Into his slavish and bourgeoisie reactionary
character has now been instilled the beastly ambition for aggres-
sion.
character has now been instilled the beastly ambition for aggres-
sion.
Cambridge History of India - v4 - Indian Empire
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. 999 (#1043) ###########################################
INDIA AND COMMUNIST CHINA
999
people of India were on the side of Red China. After their success
in the Korean war, the Chinese began to talk of liberating Tibet.
On 7 October, 1950, the Chinese troops entered Tibet. The Gov-
ernment of India requested Communist China not to conquer Tibet
but got the following reply: “India appears to have been under the
foreign influences hostile to China in Tibet. ” When Tibet was
conquered by the Chinese troops, India entered into a treaty with
Communist China in 1951. The treaty provided that the Tibetan
people shall unite and drive out imperialist aggressive forces from
Tibet. The Tibetan people shall return to the big family of the
Motherland—the People's Republic of China. The local Govern-
ment of Tibet shall actively assist to enter Tibet and consolidate
the national defence. In accordance with the policy towards
nationalities laid down in the 'Common Programme of the Chinese
People's Political Consultative Conference, the Tibetan people have
the right of exercising national regional autonomy under the unified
leadership of the Central People's Government. The Central
authorities will not alter the existing political system in Tibet. The
Central authorities also will not alter the established status, func-
tions and powers of the Dalai Lama. Officials of the various ranks
shall hold office as usual. The established status, functions and
powers of Panchen Erdeni shall be maintained. By the established
status, functions and powers of the Dalai Lama and of the Panchen
Erdeni are meant the status, functions and powers of the 13th Dalai
Lama and relations with each other. The policy of freedom of
religious belief laid down in the Common Programme of the Chi-
nese People's Political Consultative Conference shall be carried
out. The religious beliefs, customs and habits of the Tibetan people
shall be respected and Lama monasteries shall be protected. The
Central authorities will not effect a change in the income of the
monasteries. Tibetan troops shall be reorganised by stages into the
People's Liberation Army and become a part of the national defence
forces of the People's Republic of China. The spoken and written
language and school education of the Tibetan nationality shall be
developed step by step in accordance with the actual conditions of
Tibet. Tibetan agriculture, livestock raising, industry and com-
merce shall be developed step by step and the people's livelihood
shall be improved step by step in accordance with the actual condi-
tions of Tibet. In matters relating to various reforms in Tibet,
there will be no compulsion on the part of the Central authorities.
The Local Government of Tibet should carry out reforms of its
own accord and when the people raise demands for reform, they
shall be settled by means of consultation with the leading personnel
of Tibet. In so far as the former pro-imperialist and pro-Kuomin-
## p. 1000 (#1044) ##########################################
1000
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1909
tang officials resolutely sever relations with imperialism and the
Kuomintang and do not engage in sabotage or resistance, they may
continue to hold office irrespective of their past. The People's
Liberation Army entering Tibet shall abide by all the above-men-
tioned policies and shall also be fair in all buying and selling and
shall not arbitrarily take a single needle or thread from the people.
The Central People's Government shall conduct the centralized
handling of all external affairs of the area of Tibet and there will
be peaceful co-existence with the neighbouring countries and estab-
lishment and development of fair commercial and trading relations
with them on the basis of equality, mutual benefit, mutual respect
for territory and sovereignty. In order to ensure the implementa-
tion of this agreement, the Central People's Government shall set
up a military and administrative committee and a military area
headquarters in Tibet and apart from the personnel sent there by
the Central People's Government, shall absorb as many local Tibe-
tan personnel as possible to take part in the work. Funds needed
by the military and administrative committee, the military area
headquarters and the People's Liberation Army entering Tibet shall
be provided for by the Central People's Government. The Local
Government of Tibet will assist the People's Liberation Army in
the purchase and transport of food, fodder and other daily necessi-
ties.
