Pragmatism in Indian strategic thought: Evidence from the nuclear weapons debate of the 1960s

ABSTRACT

Although contemporary Indian strategic thought is described in terms of various schools, most scholars agree that prior to the end of the Cold War there prevailed a so-called Nehruvian consensus on India’s strategic objectives. This consensus was allegedly idealist, emphasizing autonomy, peaceful co-existence, and Third World anti-imperialist leadership. We argue that this characterization ignores numerous alternative views on Indian strategy that thrived in elite debates outside the uppermost echelons of power. Many of these views were grounded in pragmatism, or a flexible approach to considerations of power and material interest that eschewed dogmatic thinking, be it high moralism or offensive bluster. Through a case study of India’s response to China’s emerging nuclear program following the latter’s first nuclear test in 1964, we highlight the role that pragmatism played in the national debate and the way it shaped the strategic options considered by the elite at the time.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers, Manjari Chatterjee Miller, Hannes Ebert, and participants in the annual India security studies workshop at the Center for the Advanced Study of India, University of Pennsylvania, for feedback on earlier drafts of this article. A version of this article was also presented at the meeting of the International Studies Association (ISA) in Hong Kong in June 2017.

Notes

^1. See Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyaya, The Making of India’s Foreign Policy: Determinants, Institutions, Processes and Personalities, 3rd ed. (New Delhi, India: Allied Publishers, 2003), 51; Sumit Ganguly, “India’s Foreign Policy Grows Up,” World Policy Journal 20, no. 4: 41–47; C. Raja Mohan, Crossing the Rubicon: The Shaping of India’s New Foreign Policy (New Delhi, India: Penguin, 2003), 7; David M. Malone, Does the Elephant Dance? Contemporary Indian Foreign Policy (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011), 47–53; Kanti Bajpai, Saira Basit, and V. Krishnappa, “Introduction: India’s Grand Strategic Thought and Practice,” in India’s Grand Strategy: History, Theory, Cases edited by Kanti Bajpai, Saira Basit, and V. Krishnappa (New Delhi, India: Routledge, 2014), 17; Harsh V. Pant, Indian Foreign Policy: An Overview (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2016), i.

^2. M. K. Narayanan, “Non-Alignment to Multi-Alignment.” The Hindu, January 5, 2016.

^3. Deepa Ollapally and Rajesh Rajagopalan, “The Pragmatic Challenge to Indian Foreign Policy,” The Washington Quarterly 34, no. 2 (2011): 145–62.

^4. C. Raja Mohan, “The Making of Indian Foreign Policy: The Role of Scholarship and Public Opinion.” (ISAS Working Paper No. 73, Institute of South Asian Studies, Singapore, July 13, 2009).

^5. Kanti Bajpai, “Indian Strategic Culture,” in South Asia in 2020: Future Strategic Balances and Alliances, edited by Michael R. Chambers (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2002), 245–304.

^6. Rahul Sagar and Ankit Panda, “Pledges and Pious Wishes: The Constituent Assembly Debates and the Myth of a “Nehruvian Consensus,” India Review 14, no. 2 (2015): 203–20.

^7. See Rahul Sagar, “‘Jiski Lathi, Uski Bhains’: The Hindu Nationalist View of International Politics,” in India’s Grand Strategy: History, Theory, Cases, edited by Kanti Bajpai, Saira Basit, and V. Krishnappa (New Delhi, India: Routledge, 2014), 234–57.

^8. See, for example, Stephen P. Cohen, India: Emerging Power (Washington, DC: Brookings Press, 2002), 37. Quoted in Sagar and Panda, “Pledges.”

^9. Sumit Ganguly and Manjeet Pardesi, “Explaining Sixty Years of India’s Foreign Policy,” India Review 8, no. 1 (2009): 4–19.

^10. See, for example, Vidya Nadkarni, “India – An Aspiring Global Power,” in Emerging Powers in Comparative Perspective edited by Vidya Nadkarni and Norma C. Noonan (New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2013), 133.

