India’s Stand Against Colonialism, Imperialism, and Apartheid: Historical Legacies and Modern Impact

When India became independent in 1947, it did not simply gain a seat at the table of world powers. It carried with it the memory of nearly two centuries of colonial rule, economic extraction, and racial humiliation. That lived experience became the moral compass of its foreign policy. Three principles emerged directly from this history: opposition to colonialism, resistance to imperialism, and condemnation of apartheid. Together, they shaped how the country engaged with the world and made it a recognisable voice for nations still struggling to be free.

How colonial experience shaped foreign policy 🔗

Foreign policy rarely starts from a blank page. It grows out of a nation’s history, geography, economy, and the convictions of its leaders. For India, the most powerful influence was the freedom struggle itself. Leaders who had spent years in colonial prisons understood exploitation not as an abstract idea but as a daily reality.

Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister and the chief architect of foreign policy, set the tone early. In a broadcast from New Delhi on 7 September 1946, even before formal independence, he laid out goals that included the end of colonialism and racism and independence from the power blocs of the Cold War. These were not afterthoughts. They were placed at the centre of how the new nation would behave abroad.

The core principles that flowed from this thinking were Panchsheel (the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence), non-alignment, anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism, anti-racism, and the strengthening of the United Nations. The first three of these are the focus here, and they were deeply connected. A country that had been colonised, exploited by imperial economic systems, and treated as racially inferior naturally opposed all three wherever they appeared.

Why the three principles belong together 🔗

It helps to be precise about the terms, because they overlap but are not identical.

Anti-colonialism meant opposing the direct political control of one nation by another, where a foreign power governs a territory and its people. India’s own struggle against British rule is the clearest example.

Anti-imperialism is broader. It targets the domination of weaker nations by stronger ones, whether through formal empire, military intervention, or economic control. A country can be politically independent yet still be subject to imperial pressure, which is why this principle remained relevant even after the age of formal empires ended.

Anti-apartheid specifically opposed the system of legalised racial segregation in South Africa, where a white minority government denied basic rights to the Black majority and to people of Indian origin. For India, this was both a matter of principle and a matter of kinship, given the large Indian community living under that regime.

India’s stand against colonialism 🔗

India’s anti-colonialism was rooted in its long history of resistance against British rule. The trauma of colonial exploitation, the forced extraction of resources, the suppression of local culture, and the harsh treatment of ordinary people, created a strong desire for self-determination that did not stop at the country’s own borders.

Nehru believed that newly independent nations of Asia and Africa should unite to oppose colonial powers and promote self-rule. This conviction took concrete form remarkably early. In March 1947, months before independence, Nehru convened the Asian Relations Conference in New Delhi, bringing together representatives of Asian nations to discuss their shared future. It was the first signal that India intended to act as a hub for anti-colonial solidarity.

Support for liberation movements 🔗

India backed independence struggles with diplomatic, moral, and sometimes material support. It championed the decolonisation of Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean, and consistently raised the cause of subject peoples at international forums. The country supported the Algerian revolution against French rule and opposed foreign military intervention in Vietnam, viewing such actions as extensions of the same imperial logic it had fought at home.

This advocacy was not always comfortable for the great powers. By insisting that self-determination was a universal right rather than a privilege handed out selectively, India placed itself at odds with European nations still clinging to their empires.

The Bandung Conference and Afro-Asian solidarity 🔗

The high point of this early phase came in April 1955 at the Asian-African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia. India, along with Burma, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, co-sponsored the gathering, which brought together representatives from twenty-nine governments of Asia and Africa.

The conference participants condemned colonialism and racial discrimination, expressed support for peoples still fighting for independence, and called for economic and cultural cooperation among developing nations. Because decolonisation was still under way, the delegates deliberately spoke on behalf of colonised peoples who had no government of their own yet, especially in Africa.

Bandung built on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence that India and China had agreed upon in 1954. Its core ideas, political self-determination, mutual respect for sovereignty, non-aggression, non-interference, and equality, reflected the shared priorities of nations recently emerged from colonial rule.

From Bandung to the Non-Aligned Movement 🔗

The spirit of Bandung laid the foundation for the Non-Aligned Movement, formally established in Belgrade in 1961. At Belgrade, Nehru was joined by figures such as Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Yugoslavia’s Josip Broz Tito, and Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah.

