Nehru's Grand Strategy for a Major-Power Role, 1947—1964
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presiding over modern India's destiny as the country's first prime minister and foreign minister for a long and continuous period of seventeen years, Jawaharlal Nehru played a pivotal role in shaping India's foreign policy, not only for his time but, through his legacy, for the remainder of the twentieth century. Although deeply conscious of India's severe constraints, Nehru was nonetheless convinced that India was destined to be a key player in the international system. Nehru saw his own role as advancing the country along the path of achieving that prospect, through a wide-ranging set of policies. Moreover, he believed that the country's future potential demanded that India play an activist role in international affairs in the here and now in order to secure the interests both of India and of humanity at large. Analysts differ, however, as to whether Nehru was driven in his policy by realism (power politics) or idealism, concepts that he himself explicitly discussed. One school of thought, most notably represented by the eminent Indian strategic thinker K. Subrahmanyam, holds that Nehru had really been a practitioner of realism and balance-of-power policy. If India under Nehru was, indeed, practicing a balance-of-power policy as between the superpowers, then it follows that Nehru must have considered India to be a major power to assume playing the role of a balancer. Subrahmanyam acknowledged that in the execution of Nehru's policy there may have been errors, but he believed that overall Nehru had acted in accord with the tenets of realism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".