"There is no need for any coloured glass between India and China." This statement by Prof Tan Chung can easily be applied to the India-Pakistan relationship. I have the newspaper clipping in which it appeared and a copy of Girdhar Rathi’s travelogue of a short sojourn in China as a member of a literary delegation in 1993. This slim volume, Naye Chin Mein Das Din, led me to read Mao, and Fischer’s biography of Gandhi. Today, I have taken them out because I feel they are relevant to the nuclear issue. It is part and parcel of the question of Asian solidarity, the focus of Rathi’s book.
I had always cherished a romantic image of revolutionary China. Mao and Gandhi have always been together in my imagination. Mao, to me, was an architect, a builder and a decorator. Gandhi only offered an architectural design which was ultimately betrayed by the builders. Mao ruthlessly executed his design and thereby created an authoritarian regime. His intolerance stands in contrast to Gandhi’s encouragement ofcriticism. Socialists like Narendra Dev, J.P., Lohia and Minoo Masani, his worst critics, were closest to him and enjoyed his affection.
But this should not blind us to his achievement in creating an egalitarian China. Rajan Nehru, whose husband B.K. Nehru was Indian ambassador in Beijing, has written that women and children were the only two privileged classes in China. Begging and prostitution were abolished. Royal palaces and gardens were converted into holiday homes and picnic spots. Hard work, thrift and honesty had replaced Asian lethargy.
This picture contrasted with that of our ruling elite, who led a luxurious life while the masses suffered. But Gandhi’s followers created a democratic polity. The contrast in China is illustrated by the treatment meted out to Comrade Marshal Peng Dehaui. He was defence minister and Mao’s immediate neighbour in the leaders’ compound in Beijing. At a conference of party and military leaders in the summer of 1959, Peng came close to accusing Mao of lying about thesuccess of the Great Leap Forward. Mao struck back by accusing him of being an "opportunist", a "rightist bourgeois".
Rathi’s second point is relevant to the nuclear issue. The Indian delegation was happy to find that the Chinese shared their anxiety over the absence of and the need for creating Asian solidarity. With due apologies to Comrade George, the idea of the ghost of China menacing India is a creation of Western interests threatened by the rise of a united Asia.
The Chinese are also falling into the Americans’ trap, propping up Pakistan against us. The contradictions between the three parties are non-antagonistic and the present situation should be handled so that South Asia emerges as a powerful block. In Pakistan’s case, we talk of the two-nation theory, which implies that we have yet to get used to it as an independent state. Born out of turmoil, Pakistan has never felt secure. It is mortally afraid that one day India may try to undo the Partition. Hence its affection for the US, and latelyChina.
The real problem in Pakistan is the rounds being made by the ghosts of Liaquat Ali Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, General Zia and lately, Murtaza Bhutto. Now that an elected government is in power, these can be exorcised. Ways and means have to be found to help democracy take firm root in Pakistan, to make it confident of its independent identity. With Gujral as chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, dare we hope that his doctrine will be pursued to its logical end?
A united Asia can never be to the liking of America. The need of the hour is to rise above the tensions generated by the nuclear tests. Statesmanship requires that we deal with it wisely. Direct accounts from Pakistan like Rathi’s book about China will be immensely helpful in educating the people.