Does India have the potential to obtain the ‘great power’ status most of the world and a large part of its elite claim as its birthright? And if so, then what are the challenges it still faces. Sixty years after independence is a useful time frame to analyze its foreign policy.

Amongst the mainsprings of India’s foreign policy is the belief that India was a great civilization and is a great power. As Jawaharlal Nehru was so fond of saying “India need only wait until others understand and accommodate to the Indian position.”

Mahatma Gandhi’s ideal of India as Ram Rajya (the Age of Rama) lay in the belief that India would one day be able to bring back its mythical Golden Age.

A role in international organizations, an emphasis on morality and ethics and non-alignment are reflections of this belief in civilizational greatness.

A desire for a place under the sun is reflected in India’s continued support to the UN organizations and other international bodies. Massive Indian contingents in the UN Peacekeeping forces and support for the expansion of the Security Council to admit more countries (including India) are reflections of this view.

A certain moralistic preaching, both Gandhian and Nehruvian in foundation, was and still is visible in India’s attitudes towards issues like war and nuclear weapons. However, it is here that a clash is seen between idealism and realpolitik.

On the one hand is the view that war is reprehensible and that non violence is the ‘truer’ path to follow. From this follows the view that arms races and nuclear weapons are wrong. On the other it is pointed out that as long as one state has the right to have nuclear weapons or large arms piles so do all other states. India’s nuclear program and its current deal with the US follow from this.

Foreign policy analysts find it difficult to understand how India can reconcile the two views – idealism and realism. Either you are against nuclear weapons and call for disarmament and do not keep them yourself. Or you are for nuclear weapons and so build your arsenal. How can you be both against them and yet justify having an arsenal?

South Asian scholars have traced this to the twin legacies of Indian history – Buddha’s non violence and Kautilya’s Machiavellianism. One can trace this to an even later date – Gandhian non violence and morality in politics and Nehruvian mix of liberal internationalism with practicality.

It is good to have a mix of things especially if the mix is of the right kind – blends one extreme with the other. However, it is not good if the mix either makes your policies incomprehensible to others or prevents you from taking a stance.

One should take one’s time to say ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ But not so much that by the time we give an answer wee have lost the chance to participate in the dialogue itself.

Is the reason India takes such a long time to make any statement on incidents in West Asia because it does not want to upset either Israel or the Arab states or is it because we don’t have a proper policy, only ad hoc decision making?

It is great to belong to an old civilization and to be proud of the fact, however, that should not lead to hubris. In the desire to make others see how ‘great’ India is and to make a place for ourselves in the sun Indian policy elite are easily affronted and prickly by nature.

Is the reason the Parliament and the media are raking up the recent Indo-US nuclear deal because there is a real chance that we are ‘surrendering our sovereignty’ or because we believe that as a ‘great’ power we should have received a better deal?

It is time for a reality check: A look within. India was a great civilization and has a great history. As Indians we are right to be proud of it. However, as Indians we must not forget what history teaches us: that humility not hubris is what makes you great. A 5000 year old history with numerous dynasties from the Mauryas and the Guptas to the Mughals exemplifies this.

Confidence is important but arrogance leads to problems. It is important to learn which way the wind is blowing. The last couple of decades the Indian elite either did not care to see which way the wind was blowing, or presumed that we are ‘different.’ So, whichever way wind blows we will still be standing upright and will have friends and allies on our side.

During the Cold War era blinded by the view that the world, especially the two super powers, would accept our ‘non alignment’ we could never understand why others did not see the world as we did.

Non alignment was the bedrock of our foreign policy. Yet we complained more about Western imperialism than about Soviet policies. Appealing to the West for aid after 1962 war also did not appear to be against non alignment, nor did the treaty with the Soviets in 1971.

Maybe our non-alignment was like our secularism; for the rest of the world secularism means religion and politics separate, in India it means that the state treats all religions as equal. Though what has happened is that over the years the state has not been able to treat its minorities as equally as it should.

Similarly for us non-alignment meant that we did not want either bloc to ignore us but rather that both should treat us equally. What ended up happening was that though we saw ourselves as neutral others saw as hypocrites.

As India enters its 60th year of Independence maybe the time has come to reanalyze the mainsprings of its foreign policy. To be a great power you need to be seen as such by both your peers and your juniors; being indecisive is not the same as being firm.

In politics, as in life, it is often more important to see ourselves as others see us. It is time India’s foreign policy elite realized this.