In 1954, a treaty of friendship was signed between India and
China. By that treaty, India and China pledged themselves to
follow the five principles in their relations with each other. Those
five principles were the mutual recognition of each other's territo-
rial integrity and sovereignty, non-interference in each other's inter-
nal affairs, non-aggression, equality and mutual benefit and peace-
ful co-existence. These principles came to be known as Pancha-
Shila. India gave up all the territorial rights enjoyed by the British
Government in Tibet. The Indian military posts at Yatung and
Gyantse were to be withdrawn. The Indian pilgrims were to be
provided facilities to visit the religious shrines in Tibet and recipro-
cal facilities were to be provided by India to the Tibetans. Trade
missions were to be set up by the Chinese at Delhi, Kalimpong and
Calcutta and India was allowed to open trade centres at Gartok,
Gyantse and Yatung. India made a gift to China of the post and
telegraph communication system set up by the British Government
in Tibet.
Chou En-lai, Prime Minister of Communist China, visited Delhi
in June, 1954 and he was given a rousing welcome. There was
a talk of Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai. In spite of this, the Chinese
officially protested on 17 July, 1954 against the presence of Indian
## p. 1001 (#1045) ##########################################
INDIA AND COMMUNIST CHINA
1001
Her res-
troops in Barahoti, in the Indian State of Uttar Pradesh. They
went to the extent of giving Barahoti a Chinese name, Wu-Je.
Obviously, the Chinese were making a claim to a territory which
was absolutely Indian. In spite of this provocation, there was no
vigorous action on behalf of the Government of India.
ponse was in these words: “In the agreement of 29th April, 1954,
the Government of China, far from laying claim to any part of
Indian territory, had given a solemn undertaking to respect the
territorial integrity and sovereignty of India. In view of this, the
Government of India concluded that the claim to Barahoti was
made by the Chinese in ignorance, particularly as they did not seem
to be aware of its exact location. "
At this time, maps were published in China which showed 50,000
square miles of Indian territory as Chinese territory. When Prime
Minister Nehru visited China in October, 1954, he brought this
fact to the notice of Chou En-lai. The reply that he got was that
the maps in question were reproductions of the old Kuomintang
maps and the new Chinese Government were so very busy that they
had no time to revise them. It was foolish on the part of India to
have accepted an explanation which was absurd on the face of it.
In April, 1955, Nehru introduced Chou En-lai to the heads of
the 29 nations which had assembled at the Bandung Conference.
Communist China was given a special treatment but it appears it
had no effect on her attitude towards India.
In June, 1955, the Chinese troops set up a camp at Barahoti.
They came down 10 miles south of the Niti Pass and challenged the
Indian patrols. In April, 1956, they entered the Nilang area which
is in Uttar Pradesh. Six months afterwards, the Chinese troops
entered India through the Shipki Pass. In spite of all these provo-
cations, India took no action. She merely forwarded protest notes
to China. When Chou En-lai visited New Delhi in November,
1956 and again in January, 1957, “it was decided that while there
were no disputes regarding the border, there were certain petty
problems which should be settled amicably. ”
In 1956, the Khampa tribesmen of South-East Tibet began a
guerilla revolt against the Chinese. The same year, Dalai Lama
visited India in connection with the 2500th Mahaparinirvana of
Lord Buddha. Although Dalai Lama was not prepared to go back
to Tibet, he was persuaded to do so by the Government of India.
In 1957, the Chinese Government announced a moratorium on
changes in Tibet's economic, social and religious structure, but the
promise was not kept and every effort was made to consolidate the
Chinese position in Tibet. In 1958, the Chinese Government ask-
ed Dalai Lama to attend at Peking the People's Congress but he
## p. 1002 (#1046) ##########################################
1002
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1909
refused to do so as he feared that he might not be allowed to go
back. On 17 March, 1959, there was a serious revolt against the
Chinese in Lhasa and Dalai Lama fled and took shelter in India.
It was in this way that the Chinese occupation in Tibet became
complete.
The occupation of Tibet by China was a diplomatic defeat for
India.
For centuries, Tibet had served as a buffer state between
India and China and after the occupation of Tibet, the borders of
China reached the borders of India. About Chinese occupation
of Tibet and India's attitude towards it, Jai Prakash Narain says:
“It is true that we could not have prevented the Chinese from an-
nexing Tibet. But we could have saved ourselves from being party
to a wrong. The Chinese occupation of Tibet endangered the
safety of India. “Tibet is the palm of the hand and now that the
Chinese have it, they want the five fingers without which the palm
is useless.
