RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW

PROJECT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

NON ALIGNED MOVEMENT AND COLD WAR

(5th SEMESTER)

Submitted by – SIDDHARTH SINGH RAJPUROHIT

Submitted to – MR. SAURAV SARMAH (Assistant Professor of Political Science)

Roll No. – 17003

Section - A

Group Number 1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE ................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

ACKNOWLDGEMENT .................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER 1 .......................................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 3

1.1. Brief History ......................................................................................................... 3

1.2. Aims of the Non-Aligned Movement ................................................................... 5

1.3. Objectives of NAM: ............................................................................................. 6

1.4. Admission Criteria for NAM:............................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2 .......................................................................................................................... 8

CRISIS SITUATION AND INDIA’S NON-ALIGNMENT .......................................................... 8

2.1. Korean crisis ......................................................................................................... 8

2.1.1. Background: ................................................................................................... 8

2.1.2. India’s role: .................................................................................................... 9

2.2. Suez Crisis .......................................................................................................... 12

2.2.1. Background: ................................................................................................. 12

2.2.2. India’s role: .................................................................................................. 13

2.3. Congo Crisis ....................................................................................................... 15

2.3.1. Background: ................................................................................................. 15

2.3.2. India’s role: .................................................................................................. 17

2.4. Interpretation: ..................................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................................ 19

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 19

ii
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1. A Brief History

The Non Aligned movement was an organization of states which didn’t align with or
against any major power bloc, USSR and US in the Cold War era. The NAM was
established under the leadership of J.L. Nehru of India, J.B. Tito of Yugoslavia, G.A.
Nasser of Egypt, K. Nkrumah of Ghana and Sukarno of Indonesia. The movement came
into existence because of the desire of the freshly independent countries to stay away from
the conflict between these two world powers of the post-IInd world war period and wanted
to have independence in foreign policy making.

These were the international Brussels Congress of 1927 and the first Asian Relations
Conference of 1947. Brussels Congress was an international meet of the representatives of
the national liberation movements against imperial domination and was attended by
Jawaharlal Nehru. In this meet an Anti-Imperialist League was formed to unify the national
struggle movements and enlarge its base. In the Annual Session of the INC (1928) he
proposed a draft based on the consensus of Brussels Congress of 1927 declaring that
freedom struggle of Indians is an integral part of the wider world war against colonialism.
Indian leadership was emerging and was closely attached with the liberation struggle of the
entire Afro-Asians. The credit goes to Jawaharlal Lal as he was deeply absorbed in it.

The new countries were poor countries and they wanted to fight with societal ills and
poverty. The main problem faced by these newly independent countries was to have their
independence, and not communism or anti-communism. This was the sole reason that PM
Nehru supported NAM policy as he believed that what the developing countries need is
development instead of power politics. While the conference of the UN was held in San
Francisco in April 1945, the representatives of Africa and Asia looked up to Nehru for right

3
initiative to put forward the idea of unity of two continents and he made a trip to South-
East Asia in 1945 where he received a hero’s welcome.1

Nehru Ji connected with many leaders of Asia like, Sukarno of Indonesia, Aung San of
Burma, Solomon Bandaranaike of Ceylon, etc. He took the initiative to make non-
alignment as an international movement and he played a lion’s share to rally developing
and developing countries for NAM. That was the spirit of Nehru and NAM. The
representatives of the 25 Afro-Asian countries met in Bandung on 18th April 1955 on the
eve of Afro–Asian Conference to discuss the common problems of both continents and
sought for ways through which the lately liberalized nations could promote cultural,
economic and political co-operation and defend sovereign independence.

