Makers of Modern India

Minor controversies about the frontier might or might not be of importance. What we have to face, however, is something much deeper and more serious. This is a demand for considerable areas, more especially in the North East Frontier Agency. All this means the Chinese want to come down on this side of the Himalayan barrier. This has two vitally important aspects: one that if a foreign Power comes down on this side of the Himalayas, our basic security is greatly endangered; the other that a sentiment which has been the life-blood of India through past ages is shattered. That sentiment appertains to the Himalayas … The Himalayas are perhaps a more vital part of India’s thought and existence throughout the ages than almost anything else. They are vital for our security even in the present age of extra-modern weapons; they are vital for our cultural inheritance.

  In the second week of October 1962 fighting broke out between the armies of the two countries. The Indians were no match militarily for the Chinese, who easily overcame their resistance and made deep inroads into Indian territory. Having made their point, the Chinese declared a ceasefire and returned to their side of the border. In this letter to chief ministers, dated 22 December 1962, Nehru sought to explain this humiliating defeat at the hands of a country he had once sought to befriend.14

  It seems to me that the major reasons for our reverses were the choice of the terrain on which we had to fight the Chinese. This was all to the advantage of the enemy and very disadvantageous for us, the main disadvantage for us being that there was no easy access to it by road or other means of communications. We had thus to send everything by dropping from the air. This included ammunition, other supplies, clothing, etc. Our Air Force did a very fine job of work, but this lack of proper communications was a great disadvantage. The Chinese, on the other hand, had easy communications behind them as the road system in Tibet came right up to our frontier. Looked at from a purely military point of view, we should have selected a much more effective line of defence which was connected by road at least to our main supply centres. This, however, would have entailed retiring to our own territory and allowing the Chinese to march along it without major fighting. Although this was the wiser thing to do, it was not a pleasant course to follow.

  A second major disadvantage to our Army was the fact that our forces had been sent rather hurriedly from low altitudes near sea level to an altitude of about 14,000 feet. Anyone who has done any mountaineering knows the effect of this sudden change to high altitudes. It produces severe headaches and sleepless nights and generally devitalizes one. It is always desirable to acclimatize people at various stages before they reach the high altitude. We could not do so because the Chinese had already crossed our border and were massing their forces there.

  It may be said that we ought to have thought of this and placed our forces at that high altitude long before. Even that was not very feasible because that would have meant supplying them with everything a large Army wanted by air dropping. The only course was to build up good roads right up to the frontier. This was undertaken two years or more ago and many roads have been built. But the process was not completed. The terrain is difficult and road building requires high engineering skill. It takes time.

  It is interesting to note the difference in the fighting quality of our troops in Ladakh and those in N.E.F.A. In Ladakh they had been acclimatized to the high altitudes for some time past. They fought, therefore, extraordinarily well and inflicted very heavy casualties on the Chinese. Even when they had to withdraw because of superior numbers of the Chinese, they did so gradually and did not allow the Chinese forces to advance much. In N.E.F.A., they had not been acclimatized and could not fight as they normally do.

  It is easy to be wise after the event. It is easier to criticize what has happened. But I do think that the two major causes for our reverses were those two that I have mentioned. Some of our Generals have been heavily criticized and have been retired from Service. Many unkind things are said about them without much justification. It was right perhaps that they offered their resignation as honourable men. But the fault was hardly theirs. The faults, such as occurred, were of the local Commanders of Brigades and the like who had to decide on the spur of the moment what they should do when they were being overwhelmed by large numbers of the enemy. The Chief of the Army Staff and the Army Commander who have resigned could hardly be said to be directly responsible. They were competent and brave men and it is very unfair to them to accuse them for something that was due to a large number of circumstances, many of them outside their control.

  There was also the fact that the Chinese, after many long years of warfare, are experts at mountain fighting and have been trained specially for this purpose. Their methods of fighting are a mixture of regular orthodox warfare and guerrilla war. In Korea, with much worse weapons, they showed what they could do against armies which had the latest modern weapons. Since then the Chinese had got much better weapons and had perfected their methods of mountain warfare. It is evident that they had been preparing for some such invasion for a long time past in Tibet. They had accumulated large supplies and their troops were living all the time at a high altitude.

  We have learnt by our experiences and misfortunes and we shall take good care that they do not repeat themselves. The present position is, as I have said above, that our armies, both in N.E.F.A. and Ladakh, hold their positions strongly and even if the Chinese attack them where they are, the positions would still be held. There is no chance, as far as one can see, of any further retreat by our forces. Assam, therefore, is safe from any invasion and as the days go by, our strength increases. Meanwhile, we are not only raising additional forces of various kinds, but also adding as speedily as we can to our equipment and fighting apparatus. For the present, we have to get much of this fighting material from abroad and we are doing so. But, real strength can only come from our manufacturing and producing all this equipment in our own country.

