaining strategic autonomy.

• To Multi-Alignment
  
  

• Post-Cold War Transformation (1991-2014): The collapse of the Soviet Union and a severe balance of payments crisis in 1991 forced India to fundamentally rethink its international assumptions and partnerships, leading to economic liberalization. This marked a shift from an inward-oriented, state-controlled model to a more open, market-driven economy emphasizing trade and foreign investment. The concept of Nehruvianism was questioned, and a more "pragmatic" or "realist" approach emerged, notably influenced by Neoliberalism in strategic thought. India re-engaged with major powers, including the West, Japan, and China. The 1998 nuclear tests under the Vajpayee government further asserted India's strategic stature and autonomy. Economic imperatives increasingly shaped foreign policy, with the "Manmohan Singh Doctrine" making economic diplomacy central.

• Modi Era (2014-Present): Narendra Modi's government marked a significant shift towards an assertive and pragmatic diplomacy. A defining feature is the multi-alignment strategy, which involves active engagement with multiple global powers (US, Russia, Japan) while preserving strategic autonomy, moving beyond traditional non-alignment's passive neutrality. Modi's government prioritized strengthening defense cooperation (e.g., with US), economic ties, and diplomatic coordination. Domestic factors, including economic growth initiatives ("Make in India," "Atmanirbhar Bharat") and nationalist rhetoric, have influenced India's international positioning. Modi's foreign policy has also emphasized soft power diplomacy, leveraging cultural influence (e.g., International Yoga Day), historical ties, and diaspora engagement. While often described as transformational and rooted in Hindu nationalist ideology, some analyses suggest it represents more continuity than radical change in core foreign policy directions and foundational assumptions. This is attributed to the "stickiness" of previous ideational frameworks and institutional deficiencies in foreign policymaking.

• Strategic Thought The question of whether India has a "grand strategy" has been a subject of ongoing debate, with some arguing against a coherent plan and others asserting its existence. Grand strategy is understood as the combination of national resources—military, diplomatic, political, economic, cultural, and moral—deployed for national security. Scholars identify various "schools of thought" in Indian strategic thinking:
  
  

• Nehruvianism: Emphasizes internationalism, communication, and negotiation for security.

• Neoliberalism: Places faith in economics, commerce, and market interactions as key to well-being and security, viewing trade as a transformative force.

• Hyperrealism: Advocates for military power as the surest path to peace and stability.

• Marxism: Focuses on solidarity among progressive states and socialism within India for security.

• Hindu Nationalism (Hindutva): Advocates for a strong military stance based on a Hindu civilizational core, emphasizing martial spirit and social cohesion through exclusionary nationalism.

• Gandhianism: Argues for security through a decentralized, non-violent, and morally upright India that rejects industrialization and Western modernity.

• While Indian policy post-Cold War tends to correlate more with Neoliberalism, ideationally, there's a strong affinity for Nehruvianism. India's strategic culture has also been described as having a "parabellum" or "hardpolitik" view, predisposing it to use force when capabilities allow. This is balanced by a historical "cautious prudence" and a deep-seated suspicion of power as an objective of foreign policy. The influence of ancient texts and traditional concepts like dharma, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family), and ahimsa (non-violence) also contribute to Indian strategic thought, often imbuing statecraft with moral and ethical undertones. Domestic politics profoundly influences the formulation and practice of grand strategy, setting limits and creating opportunities.
  
  

• Role of Parliament The Parliament plays a crucial role in India's foreign policy within its democratic framework, though its direct influence can be complex and sometimes limited by executive dominance.
  
  

• Constitutional and Legislative Authority: The Indian Constitution grants Parliament exclusive power to legislate on all aspects of external affairs (Union List, Article 246) and to implement international treaties, agreements, and conventions (Article 253).

• Advisory Role: Departmental Related Standing Committees (DRSCs), particularly the Standing Committee on External Affairs (SCEA), scrutinize the Ministry of External Affairs' (MEA) budgetary demands, examine proposals, and provide expert inputs. These committees receive regular briefings from MEA officials and meet foreign delegations, exercising a degree of parliamentary control over the bureaucracy.

• Influential Role: Members of Parliament (MPs) can influence foreign policy through debates, question hours, motions, and resolutions. The rise of strong opposition and national parties since the 1960s has increased Parliament's influence compared to the early Nehruvian era. For instance, parliamentary pressure led to adjustments in Nehru's China policy and Indira Gandhi's stance on certain international crises.

