The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is a Movement of 118

members representing the interests and priorities of developing

countries. The Movement has its origin in the Asia-Africa
Conference held in Bandung, Indonesia in 1955. The meeting was
convened upon the invitation of the Prime Ministers of Burma,
Ceylon, India, Indonesia and Pakistan and brought together
leaders of 29 states, mostly former colonies, from the two
continents of Africa and Asia, to discuss common concerns and to
develop joint policies in international relations.

Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister or India, President

Soekarno of Indonesia and President Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt
led the Conference and later the Movement. At the meeting, Third
World leaders shared their similar problems of resisting the
pressures of the major powers, maintaining their independence
and opposing colonialism and neo-colonialism, especially western
domination.

The first Conference of Non-Aligned Heads of State or

Government, at which 25 countries were represented, was
convened at Belgrade in September 1961, largely through the
initiative of Yugoslavian President Josip Broz Tito. At that stage,
the biggest concern was that an accelerating arms race might result
in war between the Soviet Union and the USA.

Since its inception the Movement attempted to create an

independent path in world politics that would not result in
Member States becoming pawns in the struggles between the
major powers. This resulted in a large part of its history being
influenced by the global tension of the Cold War between the two
super powers. However, the Cold War was not the sole or only
critical issue on the agenda of the Non-Aligned Movement.

There were three basic elements that influenced the approaches of

the Movement to international issues the right of independent
judgment, the struggle against imperialism and neo-colonialism,
and the use of moderation in relations with all big powers. The
Movement also worked towards the restructuring of the
international economic order.

Non-Alignment has made self-determination and equality of all

peoples, the free development of the individual, the economic and
social progress of society and of nations its central preoccupations.
By combining the question of peace and development with the
emancipation of peoples from all forms of subordination and
exploitation, Non- Alignment has become one of the principal
promoters of a positive development of international relations on a
global scale and a movement whose political stance, concepts and
strategy are of worldwide relevance.

The Non-Aligned Movement can also be seen in terms of the

Movement of the newly-independent countries from the 1940s to
1960s. They strived for Non-Alignment to make their voice heard
on the international stage. The Cold War, the imminent danger of
confrontation, the necessity to defeat colonialism in its orthodox or
new form, the necessity to erase the global causes of anomaly for
even distribution of wealth and technology, but mainly the
necessity of consolidating independence for the newly independent
countries and of creating a new code of interstate relations
strengthened the Non-Aligned Movement.

The Movement in a real sense represents the poor of the world.

Over eighty per cent of those countries classified as being the
worlds least developed belong to the Non-Aligned Movement.
Most of the countries which are seriously affected by the balance of
payment deficits, food scarcity and inflation are members of the
Movement. Whether one looks at life in terms of the Gross
National Product, terms of trade, industrial stagnation, caloric
intake, health and service delivery, adult literacy, population
growth or life expectancy at birth, the non-aligned countries are
among the world's disadvantaged.

The Jakarta Summit in 1992 was a turning point in Non-Aligned

history since it was the first Summit after the end of the Cold War.
It allowed the Movement to shift its focus from the rhetoric of the
past to concrete work. The emphasis has shifted from the demands
from the developed countries to cooperation with the developed
countries.

The Non-Aligned Movement does not have a formal constitution or

a permanent secretariat. It has a practice of a rotating Chair, under
which its Chair is formally rotated to the Head of State or
Government of the host country of the Summit. The Foreign
Ministry and Permanent Mission in New York of the Chair at the
same time assume the responsibility of the administrative
management of the Movement. The Co-coordinating Bureau (CoB)
at the United Nations in New York forms the focal point for
coordination among the NAM Members.
Since the Non-Aligned countries meet regularly at the UN and
conduct much of their work there, the Chairs' Permanent
Representative to the United Nations in New York functions as the
Chair of the CoB. The Bureau reviews and facilitates the
harmonization of the work of the NAM Working Groups, Contact
Groups, Task Forces and Committees.

Some of the Working Groups, Task Forces and Committees formed

by NAM are: High-Level Working Group for the Restructuring of
the United Nations, Working Group on Human Rights, Working
Group on Peace-Keeping Operations, Working Group on
Disarmament, Committee on Palestine, Task Force on Somalia,
Non-Aligned Security Caucus, Standing Ministerial Committee for
Economic Cooperation, and Joint Coordinating Committee
(chaired by Chairman of G-77 and Chairman of NAM).

