Are India and Indonesia Leaving the Non-Aligned Movement Behind?

Recent joint statements from India and Indonesia have notably omitted any reference to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), a bloc of which both nations are founding members. This absence, however, does not signal an abandonment of the core principles of strategic autonomy, but rather a shift in how these principles are pursued in the contemporary international landscape. The Bandung Conference of 1955, a foundational event for NAM, articulated principles such as sovereignty, anti-colonialism, peaceful coexistence, and independent foreign policy. These ideals provided newly independent states during the Cold War with a framework to resist pressure from major power blocs and amplify their voice in global affairs. However, the strategic environment has evolved significantly. Today, middle powers like India and Indonesia face complex challenges driven by great power competition, economic interdependence, technological rivalries, and overlapping regional institutions. Strategic autonomy is increasingly understood not as standing apart from the international system, but as participating in it on one's own terms. The India-Indonesia partnership exemplifies this evolution. Their cooperation is now framed within a dense network of contemporary institutions and initiatives, including ASEAN, BRICS, the G20, the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), and various Indo-Pacific frameworks. Priorities such as defense industrial cooperation, maritime domain awareness, artificial intelligence, digital connectivity, critical minerals, and resilient supply chains represent a new approach to national resilience and strategic flexibility, making strategic autonomy more issue-based than institution-based. While NAM served as the primary political vehicle for many developing countries to express their independence during the Cold War, India and Indonesia now pursue similar objectives across multiple platforms simultaneously. ASEAN bolsters regional diplomacy, BRICS expands cooperation among emerging economies, the G20 influences global economic governance, and Indo-Pacific initiatives address maritime security and connectivity. The enduring principles of Bandung—sovereignty, territorial integrity, international law, peaceful dispute settlement, and a stronger voice for the Global South—remain deeply embedded in the diplomatic traditions of both countries, though they are now expressed through different means. This adaptation is a broader trend among middle powers in Asia, who are diversifying relationships across security, economic, and technological domains to preserve room for independent decision-making rather than seeking exclusive alignment with any single major power. Therefore, the disappearance of NAM from recent joint statements should not be interpreted as its demise. The movement continues to exist, and its core principles remain relevant. What appears to be fading is its role as the principal diplomatic framework for articulating these principles. The legacy of Bandung lies not in the continued invocation of a Cold War institution, but in the enduring pursuit of strategic autonomy under the conditions of a vastly different international order. Source: The Diplomat Indonesia