• Treaty Ratification: While Parliament has the power to approve treaties, its approval is generally not mandatory for the implementation of international agreements in India, unlike some other democracies. Discussions might be avoided if perceived to endanger the treaty's objective.

• Impediments to Parliament's Full Influence:
  
  

• Executive Dominance and Secrecy: Foreign policy is largely considered the exclusive domain of the executive branch, with many crucial policies formulated and implemented without direct parliamentary approval.

• Low Prioritization by MPs: Foreign affairs often remain a less preferred issue for discussion among most MPs, who tend to focus more on regional and national domestic concerns. This limits the depth and breadth of foreign policy debates.

• Lack of Expertise: Many MPs may lack specialized knowledge on complex foreign policy issues, affecting the quality of debate and their ability to influence policy.

• Decentralization and Regional Politics: The fragmentation of India's political landscape, especially with the rise of regional parties, has led to state legislatures and regional demands exerting pressure on central foreign policy decisions, sometimes complicating the articulation of a unified "national interest".

• Limited Electoral Salience: Foreign policy is generally thought to have low electoral salience in India, meaning it is not usually a major issue on which citizens vote or protest. This reduces direct political accountability for foreign policy performance.

In essence, India's foreign policy is a blend of continuity and change, driven by a deeply ingrained quest for strategic autonomy and economic development, while adapting to global shifts and navigating complex domestic political dynamics. The Parliament provides democratic oversight and a forum for debate, but the executive, particularly the Prime Minister's Office, often holds the primary decision-making power, reflecting a balance between democratic accountability and strategic agility.

India's defense policy, as part of its broader grand strategy, involves the coordinated deployment of national resources—military, diplomatic, political, economic, cultural, and moral—to safeguard national security, encompassing both external and internal components. The understanding of "security" itself is a contested concept, varying over time and space based on values, perceived threats, and capacities. India's defense policy has evolved significantly, influenced by historical contexts, ideological shifts, and global challenges.

Land Defense Policy

Historically, India’s defense strategy was primarily land-oriented. However, this perspective has undergone considerable evolution:

• Early Post-Independence: While the British Raj focused on defending land frontiers, newly independent India initially remained complacent about developing its maritime strength.

• Nehruvian Era: Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister, was criticized for dismissing the threat from China, instead making Pakistan India's "major possible enemy" and focusing on "marginal wars" with limited aims against it. He believed that comprehensive provisions for Chinese aggression would impose an "intolerable burden" on India and weaken its general defense.

• Post-1962 Sino-Indian War: The conflict with China in 1962 galvanized India's defense research community. Defense expenditure significantly increased, and defense planning was systematized, with a focus on strategic materials and defense needs.

• Contemporary Land Defense:

• India has deployed twelve mountain divisions along its Himalayan border to cope with the threat from China.

• The Ministry of Finance has approved the development of a mountain strike corps of around 90,000 troops for deployment along the disputed border with China.

• India's strategy on its land borders is a combination of deterrence through denial and punishment.

• Internal Security: The Indian army has been deployed in internal security operations in the northeastern states since the 1950s and 1960s, and later in Punjab in the 1980s. Notably, India has generally refrained from employing higher caliber weapons or air power in these internal operations, with a brief exception in Mizoram in 1966.

• Kargil Conflict (1999): During this conflict, Indian forces and air power did not cross the Line of Control, despite significant costs in lives. This experience led to the development of the "Cold Start" doctrine in Indian army thinking, envisaging limited offensives to stay below Pakistani nuclear thresholds. While described as more offensive, India has officially denied this doctrine, and the Indian military is reportedly distancing itself from it.

• Ideological Perspectives on Land Defense:

• Hyperrealists advocate for robust military power, emphasizing the importance of territorial control and planning for coercive use of force. They would push for a dramatic increase in domestic arms production.

• Marxists support military vigilance and preparedness, backing efforts to oust Pakistani forces from Kargil but opposing escalation by crossing the Line of Control.

• Nehruvians are generally more defensive-minded, considering affordability and internal economic needs.

• Neoliberals support acquiring sophisticated arms from the U.S. and Russia to manage threats from China, showing enthusiasm for arms purchases.

• Challenges: India's security situation is steadily worsening due to China's rise. Budget allocations, particularly the increasing cost of pensions for military personnel (over 40% of the defense budget), hinder India's capacity to acquire badly needed equipment. There's also an observed inattention to significant reforms that could make the armed forces more effective with existing resources.