An important mechanism of NAM is the Troika of past, serving and

future Chairs. This concept is operationalized at the discretion of
the incumbent Chair and can act as a clearinghouse for solutions of
problems and issues confronting developing countries on which
the Movement must take a position.

The fifteenth Summit of the Non-Aligned Heads of State or

Government took place at Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt in 2009 and
the next Summit is scheduled to be held in Tehran in 2012. Apart
from Belgrade, where the first and the ninth Summits were held,
Summits have been held at Cairo, Lusaka, Algiers, Colombo,
Havana, New Delhi, Harare, Jakarta, Cartagena de India's, Durban
and Kuala Lumpur.

The Non-Aligned Movement has been quite outspoken in its

criticism of current UN structures and power dynamics, mostly in
how the organisation has been utilized by powerful states in ways
that violate the principles of NAM. It has made a number of
recommendations aimed at improving the transparency and
democracy of UN decision-making. NAM considers the UN
Security Council to be the most distorted and undemocratic of all
UN Organs.

Hence, it demands for reshaping and restructuring of the Security

Council. NAM accepts the universality of human rights and social
justice, but fiercely resists cultural homogenization. In line with its
views on sovereignty, the organisation appeals for the protection of
cultural diversity, and the tolerance of the religious, socio- cultural,
and historical particularities that define human rights in a specific
region.

Lately, NAM has collaborated with other organizations of the

developing world, primarily the Group of 77, forming a number of
joint committees and releasing statements and documents
representing the shared interests of both groups. This dialogue and
cooperation can be taken as an effort to increase the global
awareness about the organisation and bolster its political clout.

Non-alignment has been the guiding principle of India's foreign

policy ever since she attained independence on August 15, 1947. Pt.
Jawaharlal Nehru, India's man of destiny and her first Prime
Minister was the main architect of the policy of non-alignment in
the world, to which General Nasser of U.A.R and Marshal Tito of
Yugoslavia were the two great contributors.

India has stoutly refused to be drawn into the ambit of

international treaties, and alliances of a military nature. She has
stuck enaciously to her avowed policy of keeping away from the
marshes of cold war and power politics. Also India has persistently
tried to relax international tensions and to promote world peace.

Non-alignment is not a run-away dogma of expediency, but a

positive means to the positive end. It is not even synonymous with
'isolationism', or 'neutrality'. It is purposive non-involvement in
power politics, avoidance of military alliances and pacts to retain
freedom of judgment and to preserve national identity and
interests. It ensures freedom to judge each issue on merits within
framework of national sovereignty, independence and interests.

Today, non-alignment has come to be definitely established in

international politics as a powerful creed with more adherents than
those of the two Power blocs put together.

Non-alignment acquires significance in the context of international

relations. It implies non-associating oneself with either of the two
Power blocs, namely, the Western block leaded by the U.S.A. and
the Communist block led by Soviet Russia. Non-alignment cannot
tolerate injustice and cannot compromise with the culprit. It does
its best; shout of an open inter-vention in actual flare-up to see
that there is no aggression or one aggression has been committed
the aggressor does not run way with the fruits of aggression. It is
bold enough to point out the mistakes of anybody, no matter,
however, powerful he may be. It is not a negative crud, but a
positive dynamic philosophy.

The policy of non-alignment has been founded on three very sound

theoretical and practical considerations. First, the entire history of
India bears out that India has always championed the cause of
peaceful co-existence. She has never sanctioned expan-sionist
power politics. The 'Upnishads', the Gita, the Buddha, Ashoka and
Gandhi have been exponents of the philosophy of peace. Thus,
non-alignment is naturally expected as the political expression of
India's traditional philosophy of peace. If the countries of the
world can look towards any nation to lead them to an era of peace
and co-operation, it can be India and India alone.

Secondly, the exigencies of international power—politics demand

the policy of non-alignment. In a hostile world torn by armed
sections, it is an extremely prudent policy to strengthen areas of
peace to wean away as many nations as possible from military
alliances. Consolidation of peace areas would diffuse tension and
act as a deterrent to the clash of the two power groups.

