Revision summary
Nehruvianism meant NAM, UN moralism and refusal of blocs; neoliberalism in this debate means markets, U.S. partnership and globalisation. 1991, Act East, the U.S. nuclear bargain and the Quad are the visible transition. India still refuses formal alliance, keeps Russia, defends WTO policy space and talks Global South — Nehruvian residues. Concur partly: instruments have shifted; doctrine of autonomy has not been abolished. Multi-alignment is the mix, not a clean replacement of one school by the other.
Model answer
Introduction
Nehruvianism in foreign policy meant non-alignment, Afro-Asian solidarity, UN moral language, and suspicion of military blocs, with a weak material base. Neoliberalism here does not mean only domestic market reform. In the foreign-policy debate it means engagement with global capital, closer ties to the United States, and comfort with economic globalisation. The view that India has been in transition from Nehruvianism to neoliberalism is partly right. It is wrong as a completed story.
Body
Where the transition is visible
1991 opened the economy and forced diplomacy to seek capital, oil and technology. Look East / Act East replaced a purely continental NAM map with ASEAN and later the Indo-Pacific. The civil nuclear path with the United States, the 2+2s, LEMOA, COMCASA and BECA, and revival of the Quad are not Nehru’s instruments. India signs trade talks, courts supply chains, and speaks the language of ease of capital. C. Raja Mohan and others have described this as a turn from idealism to a more interest-based, market-compatible diplomacy. Examples are concrete: India as a lower-cost manufacturing hedge in China-plus-one; ITEC plus digital public infrastructure as exports; a G20 presidency that sold investment as much as NAM memory.
Where Nehruvianism has not died
India still refuses a NATO-like alliance, which is the point of 7(c). It still buys oil and platforms with Russia. It still uses strategic autonomy and Global South voice — a Nehruvian habit in a new accent. It did not join a condemnation camp on Ukraine in the way neoliberal Atlanticism demanded. At the WTO, India defends food stocks and policy space rather than a pure open-market catechism. Neighbourhood policy still uses civilisational and security language that is not reducible to FDI.
So the transition is in the economic and U.S.-facing layers. It is not a conversion of the whole doctrine. NonAlignment 2.0 already tried to name autonomy after NAM’s bipolar script died. Multi-alignment, treated in 8(c), is the current mix: Nehruvian refusal of a camp, neoliberal use of markets and minilaterals.
Comment
Concur in part. Late Indian foreign policy has moved toward markets, the United States and issue-based coalitions. Do not concur that Nehruvianism has been replaced. The state still wants autonomy in a hierarchical world-economy that Wallerstein would recognise. Neoliberal tools serve that autonomy. They have not abolished it.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD N[Nehruvian NAM UN] --> T[1991 Act East US nuclear] T --> Q[Quad markets] N --> A[Autonomy Russia WTO food] T --> MIX[Partial transition]
Conclusion
India has used neoliberal economic diplomacy and U.S. minilaterals that Nehru would not have signed. It has not become a camp follower or a free-trade fundamentalist. The transition is real in instruments. The end remains autonomy. That is a partial, not a total, shift.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Does the idea of the 21st century as 'Asian century' continue to remain feasible given the growing friction between India and China?
Next question in the 2024 paper (Q6). View answer →
-
Is neoliberalism the same as being pro-American?
In Indian FP debate the two overlap in the 2000s–2020s, but neoliberalism also means WTO and capital. India can be market-engaging and still fight Washington at Geneva.
-
Did Nehru ignore economics?
No. He sought aid and mixed economy. He did not organise foreign policy around global production chains and a U.S. nuclear bargain.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q5(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
China's growing footprint and a tangible shift in power dynamics in Bangladesh has weakened India's leverage in Dhaka. Comment. -
2025 · Q5(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
For India, a multipolar world order would also mean a multipolar Asia. Comment. -
2024 · Q5(e) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Despite deep ties, India's relations with Sri Lanka have seen strains due to China's growing influence in Sri Lanka through investments and economic dominance. Analyse. -
2023 · Q5(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Explain the major features of India's Foreign Policy in the 21st century. -
2023 · Q7(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
"India's Nuclear policy is deeply influenced by its cultural beliefs and the pragmatic approach of its foreign policy." Discuss -
2023 · Q7(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
What steps has India taken to regain its foothold in Afghanistan since the Taliban has taken over the country in August 2021? -
2023 · Q8(b) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the significance of "West Asia Quad" in the light of India's 'Look West' policy -
2022 · Q5(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Peaceful co-existence remains the cornerstone of India's foreign policy. Comment.
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the interpretive approach to the study of comparative politics.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
The interpretive approach studies political action as meaning in context, following Weber’s verstehen and later cultural and linguistic turns. It replies to behaviouralism’s search for covering laws by asking how votes, nations and authority are understood locally. Thick description, ethnography and discourse analysis are typical tools. It explains legitimacy, nationalism and everyday state practice that a constitution or a class map alone cannot supply. Limits are relativism, weak generalisation, and neglect of material and institutional constraint if used alone.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Explain the central tenets of the World-Systems Theory.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
Wallerstein’s unit is the capitalist world-economy since the long sixteenth century, not the isolated nation-state. Core, semi-periphery and periphery form a durable three-tier division of labour. Unequal exchange and strong/weak states move surplus toward the core. The theory rejects modernisation’s national ladder and differs from Waltz’s interstate anarchy as first cause. Limits include economic determinism and underplaying state autonomy and culture; mobility exists but hierarchy persists.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
The expansionist tendencies of the current Russian regime indicate its intentions for the realization of a Greater Russia on the lines of the Soviet era. Comment.
Comparative Politics
Russia’s wars in Georgia and Ukraine, plus pressure on Belarus and nuclear signalling, show expansionist intent in the post-Soviet space. The Greater Russia story denies full independence of neighbours, especially Ukraine. The Soviet analogy fits geography of control more than ideology: today’s regime is nationalist and oligarchic, not a communist world-system. Morgenthau and Waltz explain power and structure; they do not make the war merely defensive. Comment: accept expansionism; reject a simple USSR restoration.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.