DIFFERENT PULLS; MANY CONSIDERATIONS – Nehru’s China Policy: An Excerpt from Rajiv Dogra’s ‘India’s World’

Overall, there was a gap between what Nehru had set his sights on and what could be achieved. Nehru has been criticized for confusing the country’s strategic interests with his personal idealism. His handling of the Kashmir issue and his China policy are often cited as cases in point. He did ensure that India should express its views on many international issues, but could not defend its interests.

Long after Nehru’s death, his ideas live on; though the debate is vigorous about their effect on national destiny. Among the largely undisputed achievements Nehru is credited with is the practice of non-alignment. But the jury is out on whether it was anything more than a mantra: Did it actually protect the non-aligned from being subsumed by the powerful? Or was the truth far more modest—that the big powers were simply not interested in getting messed up with the affairs of so many of the non-aligned?

On the negative side of the ledger, the list is rather long. His handling of the Kashmir issue and its reference to the UN is the most vexing. His China policy is almost unanimously attacked whenever and wherever it is discussed. And he is faulted invariably for missing the chance of getting a seat in the UNSC. There are many more issues that could be listed on both sides of the ledger, but even this short list should be enough for an assessment of the man and of the issues that linger long after him.

However, it is unfortunate that critics should see his actions in terms of the end product. Rarely is the attempt made to view his decisions in the frame of the larger picture obtaining then. India had barely put salve on the wounds of partition when it was attacked by Pakistan in Kashmir. Even as the government was engaged in that operation, it had to work overtime to calm the communal nerves. There was also the gigantic task of resettling the refugees from Pakistan and encouraging them to start life all over again.

Overall, India was then scraping the very bottom of the global poor countries list; it was food deficient and short of foreign exchange. There were undoubtedly some able officials to assist him—the civil servants who came to be known as the steel frame of India. But the fact is that they were trained to be maintainers of law and order for the colonial masters, not innovative pushers of development projects. Nor were there diplomats who had the experience of negotiating their way through the minefield that statecraft often can be. Nehru, himself without training or expertise in these various fields, had to learn quickly on the job to become a mentor to others and to guide the national destiny. Under the circumstances, and with such a diverse and fraught plate, it is unfair to judge the man only by his mistakes.

Conventional wisdom has it that Nehru was the prima donna of non-alignment, and that his commitment to the cause was absolute. It is the second part of that assumption that is in dispute. The fact is that he had tried to scuttle the first Summit of the Non-Aligned Countries. There were reasons for his reluctance, which he shared with the then US Ambassador to India, John K. Galbraith:

…he was wary of his peers among the non-aligned countries; Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia and Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. And he found the leaders of the newly independent states too radical and unpredictable for his taste. For another, Nehru was all too aware of India’s dependence on American and western aid and had no desire to see a contretemps such as the one over the Bandung Conference. Tito and Nasser, however, forced his hand by publicly announcing a conference in Belgrade in September 1961. Nehru told Galbraith that he would attend but without much enthusiasm…

This is representative of the different pulls and the many considerations that acted to shape Nehru’s policy. It was a tough tightrope walk for a new nation, especially when other leaders in many of the emerging countries were succumbing to the temptations of quick fixes. India was fortunate that it was safely led to the tranquil waters of democracy. But Nehru’s record in foreign affairs has also been the subject of conflicting interpretations.

Sympathetic voices have defended him for piloting India with prudence through an uncertain period. They have praised him for opting in favour of a world of diversity at a time when it was divided rigidly between two blocs. That choice, plus his championing the struggle against colonialism and racism, raised India’s standing in the developing world. Those who talk now of ‘Look East’ and ‘Act East’ should also remember that it was Nehru who hosted the Asian Relations Conference in Delhi as far back as 1947.

India had also suffered grave humiliations during his time. It lost the Northern Areas and a part of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) to Pakistan in 1947–8. Later, in 1962, it lost Aksai Chin to China. In fact, Nehru has the unfortunate distinction of being the only prime minister in whose tenure India lost large portions of its territory in battle. (The loss of territory in the Rann of Kutch in 1966 was due to an arbitration award.)

***

Since Independence, eight prime ministers, in particular, have been the principal architects of India’s rise. From Nehru, venerated as a resolute statesman and one of the great political minds of the last century, to Modi who is acknowledged as a determined doer, Rajiv Dogra’s ‘India’s  World’ offers a crystal clear portrait of India’s leaders.

This lively volume celebrates the myriad ways in which they have made history. It asks and answers questions that people often debate about. Who was the great Indian prime minister, complete in every respect? If there was one, could it be Nehru, Indira or Rao? Or, is it Modi? Elegantly written by one of India’s finest strategic minds, it is a must-read for those curious about India’s place in the world.

Get the e-book here. Hardbound edition set to release in August.

***