Key actors in global politics appear to be receiving conflicting signals from India's position on the Ukrainian imbroglio every passing day. A few pointers are in order for further consideration. First, India has abstained from voting against Russia at the United Nations at least twice in the past, pleasing the Russians with its tacit support. At the same time, its latest abstinence at the UN actually went against Russia, making the Russians curious about Indian intents.

As leaders from about 50 countries arrive with their caravans in Tehran, for what now seems to be settling into a triennial ritual, a question that has intrigued everyone for the past 2 decades is - what does NAM mean in a post-cold war context? Moreover, somewhat, if not equally, intriguing a question that historians have struggled to find answers to is the origins of the term itself. Claims about who ‘invented’ the term and where it was first uttered have never had a settled answer.

Non-alignment is back through a recent Report prepared and published by the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, in February 2012. Reminiscent of a movie sequel, it is refreshed, repackaged, updated and delivered in a 2.0 form, titled “Non-Alignment 2.0: A Foreign and Strategic Policy for India in the Twenty First Century”. And like most movie sequels today, it also runs on an altogether new script with only an imaginary connection to the first. Why stick to the name then?