What is non-alignment?
1. It means keeping away from two warring alliances after the end of the second world war. It should be noted that after the Second World War, the world was divided into two warring camps- the capitalist countries were led by the US and the communist countries were led by the Soviet Union. The US forged a NATO military alliance by bringing together countries of Western Europe against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union on the other hand, made the Warsaw Pact with Eastern European Countries. The two camps always sought to have military superiority over others. Thus ensued the cold war. This cold war continued till the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The newly independent countries decided to keep away from either of the military blocs to safeguard their hard earned political sovereignty. Thus non-alignment stood for keeping away from military entanglement of all types. It stood for refusal to allow military bases to any super-power on their territories.
2. On the positive note, the non-alignment stands to protect the national interest of a country, to promote world peace. It is not a policy of sitting on the fence or indifferent to the burning issues of international politics. Rather it seeks active cooperation and mutual friendship between nations of both the blocs.
3. After getting independence, India was the first country to pronounce non-alignment as the cornerstone of its foreign policy. Thus, India decided not to join either of the bloc headed by the US or the Soviet Union.
Special features of non-alignment
1. It stands against status quo situations in international politics.
2. It opposes colonialism, imperialism, racial discrimination, neo colonialism and apartheid.
3. It stands against military alliances.
4. It rejects the concept of superiority of super powers
5. It advocates sovereign equality of all states
6. It encourages friendly relations among countries
7. It advocates peaceful settlement of international disputes and rejects the use of force.
8. It favours complete destruction of nuclear weapons and pleaded for comprehensive disarmament.
9. It supports all efforts to strengthen the United Nations
10. It stands for new international economic order bereft of injustice and imbalance in international relations
11. It stands for strategic autonomy for countries in their relation with other countries.
12. Above all it stood for equality among countries and free decision making to subserve their national interests.
The difference between non-alignment and neutrality
1. While neutrality is a legal status of a country during war when a country does not take part in conflicts and abstains from supporting either side, non-alignment as a foreign policy approach is not legally bound to stay away from conflicts. A non-aligned country retains freedom to take position on issues based upon merit. Thus, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria are neutral states. A neutral state in no circumstances can participate in any armed conflict nor their territories can be used by belligerent powers. On the other hand, non-alignment is a broader concept. It can criticise or support super powers depending upon national interests. Thus, India criticised the combined attack of Israel, Britain and France on Egypt in 1956 but did not call for the Soviet withdrawal from Hungary. Similarly, in 1979 India condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It also criticised the US attack on Vietnam and Iraq. Thus, non-aligned countries are free to take positions in international politics which may suit their national interests better.
Why did India adopt non-alignment in its foreign policy after getting independence?
1. India wanted to have strategic autonomy in decision making so that its hard earned sovereignty could be preserved.
2. Because of the size, geo-political importance and contribution to civilisation, India could not be an appendage to either of the super powers.
3. India wanted to have a positive role to play in international politics by reducing international tension, promoting peace and serving as a bridge between the two camps.
4. India adopted a non-alignment policy so that its future role of an acknowledged great power was not compromised.
5. India could not join either of the power blocs because of the emotional and ideological reasons. It could not join western bloc because many of its member countries were ex-colonial powers and some of them still practiced racial discrimination. Moreover, India got freedom from British imperialism after the freedom struggle of more than 90 years. On the other hand, it could not join the Soviet bloc because its ideology of communism was completely alien to Indian thinking and way of life.
6. India wanted flexibility in its foreign policy. It did not want to be tied to the apron strings of another superpower. Thus, it wanted freedom in its foreign policy to decide every issue on its merit.
7. The Indian economy was in shambles. The foreign domination for 200 years and the partition of India completely devastated its economy. India wanted speedy economic recovery. It needed foreign economic aid for its development. The non-alignment policy gave India an opportunity to get economic and technological aids from both the Soviet Union and the US.
8. India stood for peaceful co-existence and toleration in international relations so that no third world war or any other war occurred in its vicinity. It wanted cordial relations with China. The policy of non-alignment suited to advance those above objectives.
Critique of non-alignment policy
1. The non-alignment policy of India has been very much successful in preserving its strategic autonomy. India could protect its sovereignty and decision making power in a bipolar world. It adopted an independent foreign policy to suit its national interests.
2. The non-alignment policy allowed India to receive economic aid and technical assistance from both the camps. Thus, while India received assistance for the Bhilai Steel Plant from the Soviet Union, it got economic as well as technical support from West Germany for the opening of Rourkela Steel Plant. Similarly, the US helped India in opening Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited at Bhopal. Britain helped India in founding Durgapur Steel Plant. In addition, the US helped India in machine making industries. By external support, India could make 73% of its industries on its own by 1980. This was a big achievement.
