No More Learning

For some time, the Portuguese warships were patrol-
ling the Indian coast. The Government of India protested against
these "acts of unprovoked aggression and wanton killing" but the
Portuguese Government made counter charges against India. Mili-
tary preparations took place on both sides and a clash was imminent.
The memory of the Portuguese firing upon the unarmed Indian
Satyagrahis in 1955 was still fresh in the minds of the Indians. The
situation was worsened by irresponsible pronouncements from Radio
Goa. There were also the Portuguese atrocities in Angola in which
the Indians suffered very much. There was a unanimous demand
all over the country that the Portuguese rule must end in India.
It was under these circumstances that the Government of India
asked the Government of Portugal to leave Goa. The reply of
Salazaar was: “If the question of Goa is understood as a transfer
to the Indian Union of the sovereignty of Portuguese territories, it
is certain that the question will not be solved by peaceful means. ”


## p. 984 (#1028) ###########################################

984
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1919
It was under these circumstances that in the early hours of the
morning of 18 December, 1961, the 17th Division of the Indian
Army, with air and naval support, launched a three-pronged attack
on Goa. Within 26 hours, the Portuguese resistance collapsed. On
19 December, 1961, Daman and Diu also surrendered. Casualties
on both sides were very few. However, a lot of damage was done
to property by the Portuguese deliberately. The conduct of the
Indian army was an ideal one. No harm was done to the civilian
population of Goa and other Portuguese enclaves. Civil and mili-
tary prisoners taken by the Indian army were released uncondi-
tionally as India did not regard herself at war with Portugal.
The action of the Indian Government was welcomed enthusiasti-
cally all over the country. However, the Western Powers were very
bitter on this point. They pointed out that Prime Minister Nehru
had one moral standard for himself and another for others.
FOREIGN RELATIONS
A few days after taking over as Vice-President of the Executive
Council of the Viceroy of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru made
his first official announcement on 7 September, 1946 on the foreign
policy of India over the All-India Radio. In the course of his
address he observed: “We shall take full part in international con-
ferences as a free nation with our own policy and not merely as a
satellite of another nation. We hope to develop close and direct
contacts with other nations and to co-operate with them in the
furtherance of world peace and freedom. ” “We propose, as far as
possible, to keep away from the power politics of groups, aligned
against one another, which have led in the past to world war and
which may again lead to disasters on an even vaster scale. We
believe that peace and freedom are indivisible and the denial of
freedom anywhere must endanger freedom elsewhere and lead to
conflict and war. We are particularly interested in the emancipa-
tion of colonial and dependent countries and peoples, and in the
recognition in theory and practice of equal opportunities for all
races. We repudiate utterly the Nazi doctrine of racialism, where-
soever and in whatever form it may be practised. We seek no
domination over others and we claim no privileged position over
other peoples. But we do claim equal and honourable treatment
for our people wherever they may go and we cannot accept any
discrimination against them.
"The world, in spite of its rivalries and hatreds and inner con-
flicts, moves inevitably towards closer co-operation and building
up of a world commonwealth. It is for this One World that free


## p. 985 (#1029) ###########################################

INDIA'S FOREIGN POLICY
985
>
India will work, a world in which there is the free co-operation of
free peoples, and no class or group exploits one another. ”
Again, "We hope that an independent India will have friendly
and co-operative relations with England and the countries of the
British Commonwealth. . . . . . We send our greetings to the people
of the United States of America to whom destiny has given a major
role in international affairs. We trust that this tremendous respon-
sibility will be utilized for the furtherance of peace and human
freedom everywhere.
"To that other great nation of the modern world, the Soviet
Union, which also carried a vast responsibility for shaping world
events, we send greetings. They are our neighbours in Asia and
inevitably we shall have to undertake many common tasks and have
much to do with each other.
“We are of Asia and the peoples of Asia are nearer and closer
to us than others. India is so situated that she is the pivot of
Western, Southern and South-East Asia. In the past her culture
flowed to all these countries, and they came to her in many ways.
Those contacts are being renewed and the future is bound to see a
closer union between India and South-East Asia on the one side,
and Afghanistan, Iran, and the Arab world on the other. To the
furtherance of that close association of free countries we must devote
ourselves. India has followed with anxious interest the struggle of
the Indonesians for freedom and to them we send our good wishes.
China, that mighty country with a mighty past, our neighbour, has
been our friend through the ages and that friendship will endure and
grow. We earnestly hope that her present troubles will end soon
and a united and democratic China will emerge playing a great
part in the furtherance of world peace and progress.
Although this enunciation of India's foreign policy was made
before India became free, these very principles were followed by
Jawaharlal Nehru so long as he was India's Prime Minister and
Foreign Minister up to 1964. Even after his death, there has been
no significant departure from those principles under Lal Bahadur
Shastri and Mrs. Indira Gandhi.
There are certain salient features of the foreign policy of India.
It is based on the principle of non-alignment. When India became
free, the world was divided into two camps, the Anglo-American
bloc and the Soviet bloc. Soon after the Second World War was
over, there started rivalry between the Soviet Union on the one
hand and the United States on the other. This was given the
name of cold war. Jawaharlal Nehru was right in coming to the
conclusion that it was not desirable to join one bloc or the other.
India had just become free and she had too many problems to


