On Jawaharlal Nehru's 61st death anniversary, Utkarsh Mishra recalls how India's first prime minister cultivated a unique role for the newly independent country on the world stage.
Look up 'Flags of Sudan' on Google and go to the corresponding Wikipedia page. Among the multiple flags, you will find one with 'SUDAN' written in red on a white background. It states that this was the flag used to represent Sudan at the Afro-Asian Conference at Bandung in Indonesia in April 1955.
The Indian embassy Web site in Khartoum tells the story of that flag (external link). It's a story of great significance and pride for India.
The Bandung Conference was a meeting of newly independent Asian and African countries held in 1955, aimed at promoting Afro-Asian solidarity and opposition to colonialism.
It served as a precursor to the Non-Aligned Movement, a vision that Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru played a leading role in shaping, alongside other prominent leaders such as Indonesian President Sukarno, Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Ghanaian Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah.
However, at Bandung, 'The delegation from a still-not-independent Sudan did not have a flag to mark its place. Taking out his handkerchief, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote 'Sudan' on it, thus reserving a place for Sudan in the international community,' informs the Indian embassy in Khartoum.
Such was Nehru's standing as a world leader at that time.
It is no secret that India was not a force to reckon with when the British left. The country had been bled dry by its colonial masters. Famine-stricken and impoverished, India was heavily dependent on foreign aid.
Yet, in 1949, when Nehru visited the United States, the then President Harry S Truman took the unusual step of going to the Washington military airport to personally receive him. The gesture was repeated by President John F Kennedy in November 1961, when he personally received Nehru at the airport.
Should one think that these gestures were motivated merely by Nehru's position as prime minister of India, it is apt to mention that in 1936, while he was in Europe, he refused to meet Italian dictator Benito Mussolini -- then at the height of his power -- despite being requested twice. The reason was his staunch disapproval of fascism.
One of Nehru's biographers, Michael Brecher, points out that he was the acknowledged Congress spokesperson on foreign affairs since the 1930s. He represented the Indian National Congress at the 1927 Congress of Oppressed Nationalities, held in Brussels.
It was here that he first met radical nationalist and socialist leaders from several Asian, African, Latin American, and European countries and conceived the idea of an Afro-Asian group of nations cooperating with one another.
The Bandung Conference was the fruition of this idea.
Later, as the chief architect of the Non Aligned Movement, Nehru offered the newly independent nations of Asia and Africa a path that avoided alignment with either the Western or Eastern blocs.
He advocated mutual respect, anti-colonialism, and sovereign equality -- values that resonated deeply with countries striving to assert their identity and autonomy.
Nehru emerged as a highly respected leader of the Global South -- one who could create national flags on his handkerchief.
How Non-Alignment Earned India a Unique Place in the World
After India gained independence during the Cold War, the prospect of joining either of the two mighty blocs -- one led by the United States and the other by the Soviet Union -- was tempting. Yet, Nehru emerged as the architect of an independent foreign policy, favouring nor antagonising neither.
To quote from Bipan Chandra's book India Since Independence: Nehru 'realised that given her great civilisation, India could not but aspire to the right to speak in her own voice. The recent, hard-won freedom from the colonial yoke would also be meaningless unless India found expression in the international arena... An independent voice was not merely a choice; it was an imperative.'
Nonetheless, the United States was quick to dismiss the idea as 'immoral neutrality'. It believed that, being a Constitutional democracy, India should join the Western alliance rather than strengthen the Communist bloc by staying neutral.
The fact that the Soviet Union was often seen supporting the Non-Aligned bloc at the United Nations also complicated matters.
However, Nehru made it clear in a Constituent Assembly debate on December 4, 1947, that the idea had 'nothing to do with neutrality or passivity'. It was about 'having the freedom to decide each issue on its merits, to weigh what was right or wrong and then take a stand in favour of right.'
The basic objective of the policy was anti-colonialism -- extending support to colonial and ex-colonial countries in their struggle against imperialism. Another key objective was world peace.
In an address to Parliament in 1957, Nehru dismissed the idea that India was trying to create a third force to counterbalance the existing two. 'What we are creating,' he said, 'is an area that doesn't want war.'
Nehru believed that if India allied itself openly with one of the two blocs, the danger of another world war would increase. For him, the wider the area of peace -- that is, non-alignment -- the less likely a war among the superpowers.
However, the perceived tilt towards the Soviet Union and against the Western bloc was explained by several factors.
As stated earlier, anti-colonialism was the driving force behind this policy. India saw Western imperialism as different from the Soviet control over Eastern European countries. Nehru believed that Western-sponsored military alliances represented an indirect return of Western power to regions from which it had recently retreated.
But perhaps the most important reason for this tilt was Western support to Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. The Soviet Union consistently stood by India on this issue and vetoed UN resolutions that would have harmed Indian interests.
Nehru also criticised the US for its arms aid to Pakistan, saying it compelled India to increase its military expenditure, thereby compromising the goals of the Second Five-Year Plan.
That notwithstanding, Nehru believed that an uncommitted India could perform the necessary task of building a bridge that otherwise would not exist between the two blocs. While mediating in the Korean War or helping to mitigate the crises in Indochina or Congo, India 'withstood considerable pressure from both sides and did not flip in either direction.'
In 1950, when North Korea, backed by the Socialist camp, invaded South Korea, supported by the West, India sided with the latter and recognised North Korea as the aggressor, despite facing hostility from China and the Soviet Union.
Yet, when American General Douglas MacArthur continued the war after pushing the North Koreans out of the South and decided to cross the 38th parallel, India voted against the resolution calling for China to be declared the aggressor.
However, on December 3, 1952, the United Nations General Assembly accepted India's proposal for a Korean War armistice, which the Soviets also accepted after Josef Stalin's death in March 1953.
India, as the chair of the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission, was made responsible for the repatriation of soldiers.
Similarly, in Indochina, India actively worked to prevent further internationalisation of the conflict by promoting a ceasefire, securing neutrality for Laos and Cambodia, and participating as chairman of the International Control Commission.
During the Suez Crisis of 1956, India defended Egypt's sovereignty, condemned colonial aggression, and contributed troops to the UN peacekeeping force.
In the Congo, India's decisive stand and military assistance under the UN mandate helped end a civil war and restore national unity, earning global recognition.
However, Nehru faced criticism for his 'vacillating attitude' towards the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956. While India abstained on a UN resolution condemning Russia's suppression of the Hungarian revolt, it voted against a UN-controlled election in Hungary. (Although Brecher writes that V K Krishna Menon was instructed by Nehru to abstain on all votes relating to Hungary, Menon overstepped and voted against this resolution.)
It is important to note that India's vote against UN intervention was a bid to avoid setting a precedent for Kashmir.
Thus, non-alignment allowed India to serve the larger interest of world peace -- as well as its own.
As Bipin Chandra writes: 'The world now recognised the worth of non-alignment. It was difficult to dismiss it as mealy-mouthed, cowardly neutrality or idealist hogwash.'
In the words of Brecher, 'Non-alignment enabled a relatively weak, newly independent State to play a major role on the stage of world politics.'
© 2025