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

To Sonam Wangchuk: 'Will undertake 70 hour solidarity fast in Gujarat'

By Martin Macwan *  Dear Colleague Sonam Wangchuk, I have never met you personally. I wrote a short article at the time of your arrest. Your work correctly introduces you. There is truth in your words. You have embarked on a fast, following the footsteps of Gandhiji. Your intention is to make people think. Your demand is reasonable; I believe that the resignation of a single education minister will not improve the state of education in India. However, the question you have raised is extremely important for the future generation of the marginalized. Education is the key to power, development, and progress, which empowers a citizen.

Gujarat police SOP sparks questions over communal profiling

By Shabnam Hashmi*  The Gujarat government must be held accountable for what appears to be a deeply disturbing instance of state-sponsored communal profiling. Ahmedabad resident Sahal Qureshi recently shared with me an official document , which I translated with the help of AI before forwarding it to several media organisations and political leaders. 

US civil society coalition slams Hudson Institute for hosting RSS leaders

By A Representative   The Hudson Institute ’s “New India Conference,” held on April 23, featured senior figures from India’s ruling political ecosystem, including RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale and BJP foreign affairs head Vijay Chauthaiwale . The event also included U.S. officials and former diplomats such as Kurt Campbell, Kenneth Juster, and Nisha Biswal, alongside India’s Ambassador to the U.S., Vinay Kwatra.