![1237 International [27 AUGUST 1958] Situation 1238](http://data.docslib.org/img/b41ea6a57a16321560459dc22de52347-1.webp)
1237 International [27 AUGUST 1958] Situation 1238
SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: I am two to four years after the independence of sorry. India, that India was independent. They actually went on saying right up to 1950 or thereabout that India was not independent, and MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Prime when we celebrated Independence day on the Minister. 15th August, they proclaimed that this was a bogus Independence day, India was not independent. Now, I find it a little difficult to deal with that mental approach to these prob- lems. Gradually, after a few years they MOTION RE INTERNATIONAL realised and they realised not so much with SITUATION—continued. the help of facts in India but with the help of statements made in other countries that India was independent. Now, Mr. Rajah referred THE PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER with some—if I may use the word—heat OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (SHRI about a certain short notice question he had JAWAHARLAL NEHRU) : Mr. Chairman, I do put and said I refused to answer it. It is true. I not quite know to what I should render a had not refused to answer the question, but I reply. Some information I was asked for I had said, "I see no reason why I should shall gladly give. In the main, in spite of answer a short notice question of that type seeming criticism of our policy, there when there was neither any urgency por, in appeared to be a very wide appreciation of it my opinion, any improtance." But if he had from all sides of the House. Some hon. Mem- put an ordinary question, of course, I would bers like Mr. Rajah perhaps did not wholly have answered it. There is no secrecy about it. agree. It seemed to me that Mr. Rajah, like The fact of the matter so far as that question is Peter Pan, refuses to grow up. I have a concerned was this: The question was whether recollection of his having said much of what Government's attention has been drawn to a he said, yesterday, thirty years ago in Madras report in which Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith, when he and I were associated in a republican Parliamentary Secretary to the Home Office, league—I forget the exact name . . . was reported to have referred in the House of Commons to emigrants to Great Britain from SHRI H. D. RAJAH (Madras): India as British subjects? This was the Independence for India League— struggle question. Now, the actual facts are, I found against imperialists. out, that a question was raised in the British House of Commons and she was asked how many coloured people are emigrating to SHRI JAWAHARLAL NEHRU: We stood Britain from the British Commonwealth. And for a republic then and while we had realised it was stated, I believe, that about 40,000 a that goal many years ago, he still thinks that year are going there. Then, it was stated after we are gradually working up to it and much some discussion in reply to a debate that has to be done in that connection. It may even 25,000 of these persons came from the West be possible sometimes physically to push a Indies, Jamaica, etc. and 12,000 from India person, but intellectually to push him is much and Pakistan, both together. They did not give more difficult. Now, he seems to think that the exact figure for India. I imagine it is pro- our association with the British Com- bably less than half that, maybe five or six monwealth somehow takes away from the fact thousand, probably much less. Then, that we are a Republic, and some hon. thereupon she went on to say that the British Members, too, have a vague idea to that Government welcomed British subjects to that effect. Some hon. Members opposite, not the country, but exact Members, but the predecessors of those seats or perhaps the same persons did not realise, I think, for about I239 International [RAJYA SABHA] Situation 1240 [Shri Jawaharlal Nehru.] could not ignore meanings are attached. Therefore, there may the rising potential of this emigration and the be a difference of opinion as to whether you very great burden it might put on the country have understood the matter in the same way. in future. That is, she referred in a broad way, However, the point I was venturing to say is welcoming British subjects. She was not this. Hon. Members here, specially in the correct, of course, if she referred to India. opposition, accuse us sometimes of rushing in Obviously so. But in dealing with that, most where angels fear to tread, sometimes of of these people who go there, as the figures remaining silent when we ought to be will show, are from Jamaica, West Indies, and shouting, and different charges are made why other places. It is true she did not use precise we have not protested immediately when, let enough language to say that. But it was not a us say, the United States Navy is moving matter for us, because the Parliamentary about in the Indian Ocean and, some of them Secretary had used vague language in have landed at Singapore, why we have not connection with another issue, to make a song raised our voice in protest. Another group in and dance of it and object to it and call upon the opposition wants to know why we have the lady Parliamentary Secretary to correct or not protested against Russia's campaign vary it. It made no difference to us even if against Yugoslavia, why we have not somebody had made a more positive protested against the presence of Soviet troops statement. It would not affect facts. But if he in some East European countries and so on. had done so, we would have drawn his We are accused of not protesting against this attention to his error. So, I submit that so far or that happening elsewhere in other parts of as this question is concerned, the matter to the world. Then, one hon. Member, Mr. which Mr. Rajah drew attention really has no Jaswant Singh, says that we have a habit— relevance to our situation. Nobody in the wide even though he might have toned down world who has any knowledge of the facts later—of jumping always to the forefront of a considers any Indian as a British subject. Of crisis and throwing our weight about. Well, course, he is not. I have never heard anybody these of course are contradictory statements saying that. This kind of vague statement and accusations; they cannot all be true. about emigrants, in which they were largely Jamaicans, does not alter that fact.