Even at 1947, an International Conference at Delhi was his initiative where delegations of
28 Afro-Asian countries joined for demonstrating freedom movement in respective
countries. So under the leadership of Nehru a step was taken for a stringer unity of the
Afro-Asian nations. The Bandung Conference was held in the year 1955 and was attended
by 29 Afro-Asian countries. 5 principles of “Panchsheel” were elaborated into ten
principles of Bandung declaration and the Declaration’s main objectives was to strive for
the global peace. The Asian-African conference declared its objectives and aims of total
commitment to institution of international peace and stability.2

Non-Alignment spread when a number of nations refuted to join either communist or the
capitalist bloc of the post war period. In these conditions countries like India chose the
Non-Alignment policy.3 The commitment of NAM to peace is ipso facto evident from the
1961 Belgrade Declaration which drew the attention towards the stabilization of peace and

1
GoI, “History and Evolution of Non-Aligned Movement”, Ministry of External Affairs, August 22, 2012,
https://mea.gov.in/HistoryandEvolutionofNonAlignedMovement.
2
André Munro, “Non-Aligned Movement”, Encyclopedia Britannica, April 26, 2015,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Non-Aligned-Movement.
3
Peter Willets, “The Non-Aligned Movement: The Origins of a Third World Alliance”, Bombay, 1978, pp.
5-6.

4
demanded that “attempts at domination and interference in the internal development of
other peoples and nations is ruled out.’’4

The declaration asserted that the super powers should take more determined action for
solving various problems by means of negotiations and positive approach and readiness for
reaching solution. The conference had against the backdrop of rising global tensions and
deteriorating relations between USSR and US (Cold War) along with desperation of
nations for liberation and racial equality. It appealed to governments of US and USSR to
start negotiations between themselves for world peace and it extended sympathy for many
countries struggling for freedom and supporting disarmament.

Nehru stressed from the very start that the Indian struggle for freedom was a part of the
global struggle against imperialism. NAM tried to prevent world war and curtail armed
tensions between the power blocs, so the role of NAM in UN is predominant and the
stimulus was rapidly growing in the global organisation. It was crystal clear from its
sanctions against South Africa, condemnation of Israel and recognition of self-
determination rights of the Palestinians. NAM shaded the influence of the power blocs and
the General Assembly asserted itself at the strength of NAM and it strived reducing
political and economic tensions in different regions of the world.

1.2. Aims of the Non-Aligned Movement:

1.2.1. To guard the national interests of every country like to defend political independence
and territorial integrity and safeguard social, economic, cultural content as per national
aspirations.

1.2.2. To carry on the fight for completing decolonization, racial discrimination, and fight
against neo-colonialism.

1.2.3. To promote security and world peace in every nook and corner of the world and
abolish military pacts and and complete disarmament.

4
Kabi, Deba Bandya, “Non-Aligned Movement and the New World Order.” Proceedings of the Indian
History Congress, vol. 63, 2002, pp. 1161–1169, www.jstor.org/stable/44158187.

5
1.2.4. To attain international collaboration for development and economic aid to the
developing countries. There should be complete utilisation of the UN system.

1.2.5. International relations should be democratized and promote the principle of peaceful
coexistence amongst nations.5

1.3. Objectives of NAM: Nehru while speaking at Columbia University in 1947, said that
the key objects are: the pursuit of peace, not through alignment with any major group of
powers however by an autonomous approach to each contentious and disputed issues: the
freedom of subjected people’s the preservation of freedom, both national and individual:
the elimination of racial discrimination; and the elimination of want, disease and ignorance
which the greater part of the world’s population suffers.”6 The prime task of NAM was to
diminish the chances of nuclear war loitering at the threshold of split world. Nehru and
other NAM leaders were opposed to the use of force in resolving the international disputes.
Peace and progress were the watch words of NAM.7

1.4. Admission Criteria for NAM: While the conferences of NAM evolved into a
movement, the major question was who can join it was significant and the criteria was
evolved as far back as in 1961 in the conference in Cairo.8 The criteria are:

1.4.1. The country should have espoused an autonomous policy based on mutual co-
existence of different states with divergent political and social systems.

1.4.2. The concerned nation should persistently support movements for national
independence.

1.4.3. The country shouldn’t be an affiliate of a military alliance in the context of great
power conflicts.

5
Balwinder Singh, “Non-Alignment Movement: It’s Relevance in Present Context,” International Journal
of Research, Graanthalayah, Vol.5 (Iss.6): June, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.820965.
6
Mathur, R. N. “UNITED NATIONS AND WORLD PEACE INDIA'S CONTRIBUTION.” The Indian
Journal of Political Science, vol. 19, no. 2, 1958, pp. 124–128. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/42743586.
7
Ibid.
8
(--), “The Non-Aligned Movement.” The Black Scholar, vol. 8, no. 3, 1976. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/41066076.

