The Treaty Question: Non-Alignment Under Pressure, 1971
In March 1971 the Pakistan army's crackdown in East Pakistan sends refugees across the Indian border; by November about ten million have crossed, and relief alone is costing New Delhi an estimated $200 million a month. In August, Washington orders a carrier task force led by USS Enterprise into the Bay of Bengal. Moscow offers materiel and a Security Council veto, but wants a formal treaty in return. India has built its global standing on non-alignment, hosted the Lusaka summit only a year earlier, and argued that military alliances breed tension. The Prime Minister's secretariat circulates three options: (A) sign the twenty-year treaty with Moscow and still speak the language of non-alignment; (B) stay formally unattached and rely on the UN, world opinion and the fear of a wider war; (C) accept an early ceasefire and keep the refugees in camps. The foreign secretary must recommend one before the relief bill and the monsoon both become unmanageable.
1. Does option A amount to abandoning non-alignment? State the test you would apply and apply it to the facts of the case.
Read the worked answer
The test matters more than the verdict. Three different claims hide inside 'non-alignment':
- Neutrality - refusing to take sides in any dispute. India never promised this; it took sides on decolonisation and apartheid.
- Non-bloc membership - not joining a Cold War military alliance. A twenty-year treaty with one superpower is, in form, a departure from this.
- Strategic autonomy - retaining the practical capacity to decide each issue on merits.
Applying the autonomy test, the treaty can be defended: it was crisis-specific, it bought veto cover and deterrence at a moment when a carrier group was steaming in, it brought no Soviet bases on Indian soil, no Indian troops under Soviet command, and no automatic voting instruction at the UN. India continued to differ from Moscow on other questions, which is the behavioural evidence that autonomy survived.
But the form was not costless. A treaty creates expectations, and India's position at later NAM gatherings on Kampuchea and Afghanistan was attacked precisely because the tie looked permanent while the crisis was not.
Verdict: A weakens non-alignment as a doctrine and preserves it as a method. It is defensible only if the government says openly that it is buying insurance for a limited purpose, not pretending nothing has changed.
2. If you choose A, what safeguards and public justification would you insist on? If you choose B, what must be true for it to work?
Read the worked answer
Choosing A with safeguards. The treaty should be drafted and explained around four limits: (i) no foreign bases or forces stationed on Indian territory for use against third parties; (ii) no automatic commitment to support Soviet action outside the subcontinent; (iii) a termination or review clause so that the tie cannot silently become permanent; (iv) ratification and debate in Parliament rather than a secret executive act, because legitimacy at home is part of what the treaty is meant to protect. Operationally, India should keep voting independently at the UN on questions unrelated to the crisis, so that the record refutes the charge of satellite status.
If B is chosen, four conditions must hold: Washington must be willing to restrain Pakistan's army and accept a political settlement in the east; the Security Council must be able to act despite the certain Chinese veto; the refugee flow must be survivable financially and socially; and the risk of a wider war must actually deter both sides. On the facts given, at least two of these conditions fail, which is the real argument against B - not that it is impure.
The honest framing for the public: non-alignment is a means to autonomy, not a vow of poverty in friends. A country that loses a war to prove a point has protected nothing.
3. India is later attacked at NAM summits for the treaty. Should a non-aligned movement police its members' security ties, and does the episode suggest its criteria need revision?
Read the worked answer
Policing is both impractical and hypocritical. The movement contains members with foreign troops on their soil, members receiving large arms transfers from one bloc, and members whose UN votes tracked a patron closely. Using bilateral ties as a purity test invites selective outrage and lets the loudest member set the standard.
A workable set of criteria would test behaviour, not paperwork: no foreign bases used to threaten another non-aligned state; no automatic troop commitments; independent voting on issues unrelated to the member's own security; no use of force against neighbours; and support for the movement's core agenda - decolonisation, disarmament, a fairer economic order.
On the evidence of this case, India would pass most of these tests and fail none clearly, which shows the criticism was driven by bloc politics inside the movement rather than by the treaty itself. That is also the lesson: NAM's comparative advantage lies in coordinating positions on apartheid, nuclear disarmament and North-South economic demands, where collective weight matters, and not in certifying the bilaterals of its members. Revising criteria is sensible; enforcing them through expulsion or censure is not, because a movement that expels members for dealing with a superpower would have expelled most of its own founding members at some point.