Non-alignment is sometimes misunderstood as passive neutrality. It was nothing of the kind. It meant refusing to join either Cold War bloc so that newly independent nations could make their own decisions and pursue genuine sovereignty. The movement consistently opposed apartheid governments and supported liberation struggles across Southern Africa. For India, non-alignment was the practical tool through which its anti-colonial and anti-imperial convictions could shape global affairs.

India’s stand against apartheid 🔗

Of all India’s principled stands, its opposition to apartheid in South Africa may be the most striking, because it began so early and lasted so long. The connection ran deep. Mahatma Gandhi had developed his philosophy of satyagraha, or nonviolent resistance, during his years in South Africa, where he fought discrimination against the Indian community. That history gave India a personal stake in the struggle.

India was arguably the first country to take the issue to the world stage. In 1946, it raised the treatment of South African Indians at the inaugural session of the United Nations, effectively internationalising the apartheid question before the system was even formally named. That same year, India voted against South Africa’s anti-Indian policies and banned trade with the country, becoming one of the earliest nations to impose such a boycott.

Decades of sustained support 🔗

India’s commitment did not fade once the headlines moved on. In 1967, the African National Congress opened an office in New Delhi, a significant gesture of support at a time when the liberation movement had turned to armed struggle and was operating under extremely difficult exile conditions. This was a clear statement that India stood with the ANC even when doing so carried diplomatic costs.

Within South Africa, people of Indian origin, inspired by Gandhi, played an active role in the resistance. Activists such as Ahmed Kathrada and Yusuf Dadoo stood alongside Nelson Mandela through the long years of struggle. When apartheid finally fell and Mandela walked free in 1990, India’s decades of steady solidarity were vindicated. The relationship between Mandela and India remained warm, a recognition of support that had never wavered.

The modern impact of these principles 🔗

It is fair to ask whether these ideas still matter in a world very different from the one Nehru knew. The Cold War is over, formal empires have collapsed, and India today is a rising power pursuing its own strategic and economic interests. Yet the legacy persists in important ways.

India continues to position itself as a voice for the developing world, now often called the Global South. Its history of colonial resistance informs initiatives such as its leadership at the G20, its advocacy in climate negotiations, and its push for reform of institutions like the UN Security Council. The argument that the international order should be fairer to nations that were once colonised draws directly on the anti-colonial tradition.

Continuity and tension 🔗

At the same time, the modern picture is not without contradiction. India’s support for Palestine offers a good example. For decades, India treated the Palestinian cause as inseparable from the broader anti-colonial movement. It opposed the 1947 partition of Palestine, recognised the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1974, and recognised the State of Palestine in 1988, well before many Western nations did.

In recent years, as India has built a close strategic partnership with Israel, observers have noted a more cautious and balanced approach. The official position still supports a sovereign, independent State of Palestine living at peace alongside Israel, but the tone has shifted as strategic interests have grown more complex.

This tension between principle and pragmatism is at the heart of contemporary foreign policy. The anti-colonial, anti-imperial, and anti-apartheid legacy gives India considerable moral authority and a distinctive identity on the world stage. The challenge for any rising power is deciding how far to let those founding ideals guide decisions when hard strategic and economic interests pull in another direction.

Why this legacy still matters 🔗

Understanding these three principles is essential to understanding how the country sees itself in the world. They explain why India built solidarity with Asia and Africa, why it took an early and uncompromising stand against apartheid, and why it still speaks of representing the Global South. They are not merely historical curiosities. They are the moral foundation that continues, however imperfectly, to shape the choices made in New Delhi today.

The story is one of remarkable consistency over many decades, combined with the inevitable adjustments that come when a former colony becomes a major power in its own right. That combination of idealism and realism is precisely what makes the subject worth studying closely.

What do you think? Should a country’s founding moral principles continue to guide its foreign policy even when they conflict with its strategic and economic interests? And as India grows into a major global power, can it still credibly claim to be the voice of the formerly colonised world?

References

1. https://lotusarise.com/indian-foreign-policy-upsc/
2. https://www.thecollector.com/bandung-conference-decolonization-third-world/
3. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/bandung-conf
4. https://www.britannica.com/event/Bandung-Conference
5. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-03652-2_7
6. https://antiapartheidlegacy.org.uk/heritage-arts-culture/history/anti_apartheid_activity/international/
7. https://countercurrents.org/2026/04/india-israel-and-the-crisis-of-strategic-autonomy-from-non-alignment-to-alignment-at-the-crossroads-of-power-and-principle/
8. https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/india-israel-ties-mea-arindam-bagchi-narendra-modi-palestine-hamas-gaza-2725043