## p. 986 (#1030) ###########################################

986
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1919
tackle. Hence, it was in India's interest to remain aloof. Prime
Minister Nehru defended his policy of non-alignment by referring
to the policy followed by the United States towards Europe after
her independence. To quote him, “About 150 years ago, the West-
ern World was breaking up on account of all kinds of imperial and
revolutionary wars. Having achieved independence by breaking
off from the British Empire, the United States was naturally
affected by these upheavals; nevertheless it avoided being involved
in the chaotic situation of Europe—although doubtless it had its
particular sympathies—because that was natural thing for a nation
in that state of affairs to do. Now this analogy, although it may
not be a particularly good one in the circumstances of to-day, has
a bearing and I wish to point out that for a country that has newly
attained freedom and independence, this is the natural policy to
pursue. "
Prime Minister Nehru was very emphatic about his policy of
non-alignment. While following that policy, he did not care if any
country got annoyed with India. The view of Nehru was that
India was not going to sell herself for any price to any country.
To quote Nehru, “In any event, speaking for India, whatever hap-
pens, I am not prepared merely to say ditto to any country in the
wide world. I think it is degrading for a country as it is for an
individual just to be an automation, just to be a puppet and to repeat
what others say. ” “I do not think that anything could be more
injurious to us from any point of view—certainly from an idealistic
and high moral point of view but equally so from the point of view
cf opportunism and national interest in the narrowest sense of the
word—than for us to give up those policies that we have pursued,
namely, of standing up for certain ideals in regard to oppressed
nations, and trying to align ourselves with this great Power or that
and becoming its camp follower in the hope that some crumbs
might fall from their tables. ” “I realise—I frankly admit--that
—
there are always certain risks involved, not risks on paper but risks
in the same sense that certain obligations might be felt which might
affect our policy without our knowing it. Those risks are there.
All I can say is that we should be wide awake to avoid our commit-
ting mistakes because of those risks. . . . . . If any country imagines
that we are going to change our policies and sell ourselves for a
mess of pottage from any other country, she, I submit, is complete-
ly mistaken. I am quite sure in my mind that if at any time help
from abroad depends upon the slightest variation of our policy, we
shall give up that help; the whole of it and prefer starvation and
everything to it. So it is in this way that we accept help and I
think the world knows it well enough. "