Water (Maritime) Defense Policy

India's maritime defense has seen a significant strategic reorientation:

• Historical Complacency: For decades after independence, India remained largely complacent about developing its maritime strength.

• Post-1990s Shift: Since the 1990s, India has made concerted efforts to develop its naval strength, driven by the desire to control vital energy choke points in the Indian Ocean, such as the Straits of Malacca, Straits of Hormuz, and Bab el Mandeb.

• Indian Navy's Evolving Role: The Indian Navy now plays a crucial role in providing security, protecting economic interests, safeguarding exclusive economic zone resources (including offshore oil and gas, deep-sea mining, and fisheries), and securing the Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs) through which most of India's global trade transits.

• Blue-Water Ambition: There has been a notable shift in maritime vision from a small coastal fleet to a larger ocean-going active blue-water fleet capable of power projection throughout the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean is pinpointed as an area of primary strategic interest for India.

• Naval Doctrines: The Indian Maritime Doctrine (first published in 2004, updated in 2009) and India's Maritime Military Strategy (2007) reflect this shift, envisaging combat, constabulary, and diplomatic roles for the navy and highlighting choke point security.

• Increased Spending: The navy's share of the defense budget increased significantly from a low of 3.4% in 1963–64 to 19% a decade after 1999–2000, representing a larger share of a growing overall budget.

• Naval Capabilities: India has acquired capabilities such as the nuclear-powered stealth attack submarine INS Chakra (leased from Russia) and is indigenously producing nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) like INS Arihant and INS Aridhaman. It is also building advanced Scorpene conventional submarines.

• Engagement and Partnerships: India took a leading role in establishing the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) in 2008 and successfully blocked China's attempt to join in 2009. It has developed defense ties with South Africa, Mozambique, Madagascar, Tanzania, and Kenya, conducting joint naval exercises with Australia and deploying vessels for anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden.

• Challenges: Despite advancements, India faces challenges with the numbers and age of its underwater naval assets, with several accidents reported. Competitors like Pakistan, with newer models, and China, with greater numbers, possess significant underwater sea-denial capabilities in the Indian Ocean. China's growing presence in the Indian Ocean region, including its first overseas military base in Djibouti and cultivation of navies from Pakistan to Bangladesh, is a major concern for India. Under the Modi government, there has been noted "inattention to hard power" and a "low defense budget," leading to delays in navy procurement.

Nuclear Defense Policy

India's nuclear policy has evolved from ambiguity to overt weaponization, driven by strategic imperatives:

• Nehruvian Foundations: While commonly believed to have opposed nuclear weapons, Nehru pursued a two-track policy: advocating for international nuclear disarmament while simultaneously ensuring India mastered all necessary technologies, including those with military uses. He consistently avoided legal commitments that could prevent India from developing its own nuclear weapons unless nuclear powers disarmed.

• Post-1964 Chinese Test: China's nuclear test in 1964 prompted a re-evaluation of India's security calculus. Prime Minister Shastri sought a nuclear umbrella from the Soviet Union and the U.S., but these were not extended. He subsequently decided against immediate weaponization, partly due to cost considerations, though a British assessment (kept secret from India) indicated India could build an arsenal with "little technical difficulty and at very little additional cost".

• Indira Gandhi Era: Indira Gandhi saw nuclear capabilities as a necessary deterrent and strengthened India's nuclear program. India conducted its first nuclear test, "Smiling Buddha," in 1974, which, despite international criticism and sanctions, solidified India's position as a formidable power.

• Rajiv Gandhi Era: Faced with Pakistan's advancing nuclear program and a lukewarm international response to his disarmament proposals, Rajiv Gandhi authorized further work on nuclear weapons and delivery systems in the late 1980s. He ordered the "building of the bomb" in 1988.

• 1998 Nuclear Tests: Under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, India conducted nuclear tests in May 1998, declaring itself a nuclear weapons state. This move led to temporary sanctions but reinforced India's strategic stature.

• Current Doctrine and Capabilities:

• India officially adheres to a strategy of "minimum credible deterrence".

• It maintains a "no first use" (NFU) doctrine. While the Modi government has suggested it might review this, previous reviews have consistently reiterated and reconfirmed it. China also has an NFU policy, though some analysts argue it might not apply to potential use against India in disputed areas.

• A unilateral moratorium on further testing was announced after the 1998 tests.

