India to America: The Position of India in World Politics
The Position of India in World Politics
by MADAME VIJAYA LAKSHMI PANDIT
1
IT WAS my last night in India. Early next morning I was returning to Moscow for the last two months of my term as Ambassador of India to the U.S.S.R. Farewell visits had been paid — all except my call on Mahatma Gandhi and this had been delayed because Monday was his day of silence. About eight in the evening I went to see him hoping that he would be able to talk to me, but found on arrival that he was not due to break his silence for another two hours. This was a disappointment, but I was glad to have the opportunity of being alone with him for a little while and stayed on.
It was a period of great strain and anguish and this Monday silence was vital to Gandhi’s wellbeing. He sat on the floor leaning against a big white bolster, looking very tired. The only light in the room came from a small electric lamp by his side which cast weird shadows on the floor and on the wall behind him. From the open doors leading on to the garden there came the fragrance of flowers and fresh earth. It was not my intention to disturb him since our relationship could well bear the strain of silence. All I needed was his soothing presence and the strength that emanated from him. Suddenly be took up the little pad which always remained by his side and wrote:
“When are you leaving for Moscow — and how soon does your term there expire?”
It was customary on his day of silence for him to write down questions to which one gave verbal answers. I told him that I was leaving early next morning and that my stay would be of short duration since my next posting had been announced and I was already preparing myself, mentally, for my new assignment as Ambassador to the United States of America.
His second question was: “Will you be glad to leave Russia — are you happy that you are going to America?”
This was not so easy to answer. I thought for a minute and looking up caught a mischievous twinkle in his eyes as he watched me. One of Gandhi’s greatest charms was his sense of humor and this particular look which I knew well said as plainly as words: “So, I have caught you out!”
There was never any question of hiding one’s thoughts from Gandhi or telling him an untruth. I said: “Bapu, I have very mixed feelings. I am glad to have an opportunity of representing India in the United States. I have come to know and love what America stands for and I have received from the people of the States personal friendship which has enriched me greatly. And yet I am reluctant to go to America — I feel there is a danger of my getting too soft in an atmosphere devoid of the kind of challenge I have to face in Moscow. I may begin to take things for granted and become less useful to India.
“ In Moscow nearly every day there is a problem to be solved and innumerable petty annoyances and yet I am not unhappy. The people I have met have been warm and friendly and now that my term is ending I feel that my stay has been too short. I am conscious that there is much I could not accomplish. There is something about Moscow which is indefinable — at least to me. I would like to stay on and meet the challenge which it offers. At any rate it; would keep me alert and there would be no possibilily of sitting back and taking things for granted and getting complacent.”
Gandhi listened quietly as was his habit. When I finished speaking he leaned his head against the wall and closed his eyes. He was silent for so long that I began to wonder whether the interview was at an end and I should go. Finally, he took up his pencil and wrote:
“What you have said interests me — but you have missed something. What India is trying to say to the world is a constant challenge to our power of interpretation and can be repeated to both Moscow and Washington. It is the essence of our creed and fundamental to an understanding of our way of life as well as our political stand. You know what I think — the end in itself is not important — unless the means we follow to achieve it are right. The countries of the Western world would do well to try to understand this. It is what you must explain to the people of America. Until the implications of this are clear to them, there will be no appreciation either now or in the days ahead of the stand our country will take on important issues.”
That was the last time I saw Gandhi. A month later he was assassinated.
2
MAHATMA GANDHI’S special contribution was his ability to translate ancient ethical precepts into practical terms and make them the basis of mass political action. The doctrine from which this approach developed stressed the importance of means. Bad means cannot make good ends. If good ends are achieved by bad means, the ends themselves become perverted. That, in brief, was Gandhi’s message, as it was the message of the Buddha before him and still earlier the message of the Bhagavad Gita. It was inevitable that free India should be influenced by this background and that her stand on national and international issues should be governed by it.
While geographic and material factors must condition trends in foreign relations, past commitments cannot be ignored. India during foreign rule had been more or less isolated from the outside world. Before that she had had a long period of peace and friendship with her Asian neighbors. When she emerged on the map of the world as an independent sovereign state in 1947 she was fortunate in having no traditional enemies and no vested interests in world affairs. She could afford to express her desire for friendship with other nations and her readiness to co-operate with them in the interest of world peace.
