India's Contribution to NAM | PSIR Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

India’s Policy of Non-Alignment

India's Non-Alignment Policy under Jawaharlal Nehru

• Pioneering Non-Alignment: India, led by Jawaharlal Nehru, was the first country to adopt the policy of non-alignment, which is also referred to as positive or dynamic neutralism. This approach emphasizes independent decision-making on each issue based on its merits.
• Active Neutrality: Non-alignment is not about being passive or neutral in the face of aggression or injustice. Nehru made it clear in 1948 that India would actively work to preserve and establish peace where freedom and justice are threatened.
• Influence and Independence: K.M. Panikkar noted that India's foreign policy allowed it to build a position of independence and influence in promoting international goodwill.
• Connection to Gandhian Principles: Nehru's policy of non-alignment aligns with Mahatma Gandhi's belief in non-violence.
• Clarifying Non-Alignment: Nehru clarified that non-alignment did not mean neutrality or passivity. India would not automatically side with any power bloc, especially in the event of a major war.
• Aim to Prevent Global Conflict: Nehru was committed to preventing a third world war, believing that such a disaster would impact the entire world.
• Maintaining Independence: In 1949, Nehru emphasized that aligning with one power group could harm India’s ability to influence global peace positively.
• Core Priorities: India's foreign policy has always prioritized economic development, independence in foreign affairs, safeguarding sovereignty and territorial integrity, and contributing to world peace. These objectives are best achieved by staying away from power blocs and making independent foreign policy decisions.

Nehru's Approach to International Relations

• Nehru was committed to the western ideals of liberalism and democracy.
• However, he opposed military alliances like NATO and SEATO, which were initiated by the United States to contain communism.
• Nehru believed that these alliances promoted a new form of colonialism and could lead to an arms race between opposing camps.
• He was influenced by socialism and advocated for democratic socialism, but rejected the idea of a monolithic communist state and considered Marxism to be outdated.
• Nehru's stance was a blend of socialism and liberal democracy.
• He was against the concept of power blocs in international relations.
• India's policy of non-alignment was not intended to create a third bloc but to ensure the freedom of decision-making for newly decolonized states.
• Non-alignment was promoted as a policy of peace rather than confrontation.

India’s Non-Alignment Policy

• India’s policy of non-alignment opposed the status quo in international relations, which included colonialism,imperialism,racial discrimination, and neo-colonialism.
• Non-alignment rejected the idea of superpower superiority and advocated for the sovereign equality of all states.
• The policy encouraged friendly relations among countries and opposed alliances that divided the world into power blocs.
• Non-alignment promoted the peaceful settlement of international disputes, rejected the use of force, and advocated for the complete destruction of nuclear weapons and comprehensive disarmament.
• It supported efforts to strengthen the United Nations and emphasized global social and economic problems.
• India advocated for a new international economic order to replace the existing unjust and unbalanced economic system with a more equitable one.

Reasons for Non-Alignment 

India's Policy of Non-Alignment

• India adopted non-alignment to maintain its freedom in decision-making and focus on economic development after independence.
• Professor M.S. Rajan identified seven reasons for this policy:
• Preventing Tension: Aligning with either the US or USSR would increase global tensions rather than promote peace.
• India's Unique Role: India saw itself as having a significant role in reducing international tensions and promoting peace due to its size and geopolitical importance.
• Identity and Future: Non-alignment helped India maintain its national identity while positioning itself as a potential great power.
• Emotional and Ideological Reasons: India couldn't join the Western bloc due to colonial ties and racial discrimination, nor the Eastern bloc because of its alien communist ideology.
• Independence of Judgment: As a newly sovereign nation, India wanted to make independent decisions without being tied to another country.
• Diverse Economic Aid: Non-alignment allowed India to seek economic aid from multiple sources rather than relying on one bloc.
• Belief in Tolerance: India's traditional belief in tolerance aligned with non-alignment, promoting peaceful coexistence of different systems.
• Domestic Stability: Non-alignment helped avoid political controversy and instability within India.
• Despite the reasons, the Indian populace largely supported non-alignment, leading to the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
• Formation of NAM: India, under Nehru, along with leaders like Tito and Nasser, initiated NAM in 1961 to promote non-alignment and oppose colonialism.
• Criteria for NAM Membership: Countries had to follow independent foreign policies, oppose colonialism, avoid military blocs, and not host foreign military bases.
• Growth of NAM: NAM expanded significantly, with 118 members by 2006, holding summits to discuss international political issues.
• Phases of Non-Alignment: India's non-alignment policy evolved through five periods, reflecting changes in international dynamics.

