Justin Mathew

28/2/2019
Worksheet 2: The post-war global capitalism and India’s Foreign Policy:
“The foreign policy of a country is deeply influenced by the domestic correlations of social
forces and their material goals” (C. P. Bhambri, “India’s Foreign Policy”, Social Scientist, Vol.
10, No. 10 (Oct., 1982), p. 51—A country’s foreign policy options are shaped by the
contemporary global alignment—The immediate post-Second World War global alignments
were based on direct and indirect confrontation between the United States of America and the
Soviet Union, two power-blocs—era of the growing militarization—supply of arms to the
regional allies—isolationist policies by preventing aids and financial supports—

Nehru has to shape India’s foreign policy in a global crisis situation—In addition to this, India
decided to follow a policy of facilitating the development of big-business—India’s development
path had to completely depend on the global forces—Therefore, India’s foreign policy of non-
alignment and self-reliance in industrial development had to make many compromises—V. P.
Dutt in his India’s Foreign Policy argues that Independent India’s foreign policy had been
shaped by the Prime Minister Nehru in the years from 1947 to 1964—India was undergoing a
phase of severe crisis—the economy was severely strained, and shortage of food, fertilizers, and
other basic consumer goods—India had to heavily depend on foreign aid—Sino-Indian conflict
and Indo-Pak conflicts worsened the crisis situation—these conflicts exposed India’s military
weakness—these conflicts also limited India’s aspirations as a regional power when Pakistan and
China formed an unofficial alliance—In this context, as V. P. Dutt argues India had to turn to the
United States for aid—Nonalignment, the hallmark of India’s foreign policy, was thus in
danger—[V. P. Dutt, India’s Foreign Policy (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1984)]

India and the post-Second World War Global imperialism:[the most common use of the term
imperialism in reference to the economic and political relationship between advanced capitalist
countries and backward countries]—As John Weeks argues since the Second World War the
word imperialism has become synonymous with the oppression and exploitation of weak,
impoverished countries by powerful ones [John Weeks, Capital and Exploitation, Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1981)–Imperialism refers to the process of capitalist accumulation on
a world scale in the ear of monopoly capitalism—

1
What is the nature of imperialism in the post-World War II period? Can we argue that the foreign
policy decisions of the advanced capitalist countries were imperialistic in nature?

Harry Magdoff argues:

While the imperialist powers did not give up the colonies gladly or easily, the
imperialist powers did not give up the colonies gladly or easily, the main purpose of
colonialism had been achieved prior to the new political independence: the colonies
had been intertwined with the world capitalist markets; their resources, economies,
and societies had become adapted to the needs of the metropolitan centres. The
current task of imperialism now became to hold on to as many of the economic and
financial benefits of these former colonies as possible. And this of course meant
continuation of the economic and financial dependencies of these countries on the
metropolitan centres.
The organizing of the postwar imperialist system proceeded through the medium of
the international agencies established towards the end of the ear: the United Nations,
the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund—in each of which the United
States was able, for various reasons, to exercise the leading role. The system was
consolidated through the activities of UNRRA [United Nations Relief and
Rehabilitation Administration], the Marshal Plan [the US pan to provide financial
aid to Western Europe to assist their post-War reconstruction projects. But the plan
heavily favoured the US military, industrial and international trade interests], and the
several economic and military aid programs financed and controlled form
Washington.” [Harry Magdoff, Imperialism without Colonies (New York: Monthly
Review Press, 2003), pp. 46-7]
Thus, we need to explore the imperialistic elements in the post-Second World War US foreign
policy to understand the global context—because the global capitalism was crucial in shaping
India’s foreign policy-

Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy write:

The hierarchy of nations which make up the capitalist system is characterized by a

complex set of exploitative relations. Those at the top exploit in varying degree all
the lower layers, and similarly those at any given level exploit those below them
until we reach the very lowest layer which has no one to exploit. At the same time,
each unit at a given level strives to be the sole exploiter of as large a number as
possible of the units beneath it. Thus we have a network of antagonistic relations
pitting exploiters against exploited and rival exploiters against each other.
Disregarding juridical categories, we can call those at or near the top of the
hierarchy, “metropolises” and those at or near the bottom “colonies.” The sphere of
exploitation of a given metropolis, from which rivals are more or less effectively
excluded, is its “empire.” Some in the intermediate layers may become incorporated
into an empire, with one occasionally even brining an empire of its own along with

