The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 1959. Neutralism Is Not Enough

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28984, 27 August 1959, Page 12

The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 1959. Neutralism Is Not Enough

Most Indians of earlier generations regarded the Himalayas as the boundary between known and unknown, between reality and impenetrable mystery. China, remote, vast, impassive, posed no threat; Tibet seemed a stable buffer, securely, inaccessible. Nine years ago, the Communist rulers of China abruptly advanced their frontier to the Himalayas. India protested; but in 1954 Mr Nehru signed an agreement with the Chinese, acknowledging Tibet’s new* status. The preamble to that agreement came to be known as the Panch Sheet five principles of co-existence. Mr Nehru was delighted with his triumph of neutralist diplomacy, and good feeling betw’een China and India grew apace. In 1956 the Dalai Lama first visited India. Reluctantly, he w’as persuaded to return to his people. Even as late as February this year Mr Nehru was still refusing to recognise the implications of events beyond the Himalayas. In February the Indian Govern-; ment ignored specific requests [ for aid to the Tibetan people.; Then came the extraordinary 10 days from March 10 w’hen the Communists lost control in Lhasa. The Dalai Lama fled to India with thousands of other Tibetan refugees. It is believed that the carnage continues in Tibet as the Chinese seek to impose their will and to overthrow the country’s devoutly religious civilisation. Tibet has been to Asia as Hungary to Europe. The Communists have gained territorially; but their loss of prestige and ideological appeal has been much more significant. Tibet may cost them Asia. The most notable convert to the new Asian attitude is Mr Nehru himself. He now sees the Chinese massing troops in Tibet, violating Indian trade agreements, and waging a virulent propaganda campaign

against Indian “ imperialism ”. Already he has protested to Peking about the Chinese tactics. He has announced unequivocallj’ India’s determination to defend its frontiers and protect the border States of Sikkim and Bhutan. In neighbouring Nepal, a strongly democratic Government has only recently been elected. Though nominally committed to Congress neutralism, it can be relied upon to oppose Communist incursions.

The Indian defence budget is far from inconsiderable. The tragedy is that so much of it is devoted to defence against Pakistan and to guarding the borders of disputed Kashmir. One of the major causes of antipathy towards Pakistan has been the supply of American arms to the Pakistani forces. After the partition, Pakistan readily accepted Western aid to strengthen its northern frontier; Indian hoped that the rejection of any such aid would be its J safeguard in the north. But the present threat to India is not solely military. Economically and ideologically, in the eyes of their respective peoples, India and China are competitors. If democracy fails in India, or if economic progress proves insufficient, the Nehru Government will be condemned. If the Communists can point to freedom from material want, better living standards, and economic stability in China, they may win effortlessly in India. Mr Nehru personifies independent India, rivalling China for Asian leadership. After his controlling hand is removed, the Chinese threat will be greater. Mr Rajagopalachari, leader of India’s new Right-wing Freedom Party, said recently that the Chinese were driving India into alliance with the West. If that happens, we must thank the Communists much more than any Western influence.