The First Phase (1946-1954)

Nehru's Policy of Non-Alignment (1946-54)

• Initiated by Nehru shortly after becoming interim Prime Minister in 1946.
• Non-alignment meant India would not join either of the two emerging power blocs (the USA or the Soviet Union).
• Initially, India appeared more aligned with the West, especially the United States.
• India supported the UN's decision that North Korea was the aggressor in the Korean War, which upset Stalin and the Soviet Union.
• Reasons for Initial Pro-West Stance:
• Dependence on Britain for defense equipment.
• Indian armed forces were organized on the British model.
• Influence of the Westminster model of government.
• Trade relations and economic assistance were mostly with Western countries.
• Soviet policy was not favorable to developing countries at the time.
• Nehru acknowledged in Parliament that India's relations with Britain and the United States were more cordial due to historical legacy.
• India's policy, while pro-West, remained non-aligned.
• Nehru tried to act as a bridge between the East and the West.
• India recognized Communist China in 1949, but relations with the Soviet Union improved only after Stalin's death.
• India's refusal to join the South East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) led to closer ties with the Socialist Bloc.

The Second Phase ( 1954- 1962)

By this time two important changes had taken place.

US president truman

• till 1953 he was president and he was a strong supporter of India.
• he supported India’s entry into the UN Security Council and India’s claims to Kashmir.
• he was concerned because of the communist threat of China.

Stalin

• he died in 1953 and was replaced by khrushchev.
• khrushchev was a different kind of leader.
• he was more open and less strict than stalin.

The world was changing

• the cold war was becoming more intense.
• the usa was becoming more powerful.
• it was getting stronger economically.
• it was also becoming more influential in the world.
• the usa was also concerned about communist threats from china.
• it was worried about the spread of communism in southeast asia.
• the usa supported the french in indochina.
• the usa also supported the new regime in the philippines.

Nehrus foreign policy

• nehrus policy was non-alignment.
• he wanted to keep friendly relations with all nations.
• he did not want to join either the usa or the soveit union.

Nehrus good relations with the soviet union

• the usa was worried about india’s close ties with the soviet union.
• it was concerned about the fact that india was getting closer to the soviet union.
• the usa was especially worried about india’s growing relationship with china.
• the usa was also concerned about the fact that india was becoming a major power in asia.
• the usa was worried that india might become a rival.

The usa was also concerned about the fact that india was getting closer to the soviet union

• the usa was worried that india might become a communist ally.
• it was also concerned about the fact that india might become a communist ally.

By 1953

• the usa was very concerned about the spread of communism in asia.
• it was especially worried about the threat from china.
• the usa was worried that china might become a communist ally.

The usa was also worried about the fact that china might become a communist ally.

• the usa was worried that china might become a communist ally.
• it was also concerned about the fact that china might become a communist ally.

Gandhis legacy and the congress party

• the congress party was still very strong.
• it was still very united.
• it was still very effective.
• the congress party was still very effective.
• it was still very efficient.

The congress party was still very effective.

• it was still very efficient.
• it was still very effective.

The congress party was still very effective.

• it was still very efficient.

The Third Phase (1962-1971)

Chinese Aggression and Its Impact on India

• The Chinese aggression against India was a shock to India's international standing, the morale of its people and armed forces, and the policy of non-alignment.
• The Soviet Union did not provide the expected support, and most non-aligned countries did not condemn China. However, Britain and the United States unexpectedly offered help to India.
• The Chinese violation of the Panchsheel agreement led to widespread protest in India and sparked a debate about the validity of non-alignment.
• Prominent leaders like C. Rajagopalachari and Acharya Kripalani questioned non-alignment, while others, like Jayaprakash Narayan, welcomed India's softer stance towards the West.
• Michael Brecher noted a shift in India's non-alignment policy during the 1962 war, moving from 'equidistance' to 'equal proximity' to both superpowers.
• Critics argued that non-alignment did not protect against aggression, a view supported by British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan.
• Despite the challenges, Prime Minister Nehru maintained non-alignment, believing it was crucial for India's sovereignty and moral standing.
• After Nehru's death in 1964, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri faced challenges such as food shortages and foreign pressure, particularly from the United States.
• Shastri refused to align with the US on Vietnam, which strained relations. During the 1965 war with Pakistan, India received moral support from both the US and China, pushing India closer to the USSR.
• India's victory over Pakistan enhanced its prestige and marked a turnaround from the 1962 humiliation by China.
• Shastri's untimely death after signing the Tashkent Agreement with Pakistan was a significant moment in Indian history.

