Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Chapter 1

Foreign Policy and National Interest

WHAT IS FOREIGN POLICY? Foreign policy and diplomacy have been described as wheels with which the process of international relations operates. No state can live in isolation. Even before interdependence of states reached the present stage, the states had several types of relations among themselves. These included trade relations, cultural relations and, of course, political relations. Every state, like an individual, seeks to promote its own interests. These interests are called national interests. Foreign policy is formulated by every state so as to serve its national interests. The governments of states have to decide on a certain course of action and refrain from certain others. Accordingly, governments behave in a particular manner in relation to governments of other states. As Professor Mahendra Kumar says, "The study of this behaviour is, broadly speaking, the content of foreign policy."1 The behaviour of each state affects the behaviour of others. Every state, keeping in view its national interests, tries to take maximum advantage of the actions of other states. Thus, the primary purpose of foreign policy is to seek adjustments in the behaviour of other states, in favour of oneself. Foreign policy has been defined by Modelski as "the system of activities evolved by communities for changing the behaviour of other states and for adjusting their own activities to the international environment.2 He adds that the most important task of foreign policy must be to "throw light on the ways in which states attempt to change, and succeed in changing, the behaviour of other states." Hugh Gibson has defined foreign policy as "a well rounded, comprehensive plan, based on knowledge and experience, for conducting the business ofgovernment with the rest of the world. It is aimed at promoting and protecting the interests of the nation.'^ According to Northedge,/bre/gw policy is an interaction between forces originating outside the country's borders and those working within them. Hartman has described the foreign

policy thus: "// is a systematic statement of deliberately selected national interests ". Thus, the emphasis in every definition is on behaviour of states to regulate their own actions and, if possible, change or regulate the behaviour of other states, with the view of serving their national interests. Rodee has also underlined the same point. He says that foreign policy involves the formulation and implementation of a group of principles which shape the behaviour pattern of a state while negotiating with other states to protect or further its vital interests. A very good definition of foreign policy is given by Cecil V. Crab, Jr. He says: Reduced to its most fundamental ingredients, foreign policy consists of two elements: National objectives to be achieved and means for achieving them. The interaction between national goals and the resources for attaining them is the perennial subject ofstatecraft. In its ingredients the foreign policy of all nations, great or small, is the same. The idea of Crab Jr. is that foreign policy makers identify the national goals to be achieved and the means to achieve them. The interaction between the objectives and the means is foreign policy. Similar opinion is expressed by Couloumbis and Wolfe. They write that, "....foreign policies are syntheses of the ends (national interests) and means (power and capabilities) of nationstates. " In order to understand this definition, it will be proper to examine what is meant by national interest and power. At this stage, full implications of Modelski's definition may be analyzed. As mentioned above, he says that foreign policy implies changing the behaviour of other states.' This means, according to Modelski, a desirable change in the behaviour of other states is the end of foreign policy. But, according to Professor Mahendra Kumar, this is an incomplete and imperfect meaning of foreign policy. A change in behaviour of other states may not always be desirable. At times, it may be desirable to ensure continuation of the same behaviour of others. And, at yet another time, it may become necessary to make certain adjustments in one's own behaviour. Thus, "The aim of foreign policy should be to regulate, and not merely to change, the behaviour of other states. Regulation means adjusting the behaviour of other states to suit one's own interest as best as possible."6 While during the Cold War period both the United States and the former Soviet Union attempted to alter the behaviour of other states to ensure maximum number of bloc followers, India sought to regulate the behaviour of maximum number of countries to build a strong nonaligned movement. The US policy of containment of communism was to change the likely course of events in its favour. The United States had unsuccessfully tried to persuade India to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 1996, while efforts were made to regulate the behaviour of India so as to ensure unanimous endorsement of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), India

