♤ Word ‘non-alignment’ conveyed the wrong notion of neutrality and it only aimed at remaining unaligned.

♤ Many argue that NAM did not have any binding principles and that it was a marriage of convenience among disparate countries. This criticism gained significance as the membership of NAM grew over the years.

♤ Another argument in this context is that NAM countries did not come forward on any of the critical occasions when India needed solidarity, such as the Chinese aggression in 1962 or the Bangladesh war in 1971.

♤ After the end of Cold war many argued that there was no basis of non-alignment after the end of Superpower rivalry.

3.2.1. Arguments in Defence of NAM and Non-Alignment

In response to Condoleezza Rice’s statement, then Minster of External Affairs Mr. Pranab Mukherji reminded her that NAM played an important role on the issues such as decolonisation and its relevance in South-South cooperation cannot be written off in the contemporary world.

♤ Many others such as former diplomat T.P. Sreenivasan, argue that the quintessence of non- alignment was freedom of judgment and action and it remained valid, whether there was one bloc or two.

♤ He also argues that seen in this context, non-military alliances can also be within the ambit of non-alignment, which was subsequently characterised as ‘strategic autonomy’. In other words, India does not have to denounce non-alignment to follow its present foreign policy.

♤ In response to lack of help on crucial, juncture Mr. Sreenivasan argued that the whole philosophy of NAM is that it remains united on larger global issues, even if does not side with a member on a specific issue. India itself has followed this approach, whenever the members had problems with others either inside or outside the movement.

Historical genesis of the doctrine of non alignment in India can be traced to domestic context, which further led to India spearheading the Non-Aligned Movement in the international sphere. Sumit Ganguly provides an informed assessment, he argues that:

♤ Under Nehru, India followed an ideational foreign policy which involved multilateral institutions, constraints on defence spending, and advocacy of decolonisation. These goals became embodied in the doctrine of non-alignment.

♤ The policy was also in keeping with India’s national experience of colonialism. As a former colonized state India was wary of limiting its foreign policy option’s through an alignment with either Superpower.

♤ Ideas embodied in the doctrine of non-alignement were in keeping with India’s historical