Skip to main content

Panchsheel to partisanship: ​Nehru’s legacy vs. Modi’s multi-alignment

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak* 
The Indian freedom struggle was built upon a bedrock of anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, and anti-racist principles. These were not merely slogans but the foundational architecture of post-colonial India’s engagement with the world. Just fifteen months after independence, the Draft Constitution of 1948 established that the State must promote international peace and "just and honorable relations between nations." By 1950, this was enshrined as Article 51 of the Directive Principles. These constitutional mandates provided the moral compass for a nation emerging from the shadows of empire.
Unlike the Westphalian nation-states of Europe or the United States—driven by racialized capitalism and a self-centered, often fictitious definition of "national interest"—India’s early foreign policy was governed by the pursuit of global justice. Under its first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, India provided moral leadership through the Panchsheel: five principles of peaceful coexistence including mutual non-aggression and non-interference. These values became the heart of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), influencing over 120 countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. NAM was never about passive neutrality; it was an internationalist force that sided with equality and freedom against the warmongering bipolarity of the Cold War.
​India’s stature was earned through principled clarity. In 1956, Nehru did not hesitate to condemn the USSR’s invasion of Hungary, despite India’s friendly ties with Moscow. India stood firmly with Africa against apartheid and with Latin America against American imperialism. Even as it provided refuge to Jewish communities fleeing Nazi persecution, India remained a steadfast advocate for Palestinian statehood, recognizing the State of Israel while opposing the Zionist occupation of Palestinian land. This was a policy of conscience, not convenience.
​However, these historical legacies began to erode when the Congress Party adopted neoliberal reforms, trading internationalist solidarity for market-driven alliances with the West. The Global War on Terror and the Indo-US nuclear deal gradually pulled India into Washington’s strategic orbit, softening India’s voice on Palestinian independence. Yet, what began as a dilution under Congress has become a systematic dismantling under the BJP governments of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and, more drastically, Narendra Modi.
​The current administration is stripping away the moral foundations of Indian diplomacy brick by brick. There is a visible ideological convergence between Hindutva, Zionism, and imperialist ethno-nationalism. Leaders like Narendra Modi, Donald Trump, and Benjamin Netanyahu find common ground not in the service of their people, but in a project of supremacist domination and crony capitalism. Under this "Hindutva" framework, India’s political and economic independence has been compromised, and its reputation as a moral force for peace has withered.
​Prime Minister Modi has shown little resolve in opposing the devastating wars that have leveled Palestinian life or undermined stability in the Middle East. His silence regarding attacks on civilian targets and the erosion of international law risks isolating India from its historic allies. The rhetoric of "national interest" now serves as a shield for a reactionary alliance that prioritizes the profits of a few over the lives of many.
​The strategy of "multi-alignment" is, in reality, a directionless drift that threatens India’s long-standing friendships across Russia, Africa, and the Arab world. The hollowness of Hindutva foreign policy is now laid bare: it has abandoned the internationalist ethos that once made India a beacon for the Global South. To restore India’s standing, the nation must reset its foreign relations, moving away from racial capitalism and back toward a constitutional pursuit of global peace and solidarity.
---
*Academic based in UK

Comments

TRENDING

Modi’s Israel visit strengthened Pakistan’s hand in US–Iran truce: Ex-Indian diplomat

By Jag Jivan   M. K. Bhadrakumar , a career diplomat with three decades of service in postings across the former Soviet Union, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, and Turkey, has warned that the current truce in the US–Iran war is “fragile and ridden with contradictions.” Writing in his blog India Punchline , Bhadrakumar argues that while Pakistan has emerged as a surprising broker of dialogue, the durability of the ceasefire remains uncertain.

Incarceration of Prof Saibaba 'revives' the question: What is crime, who is criminal?

By Kunal Pant* In 2016, a Supreme Court Judge asked the state of Maharashtra, “Do you want to extract a pound of flesh?” The statement was directed against the state for contesting the bail plea of Delhi University Professor GN Saibaba. Saibaba was arrested in 2014, a justification for which was to prevent him from committing what the police called “anti-national activities.”

The soundtrack of resistance: How 'Sada Sada Ya Nabi' is fueling the Iran war

​ By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  ​The Persian track “ Sada Sada Ya Nabi ye ” by Hossein Sotoodeh has taken the world by storm. This viral media has cut across linguistic barriers to achieve cult status, reaching over 10 million views. The electrifying music and passionate rendition by the Iranian singer have resonated across the globe, particularly as the high-intensity military conflict involving Iran entered its second month in March 2026.