## p. 987 (#1031) ###########################################

INDIA'S FOREIGN POLICY
987
a
It is true that a policy of non-alignment was in the interest of
India so long as there was going on rivalry of a violent type between
the United States and the Soviet Union but there is no sense in
continuing the old policy of non-alignment in a changed world.
The relations between the Soviet Union and the United States have
improved. There exists bitter hostility between Communist China
and the Soviet Union. Peking says that both the Soviet Union and
the United States are at one in their hostility towards China. After
1962, Communist China has also become enemy number 1 of India.
Under the circumstances, it is ridiculous to assert that India should
not join either the Soviet bloc or the American bloc. As a matter
of fact, India has to get military help from both the blocs to pre-
pare herself for a war with Communist China on one hand and
Pakistan on the other. After the disastrous defeat at the hands of
China in 1962, Nehru himself would have said good-bye to non-
alignment and it makes no sense if the successors continue to harp
on the old tune. It is in the interest of India to align herself with
all those countries who can help her to fight against Red China
and get back the territories which were snatched away from her
forcibly in 1962.
Another feature of India's foreign policy has been her opposition v
to imperialism and colonialism. The reason is obvious. India
herself was a victim of imperialism and colonialism and no wonder
when she became free, she had her sympathies for all those who
were suffering from imperialism and colonialism. To quote Nehru,
“Asia till recently was largely a prey to imperial domination and
colonialism; a great part of it is free today, part of it still remains
unfree and it is an astonishing thing that any country should still
venture to hold and to set forth this doctrine of colonialism whether
it is under direct rule or whether it is indirectly maintained in some
form or another. After all that has happened, there is going to be
no mere objection to that, but active objection, an active struggle -
against any and every form of colonialism in any part of the world.
That is the first thing to remember. We in Asia who have our-
selves suffered all these evils of colonialism and of imperial domina-
tion, have committed ourselves inevitably to the freedom of every
other colonial country. There are neighbouring countries of ours
in Asia with whom we are intimately allied. We look to them with
sympathy; we look at their struggle with sympathy. Any power
great or small, which in that way prevents the attainment of the
freedom of these peoples does an ill turn to world peace. Great
countries like India who have passed out of that colonial stage do
not conceive it possible that other countries should remain under
the yoke of colonial rule. ”


## p. 988 (#1032) ###########################################

988
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1919
1 It was in pursuance of this policy that India took up the cause of
Indonesia against Holland. After the ending of the Second World
War, the Dutch Government tried to re-establish her stranglehold
over Indonesia. The Government of India did not approve of it.
A meeting of the Foreign Ministers was called in New Delhi and
an appeal was made to the Security Council. The result was that
✓ ultimately the independence of Indonesia was recognised. The
part played by India in the independence of Indonesia was recog-
nised by Dr. Ali Sastroamidjojo, the Prime Minister of Indonesia,
in these words: “The assistance which India has given so fully and
whole-heartedly to my people will be written in letters of shining
gold in the pages of history of free Indonesia. ”
Libya owes her independence almost entirely to Indian initiative.
2
India has throughout resisted the policy of the Union of South
Africa to incorporate the territories of South-West Africa into the
Union. The Government of India played an important part in
bringing to an end the war in Indo-China. India has also advocat-
ed the cause of the independence of Tunisia and Algeria. She has
condemned the Baghdad Pact (and its successor the Cento), the
Seato and the Anzus Pact. She believes that these military pacts
are a potential source of war.
India is opposed to racial discrimination. In the words of
Nehru: “We repudiate utterly the Nazi doctrine of racialism where-
soever and in whatever form it may be practised. We seek no
domination over others and we claim no privileged position over
other peoples. But we do claim equal and honourable treatment
of our people wherever they may go and we cannot accept any
discrimination against them. ” This explains the reason why India
has condemned in strongest possible terms the policy of apartheid
followed by the Union of South Africa. We have supported moral-
ly the fight of the coloured people in South Africa against White
supremacy. India has been instrumental in getting passed resolu-
tions by the United Nations against the policy of discrimination
followed by the Government of South Africa. In 1954, India
abolished the office of the Indian High Commissioner in the Union
of South Africa. It was under pressure from India and other Com-
monwealth countries that South Africa was forced to leave the
Commonwealth of Nations.
Nehru put special emphasis on Asia in his foreign policy. It was
on his initiative that the Asian Relations Conference was held in
Delhi in March, 1947. On that occasion, Nehru observed: "In
this crisis in the world history, Asia will necessarily play a vital role.
The countries of Asia can no longer be used as pawns by others;
they are bound to have their own politics in world affairs. Europe


