Non-Alignment: Its Continued Relevance

Abstract

The concept of non-alignment, as it is understood by the vast majority of people who wish to live in peace with their neighbours and the world at large, originated in India in the pre-Independence era. Indian national leaders had visualised that the Second World War would end Western colonialism in Asia and Africa and that India would regain its independence after two centuries of alien domination and exploitation. They had rightly judged that the Second World War, despite its ideological overtones of democracies versus dictatorships, was essentially a war initiated by one group of powers to regain, and of the other to retain their colonies. Whatever the precise shape of the post-War world, Indian national leaders were clear in their minds that their most important tasks on regaining independence would be to improve the economic condition of the mass of our people, secure social justice, and provide for minimum public health and educational needs. That after four decades of prodigious effort and expense, we seem to be standing still like the proverbial toiler trying to ascend a treadmill, is a different issue. The fact remains that Indian leaders, aware of the paramount and urgent need for improving the lot of the common man, wanted to be left alone to attend to their problems. They wanted no part in Great Power rivalries. They also saw the need, in the larger interests of all and especially of the poor and newly liberated countries, for the latter to recognise the virtues of non-alignment as well as its practical utility in a world torn by strife. The argument that the larger the body of non-aligned countries, the larger the area of peace and to that extent, the less the arena of conflict is irrefutable. Basically the concept of non-alignment is sound. It was very relevant when the idea first took shape in India and remains equally relevant and valid today.