2 Foreign Policy ofIndia

on its part, tried to change the attitude 6f nuclear powers to declare a time-table for destruction of their nuclear weapons. Both the efforts failed. Thus, every attempt at change of behaviour of others may not succeed. Foreign policy, therefore, means deciding on certain goals and making efforts to regulate behaviour of others to achieve these goals. The goals are sought to be achieved with the help of power. Thus, national interest and power are vital ingredients of foreign policy. We have seen that foreign policy is concerned both with change and status quo. There is another dimension also. As Feliks Gross says, even a decision not to have any relations with a state is also foreign policy. Each individual state has to decide the degree of its involvement in its relations with another country that would protect its interests. India's decision in 1949 not to have any relations with the racist regime of South Africa was a definite foreign policy. Similarly, the American decision not to recognize the Soviet Union, after Bolshevik Revolution till 1934, was clearly the US policy towards USSR. The foreign policy may be either positive or negative. It is positive when it aims at regulating the behaviour of other states by changing it, and negative when it seeks such a regulation by not changing that behaviour. Thus, to conclude, every state adopts certain principles to guide its relations with other states. These principles are based on interaction between national interests and means (power) to achieve them. As Bandopadhyaya says, "The formulation of foreign policy is essentially an exercise in the choice of ends and means on the part of a nation state in an international setting."7 In the making of foreign policy, the role of policy makers is indeed important. A lot depends on the perceptions and ideology of the foreign minister who guides the officials who identify the aims of foreign policy and determine the principles to be followed. Today the people and media also are playing ai important role. Modelski calls the flow of actions from the community towat Js the policy makers as the "input" and the decisions of the policy makers as the "output". According to Mahendra Kumar, foreign policy includes (i) the policy makers, (ii) interests and objectives, (iii) principles of foreign policy, and (iv) means of foreign policy. He, therefore, defines the foreign policy as "a thoughtout course of action for achieving objectives in foreign relations as dictated by the ideology of national interest."* NATIONAL INTEREST If foreign policy is the result of interaction between ends and means, national interest, the end, must be clearly understood. National interest is the keynote of international relations. It is said that "self interest is not only a legitimate, but a fundamental cause for national policy." According to Hans Morgenthau, the great realist scholar, who has been described as the twentieth century

Foreign Policy and National Interest 3

4 Foreign Policy ofIndia

descendant of Kautilya, all politics is struggle for power, and, "as long as the world is politically organized into nations, the national interest is indeed the last word in world politics." No government can act contrary to the national interest of the country. No country, whatever its ideals, can afford to base its foreign policy on considerations other than the national interest. Lord Palmerston had very rightly opined, over a hundred years ago, that: "We have no eternal allies and we have no eternal enemies. Our interests are eternal and those interests it is our duty to follow." It is true. Friendship or enmity between nations keeps on changing as environmental changes occur and as every state seeks to promote its self-interests. If the interests of two countries clash, they either make adjustments after negotiations or go in for a policy of confrontation. George Washington, the first US President, had declared the universal truth that no country can be trusted further than it is bound by its interests; and no prudent statesman or politician will venture to depart from it. It is often seen that a particular government may have wrong or misplaced belief about the national interest of the country. Policies based on such beliefs are bound to fail, but so long as a leader is in power he tries to pursue the policy based on his perception of national interests. Thus, Napoleon had said that he was acting in the interest of France when he initiated his campaign against Russia, and later when he launched his desperate battle at Waterloo. Adolf Hitler justified his expansionist policies, including annexation of Austria and breakup of Czechoslovakia (1938) in Germany's national interest. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was determined to appease the dictators of Germany (Hitler) and Italy (Mussolini) because he assumed that that was in Britain's national interest. "Friendly" socialist governments were installed in East European countries in 1945 as that, according to Stalin, would best serve the Soviet national interest. In recent times Pakistan government appeared convinced that it was in that country's national interest to destabilize Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir. These exceptions apart, normally a well thoughtout foreign policy is based on the genuine perception of the country's goals and objectives and, therefore, its national interests. Jawaharlal Nehru had declared in 1947 in the Constituent Assembly of India (Legislative): "Whatever policy we may lay down, the art of conducting the foreign affairs of a country lies in finding out what is most advantageous to the country ... whether a country is imperialistic or socialist or communist, its foreign minister thinks primarily of the interests of that country." However, certain idealist statesmen deny the overriding role of national interest in foreign policy making. The US President, Woodrow Wilson who led the Allies to victory in the First World War, said: "It is perilous to determine the foreign policy of a nation in terms of national interest... We dare not turn from the principle that morality and not expediency is the thing that must guide us. We have no selfish ends to serve." This is an exceptional view which is not generally