There were, however, two commitments which have since become the keynotes of Indian foreign policy: first, to end racial discrimination, and second, to help free the countries of Asia from political and social bondage. Having herself suffered all the evils of colonialism and imperialist domination, India was inevitably committed to this cause. Being a sovereign democratic republic, India is interested in seeing her Asian neighbors weave the same pattern into their national lives. For these reasons she has taken a firm stand on racial and colonial issues in the United Nations. There is no feeling of hatred or antagonism for colonial powers, but simply the conviction that colonialism is contrary to the principles of the United Nations and endangers the purposes of the Charter itself. Both issues contain the seeds of future wars. Because of this India feels that any power that encourages discrimination or prevents the attainment of freedom by the people of Asia is no friend of democracy and world peace.
Defining our foreign policy the Prime Minister of India said in 1947:
“We have proclaimed during the past year that we will not attach ourselves to any particular group. This has nothing to do with neutrality or passivity. If there is a big war there is no particular reason why we should jump into it. We are not going to join a war if we can help it. We propose to keep on the closest terms of friendship with other countries unless they themselves create difficulties. We shall be friends with America; we intend co-operating fully with her. But we intend, also, to cooperate with the Soviet Union.”
The effect of India’s determination not to get involved in either of the power blocs has been farreaching. It has helped to lessen the growing sense of fatalism with which the rest of the world has watched the growth of power antagonisms. It has given Asia the hope that an area of thought could develop where the cause of world peace would have the maximum chance of being heard.
In relation to the physical might of the great powers, India’s military resources are negligible, and it may seem strange to some that she should choose an independent policy for herself while living in a world where military power determines the degree to which one is heard in international councils. The answer is that India has never thought of relying on military power. Her source of strength does not lie in her military might. She has faith in Lincoln’s famous words which reflect her own faith and tradition:
“What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling seacoasts, our army and our navy. These are not our reliance against tyranny. All of these may be turned against us without making us weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in the spirit which prized liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere.”
We are trying to keep this spirit alive by casting out fear from our national life. Only when fear is gone can we think objectively. India is friendly to all, afraid of none and feared by none.
We have been condemned for what is called our “neutral” stand — as if India stood midway between right and wrong, undecided which path to take. Neutrality is an epithet that has often been thrown at us but it in no way describes our stand. We are neutral only in that we do not tie ourselves in advance to the present or future policy of a particular group of nations. In the words of our Prime Minister: “Where freedom is menaced or justice threatened, or where aggression takes place, we cannot be and shall not be neutral.”
Indian neutrality may be neutrality between rival passions, hates, and fears, but never between right and wrong. When aggression took place in Korea we, in accordance with our policy, supported the resolution of the Security Council. But when it appeared that the scope of operations might extend beyond Korea we felt this was wrong and that we could not associate ourselves with it. Though our warning that if the 38th Parallel was crossed by U.N. forces China would join the North Koreans was disregarded, and the inevitable happened, India did not waver in her loyalty to the United Nations. Nor did she ever suggest that she would resign from her support of the U.N. resolution on Korea.
We felt, and we did not hesitate to give expression to our opinion in the General Assembly of the United Nations, that it was essential from the point of view of Asia and the world that new China should be admitted to the U.N. This did not and does not mean approval of her foreign policies. It is simply the recognition of a reality which can lead to a better political climate for the solution of world problems.
With the ending of conflict in Korea tensions have lessened but the truce is only the first step in what threatens to be a long and difficult road toward a comprehensive settlement. It is a challenge to statesmen both in the East and West. It is unreasonable to expect unanimity of opinion on momentous issues but disagreement can be softened by an effort at mental understanding.
India has tried to follow in all modesty what she considers the right path and has tried to understand others’ viewpoints. She does not claim infallibility of judgment, nor does she recognize such infallibility of judgment and monopoly of rectitude in any other country. . . . The crisis of the world requires every country to search its conscience and seek the ways of action which lead to the peace which we all desire. We must not sacrifice tomorrow because of the passions of today.