6
1.4.4. If any country has a bilateral military arrangement with a superpower or if it is
member of any regional defence pact the agreement or agreement shouldn’t be one
intentionally decided in the context of superpower conflicts.

1.4.5. If a country has permitted military bases to a foreign rule, the concession shouldn’t
have been made in the context a great power conflicts.

7
 CHAPTER 2

SUB TOPIC: CRISIS SITUATION AND INDIA’S NON-ALIGNMENT

The NAM was pioneered much earlier by India, it is avant garde and one of the founder
member of NAM. Although the first use of the word ‘non-alignment’ was in 1954, its
substance was already adopted by JL Nehru on September 7, 1946 when he gave his first
public speech on India’s foreign policy. He said that India will stay away from the either
of power blocs, united against one another. It can be said Nehru was the first and greatest
apostle of the movement.

Here are some of the incidents that reveal India’s leading role in NAM:

2.1. Korean crisis

2.1.1. Background: The crisis was an inheritance of the II World War and its post-war
military occupation. The military understanding created at the Potsdam Conference chose
the fate of Korea, which was already under Japanese occupation and Japan gave up. Korea
was partitioned at the 38th parallel. The counterfeit division of the nation and the military
control of both the parts by the Superpowers, who had just gone into a period of Cold War
in the Eastern Europe, brought forth a few issues. The USSR-US crack constrained the
Americans to put the issue for dialogue in the UN Agenda. 9

On 14 November 1947 the General Assembly passed a goals, which perceived the privilege
to autonomy of the Koreans. It further settled an UN Commission for Korea (UNCOK) for
encouraging a program for that nation having a national government and withdrawal of all
involving powers. The Soviets responded forcefully to the goals and called that unlawful
and wouldn’t acknowledge the UN recommendations. At last the war in Korea broke out
on 25th June 1950 as North Korean crossed the 38th parallel and this prompted a genuine
trepidation that the pressure may prompt superpower showdown in the Far East. Korea was
treated by the USA at an experiment or domino hypothesis that at the UN/USA permitted
the USSR/China to beat Korea, this would prompt different nations like Vietnam to fall

9
Vatsala Shukla, “India’s Foreign Policy In the New Millennium”, Atlantic Publisher, 2005.

8
Into Communist hands. The North Korean assault upon the South Korea was under the
Soviet help which was attempting to test the strength of the US approach of suppression.10

2.1.2. India’s role: Indian position from the earliest starting point of the contention was
very different from those of two Superpowers as two of them were directed by the Cold
War contemplations. The sole target of the Indian approach was to help keep up world
harmony and diminish global strains. According to the Indian activity it perceived neither
North nor South Korea and along these lines, it had not taken a biased perspective on the
status quo. India had casted a ballot in the Security Council marking North Korea as the
assailant and requesting that it pull back behind the 38th parallel and to stop threats.

The Truman Administration had enough faith in the institution of the United Nations as an
instrument of international action during the war in Korea. While India had an experience
of the United Nations which was able to arrange a cease-fire between India and Pakistan
over Kashmir in 194849, but was not successful in enforcing the vacation of the Pak-
occupied areas of Jammu and Kashmir State as a preliminary to holding a plebiscite.
Therefore, when President Truman appealed to the United Nations to organise an
international force under the UN flag to oppose the invasion, India did not offer to send
any troops, India sent a Red Cross delegation to work among the UN forces in South
Korea.” The diplomatic action thus taken was to keep the options open. India was interested
to get out of the situation once large-scale conflict got in. “India from the beginning wanted
to localise the conflict and that in case of its spread she wanted to be out of it.”