• India is developing a strategic triad of nuclear-capable aircraft, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), including the INS Arihant SSBN. This capability is seen by some as exceeding the requirements of minimum deterrence.

• Challenges:

• Operationalization: The operational aspects of India's nuclear forces still face challenges, with control of warheads divided between civilian scientific agencies and the armed services. Concerns persist about secure communication networks, redundant command and control nodes, and safe storage.

• DRDO's Role: The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) sometimes pursues the development of advanced missile and warhead capabilities without explicit political clearance, which could inadvertently lead to an arms race with adversaries like China and Pakistan.

• Pakistan's Program: Pakistan is reportedly increasing its fissile material production, potentially in response to Indian statements on "massive retaliation". Pakistan leverages its nuclear weapons to ensure U.S. and international support.

• Disarmament vs. Pragmatism: While India has historically championed nuclear disarmament, participating in multilateral forums and proposing initiatives like Nehru's test ban and the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan, these efforts often faced the reality of great power reluctance to disarm. India's enthusiasm for multilateral approaches has sometimes turned to "bitterness" when expectations were not met.

• Existential Threat Perception: Unlike some other nuclear powers (e.g., China, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea) that pursued nuclear weapons due to perceived "existential threats," India did not initially feel such an immediate necessity, which made it easier to default to multilateral efforts rather than unilateral weaponization.

Overall, India's defense policy is characterized by a dynamic interplay of historical legacies, evolving strategic doctrines, and the complexities of managing resources and bureaucratic structures in response to diverse internal and external threats. While there's a recognized need for a coherent grand strategy, the influence of domestic politics and bureaucratic interests can sometimes lead to policy inconsistencies.

India's foreign economic policy has undergone significant transformations, driven by both domestic imperatives and global shifts, evolving from Nehruvian self-reliance to a more market-oriented and multi-aligned approach under subsequent governments, including Narendra Modi's.

Nehruvian Economic Policy

Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister, laid the initial foundations of India's foreign policy, which emphasized self-reliance and minimal dependence on foreign powers, particularly through state-led industrialization. His economic policies faced challenges in achieving rapid industrialization and technological advancement, leading to slower growth compared to other emerging economies due to limited foreign investments. Nehru famously viewed foreign policy as ultimately an outcome of economic policy, and he emphasized the strategic importance of economic development for national aspirations. A realist interpretation of Nehru's non-alignment suggested it aimed to leverage Cold War divisions to secure economic and military assistance from both the United States and the Soviet Union, metaphorically described as the "clever calf that sucks two cows". During this era, U.S. aid often focused on agriculture, while Soviet aid supported public sector industry and defense.

Post-Cold War Economic Liberalization and Shift to Neoliberalism

A significant shift occurred in India's foreign economic policy following the balance of payments crisis of 1990–91 and the end of the Cold War. This period saw a radical reorientation from a state-controlled socialist model to a more free-market economy, emphasizing an outward orientation, trade, and foreign direct investment [38, 40, 41c, 47, 55, 130, 197, 203, 315, 317, 321, 375, 446]. This economic liberalization was crucial for securing financial support from the IMF and World Bank, which pushed for greater openness to foreign trade and investment.

Key features of this evolving foreign economic policy include:

• Economic Growth as National Priority: The single most important objective became the creation of a global environment conducive to India's economic development and the well-being of its people [41c, 269, 322, 324].

• Diversified Engagements: India actively pursued relationships with major global powers, including the United States, EU, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and China, seeking strategic partnerships. The transformation of relations with the US was particularly significant, leading to deeper cooperation in high technology and ending India's nuclear apartheid.

• "Look East" Policy: Initiated by Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao in 1992, this policy aimed to promote economic integration with East Asia and Pacific countries, leveraging the region's dynamic economies. It later acquired political and security overtones. This was followed by a "Look West Asia" policy and "Connect Central Asia" policy to expand influence in other regions.

• Economic Diplomacy and Trade: Emphasized foreign direct investment, strengthened trade partnerships, and sought to reduce import dependence [41c, 132, 215, 250, 269, 270, 271, 276, 318, 319, 324, 376, 445]. India actively engaged in multilateral trade negotiations, shifting from opposition to becoming a founding member of the WTO and pursuing free trade agreements (FTAs).

• Multilateralism: Increased participation in forums like the G20, BRICS, and WTO to advocate for developing economies' interests.

• Resource Security: India's growing energy needs led to increased international involvement to secure access to oil and gas, particularly from the Gulf, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia, and influenced its naval strength development.

