Makers of Modern India

by Ramachandra Guha

  … I should like the Members of this House to consider the last five or six years of diplomatic history. In spite of every effort, the world has repeatedly failed to achieve harmony. The astonishing thing is that failure does not teach us a lesson and we make the same mistakes over again. This is really extraordinary. I should have thought that the lessons of the two great world wars were obvious enough to anybody willing to give thought to it.

  It may be that the crisis today is due to the fault of a nation or a group of nations. It may be Russia’s fault or the fault of the communist group of nations. What do we do when a group of nations functions in an objectionable way?

  People talk a great deal about communism and as an honourable Member pointed out, some Members thought that we had turned this discussion into an anti-communist conference. Communism is certainly an interesting subject and one that is worthy of discussion but it does not have much bearing on the issue. I am sure that those who think only in terms of communism and anti-communism are going hopelessly astray and will never reach any goal. The difficulty is that much of the thinking—not so much here as elsewhere—revolves round these words.

  The House knows very well what the policy of the Government of India has been in regard to communist activities in this country. It has not been a tender policy and it is not going to be a tender policy. We must look at the world as it is and recognize that mighty forces are at work and millions of people have come under their influence. We must try to understand them and try as far as we can to divert them into right channels and prevent them from going into wrong ones. That is our problem. Some honourable Members seem to think that I should issue an ultimatum to China, that I should warn them not to do this or that or that I should send them a letter saying that it is foolish to follow the doctrine of communism. I do not see how it is going to help anybody if I act in this way. Remember, the world has many countries. Some of them are called great powers by virtue of their influence. They are nations with great resources behind them and inevitably play a significant part in the world’s history today.

  The United States of America is a great democratic power. The United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R., even though their policies differ, greatly influence the world’s history and no one can deny China the status of a great power today. China is in a position to shape her own destiny and that is a great thing. It is true that she is controlled by communists as Russia is. It would be interesting to know whether or not her type of communism is the same as Russia’s, how she will develop and how close the association between China and Russia will be.

  The point at issue is that China is a great nation which cannot be ignored, no matter what resolution you may pass. Nor can you ignore the United States of America. Some people talk of American imperialism and American dollars in a hostile fashion. You cannot condemn or ignore the whole nation just because you do not approve of some aspect of the myriad shapes of American life. We have to take facts as they are. The most relevant fact at the moment is that there are some great nations in the world with concentrated power in their hands that influence all the other nations. That being so, there is a conflict between these powerful nations—an ideological conflict as well as a political conflict. Either these nations will have a war and try to suppress or defeat one another or one group will triumph over the other …

  The only way seems to be the avoidance of war. All nations must be free to develop as they like without any external interference. This does not mean that they will not influence one another in a variety of ways. It is possible that the existing contradictions may gradually be solved in that manner. On the other hand, they may not. I am not a prophet; I do not know. In any case, the way of war does not solve them. The concentration of power in the hands of these great nations and the fact that the power is not too unevenly matched, means a very disastrous war. It also means no ultimate victory. There may be a military victory; but there will be no real victory, if by victory you mean the achievement of certain objectives.

  I doubt if, after the terrible disaster of a world war, democracy can survive. The democratic nations may win the war—mind you, I have little doubt that they will—but I doubt if after the disaster of a world war democracy can survive at all. I even doubt whether any high standards of living can survive. I have no doubt that the great nations wish to avoid war because they are aware of its consequences. No one can assert that America wants war. I cannot imagine anything more unlikely. If America wanted war, who could have stopped her? She obviously does not. She wants to avoid war because she is aware of the great disasters a world war will cause. England also wants to avoid war. In spite of this, forces are impelling these nations in a direction which may lead to war. The biggest task today is to prevent that and that is the task for England, for America, for us and for all other countries …

  This next excerpt is from a letter from Nehru to chief ministers, dated 16 June 1952.12

  … It is important that we should be clear about our foreign policy. Some people imagined that there was some shift of it or some variation. As a matter of fact, we have adhered to our policy and we intend to continue to do so. People, judging from some odd incident, come to wrong conclusions. If we take aid from the United States of America or are otherwise friendly to them, we are said to incline towards that particular group of nations in the cold war that is going on. If we send a cultural mission to China and express our appreciation of some of the activities of the new regime in China, we are said to have inclined towards the other group of nations. As a matter of fact, we try our best, within the limits of our policy, to be friendly and co-operative with the countries of both these groups. We have intimate relations—political, cultural and economic—with the United Kingdom. That is not a legacy from the past but is to our interest today. Our whole political structure is largely fashioned after that of the United Kingdom. We use their language extensively. It is natural, therefore, that those connections should continue. That does not mean in the slightest that we subordinate ourselves to the U.K. in any way. Even the Commonwealth relationship does not lessen in the slightest our complete independence of policy or action, as can be seen by anybody who is acquainted with current affairs …

  With the United States of America, our associations are also fairly close, though not as close as those with the U.K. We trade with them. We have received help from them and we have many students there. As I have pointed out previously, there is always a certain risk involved in receiving substantial help from any one country. Therefore we have to be careful. It would be folly not to receive the help we so badly need, because we cannot rely upon ourselves.

