One such approach to the study of international relations is that of Constructivism, which seeks to provide a different perspective from mainstream realism-idealism-dominated IR. Constructivists argue that the fundamental structures of international politics are social rather than strictly material and do not make broad and specific predictions about international relations, rejecting the assumption that material facts have objective meaning. They cite social norms for shaping and changing foreign policy over time rather than security, as per realists. Constructivists see the world as a project under construction, as becoming rather than being. When Ms. Gandhi was incumbent as Prime Minister, Indian foreign policy was labelled as having taken a realist turn, but it will be interesting to note if it has been showing a shade of constructivism lately under the BJP regime led by Prime Minister Modi.
What is Constructivism in IR?
Emerging in the 1980s and gaining popular ground in the 1990s, Constructivism opposes the notions of materialism (the notion that the physical world determines political behaviour on its own) and individualism (where individual units can be studied apart from the broader systems that they are embedded in), based on a research strategy of methodological holism rather than methodological individualism. It places a lot of weight on identities, interests and norms as factors determining the state’s policy and actions. The identity and interests of actors, both state and non-state. are socially constructed and changeable, determining state behaviour. Ideas and processes form a structure of their own, which impacts upon international actors. Constructivists are not inherently committed to concentrating their inquiry at the level of the state in international politics, notwithstanding this shift towards identities and interests (properties of states). Abram Chayes and Antonia Handler Chayes have defined ‘norms’ as “a broad class of prescriptive statements—rules, standards and principles—both procedural and substantive” that are prescriptive and carry a sense of obligation. Actors tend to adhere to a ‘logic of appropriateness’, which follows internalised prescriptions of what is socially defined as ‘normal’. Martha Finnemore suggests that international organisations like the World Bank or UNESCO help diffuse norms, which influence how states define their national interests (1996). Divided into two strands, critical constructivism builds on the work of Onuf and Kratochwil, whereas conventional constructivism builds on Wendt’s work. Critical constructivists believe that it is impossible to understand the "true reasons" behind foreign policy decisions, so they aim to explain how language and discourse analysis make it possible for some foreign policy actions to be chosen over others. ‘State identity’ as promoted by leaders and officials is reflected in foreign policy. Furthermore, traditional constructivists have a tendency to concentrate on global "norms," collective identity creation, and interstate interaction. The disregard for politics and power in the formation of identities and norms in traditional constructivist narratives has been criticised by critical constructivists. Borrowing more from Sociology into IR, they also question the belief held by academics such as Wendt that there are certain ‘core interests’ of every state, like survival and that other interests, such as security and economic interests, are outside an identity framework. Critical constructivists’ work has a history of focusing on the patterns of domestic and international power relations, breaking down the wall between the domestic and the global.
Activities, relations and interactions help states understand each other and shape their identities; for example, states interact and socialise via foreign policy. Hence, the international structure is not only made of material factors but also social relationships and ideational factors. Constructivism focuses on problematising nations' identities and interests and expanding the range of ideational factors that influence international outcomes in an effort to explain how the past impacts actors' understanding of their current situation. Through activities, interactions and shared knowledge, states can solve any problems or conflicts without a war.
Constructivism and Indian Foreign Policy
In response to the realist pre-condition of no higher authority in the international community, Wendt says anarchy is what states make of it (1992). The distinct sense of national history, identity, and interests held by decision-makers in each nation sets the stage for the diverse discourses that will characterise those nations. Cultures shape individual identity; constructivists analyse the causal effects of structure on identity and interests, which are neglected by individualists. In Hilkermeier’s words, it is the use of state power to buttress an identity that creates conflict. Identities are not just personal or psychological but also social, defined by the actor's interaction and relationship with others. Social identity generates positive identification between peoples of members’ states. In order to pursue a certain foreign policy, agreement and consensus among different groups involved in the development of identities and interests would be necessary; therefore, identity shapes a state’s foreign policy preferences, interests and behaviour. For foreign policy, a state needs identity, and without identity, a state cannot have sovereignty. As per Wheeler, identity leads to special conceptions of the national interest—what the country cares about and what aspects of its ‘‘collective self’’ as a result of national interests the polity attempts to achieve through global politics. Below are several types of collective identities that motivate actors to preserve their culture. Because of their shared interests, participants view the group's well-being as a goal in and of itself: -
Political Identity- plays an important role in sustaining citizens’ allegiance and loyalty to their political community.
National Identity- a basic worldview combined with ideas about the type of national image a nation aspires to project, as well as a sense of the values represented by the nation. The construction of national identity is closely linked to power in a socio-political setting.
State Identity- State identity affects domestic political developments and foreign policy identity. Internal socialisation processes in a state can change and shape the state's identity and interests.