• Soft Power and Economic Diplomacy: India leveraged its cultural influence, historical ties, and diaspora engagement to enhance its global image and strengthen economic partnerships.

Modi's Foreign Economic Policy

Under Narendra Modi, India's foreign policy has maintained a focus on economic growth and self-reliance, with an emphasis on "multi-alignment". His administration has promoted initiatives like "Make in India" and "Atmanirbhar Bharat" (Self-Reliant India) to reduce import dependence and enhance domestic manufacturing and export capabilities. Modi's foreign economic policy is characterized by assertive diplomacy and strengthening defense ties, while domestic factors like economic growth heavily influence global engagements.

However, the perceived "reinvention" of foreign policy under Modi has been noted as often aimed at the domestic audience, with actual policy shifts being incremental and reflecting continuity with past patterns. For instance, despite efforts to boost foreign investment, Modi's government has failed to conclude new free trade deals and has demonstrated protectionist impulses, notably by opting out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). This raises questions about the consistency between rhetoric and practice, as Hindutva ideology, traditionally "foreign policy introverts," often lacks detailed guidance for grand strategy.

Challenges and Impediments

Despite the emphasis on economic diplomacy and growth, India's foreign economic policy faces several challenges:

• Security Concerns: Economic growth has not always translated into improved security with neighbors like Pakistan and China, with relations continuing to be marked by mistrust.

• Domestic Constraints: Domestic politics, including the influence of state governments and opposition parties, can impede efforts at reconciliation or inter-state cooperation, as seen with the Teesta river waters agreement with Bangladesh. Foreign policy is often not a major electoral issue, leading to less direct political interference but also less consistent links between foreign policy performance and electoral outcomes.

• Bureaucratic Limitations: Criticisms include a tendency for officialdom to be status quo-oriented, reactive, and lacking coordination and integration across ministries, which can hinder foreign policy coherence and efficacy. India's Ministry of External Affairs is also noted as understaffed for the requirements of an interdependent global system and India's aspirations.

• Protectionist Tendencies: Parts of the Indian private sector maintain protectionist and mercantilist stances, sometimes inconsistent with the government's push for greater openness, which can limit the depth of economic integration.

• Gap between Aspirations and Capabilities: Despite growing economic power, there can be a gap between India's foreign policy aspirations and its actual capabilities, particularly in areas like naval spending or overall defense modernization, which can constrain its global role.

India's foreign economic policy towards South Asia and its engagement with the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) reflect a complex interplay of historical legacy, geographical imperatives, economic aspirations, and persistent security challenges.

South Asia: Definition and India's Centrality

South Asia is a term that came into use in the mid-1960s, encompassing physically and culturally contiguous countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Myanmar, once part of the British Raj, and China, due to its cultural, political, and military links, are also considered de facto South Asian powers.

India's geographical centrality and large size (75% of the population, 79% of GDP, and 75% of land area of South Asia) mean that all other South Asian countries border India, but none border one another, except Pakistan-Afghanistan and Bangladesh-Myanmar. This makes India an overwhelmingly influential presence in the region's economies, polities, societies, and culture. Historically, the Indian subcontinent has been an autonomous strategic unit connected to a larger multiverse, with its prosperity and stability linked to flourishing external connections and internal strength.

India views South Asia as the core of its security sphere, a geopolitical priority inherited from the British Raj. India's foreign policy has sought to consolidate its periphery through renewed treaty commitments, coordinated foreign policies, and economic and social integration with its immediate neighbors.

Challenges to Regional Integration and India's Role

Despite deep cultural, linguistic, and religious affinities across state boundaries, South Asia is the world's most politically and economically least integrated region, and one of the most violent. Intraregional trade in South Asia is less than 5% of its total trade, compared to much higher figures in East Asia and Europe, and intraregional investment is less than 1%.

Key challenges and impediments include:

• Legacy of Partition: The territorial partition along religious lines and the creation of Pakistan left a "poisoned legacy of hostility" and a contested territory in Kashmir, leading to multiple wars and persistent tension. Pakistan, with its "identity deficit," has historically sought outside support to achieve parity with India.

• Distrust of Smaller Neighbors: Many of India's neighbors perceive its weight as dominance and have sought to balance and hedge against overwhelming Indian influence by building links with outside powers like China and the United States.