The Truman Administration had enough confidence in the UN as a mechanism of

worldwide activity during the war in Korea. While India had an encounter with the UN
which was competent enough to make a truce between India and Pakistan over Kashmir in
1948, however was not fruitful as it couldn’t get vacate the PoK territories as a preliminary
to holding a plebiscite. Accordingly, when President Truman engaged the UN to sort out a
universal power under the UN banner to restrict the attack, India did not offer to send any
troops, India sent a Red Cross delegation to work among the United Nations powers in
South Korea. The diplomatic move in this manner made was to keep the choices open and

10
Ibid.

9
so as to make India escape the circumstance once enormous scale strife got in. From the
start India desired to confine the dispute and if it spreads she is out of it.11

Along these lines regardless of India’s open judgment of the hostility by North Korea, it
remained outside the US camp. On account of this frame of mind and activity it was
likewise open to another alliance. A noteworthy revelation of its lack of approachability
from the western position in regards to the contention stopped by method for its withdrawal
from the sponsorship of the Eight Power Resolution of the General Assembly which set up
the UN Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation pushing unification by power
if it was essential.12 The Indian choice to not to vote was subject to reason and it had all
confidence in the UN. In the Korean emergency how could UN take resort to power to
bring together the two Koreans and that to the move expected to be made against North
Korea, which had crossed the 38th parallel with a similar expectation of fusing the Koreas.
Further the UN activity may welcome PRC to meddle in leading to the expansion of the
conflict in the region. Therefore India was mindful so as not to preempt the UN forces from
crossing the parallel until every other probabilities had been worn out.

The Indian worry worked out as expected as the UN forces crossed 38th parallel promptly
inciting armed action by PRC. The Chinese powers crossed the Yale River from Manchuria
to help North Korean powers and the war in Korea shaped into a grave clash between the
USA and China. The UK PM Attlee came to USA to counsel Truman that rather than
banking on the domino hypothesis, the USA should talk with PRC on the supposition that
China would act like Yugoslavia and may be weaned off the partnership with the USSR
but this advice wasn’t paid attention.13

India encouraged peaceful negotiation to diffuse the tension and tried its best to mastermind
a truce without openly criticizing the Chinese activity. India steered a draft resolution
alongside 12 Asian countries for the constitution of a ceasefire group and presented the
proposal to the UN First Committee. It additionally spoke to both China and North Korea
to announce that they had no expectation to cross the 38th parallel but this was dismissed

11
Ibid, at p. 44.
12
S. Bhattacharya, “Pursuit of National Interest through Neutralism”, Calcutta, 1968, p.83.
13
U.S.I. Journal, Vol. 126, No. 525, July-September, 1996, p.347.

10
by China and the Soviet Union. The Indian steered draft goals was exhibited to the First
Committee of the General Assembly on January 11, 1951 and was acknowledged on
January 13, 1951 with crushing support. The proposition had five principles encased to
settle the emergency but the PRC discarded these principles. 14 The Chinese activity was
treated as an all-out disobedience of the UN by the USA.

The circumstance was additionally exasperated by UN resolution on February 1, 1951

labelling China an aggressor. India, Burma and the Communist coalition firmly contested
the resolution. The American activity for military settlement was disdained in the Western
world. An opinion was made that it was undesirable to crush China. This brought about
historic decision taken by Truman in expelling the Commander of the UN Forces, Gen.
Macintosh Arthur from his post. Both USA and USSR at that point concurred for a
ceasefire negotiation, which initiated from July 1951.

India’s job in the war in Korea was her first assay in international affairs. But both USA
and China utilized the Indian Ambassador in Beijing for dealings and passing on messages
and admonitions to one another since they had no other commonly worthy contact. An
Indian proposition in regards to the repatriation of the Prisoner of Wars (POW) was
acknowledged. The Armistice Agreement was marked on July 27th, 1953. India was made
a part director and official operator of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission
(NNRC) comprising of India, Poland, Sweden and Czechoslovakia as individuals and
Switzerland as Chairman. Notwithstanding a few bottlenecks and dubious improvements
General Thimayya, of India, did a wonderful job to convince both the groups to
acknowledge the method for repatriation. The detainees were given the privilege to practice
their decision whether they wished to be repatriated to the Communists or remain in South
Korea. India won all-round applause for doing this troublesome undertaking with fairness.
Thus during the Korean crisis it was evident that India pursued a neutralist track, but it was
positive and not elusive in character.

