When nations stand on the side of principles, not behind one power or the other, they gain the

respect of
the world and voice in international affairs- PM Modi at Shangri La, 2018

Intro
The golden age in India’s foreign policy was in the first 15 years after Independence, when NAM
provided a constituency for India because of our non-violent victory over the British and the leadership
it provided to the newly independent countries. Our problems were different from the small and
impoverished nations that thronged the movement, but Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision and statesmanship
inspired them. We did not seek to resolve our problems through the machinery of dispute resolution in
NAM, but actively assisted those who sought such assistance. India led the NAM effort to resolve the
Iran-Iraq dispute.

HISTORY
 Emerging post-colonialism among 3rd world aiming to gain
an independent political voice.
 Phrase “non-aligned” was first used by V K Krishna Menon at
the United Nations General Assembly in 1953
 Late 1940s, Nehru had spelt out the strategy behind the
phrase, first in Constituent Assembly debates and later in
Parliament.
o In a radio broadcast in 1946, Nehru said, “We shall
take full part in international conferences as a free
nation with our own policy and not merely as a
satellite of another nation.”
o Nehru proposed that India should avoid entering
into “other people’s quarrels“, unless, and this is
important and “our interest is involved”.
o Did not rule out aligning if the need comes.
 CONFERENCES:
o 1956 Bandung conference
o 1961 Belgrade conference(10 Bandung principles
were adopted)
 LEADERS: Nehru, Tito, Sukarno, Nasser, Nkrumah
 Method of soft-balancing the superpowers.
 10 BANDUNG PRINCIPLE: (Panchsheel + 5 others)
o Panchsheel:
 Mutual respect for each other's territorial
integrity and sovereignty.
 Mutual non-aggression.
 Mutual non-interference in each other's
internal affairs.
 Equality and cooperation for mutual benefit.
 Peaceful co-existence.
o Others:
 Respect fundamental HR
 Peaceful resolution of disputes
INITIAL VIEWS:
 WEST:
o The core subjects of US foreign policy at that
time were -Potential Danger from USSR and
China, Freedom and Peace through NATO and
military alliances, offering USAID to toe their
line, a pure commercial approach with a want
of business in other countries. Nehru, who
represented a self-respecting country, was
disgusted by this ideology. But still, it was the
critical aid, which actually forced India to
approach United States.
o Opportunistic and immoral (John Foster
Dulles)
o Str of international politics does not provide
scope for exceptionalism like NAM
o Equated with : Isolationism(Munro doctrine)
and Policy of neutrality(policy of indifference -
Swiss and Turkmenistan)
 USSR:
o Bitter critic.
o Dint help in steel sector.
o Stalin: Those who are not with us are against
us.
 NEHRU CLARIFIES:
o Will engage with the alliances.
o Independent FP to assert Sovereignty.
o Not Isolationism in the world. Will take active
role in Intl politics.
o Not neutrality. We will not be indifferent to
evil. Decisions to be based on merit rather
that towing alliance stand. India’s contribution
  Create just Intl order. to drafting of Human Right Declaration, anti-
 Oppose collective defence pacts apartheid movement in South Africa and
 Respect every nation's right to defend itself . global disarmament talk showcase this.

 C RAJAMOHAN says,
o Not India's idealism but pragmatism to go for it. No other choice because:
 Proximity to USSR
 Liberal constitutional democracy
 Mixed economy of Nehru
 Even Henry Kissinger in his book “World Order” appreciated this policy and compared it with USA’s
policy in its formative years.

PHASES
Till 1970(most successful 1971 – 1990
phase)  With detente between super powers was becoming effective and threat of Neo-colonialism,
 Fight against racialism, NAM focussed on NIEO was put forward at 1973 Algiers’s conference. "Development of
imperialism and underdevelopment in the periphery"
colonialism, opposed  Idea from Middle-East where they used oil as a weapon, but other states didn’t have that
military alliances. bargaining power. Middle-East worked for their narrow interests. West broke S-S solidarity.
 India neither followed  Demands:
an expansionist policy, o Regulate work of MNCs
nor allows other o More responsible approach to environment
states to follow o Distributive justice based on historical responsibility(demanded aid and technology
expansionism. from West)
 Worked for stability in o Guided by socialist ideas - equal valuation of the goods.
newly liberated zones.  Not successful in NIEO agenda.
 Nuclear disarmament was a failure.
Post CW Havana Declaration of 2006 tried to reorient
 End of polarity --> no reason for existence ---> crisis of relevance agenda.
 Egypt became critical about NAM existence.  Strengthen UN
 In India, G. Parthasarathy and Brajesh Mishra called for its obituary.  Reinforce multilateralism
Should've declared mission accomplished and ended.  Address challenges of globalisation
 But new orientation was given saying CW ended but not the problems of  Respect cultural diversity
the developing countries.  Implement HR objectively and non-
 BoP gone --> need solidarity selectively