^11. Srinath Raghavan, War and Peace in Modern India (Ranikhet, India: Permanent Black, 2010), 20.

^12. Peter Trubowitz, Politics and Strategy: Partisan Ambition and American Statecraft (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011); Etel Solingen, Regional Orders at Century’s Dawn: Global and Domestic Influences on Grand Strategy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998).

^13. We adopt the definition of strategy provided in the introduction to this special issue: “a state’s framework or plan that seeks to achieve certain longer-term objectives using available resources in an environment where other states or non-state actors may have conflicting objectives.”

^14. See Kanti Bajpai, “Indian Grand Strategy: Six Schools of Thought,” in India’s Grand Strategy, edited by Bajpai et al. (New Delhi, India: Routledge, 2014), 113–50; Rahul Sagar, “State of Mind: What Kind of Power Will India Become?” International Affairs 85, no. 4 (2009): 801–16.

^15. One exception is: Vipin Narang and Paul Staniland, “Institutions and Worldviews in Indian Foreign Security Policy,” India Review 11, no. 2 (2012): 76–94.

^16. Manjari Chatterjee Miller and Kate Sullivan de Estrada, “Pragmatism in Indian Foreign Policy: How Ideas Constrain Modi,” International Affairs 93, no. 1 (2017): 33.

^17. Miller and Sullivan de Estrada, “Pragmatism,” 35.

^18. Narang and Staniland, “Institutions,” 78.

^19. Miller and Sullivan de Estrada, “Pragmatism,” 30.

^20. Jonathan Haslam, No Virtue Like Necessity: Realist Thought in International Relations (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002), 17.

^21. Miller and Sullivan de Estrada, “Pragmatism,” 29.

^22. Sagar and Panda, “Pledges.”

^23. Raghubir Chakravarti, “India in World Affairs,” The Indian Journal of Political Science 24, no. 4 (1963): 356.

^24. Purushottam Prabhakar, “A Re-Examination of India’s Foreign Policy,” The Indian Journal of Political Science 24, no. 4 (1963): 373.

^25. M. S. Rajan, “India and World Politics in the Post-Nehru Era,” International Journal 24, no. 1 (1968): 155.

^26. See, for example, N. R. Deshpande, “National Interest and India’s Policy of Non-alignment,” The Indian Journal of Political Science 25, no. 1 (1964): 68–75.

^27. A. Appadorai and M. S. Rajan, India’s Foreign Policy and Relations (New Delhi, India: South Asian Publishers, 1985), 50.

^28. Ganguly and Pardesi, “Explaining Sixty Years,” 9.

^29. T. A. Keenleyside, “Prelude to Power: The Meaning of Non-Alignment Before Indian Independence,” Pacific Affairs 53, no. 3 (1980): 463.

^30. Harsh V. Pant, “Out With Non-Alignment, in With a ‘Modi Doctrine’.” The Diplomat, November 13, 2014.

^31. Mohan, Crossing the Rubicon, 7.

^32. Malone, Does the Elephant, 49.

^33. “Solemn Pledge Not to Use it First: Main Aim is to Break Nuclear Monopoly.” The Times of India, October 17, 1964, 1.

^34. “Danger to Peace: P.M.” The Times of India, October 17, 1964. 1.

^35. Jayita Sarkar, “The Making of a Non-Aligned Nuclear Power: India’s Proliferation Drift, 1964–68,” The International History Review 37, no. 5 (2015): 938.

^36. Hadley A. Cantril, “The Impact of the Sino-Indian Border Clash: An Enquiry in Political Psychology,” Monthly Public Opinion Surveys of The Indian Institute of Public Opinion IX, no. 1 (1963): 7.

^37. Cantril, 8.

^38. George Perkovich, India’s Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), 82.

^39. Perkovich, 83.

^40. Perkovich, 85.

^41. Perkovich, 3. On Indira Gandhi, see also Bharat Karnad, Nuclear Weapons and Indian Security: The Realist Foundations of Strategy (New Delhi, India: Macmillan, 2002), 278–331.

^42. Perkovich, 82.

