Q. Compare and contrast Non-Alignment 1.0 with Non-Alignment 2.0.
(10 Marks)
Answer
NAM 1.0 and NAM 2.0 share a foundational commitment to strategic autonomy, but they operate in fundamentally different contexts and pursue that autonomy through different means.
Convergence
Both reject subordination to any power bloc.
NAM 1.0 preserved independence amid Cold War bipolarity; NAM 2.0 seeks the same amid US-China rivalry.
Both champion Global South solidarity and advocate reforming global governance institutions.
The underlying impulse — maximising freedom of choice — remains identical.
Divergence
NAM 1.0 operated through equidistance from both blocs, ideological cohesion around anti-colonialism, and moral leadership under Nehru, Nasser, and Tito through the UN General Assembly.
NAM 2.0 accepts multiple simultaneous partnerships through Quad, BRICS, and ASEAN without permanent commitments.
Where NAM 1.0's agenda was political, staying out of military alliances, NAM 2.0's is economic: trade equity, climate justice, technology access.
NAM 1.0 was defensive, protecting new nations from bloc pressure. NAM 2.0 is proactive, positioning India to shape global norms rather than merely resist them.
K. Natwar Singh captured NAM 1.0's essence: doctrinal but not dogmatic. NAM 2.0 retains the doctrine but discards equidistance, replacing it with what Jaishankar calls multiple engagements in a multipolar world.
