‘Non Alignment does not imply neutrality or equidistance’. Explain.

‘Neutrality’ refers to the permanent neutral status of a nation which it does not give up under any circumstances. Switzerland is an example of a neutral state. ‘Equidistance’ refers to nations adopting the similar amount of distance from both super powers in case of conflict irrespective of any meritorious policies adopted by the super powers which may benefit the nations.

‘Non-alignment’ as a concept in the simplest terms refers to the practice of staying away from the alliances. But it does not refer to staying aloof from world affairs as practiced in case of ‘isolationism’. In fact, non-aligned countries often play an active mediating role for promoting peace and stability in the world. Similarly, non-aligned countries may take an active and dynamic role based on the merits presented by the super powers in different cases. Thus, non-aligned states may not participate directly in warfare and they do not take on a moral or appropriate position regarding warfare. But they do strive to end warfare and may even be involved in their own conflicts to assert their policies. Thus, non-alignment does not imply neutrality or equidistance. The best example of this has been the nation of India. It has been the pioneer in the non-aligned movement and it successfully stayed away from the super powers and refused to take sides during the Cold War era. But based on the merits it did support either USA or Russia at international forums and waged its own wars against Pakistan.