The on-going Ukrainian crisis, unlike other crises in the recent past, has divided the world into two distinct and sharply antagonist blocs in a throwback to the Cold War era.
But in contrast to the Cold War days, there is no Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) now. Further, there is no neutral State that can mediate between Russia and the West. The existing “neutral” States in Europe are themselves desperately wanting to opt out of neutrality and join the US camp. However, some countries, which were earlier considered as “aligned”, like India and Pakistan (both with the US) and China (with Russia), have taken a neutralist posture on Ukraine.
These new neutrals, along with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, could attempt to carve out a mediatory role for themselves to save the world from World War III or from a perpetual conflict in Europe with disastrous economic and social consequences for the entire world. In other words, there is a strong case for the revival of the Non-Aligned Movement.
At a December 2021 seminar in Chennai on ‘Positioning India in the New World Order’ M.K. Narayanan, former Indian National Security Advisor, suggested that India regain its moral leadership and revive NAM. India must reopen communications with Pakistan and China and revitalize its relations with Russia, he said. He feared that given the growing Indo-US strategic partnership, the US could undermine India’s strategic autonomy which is one of the “givens” in Indian foreign policy.
In 2020, there were signs that India was moving towards Non-Alignment after abandoning it following the disintegration of the USSR. Writing in The Diplomat in May 2020, Ashutosh Nagda said that when Prime Minister Narendra Modi participated at the NAM virtual summit chaired by the Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev on May 4, 2020, it was clear that a change had come. That was the first time Modi was participating in an NAM meeting since the beginning of his tenure in 2014. Between 2014 and 2020, two NAM summits were held, in 2016 and in 2019, but in both, India was represented by its Vice President. The downgrading of NAM prior to that reflected the Modi regime’s marked identification with the US.
According to Nagda, Modi made the shift because he was riled in the West for his government’s abrogation of Article 370, the passage of the communal Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), and the anti-Muslim Delhi riots of February 2020. As part of the change, Modi also revived India’s interest in SAARC by initiating a virtual SAARC Summit on March 15, in which India pledged a US$ 10 million contribution to the SAARC COVID fund.
In his intervention in the Azerbaijan summit, Modi described NAM as the “world’s moral voice”. Indeed, India could even emerge as the leader of the 120-nation NAM given its size and economic status. Further, by leading NAM, India can realize its passion for strategic autonomy, a wish that it has pursued despite its strategic partnership with the US. India could also realize Modi’s wish to make it the “Vishwa Guru.” Lastly, NAM could give him an opportunity to match Jawaharlal Nehru, who was the fountain head of NAM in the 1960s.
It is significant that in his intervention in the NAM summit, Modi mentioned the “limitations of the existing international system” and pitched for a “new template of globalization, based on fairness, equality, and humanity.” He stressed the need for international institutions “to promote human welfare” alongside economic growth, and highlighted India’s “championing” of such initiatives through the International Day of Yoga, the International Solar Alliance, and the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure, Nagda points out.
The value of non-alignment was bought out clearly by Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka in the 1960s and 1970s when NAM was at its zenith. NAM, which virtually covered the entire global South, helped the Sri Lankan leader navigate through the fiercely competitive international politics of the time. Being one of the leaders of NAM, Sri Lanka and Mrs.Bandaranaike had a place in world affairs. They got a platform to propagate Sri Lanka’s and the world’s interests as seen from the view point of the Global South.
In 1962, Indian Prime Miniter Jawaharlal Nehru expected Mrs. Bandaranaike, his family friend of long standing, to condemn China’s aggression against India across the Sino-Indian border. But Mrs. Bandaranaike chose neutrality to be able to mediate and NAM gave her the platform to attempt mediation. To defuse the crisis on the India-China border, Mrs. Bandaranaike called a “Colombo Powers Conference” in December 1962 with the participation of NAM countries Burma, Cambodia, Egypt, Ghana and Indonesia. The conference submitted a set of proposals for a negotiated settlement, though by then, the military operations had ended and the status quo ante had been restored.
The relationship between Sri Lanka and India was jolted again in 1971 when Mrs.Bandaranaike rejected India’s call for support for its stand on the Bangladesh liberation struggle against Pakistani political and military oppression. She remained friendly to Pakistan but under some conditions. Her “non-alignment” enabled her to give Pakistan refueling facilities in Colombo after India closed its skies to Pakistani aircraft. But she had attached some key conditions to this facility. The Sri Lankan case on this issue was stated by Mrs.Bandaranaike’s Secretary, MDD Pieris, thus: “The Prime Minister clearly did not approve the manner in which (the founder of Bangladesh) Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was treated. She considered it an undemocratic, reactionary and unwise act. She was appalled that an elected leader was treated in that fashion. Nevertheless, Pakistan was a friendly country that had come to our (Sri Lanka’s) assistance in our hour of need (insurgency in April 1971). Therefore, the Prime Minister decided that whatever assistance that was legitimately possible was to be accorded to Pakistan.”
“She was aware that both in the political and emotional context at that time, this could cause considerable strain with India. But she reckoned that her relations with the Indian Prime Minister (Mrs. Indira Gandhi) would overcome these. Therefore, permission was granted for Pakistan civilian aircraft to overfly Sri Lanka and refuel here. Permission was not granted to military aircraft. Pakistan was also requested not to ferry soldiers or armaments but only civilians.”
Perhaps in return for this favor, Pakistan sent emergency rice supplies to Sri Lanka during a severe food shortage in the island in 1972-74. Mrs.Bandaranaike asked diplomat Stanley Jayaweera to find out if Pakistan could rush rice to Sri Lanka. Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto received Jayaweera even though it was midnight, and immediately ordered four Pakistani ships carrying rice to Latin America to be re-directed to Colombo.
At the international level, Mrs Bandaranaike will be remembered for proposing in December 1971, that the India Ocean (which is now a bone of contention between China and the Indo-Pacific Powers) as a “Zone of Peace”. She did so because she correctly foresaw that the Indian Ocean will be a flash point sooner or later. The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution initiated by Mrs.Bandaranaike to declare the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace. It was the Non-Alignment Movement and the prestige that it enjoyed which enabled her to make that historic proposal, which is valid till date.
END
