The statement that "India has of late, chosen to debunk non-alignment in its pursuit of multi-alignment" accurately captures a significant evolution in India's foreign policy. While non-alignment was a foundational pillar of India's post-independence foreign policy, its relevance and application have been reinterpreted and adapted to the complexities of the 21st-century global order, giving way to a more pragmatic and interest-driven approach often termed 'multi-alignment' or 'all-alignment'.

Understanding Non-Alignment: Non-alignment emerged during the Cold War as a strategy for newly independent nations to maintain strategic autonomy and avoid entanglement in the superpower rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. Led by figures like Jawaharlal Nehru, India championed the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), advocating for peace, disarmament, decolonization, and an independent foreign policy based on national interests rather than ideological blocs. Its core tenets included strategic autonomy, independent decision-making, and a focus on global peace and cooperation.

The 'Debunking' of Traditional Non-Alignment: In the post-Cold War era, and particularly in the last two decades, the traditional interpretation of non-alignment has been increasingly questioned. The 'debunking' refers to several shifts:

1. End of Bipolarity: With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the original context for non-alignment (avoiding two blocs) ceased to exist. The world became multipolar, demanding a different approach.
2. Pragmatism over Ideology: India's foreign policy has become more pragmatic, prioritizing national interests, economic growth, and security concerns over strict ideological adherence. This means engaging with any country or bloc that serves India's objectives.
3. Strategic Partnerships: India has forged robust strategic partnerships with countries that were historically aligned with one bloc or another. For instance, its deepening ties with the United States (defense, technology, Quad), France (defense, nuclear), and even Israel (defense, intelligence) would have been difficult under a rigid non-aligned framework.
4. Active Participation in Multiple Groupings: India is an active member of diverse and sometimes ideologically divergent groupings. It is part of the Quad (seen as a counter to China), BRICS (with Russia and China), SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation), I2U2 (India, Israel, UAE, US), and G20. This simultaneous engagement with various groups, some of which have competing interests, signifies a departure from the 'equidistance' often associated with non-alignment.
5. Economic Imperatives: India's rapid economic growth and its aspiration to become a major global power necessitate extensive engagement with diverse economies, technology providers, and markets, irrespective of their geopolitical alignments.

The Pursuit of Multi-Alignment: Multi-alignment is not merely a rejection of non-alignment but rather an evolution or adaptation of its core principle of strategic autonomy to a multipolar world. It can be defined as:

1. Engaging with All, Aligning with None Exclusively: India seeks to maintain good relations and strategic partnerships with multiple global powers and groupings simultaneously, without committing exclusively to any single bloc or ideology.
2. Issue-Based Alignment: India's alignments are often issue-based and transactional, driven by specific national interests. For example, it might cooperate with the US on maritime security, with Russia on energy and defense, and with China on climate change, while maintaining its independent stance on other issues.
3. Maximizing Options and Leverage: By diversifying its partnerships, India maximizes its diplomatic options, enhances its leverage in international negotiations, and reduces its dependence on any single power.
4. Strategic Autonomy in a New Guise: While the term 'non-alignment' might be 'debunked,' the underlying principle of strategic autonomy remains central. Multi-alignment is seen as the contemporary means to achieve and preserve this autonomy in a complex, interconnected world where challenges are global and solutions require diverse collaborations.

Conclusion: The shift from non-alignment to multi-alignment is a pragmatic and necessary evolution for India as it navigates a complex global landscape. It reflects India's growing confidence, its rising economic and strategic stature, and its determination to pursue its national interests on the global stage without being constrained by outdated ideological frameworks. While some critics might view it as opportunistic, proponents argue that multi-alignment is the most effective way for India to maintain its strategic independence, diversify its partnerships, and enhance its influence in a multipolar world, thereby ensuring its continued rise as a major global power.