14
Year book of UN, New York, 1952, pp. 209-10.

11
2.2. Suez Crisis

2.2.1. Background: India played both visible and invisible role in the Suez crisis. The Suez
Canal, 101-mile long waterway, stretches out from Port Said to Port Suez. On 30th
November 1854, the then Khedive (Viceroy) of Egypt gave an concession to a Frenchman
Frendinand dc Lesseps to set up a worldwide organization under the name international
company of the Maritime Canal of Suez to construct a canal. It was rented out for a long
time for 99 years arid after the completion of the leasing period the canal was to be given
over to Egypt. The constitution began in April 1859 and the culmination of the work took
almost ten years. The channel was opened to traffic in November 1869. The canal was
inside the Egyptian region. Be that as it may, it was a global conduit, constructed and
claimed by an international company. 15

Preceding that because of economic crisis the Khedive had sold the shares of the Suez
Company to Britain in 1875. That acquired the British to start its dominance in the region
and in the year 1882 Britain temporarily occupied Egypt so as to ensure peace and stability
in the area and to secure her share in the Company. The impermanent occupation built up
the propensities of taking perpetual character and continued up to 1922 when Egypt was
granted independence. In spite of this new improvement the British powers positioned there
continued.

The Britain in 1936 forced a Treaty upon Egypt by which it gave the British individuals
the right to guard the Suez Canal. The Treaty arrived at an end in 1951 by the one-sided
annulment by Egypt. The annulment of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty pursued extraordinary
changes in Egypt prompting the military supremacy.16 The Britain agreed to pull back its
powers by 1956 and The British withdrawal procedure was started. Be that as it may, in
the interim a Baghdad Pact was marked which brought the Anglo-American forces closer
to the Egyptian soil. Israel was at that point a foe of the Arabs. To counter the military

15
S.N. Mishra , SIndia-The Cold War Years, South Asian Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1994.
16
J. Dasgupta and J.K. Ray, “The Web of International Relations”, Calcutta, 1961.

12
advancements, General Gamal Abdel Nasser, the then Army Chief of Egypt, made arms
deal Czechoslovakia and Russia.17

In July 1956 USA suddenly severed arrangements with Egypt, which was anticipating
enormous finance from USA for its ambitious undertaking, the Aswan Dam that was
second biggest on the planet. Nasser countered by appropriating the portions of the Suez
Canal Company and stating Egypt’s sovereign right to maneuver the canal itself. The goal
was likewise to raise additional sources of revenue to fund the dam. Nonetheless, the
fundamental reason for the nationalization was to be sure to find cash for the dam. In any
case, it affected the power equations in the zone and the globe. 18

2.2.2. India’s role: The US Administration’s withdrawal of financial aid from Egypt had
caused the nationalization. Egypt likewise would not participate in the US enlivened union
in the area (Middle East Defense Organization). Of the Western forces Britain and France,
who were likewise members of NATO, were unmistakably agitated with the means taken
by Gen. Nasser as both were erstwhile controlling parties of the Suez Canal Company. The
crisis was along these lines started which encountered the Superpower engagement and
UN involvement.19 India played a pivotal part. Its support was dynamic and broad. France
and Britain were the partners of USA. Normally the US response couldn’t be as sharp as
non-aligned India’s.

Egypt was attacked by Israel on October 29, 1956. The inescapable thing happened when
Franco-British powers propelled a military assault on Egypt. India along with both
superpowers US and USSR censured the Franco-British military act.

2.2.2.1. Factors behind India’s Stand: Its basic attitudes and interests dictated the Indian
stand in the Suez crisis.

17
Supra 8 at p. 48.
18
S. Bhattacharya, “Pursuit of National Interest through Neutralism”, Calcutta, 1968, p. 90.
19
F.L. Schuman, “International Politics”, New York, 1962.