shared by statesmen. However, Mahatma Gandhi, though he was never in the government, was one of those who insisted on the value of morality. For example, after independence when be went on fast unto death to press the Indian Government to pay Rs. 55 crore to Pakistan (his reasoning was that we owed it to that country), Gandhi was emphasizing morality even at the cost of national interest. But, what exactly is national interest? National interest has been described as "the general and continuing ends for which a nation acts." Bandopadhyaya says: "every state aims at preserving its political independence and territorial integrity by safeguarding its international boundaries. The means may vary ... but the national interest in the preservation of territorial integrity is clear.9 This idea has been explained in clearer terms by Spykman. He says: "Because territory is an inherent part of a state, self-preservation means defending its control over territory; and, because independence is the essence of state, self-preservation also means fighting for independent status... the basic objective of the foreign policy of all states is the preservation of territorial integrity and political independence."10 The idea of national interest can be, at times, quite vague. It assumes variety of meanings in different contexts. However, as Padelford and Lincoln observe: "Concepts of national interests are centered on core values of the society, which include the welfare of the nation, the security of its political beliefs, national way of life, territorial integrity and its self-preservation." According to Robert Osgood, national interest is "state of affairs valued solely for its benefit to the nations." And, Morgenthau maintains that the main requirement of a nation - state is to protect its physical, political and cultural identity against threat from other states. Foreign policy makers can never ignore the state's national interest. Its essential components are generally believed to be security, economic development and a peaceful world order. Defence of the state is naturally the primary concern of a foreign policy. Secondly, promotion of economic interest, including favourable conditions of trade, is another vital objective of foreign policy. Lastly, most modern states are also concerned with maintenance of international peace, respect for international law, pacific settlement of international disputes and strengthening of the system of international organization. POWER Detailed analysis of the concept of power is neither feasible nor intended in this introductory chapter on Foreign Policy. Since we have referred to foreign policy as synthesis between ends and means, and power has been identified as the means, it will be proper to briefly indicate the meaning and importance of power in foreign policy. Power is a phenomenon of all relationships. Power has been defined by various scholars, but the idea behind all the definitions is

Foreign Policy and National Interest 5

same. It has been described "as the ability or capacity to control others and get them to do what one wants them to do and also to see that they do not do what one does not want them to do." The concept of power is a central concept in international relations. The concept of power was discussed by Kautilya, the master of statecraft in ancient India. He interpreted it as "the possession of strength" derived from three elements namely, knowledge, military might and valour. In the twentieth century, Hans Morgenthau echoed the same feelings. He described all politics as struggle for power. Therefore, international politics is struggle for power among states. According to Morgenthau. power is "man's control over minds and actions of other men". In international relations power is the ability of a state to make its will prevail and to enforce respect and command obedience from other states. This definition of power by Professor Mahendra Kumar implies that power is an ability to get things done as Actor A wants Actor B to do. If'A' succeeds, it has power. This ability, when exercised enables a state to control the behaviour of other states. Since foreign policy is aimed at regulation of behaviour of other states, power alone enables states to formulate and successfully implement their foreign policies. Robert Dahl explained power by stating: 'A' has power over 'B' to the extent that it can get 'B' to do something that k B' would not otherwise do. Thus, every state, big or small, has power to secure compliance from some other state. Power, as mentioned above, is a vital means of a state. Since every state desires more and more power, it often becomes an end in itself. Vernon Van Dyke concludes thus: Power is both "the capstone among the objectives which the states pursue and the cornerstone among the methods which they employ". Most states use power as means of attaining national objectives which are constituents of their foreign policies. Couloumbis and Wolfe define power as "an umbrella concept that denotes anything that establishes and maintains the control of Actor A over Actor B"." Power, according to Couloumbis and Wolfe, has three ingredients. They are: authority, influence and force. Together they constitute power. Authority means voluntary compliance by Actor B of the wishes of Actor A, out of respect, affection, etc. Influence has been defined as use of instruments of persuasion by Actor A to get its wishes accepted by Actor B, who might be initially reluctant to carry out wishes of Actor A. Finally, force means coercion of Actor B by Actor A in pursuit of its political objectives. Force may mean use of force, short of war, or threat thereof. Thus, Actor A may exercise power depending on the availability of authority (voluntary compliance), influence (compliance by persuasion) and force (use of coercive means). In the present context, power is the means employed by states to change, adjust or regulate the behaviour of other states. Power, thus is the means of foreign policy, whereas national interest is the end or the goal.

