Non Alignment: From Bandung to the 21st Century Arena
"In politics, there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests." Palmerston’s words are more than a relic of 19th-century statecraft; to me, they are the quiet truth that underpins diplomacy in every age. The architects of non-alignment understood this instinctively. In the crucible of the Cold War, they forged a doctrine that refused to let newly independent nations be annexed by ideology. Their rationale for the doctrine stressed that It was not designed for passivity, but for agency, a way to navigate between the gravitational pulls of Washington and Moscow without surrendering sovereignty. While the calculus of Non Alignment is still up for debate, today, as great-power rivalry resurfaces and as energy, technology, and trade are weaponised, It won’t be unusual to think the same logic has resuscitated not as an echo from the past, rather, a guidepost for the present.
In a way, the choice to avoid binding alliances is not an act of nostalgia; it is a recognition of how quickly the world can shift. non-alignment offers a rare combination of flexibility and leverage. It enables states to cultivate multiple partnerships, to draw value from competing blocs, and to maneuver when those blocs collide. For much of the Global South, this approach guards against the vulnerability of over dependence and keeps policy sovereignty intact in an era defined by sudden turns and unpredictable storms.
As mentioned earlier, The doctrine’s record is imperfect. Critics have long argued that non-alignment failed to meet its own ambitions, pointing to moments when the movement could not muster a unified voice on defining crises, from the Vietnam War to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, declarations dissolved into diplomatic theatre. During the Cold War, too many members leaned toward one bloc while claiming the mantle of neutrality, undercutting credibility. These flaws, however, were born not of the principle itself, but of a rigid bipolar order that left little space for genuine multi-alignment.
So when the Soviet Union fell, the movement faced an existential question: what was non-alignment without the blocs? Many assumed its time had passed. Yet rather than vanish, it quietly recaliberated: pivoting to South–South cooperation, climate equity, and reform of development finance. In doing so, it anticipated that the defining currents of the 21st century would be shaped less by military alliances than by economic interdependence, technological dominance, and the politics of global commons.
Today, a new chapter is being written. Countries such as India, Indonesia, and Brazil have translated non-alignment into a modern doctrine of strategic autonomy. They join security groupings like the Quad, negotiate energy deals with sanctioned states, and sign trade agreements across rival spheres, all while keeping their strategic options open. The objective is no longer to remain untouched by entanglement, but to shape it, to enter every forum on one’s own terms.
India’s practice of this reimagined doctrine is particularly instructive.
The Non-Aligned Movement of the Cold War may no longer exist as a functional bloc, but India has carried forward its most vital insight: sovereignty is not a posture, it is a capacity. By engaging in the Quad, BRICS, and G20 with equal ease, India demonstrates that partnership and independence are not contradictions. It builds security ties, expands trade, and influences multilateral agendas while reserving the right to decide alone, if necessary, on matters of energy, defense, and technology. This is not indecision; it is the discipline of a state that knows its weight and its worth.
Non-alignment was never about moral purity; it was about the deliberate cultivation of agency in a world tilted toward the powerful. In 2025, the leaders who will endure are not those who swear fealty to one camp, but those who, like the visionaries at Bandung and like India today understand that the space between competing powers is not a void. It is an arena. Those who can command it will set the terms of the century.