13
2.2.2.1.1. India was against imperialism and colonialism. Nehru Ji condemned the attack
as a “flagrant case of aggression by two strong powers against a weaker
country.” 20
2.2.2.1.2. It was resolved to help an unbiased nation in its endeavor to make the nearby
region of its own country a Cold War free zone.
2.2.2.1.3. It was additionally keen on supporting dynamic Arab nationalism as drilled by
Egypt as a method for limiting the risk of unqualified Muslim help for Pakistan
and an an anti-Indian course.
2.2.2.1.4. The most important single factor inferable from India’s stand remain with
respect to Suez was “the addition of Pakistan in the Baghdad Pact, which
stimulated the dread that the Cold War had been brought close to her door.”21

The then Minister without Portfolio, V.K. Krishna Menon said: “India was concerned in
the Suez Canal as a life line in her economy...76 per cent of her exports pass through the
Canal. The completion of 5 Year Plans of India banks upon traffic through it. India did not
approach the issue in a legalistic route but with a full sense of the reality of the significance
of the waterway for numerous nations of the world who utilized it.”22

The Security Council couldn’t make any positive stride due to Anglo-French veto. USA
and USSR demanded quick discontinuance of hostilities. Yugoslavia recommended
gathering of the General Assembly under ‘Uniting for Peace Resolution’ and on November
1956 Assembly met. The British Premier Anthony Eden charged India for its covert job to
exhibit the proposition through Yugoslavia. India and Canada, both suspicious of the
intentions of the two Superpowers and dreadful that straightforward truce may not be
sufficient, proposed, that there be an International Emergency Force, under the UN, to be
established of the ready commitment of little powers only. It was by then that India came
to assume a role in the UN for first time pertaining to issue. A ten part International Force,
including India was formed based on resolution embraced on November 5th, 1956. On
November 6 Britain announced that it will arrange a truce from the 12 PM. Be that as it

20
Lok Sabha Debates, Vol. 9, Pt. II, No. 3, Cols. 260-267.
21
Supra 6 at pg. 93.
22
Asian Recorder, (I), 1956, 994-95.

14
may, it was a triumph for Arab nationalism as the proposition put a conclusion to Anglo-
French imperialism.23

In essence, the Indian stand was a novel kind of neutralism. It never helped either of the
party, but could put a check on both. It checked the growth of colonialism. Further it
encouraged the Afro-Asian nations to pursue neutralism. India also secured the support of
a Muslim State in its future conflicts with Pakistan.24 Egypt also joined the Indian mission
for the Non alignment cause. Sarbadhikari observed: “The stand taken by India during the
crisis therefore measured up with the principles directing her foreign strategy in the area.
The endeavours towards the withdrawal of foreign troops stemmed from her anti-colonial
policy along with the fear that the intervention of the Great Powers, which would spark off
a major war. . In addition, the support of a secular India for a Muslim State based on
colonial invasion was embarrassment for Pakistan, wedded as she was to Western
alignments; it uncovered that discretion based on religion was incompatible with present
day relations of States.”25

2.3. Congo Crisis

2.3.1. Background: The position of India in the Congo Crisis was against colonialist. The
second half of the 20th century experienced arousing in Africa and Africa was the
heartbreaking scene and example of the arrogance of West as abuse of Africa knew no
restrictions. Colonialsits embraced the approach of racial segregation and it was seen
through physical and social isolation of the Black people. Congo, part of tropical Africa
was under the Belgian control for quite a long time and they ruthlessly ruled not thinking
about the welfare and genuine interests of the individuals of Congo as they were occupied
in exploiting the lands having rich mineral assets. Then two significant developments
enthused nationalistic feelings in people of Belgian Congo (Leopoldville). Firstly, the
adjacent French involved Congo (Brazaville) achieved freedom and secondly, in Accra All
African People's Conference was held and asked for end of colonialism. 26 Between Belgian

23
Supra 8 at p. 49.
24
Ibid, p. 50.
25
P.R. Sarbadhikari, “India and Great Powers”, Calcutta, 1962, p.44.
26
S.N. Mishra, “India-The Cold War Years”, South Asian Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1994.

15
government and the Congolese heads a Round Table Conference was held between January
to March 1960 where demand for immediate independence was accepted and on June 30th,
1960 was fixed for the commencement of sovereignty of Congo.

Patrice Lumumba and Joseph Kasavubu occupied offices as the Prime Minister and
President of Central Republic of Congo respectively. Yet, within hours after freedom, a
rush of agitation started clearing the nation over. Moise Tashombe, the Premier of the
Province of Katanga came in as another contender for power. The area was rich with
minerals and deprived of Katanga’s financial support Congo couldn’t think of growth.
Then on July 11th, 1960 there was deceleration by Katanga stating its separation from
Congo to form a new state allied with Belgium.27 Previously P.M. Lumumba had asked the
Belgians to vacate Congo.

