Rajat Ganguly

This chapter analyses India's domestic politics and foreign policy, focusing particularly on how India has managed its ethnic diversity, the potent forms of ethnic unrest and insurgencies that the state has had to deal with, and the how India's growing economic and military power has impacted its foreign and security policy particularly with reference to Pakistan, China and the Western world. The chapter argues that in spite of the best intentions of the framers of the Indian Constitution, the Indian state has had to deal strongly with ethnic agitations and secessionist insurgencies in the Indian northeast, in Jammu and Kashmir and in Punjab. Some of these insurgencies are slowly winding down while some are being rekindled. The chapter also takes note of the Maoist insurgency in India and argues that under the Modi regime, harsh counterinsurgency measures and decapitation policies have resulted in defections and disarray within the Maoist ranks. This is a victory of sorts for the Indian state although the insurgency is not over by any means. Finally, the chapter argues that the end of the Cold War posed severe challenges for India's foreign and security policy. Under the changed realities of global politics, the Indian state adopted a pragmatic approach to foreign policy, which resulted in India's rise as an economic and military power. The Modi regime has further consolidated India's international standing although it has been confronted with major challenges. Most pressing of these has been the threat from Islamist forces in neighbouring states, managing hostile relations with Pakistan and China, and dealing with the consequences of the Ukraine war.

This chapter analyses domestic politics in India, focusing on various types of ethnic conflicts that have shaped politics of the nation in recent times. It looks at the foreign policy posture of India since the early-1990s and shows how the country is using foreign policy to bolster national security and transform its military into a modern fighting force. The creeping authoritarianism in Indian politics that emerged in the early-1970s eventually criminalised the polity, politicised bureaucracy and security agencies and rode roughshod over opponents of the Congress party. Local, state and national level politicians, irrespective of party affiliations, are likely to support extremely tough, perhaps even brutal, forms of response by security forces. Political turmoil in Russia and the former Soviet space resulted in unreliable defence supplies, which adversely affected India’s military whose weapons were predominantly Soviet-made. India must use its foreign policy skilfully to deal effectively with myriad threats to national security in an uncertain, turbulent and rapidly changing world.

Postcolonial states in South and Southeast Asia continue to be challenged by violent ethno-nationalist and secessionist insurgencies. The postcolonial states of South and Southeast Asia are multi-national, meaning that they comprise of many ethnic nations. While the idea of national self-determination is fine in theory, in practice its implementation has proved to be problematic and controversial. Critics argue, however, that territorial or regional autonomy arrangements may not be the panacea for ethnic conflict in all cases. Other critics, such as Coakley, have argued that autonomy arrangements often fail to resolve ethnic conflicts because they lead to a change of one set of bad masters for another (albeit from own ethnic kin) and fail to deliver positive outcomes for people across all areas of governance (either as a result of deliberate design or faulty implementation). Furthermore, autonomy arrangements, by exacerbating the problem of “spoilers” (disaffected factions within the ethnic ruling elite), may also endanger peace.