Revision summary
Non-alignment was no-camp autonomy in a bipolar world; multi-alignment is many partnerships at once in a multipolar one. India’s Quad and U.S. pacts would have broken NAM orthodoxy; BRICS, SCO and Russia keep the other side of the ledger. The aim remains strategic autonomy, as in NonAlignment 2.0. ‘Debunk’ overstates: the method has been updated, the aim has not been ridiculed. Agree on the pursuit of multi-alignment; reject a cartoon of India mocking Nehru.
Model answer
Introduction
Non-alignment was India’s Cold War doctrine: no military camp, voice for the South, room to deal with both blocs. Multi-alignment is the present practice: many partnerships at once, including security minilaterals with the United States. The statement that India has debunked non-alignment in pursuit of multi-alignment captures a real shift. The verb debunk is too theatrical. India has re-tooled autonomy, not mocked its own past in a seminar.
Body
What has changed
India sits in the Quad with three U.S. allies, holds 2+2s with Washington, and uses Indo-Pacific language (5(d)). That would have been unintelligible as NAM orthodoxy. At the same time it sits in BRICS and the SCO with China and Russia, buys discounted oil, and refuses a Ukraine condemnation camp (the autonomy of 7(c)). It convenes the Voice of Global South. This is issue-based coalitions, which S. Jaishankar has named in public. It matches the partial neoliberal turn of 6(a): markets and U.S. technology without a treaty.
Multi-alignment is not equidistance. It is the right to be closer to Washington on China and closer to Moscow on platforms, in the same year.
What has not been debunked
India still will not sign a NATO-like alliance (7(c)). It still uses NAM membership and South language when useful. The end — strategic autonomy in a hierarchical world — is Nehruvian even when the means are minilateral. NonAlignment 2.0 already wrote this in 2012. To say India has ‘debunked’ non-alignment is to confuse instrument with aim. The instrument of a 120-member movement as the first tool has been set down. The aim of not being a junior ally has not.
Comment
Agree that multi-alignment is the pursuit. Disagree that non-alignment has been thrown out as a false theory. NAM was a method for bipolarity. Bipolarity ended. The successor method is multi-alignment. Continuity is autonomy. Change is the willingness to join the Quad without calling it a camp. An honest comment uses those two sentences, not a culture-war word like debunk.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD NAM[Non-alignment bipolar method] --> MA[Multi-alignment] MA --> Q[Quad US Indo-Pacific] MA --> B[BRICS SCO Russia] MA --> GS[Global South voice] MA --> AU[Same aim: autonomy]
Conclusion
- India pursues multi-alignment: Quad and the United States beside BRICS, SCO and Russia, plus a Global South voice. That is not classical NAM theatre. It is still autonomy. Non-alignment has been superseded as method. It has not been exposed as a fraud. Multi-alignment is the update, not the funeral oration.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Did India leave NAM?
No. It de-emphasised it. Membership without doctrinal centrality is the fact.
-
Is multi-alignment just opportunism?
It can look like that. The doctrine’s defence is that a rising state in a fluid order must keep several doors open. Opportunism is the insult; autonomy is the claim.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2025 · Q6(a) · PSIR GS 2 · 20 marks
Critically analyze the different phases of India's foreign policy since independence. How justified, do you think, is S. Jaishankar's classification of the current phase as the phase of 'energetic diplomacy'? 15+5= -
2025 · Q8(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the potential role India can play in initiating a possible phase of trilateral economic engagement among India, China and Nepal -
2024 · Q5(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
"Nothing is going to move within the WTO negotiations unless India is on board." Discuss the main reasons behind India's increased clout in the WTO. -
2023 · Q6(c) · PSIR GS 2 · 15 marks
Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) performs an important role in India's strategic balancing act to withstand the dominance of China in Asia. Discuss -
2022 · Q5(e) · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the role of public diplomacy in the enhancement of India's global standing.
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Discuss the interpretive approach to the study of comparative politics.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
The interpretive approach studies political action as meaning in context, following Weber’s verstehen and later cultural and linguistic turns. It replies to behaviouralism’s search for covering laws by asking how votes, nations and authority are understood locally. Thick description, ethnography and discourse analysis are typical tools. It explains legitimacy, nationalism and everyday state practice that a constitution or a class map alone cannot supply. Limits are relativism, weak generalisation, and neglect of material and institutional constraint if used alone.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
Explain the central tenets of the World-Systems Theory.
Approaches to the Study of International Relations
Wallerstein’s unit is the capitalist world-economy since the long sixteenth century, not the isolated nation-state. Core, semi-periphery and periphery form a durable three-tier division of labour. Unequal exchange and strong/weak states move surplus toward the core. The theory rejects modernisation’s national ladder and differs from Waltz’s interstate anarchy as first cause. Limits include economic determinism and underplaying state autonomy and culture; mobility exists but hierarchy persists.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2024 · PSIR GS 2 · 10 marks
The expansionist tendencies of the current Russian regime indicate its intentions for the realization of a Greater Russia on the lines of the Soviet era. Comment.
Comparative Politics
Russia’s wars in Georgia and Ukraine, plus pressure on Belarus and nuclear signalling, show expansionist intent in the post-Soviet space. The Greater Russia story denies full independence of neighbours, especially Ukraine. The Soviet analogy fits geography of control more than ideology: today’s regime is nationalist and oligarchic, not a communist world-system. Morgenthau and Waltz explain power and structure; they do not make the war merely defensive. Comment: accept expansionism; reject a simple USSR restoration.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.