^43. The Nuclear Weapon Archive. “India’s Nuclear Weapons Program: On to Weapons Development: 1960–67,” http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/India/IndiaWDevelop.html; K. Subrahmanyam, “India’s Nuclear Policy 1964–98 (A Personal Recollection).” in Nuclear India, edited by J. Singh (New Delhi, India: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, 1998), 26–53.

^44. Itty Abraham, The Making of the Indian Atomic Bomb: Science, Secrecy, and the Postcolonial State (London, UK & New York, NY: Zed Books, 1998): 123.

^45. Sarkar, “The Making,” 937. Original source: Memo by George C. Denney, Jr., Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Department of State to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, February 24, 1964, NSF Robert Komer Files, Box 25, LBJ Library.

^46. Yogesh Joshi, “Waiting for the Bomb: P.N. Haksar and India’s Nuclear Policy in the 1960s” (Nuclear Proliferation International History Project, Working Paper #11, Wilson Center, Washington DC, September 2017), 28. Original source: National Archives of India, “L.K. Jha to Prime Minister” ((Top Secret), Prime Minister’s Secretariat, File No. 30(36)/65/ PMS, March 23, 1965).

^47. Joshi, “Waiting,” 29.

^48. Joshi, “Waiting,” 29.

^49. Abraham, The Making, 146.

^50. Perkovich, India’s Nuclear Bomb, 121.

^51. Analyst, “Strategic considerations,” Seminar 65 (1965): 27.

^52. Lal Bahadur Shastri, Selected Speeches of Lal Bahadur Shastri (June 11, 1964 to January 10, 1966) (New Delhi, India: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1974), 19.

^53. R. K. Nehru, “Control and Disarm,” Seminar 65 (1965): 39.

^54. Romesh Thapar, “To Be or Not To Be,” Seminar 65 (1965): 34.

^55. Indira Gandhi, Selected Speeches of Indira Gandhi, January 1966—August 1969 (New Delhi, India: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1971): 372.

^56. Shastri, Selected Speeches, 25–26.

^57. Shastri, Selected Speeches, 25–26.

^58. Shastri, Selected Speeches, 41.

^59. R. K. Nehru, “The Challenge of the Chinese bomb,” India Quarterly 21, no. 1 (1965): 7.

^60. D. Som Dutt, 1966, “The Defence of India’s Northern Borders,” The Adelphi Papers 6, no. 25 (1966): 9.

^61. H. M. Patel, “Arrangement with the West,” Seminar 65 (1965): 19.

^62. Patel, 18.

^63. Nehru, “The Challenge,” 10–11.

^64. Raj Krishna, “A limited programme,” Seminar 65 (1965): 20–23.

^65. Krishna, 22.

^66. Krishna, 22.

^67. Krishna, 23.

^68. Raj Krishna, “Proliferation,” India Quarterly 22, no. 3 (1966): 285.

^69. Krishna, 286.

^70. Krishna, 286.

^71. Raj Krishna, “India and the bomb,” India Quarterly 21, no. 2 (1965): 129.

^72. A. P. Rana, “The Nature of India’s Foreign Policy: An Examination of the Relation of Indian Non-alignment to the Concept of the Balance of Power in the Nuclear Age,” India Quarterly 22, no. 2 (1966): 120.

^73. Rana, 126.

^74. Rana, 126.

^75. Sisir Gupta, “Break With the Past,” Seminar 65 (1965): 29.

^76. Gupta, 29.

^77. Subramanian Swamy, “Systems Analysis of Strategic Defence Needs,” Economic and Political Weekly 4, no. 8 (1969): 402–03.

^78. Swamy, 405.

^79. Swamy, 405.

^80. Subramanian Swamy, “Foreword.” in India—Nuclear Weapons and International Politics, edited by R. L. M. Patil. 1969 (Delhi, India: National, October 28, 1968), vii.

^81. J. G. Krishnayya and J. K. Satia, “Systems Analysis of Strategic Defence Needs: Comments,” Economic and Political Weekly 4, no. 18 (1969): 773–77.

