Nehru’s non-alignment to Modi’s multi-alignment: How India rewrote its foreign policy playbook. india news

Last updated:June 05, 2026, 08:40 IST

The main objective remains strategic autonomy, but the approach has changed: India no longer stays away from power centres, but connects them together.

India’s foreign policy has always had one basic instinct: a willingness to take independent decisions in a difficult world.

under Jawaharlal NehruThat instinct took the form of non-alignment, a Cold War-era principle that allowed a newly independent India to avoid formally joining either the US-led Western bloc or the Soviet-led Communist bloc.

under the prime minister Narendra ModiThe same instinct has taken a different form. India, today, does not just stay away from factions; It works with multiple power centers at the same time.

As Modi nears the milestone of overtaking Jawaharlal Nehru India’s longest democratically electedThis shift from Nehru’s non-alignment to Modi’s multi-alignment, serving as Prime Minister consecutively until June 10, 2026, provides one of the clearest ways to understand how India’s global role has changed.

This is not a simple story of one theory replacing another. Rather, it is the story of India adapting the same overarching objective – strategic autonomy – to two very different global orders.

What was Nehru’s non-alignment policy?

When India became independent in 1947, the world was entering the Cold War. The United States and the Soviet Union were emerging as rival superpowers, and countries around the world were being pressured to choose sides. For newly independent India, still grappling with the challenges of partition, poverty, food insecurity, institutional reconstruction and nation building, there were obvious risks in becoming a follower of either side.

Nehru’s answer was non-alignment. This does not mean that India has no views on global issues. Nor did it mean permanent neutrality. This meant that India would not formally associate itself with any military bloc and would decide international questions on the basis of its national interest and ethico-political worldview.

This approach gave place to India. This allowed New Delhi to speak in favor of decolonizing and developing countries, oppose colonialism and racial discrimination, and avoid getting directly involved in superpower rivalry.

Along with leaders such as Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, Sukarno of Indonesia and Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Nehru became one of the key figures associated with the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

Then why did India like non-alignment?

Nehru’s India was operating from a position of limited power. The economy was weak, defense capabilities were still developing, and the country had little leverage in a global system dominated by the two superpowers. The priority was to protect sovereignty, secure development assistance, maintain diplomatic flexibility, and prevent India from becoming a pawn in the Cold War.

But non-alignment had its limits. India was still a young country with limited economic and military strength, and the 1962 war with China showed that diplomatic principles had to be matched with strong defense preparedness. Nevertheless, non-alignment remained central to India’s foreign policy for decades.

How is PM Modi’s multi-alignment different?

Modi’s India operates in a very different world. The Cold War is over, the Soviet Union no longer exists, China has emerged as India’s most serious long-term strategic challenge, and the global order is becoming increasingly multipolar.

In this world, India has moved from non-alignment to multi-alignment – ​​building issue-based partnerships with multiple countries simultaneously, even when those countries are in tension with each other.

It is part of the Quad along with the United States, Japan and Australia, while maintaining its long-term strategic partnership with Russia. It deepens ties with the Gulf, expands engagement with Europe, positions itself as the voice of the Global South and continues to participate in platforms such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

The Modi government’s approach has been to extract value from multiple partnerships as well as avoid dependence on any single power centre.

How have America’s relationships changed?

One of the biggest changes in India’s foreign policy has been the expansion of relations with the United States. During the Cold War, India and the United States often had difficult relations, particularly due to Washington’s relations with Pakistan and India’s closeness to Moscow.

Today, the relationship is much broader. The US is a major partner of India in defence, technology, trade, education, diaspora connectivity and Indo-Pacific strategy. The Quad – bringing together India, the US, Japan and Australia – has become one of the most visible platforms of India’s multi-alignment diplomacy.

For India, the Quad is not presented as a military alliance. It is designed around a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific, maritime security, supply chains, critical technologies, health, climate and infrastructure. But its strategic meaning is clear: It gives India a platform to work with other major democracies at a time when China’s rise has reshaped Asia’s security environment.

This marks a major departure from the Nehruvian era, when India avoided being seen as part of any Western-led strategic formation. Under PM Modi, India has become more comfortable working with Western powers when its interests demand it, while still insisting that it will not become a treaty ally or subordinate partner.

Why does Russia still matter?

The shift toward America does not mean abandoning Russia. This is the clearest example of India’s multi-alignment approach.

Russia remains an important defense partner for India with decades-old military ties and reliance on equipment. It is also important in energy, nuclear cooperation, space, fertilizers and geopolitical balance. Even after the Ukraine war brought intense pressure on countries to reduce engagement with Moscow, India continued to maintain its ties with Russia while calling for dialogue and peace.

This balancing act is at the heart of Modi-era diplomacy. India has not accepted the idea that closer ties with Washington would require a complete break with Moscow. Instead, it has attempted to preserve old partnerships while forming new ones.

How did India use the G20 platform?

Under Modi’s leadership, India has also tried to position itself as a bridge between the developed world and the Global South. This was especially visible during India’s G20 presidency in 2023.

India hosted the Voice of the Global South summit in January 2023, bringing together developing countries to discuss shared concerns and priorities. During its presidency of the G20, India pushed forward issues such as development, climate finance, digital public infrastructure, debt stress, food and energy security and reform of global institutions.

The most visible diplomatic outcome was the admission of the African Union as a permanent member of the G20 during the New Delhi summit. India had proposed the move and its acceptance gave New Delhi a major Global South credibility.

This is where Modi’s multi-alignment differs from traditional great-power diplomacy. India is not connecting only with America, Russia, Europe or Gulf countries. It is also trying to speak for countries that feel left out of global decision making.

What is the big difference between the foreign policies of Nehru and Modi?

The biggest difference is the world each leader had to deal with.

Nehru’s India was newly independent, economically fragile and diplomatically ambivalent in a bipolar Cold War world. His foreign policy demanded space, respect and independence. Non-alignment allowed India to avoid getting caught up in great power rivalry and gave it a leadership role among post-colonial countries.

Modi’s India is bigger, more economically confident and more integrated with the world. It faces a rising China, a changing America, an assertive Russia, wars in Europe and West Asia, supply-chain disruptions, energy shocks and competition over technology. Its diplomacy must therefore be more transactional, more proactive and more multi-directional.

Nehru’s non-alignment was about his refusal to choose factions. Modi’s multi-alignment is about choosing multiple partnerships without sacrificing autonomy.

read more