"Long years ago, we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment, we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people, and to the still larger cause of humanity."
Thus spake Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India, as part of his speech to the Indian Constituent Assembly on the eve of India's independence, towards midnight on 14 August 1947.
Nehru: A pretty complicated man in this author's admittedly amateur opinion. Worshipped to the hilt by India's Left Wing, and steadfastly criticized by India's Right Wing. Indeed, as any human, Nehru had his fair share of strengths and flaws. One must credit Nehru for continuing to lead the country and engendering confidence in the nation, despite the set of unique challenges he faced as independent India's first Prime Minister, and thus, effectively handed over the responsibility to chart out modern India's course, for which his cabinet, too, strove no less hard than he. Yet, it is a very fine line that separates following from worshipping. A follower believes in his leader's ideals, but never hesitates to raise an objection if the situation so demands. The worshipper, however, elevates his leader to the position of the almighty and is injudiciously obedient. Therefore, irrespective of Nehru's exalted position, it would be unbecoming of an observer, let alone a professional analyst, to let passion cloud his evaluation of the former.
Jawaharlal Nehru was the longest serving Prime Minister of India; for a record seventeen years. It is interesting to note that he also held the portfolio of External Affairs, thus chiefly responsible for India's foreign policy as well. It was partly due to the legacy of the national movement, for it was Nehru's dynamism that led the Congress in the development of an international outlook of the struggle by seeking foreign allies for India.
With the dawn of Indian independence, the leadership was aware that the new nation had to fight poverty, illiteracy and disease, and these were the grounds that would primarily shape India's foreign policy. Such conditions could not be achieved by joining military blocs, and therefore, India led the foundation of the Non-Aligned Movement. It was not merely India that Nehru had in mind, but also other countries of Asia and Africa. India was, even with independence, an influential country inasmuch as its size and influence over the Indian Ocean trade routes was considered. Therefore, India had the potential to stand out as a leader among the newly independent and impoverished countries.
With this realization, Nehru found it to be of utmost importance that India extend support to colonial and ex-colonial countries as much as possible. Case in point: when the Dutch attempted to re-colonize Indonesia in December 1948, it was Nehru who invited the states bordering the Indian Ocean, including Australia, and placed the issue before the Asian Relations Conference, which resolved to deny all facilities to Dutch shipping. Resolutions were also sent to the UN. Within a week, the Security Council resolved that a ceasefire be declared, and that the Indonesian national government be restored.
As the book India Since Independence highlights, Non-alignment enabled India to develop economic ties with countries on both the sides of the Cold War divide. Food aid, capital, technology etc. came in from the west and public sector industries from the Soviet Union. Many today, however, view the Non-Alignment largely as a farce, in effect only for the initial decade or two, for the socialist outlook of the leadership inevitably made India closer to the Soviet Union, particularly under the tenure of Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi.
The testing times for India's commitment to Non-alignment arrived with the Korean War. When North Korea invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950, India supported the US stance against North Korea in the UNSC, but abstained from voting on another resolution calling for assistance to South Korea and creating a unified command structure for the same. Tensions escalated when General Douglas MacArthur, in charge of UN forces, continued towards Yalu river that separated Korea from China, causing China to promptly send a warning through India to the west. Eventually, India played the role of peacemaker, and a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission was set up under General Thimayya for the repatriation of soldiers.
These testing times further continued with India's role in keeping conflict out of Indochina. India obtained promises from Britain and France, for China, that they would not allow the US to establish bases in Laos and Cambodia. It was at China's request that India was appointed Chairman of the International Control Commission and therefore, the supervisor of imports of foreign armament into Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.
With the nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt, Britain and France were incensed. They demanded international control over it and pressured Israel into attacking Egypt. It was India that supported Egyptian interests and introduced an agreement on Egyptian control over the canal, as well as Egypt's role as an advisor for other users.
Nehru's foreign policy was driven by five main principles, called the Panchasheel:
Respect for sovereignty.
Non-aggression.
Non-interference in the internal affairs of nations.
Equality and mutual benefit.
Peaceful coexistence.
One may wonder in retrospect whether this moral-posturing was worth India's interests. Doubtlessly, it was in the Indian interest to engage and seek help from the US. However, the non-aligned movement was described by the US as immoral. The US did not appreciate India's recognition of communist China in early 1950. Moreover, India's rigid anti-colonial initiative stood in direct conflict with the strong pro-colonial trend in the US, which had supported, for instance, Portuguese colonialism in Africa. On numerous occasions, Indian requests for food aid were kept hanging. One may wonder whether India should have been so righteous in its approach, and followed a foreign policy based on economic interests instead.
One of the biggest failures of Nehru's administration is the internationalization of the Kashmir issue. The United Nation's evident pro-Pakistan tilt left Nehru downcast, but the damage had been done.
It also did not help that the initial friendliness with China turned bitter when India gave asylum to the Dalai Lama, eventually culminating in the 1962 war against China. It was during this time when Nehru felt a great sense of betrayal, and faced incessant criticism back home. In all probability, the criticism was warranted, for Nehru's foreign policy insisted upon promoting a vague notion of world peace, which resulted in his administration not paying enough attention to India's defence. Moreover, Nehru appeared to not realize that the lofty ideals of world peace and nuclear disarmament which he held, were too idealistic and would bring no fundamental change, except for earning a few praises on the international arena.
There is, therefore, a point of view that holds Nehru responsible for not being very practical in his approach to foreign policy. The eventual collapse of the Soviet Union and the obvious success of capitalism in the west may lead one to question Nehru's endorsement to non-alignment, and wonder whether it would have been better for India to align with the United States.
While the viewpoint is not unfounded, there is merit in the argument that it ultimately did India well to not commit itself to alliances of a military type. The steep fall of Pakistan, which unhesitatingly became a US vassal and undertook military operations at the cost of its core interests, only to become a breeding ground and a hub for terrorists, is for all to see. Moreover, had the idealism that the national movement carried with it, fizzled out immediately after independence, it would have lowered Nehru's stature and probably led to widespread dissent, threatening the unity of the country that was painstakingly united by the nation's first Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel.
In conclusion, there is no denying the fact that Nehru was indeed an important figure in the shaping of independent India's foreign policy. While Nehru's idealism is, incontrovertibly, not best-suited for today's global geopolitics, it is helpful in analyzing how India's foreign policy proceeded since independence, and the grounds on which it proceeded the way it did. India appears to have learnt to prioritize economic interests today over idealism, for there is a need to sail through the choppy, and even treacherous waters, of international relations, with a certain degree of self-interest. The lessons that would be learnt through a dispassionate analysis of the evolution of India's foreign policy, would be of immense use to India for a long time to come.