“In a meaningful India-U.S. entente, supported by other democratic countries like Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia, lies the best hope for democracy and freedom in Asia and peace in the world. It is towards forging such an association that India and the U.S. should work. They have no time to lose and they have no cause to fear that Russia, which is also deeply interested in peace, will interpret such a development as inimical to its interests.”
SEPTEMBER 30, 1965
Towards closer Indo-U.S. Accord
THE DEVELOPMENTS OF THE PAST FEW WEEKS HAVE BROUGHT an awareness, at all levels of opinion in the country, of the necessity for a reappraisal of our foreign and domestic policies. The Prime Minister has taken the initiative in calling for such a review and has already given a new direction to what has to be done on the home front. He has instructed the Planning Commission to make an immediate “reappraisal of our plans in the light of our recent experiences and having regard to the essential requirements for the future”, thus introducing a pragmatism in planning which has been rather conspicuous by its absence all these years. A new approach to our external relations is equally important and we would urge the Prime Minister to set the pace in this field also.
If world reaction to the present Indo-Pakistan conflict has proved anything, it is that no country, except Malaysia and Singapore, was prepared to come out openly to support us. This despite the fact that the reports of both the U. N. Secretary-General and the U. N. Observers in Kashmir have shown Pakistan to be guilty of aggression. Even the Soviet Union, after reiterating that Kashmir is an integral part of India, chose to assume, like several other countries, a posture of “neutrality when it came to pulling up Pakistan. Neutrality in a case of aggression like Pakistan’s really loads the dice in favour of the aggressor.
We should however presume each of these countries was acting in its enlightened self-interest. The United States and the Soviet Union, which have been at loggerheads in the past over practically every issue, have now come to realise that they have a common interest in the preservation of world peace and in not letting any conflict develop to such proportions as may engulf the world. In this connection, it is a welcome trend that the United States, which during the ‘fifties was prone to look at world problems through Britain’s eyes probably out of deference to the latter’s long experience in international affairs, has now begun to take a more independent look and has even on occasions strongly differed from Britain and chosen to go it alone. For instance, Britain is still inclined to be complacent about the threat to peace that China poses whereas the United States has a very clear understanding of the Chinese menace and Peking’s infinite capacity for fomenting trouble and creating chaos in the independent countries of Asia. Russia, too, has found its socialist ally entirely intractable and irresponsible and has every reason to be concerned over the policies and goals of a China which is totally out of step with the realities of a peaceful world. It is China’s creed that the Chinese way of dealing with nations is the only right way and is bound to prevail eventually and, in pursuit of its ambitions, it has been going about committing open aggressions at least in one area and subversion in other parts of Asia. The implications of the threat that China poses can be seen from the fact that the Indonesian people have already become a prey to its venomous propaganda and Pakistan has fallen into its diplomatic net. It is China’s sinister objective to bring the whole of Asia and Africa within its sphere of influence. The United States has been the first to recognise this and move to nip the Chinese nettle in the bud. Russia too is now beginning to see it in similar light and seems anxious to curb the spread of China’s influence beyond the Chinese shore.
From the time of our Independence 18 years ago we have followed a policy aimed at befriending the whole world, sometimes at the cost of the national interest. But we now find ourself in a situation where even over an issue of vital importance to us, namely our conflict with Pakistan, we see no evidence of positive overseas support for our cause. This is indeed a sad reflection on our foreign policy. Britain is being blamed in many quarters for our predicament and there are demands that we should withdraw from the Commonwealth. This seems to be a cry of anger born out of frustration. It is undeniable Britain has been playing a dubious role in the world debate on Kashmir but it will not serve our long range interests to react emotionally to it and talk of pulling out of the Commonwealth, though Indian withdrawal would, we believe, deprive this amorphous association of much of its prestige. Our approach to international problems should be mature and dignified and it is up to us to show Britain, biased though it is in favour of Pakistan, how unwise it is in following a policy not calculated to win, in the long run, the support and friendship of a democratic country like India. There is certainly no need for us to make a political opponent of Britain; nor need we feel bound by any ties we may have with it, should they come in the way of our pursuit of our national interests.
It is apparent we will have to face a hostile Pakistan and China for a long time to come. We should naturally build up our strength to stand up to these foes. It would at the same time make our task of resisting aggression easier if we had the active support of some important countries. We should therefore bend our efforts to making new stauncher friendships than we have so far done. We should forge special bonds – not necessarily military alliances – with countries like the U.S. and Japan, whose major interests in Asia synchronise with ours. We cannot, of course, expect any country to support us on matters of vital interest to us unless we are prepared to support it on matters of vital interest to that country so long as no conflict with the principles we stand for is involved. Without such give and take we cannot hope to win friends who will stand by us through thick and thin. It is perhaps our failure in the past to order our international relations on the basis of such quid pro quo that is responsible for our present predicament.
It is imperative for us to convince the United States of the unwisdom of arming a country like Pakistan, a theocratic dictatorship which has made hatred of a peaceful neighbour the sheet-anchor of its foreign policy. Pakistan’s capacity for mischief is directly in proportion to the amount of military assistance it receives from abroad. The Dulles concept of containing Communism through a network of military bases has become obsolete in this age of guided missiles, nullifying any value Pakistan may have had in America’s global strategy in the past. Pakistan by its collusion with China, has also established its unreliability as an ally and we hope Washington realises the danger of basing its Asia policy with Pakistan as one of its pillars.
If the containment of China is the major long-term problem in Asia, it becomes obvious that the U.S. and India should act in close concert. India today is an oasis of freedom in the midst of a desert of totalitarianism in Asia. As we had occasion to observe before, the United States, which has stood out in postwar years as the authentic champion of the democratic world, must not make a mistake about what is really at stake in India. India’s record as a secular democracy is unmatched and on its continued well-being would seem to depend the survival of democracy itself in this vast part of the world. Therefore it is in the interests of preserving the treasured principle of government by consent that India is enabled to become strong enough to withstand the unholy pressures of its totalitarian neighbours.
In a meaningful India-U.S. entente, supported by other democratic countries like Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia, lies the best hope for democracy and freedom in Asia and peace in the world. It is towards forging such an association that India and the U.S. should work. They have no time to lose and they have no cause to fear that Russia, which is also deeply interested in peace, will interpret such a development as inimical to its interests. Nor need it affect in any way the understanding and friendship that have grown between the Soviet Union and India over the past 15 years. Russia, in our opinion, would only welcome such a development which is aimed at ensuring a world of peace and of peaceful co-existence by holding at bay the one force threatening it the most, China.
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I