• Domestic Constraints in India: Domestic politics and regional demands, such as those from Tamil Nadu regarding Sri Lanka or West Bengal concerning Bangladesh, can impede foreign policy initiatives, as seen with the stalled Teesta river water-sharing agreement. India's perceived "proconsular instincts" and actions stemming from domestic ideological goals (e.g., in Nepal or regarding Bangladeshi immigrants) can alienate neighbors and diminish credibility.

• Chinese Influence: China's influence in the subcontinent is growing rapidly, with significant investments and pledges under the Belt and Road Initiative far exceeding India's. This increased Chinese involvement is welcomed by most countries in the subregion, but often leads to distrust from India.

SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation)

SAARC was founded in 1985, comprising India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Afghanistan gained membership in 2005.

• Initial Indian Skepticism: India was initially skeptical and reticent about institutionalizing regional cooperation, with many Indian officials seeing it as an attempt by smaller neighbors to "gang up" against India.

• Objectives: SAARC aimed to promote regional cooperation. SAARC's proponents in India argued it was an opportunity to overcome the economic consequences of the subcontinent's fragmentation and partition.

• "Glacial Progress": The progress of SAARC has been described as "somnolent and disappointing" and "glacial" due to various factors. These include India's initial lukewarm attitude, its continued emphasis on bilateral relations, the distrust of its smaller neighbors, Pakistan's intransigence, meager inter-state economic links, and the role of extra-regional powers. The SAARC has found it difficult to build beyond the significance of bilateral links with India for each of its members.

• Economic Integration Efforts: Despite SAARC's limitations, the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) was signed in 2004 by all member states. India has also taken unilateral and bilateral steps to open its markets to other South Asian countries, offering zero duty access to its neighbors under free trade agreements and special arrangements with Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka.

• Lack of Prominence in Indian Discourse: The neo-Nehruvian document, "Nonalignment 2.0" (2012), notably did not even mention SAARC, suggesting a diminishing focus. An "obsession with Pakistan and boycotting SAARC" have led neighbors to hedge their bets, despite China's active presence.

India's Evolving Regional Policy

India's foreign policy approach to its neighborhood has evolved significantly:

• Nehruvian Era: Jawaharlal Nehru perceived South Asia as deeply integrated into a broader Asia, advocating for an "area of peace" through pan-Asian solidarity and economic and social integration, while consolidating India's periphery through treaty renewals and coordination of foreign policies.

• Indira Doctrine: Indira Gandhi pursued a more assertive and security-focused foreign policy, aiming to develop an "Indo-centric subregional order" where external involvement could be restrained and Indian leadership asserted. This included interventions (e.g., Bangladesh War, Sikkim's accession).

• Rajiv Gandhi's Shift: His tenure marked the beginning of India's gradual shift toward economic globalization and a more balanced foreign policy, initiating major diplomatic moves towards the US, China, and Israel, and promoting SAARC. His approach combined strategic resolve with diplomatic options.

• Post-1990s Liberalization and Neoliberalism: Following the 1990-91 balance of payments crisis and the end of the Cold War, India underwent a radical reorientation towards a free-market economy, emphasizing outward orientation, trade, and FDI. This led to the "Look East Policy" (1992) to integrate with dynamic East Asian economies. This was followed by a "Look West Asia" policy and "Connect Central Asia" policy, aiming for "greater connectivity in transport, road, rail, and waterways links, communication, transit routes through each other’s territory" to transform the subcontinent into an "interconnected web of economic and commercial links".

• Gujral Doctrine: Introduced in 1997, this doctrine discarded old emphases on bilateralism and reciprocity, emphasizing India's willingness to "walk more than half way" to resolve disputes, provided neighbors do not allow their territories for hostile activities against India.

• Modi Era ("Act East" and "Neighborhood First"): The Modi government has pledged to intensify its eastern engagement, turning "Look East" into "Acting East". While the rhetoric is "neighborhood first," actual delivery of development cooperation has sometimes diminished, and relations with neighbors are more fragile than before.

Outlook for South Asia

India faces the challenge of functionally reuniting the South Asian region. To achieve this, it needs to prioritize economic integration, build connectivity, contribute to the security of its neighbors, and ensure it is seen as an agent of positive change by tempering its "proconsular instincts". An "Indian century can only be a subset of an Asian century," predicated on a new architecture connecting Central and South Asia. The economic performance of South Asia, particularly Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, provides a strong basis for a more prosperous and integrated region, but fundamental challenges remain.

