To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
He became by far an instrumental figure in India's struggles towards Independence and was later recognized as Mahatma Gandhi's political heir. During his presidency, he set up a parliamentary government and became famously known for his non-aligned policies in foreign affairs. Nehru also served as foreign minister of India (1946-1964), Minister of Finance (1958-1959), and as minister of defense (1962).
The three main principles of Nehru’s political creed were nationalism, democracy, and socialism.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Free Essays
5 (893)
“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”
He was a committed nationalist, an avowed supporter of Socialism, and a true Democrat at heart. The conjunction of the afore-mentioned ideologies made him the enfant terrible of Indian politics. It is important to note, furthermore, that Nehru was a prolific writer in English and wrote many books, such as “The Discovery of India”, “Glimpses of World History”, and his autobiography, “Toward Freedom”.
He also wrote a series of articles entitled ‘Whither India, wherein he explicated the reasons behind his socialist belief.
The document, at hand, was delivered over radio and television during Nehru’s second visit to the United States of America in Washington D.C., on December 18, 1956, from the pan American union building, as a guest of then US President Dwight D Eisenhower. The speech was later published in the U.S. Department of State Bulletin, the official record of U.S. foreign policy, on January 14, 1957. The statement was mainly addressed to the American public as it is lucidly eminent in the use of the word “Friends” at the beginning of his speech and in the intimate yet profound language deployed. His talk, however, implicitly extends further to include the U.S president, congress, and other groups like agency bureaucrats, to mention a few. Abiding by his politics of non-alignment, the leaders of the Soviet Union were involved as well. It was, therefore, an appeal to the U.S and the Soviet Union for adopting the politics of peace and to bring about effective disarmament. While the world was divided into two belligerent camps pitted against each other, Nehru’s speech was an appeal to consider the third camp that identifies with neither western capitalism nor eastern communism.
The prominent purpose of the speech was to compare Abraham Lincon’s principles of independence and liberty to Buddha’s ideals of peace and compassion. The metaphor is made imperative to demonstrate how Americans and Indians share a common faith in democratic values and institutions, values of “liberty, dignity, equality and the freedom of the human spirit.” As a prophet of world peace, Nehru sought to create a climate of peace at the international level. He called for a united endeavor for one orderly and just world free from domination or interference. The speech, thus, portrays Nehru’s intellectual struggle against the Bipolar world order and his will to prevent India, as well as other Asian and African countries from becoming a theatre of the cold war. Nehru has also voiced his stance vis a vis nuclear weapons and the mad race of armament by calling for a global nuclear disarmament “to lessen the fear of war and the fear of one another”. The most important goal, however, was to introduce the doctrine of non-alignment whereby countries belonging to the third camp, namely India and other nations wouldn’t feel obligated to tie themselves to either dueling country to prosper.
Non- alignment
The aftermath of world war II gave rise to two major superpowers in the world, namely Russia led by the Union of the soviet socialist republic and the United States of America. The non-aligned movement saw light in the heyday of the cold war after the demise of the colonial regime and the beginning of independence movements of the people of Asia, Africa as well as other regions of the world. This policy “sought to create an independent path in world politics that would not result in member states becoming pawns in the struggle between the major powers”. Its membership has continuously grown from 25 at an establishment to nearly 120 countries, representing almost two-thirds of the united-nations members and over half of the world’s population. The 1955 Bandung conference, wherein twenty-nine countries African and Asian states joined to examine and discuss the new emergent world order, was a prominent step towards the expected formation of the non-aligned movement and represents a paramount phase in the emergence of the new world, a Third World, that rejects to side with neither the west nor the East. In September 1961, the first non-alignment movement summit was held at Belgrade, Yugoslavia, and was attended by the three founding fathers of the NAM, Jamal Abdel Nasser, Joseph Broz Tito, and Jawaharlal Nehru. They joined forces in an endeavor to explore what contribution they could make to world peace, which, in retrospect, seemed vitally urgent given the intensity of the Cold War and the threat of a nuclear war.