6 Foreign Policy ofIndia

DETERMINANTS OF FOREIGN POLICY Foreign policy making is a dynamic process. Normally, change of government does not change the fundamentals of the foreign policy of a state, though a revolutionary change in political set-up may result in drastic changes. Why does it normally remain unchanged? It is because foreign policy of a state is determined by a number of factors, many of them are static. There are some factors that do change, but their impact in shaping a country's foreign policy is usually secondary. The foreign policy of a country is "compounded out of many factors and forces". All of them interact and determine the foreign policy. According to Paddleford and Lincoln: "Fundamentally, foreign policy has its roots in the unique historical "backgrounds, political institutions, traditions, economic needs, power factors, aspirations, peculiar geographical circumstances, and basic set of values held by a nation."12 James Rosenau includes geography, size, economic development, culture and history, great power structure, alliances, technology, social structure, public opinion and governmental structure as inputs of foreign policy. Brecher refers to geography, external environment, personalities, economic and military position and public opinion as the determinants of foreign policy. According to J. Bandopadhyaya, the basic determinants of foreign policy include geography, economic development, political traditions, domestic milieu, international milieu, military strength and national character. Professor Appadorai discussed two broad determinants which influence the making of foreign policy. These are called by him as domestic environment and international environment. Appadorai mentions these two environments in the context of Northedge's opinion that foreign policy is an interaction between forces originating outside the country's borders and those working within them. The factors shaping India's foreign policy will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2. Here a very brief mention will be made of the factors that generally determine foreign policies. Firstly, geographical situation is a basic determinant. The size of the state large enough to support a population, a climate that is neither excessively cold nor very hot, a topography offering boundaries with natural barriers such as mountains, rivers and seas and a compact territory enable a country to make and implement independent foreign policy. Geography and terrain were very important assets, before modern military machinery came into existence. Like the size and topography, natural resources and size of population contribute to the power of the state, which in turn shapes its foreign policy. Of the geographical factors special attention must be drawn to location. Britain and Japan, though small in size, became great nations because of their ability to use the oceans as highways of commerce. The absence of natural frontiers as in case of Poland often threatens their security. As Appadorai wrote, "That Britain

Foreign Policy and National Interest 7

is separated from Europe by twenty miles of water gave her an advantage denied to several countries such as France and Germany, which had to spend much of their resources in fighting each other on border problems". He added that air power has indeed reduced the significance of this factor. The situation of a country can enable it, or deprive it, to have an independent foreign policy. The US with vast territory separated from other continents by the Atlantic and the Pacific gave her unprecedented importance. The United States could easily follow a policy of isolation for a long time, and finally emerge as a super power. It is her location and size that enabled America to remain free from any attack and battles on her territory during the Second World War. India's position in South Asia enables her to be a major power and adopt assertive foreign policy. The vast size of Russia and large populations of China and India are important determinants of their foreign policies. However, the mere size of a nation's population is not an index of its strength. There are cases, like that of Israel, of havng very small size of territory as well as small population, yet having adopted very aggressive and effective foreign policy. Secondly, history and traditions have significant influence on foreign policy making. Historical ties of the United States with Britain, the mother country, had an impact on "the US policy for a very long time. British imperialism in India, and our struggle for freedom against colonialism and imperialism, has had direct impact on India's foreign policy. India's full support to freedom struggles in Afro-Asian countries and fight against racial discrimination was the outcome of our history. Similarly, traditional values are of immense importance. According to Appadorai, "Traditional values may be described as those principles embodied in beliefs and practices which have been transmitted through successive generations and have been regarded as worthy of esteem and adoption." 13 Foreign Minister is a part of social milieu and he cannot disregard the basic values held in the society. Thus, democratic values in the US and secularism in India are so deep rooted that they cannot be ignored by any foreign policy maker in these countries. Thirdly, the possession of raw materials and natural resources and compulsions of economic development also determine the course of a country's foreign policy. The political strength of a country is often measured in terms of economic strength. Hence, this factor cannot be ignored while shaping the foreign policy. A weak industrial base has adverse effect on the effectiveness of the country's foreign policy. After independence, India had to devote its attention to the process of development. For that purpose she needed not only foreign aid but also foreign technology. By adopting the policy of nonalignment India ensured aid from all quarters. The countries manufacturing large quantities of armaments look at their foreign policy options quite differently from those who are essentially oil producing and exporting countries. But the possession of natural resources, like oil in West Asian countries, itself