Thirdly, India as a developing nation could hardly afford, to get

entangled in military alliances of rival power systems and get
dist-racted from the principal task of socio-economic
reconstruction. A newly emerged nation stare that has just
embarked on the process of national reconstruction can hardly
make herself a part of military pacts. To her, social welfare
programmes are of primary importance, Thus India opted for the
policy of non-alignment as a sheer neces-sity.

It was due to India’s non-aligned posture that she could play such a
significant role in bringing an end to the wars in North and South
Korea by playing the role of a peace-maker. India in those days
also played an important part in the solution of other disputes like
Congo, Cyprus, Arab-Israel, etc.

India also formed the five golden principles of Panchsheel for the
practical implementation, of the policy of non-alignment. In these
five principles India preached the policy of non-aggression, non-
interference in the internal affairs of one-another, a basis of
equality and mutual benefit, respect for one-another's territorial
integrity and sovereignty and peaceful co-existence. India's policy
of non-alignment also consisted of the prin-ciples of anti-
imperialism and anti-colonialism. All through India advanced the
cause of the people suffering under the colonial rule in Asia, Africa
and elsewhere. Another important principle of non-alignment has
been anti-racialism and the elimination of wars in the world.

Right from the beginning, India has regarded non-alignment as a

guarantee of her national defence and security. The concept was
expected to expand the area of peace and harmony, reduce
conflicts. Among the other assumptions were that no neighbour
would attack India, especially because this country has never had
aggressive designs against any country. But China's attack on India
in 1962 inspite of the Nehru-Chou slogans of "Hindi Chhini Bhai-
Bhai'', and Pakistan's wars against India have removed the sense of
complacen-cy that had overtaken India.

From March 1983 to September 1986, India was the leader of

NAM. The Delhi summit marked a new, positive stage in the
pro-gress of the movement (the preceding chairman being Cuba's
President, Fidel, Castro, a close ally of Moscow). The world
situation has lately deteriorated. The crisis in West Asia, Latin
America and in certain other parts of the world has become rather
serious with peace having been shattered. The Delhi session of
NAM was a not-able success; it was attended by nearly 100 leaders
from various parts of the world. The summit did not get bogged
down in minor or procedural matters; it reasserted the important
role of non-align-meat as a bridge of understanding in an
interdependent world. The Delhi Declaration was well-worded and
the call to world powers also sounded impressive as well as
convincing, but unfortunately the Wes-tern countries took little
notice of the NAM call; even the Western media largely ignored the
resolutions and the lengthy communiqué issued after the summit.

It should be clear that India's policy of non-alignment has not been

an attitude of negative neutrality. It is better to describe it as
independence India has never been aloof from or indifferent to
various international issues. She has never hesitated to take a firm
stand on international issues raised in the United Nations.
Whether it be the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R. or China, if any of their
activities has deserved censure, India has strongly censured it. This
policy has won for India a certain prestige and respectability,
which it would have been impossible for hereto, win by becoming
merely a follower of other nations. It has also won for her many
friends among the Arab and African nations.

Some people have also been criticizing the policy of non-

align-ment pursued by India all these years. According to them
India has not gained any permanent supporters & the
International field and that countries like Pakistan which aligned
with U.S.A. or other powers, enjoyed the benefits of more friends
and more econo-mic, military and political aid. The critics say that
non-alignment is more a moralist dogma than a realist policy
based upon Moral-than's scientific theory of International politics.
They further say that on many occasions in the past, this policy has
not served our national Interests and at the time of our national
crisis like the India-China war and the Indo-Pakistan war, we were
left friend-less. Even our so-called non-aligned friends did not
raise their linger in support of our just and right cause. According
to these critics, India could have by joining either of the blocs,
made her position quite strong and powerful and she must have
got more economic, political and military assistance as well as the
political support from her aligned friends. Another criticism levied
is that the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace and Friendship is our
definite tilt towards the Russian bloc.

But if we objectively see the history of the ideology of non-

alignment and its practice by India, we feel that the fears
mention-ed above are not justified. India has played a very
important and positive role towards the establishment of world
peace, decoloni-sation, and lessening the tension between the
American and Russian blocs. It is credit to the sagacious policy of
India that today an over whelming majority of the nations of the
world are the followers of the policy propounded by India. Through
the policy of non-alignment, India helped in hastening the process
and pace of decolonisation in Asia and Africa, India has won a
unique stature in the eyes of the world community because of her
non-aligned policy. It was due to India's role that many ugly
situations were warded off and amicable settlements could be
arrived at.

