India’s non-alignment policy relevant in today’s geopolitics

The Non-Aligned Movement was the result of the events of the Cold War, whereby both the US and the Soviet Union sought to garner support from smaller and less powerful countries, primarily in Asia and Africa.

At the time, since many Asian and African countries were newly independent, they remained unwilling to align themselves with either superpower, since it not only distracted them from their internal affairs but also implied being fully dependent (both economically and in defence) thereby compromising their freedom, sovereignty and autonomy.

Efforts towards the NAM were first initiated with the Bandung Conference in 1955, where the conference adopted a declaration on the promotion of world peace, cooperation, political self-determination, and most importantly, decreased reliance on Western powers. The conference also focused on differentiating the concept of non-alignment with neutrality which has legal ramifications if neutral states and their citizens (like Switzerland) aid any belligerents of war.

The NAM was conceived and founded in 1961 in Belgrade by India, Egypt, Indonesia, Ghana and Yugoslavia as a means for developing states, who shared similar cultural and racial aspects, to opt for a middle course between the eastern and western blocks of the Cold War. Following the Cold War, India systematically reassessed its relationships with major powers and updated its regional policies, prioritizing economic interests and projects.

The NAM was thought to have lost relevance after the Cold War since the collapse of the Soviet Union implied a unipolar world with the US as the primary power, but present-day geopolitics have created a multi-polar world, which has reinstated the relevance of NAM.

Over time, India has become instrumental in revitalizing and reconstructing the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), by adopting a modernised approach to non-alignment or ‘multi-alignment’ policies. The primary idea continues to promote active participation in global events without being encompassed in any specific military bloc.

Why non-alignment is relevant
The non-alignment strategy is most relevant for developing countries, who often opt for issue-based alignment or multi-alignment over outright general support for a particular superpower and establish close alliances with other superpowers, thereby opting for flexible security arrangements that offer a balance of risks to rewards in the event of strategic uncertainty.

Since a strong alliance carries more risks than benefits when compared with flexible partnership agreements, a non-alignment stance allows developing countries to exercise autonomy and circumvent the dangers of dependency that often lead to abandonment or entrapment in the long run. In India’s context, non-alignment allows New Delhi to access joint military exercises, enter into commercial and trade agreements and lend aid and support while preventing great power access to its sensitive defence facilities.

The Cold War from 1947-1991, perfectly demonstratesthe relevance of NAM. During the Cold War, Germany was divided into two states: the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG or West Germany) and the German Democratic Republic (GDR or East Germany), each aligned with one of the superpower blocs.

The FRG was supported by the United States and its allies, while the GDR was backed by the Soviet Union. This division led to a “German-German Cold War,” where both German states competed for international recognition and influence, particularly in the developing countries of Africa and Asia.

The non-aligned countries like India, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia, and Yugoslavia, which did not formally align with either the US or the Soviet Union, were often courted by both Germanies for diplomatic recognition and support. However, India emerged as a key example of the NAM. Its diplomatic efforts resulted in maintaining embassies in both German states and balancing relations to maximize economic, military and political benefits.

India’s non-alignment approach towards Germany involved maintaining diplomatic flexibility and balancing relations with both West Germany (FRG) and East Germany (GDR).

During the Cold War, Africa’s embrace of the non-alignment philosophy enabled the continent to navigate international affairs strategically and protect its domestic interests amid crises like the Congo Conflict and the Algerian War of Independence. Non-aligned nations skilfully leveraged the rivalry between the United States and the USSR to advance their own agendas without succumbing to pressure from either superpower. Today, African nations recognize the importance of active diplomacy and dynamic partnerships in crafting versatile policies that enhance global relevance.

Their preference for multiple alliances is driven not by ideological considerations, but by economic and military goals. The reluctance of many African countries in 2022 to support the West’s stance on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine illustrated their limited incentive to fully align with any superpower. Instead, they adeptly manage relations with various powers while fostering strategic connections with like-minded states.

Ethiopia joined BRICS while simultaneously partnering with the US, which remains its largest bilateral donor. In a way, the United States also adopts a non-alignment stance by regarding Jammu and Kashmir as a princely state dispute, rather than a union territory, between India and Pakistan. Consequently, it continues to maintain amicable relations with both nations.

Similarly, India aims to safeguard its sovereignty against external pressures and political integration while limiting interference in its internal affairs and independent decision-making. It values fostering relationships based on its own choices, whether aligning with one nation or another, while also advocating for equitable international conditions that support its socio-economic development. This enables New Delhi to maintain its autonomy and ensure a balanced and just global environment.