^82. Krishnayya and Satia, 774.

^83. P. S. Gyani, “India’s Military Strategy,” India Quarterly 23, no. 1 (1967): 26.

^84. Gyani, 26.

^85. “Text of Johnson’s Address to the Nation.” The New York Times, October 19, 1964.

http://www.nytimes.com/1964/10/19/text-of-johnsons-address-to-the-nation.html .

^86. Krishna, “Proliferation,” 287.

^87. Gupta, “Break,” 30.

^88. Gyani, “India’s Military Strategy,” 26.

^89. A. D. Moddie, “What Difference Lop Nor?” Seminar 65 (1965): 14.

^90. G. S. Bhargava, “India and Non-Proliferation Treaty,” Economic and Political Weekly 1, no. 13 (1966): 538.

^91. B. Ramesh Babu, “The American Military Alliance System in Transition,” International Studies 10, no. 1–2 (1968): 129–30.

^92. B. Ramesh Babu, “Nuclear Proliferation and Stability in Asia,” Economic and Political Weekly 3, no. 36 (1968): 1365.

^93. Krishna, “Proliferation,” 288.

^94. Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Party Documents Vol. 3: Resolutions on Defence and External Affairs, 1951–72 (New Delhi, India: Bharatiya Jana Sangh, 1973), 85.

^95. Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Twelfth Plenary Session, “Presidential Address of Shri Bachhraj Vyas.” Vijayawada, January 23–24, 1965, 21.

^96. Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, “Election Manifesto” (New Delhi, India: Brojnarayan Brojesh - General Secretary, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, October 1966), 9.

^97. Sisir Gupta, “Foreign Policy in the 1967 Election Manifestos,” India Quarterly 23, no. 1 (1967): 28–46.

^98. Gupta, 31.

^99. Gupta, 33.

^100. Notes & Memoranda (unsigned), “Political Parties on Foreign Policy in the Inter-Election Years 1962–66,” India Quarterly 23, no. 1 (1967): 60–61.

^101. See Andrew B. Kennedy, “India’s Nuclear Odyssey: Implicit Umbrellas, Diplomatic Disappointments, and the Bomb,” International Security 36, no. 2 (2011): 120–53; A. G. Noorani, “India’s Quest for a Nuclear Guarantee,” Asian Survey 7, no. 7 (1967): 490–502.

^102. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this insight.

^103. J. D. Sethi, “India, China and the Vietnam War,” India Quarterly 22, no. 2 (1966): 154–76; B. G. Verghese, “A Reassessment of Indian Policy in Asia,” India Quarterly 17, no. 2 (1961): 103–27; P. S. Gyani, “India’s Military Strategy,” India Quarterly 23, no. 1 (1967): 21–27; D. Som Dutt, “Security and Defence of South and South-East Asia,” India Quarterly 25, no. 1 (1969): 3–20.

^104. S. C. Tiwari, “US Involvement in Vietnam,” International Studies 10, no. 1–2 (1968): 35–47; Commentary, “The War Wrongly Called Vietnam,” Economic and Political Weekly 2, no. 41 (1967): 1851–52; Commentary, “The Country on America’s Conscience,” Economic and Political Weekly 2, no. 48 (1967): 2122–23; Commentary, “Betting All on a Quick Win,” Economic and Political Weekly 3, no. 1/2 (1968): 35–36.

^105. B. L. Maheshwari, “Foreign Policy of Jan Sangh,” Economic and Political Weekly 3, no. 35 (1968): 1334–35.

^106. On Kashmir 1947–48 and India’s wake-up call at the United Nations, see Chinmaya R. Gharekhan, “India and the United Nations,” in Indian Foreign Policy: Challenges and Opportunities, edited by Atish Sinha and Madhup Mohta (New Delhi, India: Foreign Service Institute/ Academic Foundation, 2007), 200. On learning realpolitik from the Bangladesh War, see Russell J. Leng, “Realpolitik and learning in the India-Pakistan rivalry,” in The India-Pakistan Conflict: An Enduring Rivalry, edited by T.V. Paul (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 106.