Nehru wanted to keep off military blocs to preserve India's hard-earned sovereignty and protect its territorial integrity. During the Cold War, the world was dividing into US-led and Soviet-led camps. By staying away from these military alliances, India could pursue its goal of rapid economic development and view international issues independently, rather than from a military point of view. This approach allowed India to maintain friendly relations with all countries.

The Indo-Soviet friendship treaty did not strictly violate the principle of non-alignment. The passage defines non-alignment as "not tying yourself off with military blocs" and "trying to maintain friendly relations with all countries." Since the treaty was a friendship agreement and not an entry into a military alliance like NATO or the Warsaw Pact, it adhered to the definition. The context notes that non-alignment was a "difficult balancing act" and sometimes the "balance did not appear perfect," but the treaty was a measure to maintain friendly relations, which is a core part of the policy.

No, non-alignment would not have been unnecessary. The context states that Nehru's foreign policy had three major objectives: to preserve sovereignty, protect territorial integrity, and promote rapid economic development. Non-alignment was the strategy to achieve these goals. Furthermore, the passage defines non-alignment as viewing things "independently." Even without military blocs, a nation would still need an independent foreign policy to ensure its sovereignty and development, making the principle of non-alignment relevant.