India's policy of non-alignment gradually turned into a move-ment

which .has played a successful role in expediting a process of
decolonisation but has not met with comparable success in the
field of disarmament. The escalating arms race and stockpiling of
nuclear weapons is one of the major sources of tension around the
world. Salvation of the world lies only in checking this mad
arma-ment lace. Besides, it is important that international
economic relations are so restructured that there is better
understanding and co-operation between the rich and poor
nations. At present, the non-aligned are confronted with both a
challenge and an oppor-tunity. The challenge is to reinforce their
basic unity and integrity and to resolve firmly to remain free from
military alliances. The challenge is also to work for the eradication
of apartheid and to ensure dignity to every human being
irrespective of his colour or nationality. And the opportunity is to
work for enduring peace through disarmament and for the
economic welfare of all the nations through better economic co-
operation. The success of non-align-ment, in turn, depends upon
the courageous discharge of the noble duties to which the
protagonists of that philosophy have dedicated themselves. If this
is done, a new era of peace, co-operation and co-existence is sure
to herald in international politics.

It was in this context of big-power rivalry and the dark clouds of

war hovering over the horizon that Pt. Nehru came out with his
concept of Non- Alignment. He felt that newly independent
Afro-Asian countries should keep aloof from the military
alliances with one or the other Super Power. It was in their self-
interest not to become a camp follower of one or the other bloc.
Each country should view developments independently and not
with glasses provided by any Super Power. Having won their
freedom after a long struggle, they should concentrate on the
rebuilding of their nations rather than getting entangled in
international conflicts.
--Duplication of the NAM's tasks with the UN is a major
disadvantage that the NAM faces. Also the NAM is trying to do
as many things as the UN without the wherewithal of the latter.
Many also dismiss the NAM as a Poor Man's Club. With many
regional and international organizations being formed in the last
couple of decades the relevance of an organisation like the NAM
continues to be questionable.
--The Non - many view aligned stance as hypocrisy especially
after Cuba was allowed to become a member in the midst of the
cold war. Also some others believe that calling Malaysia - now a
spearheading the NAM - non-aligned is being ignorant of the
nation's history. Tito also; it must be kept in mind that although
not pro-soviet bloc was still a communist.
--In today's international arena economic priorities have
overtaken the power politics of the Cold War era and the
founding members are neither as powerful as before nor as
interested as they were during the Post- colonial Cold War days.
Hence to enhance NAM's efficiency and its relevance in today's
world would necessarily include trimming its agenda as well as
its membership
--The fact that the NAM still has a membership of 114 nations
suggests that a majority of the nations of the world see a
potential for success of the NAM's. The main reason the NAM is
so unfocused is because there are many conflicting interests
amongst its members. NAM made no effort to put an end to the
Iran- Iraq war. This was true even during the Cold War era. For
example when China attacked India in 1962 none of the India's
fellow NAM members condemned this aggressive move.
--Consider also this recent example sixteen of the 35
International Atomic Energy Agency belong to the NAM. Of these
only 3 voted in favour of fellow member Iran, 8 voted for the
resolution against Iran while 5 abstained from voting.
--Another reason why many feel the NAM is inefficient nowadays
is because unlike during the early years when the national
leaders played an important role in the functioning of he NAM
today the various mechanisms have been completely taken over
by the bureaucrats. Hence personal diplomacy a powerful
diplomatic tool no longer is used in NAM's functioning.
--Problems like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, insurgency,
trafficking can be solved easily within the framework of the NAM
if member-states co-operate for both victims and state sponsors
of these evils are members.
--NAM even today is a significant forum for exchanging views
and ideas, since an independent foreign policy evolves out of
debate the NAM thus continues to fulfil this aspiration of its
founders.
--As long as the NAM continues to be a forum for former
colonies to pursue their 'enlightened self interest' and
makes idealistic suggestions to solve the problems of
members it will remain true to the vision of its founders for
it was never the job of the NAM to operationalise these
suggestions.