The five fingers are Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and
the North-East Frontier Agency. ”
The frontiers of India and China are about 2,640 miles and they
include the boundaries of Sikkim and Bhutan with Tibet because
the external relations and defence of these States are a part of India's
responsibility. This long boundary has three divisions, viz. , the
Western, Middle and Eastern Sectors. The Western Sector begins
at the tri-junction where the boundaries of India, China and Afgha-
nistan meet. It ends in the region where the Indian States of
Kashmir, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh form a common boundary
with Tibet. From here starts the middle sector which ends at the
tri-junction of Uttar Pradesh, Nepal and Tibet. Then starts the
boundary of Nepal with Tibet. Where it ends at the tri-junction of
Nepal, Sikkim and Tibet, there starts the Eastern Sector which
covers Sikkim, Bhutan and NEFA frontiers with Tibet. The Sec-
tor ends at the tri-junction of the NEFA, Tibet and Burma boun-
daries. The line which divides NEFA from its junction with
Bhutan up to the point where it meets the Burma border is known
as the McMahon Line. This line was accepted by the representa-
tives of the Government of India, Tibet and China in a Conference
at Simla in 1913-14. This frontier was accepted through tradi-
tion, custom and administrative convenience by all the three coun-
tries concerned.
Direct access to Tibet is easy from the East but the roads through
it have to pass through a very difficult terrain. There is also the
danger of attacks from the Khampas. The Southern roads pass
through Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal and India and are not available
to China. The major trade route from the North-West goes to
Leh, capital of Ladakh which is a part of Indian territory. The
## p. 1003 (#1047) ##########################################
INDIA AND COMMUNIST CHINA
1003
alternative for China was to build a major highway over the Aksai
Chin Plateau in the Indian region of Ladakh. “The road that the
Chinese first built in 1956-57 across Ladakh was important to the
maintenance of their control over Tibet. Without such a supply
route, the officially acknowledged Khampa revolt in Eastern Tibet
might have reached disastrous proportions. . . . . . It soon gained the
status of a major road, connecting Yarkand and Khotan with
Rudok, Gartok and finally Taklakot, a trade and agricultural centre
of long recognized strategic interest just North of the point where
the borders of Tibet, Nepal and India meet. "
During the days of India's friendship with Tibet, this road was
completed by China without any opposition and by 1958 China
occupied over 6,000 sq. miles of Indian territory.
There were many violations of the Indian border by the Chinese
from time to time. On 27 September, 1958, a group of 51 Chinese
troops crossed into the Lohit Frontier of NEFA. On 7 August,
1959, another Chinese patrol crossed the Indian border at Khinze-
mane in NEFA. Another incursion took place at Longju. The
Indian detachment had to retire and the Chinese forces occupied
the Longju Post. Later on, the Chinese withdrew from this post
on account of the outbreak of an epidemic. On 6 October, 1959,
the Chinese ambushed a party of 19 Indians in Ladakh and killed
16 of them.
On 9 November, 1959, Chou En-lai proposed a withdrawal of
troops by both sides 124/2 miles on each side of the positions held
by both the countries at that time and also urged early talks to dis-
cuss the border issue. On 18 December, 1959, he rejected the
Indian proposal for the neutralisation of the disputed areas in
Ladakh. However, he accepted the proposal for neutralisation of
Longju. He rejected the Indian proposal that in Ladakh, the Chi-
nese should withdraw their civil and military forces to the East of
the Indian border and India in turn should withdraw to the west
of the line claimed as international frontier in the Chinese maps of
1956. Chou En-lai, on his part, proposed the neutralisation of
Khinzemane, Lapthal, Nilang, Shipki Pass, Demchok, Chura and
Chuje. That proposal was rejected by India.
In March 1960, a meeting was held at New Delhi and it was
attended by Chou En-lai. China wanted to strike a barter deal.
She was prepared to give up her claim on the disputed territory in
the Eastern Sector if India recognized China's claim in the Ladakh
The suggestion was not accepted by India. It was decided
to set up a committee of Officials of both the countries to investi-
gate the claims of each side and to submit a report by September,
1960. However, nothing came out of the report of the Committee
area.
## p. 1004 (#1048) ##########################################
1004
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1909
It was
and China continued to occupy large chunks of Indian territory.