## p. 989 (#1033) ###########################################

INDIA'S FOREIGN POLICY
989
upon us.
and America have contributed very greatly to human progress and
for that we must yield them praise and honour and learn from
them the many lessons they have to teach. But the West has also
driven us into wars and conflicts without number and even now,
the day after a terrible war, there is alk of further wars in the
atomic age that is
In this atomic age, Asia will have to
function effectively in the maintenance of peace. Indeed, there can
be no peace unless Asia plays her part. There is today conflict in
many countries and all of us in Asia are full of our own troubles.
Nonetheless, the whole spirit and outlook of Asia are peaceful, and
the emergence of Asia in the world affairs will be a powerful influ-
ence for world peace. '
Another Asian Conference was held in New Delhi in April, 1955.
It was attended by about 200 delegates from various countries of
Asia. However, the most important was the Bandung Conference
in April, 1955 where the representatives of both Asia and Africa
met to vindicate their united stand against aggression and colonial-
ism. The Government of India played the most important part in
making that Conference a success. On that occasion, Prime Min-
ister Nehru observed: “Apart from the problems of new countries
in Asia and Africa--and these problems are important—there is
the basic problem of Asia and Africa, if I may use the words, pull-
ing their weight regarding their own problems in world affairs. It
is important that the Asian-African Conference should help to put
Asia and Africa in proper perspective in the world because old
perspectives no longer apply. It is not our purpose to form blocs
and the like. We meet for mutual co-operation among ourselves
as well as with others. "
It is true that as a result of the foreign policy adopted by Nehru,
the name and prestige of India rose high not only in Asia but also
in the world. However, all that was a temporary phase. Nothing
was done to add to the military strength of India and a foreign
policy which is not backed by the might of a nation is never success-
ful. Neither Nehru nor the other leaders of India taught the people
of India a lesson of sacrifice for the country. No patriotism was
created in the country which could make people forget their selfish
interests and live only for their country. After 1947, the people of
India learnt to be lethargic. Instead of working hard and very
hard, they learnt to work less and less. When such is the atmos-
phere in the country, there is nothing to make a country strong and
great. If the population of the country rises and production falls,
there is no surplus with which bigger armies can be maintained and
equipped with the most uptodate arms. Hard work alone can
produce wealth and materials with which alone a nation can boast


## p. 990 (#1034) ###########################################

990
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1919
of its strength and as all this was lacking in the country and the
people were taking false pride in their hollow prestige, there was
a disaster in store for them and that came in 1962 when wave after
wave of Chinese troops attacked the Northern borders of India and
gave her a crushing defeat. India was made to realise that she should
stop thinking in terms of her leadership in Asia. China not only
defeated India but also snatched away her territory. In future,
India was to think more of her own security than of leadership of
Asia or the world.
GREAT BRITAIN
As regards the relations of India with other countries, she had
on the whole friendly relations with Great Britain in spite of the
fact that she was under the yoke of the British Government for
more than 100 years. After independence, trade between the two
countries has increased. According to her own capacity and
limited resources after 1945, Great Britain has given a lot of eco-
nomic help to India. When India was attacked by Communist
China in October, 1962 and there was every danger of Assam fal-
ling into the hands of the Chinese, Great Britain came to her
help. Her help was spontaneous and prompt. She sent not only
arms but also other things which were badly required for the Indian
army. During the Indo-Pakistan war in 1965, the attitude of
Prime Minister Wilson appeared to be partial but even then Great
Britain tried her best to stop hostilities between the Commonwealth
countries.
THE UNITED STATES
India's relations with the United States have sometimes been
cordial and sometimes strained. The people of India were very
grateful to President Roosevelt and many other Americans who
had carried on propaganda in the United States in favour of India's
independence. Even after her independence, the United States has
given a lot of economic aid to the people of India. The fact is
that the name of the United States stands first in the list of those
who have given her economic aid in various forms. American aid
to India since independence is ten times that from the Soviet Union
and fifteen times the aid given by Great Britain.
When the United States destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki by the use of atom bombs, the Indians did not approve
of it and criticised the American action in very strong words. After
British withdrawal from India, Chester Bowles did a lot to bring