8 Foreign Policy ofIndia

is not enough, unless coupled with other factors such as an able and farsighted government, technological organisation and military strength. Oil as a source of energy has become important for industry and war. "One drop of oil" said Clemenceau, the French Premier, "is worth one drop of blood of our soldiers". Its possession has direct impact on foreign policies of West Asian countries and its lack has another type of impact on the policies of others. Fourthly, high national morale makes for a successful conduct of foreign policy. Obviously, a homogeneous society makes for strong national unity and high morale. Sharp divisions in the society between rich and poor, between different classes, communities and castes have adverse impact on foreign policy. Social cohesion, therefore, is another factor in the shaping of successful foreign policy. Fifthly, political organisation, political tradition, structure of government and enlightened leadership also contribute to the shaping of an effective foreign policy. The traditions of peace, truth and non-violence enabled India to insist on peaceful settlement of international disputes and encourage disarmament. India's assertive and continued stand against signing the discriminatory nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT, as well as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (signed by several countries in 1996) is guided by our commitment to nuclearweapons-free world without any discrimination. The quality of leadership is an important factor. A far-sighted Nehru who believed in democracy, an idealist Wilson who wanted to end all future wars, a determined Winston Churchill committed to win the Second World War, and a low-profile yet strong Lai Bahadur Shastri go a long way in formulating foreign policy that effectively protects the national interests. On the other hand, leaders like Hitler or Mussolini or Yah\ Khan or Saddam Hussein promise a glorious future for their countries, but their policies often lead to disaster. A democratic regime is in the long run far mo,: effective than a despotic system which shows only short term gains, but ch.ijs in the end. Besides, domestic policies always influence the foreign policy. The perception of ruling elite, the imperatives of state-building and ideologies of political parties are important variables that influence foreign policy. Sixthly, military strength of a country has direct impact on its foreign policy. Possession of large and powerful armed forces equipped with modern sophisticated weapons of warfare makes for an effective and aggressive foreign policy. A country with weak military machine will normally be at a disadvantage even at peaceful negotiations. But, it has been seen that an enlightened leadership and high morale of people and the army, as in the case of Israel make up for small size of army and make for a successful foreign policy. Ordinarily, a militarily superior country would try to pursue a bold policy to maximise its gains, and a weak country would try to minimise its disadvantages. Seventhly, public opinion has lately become an important factor in the shaping of foreign policy. The foreign policy is no more made in the secrecy of

Foreign Policy and National Interest 9

Foreign Offices. It is made in open, and public opinion can often force change in foreign policy and in its implementation. British public's annoyance led to the resignation of Foreign Minister Sir Samuel Hoare in 1935 because of his secret deal with his French counterpart to bail out the aggressor Italy. Again, it was public opinion against British adventure in Suez crisis that forced Eden Government to quit in 1957. It was because of fear of annoyance of a minority community that forced Indian foreign policy makers not to establish diplomatic relations with Israel for four decades. US involvement in Vietnam War and lately in Iraq had been strongly opposed by American people. All foreign policy makers are now very sensitive to public opinion. Lastly, international milieu is one of the most important determinants of foreign policy. In any case, foreign policy is the sum total of decisions taken by a country to regulate the behaviour of other states. Therefore, the international system at any given point of time has direct impact on foreign policies. Appadorai sums up the position thus: "The complexity of foreign policy arises from the interaction ofthe desire of states within the international community to achieve their own national interests, and their consequent attitudes to international issues."14 The difficulty in conducting the foreign policy arises because states do not have sure means of controlling the behaviour of other states. To quote Appadorai again, "It can persuade, promise or deny economic and military aid; it can threaten another state with the use of force; nevertheless, it cannot be certain the state will act in the way it desires". These views of Appadorai have their value. But, as far as shaping of foreign policy is concerned the role of international situation cannot be denied. During the Balance of Power System in the nineteenth century, conclusion of alliances, policy of buffer states and race of armaments all were guided by the place of a state in the system. Each weaker state always sought the help of an unattached power, generally known as the balancer. During the inter-war period (1919-39), the quest for French security, followed by rise of fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany and militarism in Japan had their impact on foreign policies. The US changed its policy towards the Soviet Union and recognised her because in 1933 Hitler's emergence in Germany posed a threat to the world order created after the War. Japanese aggression in Manchuria (China) in 1931 provided a common threat to USA as well as USSR in the Far East. The two powers gave up their hostility. The Cold War system (1945-90) did not leave any country's foreign policy unaffected. The fear of US atom bomb made the Soviet Union leader of Eastern Europe, and all the countries in the region adopted socialism and came under Russian wings. The entire policy of containment of communism adopted by the US, setting up of NATO, SEATO, etc. everything was the result of the development of USSR as challenger to capitalist system advocated by the United States. The frequent use of Veto in the UN Security Council was a direct result of the Cold War politics. As far as India is concerned, the adoption and

