During the Korean War, major powers such as the United States, Soviet Union,
and China were solely driven by their own security interests. Consequently, their
policies towards the crisis prioritized their own security and power maximization,
leading to their alignment with one side and intensifying the conflict. While the
United States sided with the South, China and the Soviet Union sided with the
North. In contrast, India took a unique approach during the Korean War. India,
which was heavily involved in the crisis as a proactive peacemaker, adopted a
stance based on morality, neutrality, and favorability towards the Korean people.
This approach was very different from the major powers who were focused on
their security and power interests. The question that arises is: why did India
take a different stance than other major powers? What explains India’s role as a
peacemaker that focused on morality and neutrality in the Korean War when other
major powers were focused on power and security maximization? To answer
these questions, I draw on the existing literature that suggests the ideas generated
domestically can profoundly impact foreign policy. Based on this, I argue that
India’s active role in seeking peace during the Korean War and its unique approach
to resolving the Korean crisis was largely influenced by principled ideas such as
non-interference, neutrality, rejection of power politics, and Asian unity rooted
in its historical experience during the independence movement. To evaluate my
argument, I employ four case studies related to India’s involvement in the Korean
War and demonstrate how the principled ideas discussed above influenced India’s
active but neutral and unbiased peacemaking role in resolving the Korean question
at a time when major powers’ security maximization actions were intensifying the
crisis.
|