 Earlier this week, a meeting took place in the city of Belgrade, which was actually not covered so much by the media, but is of great significance. This was the 60th anniversary conference of the Non-Aligned Movement. Earlier, the Non-Aligned Movement was a key pillar of both Indian foreign policy and the foreign policy of many countries across the world. But what is its situation today? We are going to be discussing this in Mapping Fault Lines. We have with us Prabir Purkastan. Prabir, so the Non-Aligned Movement, like I said, for instance, in our history textbooks in the popular discourse, at least in the 80s and 90s, was something that a lot of people talked about. We were very proud about, as Indians, that we were one of the initiators of the Non-Aligned Movement. But a lot of people also understand the Non-Aligned Movement as something that's neutral, or that's something that is not linked to the USA or the USSR, and maybe a third way. But is this understanding of the Non-Aligned Movement basically being a neutral block, really accurate, or what is the tradition behind it? You know, the word Non-Aligned appears to make the framing of the Non-Aligned Movement that it is not aligned to the two military blocks that existed post the Second World War, which is the NATO as a fulcrum of one. Of course, there was also the Cento and the Seattle, which are all basically built by the United States as military alliances, against whom? Clearly against the Soviet Union and China, but also as a way of asserting their dominance in these regions. The communist countries at the time, the socialist blocks, were also militarily aligned. Of course, the Soviet Union and China had differences after a certain point of time. But the dynamic of Non-Aligned Movement did not come from the military alliances. It really came from the decolonization process, which had started post Second World War. We got independence in 1947. So did a lot of countries slowly get their independence. And their basic battle at the time was still solidarity for those countries fighting for independence, and to see that the post independence period, they are able to develop what they wanted to do and they don't become new colonies. So therefore, the fight was against still colonial powers. Let's not forget, you can see Africa as one of the major continents, which enters the Non-Aligned Movement. And we can see the number of countries in Africa, which are still essentially under colonial rule. The battle against new colonial powers, as well as existing colonial powers, still not giving up their colonies. We had Portugal and Spain, who continued with their colonies till the 70s. All that was there. There was also, for instance, the Dutch supposedly give up their colonies. The Belgians give up their colonies, but they still fight for influence on being able to control it externally with US help. So we had Patrice Lumumba being killed in Congo. You have, for instance, the Dutch still maintain their colonies in Indonesia. West Papua New Guinea is still under Dutch control. So all of this continues in this whole period. And let's not forget, Goa was still a Portuguese colony. And in fact, when the Indians liberated Goa in the Security Council, the resolution was moved against India by the United States and some of the other friendly colonial powers of the Portuguese, condemning India. And it was the veto given by the Soviet Union that stopped this resolution going through. So decolonization was still looked upon as something which was contended. And the contention was not with the Soviet Union, China and the USA and its allies. It was between the non-aligned countries, as you just said, and also the colonial and ex-colonial countries. That was the real battle. So those who take, frame the non-aligned movement as something which is primarily not aligned militarily, forget the dynamic of the non-aligned movement and Bandung Conference makes this very clear, as also all the statements in the non-aligned movement also makes it clear it was really about decolonization and the non-aligned movement's primary task was to support countries which are fighting for liberation, as well for countries which had already got independence but were fighting to build an independent economy and so on. But if you see the original map and you have it over here, you will see the non-aligned movement was really Asia and Africa. That was the fulcrum of the movement and it expands to Latin America later. So of course you have the Caribbean also who come in, Latin America which comes in, but it started really as an Asian and African initiative. You have Algeria, of course colonial war was being fought and people tend to miss this element when they talk about the non-aligned movement. Absolutely. Rubin, in this context after the non-aligned movement was established in 1961, we had maybe around another 30 years of its existence at a time when they were basically these two camps. And of course we do know that over time the USSR also, USSR and the socialist camp also established close relations with the non-aligned countries. So what exactly was the role of the non-aligned movement in those three decades? Apart from the supporting of the liberation movement, one of the major issues that came up was of course the apartheid regimes. You had earlier Odisha which declared its independence as a white state which had the right to oppress its African people, people of African origin who were of course the majority in so-called Odisha. Then of course you had South Africa and South Africa at that point launches wars against both Angola and Mozambique. And of course this issue comes up, apartheid regimes then come up repeatedly in the United Nations including South Africa's attack on these two countries. Again in this period, particularly the 70s and 