  It is of the highest importance, therefore, that our manufacture of munitions and other war material should be speeded up as rapidly as possible. At the same time, we shall continue trying to get such material as we require and as is available from abroad. There is a slight danger of the tempo of our work gradually becoming slower because the excitement of day to day fighting may not be there to keep up the sense of urgency. We have to guard against it because the danger that threatens us is not of today or tomorrow, but will last a considerable time, whether there is actual fighting or not. We can afford to take no more risks for the future.

  What were the motives that drove the Chinese to attack us in a big way? To say that this was just a desire to expand their territories or to take possession of the areas they claimed is not wholly an adequate answer, though there is something in it. Countries do not take such action involving dangerous consequences without a much deeper reason. The world today is in a state of cold war between the two major blocs of nations led respectively by the Soviet Union and the United States of America, both of which are nuclear powers, with a tremendous capacity for destruction. A certain balance of terror has been struck up between them which exercises a restraining influence, but which also brings the ever-present danger of a deliberate move or an accident which might bring nuclear war and the ultimate catastrophe. Between these two blocs, there is fear on both sides resulting in an attempt at continuous arming with the latest weapons of mass destruction. There are also attempts being made at some approach to a peaceful settlement of the problems that face them. Recently, we came very near to a nuclear war over Cuba. It almost seemed for a few days that at any moment the atomic and hydrogen bombs might start bursting in various parts of the world, bringing death and destruction to millions or even perhaps hundreds of millions. Fortunately, that crisis passed because both of the major parties concerned wanted to avoid such a war. Ever since then there has been a certain relaxation of tension, though that is not very great yet. Still it is noticeable, and for the first time in many years the hopes of people are reviving.

  Besides these two major b
locs of heavily armed powers there are a number, and a growing number, of countries weak in armed power but still exercising some influence in favour of peace. Perhaps they cannot by themselves make the ultimate decision in favour of peace. But they can and they have in the past made just that little difference which prevents a war from breaking out. They have become symbols, to some extent, of peaceful coexistence and their policy of non-alignment to military blocs has gradually been appreciated more and more even by the big blocs. Both the United States of America and the Soviet Union have appreciated this policy of non-alignment and peaceful coexistence, even though they cannot adopt it for themselves because of their fear of each other. And yet, inevitably almost, the world moves towards peaceful coexistence and should ultimately realize that objective unless war overwhelms it before that realization comes …

  But to this desire for peace and coexistence there is one major exception, and that is China. China has repudiated the doctrine of peaceful coexistence, even though sometimes it repeats it. It believes in the inevitability of war and, therefore, does not want the tensions in the world to lessen. It dislikes non-alignment and it would much rather have a clear polarization of the different countries in the world. It is not afraid even of a nuclear war because as it is often said, they can afford to lose a few hundred million people and yet have enough numbers left.

  Because of this difference of opinion, there is a wide and growing rift between the Soviet Union and China, even though they are military allies. They condemn bitterly each other’s policies. It is obviously of high importance to the world as to how far this rift has gone and whether ultimately it will result in a complete break. Every chancellery in the world is deeply interested in this and tries to find out what the exact relationship of the two great countries is. Latterly this inner conflict has come out into the open, and there has been much public cursing of each other.

  China, for all its belligerency and the progress it has made in the past dozen years, is still by and large an underdeveloped country and during the last three years or so, has had bad harvests. This has weakened it greatly although its war apparatus may for the present be fairly strong. It realizes, however, that strength comes from industrial development and this is a difficult and slow process. However hard it may work, it requires a great deal of aid from outside. The only country from which it can get substantial aid is the Soviet Union; to some extent also from the East European Communist countries. Russia’s softening down, in its opinion, in revolutionary ardour and its thinking of peace and peaceful coexistence, more and more annoys China greatly. This is partly because of their ideological differences, partly also because this leads Russia to help India and like countries in their industrial development. To that extent Russia cannot help China, and indeed because of ideological differences, it has stopped helping it at all and has withdrawn all its technicians and experts from China. Many of the factories built with Russian help now lie deserted in China.