The Belgian troops from Katanga marched into Leopoldville on 12th July 1960 and a
chaotic situation arose. Troubled Lumumba tried to find out help from President
Eisenhower, Premier Khrushchev, as well as to Beijing. He sent an urgent appeal to the
UN Secretary General on 12th July for the UN support in maintaning the national integrity
of his nation contrary to the belligerence being produced by foreign Interests. The issue
was taken immediately to the Security Council by Secretary General Dag Hammarskjoeld
and he threw the resources of the UN into his effort to defend Congo from becoming an
East-West battleground.

The crisis in Congo went in a different direction when President Kasabuvu expelled
Premier Lumumba and the latter did likewise to the previous. Seeing a chance, pro-Western
Col. Joseph Mobutu took command of the military through a coup, in this way making it
feasible for the Belgians to come back to Congo, as unofficial advisers. A forceful response
was given by both the superpowers because, as expected form the USA it bolstered the
Kasabuvu-Mobutu group for their claim to have legitimate government and the USSR gave
both material and moral assistance to Lumumba and both superpowers remained obstinate
on their stand.

27
Ibid.

16
2.3.2. India’s role: This vulnerability was relieved to a degree by the activity in the crisis
session that tailed it overpowering majority comprising India, which upheld the US
position; and hence the Secretary General’s position. 28

Khrushchev who was exasperated introduced his Troika Proposal, which would have three-
man advisory committee supplanting one Secretary General who will speak to three worlds
(both Superpowers & the third world). The Troika proposition was opposed by India, yet
recommended for the reform of the Secretariat by having a consultative committee from
diverse geographies. India alongside seven neutral countries requested quick assembling
of the Congolese Parliament and while discussing the resolution Indian delegate Krishna
Menon insistently watched, “that his administration considered the Kasabuvu government
as unconstitutional, unvarnished, and unashamed fascism”.29

The sudden passing of Patrice Lumumba in a strange circumstance stunned the conscience
the realm. The Soviet wanted that Gizenga, who was Lumumba's delegate, be the head of
the legal Congolese government. Be that as it may, later on USSR had to alter its stance
and upheld the UN decison. For this P.M. Nehru played a critical and crucial part.30

India took leadership with Afro-Asian members and passed resolution calling upon
Belgium to accept its responsibility as a member of the UN and the proposal demanded the
withdrawal of all military and non-military forces from Congo. That prompted an UN
resolution refusing Katanga's assertion as a sovereign and approved the Secretary General
to find a way to make the zone free from outside activity. 31

In this crisis apart from the opposition or aid to propositions in the UN, India had a part of
5,600 strong force in a 30-nation pool of 20,000 forces. Even there was a contribution of
$ 105,000 to UN Fund for Congo. An Indian diplomat Rajeshwar Dayal aslo served as
Secretary General’s personal delegate in Congo and he helped in bringing United Nations

28
Supra 1 at p. 108.
29
Ibid, p. 244.
30
S.N. Mishra , “India-The Cold War Years”, South Asian Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1994.
31
Ibid.

17
to a stage for solid action via his reports. So India’s military commitment was politically
significant for the UN.32

According to the perspectives on an analyst, the Secretary General who was blamed as the
operator for the Western imperialism could work unequivocally on the grounds that he got
the help of the impartial forces and India was one of the major supporters.33 Another
onlooker stated that the effective finish of the UN Operation in Congo depended to a huge
degree on two forces - India and USA. 34 It were India and the USA who were the two
nations the UN activity most relied on, both for political help in UN and for military in
Congo. Regardless of certain distinctions in the instruction, the Indian-US association
stayed strong all through the whole Congo spectacle. The Congo campaign would most
likely have fell if either Washington or Delhi had pulled back its help before the
assimilation of Katanga. Even this step of India led to joining of numerous number of
African countries in the Non-aligned movement.