The primary objective of the movement had been, thus, focused among others on the creation of a third independent block, the promotion of global peace, and the fight against colonialism in all its manifestations. Nehru’s understanding of non-alignment was that third-world countries shall not get entangled with any of the military alliances namely NATO as opposed to the Warsaw pact. As opposed to the two power’s understanding of the movement, the Non-alignment movement was just about the creation of an independent block with freedom of decision making and freedom of action. In other words, countries belonging to the third camp would continue to actively participate in world affairs to promote international peace, harmony, and cooperation and would not aloof away from international problems and politics.
Analysis:
The international event that caused this text to be written is the event of the cold war, because of which the world was split into two extremely armed blocs. Accordingly, in the late 1940s, both the United States and the U.S.S.R. began hunting for India as a potential ally in the Cold War in a struggle against a universal communist threat. This is generally because the U.S.A was heedful of “the strategic defense of the region” and perceived India as the “pivotal” state of the region. America’s containment policy, employed in South Asia, was meant “to help India defend against external attack, but most importantly to obtain bases and facilities from which the United States might strike the Soviet Union with its own forces”. The American government has also sought to proffer economic aid with the intention of containing communist influence. As far as U.S.S.R interests in the region are concerned, the USSR was in a dire need of India to first, restrain China and second, to deter the latter from falling into United States’ arms especially when the relations between the Soviet Union and Chinese deteriorated because of Khrushchev’s policy. What’s more, the U.S.S.R sought to diplomatically support India in the Indian – Pakistani conflict as the western block sided with Pakistan in an attempt to exert its presence in the region. Still and all, Nehru led efforts toward a 'nonalignment policy,' as a tactic to suit the cold war conjuncture. Nehru strongly objected to the cold war for its harmful impacts on the economies of the world’s former colonies and for its hindrance of development. India had close relations with neither America nor the Soviet Union insofar as Nehru made sure to maintain equal distance from both powers devoid of any fear or favor. Nehru, however, positioned India into a strategic place for it to be able to receive assistance and aid from both parties.
In his second visit to the U.S, Eisenhower found Nehru to be far more critical of the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 than he had been in the open. Be that as it may, Nehru, Eisenhower concluded, “would always be tougher on European and American actions, which reminded him of British imperialism, than on the Soviet Union activities, which were often undertaken in support of anti-imperialist nationalist movements in the developing world”.
1. Non-alignment as an epitome of peace:
Jawaharlal Nehru's played a pivotal role in promoting world peace. This can be demonstrated from the efforts done by him, particularly after independence after he became the first Prime Minister of independent India. This includes but is not limited to his struggle against imperialism and nuclear weapons. For him, “peace and freedom have become indivisible and the world cannot continue for long partly free and partly subject. In this atomic age, peace has also become a test of human survival”. This verse holds an earnest view on Nehru’s determined engagement to world peace. This call for peace was, however, vested to pursue India’s foreign policy interests. The potentially dangerous situation in the Indian ocean to her south, with both the U.S and the U.S.S.R increasing their naval presence there. with expenditure for expanding its military capacity restricted by modest economic circumstances, India had no choice but to deter and prevent future attacks through resorting to friendly regional and international diplomacy, hence non-alignment, a natural policy choice. In this vein, while Nehru’s philosophy of non-alignment may appear at the outset to be a policy for the advocation of world peace It implicitly aims at the protection of India’s interest in the international sphere. This is lucidly evident when Nehru, who strongly opposed nuclear weapons, acquired nuclear weapons in order to deter external nuclear threats in the 1960s as the security situation kept deteriorating with neighboring countries. It seems that the continuity of the state has once again trumped the utopian dream of global peace.
2. Non-Alignment as Anti-imperialism
India, like other colonies, had felt very harshly the pressure that the colonial power imposed on it, using its resources, a commitment by its side in conflicts that were foreign to it, as was the case for the Second World War. At the time of independence, it was a question of opting for a policy allowing India to fully exercise its sovereignty while remaining outside a conflict directly linked to the interests of the great powers. In his speech, he points out that “each country should have the right to freedom, and the freedom to choose its own policy and the way of life ”. Nehru has grown skeptical of the word “alliance”. The latter was often received with derision as it was generally associated with submission and entanglement. Operating under this mindset, an alliance with America or with the Soviet Union is akin to losing a state’s independence given that it comes with a myriad of obligations and emasculating dependency. Nehru refused to be America’s puppy or to surrender India’s sovereignty and authority to the white house politicians. A country that chooses to ally or side with the United States will be policed into following American orders and will automatically be entangled into America’s own conflicts. However, through the non-alignment policy, the participating countries stressed their position and sought to be recognized as full-fledged actors on the international scene. Thus, “like any sovereign state India wanted to retain and exercise independence of judgment, and not to be tied to the apron-strings of another country.” It accordingly implemented a philosophy of peaceful and amicable relations with the two superpowers without -military, material or political commitment, that may limit their autonomy. From the very beginning of his speech, Nehru outlined the democratic features both the U.S and India share to highlight the way in which his foreign policy of NA was built around global moral justice and therefore impossible to refute. It is important to note, furthermore, that India has been fighting for the demise of colonialism to facilitate its economic developments.
