Opinion Misunderestimating China
As the Chinese threat mounted,Nehru was mercilessly attacked in Parliament for going soft.
By the time of the Kongka-La incident on October 21,1959 (How the Chinese Challenge Erupted,IE,May 23),it was clear that Indian and Chinese positions on the border issue were irreconcilable. If there was any doubt left on this score,a letter from Zhou Enlai,received on December 17,demolished it. The Chinese prime minister underscored the utter lack of any common ground on the boundary question. He ruled out Chinese willingness to abate their territorial demands,but ended his missive by repeating that the two prime ministers should meet to reach agreements on principles to guide concrete discussions,which might otherwise get bogged down in endless debate.
Nehru was prepared to agree to such a meeting but only to negotiate minor rectifications of an accepted alignment. On this basis he would discuss matters to the bitter end because the alternative was war. But to the Chinese demand that the boundary along its entire length be discussed,he would never agree. In some of his speeches,in Parliament and outside,he declared that he wasnt going to hand over the Himalayas as a gift.
Well before the killing of Indian armed policemen at Kongka-La or even earlier,especially after the receipt of Zhous September 8 letter,in which he had not only asserted that the entire India-China boundary was un-delimited but also accused Nehru of allowing the Dalai Lama to exceed the limits of political asylum,two other ominous developments had taken place to suggest that Tibet was fuelling Chinas anger and intransigence over the border.
The first was the publication in Peoples Daily of May 6 of a lengthy and virulent article entitled The Revolution in Tibet and Nehrus Philosophy. It not only rebutted his version of the events in Tibet since 1950 but also alleged that for historical reasons,Indias big bourgeoisie has inherited and is attempting to maintain certain legacies from the British colonial rulers. Years later it became known that Mao Zedong had personally vetted this article and a subsequent one in the same vein. The writer was one of his confidants and politburo member,Chen Boda. Quite clearly the meaning of this verbal onslaught,like that of Zhous obduracy over the frontier issue,was not fully understood. For,even after the traumatic border war,Krishna Menon,the controversial former defence minister and Nehrus close adviser,told eminent academic Michael Brecher that Tibet was not the cause of Chinas hostility to India.
The second episode was even more dramatic and somewhat threatening despite its polite language. On May 16,Chinas ambassador Pan Zuli met Foreign Secretary Subimal Dutt personally to present a note. Its language and his theatrical style jolted the Indian officials present on the occasion but the country took little notice because escalating acrimony in exchanges between the two countries was,by now,taken for granted.
Ambassador Pan,who had asked for the meeting,began by alleging that India had encouraged the Tibetan revolt in an objective sense,if not subjectively,and went on to argue that the US imperialists,together with their Asian allies,were Chinas enemy. China and India,on the other hand,had been friends for a thousand years and more,and should certainly continue to be so. He therefore wanted to know what was on Indias mind. Our Indian friends! Will you be agreeing to our thinking regarding our view that China can only concentrate its main attention eastward… but not southeastward of China,nor is it necessary for it to do so… Friends! It seems to us that you too cannot have two fronts. This was the first transparent,if subtle,hint of the coming China-Pakistan axis against this country. At that time,however,it went largely unnoticed.
It is perhaps needless to add that as 1959 dragged on,criticism of Nehrus China policy became more and more trenchant and almost constant. When Parliament was in session the non-Communist Opposition needled him ceaselessly,to say the least. (The still-undivided Communist Party of India was,of course,squirming in the tormenting dilemma between the outraged nationalist sentiment and ideological loyalty.) Public and,to a large extent,press opinion was with the critics,of whom the most eloquent were Atal Bihari Vajpayee of the Jan Sangh,the forerunner of todays BJP; elderly and highly respected Acharya Kripalani; H.V. Kamath,a vigorous socialist; and his colleague,Hem Barua. Discontent with Nehrus policy was by no means confined to the opposition. It was quite extensive even among Congressmen who expressed themselves,however,discreetly and that too usually at party forums.
However sharp the criticism he faced (and answered at length),Nehru remained firm on his threefold policy on China: to resist any further Chinese incursion,to build up Indian defences and prepare for war,if only to avoid war,and to solve the problems with China through negotiations. Towards this end,he did not want anything said that would inflame the situation. Underlying this approach was his belief that China,too,wouldnt want armed conflict with India.
Since this ran counter to national mood,piquant situations arose sometimes. For instance,once,in pursuance of his inclination to make some minor modifications in the otherwise non-negotiable border,he told Parliament that Aksai Chin,under Chinese occupation,was an area where not a blade of grass grows,not a bird flies. Thereupon Mahavir Tyagi,a senior Congress member and former minister,held his head in both his hands and exclaimed: Not a hair grows on my head. Does it mean that it should be cut off?
On another occasion,Vajpayee was much more wounding when he taunted the prime minister: There are three causes of war: zan,zewar aur zameen (women,wealth and land). Land youve given away. What else would you give up?
Nearly four decades later when as prime minister,Vajpayee was under heavy attack for not sacking Narendra Modi after the 2002 Gujarat riots,he confided to us,a group of journalists,that his critics had become most intemperate. And then,with a touch of remorse,he had added that he too had been unduly harsh on Nehru.
The writer is a Delhi-based political commentator
Share