It appears that Indian Government did not attach due importance
to the Chinese activities. It was foolishly maintained that the areas
occupied by the Chinese consisted of "barren mountain tops where
not even a blade of grass grows. ” China claimed about 15,000
sq. miles of territory in Ladakh and NEFA. She also claimed
Longju, Khinzemane, Spiti, Shipki, Nilang, Jodhang, Lapthal and
Barahoti. She also claimed about 2,000 sq. miles of the territory
of Bhutan and put forward her claim to negotiate directly with
Bhutan.
It is true that there had been Chinese intrusions from time to
time but the relations between India and China got very much
strained after India gave political asylum to Dalai Lama.
considered to be an affront by China and the Chinese attitude to-
wards India became very aggressive. When the attention of China
was drawn to the activities of Guard Units, Chou En-lai wrote
thus to Nehru: “I can assure your Excellency that it is merely for
preventing remnant armed Tibetan rebels from crossing the border
back and forth to carry out harassing activities that the Chinese
Government in recent months despatched guard units to be station-
ed in the south-eastern part of Tibet region of China. This is obvi-
ously in the interest of ensuring the tranquillity of the border and
will in no way constitute a threat to India. ”
In 1961, war clouds began to gather over Ladakh and NEFA.
In April, 1961, the Chinese intruded into Sikkim, in May into the
Chushul area of Ladakh and in July into the Kameng Division of
NEFA. In August, 1961, the Chinese intruded into Ladakh once
again and established three checkposts, one at Nyagzu and two
near Danbuguru. In January, 1962, the Chinese crossed over near
Longju in NEFA. In April, May and June, they entered the
Chipchap and Spanggur areas of Ladakh. In July, 1962, the
Indian post in the Galwan valley was surrounded by the Chinese.
However, they did not advance further as Indian army was given
orders to defend itself in case of further Chinese advance. On 8
September, 1962, the Chinese launched a massive attack on the
NEFA border. They crossed the Thagla Ridge and intruded into
the Indian territory. On 20 September, 1962, they again opened
fire on India Guards. On 9 October, 1962, they attacked the
Indian posts on the Indian side of the Thagla Ridge. They opened
fire on Indian troops with 2" mortars, automatic weapons and hand
grenades. On 20 October, 1962, the Chinese started their big
offensive. In NEFA, the strength of the attacking forces reached
"three divisions, two from the direction of Tawang and one Divi-
sion in the direction of Kibithoo. To launch such an attack on
## p. 1005 (#1049) ##########################################
INDIA AND COMMUNIST CHINA
1005
such a large scale, one can imagine the amount of preparation they
must have undertaken. They must have been planning this for a
long time in considerable detail, and these actions in overrunning
outpost in Dhola Bridge and in occupying Thagla Ridge, must have
been with the specific aim of forcing us to react so as to give them
a good excuse for launching an attack on us” (General K. S.
Thimayya). They also attacked in the Chip Chap Valley and the
Pangong Lake areas of Ladakh. In three days, major fighting was
going on in five main areas. By 24 October, the Chinese were
well across the McMahon Line through a 25-mile wide sector to a
depth of 8 miles into the Indian territory. Kibithoo had fallen into
the hands of the enemy.
On 24 October 1962, China made a peace offer. The terms
were that the Sino-Indian border question should be settled peace-
fully. Emphas
Emphasis was put on the sanctity of the “line of actual con-
trol. ” It was suggested that the Prime Ministers of the two coun-
tries should meet and resolve the differences between the two coun-
tries. Chou En-lai observed: "What issue is there between China
and India which cannot be settled peacefully? . . . . . . China doesn't
want a single inch of India's territory. ” The reply of Nehru was:
“There is no sense or meaning in the Chinese offer to withdraw 20
kilometres from what they call 'line of actual control. ' What is
this line of actual control? ' Is this the line they have created by
aggression since the beginning of September? Advancing 40 or 60
kilometres by blatant military aggression and offering to withdraw
20 kilometres provided both sides do this is a deceptive device which
can fool nobody. "
On 26 October, 1962, India declared a state of emergency. By
31 October, 1962, the Chinese had consolidated their positions in
NEFA and were poised to threaten the plains of India. On that
day, they actually launched a massive attack. Tawang fell into
their hands. Walong, Sela and Bomdila also fell into their hands
in quick succession.