Subtle shift in India’s non-alignment policy
While many nations have criticised India for maintaining and even misapplying Nehru’s non-alignment policy for short-term benefits, it is emphasised that India does not always remain non-aligned and instead chooses to align itself with powers that directly affect it regionally, highlighting its issue-based alignment approach.

In the context of Russia, it cannot be ignored that Russia refrained from voting on the Kashmir conflict, which enabled India to circumvent sanctions accruable to it from the disputes in the Line of Actual Control and is continuing to successfully deter China’s aggressive expansionist strategies by way of Russia’s defence infrastructure through multiple defence agreements.

However, while Delhi abstained from voting in the UN Security Council’s draft resolution in the UN General Assembly that called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Russian troops, its statement to the UN Security Council indirectly asked Moscow to respect international laws and to restore peace in Ukraine.

It relied on the importance of the UN Charter, international law and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. Stating that India was effectively forced to pick from only bad and worse options, Delhi emphasised its need to be subtle in picking a side under the backdrop of Russia’s role in connection with the nation’s strained relationship with China.

The deputy director of the Wilson Centre, Micheal Kugelman highlights that while India cannot afford to align itself due to its defence and geopolitical needs, Delhi expressed its discomfort with the situation in Ukraine.

In 2023, India was required to prioritise the evacuation of 20,000 citizens, comprising mostly of students from Ukraine. Any direct alignment would have negatively impacted evacuation operations since India was able to garner help from both nations for evacuation in Kharkiv and other conflict zones in Ukraine. India’s issue-based alignment is also evidenced by way of its extensive humanitarian aid, relief and economic support to Ukraine and other unfortunate participants of the Global South to the Ukraine war.

Being in a unique diplomatic position where it enjoys good historic and present relations with both Moscow and Washington (who also have a participative and influential role in managing the growing dominance of China in the Global South), remaining non-aligned may also imply an increased peacekeeping role and contribution to establishing a fruitful dialogue with conflicting parties in international wars.

India’s permanent representative at the UN, Ruchira Kamboj stated that the non-binding resolution that called for an immediate ceasefire and unconditional withdrawal of troops from Ukraine had inherent limitations since it did not highlight any attempts at peace dialogues that could provide credible and meaningful solutions that are acceptable by both sides. Delhi maintained its stance of condemning violence in conflicts resulting in large-scale loss of lives and homelessness.

It is to be noted that historically, Western unrest had unintended consequences on the Global South, which disallows developing nations from voicing their legitimate concerns. While the European Union remains uncomfortable with India’s non-alignment, it too refrains from rescinding the mutual ties since the benefits are fruitful for both nations.

On a similar note, India’s stance on the Israel-Hamas war that commenced on 7 October 2023 is yet another example of how, despite being the pioneer of the Non-Alignment Movement, India has drifted from its strict ‘non-alignment’ policy by adopting a modernised or ‘multi-aligned’ approach.

In 1947, India voted against the UN partition of the former British Mandate of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states and championed a single secular state over externally imposed division, since it was aware of the negative effects of partition.

India was also one of the first non-Arab countries to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the sole and legitimate representative of Palestine and granted formal recognition of Palestine’s statehood in 1988.

Currently, India is one of the few nations maintaining diplomatic representation in both Tel Aviv and Ramallah. Despite an initial inclination towards Israel, India has now openly called for the “resumption of direct negotiations towards establishing a sovereign, independent, and viable state of Palestine, living within secure and recognized borders, side by side with Israel.” India’s abstention from voting on a UN General Assembly resolution for an immediate humanitarian truce in the region drew criticism, as did the resolution itself for its failure to condemn terrorism.

Subsequently, India supported a UN resolution denouncing Israel’s ongoing settlement activity. Additionally, Delhi recently dispatched 70 tonnes of humanitarian aid, including 16.5 tonnes of medicines and medical supplies, to Gaza through Egypt.

India’s approach to non-alignment has evolved to address the complexities of contemporary geopolitics. By maintaining strategic flexibility and engaging in issue-based alignments, India can navigate international relations effectively while preserving its sovereignty and addressing domestic needs.

This pragmatic stance allows India to balance its relationships with global powers like the US and Russia, facilitate humanitarian efforts, and participate in peacekeeping roles. As demonstrated in recent conflicts, India’s nuanced policy enables it to contribute meaningfully to global stability while safeguarding its national interests. This modernized non-alignment approach reflects India’s commitment to maintaining its autonomy and fostering a balanced and equitable international environment.