  With the U.S.S.R., our contacts are friendly but not close, that is, we have not got much business or other dealings. That is not because we avoid such dealings, but because, in the nature of things, it is more difficult for us to deal with them. Where an opportunity offers, we take it. With China, partly the same considerations apply. But I think it is true that a variety of circumstances pull India and China towards each other, in spite of differences of forms of government. This is the long pull of geography and history and, if I may add, of the future. I do not see why we should be alarmed at this. Here also we should be careful. All this means that we should look at current history in some perspective of both the past and the future. There is far too much entanglement with the present with all its passions and conflicts for most countries to develop this perspective. We claim no special virtue for ourselves. But, situated as we are, we are perhaps in a better position to look at things at long range and fashion our policy accordingly …

  On the return of our cultural mission to China, Delhi heard a great deal about the new China from the members of this mission. On the whole, what we heard was highly appreciative of China, though there were criticisms also. In regard to one matter there was complete agreement and that was the new spirit and enthusiasm of the Chinese people. For any people that is a great asset. For the Chinese with their amazing capacity for hard work and co-oper
ative endeavour, that means something even more. Although we have heard a great deal about recent developments in China, our knowledge still remains vague and the picture is not clear. It would be helpful if we knew more about the background of events there, of their economy, their engineering success, their education, etc., because we might be able to learn something from all this. China started a period of civil wars and internal conflicts forty years ago. During these years, she had no real peace and she had major wars. Because of this obviously no development could take place and large parts of the country were devastated. When the new Government came into power, they had to deal with this accumulated ruin of forty years of conflict and had to start almost from scratch. Only in Manchuria there was a highly industrialized area, built up by the Japanese. But even there part of the equipment had been removed after the last war, mostly by the Russians. Thus the new regime in China started with every disadvantage except that of faith and enthusiasm. Immediately after there was friction with other countries and they were unable to get any kind of help from any outside country excepting the U.S.S.R. What they have done in these difficult conditions is, therefore, of great interest to us. It is true that authoritarian methods yield results rather quickly, whatever their immediate or long-distance disadvantages might be. Nevertheless, it is a feat to face these manifold difficulties and overcome them, chiefly with their own efforts.

  We cannot compare India to the European countries or the American. These latter countries have had a long period of growth and industrialization and they have much smaller populations. Even a comparison with the Soviet Union is not fair because the Soviet Union has had over thirty years of building up. Also the Soviet Union has vast areas and, compared to India, a smaller population. But there are far more points of similarity between India and China, among them being enormous populations and economic backwardness.

  How the Chinese overcome these economic conditions, industrialize their country and produce more wealth and distribute it more evenly, is therefore of great interest to us. We are committed, and I think rightly so, to democratic and parliamentary institutions. That does not necessarily mean that democracy must be rigid and unable to adapt itself to changing conditions. Democracy, apart from its institutions, is a way of Government and life itself. I firmly believe that it is a better way than a dictatorship or authoritarianism. In the long run, dictatorships must, I think, rather stunt the growth of the country. There are initial advantages which are obvious and the outward speed of progress appears to be fast. But it is very doubtful if the essential quality which underlies human progress, that is the creative spirit of man, can develop adequately under an authoritarian system. To some extent, of course, such authoritarian systems as have economic equality as their goal, are initially liberating forces and release tremendous popular energy. That is a great advantage. But if dictatorship continues, the creative spirit may gradually fade away.

  Democracy is supposed to nurture this creative spirit but if it cannot bring about a release from poverty of large masses of human beings, then that creative spirit can only function in a few. Poverty is after all more restrictive and limiting than anything else. If poverty and low standards continue then democracy, for all its fine institutions and ideals, ceases to be a liberating force. It must therefore aim continuously at the eradication of poverty and its companion unemployment. In other words, political democracy is not enough. It must develop into economic democracy also. The problem before India is to bring about this development as rapidly as possible. In the ultimate analysis, the world will not be governed by theories but by actual results achieved. If India succeeds in achieving these results under a system of political democracy, that indeed would be a great victory not only for India but for democracy. If China succeeds by her own methods, undoubtedly those methods will then attract large numbers of people.