## p. 991 (#1035) ###########################################

INDIA AND THE UNITED STATES
991
the United States close to India. However, his work was undone
by MaCarthyism.
When Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru recognised Red China
in December, 1949, his action was highly disapproved of by the
United States who considered Communist China as enemy No. 1.
The efforts made by India to get Communist China admitted into
the United Nations were not only disliked by the American Gov-
ernment but also opposed by her openly. Whatever might have
been the object of Nehru, his action was regarded as defiance of
the wishes of a friendly country.
When the Korean war broke out, India's role in that was not
liked by the United States. Nehru was opposed to United
Nation's "Uniting for Peace” resolution which was backed by the
United States. India also opposed the American move to brand
China the aggressor. Nehru also opposed the American move to
put an embargo on the shipment of strategic materials to China.
India was also opposed to the crossing of the 38th parallel by the
United Nations forces and Nehru was able to get pressure put on
the U. S. A. through Prime Minister Attlee. India was opposed to
the United Nations troops entering Red China in pursuit of the
Chinese soldiers who were participating in the Korean war.
India
could not deny her hand in the virtual dismissal of General Macar-
thur. All these acts of India were unpopular in America because
thousands of Americans were losing their lives in the Korean War
and the American Government was spending huge amounts to
prosecute the Korean War.
Toward the end of 1956, the United States successfully inter-
vened in the Suez episode and this act of the United States was
very much appreciated in India. However, India did not approve
of the announcement of the Eisenhower Doctrine with regard to
the Middle East. This was particularly so because the announce-
ment was made only a few days after the historic visit of Prime
Minister Nehru to the United States and he had not been told
anything about it. This Doctrine was opposed to the policy of non-
alignment and co-existence followed and advocated by the Govern-
ment of India. India was not touchy about Communism but the
United States was and as the Indian Government failed to appre-
ciate the American point of view, there was bound to be misunder-
standing between the two countries.
The Americans did not approve of the invasion of Goa by the
Indian troops in December, 1961. It was contended that the Gov-
ernment of India was shouting from house-tops that she followed a
policy of peace but did not hesitate to use force whenever it found
the same to be convenient. It was contended that Great Britain


## p.
992 (#1036) ###########################################

992
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1919
and the United States could have brought pressure to bear on
Portugal to give up Goa voluntarily as the French had done with
regard to their settlements in India. Any way, the conquest of
Goa strained the relations between India and the United States.
The Indian attitude on the issue of Cuba was resented by the
Americans. The relations between the United States and Cuba
were so much strained that it was impossible for the Americans to
approve of the Indian attitude of sympathy towards Cuba.
The policy of non-alignment followed by the Government of
India was not liked by the American Government. During the
times of Dulles the American view was that those who were not
with them, were their enemies. As India was not wholly and sole-
ly with the American Government, she was to be considered as an
enemy. The policy of non-alignment followed by India was in
complete opposition to the American policy and consequently the
relations between the two countries were bound to be hostile.
The American Government has given a lot of military aid to Pakis-
tan. This has been done by the American Government while tak-
ing into consideration the requirements of their global policy. India
has opposed American help to Pakistan on account of the unfriend-
ly relations existing between India and Pakistan. India rightly
believes that the American arms shall be used against her. As a
matter of fact, such an objection was raised at the time when the
American Government decided to arm Pakistan. On that occa-
sion, President Eisenhower gave an undertaking to the Indian Gov-
ernment that American arms would not be used by Pakistan against
India and if Pakistan tried to use them against India, the American
Government would not allow the Pakistan Government to do so.
In spite of this pledge when Pakistan used the American arms in
1965 and although the American Government was reminded of her
commitment, President Johnson did nothing to check Pakistan from
using the American arms against India.
The following letter addressed by the American President to
Prime Minister Nehru is clear on the point of the American commit-
ment:
"Dear Prime Minister,
. . . . Our two Governments have agreed that our desires for
peace are in accord.
It has also been understood that if our inter-
pretation of existing circumstances and our belief in how to achieve
our goals differ, it is the right and duty of sovereign nations to make
their own decisions. Having studied long and carefully the prob-
lem of opposing possible aggression in the Middle East, I believe