Indira Gandhi and the Evolution of Non-Alignment

• Indira Gandhi, who became Prime Minister in January 1966 and served for 11 years, focused on strengthening the unity of Afro-Asian countries and promoting the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
• She supported Arab nations in their conflict with Israel in 1967, which displeased Western countries.
• Despite India's protests, the Soviet Union supplied arms to Pakistan in 1968. However, India did not criticize the Soviet Union for its intervention in Czechoslovakia the same year.
• India faced challenges when its delegate was barred from attending the Rabat Conference of Islamic countries in 1969, marking a low point in its foreign policy.
• The subsequent two years were difficult for Indira Gandhi's government, but she continued to navigate the complexities of non-alignment and international relations.

The Fourth Phase (1971-1990)

Indo-Pakistan War and the Birth of Bangladesh (1971)

• Mrs. Gandhi's government faced a crisis when the Awami League, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rehman from East Pakistan, won a majority in Pakistan's parliamentary elections but was denied power and imprisoned.
• This led to a massive uprising in East Pakistan, prompting a brutal crackdown by the Pakistani government and causing around one crore refugees to flee to India.
• The deteriorating situation escalated into war when Pakistan attacked India, but India emerged victorious, leading to the creation of Bangladesh with India's support.
• During this period, the USA and China supported Pakistan, with President Nixon threatening intervention on Pakistan's behalf.
• In response, India signed a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union in August 1971, which discouraged US intervention despite providing military aid to Pakistan.

Indo-Soviet Treaty and Foreign Policy Shift

• The 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty, which aimed to respect each other's sovereignty and prevent military alliances against each other, drew criticism for appearing to align India with the USSR.
• Despite maintaining non-alignment, India’s tilt towards the Soviet Union became evident, while relations with the US deteriorated.

Janata Government (1977-79)

• The Janata Government did not shift from non-alignment but aimed to correct the pro-USSR tilt.
• Foreign Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee sought to normalize relations with China and Pakistan and refused to sign the discriminatory Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi Era (1980-89)

• Both leaders maintained strong ties with the Soviet Union, leading to perceptions of compromise on non-alignment.
• India continued its anti-Israel stance, refused to sign the NPT, and did not criticize the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
• India actively participated in the non-aligned movement, hosting the 1983 summit in New Delhi.

End of the Cold War and Non-Alignment's Relevance

• By 1990, with the Cold War ending, the relevance of non-alignment was questioned in the new global context.

The Fifth Phase (Post-Cold War Period)

The End of the Cold War and Its Impact on Non-Alignment

• The Cold War officially ended when U.S. President George Bush and Soviet President Gorbachev met in Malta in December 1989.
• The year 1990 marked the beginning of the post-Cold War period.
• India continued to advocate for non-alignment as a relevant policy for economic development and international peace.
• While the Warsaw Pact and other military alliances were dissolved, NATO still exists.
• Non-alignment remains a guiding principle for 118 members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
• A new world order has yet to emerge, even though the post-World War II order has collapsed.
• In this unipolar world, India still insists on the policy of non-alignment.

The Cold War and Non-Alignment

• The Cold War, which began after World War II, was a period of intense rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. Each superpower had its own bloc of allied countries. The Eastern Bloc, led by the Soviet Union, included countries like East Germany, Poland, and Hungary. The Western Bloc, led by the United States, included countries like West Germany, France, and Italy.
• During the Cold War, India followed a policy of non-alignment. This meant that India did not formally join either the Eastern or Western Bloc. Instead, India aimed to maintain independence in its foreign policy decisions.
• Non-alignment allowed India to receive aid and support from both blocs. For example, India received military assistance from the Soviet Union while also benefiting from American aid.
• Despite its non-aligned stance, India had to navigate a complex international environment. The U.S. and the Soviet Union often pressured non-aligned countries to align with one bloc or the other. India managed to maintain its independence by balancing relations with both superpowers.
• By the late 1980s, the Cold War began to wind down. The Soviet Union faced internal challenges, and leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev introduced reforms that weakened the Soviet grip on Eastern Europe.
• In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, symbolizing the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. By December 1991, the Soviet Union itself disintegrated into 15 independent republics. This marked the end of the Cold War and the bipolar world order.