80s, the United States with its allies continuously exercises its vetoes against liberation struggle. So I think this is very clear that they start suddenly realizing that the dominance they had after the Second World War with France, UK, other colonial powers, that that dominance in the world was slowly slipping and these countries, the duly liberated countries were asserting their voice. And that was something which they did not want and that is the battle then that takes place in the United Nations, in other economic fora, all other UN agencies which are then also caught into this struggle. And if you see this, it's after the fall of Soviet Union and you slowly come back to what today is being talked about as the new international order in which the rules are going to be set by certain set of countries. So Praveen in this context one of the biggest challenges before the non-aligned movement really was the post-91 scenario. The USSR falls, the entire socialist bloc falls. For a while it looks like the United States is the preponderant power and the only one that has any kind of say in the world affairs was the non-aligned movement actually at that point able to meet the challenges or able to actually stand up and perform its role. You know I think what people do not realize that how much the socialist bloc allowed the decolonization process to take place and why de facto there was an understanding between the decolonizing powers, the X colonies and the socialist bloc because without that this decolonization process would have been hamstrung. I'm not going to say it would never have happened but I think it would have been deeply hamstrung and I think that was a new fulcrum of the world politics that how the decolonized world was developing an independent economic outlook towards the world, building their own internal economies in a way they wanted to. Some of course wanted hyper capitalism. A lot of them had common policies which were basically independent national economies. Building industries and so on. Now that changes as you said with the fall of the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc. China still remains, Vietnam remains, Cuba remains but most of the others have fallen. So what happens after that is a sense of weakness, a sense of loss that with the current conditions as it exists do we have any alternative but to surrender to the sole global hegemon that the United States and then you start having different kinds of people say the world has changed. We have to make up the United States, we have that in India as well. This independent foreign policy has no meaning. The only foreign policy that makes sense is how do we make, build our relations to the United States how do you invite them to develop our economies, what is it that we give in lieu and so on and you can see across the board even in South Africa where you have independence or independence of the apartheid regime takes place. Even there there is a loss of confidence that can we actually fight the global hegemon or should we have to surrender in some form or another and you start talking about that capitalism is the only path that you have to then accept the WTO or dictate about opening our economies and you have a whole bunch of invasive trade regimes that come in WTO of course being one of them. But the main issue was really I would say re-colonization of the world again and the Bretton Woods institutions, the IMF, the World Bank, WTO all these institutions then act as instruments of again the same forces which were the ex-colonies of course now led by the United States and United States is post second world war the most economically dominant power, military also the most dominant power in the world it has even today about 800 bases so that was the sense of loss that people had but you know things seem to be changing and we have a situation again where the issues of of course China, US competition on one hand European Union, the role of Russia, what is should be its relations with European Union all these issues are again coming and with Afghanistan the 20 years of occupation in Afghanistan having failed and this the so called war on terror which was another way of trying to increase American hegemony in West Asia for example and Central Asia all that seems to have come unstuck particularly with the failure of the American military attempts in Afghanistan so I think this also there is Iraq war which is also doesn't seem to be going in American America's favor so given all of that are we entering a new era in which we will get not non-alignment because I don't think we can put the old wine in new bottle but can we actually get something else which will give in the post unipolar world what is the new configuration we are likely to see I think that's an interesting question I'm not sure we can go back to non-alignment because non-alignment was also important because the two military blocks China has said it's not interested in having military blocks it has only one base in Africa, Djibouti and also if you take Russia it has very limited military bases in the world if you know you can call them bases really a few posts somewhere some presence in Syria particularly because of the attack that Syria has been facing but if you see they are not interested in playing the same role that the United States plays and even France plays in Africa so question is how do we see this new world which is post unipolar world how will it happen what will be the role to be played does non-alignment have a role or not are important questions but I do believe that strategic autonomy of countries like India is very important and I think a whole number of countries would like to assert their strategic autonomy can they come together in some form with a unified policy both economic and political question mark