## p. 993 (#1037) ###########################################

INDIA AND THE UNITED STATES
993
that consultation between Pakistan and Turkey about security
problems will serve the interests not only of Pakistan and Turkey
but also of the whole free world. Improvement in Pakistan's defen-
sive capability will also serve these interests and it is for this reason
that our aid will be given. This Government's views on this sub-
ject are elaborated in a public statement I will release, a copy of
which Ambassador Allen will give you.
“What we are proposing to do, and what Pakistan is agreeing to,
is not directed in any way against India. And I am confirming
publicly that if our aid to any country, including Pakistan, is mis-
used and directed against another in aggression I will undertake
immediately in accordance with my constitutional authority, appro-
priate action both within and without the United Nations to
thwart such aggression. I believe that the Pakistan-Turkey colla-
boration agreement which is being discussed is sound evidence of
the defensive purposes which both countries have in mind.
“We also believe it in the interest of the free world that India
have a strong military defence capability and have admired the
effective way your Government has administered your military
establishment. If your Government should conclude that circums-
tances require military aid of a type contemplated by our mutual
security legislation, please be assured that your request would re-
ceive my most sympathetic consideration. . . . .
DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER. "
The bitterness in India against the American action can be real-
ized only if it is remembered that India was fighting a bitter war
against Pakistan and thousands of her soldiers were being killed or
injured in the war and a lot of money was being wasted. Whatever
the justification for the American action, the fact remains that the
American Government continued to treat both Pakistan and India
on an equal footing. The American Government did not realize
that although she had given a lot of military hardware to Pakistan,
she had given nothing to India and consequently India stood in
need of military help. Not only this, the American Government
put an embargo on the sale of military equipment to both India
and Pakistan. The result was that while Pakistan was able to get
a lot of military equipment from the Nato countries and also the
Cento Powers, India found herself in a weaker position and conse-
quently she had to depend upon military help from the Soviet Union.
Even now (1969), the American Government has declared her
decision to give military aid to Pakistan and this has again strained
the Indo-American relations.
When Communist China attacked India in October, 1962 and


## p. 994 (#1038) ###########################################

994
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1919
the Government of India did not find herself strong enough to meet
the Chinese attack and there was danger of Assam and the Brahma-
putra valley falling in their hands, Jawaharlal Nehru appealed to
the American Government for help and help was sent at once by
the American Government to India. It was with this help that
India was able to stand against the Chinese. This action of the
American Government was highly appreciated in India and it was
felt that the American Government had done a good turn to the
people of India. However, on 17 September, 1967, the United
States adopted a non-committal attitude when the Chinese Govern-
ment gave an ultimatum to India. The Washington correspondent
of the Times tells us that the American policy at that time was cool
towards any conflict between China and India unless it threatened
to spread from the Himalayas to the plains of India. Fighting in
Sikkim was not considered as involving American interests in the
region. This shows that the American Government may not al-
ways be willing to help India against Red China.
A lot of bad blood had been created between the two countries
on account of the American bombing of North Vietnam. The
American Government has not approved of this unkind attitude of
the Indian Government.
The Indian Government does not like the routing of her relations
with the United States through the honest broker, Great Britain.
It is contended that so long as the Americans do not learn to deal
directly with India in all matters, including defence, there can be
no enduring understanding between the two countries. Great
Britain cannot forget her past antipathy towards India and her
advice to the United States about India is bound to be biased. It
is high time that the Americans stop this unhealthy practice.
It is gratifying to note that the American Government has now
started appreciating the so-called policy of non-alignment followed
by the Government of India. It is now realised that it is not neces-
sary that every state must enter into a military alliance with the
United States. There can be countries who do not always ditto
the American view on all matters, but still can be friendly towards
the United States. The result is that on the whole the relations
between the two countries are cordial. Chester Bowles has done
a lot in bringing the two countries together in spite of outward
differences.
THE SOVIET UNION
When India became free, Stalin was ruling Russia. It was a
militant Russia. It had justified its existence by fighting the war