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. 999 (#1043) ###########################################
INDIA AND COMMUNIST CHINA
999
people of India were on the side of Red China. After their success
in the Korean war, the Chinese began to talk of liberating Tibet.
On 7 October, 1950, the Chinese troops entered Tibet. The Gov-
ernment of India requested Communist China not to conquer Tibet
but got the following reply: “India appears to have been under the
foreign influences hostile to China in Tibet. ” When Tibet was
conquered by the Chinese troops, India entered into a treaty with
Communist China in 1951. The treaty provided that the Tibetan
people shall unite and drive out imperialist aggressive forces from
Tibet. The Tibetan people shall return to the big family of the
Motherland—the People's Republic of China. The local Govern-
ment of Tibet shall actively assist to enter Tibet and consolidate
the national defence. In accordance with the policy towards
nationalities laid down in the 'Common Programme of the Chinese
People's Political Consultative Conference, the Tibetan people have
the right of exercising national regional autonomy under the unified
leadership of the Central People's Government. The Central
authorities will not alter the existing political system in Tibet. The
Central authorities also will not alter the established status, func-
tions and powers of the Dalai Lama. Officials of the various ranks
shall hold office as usual. The established status, functions and
powers of Panchen Erdeni shall be maintained. By the established
status, functions and powers of the Dalai Lama and of the Panchen
Erdeni are meant the status, functions and powers of the 13th Dalai
Lama and relations with each other. The policy of freedom of
religious belief laid down in the Common Programme of the Chi-
nese People's Political Consultative Conference shall be carried
out. The religious beliefs, customs and habits of the Tibetan people
shall be respected and Lama monasteries shall be protected. The
Central authorities will not effect a change in the income of the
monasteries. Tibetan troops shall be reorganised by stages into the
People's Liberation Army and become a part of the national defence
forces of the People's Republic of China. The spoken and written
language and school education of the Tibetan nationality shall be
developed step by step in accordance with the actual conditions of
Tibet. Tibetan agriculture, livestock raising, industry and com-
merce shall be developed step by step and the people's livelihood
shall be improved step by step in accordance with the actual condi-
tions of Tibet. In matters relating to various reforms in Tibet,
there will be no compulsion on the part of the Central authorities.
The Local Government of Tibet should carry out reforms of its
own accord and when the people raise demands for reform, they
shall be settled by means of consultation with the leading personnel
of Tibet. In so far as the former pro-imperialist and pro-Kuomin-
## p. 1000 (#1044) ##########################################
1000
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1909
tang officials resolutely sever relations with imperialism and the
Kuomintang and do not engage in sabotage or resistance, they may
continue to hold office irrespective of their past. The People's
Liberation Army entering Tibet shall abide by all the above-men-
tioned policies and shall also be fair in all buying and selling and
shall not arbitrarily take a single needle or thread from the people.
The Central People's Government shall conduct the centralized
handling of all external affairs of the area of Tibet and there will
be peaceful co-existence with the neighbouring countries and estab-
lishment and development of fair commercial and trading relations
with them on the basis of equality, mutual benefit, mutual respect
for territory and sovereignty. In order to ensure the implementa-
tion of this agreement, the Central People's Government shall set
up a military and administrative committee and a military area
headquarters in Tibet and apart from the personnel sent there by
the Central People's Government, shall absorb as many local Tibe-
tan personnel as possible to take part in the work. Funds needed
by the military and administrative committee, the military area
headquarters and the People's Liberation Army entering Tibet shall
be provided for by the Central People's Government. The Local
Government of Tibet will assist the People's Liberation Army in
the purchase and transport of food, fodder and other daily necessi-
ties.
In 1954, a treaty of friendship was signed between India and
China. By that treaty, India and China pledged themselves to
follow the five principles in their relations with each other. Those
five principles were the mutual recognition of each other's territo-
rial integrity and sovereignty, non-interference in each other's inter-
nal affairs, non-aggression, equality and mutual benefit and peace-
ful co-existence. These principles came to be known as Pancha-
Shila. India gave up all the territorial rights enjoyed by the British
Government in Tibet. The Indian military posts at Yatung and
Gyantse were to be withdrawn. The Indian pilgrims were to be
provided facilities to visit the religious shrines in Tibet and recipro-
cal facilities were to be provided by India to the Tibetans. Trade
missions were to be set up by the Chinese at Delhi, Kalimpong and
Calcutta and India was allowed to open trade centres at Gartok,
Gyantse and Yatung. India made a gift to China of the post and
telegraph communication system set up by the British Government
in Tibet.