Now, Sir, Mr. Bhupesh Gupta stoutly The fact of the matter is that it is our denied that he stood for India changing its definite and deliberate policy not to go about foreign policy in the sense of lining up with accusing nations even though we disapprove any particular group of nations, because some of their activities, unless an occasion arises hon. Member had, I think, probably hinted when we have to express our opinion in the that Mr. Bhupesh Gupta wanted that done. He United Nations or elsewhere or unless some stoutly denied that. I am very glad to have his deep crisis arises when we feel that such an denial and I hope he will act up to it in the expression of opinion will be helpful; that is future. to say, we express our opinions when we feel that such an expression wiil be helpful in SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA (West Bengal): What we say we always act up to that. some way or other, not merely to unburden ourselves of feelings of indignation or anger. There is much happening in the world which SHRI JAWAHARLAL NEHRU: That may be we do not approve of. But we feel that while true occasionally, but then, ] sometimes in our own country we can take liberties in the the ordinary dictionary meanings of words expression of opinion, on other countries we are not attached by | Mr. Bhupesh Gupta. have to be more cautious Some other | 1241 International [27 AUGUST 1958] Situation 1242 because it is very easy to criticise others, it is all this to this matter. I would gladly of course much more difficult to criticise oneself. If we deal with this question if occasion arises, but I criticise others, we invite criticisms from mention this just to indicate the confusion in others, by people who do not know facts in the mind of the hon. Member who brought m India, and we do not presume to be experts in this thing. It is very difficult to think straight the knowledge of everything that happens in or clear if you mix up everything, but I other countries Even though we may know entirely accept his suggestion that the ideal of some facts which we like or dislike, we do not Panchsheel should be applied to the home know the full context of them, and in any front, and I carry it further to the family front, event if we are asked to convince them in any to the husband and wife front, everywhere. way, it is not bv way of condemnation that we can convince anybody. We will simply make SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: There is no the situation probably a little worse. That is firing in that front. why in our general policy, when we say, as we have said, that foreign forces should not stay on in the Middle Eastern countries, we SHRI JAWAHARLAL NEHRU: Another have always said, laid stress, repeated the remarkable statement which Mr. Jaswant broad principle that foreign forces should not S'ngh made was to the effect that I had go to any country, Middle Eastern country or offended against the ideal of Panchsheel by other, although I limited this once in the other supporting the Punjab Chief Minister on some House. The hon. Member, Acharya Kripaiani. occasion or other. I am afraid my mind is not asked me, "Is that a fixed rule that it should agile enough to follow this extension of never happen?" I said, T could not say that. Panchsheel. Why I should not, if I think it There may be conceivably occasions when at right, support the Punjab Chief Minister on an the invitation of a country perhaps they may occasion when I think he is acting rightly and go; I cannot for the moment conceive it, but it support him to the hilt. I propose to do so might happen. I cannot lay that down as a always when a person acts rightly. I do not fixed rule. Broadly speaking, it is not right or know how that ideal of Panchsheel is desirable for foreign forces to occupy another offended. country, whatever the foreign forces may be and whatever the other country might be. SHRI JASWANT SINGH (Rajasthan): Even after the incident at Ferozepur. Then, one hon. Member, Shri Jaswant Singh, said why not apply Panchsheel to the SHRI JAWAHARLAL NEHRU: Even after home front, and why only use it for that incident, because the incident, if the hon. international affairs? It was not quite clear to Member knows anything about the fact, has me what he meant by that. Certainly it should nothing to do with the Chief Minister. be applied to the bomb front, indeed to our Because people misbehave in jail and are domestic affairs, to oui home life, I would say. punished for it, therefore the Chief Minister is But then an example he gave of where it to blame for it—I am not aware of this. should be applied was apparently in Ahema- dabad where at the present moment so*ne SHRI JASWANT SINGH: The enqiry agitation is going on about the p; anting of a memorial in the crossroads, in the middle of report reveals that it was done purposely, and the road, and he referred also to the firing etc. therefore the Chief Minister as head of the there. I do not quite know the relevance of Government is responsible for it.