States build their identities before interacting with each other. State identity also greatly depends on international organisations. They help in the establishment of identity and interests and are connected to power. Additionally, the community becomes a crucial component of state identity. Changes in state identity affect the national security interests or policies of states. States cannot achieve state identity and state interests if they do not interact with one another. Moreover, states that know one another and exchange knowledge will have interests in one another (Erbas, 2022).
Scholars of Indian foreign policy were at the forefront of the emergence of critical constructivism in IR; for example, Himadeep Muddipi’s ‘Cultures of Insecurity’, underscored the ‘added value’ of constructivism for Indian foreign policy analysis. Muppidi pointed to the inability of mainstream liberal and realist approaches to account for India’s insecure Cold War relationship with the United States and its friendly ties with the Soviet Union, along with the importance of taking into account India’s colonial history and postcolonial ‘imaginary security’. The notion of ‘ambivalence’ has been key in understanding the construction of India’s postcolonial identity and the distinctive aspects of its foreign policy, as substantiated by India’s rejection of the power blocs and therefore collective identity formation for much of its postcolonial history through its resistance to many aspects of the post-World War II international order. Constructivists would identify India’s engagement with climate change governance, its portrayal as a responsible nuclear power and its approach to regional multilateralism in South Asia as facets of its state identity. However, India’s unique path to nuclear weapons, a two-decades-long gap in nuclear testing, a history of supporting nuclear disarmament and opposition to discriminatory NPT and CTBT treaties remain apt for constructivist analysis.
Another focus of constructivist analysis on Indian foreign policy has been its attentiveness to political economy and capitalism in which, material and cultural considerations are kept apart and economic factors only matter if trade and commerce can assist in bringing states together to form cooperative ties. India liberalised its economy in the 1990s which created new forms of insecurity such as masking a ‘globalist’ identity and its rivalry with China. Chacko has argued that India’s changing approach to international intervention, which has shifted from support for multilateral interventionism in the 1950s and 1960s, to a turn to unilateral intervention in the 1970s and 1980s, to resistance to notions of humanitarian intervention in the 1990s and heavily qualified support for the responsibility to protect doctrine in the 2000s, is linked to political and economic shifts in its state-building project and the global political economy.
In 2016, the use of ‘surgical strikes’ by the BJP-led NDA government constituted a departure from the previous government’s policy of strategic restraint. However, the previous Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance government has admitted that cross-border raids took place previously, which were not publicised by the government and went unacknowledged by the army. Henceforth, the government had modified rather than abandoning strategic restraint altogether. It is more probable that new foreign policy ideas and practices will be institutionalised and reinforced if players in the existing power structures actively promote them while marginalising or dismissing opposing discourses and practices.
Policymakers portray economic liberalisation as a technical shift required for India to accomplish its long-term objectives of independent economic growth. India also began to appear in Western discourses and the international community during the UPA government, especially in American foreign policy, as a moderate "rising power" that could act as a counterbalance to China's ascent. According to Mrs. Indira Gandhi, India would be a different kind of power, one that works for development, peace and international understanding for its own interests and those of its allies.
In contrast to its long-standing position of nonalignment, the BJP promised to "create a web of allies" in its election manifesto, as echoed by the use of terms like ‘Vishwabandhu’ and ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ in today’s parlance. Nevertheless, in 2016, PM Narendra Modi remarked, “There is no reason to change India’s non-alignment policy; that is a legacy.” Thus, the NDA's foreign policy has been largely consistent with the UPA's, emphasising economics, regional cooperation, the promotion of ‘soft power’, interacting with the diaspora, and forging strategic alliances while preserving strategic autonomy. Additionally, as Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar in 2015 said, “...foreign policy dimension is to aspire to be a leading power rather than just a balancing power. Consequently, there is also a willingness to shoulder greater global responsibilities”, the signifiers of ‘aspiring power’ or ‘Vishwaguru’ have been added to India’s foreign policy.
Conclusion
Indian foreign policy has certainly evolved since 2014, steered by the popularly remarked ‘Modi-Jaishankar’ doctrine. This symbolism helps India leave a global footprint and project an identity for the global community of a ‘new’ India and a more confident one. The great civilisational push towards foreign policy in particular and Indian nation in general is a recent phenomenon. Beyond the realist conception, constructivist analysis helps one see through the national interest and look at other factors not material in nature that are instrumental in manufacturing it. However, this ‘larger than life’ image of ‘Modi’s India’ has come under scrutiny. There is a stark contrast between India’s domestic and foreign policy, wherein the country is unable to mitigate economic problems of jobless growth and unemployment but boasts of a $3 trillion and 5th largest economy. Also, to keep the real image of India afloat, it has to be seen as not ‘Modi’s India’ but ‘India’s India’ and the mosaic of identities that it is, transgressing any narrow considerations. In constructivist vocabulary, what we do is not just determined by what we want (material) but also by who we are (identity).
About the Author: Gavish LohatResearch & Publication Intern 2024