Chou En-lai, Prime Minister of Communist China, visited Delhi
in June, 1954 and he was given a rousing welcome. There was
a talk of Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai. In spite of this, the Chinese
officially protested on 17 July, 1954 against the presence of Indian
## p. 1001 (#1045) ##########################################
INDIA AND COMMUNIST CHINA
1001
Her res-
troops in Barahoti, in the Indian State of Uttar Pradesh. They
went to the extent of giving Barahoti a Chinese name, Wu-Je.
Obviously, the Chinese were making a claim to a territory which
was absolutely Indian. In spite of this provocation, there was no
vigorous action on behalf of the Government of India.
ponse was in these words: “In the agreement of 29th April, 1954,
the Government of China, far from laying claim to any part of
Indian territory, had given a solemn undertaking to respect the
territorial integrity and sovereignty of India. In view of this, the
Government of India concluded that the claim to Barahoti was
made by the Chinese in ignorance, particularly as they did not seem
to be aware of its exact location. "
At this time, maps were published in China which showed 50,000
square miles of Indian territory as Chinese territory. When Prime
Minister Nehru visited China in October, 1954, he brought this
fact to the notice of Chou En-lai. The reply that he got was that
the maps in question were reproductions of the old Kuomintang
maps and the new Chinese Government were so very busy that they
had no time to revise them. It was foolish on the part of India to
have accepted an explanation which was absurd on the face of it.
In April, 1955, Nehru introduced Chou En-lai to the heads of
the 29 nations which had assembled at the Bandung Conference.
Communist China was given a special treatment but it appears it
had no effect on her attitude towards India.
In June, 1955, the Chinese troops set up a camp at Barahoti.
They came down 10 miles south of the Niti Pass and challenged the
Indian patrols. In April, 1956, they entered the Nilang area which
is in Uttar Pradesh. Six months afterwards, the Chinese troops
entered India through the Shipki Pass. In spite of all these provo-
cations, India took no action. She merely forwarded protest notes
to China. When Chou En-lai visited New Delhi in November,
1956 and again in January, 1957, “it was decided that while there
were no disputes regarding the border, there were certain petty
problems which should be settled amicably. ”
In 1956, the Khampa tribesmen of South-East Tibet began a
guerilla revolt against the Chinese. The same year, Dalai Lama
visited India in connection with the 2500th Mahaparinirvana of
Lord Buddha. Although Dalai Lama was not prepared to go back
to Tibet, he was persuaded to do so by the Government of India.
In 1957, the Chinese Government announced a moratorium on
changes in Tibet's economic, social and religious structure, but the
promise was not kept and every effort was made to consolidate the
Chinese position in Tibet. In 1958, the Chinese Government ask-
ed Dalai Lama to attend at Peking the People's Congress but he
## p. 1002 (#1046) ##########################################
1002
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1909
refused to do so as he feared that he might not be allowed to go
back. On 17 March, 1959, there was a serious revolt against the
Chinese in Lhasa and Dalai Lama fled and took shelter in India.
It was in this way that the Chinese occupation in Tibet became
complete.
The occupation of Tibet by China was a diplomatic defeat for
India.
For centuries, Tibet had served as a buffer state between
India and China and after the occupation of Tibet, the borders of
China reached the borders of India. About Chinese occupation
of Tibet and India's attitude towards it, Jai Prakash Narain says:
“It is true that we could not have prevented the Chinese from an-
nexing Tibet. But we could have saved ourselves from being party
to a wrong. The Chinese occupation of Tibet endangered the
safety of India. “Tibet is the palm of the hand and now that the
Chinese have it, they want the five fingers without which the palm
is useless.
