| This dissertation argues that between 1947 and 1962, India demonstrated "Deviant State Behavior." In contradistinction to the understanding that a state's capabilities determine its behavior, we contend that India demonstrated great power behavior in spite of possessing middle power capabilities. We point out that India did not possess the material capabilities that could justify its great power behavior; nor did it harbor a great power self-image. Rather, it was the bitter rivalry among the great powers, notably Communist China and the US, and its possible repercussions for order that caused India's deviant behavior. Convinced that a great power war involving nuclear weapons would engulf India, its leaders saw the great power competition as constituting a threat to their country. Since such a threat was not aimed specifically at India, and since its source was not a particular state but rather the condition created by the rivalry among the great powers, we term such threat as "Non-Dyadic Threat." The policies adopted by India -- such as signing highly unequal treaties with the Himalayan states and keeping the great powers away from South and South-East Asia -- in order to counter such a threat, gave rise to its deviant behavior.;The insight of the English School, pertaining to order, is used to understand India's deviant behavior. The English School's claim that order is a fundamental aspect of international society, and that order ensures that the core concerns of all states are upheld, allows us to establish the link between the threat posed to order by the great power rivalry and India's insecurity. The English School's claim that all states in the international society, and not just a few, are responsible for maintaining order is developed further. We argue that if states, by their adherence to the principle of sovereignty, show their commitment to upholding order, they also should show concern when order is imperiled, since their security is linked to order. India's behavior is a good demonstration of how deeply states are committed to order and the lengths that they can go to maintain it. |