2
 its (for example, Portugal and the Portuguese empire as subordinate units within the
larger British empire); others in the intermediate layers may succeed in retaining a
relative independence, as the Untied States did during roughly its first century and a
half of nationhood.
To explain why Untied States military needs expanded rapidly during the postwar
[World War II] period, we have to go beyond a theory based on past capitalist
experience and take account of a new historical phenomenon, the rise of a world
socialist system as a rival and alternative to the world capitalist system. Why should
the rise of a socialist rival generate steadily mounting military needs on the part of
the capitalist leader nations?
Official and unofficial molders of public opinion—from Presidents and Secretaries
of States to small-town editorial writers have a ready answer: The United States must
protect the “free world” against the threat of Soviet (or Chinese) aggression. (Baran
and Sweezy: 1966, 183-4)
[For further details see, Paul Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the
American Economic and Social Order (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1966)]—

What was India’s foreign policy reaction to the U.S led anti-communist campaign?

A study on a particular country’s foreign policy has to consider two broad questions: 1) the
relations among advanced capitalist countries—imperialist rivalry, 2) the impact of capitalism on
these former colonies—

After the Second world war, the imperialist countries evolved a strategy of military pacts and
alliances with the newly liberated countries of the Third World (Bhambri:1982, 51)—However,
India refused to join any military alliance with the imperialist power blocs—India also refused to
give space to develop military base of the imperialist within its territory—India also refused to
join the U. S. led global campaign against communism—India recognized the People’s Republic
of China as an independent Nation-State—even during the Sino-Indian dispute of 1962, India
refused to join an anti-Communist military alliance—In this Context, Bhambri argues that
India’s foreign policy of non-alignment has some anti-imperialist features—At the same time,
Indian ruling and industrial elites made several compromises with world monopoly capitalism by
promoting metropolitan-technology dependent (massive import of technologies) economic
development—there was no genuine policy of self-reliant economic development—this was
central to India’s foreign policy concerns—Specifically India with its technology dependent
industrialization was not in a position to afford isolationism—

3
Bhambri argues:

“India’s foreign policy clearly reflects the dual tendencies of the Indian bourgeoisie.
During the last the last three decades [1950s to 1970s], India has stood against
imperialist pressures, but it has also made humiliating compromises such as the
devaluation of the India rupee in 1966 and the acceptance of the IMF’s ‘conditionality’
clause in 1981. Such a contradictory character of the bourgeoisie demands the exercise
of pressure by the mass parties on foreign policy.
India’s foreign policy has two faces Its positive aspect is that India, unlike many Third
World Countries, is not a part of any imperialist alliance system. Formally or
informally, India is not a member of any anti-communist military or political bloc such
as the ASEAN countries are. The negative aspects of India’s foreign policy flow from
its domestic economic and social policies.” (C P Bhambri: 1982, 55)
At the same time, India’s economic condition in the 1950s could not allow a strong non-aligning
policy—For instance, in 1951 India had to request the U. S. for two million tons of food grains—
In response to this request The Times of India reported: “India’s Request for U. S. Food Grains:
Mr. Nehru’s Foreign Policy Arouses Opposition”--

Even while criticizing, The Times of India acknowledged Nehru’s uncompromising anti-
imperialist stand:

“Unrealistic Approach Towards Asia: Pandit Nehru’s Criticism of Foreign Policy of

Powers”, Times of India, 17 Oct. 1950, p. 2

The countries of Asia, Pandit Nehru said, “are developing or wish to develop
democratic institutions. Most of them are opposed to totalitarianism as represented by
either Communism or Fascism. World Communism in its expansionist aspect, just as
any other expansionist movement, is considered a danger to peace and freedom.” As far
as new China was concerned, the Prime Minister observed, it had a coalition
Government devoted to economic reconstruction, although its leaders today were
Communists.
Answering criticisms of India’s foreign policy in the American press, Pandit Nehru said
that India did not claim infallibility of judgement, not did she recognise such
infallibility of judgement and monopoly of rectitude in any other country. It was
unreasonable to expect unanimity of opinion on momentous international issues, and it
was equally unreasonable to seek peace by taking steps which made its realization more
difficult.
“The crisis of the world requires every country to search its conscience and seek ways
of action which lead to the peace which we all desire. We cannot sacrifice tomorrow
because of the passion today.

4
5