Foreign policy had to evolve after 1991 reforms: Jaishankar at NK Singh’s book launch

India’s 1991 economic reforms changed more than domestic economic policy. As the economy opened, India’s international interests also changed. Jaishankar said foreign policy had to evolve because the country’s earlier approach no longer matched its position or opportunities. He recalled that India had sometimes focused on posturing over major issues and was consequently left out of important developments.

The key mechanism was a change in economic relationships. Once India adopted a new economic model in 1991-92, its political company also changed. Diplomatic priorities therefore had to follow new trade, investment, strategic, and partnership interests. Jaishankar linked this course correction directly to the reforms.

That adjustment is visible in newer groupings. The G77 was rethought into ideas such as the Global South, while the Quad became possible. Jaishankar’s planned meeting with foreign ministers from Australia, Japan, and the United States showed how India now works through more focused partnerships alongside broader platforms.

India’s 1991 economic reforms were a major change in its economic model. In broad terms, they reduced barriers to international economic engagement and encouraged greater links with global trade, investment, and business. The source does not list the reforms individually, but it clearly connects them with India’s economy opening up and its political relationships changing.

The mechanism was straightforward. A more internationally connected economy creates new interests abroad. Countries need relationships that support commerce, technology, investment, supply chains, and strategic cooperation. Jaishankar said that after the 1991-92 course correction, India’s “political company” also changed, so foreign policy had to change with it.

This helped move India beyond older diplomatic habits. Jaishankar said India had been left out while it concentrated on posturing over major issues. Later developments, including the Global South and the Quad, show India using both broad and smaller groupings to represent interests in a changed global landscape.

The G77 and the Quad are different forms of international cooperation. The G77 was founded in 1964 by 77 United Nations member nations. It represented a broad coalition that could raise shared concerns across a large group. The Quad is a much smaller grouping involving India, Australia, Japan, and the United States.

Their key difference is scale and purpose. The G77 offers a wide platform for countries to coordinate positions and express collective interests. The Quad enables more focused discussion among four governments. The source presents this contrast through Nand Kishore Singh’s question about why large groupings matter in a world where smaller groups have become common.

Jaishankar said older groupings such as the G77 have been rethought, reinvented, and recharged into concepts such as the Global South. At the same time, India participates in the Quad, showing that broad coalitions and compact strategic partnerships can exist together.

The G77 started with 77 member nations of the United Nations in 1964. That founding figure shows the grouping’s broad design. It brought many countries into one platform for discussing shared international concerns. The source uses this number while describing Nand Kishore Singh’s experience attending a G77 meeting in Lima in 1971.

The Quad has four members: India, Australia, Japan, and the United States. Its smaller size allows a more focused format than the G77. Jaishankar was speaking before travelling to Atlanta to meet the foreign ministers of the other three Quad countries.

These numbers illustrate a wider change in international relations. Large groupings such as the G77 remain important, but smaller arrangements are now common. Jaishankar said the G77 has been rethought and connected to the present-day idea of the Global South, while the Quad represents a newer partnership model.

Jaishankar’s remark highlights how sharply India’s international environment changed. Three decades earlier, India operated in a different world, before the economic and foreign-policy course corrections that followed 1991-92. The article does not provide a detailed explanation of why the Quad could not exist, but it links the change to shifting geopolitical interests.

The main mechanism was alignment between economic change and diplomacy. As India opened its economy, its political relationships also changed. Jaishankar said the country had previously been left out despite posturing on major issues. Foreign policy therefore had to become more responsive to new interests and partnerships.

By the time of his Atlanta visit, India was meeting the foreign ministers of Australia, Japan, and the United States as part of the Quad. The contrast shows that international groupings are shaped by changing circumstances, not fixed forever. India now uses both broad and smaller forums.

The rise of “Global South” shows a change in how developing countries frame shared interests. Instead of relying only on an older institutional label, countries are using a newer concept suited to today’s international landscape. Jaishankar described this as a process of rethinking, reinventing, and recharging earlier groupings such as the G77.

The mechanism is adaptation. The G77 was founded by 77 United Nations member nations in 1964, but international relations now contain more smaller, focused groupings. The Global South gives countries a current way to present common concerns while responding to changing geopolitical and economic conditions.

This does not mean broad cooperation has disappeared. The G77 remains part of the history behind the newer concept, while India also works through the four-country Quad. Together, these examples show countries combining large coalitions with smaller partnerships to advance their interests in different settings.

Economic opening broadens a country’s interests beyond its domestic borders. Greater trade, investment, and international partnerships create reasons to build stronger political relationships with more countries. Foreign policy must then support the connections that the new economic model requires. Jaishankar said this happened in India after 1991.

The mechanism is a linked course correction. India’s economic model changed in 1991-92, and Jaishankar said its “political company” changed too. He also said India had previously been left out, partly because it had focused on posturing over major issues. Economic reform therefore demanded a more practical diplomatic approach.

India’s current mix of partnerships illustrates the result. It engages with broad ideas such as the Global South and smaller groupings such as the Quad. The implication is that diplomatic priorities keep evolving as economic interests, geopolitical needs, and useful international partnerships change.