Should National Interest be viewed as a constant category or is it situation- specific? Bring out your perspectives. (2010, 20 Marks)
In 1848 Henry John Temple, Lord Palmerston, told the House of Commons that Britain had no eternal allies and no perpetual enemies, only interests that were “eternal and perpetual”. The line holds both sides of the debate: alignments are situation-specific, yet something beneath them is meant to be constant. The real question is which layer of national interest is fixed and which moves.
The case for constancy
- Hans J. Morgenthau treated the protection of a state’s physical, political and cultural identity as the irreducible minimum of its interest, following from anarchy rather than from any particular government.
- Kenneth N. Waltz (Theory of International Politics, 1979) reduced the minimum to survival: states seek at least their own preservation.
- The objective approach in Joseph Frankel’s classification (National Interest, 1970) holds that geography, resources and neighbourhood fix interests an analyst can identify without consulting the government.
- Evidence: foreign policy is far more continuous than electoral politics. Every Indian government since 1947 has defended the same positions on Kashmir and the boundary with China.
The case for situation-specificity
- Frankel’s subjective approach sees a plural set of preferences held by decision-makers, revised as leaders, opinion and circumstances change.
- Thomas W. Robinson classed many interests as variable: products of personalities, public opinion, sectional pressures and party politics.
- Raymond Aron (Peace and War, 1962) held that the plurality of a state’s concrete and ultimate objectives forbids any single rational definition of its interest.
- Constructivists, from Alexander Wendt to Martha Finnemore, argue that interests follow identity and norms, so a change of identity changes interest even with geography unchanged.
- Evidence: Finland and Sweden abandoned long neutrality to join NATO after 2022. India moved from non-alignment to the 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty, then to the US civil nuclear deal (2008) and multi-alignment, sitting in the Quad and BRICS at once.
Perspectives compared
| Perspective | Answer | Weakness |
|---|---|---|
| Classical and structural realism | Constant core of survival and power | Cannot explain reversals of alignment |
| Liberal and pluralist | Shifts with domestic coalitions | Underrates structural continuity |
| Constructivist | Shifts with identity and norms | Explains change better than stability |
| Marxist | Constant class interest behind changing labels | Reduces the state to its ruling class |
My perspective: a two-tier view
Morgenthau’s own distinction between core and variable interests offers the synthesis: survival, territorial integrity and independence are constant; alignments, economic priorities and issue positions are situation-specific. Three refinements matter.
- Even the core is reinterpreted. Survival now includes energy, cyber, semiconductors and supply chains. India’s holding of the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance in April 2025, after the Pahalgam attack, translated a constant security interest into a new instrument.
- The variable can masquerade as the core. Calling a circumstantial interest “vital” invites overstretch, the pattern of the US in Vietnam.
- Capability moves the line. As India grew stronger it called more interests vital, from Indian Ocean security to supply-chain resilience. S. Jaishankar’s formula (October 2025), maximising my opportunities and maintaining my freedom of choice, makes constancy of purpose compatible with flexible means.
Conclusion
National interest is best seen as constant in purpose and situation-specific in content and means. Treating it as wholly constant breeds rigidity; treating it as wholly situational leaves no standard by which a policy can be judged mistaken. Palmerston’s formula endures because it separates the two.