3. The non-alignment policy elevated India’s international stature. It became the champion of the non-alignment movement. The movement stood for peaceful co-existence, disarmament and an equitable international order. Thus, NAM provided a platform for newly independent nations to assert their collective voice on a global forum.
4. The non-alignment policy kept away India from any kind of entanglement in the military conflicts and proxy wars of the superpowers. Thus, it allowed India to focus on its internal challenges of nation building and poverty alleviation.
5. However, the Sino-Indian War in 1962, Indo-Pakistan War in 1965, 1971 and 1999 exposed the limits of non-alignment policy. These wars demonstrated that the non-alignment policy did not guarantee the security of India. Secondly, critics also argue that India’s non-alignment was often more of a rhetorical stance than a genuine non-alignment. For example, India opposes the UN forces led by the US crossing the 38th parallel and consistently pressed the ceasefire through the UN. When Britain and France joined Israel's attacks on Egypt during the Suez crisis, it was called a dastardly action. But when the Soviet Union intervened in Hungary, the Indian response was muted. India abstained from the UN resolution condemning Soviet actions. It opposed the Soviet intervention in principle and stopped short of calling for Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe. This position drew sharp criticism from Western Blocs. Similarly, the 1971 Indo-Soviet treaty of friendship and cooperation signed during the Bangladesh liberation war was seen by many critics as a clear sign of tilt towards the Soviet Union. This event highlighted that when faced with a critical security threat, India prioritised its national interest over the strict principles of non-alignment.
6. Despite its role as a leader of third world countries, the non-aligned movement was largely ineffective in preventing or resolving regional conflicts among its members. The Iran-Iraq war, Arab Israel war or India-Pakistan border disputes or Thailand-Kampuchia border disputes are examples where the non-alignment movement failed to play a decisive role.
Relevance of non-alignment policy in the post-cold war situation
1. After the end of the cold war because of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, a unipolar world order emerged. The United States remained the only super-power. However, the emerging China gave a challenge to the US so much so that it is now the second largest economy of the world with $19 trillion in nominal GDP while in terms of purchasing power parity, it surged ahead of the US. In addition, Japan, Germany and India have emerged economic giants. So the world has turned into a multi-polar world. The question arises as to what is the relevance of India’s non-alignment policy in the multipolar world ? It should be noted that there were three objectives of non-alignment policy. They were strategic autonomy in foreign policy decision making, getting economic and technological aid from different developed countries for economic development and aimed at establishing international peace and peaceful settlement of disputes. Since all these three objectives still exist, the relevance of non-alignment remains undisturbed. It should be noted that although cold war and bipolarity has ceased to exist, the relevance of non-alignment is still intact because of the three above-mentioned objectives of India’s foreign policy.
2. Shifting of non-alignment by multi-alignment as the foundation of India’s foreign policy -In the changed scenario of a multi-polar world. India has shifted to multi-alignment without compromising its policy of non-alignment of not joining any bloc. The multi-alignment stands for working with many blocs at the same time. Thus, India has built issue based partnerships without binding itself permanently with any bloc or any country. For example, India is a member of QUAD along with USA, Japan, Australia for Indo-Pacific security, technology and defence exercises. India has a defence pact with Russia whereby it gets S-400 missiles, submarines and energy security. It has further made aid agreements with the EU, free trade agreements with Great Britain. It has an alignment with West Asian Countries like Israel, UAE and USA called I2U2 for energy and connectivity projects. On the other hand, India is a member of BRICS and SCO, where it gets financial cooperation. This multi-alignment keeps India’s strategic autonomy intact, helps balance against the China-Pakistan axis without being locked in one alliance, provides access to technology, markets, defence equipment and energy security from multiple partners. Thus, the multi-alignment enhances India’s role as a bridge between global north and global south. The following flowchart clearly elucidates the multi-alignment of India.
Conclusion
The cold war and bipolarity ended. The Soviet Union was dissolved. India began to reorient its foreign policy towards the West. It sought closer cooperation with the US. It also scaled back its engagement with the non-alignment movement, which it had championed during the cold war. India went ahead with multi-alignment with different powerful countries at the same time to subserve its national interest but it did not abandon strategic autonomy which is the hallmark of non-alignment policy. For example, even in the face of the threat by the US on account of ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. India continued to get concessional oils from Russia and after getting them refined, sold them in Europe, thereby fetching huge profit. Thus, the non-alignment policy of India outlived the cold war. It has been the policy of India to mediate between the conflicting positions of different countries by belonging to neither and this policy still continues in our foreign policy and so the policy of non-alignment still survives and evolved as multi-alignment.
No comments:
Post a Comment