Debates over India’s stance in global conflicts, such as the Russia–Ukraine war and tensions in West Asia, have revived questions about whether India pursues neutrality or a more strategic approach in its foreign policy.
Non-Alignment vs Neutrality
- Conceptual Difference: Unlike neutrality (e.g., Switzerland), which implies avoiding sides in conflicts, India’s doctrine of Non-Alignment allows issue-based independent judgment.
- National Interest as Guiding Principle: In international relations, the “merit” of an issue is synonymous with a country’s national interest.
- India has historically chosen sides that align with its strategic and economic needs rather than purely moral or ethical grounds.
- India does take sides, sometimes openly, sometimes subtly, always by its own choice.
Historical Pro-Soviet/Russian Leanings
- Legacy of Anti-West Sentiment: Colonial experience and U.S. support for Pakistan during the Cold War contributed to India’s distance from Western blocs.
- Silence on Soviet Interventions: India abstained from condemning Soviet interventions, such as those in Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), and Afghanistan (1979)
- This was because the USSR provided critical support via UN vetoes on the Kashmir issue, supplied arms, and maintained a Friendship Treaty with India.
- Ukraine Conflict: India abstained from UN resolutions on Russia’s actions in Ukraine (2014, 2022), reflecting its continued strategic ties and geopolitical considerations.
Pragmatism Over Morality- Key Case Studies
- Vietnam–Cambodia (1978): India did not criticise Vietnam’s intervention in Cambodia as Vietnam was viewed as a counterbalance to China.
- Korean War (1950): Prime Minister Nehru opposed a UN resolution condemning China’s entry into the war in order to preserve diplomatic relations with Beijing.
- Iraq–Kuwait Crisis (1990): Despite Iraq’s illegal occupation of Kuwait, India maintained relations with Saddam Hussein to secure the evacuation of 1.5 lakh Indians and protect its oil interests. This was a pragmatic choice rather than a moral one
India’s Outdated Lens in West Asia
- Binary Geopolitical View: India traditionally interpreted the region through two frames: America vs. the Arab world and Israel vs. the Arabs.
- Limited attention was given to the Sunni–Shia divide, especially the Arab–Iran strategic competition.
- Insufficient focus was on Arab monarchies vs republican regimes and their political fault lines.
- Distorted Policy Responses: This simplified understanding weakened India’s strategic analysis and diplomatic responses over time.
Current Shift- The Middle East and Israel
- Growing Engagement with Israel: India has expanded cooperation with Israel in defence technology, intelligence sharing, agriculture, and innovation.
- There are views that India is abandoning neutrality by tilting toward Israel in its conflict with Iran
- Balancing Economic and Diaspora Interests in the Gulf: With nearly $200 billion in trade with Gulf countries and about 90 lakh Indians residing there, India’s policy prioritises energy security, remittances, and the safety of its diaspora, encouraging a balanced engagement with Arab states.
- The Iran Factor: India’s interests currently do not align with supporting Iran, especially as Arab nations themselves have normalised relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords.
Conclusion
India’s foreign policy reflects strategic autonomy rather than passive neutrality, consistently taking positions that safeguard national security, economic interests, and the welfare of its citizens abroad.
11 Mar 2026
.png)
Current Affairs
GS Foundation
Optional Course
Combo Courses
Degree Program