The five fingers are Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and
the North-East Frontier Agency. ”
The frontiers of India and China are about 2,640 miles and they
include the boundaries of Sikkim and Bhutan with Tibet because
the external relations and defence of these States are a part of India's
responsibility. This long boundary has three divisions, viz. , the
Western, Middle and Eastern Sectors. The Western Sector begins
at the tri-junction where the boundaries of India, China and Afgha-
nistan meet. It ends in the region where the Indian States of
Kashmir, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh form a common boundary
with Tibet. From here starts the middle sector which ends at the
tri-junction of Uttar Pradesh, Nepal and Tibet. Then starts the
boundary of Nepal with Tibet. Where it ends at the tri-junction of
Nepal, Sikkim and Tibet, there starts the Eastern Sector which
covers Sikkim, Bhutan and NEFA frontiers with Tibet. The Sec-
tor ends at the tri-junction of the NEFA, Tibet and Burma boun-
daries. The line which divides NEFA from its junction with
Bhutan up to the point where it meets the Burma border is known
as the McMahon Line. This line was accepted by the representa-
tives of the Government of India, Tibet and China in a Conference
at Simla in 1913-14. This frontier was accepted through tradi-
tion, custom and administrative convenience by all the three coun-
tries concerned.
Direct access to Tibet is easy from the East but the roads through
it have to pass through a very difficult terrain. There is also the
danger of attacks from the Khampas. The Southern roads pass
through Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal and India and are not available
to China. The major trade route from the North-West goes to
Leh, capital of Ladakh which is a part of Indian territory. The
## p. 1003 (#1047) ##########################################
INDIA AND COMMUNIST CHINA
1003
alternative for China was to build a major highway over the Aksai
Chin Plateau in the Indian region of Ladakh. “The road that the
Chinese first built in 1956-57 across Ladakh was important to the
maintenance of their control over Tibet. Without such a supply
route, the officially acknowledged Khampa revolt in Eastern Tibet
might have reached disastrous proportions. . . . . . It soon gained the
status of a major road, connecting Yarkand and Khotan with
Rudok, Gartok and finally Taklakot, a trade and agricultural centre
of long recognized strategic interest just North of the point where
the borders of Tibet, Nepal and India meet. "
During the days of India's friendship with Tibet, this road was
completed by China without any opposition and by 1958 China
occupied over 6,000 sq. miles of Indian territory.
There were many violations of the Indian border by the Chinese
from time to time. On 27 September, 1958, a group of 51 Chinese
troops crossed into the Lohit Frontier of NEFA. On 7 August,
1959, another Chinese patrol crossed the Indian border at Khinze-
mane in NEFA. Another incursion took place at Longju. The
Indian detachment had to retire and the Chinese forces occupied
the Longju Post. Later on, the Chinese withdrew from this post
on account of the outbreak of an epidemic. On 6 October, 1959,
the Chinese ambushed a party of 19 Indians in Ladakh and killed
16 of them.
On 9 November, 1959, Chou En-lai proposed a withdrawal of
troops by both sides 124/2 miles on each side of the positions held
by both the countries at that time and also urged early talks to dis-
cuss the border issue. On 18 December, 1959, he rejected the
Indian proposal for the neutralisation of the disputed areas in
Ladakh. However, he accepted the proposal for neutralisation of
Longju. He rejected the Indian proposal that in Ladakh, the Chi-
nese should withdraw their civil and military forces to the East of
the Indian border and India in turn should withdraw to the west
of the line claimed as international frontier in the Chinese maps of
1956. Chou En-lai, on his part, proposed the neutralisation of
Khinzemane, Lapthal, Nilang, Shipki Pass, Demchok, Chura and
Chuje. That proposal was rejected by India.
In March 1960, a meeting was held at New Delhi and it was
attended by Chou En-lai. China wanted to strike a barter deal.
She was prepared to give up her claim on the disputed territory in
the Eastern Sector if India recognized China's claim in the Ladakh
The suggestion was not accepted by India. It was decided
to set up a committee of Officials of both the countries to investi-
gate the claims of each side and to submit a report by September,
1960. However, nothing came out of the report of the Committee
area.
## p. 1004 (#1048) ##########################################
1004
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1909
It was
and China continued to occupy large chunks of Indian territory.
