India's amnesia on Bandung conference is a symptom of what ails our foreign policy

Indian Express

15-05-2025

Anniversaries serve as powerful moments of reflection in the realm of international diplomacy. Yet, the 70th anniversary of the Bandung Conference – the watershed moment in 1955 when 29 newly-independent Asian and African nations gathered to chart a course distinct from Cold War polarities – passed without ceremony or commemoration in India. We can take this lapse in memory as one of the many signs of the transformation of Indian foreign policy.The Bandung Conference was much more than a diplomatic gathering. Emerging from the shadows of colonialism and devastating wars, it was the collective expression of the aspiration of young nations to define their own destinies unencumbered by the push and pull of superpower politics. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) sprang out of this radical context, and India assumed its moral leadership under Jawaharlal Nehru's visionary stewardship.
The fading of such a significant anniversary points towards the paradoxical and lamentable spread of what seems to be a superficial and insecure diplomatic identity of India.
In the decades after Independence, India's foreign policy was based on certain fundamental principles: Anti-colonialism, sovereignty and equality of nations, peaceful coexistence and multilateral engagement. These weren't then, and aren't now, abstract ideas. For a young nation seeking to secure its identity and autonomy in a world order structured by the Cold War, these were non-negotiable political and policy instruments. India's stance earned it respect that may have been disproportionate to its material heft, but it was certainly a recognition of our country's moral authority at international fora.
India's leadership within NAM communicated to its peers as well as to the world powers several important lessons. Politically, it demonstrated to the post-colonial countries that pluralism and progress can and should go hand in hand. An inclusive deliberative democracy is essential for nation-building. Economically, India pursued an industrial policy aimed at self-reliance, offering a development model that was an alternative to both Western capitalism and Soviet communism. From such a position, India earned goodwill that extended beyond its physical boundaries. Intellectually, Indian universities were seen as alternative centres of learning for students from Africa, West Asia and South Asia. We accumulated 'soft power' and used it strategically even before it became popular as a concept. When India spoke in international fora, it did not speak only for itself. It represented a broad constituency of developing countries.
Today, Indian foreign policy has gone far away from these foundational principles. I would try to make a few points that can help understand the extent and impact of this shift.
It is counterintuitive to waste the international goodwill by actively attempting to distance India from historical positions that once defined its identity. Nothing explains the deep reluctance to acknowledge the sophisticated diplomatic positioning of the NAM era except that India's approach to international relations seems to have shifted from institution-based multilateralism to personality-driven engagement.
While it is true that personal diplomacy has always been an element of statecraft, foreign policy and relations now increasingly revolve around leader-to-leader dynamics. Disproportionate staging of personality by the present regime seems to be at the cost of institutional memory and professional diplomatic expertise. There is rarely any evidence of long-term and India-first thinking.
Rather than being based on coherent principles, our foreign policy decisions appear to be reactive and opportunity-driven. While such an approach may yield short-term advantages or concessions, it risks undermining long-term objectives. Coherence and reliability are essential qualities for a rising power that seeks to inspire trust among international partners. Our long-standing partners increasingly perceive India not as the stable, principled actor that once anchored regional stability, but as an unpredictable force.
But what is most worrying is the subordination of foreign policy to domestic political imperatives. Traditionally, nations believe that international engagement requires continuity. Therefore, they attempt to build domestic consensus around foreign policy priorities, overcoming electoral cycles and political rivalries. This principle seems to have been completely abandoned in India today. Foreign policy decisions are increasingly framed not through the lens of national interest but through narratives designed to strengthen the domestic political position of the ruling party. Diplomatic events are choreographed as spectacles for domestic consumption.
The recent conflict with Pakistan presents a revealing case of these dynamics. It is a matter of deep concern when the announcement of ceasefire talks comes not from New Delhi but from Washington. The equivocation in holding Pakistan responsible for cross-border terrorism by the US, which has long been the bedrock of India's diplomatic posture, weakens India's ability to dictate terms in its immediate neighbourhood.
Add to this, US President Donald Trump's statement that the issue is viewed simultaneously as a security issue and a business opportunity, where India could be persuaded by the US to its bidding through an offer of a 'lot of trade'. Presenting diplomatic intervention as a matter of transaction has diminished the distinctiveness of India's position. From being a nation that once articulated a broad vision of international justice, we are maintaining international relations primarily through commercial considerations. Or, at least, this is what we have allowed our partners to suggest and get away with. This further underlines the reduced capacity of our country to manoeuvre and shape global discourse. Large parts of our so-called national media have become a diplomatic liability rather than an asset.
The ascendance of 'strongman' politics, characterised by personalisation of power, confrontational rhetoric, and performative displays of national strength, is no longer a domestic concern but also a real and imminent risk in international relations. Once such messaging takes root, deviating from it is difficult, as the treatment of our foreign secretary by hateful trolls has regrettably shown.
India's historic foreign policy was fundamentally pragmatic. Even if aspects of it may seem idealistic today, the policy recognised that for a developing nation with limited material capabilities, principled and reliable consistency offered strategic advantages. Non-alignment was never about disengagement but about preserving decision-making autonomy in a polarised world.
I am not advocating for an uncritical embrace of historical positions. The world has, of course, changed dramatically since Bandung. India's approach must, as a consequence, evolve accordingly. Our country's regional and global aspirations remain substantial and legitimate. However, realising these ambitions requires a rejuvenation of the diplomatic strengths that once defined its international identity.
The lack of enthusiasm for Bandung's anniversary is not just a failure to observe an important historical moment. It represents a missed opportunity that might have been used to express a new vision for India's engagement in the international arena, building upon the principles of that era. India can and must reclaim the distinctive voice that once commanded attention in global forums, not through volume or verbosity, but through the moral clarity and consistency of its positions.
The writer is Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, Rashtriya Janata Dal