Evolution of Non-Alignment

• Initially, non-alignment was a response to the Cold War, aiming to provide India with the flexibility to navigate between two powerful blocs.
• As the Cold War ended, India continued to uphold non-alignment, emphasizing its commitment to independent foreign policy and international peace.
• The end of the Cold War saw the U.S. emerge as the sole superpower. However, countries like Germany and Japan rose as significant economic powers, leading to discussions about a potential multipolar world.
• India’s non-alignment policy remained relevant because it allowed for independent decision-making, access to aid from various sources, and a commitment to global peace.
• Even in a unipolar world, non-alignment was seen as essential for maintaining India’s sovereignty and ability to respond to global challenges without external pressure.
• The Cold War's end transformed the global political landscape, but India's non-alignment policy proved adaptable and relevant.
• It allowed India to navigate a changing world while maintaining its core principles of independence and peace.
• Non-alignment's evolution reflects India's ability to balance its interests in a complex international environment, ensuring its continued relevance in a post-Cold War era.
• In June 1991, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao reaffirmed India's commitment to the policy of non-alignment.
• In a 1992 speech in Tokyo, Rao emphasized the relevance of non-alignment in advocating for nations' rights to independence and development, regardless of global blocs.

Relevance of Non-Alignment

• M.S. Rajan argued that non-alignment remains relevant for small/weak states, regardless of the global power structure (bipolar, multipolar, or unipolar).
• Rajan believed the non-aligned movement (NAM) is still relevant today due to ongoing Great Power hegemony.
• Foreign Minister I.K. Gujral in 1996-97 reaffirmed India's belief in non-alignment, suggesting it would not become irrelevant in the near future.

Independent Foreign Policy

• India demonstrated its independent foreign policy by refusing to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996 despite external pressure.
• While non-alignment may have less political relevance, it remains significant for economic development and social change, particularly for developing countries facing globalization.

Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

• J.N. Dixit, a former Foreign Secretary, defined non-alignment as the freedom to make decisions in a nation's interests without external influence.
• Dixit emphasized that being part of NAM implies a commitment to non-alignment as the most effective approach to national interests.
• Historically, NAM addressed issues like decolonization, anti-imperialism, racial discrimination, and Palestine, but many of these are no longer relevant.
• In the post-Cold War era, NAM should focus on contemporary issues such as global violence, terrorism, economic inequalities, human rights, and environmental concerns.
• Many NAM objectives are now pursued through regional organizations like SAARC, ASEAN, and APEC.

Future of NAM

• According to J.N. Dixit, NAM must adapt to new challenges such as technology transfer, investments, social issues, and the political implications of changing power dynamics.
• M.K. Rasgotra, another former Foreign Secretary, argued that the world is not unipolar, with emerging powers like Russia, Germany, and Japan. NAM remains relevant as long as it focuses on issues like drug abuse, women's exploitation, poverty, disease, and environmental degradation.
• K. Subrahmanyam suggested that non-alignment was context-specific and not an enduring ideology. NAM countries should reassess their strategies in light of the evolving international environment.

NAM Conference in 1997

• The NAM Foreign Ministers Conference in New Delhi in 1997, attended by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, agreed that NAM should play a more positive role in international affairs and address socio-economic problems.
• Alfred Nzo, South Africa's Foreign Minister, emphasized the need to tackle essential issues like hunger in developing countries.

Twelfth NAM Summit

• Held in September 1998 in Durban, attended by 113 countries, presided over by South African President Nelson Mandela.
• India represented by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, faced tensions regarding Kashmir and nuclear tests.
• Summit called for a universal nuclear regime, adopted India's proposal for 1999 conference on weapons of mass destruction.

Thirteenth NAM Summit

• Originally scheduled for 2001 in Dhaka, held in early 2003 in Kuala Lumpur under Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Mohamed.
• Pakistani President Musharraf raised Kashmir issue; Vajpayee rebutted charges, emphasizing illegal occupation by Pakistan and free accession of Jammu and Kashmir.
• India demanded an end to cross-border terrorism.

Fourteenth NAM Summit, 2006

The 14th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

• Took place in September 2006 in Havana, Cuba.
• Chaired by Acting President Raul Castro due to Fidel Castro's hospitalization.
• India was represented by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Key Points from the Summit

• Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rejected the "Clash of Civilizations" concept.
• Called for a focus on urgent transnational issues like terrorism, energy security, and the environment.
• Cuban leader Raul Castro criticized the United States for its dominant role in global politics.
• Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez supported Cuba's condemnation of the U.S.

Summit Outcomes

• Attended by 118 nations.
• Expressed total opposition to terrorism in all its forms.
• Called for member nations to combat terrorism through prosecution and extradition of perpetrators.
• Expressed concern over the regrouping of terrorist groups, hinting at Pakistan without naming it.
• Supported India's campaign for reforms in the United Nations, particularly the Security Council.
• Expressed concern over the lack of progress in equitable representation and increased membership in the Security Council.