ABHINANDAN KUMAR
In a paradox that defines contemporary Indian diplomacy, the man who has emerged as the most articulate critic of the country’s founding prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the principles he was said to stand for in global affairs may also be his truest inheritor.
At first glance, India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar appears to embody a sharp departure from Nehruvian ideals. He comes across as an unapologetic realist in a government that has often distanced itself from the alleged idealism of the post-independence era. Yet a closer examination of Jaishankar’s diplomatic conduct, worldview, and rhetoric reveals a more complex continuity.
Beneath the surface of ideological divergence lies a substantive convergence in key principles, namely the pursuit of strategic autonomy, the aspiration for global leadership, and the articulation of a civilisational identity. In his ability to reconcile pragmatic realism with a historically grounded vision, Jaishankar arguably reflects a continuity with Nehruvian diplomacy more substantially than any of his predecessors.
In fact, Jaishankar, having now spent six years in the job, may well be the most Nehruvian diplomat India has seen since Nehru himself.
Nehru’s foreign policy was broadly characterised by his emphasis on non-alignment, rejection of politics based on balance of power, conviction in multilateralism, assertion of India’s civilisational heritage, and a leadership role for India, particularly in the Global South. Jaishankar embodies core principles with similar elan and confidence. While Nehru and Jaishankar come from vastly different political backgrounds, their intellectual disposition, assertive articulation, and ability to blend strategic pragmatism with moral principles bear striking similarities.
One of the clearest echoes of Nehruvianism in Jaishankar’s foreign policy can be heard in their remarkably similar responses to the idea of European exceptionalism. In his United Nations General Assembly address in 1948, Nehru reminded the West that the world was far larger than its traditional centres of power. “You will not solve your problems by thinking that the problems of the world are mainly European problems,” he said. It was a gentle yet firm assertion of agency on behalf of the non-Western world and a statement of intent that a resurgent Asia would no longer accept marginalisation in global affairs.
Nearly three-quarters of a century later, Jaishankar delivered a similarly pointed message: “Europe has to grow out of the mindset that its problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems.” Both Nehru and Jaishankar were driven by the same impulse to reposition India not as a passive observer of global politics but as a sovereign voice that deserves equal recognition in shaping the world order.
This continuity is not incidental. It reflects a deeper convergence in worldview.
For Nehru, India’s foreign policy was rooted in non-alignment, not just as a moral principle, but as a way to preserve its autonomy and punch above its weight in global affairs. His emphasis on amplifying the voices of newly decolonised nations and his vision of India as a bridge between worlds laid the groundwork for what would later evolve into South-South cooperation.
Jaishankar, while operating in a vastly different geopolitical context, carries this torch forward. His repeated emphasis on India’s strategic autonomy and refusal to be drawn into power bloc politics are all derived from the Nehruvian ethos.
Jaishankar’s rhetoric may be different and guided by differing political outlooks, but his actions align with Nehru’s foreign policy logic.
An intellectual, Nehru was known for his eloquent speeches, historical references, and his ability to articulate India’s foreign policy with a philosophical depth. He projected India as a moral force on the world stage. While Nehru was a modernist, he strongly believed that India’s civilisational legacy could be leveraged in diplomacy. His writings emphasised India’s historical contributions to global trade, knowledge systems, and cultural exchange. He spoke as an equal to Western leaders, whether at the United Nations or in bilateral summits. His broad philosophical vision was shaped by anti-colonial struggle and internationalist ideals, and he viewed foreign policy as an extension of India’s moral and civilizational responsibilities on the global stage.
In contrast, Jaishankar’s credibility comes from his technocratic expertise and first-hand diplomatic experience. Before joining the Indian Foreign Service, he completed his PhD in International Relations with a focus on nuclear diplomacy from Jawaharlal Nehru University – an institution named after India’s first prime minister. Having spent most of his career as a full-time diplomat, he has the experience of working under both Congress and BJP governments, and was a key figure in shaping India’s foreign policy under Manmohan Singh’s UPA government (2004–14), including during the US-India nuclear deal negotiations. But his diplomatic style mirrors that of Nehru’s. His calm, composed, and often sharp-witted responses in global forums reflect a similar self-assurance and control over language. The articulate and precise rebuttals to Western hypocrisy, defence of India’s foreign policy, and strategic messaging on global platforms (e.g., pushing back on European double-standards over the Russia-Ukraine conflict) have helped him assert India’s stance without defensiveness, much like Nehru did during the Cold War.
Nehru framed foreign policy in idealist terms but was a pragmatic realist in execution. Jaishankar uses nationalist rhetoric, which appeals to the voter base of the BJP, the party that handpicked and made him a minister straight after his diplomatic career came to an official end. He rarely misses an opportunity to publicly critique Nehru’s strategic choices, particularly his handling of China. His commentary often casts Nehruvian foreign policy as idealistic, naïve, or ill-suited to the hard realities of global power politics.
Jaishankar’s rhetoric may be different and guided by differing political outlooks, but his actions align with Nehru’s foreign policy logic. In reinterpreting India’s global identity in a vastly changed geopolitical context, Jaishankar has not abandoned Nehruvianism. Rather, he has adapted it to fit a changed world.
The article appeared in the lowyinstitute