“India is often said to have a rich strategic culture.’ Discuss.
How the answer moves
The flow snapshot — the routes in, the body, the counter-view and the routes out.
Route 1 Snyder defines strategic culture → whether India has one is contested
Route 2 India acts strategically, yet is charged with lacking strategic culture (Tanham) → sets up the rebuttal
Snyder’s definition → Tanham’s 1992 denial (geography / history / culture / Raj + Hindu ‘time’ → reactive foreign policy) → Menon’s rebuttal (independent actor, frugal diplomacy, pluralistic–secular–defensive) → India’s own tradition (Arthashastra, Panchsheel, non-alignment; Kautilya’s mandala behind Nehru’s non-alignment)
Karnad (strategic autonomy → strategic diminution; Wei-qi outscores mandala) vs Malone (no grand strategy = advantage; improvisation suits a pragmatic power)
Route 1 distinctive, not absent → the debate itself proves its depth
Route 2 not the Western grand-strategy type, but a Kautilyan, pluralistic tradition → richness lies in adaptability, not a fixed doctrine
Model answer
Handwritten, in the form it would be written in the examination hall.
Also asked on this head
Indian Foreign Policy — 10 questions in the Vault.
- Critically analyze the different phases of India’s foreign policy since independence. How justified, do you think, is S. Jaishankar’s classification of the current phase as the...
- Would you concur with the view that of late, India’s foreign policy has been in a transition mode from Nehruvianism to Neoliberalism? Support your answer with...
- Explain the major features of India’s Foreign Policy in the 2ist century.
How this is taught
The same flow snapshot, built for every head of the syllabus, with the answer written in class.
The first session of Foundation 2027 is published in full.
Six programmes across three levels.