'Take no sides' has served the Swiss set

'Udasina-vad asinam, asaktam tesu karmasu' - I am ever-detached, seated as though neutral - the Gita has Krishna tell Arjun. In contemporary itihaas, there is one country that has maintained such a position: Switzerland. But Swiss neutrality has come under pressure - in the past, and the present - in conflict situations, with the country having to fall back on the distinction between neutrality in law and neutrality in policy. The law is easier to uphold by virtue of it being a barrier reading of the term. Policy is more fluid, lending itself to wider opinions. The Swiss have defended their record over EU sanctions against Russia and assistance to Ukraine. Here, it suspended the notion of neutrality, which doesn't sit well with club membership of any form (read: Nato). And, yet, it is neutrality that has served Switzerland well. Political introspection should bring it back to this strategic line.

Fundamentally, being neutral is being bereft of biases. Such a state of 'emptiness' allows one - individual or country - to act without being ideologically nailed to the ground, to be strategically fluid. Switzerland rationalises its recent UN membership as joining the international effort at keeping the peace. This can be seen as a slide out of neutrality. But given the country's history of non-alignment, this, too, can be a position suitable for the moment - free of any 'I will never take sides' dogma.

Neutrality faces its share of criticism as an instrument of foreign policy, primarily as diminishing security. That, however, should be a question for citizens to answer: whether they feel safer with a neutral foreign policy. This should guide their lawmakers to return to the country's default position of wisely taking no sides.