3. Non-alignment as an Economic tactic:
Having just emerged from imperialism domination, Non-aligned developing countries would unequivocally seek to strengthen their economic base for their newly acquired independence and freedom to be preserved. It is here that the prominence of non-aligned policy rises. Although The third world countries have chosen to be politically neutral; on the economic side, however, they maintained positive relations with both U.S and the Soviet Union. They opened themselves to the two superpowers and to the various opportunities from economic aid to the expansion of trade that would make it possible for them to thrive.
In “Non-alignment and the International economic order”, Das Gupta, argues that NA had an economic incentive which was to enjoy trade and aid from both blocs and create a new economic order. “The new order would consist of a planned transfer of capital and technology from the developed countries, and a controlled international price system for primary commodities, favorable to the countries producing them”. The afore-mentioned demands were at the center of the formation of the third bloc. Should these demands be met, will create adequate conditions for developing countries, like India, to be capable of making up for the deficiencies, they have inherited from their colonial history. Non-alignment has therefore functioned as a platform to voice India’s extreme discontent with the overall international order, an order that is circumscribed by economic hierarchies. It was by the agency of NA that India voiced the call for a different international economic order that would accommodate the special needs of the developing countries. Since the cold war, India as well as other developing Non- aligned nations, have been successful in integrating within the liberal economic system and have, as a result, profited from it.
Non-alignment in American and soviet’s eyes:
The united states of America were very critical of India’s NA movement inasmuch as it appeared to be an evil policy because of its tolerance and easiness on the communist influence. Despite waging a long struggle against imperialism, the world’s imperialists were okay with that. They, on the other hand, could not tolerate the idea that India’s foreign policy “runs directly counter to the USA’s main aim: to line up the free nations of the world against communism”. India’s opposition to the Cold War which the U.S framed as a universal moral struggle was hard to swallow. This conception of NA was evident in the U.S. press. The latter portrayed India as easy and soft on communism and lacking the will. “Author C.V Crabb observes, in this vein, that the west’s perception of non-alignment is that countries dedicated to this ideology either had become or were becoming de facto members of the communist bloc”. Richard Nixon has also criticized the NA by arguing that these countries benefit from U.S economic aid, yet continue to oppose the US in the diplomatic sphere.
Americans tended to understand nonalignment as something akin to neutrality. There is a substantial difference between a state's classical neutrality on the one hand and a nonaligned state on the other. The issues of colonialism have led former countries to assume a more strong and assertive position in the international arena, rather than the submissive neutrality often expected of them
It was a misreading of the policy as India had displaced a strong commitment to preserving its political autonomy by making sure that the economic assistance offered by the west or the communist bloc will not affect its freedom of judging international affairs on the basis of logic, without obligations of allegiance that may be expected by the country that has donated.
As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, the latter’s perception was positive. From its very emergence, the Soviet Union showed an interest in the non-alignment or non-involvement of states such as India in the global struggle for power. Since the main objectives of the movement were concentrated around the fight against colonialism, racialism, and imperialism, the U.S.S.R found this struggle to be similar to that of communism. “The Soviet Union highly values the anti-imperialist, anticolonialism, and anti-racist orientations of the non-aligned movement [and] its role in the strengthening of peace and international security, in the struggle for independence, and [in the] progress of [the] liberated countries”. In other words, the policy of non-alignment was considered as a potential force very congenial with the Socialist regime insofar as it contradicted with the imperialist-capitalist system, its sustenance and consolidation would therefore be prominent at the international level.
India and international politics.. (2022, Feb 21). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/from-freedom-fighters-to-prime-ministers-of-india-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