  It was possible for China to fall into line with Russian thinking and present policy, and thus perhaps get more aid. But they are too proud to do this and trained too much in the old revolutionary tradition to accept defeat in this matter. What else then could they do? The other course was to heighten tensions in the world and to make non-alignment and peaceful coexistence more and more difficult to maintain. This was a direct assault on Russian policy. It can only be indulged in if they demonstrate that there was no such thing as real non-alignment by breaking those countries which practise it, and thus by increasing the polarization of the world. India was said to be the chief non-aligned country in the world, and a country which constantly preached the virtues of peaceful coexistence. If India could be humiliated and defeated and perhaps even driven into the other camp of the Western Powers, that would be the end of non-alignment for other countries also, and Russia’s policy would have been broken down. The cold war would be at its fiercest and Russia would be compelled then to help China to a much greater degree and to withdraw help from the nations that did not side with it completely in the cold war …

  This analysis of course is a limited one. There are other factors which work too. The internal difficulties in China have made it more rash and adventurist and the extreme elements in the Government there have taken control. They see that unless some such action is taken and China’s industrial progress speeded up very greatly, it will weaken and the pace of progress will slow down. The only way, therefore, to prevent this is to create a situation in which the Soviet Union would be forced to come to China’s help. In order to do this, India appeared to be the safest target for the present …

  The Rights of Women

  In the late 1940s B.R. Ambedkar, then law minister in the Government of India, sought to introduce reforms in Hindu personal law, which would give women the right to choose their marriage partner, the right to divorce and the right to a share of their father’s property. Nehru, as prime minister, strongly supported these measures, but the progress of the ‘Hindu Code Bill’ was stalled by more conservative-minded politicians. However, after his position had been strengthened by his party’s emphatic victory in the general elections of 1952, Nehru revived the reforms and had them passed into law in a modified form, but only after an extended and often very bitter debate in both Houses of Parliament. The excerpt that follows is from a speech made by Nehru in Parliament on 5 May 1955. This echoes, probably unconsciously, Ambedkar’s warnings that political democracy would have no meaning unless complemented by social and economic democracy.15

  Jawaharlal Nehru: Mr. Deputy Speaker, during the last few days I have not spoken at the various stages of this Bill. But I have taken a deep interest in these discussions and followed them. As, perhaps, the House knows, I have been deeply interested not only in this Bill, but in certain matters connected therewith, and it is a matter of great gratification to me that we have arrived at this stage now, the third reading stage of this Bill and I have every hope that this House will finalise it in the course of the next few hours.

  I approve of this Bill, of course. It is not merely what is incorporated in this Bill but rather something more than that which this Bill represents. It appeals to me greatly, I think it is highly important in the context of our national development. We talk about five year plans, of economic progress, industrialization, political freedom and all that. They are all highly important. But I have no doubt in my mind that the real progress of the country means progress not only on the political plane, not only on the economic plane, but also on the social plane. They have to be integrated, all these, when the great nation goes forward …

  Now I venture to ask: can any law, whether it is social or economic, be equally applicable when society has changed completely? Let us take India, broadly speaking, a thousand or two thousand years ago. The population of India in those days was one hundredth of what the population today is and India was a community of a large number of villages and some small towns. Now surely modern conditions are entirely different. In the cities of Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay and Madras industries are growing and new social relations are growing up. Can anyone say that while all these changes are taking place—tremendous changes—in our social set-up, certain things must remain unchanged? The result is that they will not fit in; the result is a very bad one—that while you appear to hold on to something, that something which has gone, or is in the process of going, cracks up, because it does not fit in with the changed conditions.

  This Bill has taken a few days in discussion here, but behind it lie years and years of investigation … No subject, I take it, has been so much before the public, has been discussed so much and opportunities given for its consideration by the public as this particular subject in its various aspects—the question of the reform of the Hindu law in regard to personal relationships. Now that was right because it was important. After all, politics are important, economics are important, very important, but in the final analysis human relations are the most important.

  This morning
a fact came to my notice, that in the small state of Saurashtra, one of our smallest states, one, if I may say so, of our advanced states in many ways, socially speaking, there is on an average one suicide a day among the women because of maladjustments in human relationships. The figure was 375 in a year; 375 in a population of 40 lakhs, men, women and children. You can calculate the proportion it works out in that state. These are regular authentic figures which the chief minister of that state gave me. This shows the maladjustment and the difficulties that more especially the women have to face. I have no doubt that such similar statistics may be collected from other parts of India. One has to face that situation.

  I had the privilege of listening to the speech of the honourable Member opposite, Shri N.C. Chatterjee. The more I listened to it, the more confused I got and surprised. He dealt at great length with what is a sacrament and what is a samskara and other things … A sacrament, I take it, is something which has religious significance, a religious ceremony. A Hindu marriage is a religious ceremony, undoubtedly. Nobody doubts that. It has a religious significance. But, does it mean that it is a sacrament to tie up people who bite, who hate each other, who make life hell for each other? Is that a sacrament or a samskara—I do not understand. Obviously, that is not the question, I admit. I would go a step further. I think all human relationships should have an element of sacrament in them. If so, the intimate relationship of husband and wife, apart from other relationships, should have an element of sacrament in it. There is something rather fine in human relationships provided they are good relationships. Otherwise, that relationship is the reverse of fine. It is awful. If they cannot fit into each other, if they are compelled to carry on together, they begin to hate each other and their life is bitter. The whole foundations of their existence are bitter. Surely that is not a sacrament.