4.4 The fractured years, 1962-1970

Loading...

En provenance du cours de The University of Melbourne

Contemporary India

29 notes

The University of Melbourne

Contemporary India

29 notes

This course presents some important vignettes of a complex, highly diverse India that is also witnessing unprecedented changes since its formal independence in 1947 from Great Britain. The lectures revolve around social dimensions of change, the continuing influence of ancient texts on contemporary India, political democracy, economic transition from the state to the market, gender relations, India's economic globalisation and changing world view. While one of the objectives is to capture the multifaceted process of change, the course also critically examines some of the tensions inherent in these changes. For example, how does gender inequality play itself out in a changing Indian society, how do the modernist conceptions of art entailing market valuation challenge the more socio-centric values found in South India, what are the politics linguistic identities, and how might India address its myriad development challenges such as poverty and unemployment. No specific prior knowledge is required. However, it would be helpful if students are aware of the socio political dynamics at play in contemporary India and keep themselves abreast with current affairs and debates in the country to fully appreciate the various dimensions and contours if the subject matter in the course. This course is taught in English. View the MOOC promotional video here: http://tinyurl.com/hx8mhxb

À partir de la leçon

India's foreign policy

As India's influence increases in the international system, understanding its foreign policy and its engagement with the rest of the world is critical for students of international relations. This section is designed as a comprehensive review of some of the key issues related to India's word view and its behaviour towards the external world. Apart from taking stock of contemporary thinking and policies of the country, the major thrust would be on India's relations with its neighbours and great powers, its nuclear weapons policy and the ideological foundations of its foreign policy after independence.

4.1 Why study India’s foreign policy?9:48

4.2 The seven phases of India foreign policy8:12

4.3 The limits of idealism7:08

4.4 The fractured years, 1962-19708:21

4.5 The idea of power, 1971-19895:54

4.6 The years of reflection, 1990-19988:32

4.7 Consolidation of U.S – India relations4:39

4.8 Back to the future, 2011-20147:31

Rencontrer les enseignants

Anthony D'Costa
Professor
School of Social and Political Sciences

Welcome back.

We talked about earlier, about how India's first foreign

policy phase was embedded in an idealistic tradition rooted in the Freedom Movement.

And how towards the end, however, you could see on three critical issues,

on Kashmir, on the relation with Pakistan, and functioning of

the UN Security Council, India's fate in the world of ideas had begun diminishing.

However, all this changed in the next phase from 1962 to 1970,

which I describe as the fractured years.

These are years in which Nehru idealism came crumbling down because

of the conflict with China, and Nehru passed away in 1964.

And thereafter, there was a shaky, not really strong leadership

which continued till about 1970, but began to recognize

that the world does not seem to function on the basis of ideas and idealism.

It's a much more Machiavellian, realist world, and

you perhaps need to engage with it much more practically and realistically.

Sino Indian Conflict is a conflict which

had history, and the region, its history written about.

But clearly when you need to contextualize the whole conflict

from a Nehruvian prison, Nehru believed that China and

India, both civilizational states, freshly independent.

Or freshly taking the world stage after 150,

200 years of Western humiliation and misrule and colonization,

would be partners and friends and allies, he genuinely believed this.

India continued to remain a sponsor for the People's Republic

of China to take its seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Even though early on, till the 70s, till the detente between the United States and

China, it was Taiwan that was occupying that seat.

It was Nehru who introduced Zhou Enlai to other world leaders in Bandung.

It was Nehru who wrote extensively about China and

how China was a country with which India will be able to do business,

will be able to contribute to peacemaking in the world.

Even after the Dali Llama fled China and took refuge in India and

the Chinese all but

annexed Tibet, India continue to accept and

agree to accept not just the suzerainty of China or Tibet, but even its sovereignty.

And yet, in 1959 there was a border dispute over

how the border had been demarcated in the east and the north.

In the east, it was the McMahon Line, which the Chinese refused to recognize,

they thought this was an imperial boundary.

And then there was an Aksai Chin part of Ladakh, which again,

the Chinese disputed, too.

Nehru, under pressure in Parliament, told the Indian Army,

ill-equipped as it was, to aggressively patrol in those areas.

That finally contributed to the Chinese attacking India and

humiliating the Indian Army in what was the worst-ever

defeat of the Indian Army since independence.

And remains the only real defeat of the Indian Army

in 67 years since independence.

But more than just humiliate the Indian Army,

more than just deeply betray Nehruvian idealism,

this war was a war which changed India's perceptions of the world.

Because it recognized that there were no permanent friends and allies,

there were only permanent interests.

It was also a war which led to a fast-pacing of India's nuclear program.

It was a war which many people believe led finally to Nehru's own death.

Because he was so broken to see his hope of Sino Indian unity,

his hope that ideas will shape the world come crumbling down.

But it was a war which brought home to India the need to rapidly develop

its military prowess, in addition to developing other institutions as well.

1965, after Nehru's death, you had a little-known steely,

but not really articulate Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri,

who's most associated with the slogan Jai Jawan Jai Kisan,

which means hail the farmer, hail the soldier.

But who was there as prime minister of India during the war with Pakistan.

And that was a war in which there was a stalemate, India could have lost that war

hadn't it been for the ceasefire that was brokered.

But that was, again, the only war in which Pakistan may have

had India on the defensive.

It was a war in which Pakistan actually believed that India, humiliated out of

the Sino Indian Conflict, was so weak that they would have the upper ground.

It was started by first infiltrating Pakistani Intelligence

agents into Kashmir.

When that plan was exposed, there was a war.

And finally, however, there was a stalemate, a ceasefire,

and peace negotiated by the Soviet Union in Tashkent,

between Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and General Ayub Khan.

A day after signing that peace deal or that ceasefire agreement in Tashkent,

Shastri died by a heart attack, although some people think that there might

have been some mysterious circumstances that led to his death.

India during these years, as I said, after Nehru passing away,

had able but weak leadership of Shastri.

And after Shastri's death, you had Nehru's own daughter, Indira Gandhi,

become Prime Minister,

but still under circumstances whereas she was not completely under control.

Simultaneously, India faced sanctions from America,

food sanctions, which because of India's stand on the Vietnam War.

India had opposed American intervention in Vietnam.

The regime of Lyndon Johnson sanctioned India into what became

known as a ship-to-mouth policy, giving India food aid

only as much as to feed its population on almost a daily basis.

But these fractured years, these years when India was weak,

when it was humiliated by the Chinese, when India and

Pakistan went to war again in probably the worst war for India.

When Nehru's death had led to a weak leadership,

also led to deep introspection.

If it hadn't been for

the US sanctions, India's Green Revolution wouldn't have taken place.

If it hadn't been for

the Sino Indian Conflict, India's military modernization wouldn't have taken place.

If it hadn't been for the India-Pak war of 1965, India's own strategic thinking

may not have overcome the kind of limited tactics that were employed in the 65 war.

So these fractured years led to a new, promising beginning.

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2019 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play