The non-aligned movement was more a matter of foreign policy than domestic policy. The non-aligned movement had member states that had planned economies (Cuba and Yugoslavia were important members in the non-aligned movement), market economies (I think Indonesia was a relatively market economy, but I'm not positive), and mixed economies, though I get the sense most, like India, had mixed economies. The phrase was first used by an Indian diplomat (in 1953) and Nehru really was one of the early leaders of the movement, as was Indira Gandhi. The first five members were India, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Egypt, and Ghana, but it grew rapidly as more countries decolonized in the 60's and beyond. It's unclear to me what the non-aligned movement actual did, except symbolically reject both sides of the Cold War, so it's hard for me say the degree to which India mattered or didn't matter to later periods of the NAM.

It should be seen as one of many attempts to come up with "a third way" between communism and capitalism. Fascism was one example, Christian Democracy another. Most socialist parties in Europe consider themselves "third way" parties. While most of those relied a third wya in the domestic sphere, the NAM (and the related G77) tried to present a "third way" in international relations, between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Only, it wasn't a military organization (since it was about non-alignment, rather than creating an alternative alignment) and had members with tangibly different interests and orientations.