10 Foreign Policy ofIndia

propagation of the policy of non-alignment was a clear response to the international milieu represented by a bipolar world and the Cold War. The detente between the USA and China (1971), expulsion of Taiwan from the UN on the initiative of America, and strategic relationship that developed between USA and China since 1971 (Bangladesh war) had direct impact on the foreign policy of India. Several other countries also had to do reappraisal of their foreign policies in view of close links between China and the US. One of the immediate outcome of US-China-Pakistan strategic relationship was IndoSoviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation (1971) which further strengthened the relationship between India and the then Soviet Union. Partition of British India caused by imperialist Britain's policy of divide and rule, encouraged by Muslim League's concept of two nations, created such hostility between India and Pakistan that we had to unwillingly spend large sums of money on defence as our neighbour was always out to damage our interests. International organisations and the expression of world public opinion, in and outside the UN, also have powerful impact on foreign policies of various countries. Whether it was UK-France-Israel attack on Egypt (1956), American intervention in Vietnam conflict, Soviet action in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968), Bangladesh crisis (1971), Cuban missile crisis (1962), Soviet occupation of Afghanistan for nearly nine years all such actions evoked strong public reaction all over the world. Such reactions and expression of opinion in various international fora also help in the formulation of foreign policy. Later, the war between Iran and Iraq (two Muslim neighbours) in 1980s influenced the policies of several countries. Then in 1990 Iraq committed unprovoked aggression against its neighbour, oil-rich Kuwait and annexed it. Interestingly, Kuwait had given big help to Iraq during its war against Iran. The annexation of Kuwait brought the UN on the scene, and with its authorisation US-led forces launched attack on Iraq forcing it to surrender and also vacate Kuwait. The world opinion generally sided with Kuwait and approved UN action. But, when in 2003, the United States again attacked Iraq on the ground that it had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the UN did not support American action, and there was resentment against the US both by friends and foes. Britain was the only major power to support the US action. Foreign policies of most of the countries had to be reassessed in view of US action which defeated Iraq and brought change of regime with President Saddam Hussein hiding and then being arrested and hanged. Foreign policy is the basis of all international relations. Some scholars even identify foreign policy with international relations. We do not subscribe to this view. Foreign policy is not synonym of international relations, yet such

Foreign Policy and National Interest 11

relations are conducted only through foreign policies of different countries, which are shaped as a result of interaction among numerous determinants.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Mahendra Kumar, Theoretical Aspects ofInternational Politics, Agra, p. 310. George Modelski, A Theory of Foreign Policy, London, p. 3. Huge Gibson, The Road to Foreign Policy, New York, p. 9. Cecil V. Scrabb Jr.. American Foreign Policy in the Nuclear Age, New York, p. 1 Couloumbis & Wolfe. Introduction to International Relations: Power and Justice,

12 Foreign Policy ofIndia


New Delhi, p. 125. 6. Mahendra Kumar, op. cit., p. 311.

7. J. Bandopadhyaya, The Making ofIndia's Foreign Policy, Allied, p. 1.

10. Nicholas J. Spykman, America s Strategy in World Politics, New York. p. 17.

8. Mahendra Kumar, op. cit., p. 315. 9. Bandopadhyaya, op. cit., p. 3.

11. Couloumbis & Wolfe, op. cit.. p. 86. 12. Padleford & Lincoln, International Politics, New York, p. 307. 14. Appadorai, op. cit., p. 7.

13. A. Appadorai, Domestic Roots of India's Foreign Policy. Delhi, p. 11.