Historical Influences on India's Foreign Policy

Abstract

India's international relations after independence in 1947 drew several of its principal characteristics from earlier Indian history and, in particular, from India's painful colonial experience under the British Raj.1 One that was largely dormant until quite recently is India's vocation, throughout most of its history, as a hub for international trade.This article traces key episodes in India's history and seeks to relate these to the country's foreign policy as it has evolved since 1947. Particular themes relating to perceptions formed by Indians during the Raj include India's overriding quest for autonomy and suspicion of all but the most necessary alliances, its commitment to non-intervention in the internal affairs of states, and its related attachment to the principle of state sovereignty, all of which continue to strongly influence Indian policy today.SOME HISTORICAL SIGNPOSTSThe question of what India represented in the pre-nation-state era is far from simple.2 At times, in both North and South India, numerous kingdoms and other polities vied for recognition, respect, and space. And yet Indianness, a mostly pluralistic identity influenced by simultaneously contending and co-existing religions and belief systems, as well as shared heritage, coalesced into Indian civilization as we understand it today.Two broad phenomena emerge as constants in the history of India. The first is the repeated influx of peoples and ideas from the northwest (specifically from Afghanistan, Persia, and Central Asia), which occurred through invasions, but more often through migration, pastoral circuits, trade, and missionary travel. Second, foreign influences mostly were accommodated and assimilated, producing cultural fusions.3Modern writing on Indian history began with colonial accounts of the Indian past.4 Much colonial historiography was preoccupied with the differentiation between indigenous and alien communities. Indian civilization came to be seen as essentially Hindu and Sanskritic. Turkish, Afghan, and Mughal chronicles were perceived as alien historiography.5 This preoccupation represented both a distortion and simplification of Indian history, which defies organization along a simple timeline and according to the religion of the dominant ruling power.The Indian nation-state is best seen as a modern construct that is not grounded in a defined territory (or constant form of society) inherited from a pre-modern past.6 In the case of North India, a relatively continuous sequence of polities based in or near Delhi evolved, but the polities' borders contracted and expanded considerably over time, occasionally including Afghanistan, for example. Similarly, South India does not constitute a homogenous or regional unit throughout history.Trade connected India to much of the known world millennia ago and has continued to do so ever since. At various times, the southern part of the Indian subcontinent served as a link in the sea route connecting the Mediterranean region and the Middle East with China and other Asian destinations. While the west coast attracted ships from Africa and Arabia, on the east coast, ships docked from China, or the islands and peninsulas of Indonesia, Malaysia, or Thailand.7 As far back as the Indus and Harappan civilization (2600-1700 BCE) extensive relationships based on trade and contact existed with port cities in ancient Mesopotamia.8 Trade with Babylon in the seventh and sixth centuries BCE involved gold, spices, and fragrant woods from South India.9 During the Hellenic and Roman periods, Europe's trade with the subcontinent was first documented.10India through the ages attracted settlers from different parts of the world, many eventually melding into India's syncretic whole. Some came to India as traders or soldiers; others, such as early Chinese pilgrim Fa Hsien, were part of ongoing exchanges of scholars and embassies between India and China. …