Context: Analysing the perception of national interest by different generations of leadership.
Background

• The Indian PM made a public and undisguised reference to China’s expansionism in his address to Indian troops.
• China rejected the allegation of expansionism and said that they had signed boundary agreements with all except two of its neighbours.

Approaches of former governments in Foreign Policy
Nehru’s approach
China policy

• He was convinced that China would not attack India and his Defence Minister had likely played a big part in inclining Nehru towards this conviction.
• None of his advisers cautioned him against this miscalculation as most of them had no experience in foreign relations.
• He was not guided by any ideological considerations and still dreamt of India playing a big role on the world stage and believed that China could be a partner in that endeavor.

Kashmir policy

• No Himalayan blunder: When a ceasefire was called for in January 1949, it was not because he was pacifist by nature or that he trusted the UN or any other country to label Pakistan as aggressor and persuade it to vacate the aggression.
• Ground Reality: TheIndian Army was in no position to run over the whole of Jammu and Kashmir at that time which has been definitively and conclusively brought out by respected scholars as well as in the official history of the war published by the Defence Ministry.
• No ideological bias: The writer believed that national interest was the guiding principle in foreign policy of Nehru as he described foreign policy as essentially selfish in a response to a letter by Albert Einstein.
• Interest with West: India needed technology and other assistance which he convinced could be obtained only from America.
• He looked towards Soviet Union only after the Americans concluded the military agreement with Pakistan.
• His mistakes and the blunder over China were caused by wrong assessments and not due to any ideological factors.

Indira Gandhi approach
“Verify and still not trust approach”

• Her basic approach was that there is no such thing as trust in international relations.
• She expects to have normal and peaceful relations with Pakistan in future but never with China as it is an expansionist power.
• Handling Pakistan: She is accused of being naive and too trusting when she allowed Pakistan’s 90,000 prisoners of war (POWs) to return to their country without getting anything in return.
• Available options: Whether she should have asked Pakistan to vacate all the territory it had occupied in Jammu and Kashmir or she should have kept the POWs in our country for long.

Road Ahead

• The previous leaderships must be held accountable for the mistakes or blunders they might have committed but they acted in the prevailing circumstances according to their perception of national interest.
• For example-One government might conclude that the civil nuclear deal with the US served India’s national interest and some other government in different circumstances may think otherwise.