India's foreign policy towards major global powers has undergone significant transformations since its independence in 1947, evolving from an initial emphasis on non-alignment to a more pragmatic, multi-aligned approach in a globalized world. This evolution is driven by internal priorities, such as economic growth and national security, and external pressures, including the changing global power dynamics.

Here's an overview of India's relations with key major powers:

I. United States (USA)

India's relationship with the United States has transitioned from a period of estrangement and suspicion during the Cold War to a growing strategic partnership.

• Cold War Era (1947-1991): India's policy of non-alignment often put it at odds with the US, which sought allies against the Soviet Union. The US viewed non-alignment with skepticism, and its alliances with Pakistan (e.g., through CENTO and SEATO) intensified India's fears of American influence in the region. India harbored deep anxieties about the US as a "neo-imperial power" that might constrain its foreign and domestic policies. Despite this, India periodically sought material benefits like food aid and high technology from the US.

• Post-Cold War Transformation (since 1991): The collapse of the Soviet Union, India's economic liberalization in the early 1990s, and changes in its nuclear weapons program removed major impediments to closer ties.

• Economic Engagement: India's economic reforms facilitated commercial engagement, leading to a rise in trade and investment flows. The US became a significant market for India's exports and a source of advanced technology and FDI.

• Strategic Partnership: A growing strategic convergence, shared concerns about a rising China, and common interests in counterterrorism have driven closer ties. The US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement in 2008 was a high point, ending India's nuclear isolation and transforming the relationship from transactional to strategic.

• Defense Cooperation: India has diversified its defense relations, with Israel and the US becoming major sources of high-technology imports, intelligence sharing, and counter-terrorism cooperation. Regular military exercises and the signing of foundational defense agreements (e.g., LEMOA, COMCASA under Modi) have deepened military cooperation.

• Challenges and Nuances: Despite improvements, power asymmetry remains, with the US being the stronger power, which can lead to differences in operational objectives and negotiating styles. India still shows some wariness of US dominance and seeks to avoid becoming a "junior partner" or being drawn into an anti-China containment strategy. Domestic politics in both countries can also periodically affect relations.

• Modi Era: The Modi government has embraced a "multi-alignment" strategy, significantly intensifying engagement with the US and its allies like Japan and Australia. The revival of the Quad (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) is a key aspect of this, seen as a counterpoint to China.

II. Russia (formerly Soviet Union)

India's ties with Russia are deep-rooted, stemming from a long-standing strategic partnership forged during the Cold War.

• Cold War Era (1947-1991): The Indo-Soviet partnership was a cornerstone of India's foreign policy, especially after the Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1971. The Soviet Union became India's principal source of weaponry, military training, and supported its state economic sector with various projects. This relationship was remarkably stable, driven by shared practical interests and India's need to counterbalance US support for Pakistan.

• Post-Cold War (since 1991): The collapse of the Soviet Union led to an attenuation of the relationship, with Russia initially focusing on the West. However, India steadfastly maintained ties, offering generous financial terms for trade and insisting on a new friendship treaty.

• Revival under Putin: Under Vladimir Putin, the relationship has been resuscitated, primarily focusing on arms transfers and defense cooperation. India and Russia collaborate on major defense projects like the BrahMos missile and fifth-generation aircraft. India remains dependent on Russia for a significant portion of its military hardware.

• Convergence on Global Issues: India and Russia share convergent views on issues like terrorism, separatism, and instability in Central Asia.

• Current Status: While the relationship is time-tested and stable, its economic dimension is eroding compared to India's growing trade with the US, Europe, and East Asia. The strategic significance of Russia for India has also relatively reduced compared to the Cold War era, partly due to India's expanding ties with the US and other Asia-Pacific states to counterbalance China. India seeks to balance its historical ties with Russia, navigating complexities arising from global events while prioritizing national interests.

III. China

India's relationship with China has been complex and "highly uneven," marked by periods of suspicion, cooperation, and outright conflict, particularly due to contested borders and growing power asymmetry.

• Historical Context:

• Early Years (1950s-early 1960s): Initial "Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai" (Indians and Chinese are brothers) camaraderie, but quickly overshadowed by the Tibet issue and the contested Sino-Indian border.

• 1962 Border War: A decisive moment that severely strained relations and exposed India's strategic vulnerabilities.

• Cold War Alignments: China's close alliance with Pakistan and its tacit alliance with the US after 1971 were often directed against India, complicating India's foreign policy choices.

