UPSC MainsPOLITICAL-SCIENCE-INTERANATIONAL-RELATIONS-PAPER-II201910 Marks150 Words
हिंदी में पढ़ें
Q16.

Compare and contrast Non-alignment 1.0 with Non-alignment 2.0.

How to Approach

This question requires a comparative analysis of India’s foreign policy stance during two distinct periods. The approach should involve defining both Non-Alignment 1.0 (the Nehruvian era) and Non-Alignment 2.0 (post-Cold War, particularly under the Modi government). Focus on the core principles, drivers, key relationships, and the international context of each phase. A structured comparison highlighting similarities and differences is crucial. The answer should demonstrate an understanding of the evolving global landscape and India’s adaptation to it.

Model Answer

0 min read

Introduction

Non-alignment, a cornerstone of India’s foreign policy, has undergone a significant transformation since its inception during the Cold War. Non-Alignment 1.0, championed by Jawaharlal Nehru, aimed to carve out an independent path amidst the bipolar world, avoiding military alliances. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of a unipolar world, and subsequently a multipolar one, India’s approach has evolved, often termed Non-Alignment 2.0. This new iteration, while retaining the core principle of strategic autonomy, exhibits a greater willingness to engage with major powers and pursue pragmatic partnerships, reflecting a more complex and interconnected global order.

Non-Alignment 1.0 (1947-1991)

This phase was characterized by:

  • Core Principles: Avoiding military alliances (NATO, Warsaw Pact), promoting peaceful coexistence, anti-colonialism, and advocating for the concerns of the developing world.
  • Key Drivers: Nehru’s ideological commitment to socialism and anti-imperialism, India’s limited economic and military capabilities, and a desire to maintain independence in decision-making.
  • Key Relationships: Strong ties with the Soviet Union (due to Western alignment with Pakistan), fostering relationships with other newly independent nations through the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) established in 1961.
  • International Context: The Cold War rivalry between the US and the USSR, decolonization, and the emergence of the Third World.

Non-Alignment 2.0 (Post-1991 – Present)

This phase is marked by:

  • Core Principles: Strategic autonomy remains central, but with a greater emphasis on pragmatic engagement and multi-alignment. Focus on national interest and economic growth.
  • Key Drivers: The end of the Cold War, India’s economic liberalization (1991), rising economic and military power, and a changing global landscape with the rise of China and other powers.
  • Key Relationships: Strengthened strategic partnership with the US (including civil nuclear agreement in 2008), closer ties with Russia (despite Western pressure), expanding engagement with China (economic ties), and deepening relationships with Japan, Australia, and European nations. The ‘Look East’ (now ‘Act East’) policy and ‘Neighborhood First’ policy are prominent.
  • International Context: Globalization, the rise of China, terrorism, climate change, and a multipolar world order.

Comparative Analysis

Feature Non-Alignment 1.0 Non-Alignment 2.0
Ideological Basis Strong ideological commitment to anti-colonialism and socialism Pragmatic, focused on national interest and economic growth
Alliance System Strict avoidance of military alliances Willingness to forge strategic partnerships and limited alignments
Major Power Relations Closer ties with the Soviet Union Multi-faceted engagement with US, Russia, China, and other powers
Economic Policy State-led, inward-looking Liberalized, outward-looking
Focus Political solidarity with developing nations Economic development and security concerns

However, some continuities exist. Both versions prioritize independent decision-making and resist being dictated by external powers. Both also emphasize South-South cooperation, though the nature and scope have evolved. The current approach is less about moral posturing and more about maximizing India’s strategic space.

Conclusion

Non-alignment has demonstrably adapted to the changing geopolitical realities. While Non-Alignment 1.0 was a product of the Cold War constraints and ideological preferences, Non-Alignment 2.0 reflects India’s growing power and its need to navigate a complex, multipolar world. The core principle of strategic autonomy remains, but it is now pursued through a more flexible and pragmatic approach, characterized by multi-alignment and a focus on national interests. Successfully balancing relationships with multiple major powers will be crucial for India’s future trajectory.

Answer Length

This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.

Additional Resources

Key Definitions

Strategic Autonomy
The ability of a nation to pursue its foreign policy goals independently, without being unduly influenced or constrained by other powers.
Multi-alignment
A foreign policy approach where a country cultivates strategic partnerships with multiple major powers, rather than aligning exclusively with one.

Key Statistics

India’s trade with China increased from $2.9 billion in 2000 to over $135.98 billion in 2023.

Source: Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India (as of knowledge cutoff 2024)

India’s defense expenditure as a percentage of GDP was approximately 2.4% in 2023-24.

Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) (as of knowledge cutoff 2024)

Examples

India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement

The 2008 India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement, despite initial opposition from some quarters, demonstrated India’s willingness to engage with the US on strategic issues while maintaining its independent nuclear doctrine.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Non-Alignment 2.0 a departure from the original principles of Non-Alignment?

Not necessarily. While the methods have changed, the core principle of independent decision-making and resisting external pressures remains. It’s an adaptation to a new context, not a complete abandonment of the original ethos.

Topics Covered

International RelationsHistoryNon-AlignmentIndiaForeign Policy