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 powerpolitics 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 Indias 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, noninterference 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 antiimperialism 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 BhaiBhai'', 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 communiqu 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 nonalign-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 nonalignment 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 cooperation. 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 selfinterest 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.