  Some countries of the West, notably the United Kingdom, tried their utmost since the war to develop this economic democracy under the parliamentary system. They tried to find a middle path between unrestrained private enterprise and … the socialistic order. I think that the progress made by England, in spite of enormous difficulties, was remarkable and does every credit to her Government and people. It is said that in developing her social schemes, she lived beyond her means and is now suffering because of this. This may partly be true, but I am sure that if she had not done so, her fate would have been worse. She had to bring about a tremendous transformation from the days of the old empire when tribute in various forms flowed to her from all over the world, to her new condition which was very different, in spite of some relics of the empire still continuing. Her government decided to spend their money and energy on improving the lot of the people generally, and putting an end to unemployment, in greater production, etc. They succeeded in a large measure. Perhaps the effort was a bit too great, but it must be remembered that, in addition to all this, England had to spend large sums of money on armaments. Whether this was justified or not, it is not for me to say. It is this additional burden of armaments that hastened the grave crisis that she has to face today. Even so, England is today a far more stable and disciplined and in a way contented country than almost any in Europe. Parliamentary democracy has justified itself there more than elsewhere. It may be that the burden is too great for her to bear. But I feel that she has still great resources of strength in her and a great capacity to adapt herself.

  When we consider the problems of India, we have to keep these changing, dynamic, fascinating and sometimes rather terrifying aspects of the modern world before us and try to learn from them and avoid the pitfalls. We may discuss various policies but whatever policy we may adopt, our choice is ultimately limited by our capacity in the present. That capacity will no doubt grow. That takes time and there can be no magic solution of our problems. The main thing is that we have the right objective, that we go in that direction, and that we go as fast as circumstances permit us. We can, to some extent, measure and weigh these circumstances but there are ever so many uncertain factors in them, both national and international. The biggest uncertain factor is the response of our own people to any particular policy. It is not ultimately money that counts but the labour, enthusiasm and the will of the people …

  The Conflict With China

  In the late 1940s, as his speech to the Asian Relations Conference showed, Nehru hoped for very close political and cultural ties with China. By the late 1950s, relations between India and China began to sour. The border between the two countries was under dispute, both in the west, in the Indian district of Ladakh, and in the east, in the Indian-administered North East Frontier Agency (NEFA). The two sides met several times to try to resolve the disputes, but no agreement could be reached. In March 1959 the Dalai Lama fled across the border to India, after the failure of an uprising against Chinese rule in Tibet. China expressed its displeasure at India offering refuge to the Tibetan leader. Meanwhile, there were sporadic clashes between troops along the border. The excerpt that follows is from a letter written by the prime minister to his chief ministers on 1 October 1959.13

  … This tension that has arisen between India and China is, of course, of great concern to us. That does not mean that we should get alarmed in the present or fear any serious consequences. I do not think any such development is likely in the foreseeable future. But the basic fact remains that India and China have fallen out and, even though relative peace may continue at the frontier, it is some kind of an armed peace, and the future appears to be one of continuing tension. It is this future that troubles me because it will involve both a mental and a physical strain on our country, and it will somewhat come in the way of our basic policies …

  We have … to continue those basic policies and, at the same time, show firmness in our dealing with frontier developments. No principle and no policy can be pursued through weakness or fear. I have no fear of China, great and powerful as that country is. China will undoubtedly grow in physical might. Even so, there is no need for
us to be afraid and, indeed fear is never a good companion. But we shall have to be vigilant all the time and balance firmness with a continuation of our policy.

  Behind all this frontier trouble, there appears to me to be a basic problem of a strong and united Chinese State, expansive and pushing out in various directions and full of pride in its growing strength. In Chinese history, this kind of thing has happened on several occasions. Communism as such is only an added element; the real reason should be found to lie deeper in history and in national characteristic[s]. But it is true that never before have these two great countries, India and China, come face to face in some kind of a conflict. By virtue of their very size and their actual or potential strength, there is danger in this situation, not danger in the present, but rather in the future. That danger may be minimized by other developments and by the world moving gradually towards peace. But the danger will still remain, partly because of the tremendous rate of increase of the population of the Chinese State. Apart from population, there has been and is a certain homogeneity among the Chinese people which probably we lack. I have no doubt, however, that in the face of danger there will be much greater cohesion in India than we have at present. Perhaps, that may be one of the good effects of this new and unfortunate development …