The rise of the Indo-Pacific: understanding ideational change and continuity in India's foreign policy

Abstract

In 2011, the concept of the Indo-Pacific began to appear in India's foreign policy discourse. This article argues that rather than signalling a dramatic shift in India's foreign policy, however, the way in which the Indo-Pacific has been interpreted by the Indian leadership suggests significant continuity as well as change, which is contrary to the goals of the concept's most fervent proponents in India. The article seeks to develop a framework for understanding ideational change and continuity in foreign policy by theorising the interplay between ideas, political and economic flux, and social expectations related to effective and legitimate state-building. It is argued that the Indo-Pacific concept has instigated a new emphasis on regional architecture-building to manage the ongoing regionalisation in the area between the Indian and Pacific Oceans as a result of heightened trade flows and production and investment linkages. Yet, the Indo-Pacific concept, like the new policy ideas on regional engagement that preceded it—the Look East policy and the ‘extended neighbourhood’—has been articulated in ways that are also compatible with long-standing ideas—such as non-alignment—about what constitutes appropriate international behaviour. This reflects the nature of the broader state project that has emerged since 1990, which, while encompassing a new focus on economic growth and competitiveness as being essential to effective state-building, continues to prioritise older ideas about what constitutes effective and legitimate state-building.

2011年，“印太”开始出现在印度的外交政策话语中。这标志了印度外交政策的戏剧性转变， 不过印度领导人对“印太”的阐释既有变化，也有延续，这跟该概念狂热拥趸们的目标颇有出 入。本文寻找一个框架，通过系统思考思想、政治、经济、对有效合理的国家建设的社会期待 等等之间的互动，来理解外交政策思想上的变迁和延续。据说“印太”的概念使人重新关注区 域建设，关注如何对印度洋、太平洋一带由于加速的贸易流以及生产和投资联系而如火如荼的 区域化进行管理。不过，这个概念就像之前有关地区关系的新政策思想——如向东看及“扩大 邻邦”——那样，其阐述方式与规范国际行为的长程思想（如不结盟）有相通之处。这反映了 1990年以来出现的更宽广的国家计划的性质：既强调经济增长及竞争力对于有效的国家建设不 可或缺，同时也重视关于有效、合理国家建设的老思路。

Keywords:

• foreign policy
• ideational change
• India
• Indo-Pacific

Notes

1. Thanks to Kanishka Jayasuriya for his comments on this article

2. For a summary and critique of this literature, see Legro (2005, 2–3) and Laffey and Weldes (1996).

3. Indeed, Legro (2005, 181) recognises this as a weakness of his model.

4. This is something Legro has in common with other scholars of ideas and foreign policy (see Laffey and Weldes 1996, 205).

5. For a brief summary of the Lowy Institute's attempts to promote the Indo-Pacific concept, see Medcalf (2012).