The end of World War II (1939–1545) by Germany’s (May 8) and Japan’s surrender (August 15) brought a major socio-political transformation in the colonialised nations of Asia. The independence of the Korean Peninsula from the Japanese imperialism was not smoothly implemented for a peaceful settlement. Rather, the ideological camps of communism (=socialism) and democracy (=capitalism) dominated in the region, which became the hub of the Cold War in the late 1940s and the 1950s. The local citizens confronted the political conflict for the unified Korea. The US allied with the UN, turning against North Korea and its socialist allies. Meantime, India emerged in the UN for the Korean issues. Then, how did India, the new international leader, involve the process of the post-colonial unification (1948–1950) with the major powers (the US, the Soviet Union, China and the UK)? What about the position of India during the Korean War (1950–53)? How can one interpret India’s policy on the POW repatriation issue (1953–1955)? This paper explores the non-military initiatives of the South Asian country as a ‘neutral power’ through the cases of India’s authority within the United Nations (Temporary) Commission on Korea (UN(T)COK), the 60th Parachute Field Ambulance (PFA), and Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission (NNRC) and Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission (NNSC). This paper argues that the soft diplomacy of India strategically established the foundation of a peacekeeping mission on the Korean Peninsula (1947–1955) even though the politico-historical relationship with the Soviet Union and China frequently caused serious misunderstands for South Korea.
After all, India was not even three years old at the outbreak of the conflict (Korean War). It also had extremely difficult domestic problems, a hostile Pakistan on its flanks and the People’s Republic of China (PRC)—a potential threat … Still, India was the largest and most vocal Third World country not embedded in the emerging Cold War alliance structure, with Nehru the champion of anti-imperialism and neutralism (Barnes, 2013b, p. 265)