INDIA'S ROLE
India’s role through NAM was not only limited to the attainment of its foreign policy goals, but also to
achieve a long term objective of global peace and security. Hence, its efforts have been to work in all
those areas through which tranquility in the world can be established. Therefore, main role of India
through this movement was related to followings:

Keep the organization intact Support for Newly Liberation Zone

 India did not let NAM be hijacked by any aspiration  In the post Second World War, various states of Africa
whether that of Cuba, Singapore or Iraq. and Asia became free, but their political stability and
 It fought for Egypt’s retention after Camp David Accords. economic viability were question marked.
  It maintained its importance even after fall of Berlin Wall.
Fight against colonialism, imperialism and racialism
 Fought against the colonial rule being remained in the
large part of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
 For it, the movement of NAM has to oppose all kinds
of dominance and hegemony by foreign ruler.
 India neither followed an expansionist policy, nor allows
other states to follow expansionism.
 Similarly, it was against discrimination based on colors of
the skin.
Efforts towards Disarmament
 In the early 1960s, it was instrumental in approval of
Moscow Test Ban Treaty through the conference on
Disarmament in the UN.
 India always raised the problem of discriminatory nature
of nuclear proliferation regime through the forum of
NAM.
 As a result, NAM was able to get the decade of 1970
declared as ‘Decade of Disarmament’ by the UN.
 However, NAM’s declining influence in the post-cold war
era did not allow it to follow such agenda more
aggressively.
RELEVANCE: (Relevance is not lost but changed)
 CRITICS:
 Global issues
 No longer relevant because no cold war now, so
members lost interest.
 Disputes among members.
 Failed to prevent outsiders attack on its members (US
attack on Iraq in 1990 and 2003)
 Reverse-wave of democracy hampered NAM's cause of
democratization of the global order
 Economically weaker.
 No UNSC member. Not able to push through the
agenda.
 Lack of leadership and increased radicalization within
the group
 In today’s world of globalization and complex
interdependence, no country can pursue its interest on
its own. What it needs is multiple alignments.
 Regionalism
 Didn’t help India
 Only Soviet pact of1971 helped. After that didn’t
 India prevented the outside intervention of powers.
 Hence, since the third NAM summit at Lusaka (1970),
India raised the issue of New International Economic
Order (NIEO)
Efforts for the Establishment of NIEO
 It was realized that without economic independence,
political freedom is false.
 Hence, since NAM’s Algiers summit in 1973 economic
agenda acquired the center stage.
 It is envisaged that this new model needs to be
equalitarian and ‘just’.
 Collectively, these states raised this issue in the UN
General Assembly and were successful in getting a
declaration for the establishment of NIEO on 1st May
1974
 In the post-cold war era this became all the more ardent
to achieve because of process of globalization and
weakening of NAM itself.
 However, India is still making efforts through the ‘New
Regionalism’ approach and joining new permutation and
combinations through IOR-ARC, SAFTA, ASEAN, EAS and
other such forms.
 It is also making efforts at collective level to stop the
adverse impact of the working of MNCs on the
developing countries of NAM.
 SUPPORTERS:
 Shyam Saran (“How India see the world”): while NAM has
lost much relevance for India, non-alignment still governs
Indian foreign policy. Foreign policy has substantive content
separated from public posturing. While ethical posturing
was public, our focus on relative autonomy was
substantive.
o On India leaving non-alignment by friendship with
Russia: Indian decision was in line with its
autonomy where India was not in alliance with
Russia, but managed its national interest.
 According to Shashi Tharoor, World is in a cold-war like
situation with 3 poles.
o According to T.P. Sreenivasan, With India
seemingly falling into US camp with Quad and
adverse relations with China increasing, NAM needs
to be revived.
 25 states in 1961, now 118.
 According to M.K. Narayanan, Always relevant to small
states.
 practice in genuine sense.
 Principles stand didn’t help much. Had to acquire nuke
weapons post-CW.
 Remained committed to NA but had almost 30 strategic
partnerships, which is not very different from alliance.
 Remained inwards after 1970 in South Asia.
 NAM countries were against India’s nuclear policy
 Only 40 NAM countries out of 113 voted for India in
UNSC seat election.
 Views
 Transactional diplomacy getting traction.
o According to Amb. Prabhat Shukla, if we want
countries to be on our side in our time of need,
we need to assure them of the same from our
side.
 According to Amb. Vivek Katzu, our interests are not
entirely in sync with the developing world anymore.
While there are some overlaps, but our evolving
priorities need to be taken into account.
 Harsh V. Pant: Need to pursue new goals, no point in
sticking to old shibboleths.
 G. Parthsarthy: NAM did not have any binding
principles and that it was a marriage of convenience.
 C. Rajamohan (“A movement in Coma”): Irrelevant
even before the cold war
 Helped china get UNSC seat from Taiwan.
 Will help with WTO negotiations.
 Resolution of disputes among the 3rd world
 According to T.P. Sreenivasan word ‘non-alignment’
conveyed the wrong notion. But the quintessence of non-
alignment was freedom of judgment and action.
o Characterised as ‘strategic autonomy’.
 The whole philosophy of NAM is that it remains united on
larger global issues.
o Reflection of the lowest common denominator in
any given situation
 That NAM has no ideal or ideology as a glue is a wrong
assumption.
o Though the criteria for NAM membership are
general, anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism and anti-
racism were essential attributes of NAM countries.
o The diversity reflected in both Singapore and Cuba
being NAM members
 It was through NAM that we operated to counter the
efforts to expand the UN Security Council by including just
Germany and Japan as permanent members.
 It also has the facility of members reserving their positions.
 No NAM country may agree to isolate Pakistan, but the
NAM forum will be an effective instrument to project our
anti-terrorist sentiments.
 India could've been used for self-interest of others.
 Pak left CENTO and SEATO and joined NAM.