It appears that Indian Government did not attach due importance
to the Chinese activities. It was foolishly maintained that the areas
occupied by the Chinese consisted of "barren mountain tops where
not even a blade of grass grows. ” China claimed about 15,000
sq. miles of territory in Ladakh and NEFA. She also claimed
Longju, Khinzemane, Spiti, Shipki, Nilang, Jodhang, Lapthal and
Barahoti. She also claimed about 2,000 sq. miles of the territory
of Bhutan and put forward her claim to negotiate directly with
Bhutan.
It is true that there had been Chinese intrusions from time to
time but the relations between India and China got very much
strained after India gave political asylum to Dalai Lama.
considered to be an affront by China and the Chinese attitude to-
wards India became very aggressive. When the attention of China
was drawn to the activities of Guard Units, Chou En-lai wrote
thus to Nehru: “I can assure your Excellency that it is merely for
preventing remnant armed Tibetan rebels from crossing the border
back and forth to carry out harassing activities that the Chinese
Government in recent months despatched guard units to be station-
ed in the south-eastern part of Tibet region of China. This is obvi-
ously in the interest of ensuring the tranquillity of the border and
will in no way constitute a threat to India. ”
In 1961, war clouds began to gather over Ladakh and NEFA.
In April, 1961, the Chinese intruded into Sikkim, in May into the
Chushul area of Ladakh and in July into the Kameng Division of
NEFA. In August, 1961, the Chinese intruded into Ladakh once
again and established three checkposts, one at Nyagzu and two
near Danbuguru. In January, 1962, the Chinese crossed over near
Longju in NEFA. In April, May and June, they entered the
Chipchap and Spanggur areas of Ladakh. In July, 1962, the
Indian post in the Galwan valley was surrounded by the Chinese.
However, they did not advance further as Indian army was given
orders to defend itself in case of further Chinese advance. On 8
September, 1962, the Chinese launched a massive attack on the
NEFA border. They crossed the Thagla Ridge and intruded into
the Indian territory. On 20 September, 1962, they again opened
fire on India Guards. On 9 October, 1962, they attacked the
Indian posts on the Indian side of the Thagla Ridge. They opened
fire on Indian troops with 2" mortars, automatic weapons and hand
grenades. On 20 October, 1962, the Chinese started their big
offensive. In NEFA, the strength of the attacking forces reached
"three divisions, two from the direction of Tawang and one Divi-
sion in the direction of Kibithoo. To launch such an attack on
## p. 1005 (#1049) ##########################################
INDIA AND COMMUNIST CHINA
1005
such a large scale, one can imagine the amount of preparation they
must have undertaken. They must have been planning this for a
long time in considerable detail, and these actions in overrunning
outpost in Dhola Bridge and in occupying Thagla Ridge, must have
been with the specific aim of forcing us to react so as to give them
a good excuse for launching an attack on us” (General K. S.
Thimayya). They also attacked in the Chip Chap Valley and the
Pangong Lake areas of Ladakh. In three days, major fighting was
going on in five main areas. By 24 October, the Chinese were
well across the McMahon Line through a 25-mile wide sector to a
depth of 8 miles into the Indian territory. Kibithoo had fallen into
the hands of the enemy.
On 24 October 1962, China made a peace offer. The terms
were that the Sino-Indian border question should be settled peace-
fully. Emphas
Emphasis was put on the sanctity of the “line of actual con-
trol. ” It was suggested that the Prime Ministers of the two coun-
tries should meet and resolve the differences between the two coun-
tries. Chou En-lai observed: "What issue is there between China
and India which cannot be settled peacefully? . . . . . . China doesn't
want a single inch of India's territory. ” The reply of Nehru was:
“There is no sense or meaning in the Chinese offer to withdraw 20
kilometres from what they call 'line of actual control. ' What is
this line of actual control? ' Is this the line they have created by
aggression since the beginning of September? Advancing 40 or 60
kilometres by blatant military aggression and offering to withdraw
20 kilometres provided both sides do this is a deceptive device which
can fool nobody. "
On 26 October, 1962, India declared a state of emergency. By
31 October, 1962, the Chinese had consolidated their positions in
NEFA and were poised to threaten the plains of India. On that
day, they actually launched a massive attack. Tawang fell into
their hands. Walong, Sela and Bomdila also fell into their hands
in quick succession.
