India's engagement with the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) reflects its commitment to moral diplomacy and strategic autonomy. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during the COVID NAM Summit, acknowledged NAM’s role as the “world's moral voice” and emphasized inclusivity to uphold that legacy. Earlier, P.V. Narasimha Rao highlighted NAM’s focus on advocating for Third World concerns, while Indira Gandhi termed it the "biggest peace movement globally.” Nehru envisioned NAM as a “moral force” rather than one of military or economic power.

Renowned scholars have commented on India’s NAM policy. Henry Kissinger viewed NAM as a rational choice, even if it frustrated the U.S., while Aparna Pandey noted Nehru’s leadership ambitions in decolonizing Asia, given India's economic and military limitations. K. Natwar Singh emphasized India’s doctrinal, non-dogmatic approach, preserving independence and influence. K. Subrahmanyam called it sound realpolitik, balancing power in a superpower-dominated world. However, J.N. Dixit critiqued NAM as naive, arguing that Nehru’s idealism underestimated the realistic pursuits of neighboring countries.

India’s Non-Alignment policy has evolved in distinct phases, each reflecting shifts in global dynamics and India’s strategic priorities. In the first phase, up to 1962, India approached Non-Alignment with idealism, securing economic and military support from both superpowers and gaining influence among developing nations. However, issues such as Kashmir and the Sino-Indian War exposed the limitations of NAM, as India found limited support in the United Nations during its conflict with China. Shashi Tharoor noted that this phase afforded India “freedom of maneuver,” enhancing its prestige disproportionately to its actual power.

The second phase, from 1962 to 1990, marked a more pragmatic approach as India recognized NAM’s limitations. The 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty, with its mutual security provisions, demonstrated India’s shift toward realism, aligning more closely with the Soviet Union while remaining critical of U.S. neo-colonialism. This led to NAM being perceived, especially by the U.S., as “India’s reflexive anti-Americanism,” downplaying Soviet influences on global politics.

In the post-Cold War era, India faced difficulties maintaining a consistent NAM stance due to ideological divides at home. Right-wing factions leaned towards a pro-West stance, while communists favored Soviet ties, as C. Rajamohan highlighted. The lack of consensus weakened NAM’s relevance, and even the Congress party eventually distanced itself from the movement. Notably, Vajpayee described the U.S. as a “natural ally,” signaling a pivot. Schaffer and Schaffer characterized this era as one of “strategic autonomy,” with India deepening defense ties with the U.S. while still navigating a multipolar world order.

India played a significant role in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), aiming to promote global peace and address the challenges faced by newly independent nations. One of India's key contributions was maintaining NAM’s integrity and preventing any one nation from dominating it. For instance, India defended NAM’s relevance even after landmark events such as the Camp David Accords and fall of the Berlin Wall, which risked undermining the movement’s unity. Another core focus for India was supporting newly liberated nations, especially in Africa and Asia, through opposition to external interventions and advocacy for the New International Economic Order (NIEO) to reduce economic inequalities. India’s support included assisting African countries in nation-building efforts, highlighting its commitment to political stability and economic development.

India also firmly opposed colonialism, imperialism, and racial discrimination, inspired by its own independence struggle. NAM's backing significantly contributed to the decolonization movements across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Additionally, India championed disarmament, playing a role in endorsing the Moscow Test Ban Treaty and advocating for the United Nations to declare the 1970s as the "Decade of Disarmament," underscoring NAM’s dedication to global peace.

India’s push for the NIEO was another vital contribution, seeking to restructure global economic relations and enhance economic sovereignty for developing nations. The NIEO called for equitable trade, technology transfers, and a reduction of disparities between developed and developing countries. However, it faced obstacles, including resistance from industrialized nations and internal divisions among developing countries. Scholars such as C. Raja Mohan, Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, and Shyam Saran have acknowledged India’s efforts in shaping NAM and promoting ideals of non-alignment. Bhattacharya noted India’s ideological, diplomatic, and humanitarian contributions, while Saran recognized that the principles of non-alignment still influence Indian foreign policy. Today, India continues to work with regional organizations like ASEAN and IOR-ARC, aiming to foster equality and address the challenges posed by multinational corporations.

India's continued engagement with the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) remains strategically relevant, providing it with a crucial platform for influence among developing nations. NAM is the largest collective of developing countries outside the United Nations, allowing India to foster cooperation with a diverse range of nations. Despite India’s participation in elite groups like the G20 and BRICS, the country still faces challenges common among developing nations, such as poverty and malnutrition. Scholars like Shashi Tharoor argue that India should not ignore NAM, as it remains a key forum for the world’s underrepresented voices.

NAM also helps India counterbalance China’s growing influence in the Global South, offering India an avenue to regain leadership among developing countries. Additionally, NAM support strengthens India’s case for UN Security Council reform, as the bloc’s backing is critical to India’s aspirations for a permanent seat. Scholars like M.K. Narayanan emphasize that India's engagement with NAM aligns with its developmental goals, highlighting the persistent poverty within India as a compelling reason to remain active in NAM’s poverty eradication initiatives.

India’s soft power assets, such as its cultural influence and democratic values, enhance its leadership potential within NAM. Initiatives like the International Solar Alliance and International Yoga Day demonstrate India’s ability to promote solidarity and cooperation, which could benefit NAM. Through NAM, India can also reinforce South-South cooperation, advancing technology transfer and economic partnerships.

A functionalist approach toward NAM, as suggested by G. Parthasarthy, would allow India to focus on concrete outcomes and relevant global challenges like climate change and sustainable development. T.P. Sreenivasan notes that NAM’s core ideal of "strategic autonomy" aligns with India’s own foreign policy of independent decision-making in a multipolar world. By prioritizing “strategic autonomy” and maintaining selective alignments, India can navigate complex geopolitical dynamics, assert its influence, and promote a cooperative, equitable world order.

The relevance of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in the post-Cold War era remains a subject of considerable debate. Critics argue that NAM’s founding principles, deeply rooted in Cold War dynamics, are outdated in today’s multipolar world. C. Raja Mohan suggests that NAM’s impact diminished even before the Cold War ended, highlighting its failure to address evolving global issues. T.P. Sreenivasan contends that NAM has struggled to adapt to new power dynamics, especially as India’s relations with the United States strengthen and tensions with China grow. Harsh V. Pant underscores NAM's ineffectiveness due to its adherence to outdated principles, suggesting that it lacks a clear agenda in tackling modern challenges such as globalization, terrorism, and climate change. G. Parthasarthy and Ambassador Prabhat Shukla further critique NAM for its loose structure and lack of cohesive principles, noting that these limitations prevent it from effectively addressing global issues.

However, many scholars emphasize NAM's ongoing relevance. Shyam Saran argues that the principles of non-alignment continue to guide Indian foreign policy, preserving India’s strategic autonomy. Shashi Tharoor suggests that a renewed NAM is essential in a world increasingly reminiscent of Cold War bipolarity, providing India with leverage and influence. M.K. Narayanan highlights NAM’s role as a critical platform for small states, allowing them a collective voice on international issues. Additionally, NAM’s growing membership—from 25 states in 1961 to 118 today—indicates its continued importance as a coalition advocating for anti-colonialism, anti-imperialism, and anti-racism.

To remain effective, scholars recommend that NAM focus on contemporary challenges, such as climate change, terrorism, and global governance reform, without positioning itself as aligned with or against any power bloc. As T.P. Sreenivasan notes, NAM can champion “strategic autonomy,” promoting cooperation and addressing issues that transcend national boundaries. In an interconnected world, a credible and flexible NAM could be instrumental in fostering a more democratic and representative global order.