NAM 2.0
 AIM: attempt to identify the basic
principles that should guide India’s foreign
and strategic policy over the next decade.
 PURPOSE:
o Lay out the opportunities
o Identify challenges and threats
o Define approach that India must
take.
 Chinmay Ghare khan said offers a
comprehensive view of foreign policy,
makes sensible suggestions
 Nehruvian/Liberal perspective on foreign
policy, which is, by and large, the
establishment perspective on foreign
policy issues.
CRITICISM:
 Bharat Karnad called it a regressive FP roadmap.
 Misunderstands power, ignores the centrality of balance of power
politics in inter-state relations. This, in turn, leads to questionable
analysis and doubtful policy prescriptions.
 Document says India’s influence is ideational and moral rather than
material.
o The problem is that while ideas matter, it is less important than
material power and usually its servant
o Morality, “the power of example”, is even more problematic
because it is inconsequential in international politics.
 It is utopian because what it seeks is nothing less than a fundamental
transformation of how states behave in the international realm.
 U.S. does not even merit a separate section, being dismissed in a couple
of paragraphs within a section on ‘global engagements’.
 Reinventing NAM
With change in global political order, NAM needs to realign itself with current realities and a reinvention
to make the organization relevant again is in the offing

 Global economic order is shifting from Atlantic ocean to Indo-Pacific (Rise of the rest)
 Multipolar world order and rising powers like China and India’s strengths need to be leveraged
to make voices of 3rd world get heard.
 Post-colonial view: Safeguard autonomy of post-colonial societies.
 Complex interdependence: global threats like terrorism, pandemics, and climate change etc.
These need to be formulated in NAM agenda.
 A world vision, comprising of a global village and interdependence among all nations including
between North and South needs to be pursued.
 Liberal institutional view: Regional organizations do not ring a death knell for NAM, rather they
need to be co-opted in NAM framework to coordinate and reconcile their often conflicting aims.
o NAM is perhaps the biggest organization: common thread to resolve differences.
 Safeguard member nations from ills of neo-liberal globalization. (Marxist approach)
 Fight against rising protectionism, anti-immigration, nuclear disarmament etc.
 Vijay Prasad: NAM needs a new charter like NIEO.

GOVT POSITION: Way forward for India

 Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been distancing himself
from the concept of NAM and is engaging in selective
alignments to suit India’s development and security needs.
 Former Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar talks about loose
alliances
 Hamid Ansari led the Indian delegation to the 17th Summit of
the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) held at Margarita Island in
Venezuela from 17-18 September 2016. 3 foundational
principles
o Respect for sovereignty
o Peaceful settlement of disputes
o International cooperation.
 Recently in Shangri La summit, PM Modi talked about strategic
autonomy, which reflects the spirit of non-alignment.
 NAM theme for next 3 years aligns with Indian ethos- “Peace,
sovereignty and solidarity for development”
 Politics of the Third World has successfully
influenced the thematic setting of the global
agenda.
 While India needs selective and multiple alignment
to replace non-alignment as economic and political
power is redistributed globally, it cannot allow deft
balancing to degrade into opportunistic and
sequential agreeing with whichever world leader is
in town.
 That is why, as Henry Kissinger, the modern-day
Chanakya, wrote, good strategy can brook poor
tactics but poor strategy cannot be redeemed.
 NAM 2.0 documents asserts ‘strategic autonomy’
to remain the lynch pin of Indian foreign policy.
o We should increase our domestic
capabilities in order to ensure the same.

CONCLUSION
 As T.P Sreenivasan says that quintessence of NAM lies in ‘strategic autonomy’. In the complex
reality of International Politics and geo-political flux, dialogues and cooperation will allow post-
colonial societies to form alternate constructions to safeguard their interests.