Compare India’s foreign policy under UPA and NDA –II regimes.

1. Introduction

India's foreign policy has undergone significant shifts and adaptations under different political regimes. The periods under the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) – II have witnessed distinct approaches, priorities, and challenges in shaping India's global engagement. This comparative analysis aims to delineate the key features and changes in India's foreign policy during these two regimes.

2. UPA Regime: 2004-2014

During the UPA regime (2004-2014), led by the Indian National Congress, India's foreign policy was characterized by a focus on multilateralism, non-alignment, and economic diplomacy. The government, under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, emphasized building strategic partnerships, particularly with the United States, while maintaining traditional ties with Russia. The Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement in 2008 marked a significant milestone in India's diplomatic relations, signaling a departure from the nuclear isolation of the past.

The UPA government also prioritized engagement with neighboring countries through initiatives like the Look East Policy, which aimed at strengthening ties with Southeast Asian nations. Furthermore, there was a concerted effort to enhance economic diplomacy, promoting trade and investment globally.

3. NDA – II Regime: 2014-Present

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the NDA – II regime (2014-present) has brought about a distinctive shift in India's foreign policy priorities. "Neighborhood First" and "Act East" have become guiding principles, signaling a renewed emphasis on strengthening ties with neighboring countries, especially in South Asia and Southeast Asia.

The government has sought to redefine India's global role, emphasizing a more assertive and proactive approach. Initiatives like the International Solar Alliance (ISA) showcase India's commitment to addressing global challenges, particularly in the realm of sustainable development and climate change.

4. Strategic Partnerships and Alliances

While both regimes aimed to build strategic partnerships, there are nuanced differences. The UPA era saw a deepening of ties with the United States, emphasizing shared democratic values. In contrast, the NDA – II regime has pursued a diverse set of partnerships, engaging with major powers like the U.S., Russia, and China, while fostering stronger ties with countries in the Indian Ocean region and the Indo-Pacific.

Under NDA – II, there has been a focus on security and defense cooperation, exemplified by initiatives like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), a strategic forum comprising the U.S., Japan, Australia, and India. This reflects a more proactive approach in aligning with like-minded nations to address regional and global challenges.

5. Economic Diplomacy and Trade Agreements

Economic diplomacy has been a common thread in both regimes, recognizing the importance of global trade and investment. The UPA era witnessed efforts to integrate India into the global economy through the conclusion of trade agreements and participation in forums like the G20.

Under NDA – II, there has been a concerted push for economic reforms and the "Make in India" initiative to enhance India's manufacturing capabilities. Trade agreements, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), have been approached with caution, reflecting a balancing act between economic integration and safeguarding domestic interests.

6. Neighborhood Policy and Regional Dynamics

The UPA government pursued a pragmatic approach in managing regional relationships, with a focus on addressing security concerns and promoting economic cooperation. However, challenges remained, particularly in relation to Pakistan and issues like terrorism.

The NDA – II regime has placed a renewed emphasis on neighborhood policy with initiatives like the Neighbourhood First Policy. While relations with some neighbors have seen improvement, challenges persist, as seen in the complex dynamics with Pakistan and evolving situations in Afghanistan.

7. Foreign Policy in Multilateral Forums

Both regimes recognized the importance of multilateral forums in addressing global challenges. The UPA era witnessed active participation in forums like the United Nations, where India sought reforms to reflect contemporary geopolitical realities.

Under NDA – II, there has been an increased focus on shaping global discourse and institutions. Initiatives like the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI) showcase India's commitment to addressing shared challenges beyond regional boundaries.

8. Shifts in Defense and Security Policies

The UPA government made strides in defense cooperation, with the signing of major defense agreements and the modernization of the armed forces. However, security challenges, including cross-border terrorism, remained significant.

The NDA – II regime has prioritized defense manufacturing through the "Make in India" initiative and has taken assertive steps in responding to security challenges, including the Balakot airstrikes in 2019. The focus on defense and security aligns with the broader objective of positioning India as a regional security provider.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the comparison of India's foreign policy under the UPA and NDA – II regimes reflects a dynamic evolution in response to changing geopolitical realities. While the UPA era emphasized multilateralism and strategic partnerships, the NDA – II regime has shown a more assertive posture, redefining priorities with a focus on neighborhood first, economic diplomacy, and proactive engagement in regional and global affairs. The shifts in foreign policy reflect India's pursuit of a more prominent role on the world stage and the recognition of emerging challenges that require a nuanced and adaptive approach.