2.4. Interpretation: India never offered help to only one side and contradicted the opposite
side persistently. It pursued a free approach that was by the rule autonomous of the choices
of different forces and power blocs. J.L. Nehru consistently who could be said as hero of
the non-alignment continuously averred on taking decisions on merits’ which would
purport peace. India consistently gave significance to the peaceful negotiations. Mahatma
Gandhi said advised so as to touch base at great end you should embrace good means and
that rule was relentlessly followed by Nehru. The Indian way in the all these crisis
situations simply mirrored the Gandhian method for settlement of differences.

32
Ibid.
33
E. Lefever, “Crisis in Congo: A UN force in Action”, Brookings, 1965.
34
Ibid.

18
 CHAPTER 3

CONCLUSION
The NAM reflects the hopes and aspirations of millions who were denied the right of
freedom and self-determination as they suffered from colonialism and racialism. Those
nations and their people struggled very hard to free themselves from clutches of colonial
rule, tyranny, poverty and illiteracy. NAM was based on justice and established global
economic and political order governed by equality and cooperation against all evil forces.

The Non-Aligned Movement has strengthened the role of the UN so that it will be a more
effective obstacle against all forms of aggressive actions. It is a world-wide movement
which is directed towards democratization of international relations which made small and
middle countries realise their aspirations.

Contemporarily NAM is quintessential to the world community and to the 3rd world
countries. NAM can play an active role in the NIEO (New International Economic Order),
for resolving the regional problems amongst the 3rd world nations to end terrorism and neo-
colonialism. It can help in complete disarmament; eradication of poverty, hunger,
malnutrition and illiteracy; and protection of environment. NAM is also one of the most
enthusiastic advocate of human rights and also offers base for mutual collaboration in
economic and technological spheres for developing nations.

The role and importance of NAM can’t be ignored in the recent time. Two-third of the UN
members and 55% of the world population is represented by NAM countries. Several
USSR and US allies became members of NAM and these factors indicates importance of
NAM in post-Cold War era.35 NAM provides a ‘dialogue table’ for developing world and
this platform is common voice of 3rd world. It is a positive and constructive movement
across the world. The efforts of India for non-aligned countries are appraised by all, hence,
it can be said that NAM agenda has immense important for future. So NAM is more
relevant today than it was in yesterday.36

35
Mamta Aggarwal, “NAM During the Cold War Period”, 7 September 2011,
http://www.historydiscussion.net/wars/non-aligned-movement-during-the-cold-war-period/822.
36
Gopal, B. “Relevance Of Non-Alignment.” The Indian Journal of Political Science, vol. 52, no. 1, 1991,
pp. 54–73. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41855535.

19
 REFERENCES

Books

 Rikhi Jaipal, “Non-Alignment: Origins, Growth and Potential for World Peace”,
Ahmedabad, 1987, pp. 8-10.
 Peter Willets, “The Non-Aligned Movement: The Origins of a Third World Alliance”,
Bombay, 1978, pp. 5-6.
 B. Gopal, “Relevance of Non-Alignment,” The Indian Journal of Political Science,
January-March, 1991, p. 58
 Mishra K.P., “Non-alignd Movement: India’s Chairmanship”, Lancers Books Co., New
Delhi, 1987, p.4.
 Prasad Bimal, ‘‘The Evolution of Non-Alignment, in Isues before Non-alignment: Past
& Future,” ICWA, New Delhi, 1983, p.41.

Articles

 Kabi Deba Bandya, “Non-Aligned Movement and the New World Order.” Proceedings
of the Indian History Congress, vol. 63, 2002, pp. 1161–1169,
www.jstor.org/stable/44158187.
 Balwinder Singh, “Non-Alignment Movement: It’s Relevance in Present Context,”
International Journal of Research, Graanthalayah, Vol.5 (Iss.6): June, 2017,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.820965.
 Harshe Rajen, “India’s Non-Alignment: An Attempt at Conceptual
Reconstructon.” Econmic and Political Weekly, vol. 25, no. 7/8, 1990, pp. 399–
405. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4395968.
 (--), “Non-Aligned Movement.” The Black Scholar., vol. 8, no. 3, 1976. Jstor,
www.jstor.org/stable/41066076.
 André Munro, “Non-Aligned Movement”, Encyclopedia Britannica, April 26, 2015,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Non-Aligned-Movement.

20