## p. 995 (#1039) ###########################################

INDIA AND THE SOVIET UNION
995
successfully against Hitler. Such a Russia could not appreciate or
understand the lofty thought and philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi.
No wonder, he was called “a charlatan and a mountebank. ” The
Great Soviet Encyclopaedia described Mahatma Gandhi as a “reac-
tionary of the Bania caste who. . . . . . betrayed the people and help-
ed the imperialists against them. . . . . . aped the ascetics. . . . . . pre-
tended in a demagogic way to be a supporter of Indian independence
and an enemy of the British. . . . . . and widely exploited religious
prejudices. ” When Gandhiji was murdered on 30 January, 1949,
“one country, and one only, passed over his death in silence. No
message of condolence came from Russia, not a word of comment
appeared in Soviet newspapers. ”
When India became free, at that time Zhdanov had propounded
the two-camp theory according to which the international struggle
was going on between the imperialists such as the United States
and Great Britain on the one hand and the democratic forces such
as that of the Soviet Union on the other. As India under Nehru
and Gandhi was considered to be an imperialist power, the Com-
munist Party of India, aided by the Cominform, started a violent
struggle in South India against the Indian Government. Such a
thing was not going to bring India nearer the Soviet Union. In
January, 1948, the Soviet Union did not support India on the ques-
tion of Kashmir. In spite of Russian disapproval, India approved
of the Dutch-Indonesian independence agreement in December,
1949. No wonder, Prime Minister Nehru declared at the Com-
monwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in 1949 that India would
stay in the Commonwealth of Nations.
When Prime Minister Nehru visited the United States in October,
1949, he did not get a proper welcome. Nehru suggested to Presi-
dent Truman to slow down the arms race going on between the
United States and the Soviet Union. Truman did not agree.
Nehru asked him to recognize Communist China but Truman re-
jected the suggestion. Nehru asked Truman to give India aid
without strings and support India on the question of Kashmir. All
these requests were rejected by Truman. It appears that Nehru
set his heart against the United States. Although there was an
opportunity for an Indo-Russian understanding the same was not
to be till the death of Stalin in March, 1953. However, during
this period, India did certain things which were welcomed by the
Soviet Union. This applied to the role of India in preventing the
spread of hostilities in the Korean war and bring about truce.
India also tried to check the advance of the United Nations forces
into the interior of China. So long as Stalin lived, the relations
between the two countries were not friendly. In a statement made


## p. 996 (#1040) ###########################################

996
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1909
on 2 December, 1952, Vyshinsky observed: “At best you are dream-
ers and idealists; at worst you don't understand your own position,
and camouflage horrible American policy. "
Not only the death of Stalin in 1953 but certain other factors also
brought the two countries nearer. The Western bloc set up the
Baghdad Pact which later on came to be known as the Cento or
Central Treaty Organization and the Seato. Pakistan became a
member of these Pacts. In May, 1954, the United States entered
into a military Pact with Pakistan under which she agreed to give
a lot of military help to Pakistan. India turned to the Soviet
Union for help. In 1955, President Bulganin and Khruschev
visited India. Both of them were given a rousing welcome. Address-
ing the Indian Parliament, Bulganin observed: “The Soviet people
highly appreciate India's contribution to the cause of peace. It
was owing to the joint efforts of India, the Chinese People's Repub-
lic and the Soviet Union that a cease-fire was achieved in Korea
and the fires of war extinguished in Indo-China. India actively
insists that the Chinese People's Republic be accorded its lawful
seat in the United Nations. The government of India advocates
a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question with due regard to
the national interests and lawful rights of the Chinese People's
Republic.
“India was one of the sponsors of, and played a distinguished role
in, the first Conference of Asian and African countries. The value
of this Conference for universal peace and for safeguarding the
rights and national interests of the peace-loving peoples of the two
continents can hardly be exaggerated.
“The Soviet Union knows and whole-heartedly approves the
stand taken by the Indian Government on the question of prohibit-
ing atomic and hydrogen weapons and reducing armaments, with
a view to utilising for purposes of peaceful construction the immense
resources now absorbed by the arms drive.
“The people of the Soviet Union entertain deep respect for the
efforts of the Indian government against the policy of forming agres-
sive military blocs, and for collective peace and the settlement of
international problems by negotiation. '
The Bhilai Steel Plant has been constructed by the Soviet Union
in India. The Soviet Union has also promised to help the Govern-
ment of India to execute the Bokaro Project involving many hun-
dred crores of rupees.
In the war between India and China in 1962, the Soviet Union
was neutral, although at one stage she wavered. On 25 October,
1962, the Soviet Union indicated that if it came to a choice, she
would stand by Peking. This was done in a leading article in the


