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

Sardar made up his mind on Pakistan in Dec 1946 "before" Mountbatten's Partition Plan

By Hari Desai* One has to be extra cautious while dealing with the history of towering personalities of the Indian freedom struggle, especially that of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (October 31, 1875 - December 15, 1950). Present-day politicians prefer to "pronounce” on his life and quote him according to their convenience like a blind person describing an elephant.

Insider plot to kill Deendayal Upadhyay? What RSS pracharak Balraj Madhok said

By Shamsul Islam*  Balraj Madhok's died on May 2, 2016 ending an era of old guards of Hindutva politics. A senior RSS pracharak till his death was paid handsome tributes by the RSS leaders including PM Modi, himself a senior pracharak, for being a "stalwart leader of Jan Sangh. Balraj Madhok ji's ideological commitment was strong and clarity of thought immense. He was selflessly devoted to the nation and society. I had the good fortune of interacting with Balraj Madhok ji on many occasions". The RSS also issued a formal condolence message signed by the Supremo Mohan Bhagwat on behalf of all swayamsevaks, referring to his contribution of commitment to nation and society. He was a leading RSS pracharak on whom his organization relied for initiating prominent Hindutva projects. But today nobody in the RSS-BJP top hierarchy remembers/talks about Madhok as he was an insider chronicler of the immense degeneration which was spreading as an epidemic in the high echelons of th...

If Maoist violence is illegitimate, how is Hindutva, state violence justified? Can right-wing wash off its sins?

By Swami Agnivesh* and Sandeep Pandey** There was major police action against Sudha Bhardwaj, Gautam Navlakha, Varvara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira on 28 August, 2018. Before this police arrested Professor Shoma Sen, Adocate Sudhir Gadling, Sudhir Dhawle, Mahesh Raut and Rona Wilson on 6 June. Even before this Dr. Binayak Sen, Soni Sori, Ajay TG, Professor GN Saibaba and Prashant Rahi have been arrested and all these activists have been accused of having links with Maoists.