• Post-1990s and Growing Power Asymmetry: Since the 1990s, India and China have sought "incremental engagement" while facing the reality of China's rapidly increasing economic and military power.

• Economic Relations: Trade between India and China has boomed, but it is often imbalanced against India, with concerns about its composition.

• Geopolitical Competition: China's growing influence in South Asia (e.g., in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Maldives) and the Indian Ocean region (e.g., through port development like Gwadar and Hambantota) is a significant concern for India. India views this as "encirclement".

• Border Tensions: Border disputes remain a persistent source of friction, as seen in incidents like the Doklam standoff (2017) and Galwan Valley clashes (2020).

• India's Strategy: India seeks to manage its relationship with China and deal with the consequences of its rise, often by strengthening ties with other powers that share its interests, such as the US and Japan. India's goal in the India-US-China triangle is to be closer to both China and the US than they are to each other. However, recent Chinese actions have led to a more adversarial stance.

IV. West Asia (Middle East, Gulf, Iran, Israel)

West Asia is a "vital periphery" and a "core interest" for India due to its immense importance for energy security, the large Indian diaspora, and counterterrorism efforts.

• Historical Approach: India has traditionally maintained a "non-prescriptive" and "non-intrusive" foreign policy towards the region, successfully managing relationships with diverse actors, including those at loggerheads. This has been possible by staying out of their internal politics and avoiding taking sides in internecine quarrels.

• Energy and Economic Ties: The Gulf region provides over 63-64% of India's crude oil imports and is its number one trade partner among economic groupings, ahead of the EU, ASEAN, and North America. India's growing energy demand is met by ever-expanding energy imports from the oil-rich Middle East.

• Indian Diaspora: Over 7 million Indians live and work in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, remitting significant amounts of money home.

• Iran:

• Strategic Importance: Iran is seen as a rich source of energy, a potential check against Pakistan, and an ally on Afghanistan, offering India access to Central Asia that Pakistan has cut off. India and Iran have historically worked together on counterterrorism and containing extremist groups.

• US Influence: India's evolving relationship with the US, particularly during the nuclear deal negotiations, led to shifts in its stance towards Iran. India voted against Iran in the IAEA on its nuclear program and shifted its stance on the IPI pipeline, largely due to US preferences and pressure. This was a "strategic choice" by India, despite other states with deeper US dependencies not following suit.

• Israel:

• Transformation: India's relations with Israel have moved from initial hostility and unease to a deep defense, counter-terror, and economic relationship. Israel is now the second-largest source of defense supplies to India.

• Balancing Act: While intensifying relations with Israel, India has maintained an official pro-Palestinian position in international forums. The normalization of ties with Israel was enabled by India's post-1992 economic ascendancy and its ability to delink Pakistan from its Middle East policy.

• Saudi Arabia and GCC: India has actively sought political and economic ties with Saudi Arabia and the GCC countries, overcoming the "Pakistan bogey" in its bilateral relations. The rapid economic growth and technological advances in India, along with its democratic identity, encouraged GCC countries to view India in a new light.

• New Challenges: The region faces increasing militarization, sectarian violence, and extremist influence, which poses new challenges for Indian diplomacy. India may need to expand its role as a security provider, particularly for maritime security around the Persian Gulf.

V. European Union (EU) and Western Europe

India has traditionally good relations with the EU and its member states, with economic ties forming the core of the relationship.

• Historical Engagement: India was the first developing country to establish diplomatic relations with the European Community in 1962, followed by various cooperation agreements. Despite its non-alignment, India maintained engagement.

• Post-Cold War Shift: India's economic liberalization in 1991 led to its integration into the global economy, encouraging enhanced relationships with the West, including the EU. The EU acknowledged India's new global importance by initiating regular summits in 2000.

• Economic Cooperation: The EU is India's largest trading partner, with significant trade in goods and services and substantial foreign direct investment. India has pursued free trade agreements (FTAs) and comprehensive economic partnership agreements with various European countries and the EU as a bloc.

• Defense Relations: Military and defense relations with major EU members like Germany, France, and the UK have improved, with European countries expanding their arms exports to India, though Russia remains the bulk supplier.

• Multilateral Engagement: India engages actively with the EU on various global issues, including climate change.

• Challenges: Despite the overall positive trajectory, challenges remain, such as domestic opposition to trade liberalization within India. The relationship is characterized by a "dichotomy and complementarity" between the EU's supranational institutions and the individual foreign policies of its member states.