## p. 997 (#1041) ###########################################

INDIA AND THE SOVIET UNION
997
Pravda which lashed out against the Western countries for giving
military aid to India and denounced the McMahon Line. How-
ever, on 5 November, 1962, the Soviet Union returned to its for-
mer neutral position in the border dispute between India and
Communist China.
During the war between India and Pakistan in September, 1965,
the Soviet Union played a leading role in co-operation with Great
Britain and the United States, to bring about a cease-fire between
the two countries. After the hostilities were ended, Prime Minister
Kosygin invited India's Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and
Pakistan's President Ayub Khan to Tashkent for the restoration
of friendly relations between the two countries. He succeeded in
that object to some extent. Soon after the signing of the Tashkent
Declaration, Lal Bahadur Shastri died at Tashkent and Mr. Kosygin
came to Delhi along with the dead body of Lal Bahadur Shastri
to attend the funeral. This was very much appreciated in India.
It is worthy of notice that when Dr. Zakir Husain died in May,
1969, Mr. Kosygin once again came to India to attend his funeral.
This was considered to be an act of friendship.
After the Indo-Pakistan war in September,
war in September, 1965, the United
States put an embargo on the supply of arms to both India and
Pakistan Pakistan had other sources from which she could make
up the loss. When India was in a very difficulty, the Soviet Union
agreed to supply arms to India and this she has been doing
throughout.
On the occasion of the Hungarian revolt in 1956, the Government
of India did not condemn the Soviet intervention in Hungary.
Likewise, when the Soviet armies moved into Czechoslovakia in
1968 to crush the liberal forces in that country, the Government of
India did not utter a word against the Soviet action. This was
criticised by the Western Powers who pointed out that India had
two moral standards by which she judged the actions of the West-
ern Powers and those of the Soviet Union.
At present (1969), the relations between India and the Soviet
Union are under a strain. The reason is that the Soviet Union
has committed herself to give military help to Pakistan. The Gov-
ernment of India has taken pains to point out to the Soviet authori-
ties that military help by the Soviet Union to Pakistan would en-
danger the security of India and also nullify and neutralize the
Soviet help given to India. In spite of Indian warnings, the Soviet
Union has already given some military help to Pakistan and hopes
to do so in the future also. This is in keeping with her policy
of winning over Pakistan to her own side. This has become very
necessary on account of the worsening of the relations between the


## p. 998 (#1042) ###########################################

998
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1909
Soviet Union and Communist China and the possibility of a war
between the two countries. The Soviet Union also knows that
there is a military alliance between Pakistan and Communist China
and the latter has already given a lot of military aid to Pakistan.
Pakistan can be won over or neutralized only if the Soviet Union
does something positive to win over the people of that country.
The Soviet Union intends to do so by giving Pakistan both economic
and military help.
There is one danger which the Government of India has to guard
against. During the war between India and China, Khruschev
pointed out that while Russia and India were friends, Russia and
China were brothers. On 25 October, 1962, there was the danger
of the Soviet Union going over to the side of China against India.
In all our calculations in the future, we must see to it that the
Soviet Union does not waver again in the event of a war between
India and China.
COMMUNIST CHINA
In a B. B. C. broadcast in December, 1949, Prime Minister Jawa-
harlal Nehru declared: “We in India have had 2,000 years of
friendship with China. We have differences of opinion and even
small conflicts, but when we hearken back to that long past some-
thing of the wisdom of that past helps us to understand each other. ”
If this was the attitude of Nehru, China thought differently. Two
months earlier, Peking had said: “British imperialism and its run-
ning dog, India, through their officially controlled publications,
have declared in unison that Tibet never acknowledged China's
suzerainty over it and that Britain never acknowledged China's
claim that Tibet is part of China. . . . . . Nehru, riding behind the
imperialists, whose stooge he is, actually considers himself the leader
of the Asian peoples. Into his slavish and bourgeoisie reactionary
character has now been instilled the beastly ambition for aggres-
sion. . . . . . The bourgeoisie of India . . . . . . have learned the ways
of the imperialists, and are harbouring intentions against Tibet and
Sikkim as well as Bhutan. . . . . . the victory of the Chinese people
has brought dawn to the oppressed peoples of Asia and sealed the
fate of Nehru and betrayers of his ilk. The Chiang Kai-sheks of
India, Burma, Indonesia and others of their ilk must march on the
same road to death as Chiang Kai-shek has done. "
India was the first country to recognize the Communist regime
in China. She was also enthusiastic about the entry of Red China
in the United Nations. During the Korean War when China
entered the war on the side of North Korea, the sympathies of the


## p.