AN HON. MEMBER: You are wrong. 1243 International [RAJYA SABHA] Situation 1244
SHRI JAWAHARLAL NEHRU: I am afraid don't you act unilaterally?" What exactly you the hon. Member is absolutely and completely do unilaterally, I do not know. We are in incorrect in what he says. There is a possession of Pondicherry. There, we are difficulty. If a person does not keep his think functioning. Nobody is interfering; nobody ing right, he is likely to go hcpelesh-Jy can interfere. But some parliamentary process wrong. If you go hopelessly wrong in a small has to be gone through by the French National matter, it does not matter. But if you go Assembly. We cannot do it. And if we tell hopelessly wrong in international affairs, it them, we do not care to your doing or not might lead tc more far-reaching results. doing, it does not make any difference to us. It does not give more possession than we have There was the question again of Algeria got. The fact of the matter is that, during the and Gen De Gaulle. While I am not in a last two or three years, ever since the de jacto position to say much about as to what is going transfer of Pondicherry took place and indeed to happen in Algeria or in France, the before that, there have been a succession of situation, as everyone knows, has undergone a Governments in France and a great deal of great change in France and France is, at the ferment and trouble politically. We may not present moment, considering or going to like it, we may not approve of this delay as we consider a new Constitution and probably do not. But the reason for the .delay is obvious vote upon it. I do not know how the French because Governments have not lasted long people will vote and there is not much point in enough to do enough positively and there had my expressing views to the French people as been different Governments. Now, the latest to how to vote and how not to vote. That information given to me on behalf of the would be presumption, whatever it might be French Government is that, first of all, they or might not be on the subject. Everyone stand by their past commitments and they will knows that we stand for the full freedom and certainly go ahead with this matter of de jure independence of Algeria and we have stood transfer. They cannot do so except when the for it. We have expressed ourselves quite National Assembly meets. Under their law, clearly. That does not mean that we should go they cannot do it so. about condemning in a loud voice the French Government of the day. It may be that we Recently, certain very wide transfer of express our views positively about the powers was made in favour of Gen. De freedom of Algeria, not negatively, in Gaulle, the Prime Minister. But that transfer condemnation of other countries except that of power did not include the right to ratify a we have to criticise them in a moderate treaty of this kind. So, although he would language in the United Nations or elsewhere. have no objection to doing so, he is legally and constitutionally unable to do so till the French National Assembly meets next and it SHRI H. D. RAJAH: Will the integration of may take it up. That is not likely to meet, I Pondicherry be comp'ete before the new think, for another six months from the time Constitution is brought into effect in France? these powers were given. Probably, it may be in another month or so. But we have been assured by the present authorities in France SHRI JAWAHARLAL NEHRU: I cannot that they stand by their old commitments and say. So far as we are concerned, we have done they want to give effect to them as soon as everything. We do not control the French they can. That is the position. parliamentary system or the French National Assembly as to when it can do it and we Some hon. Member asked why we have not cannot act, as an hon. Member in the other been more strenuous in our House suggested, "Why 1245 International [27 AUGUST 1958] Situation 1246 advocacy of the People's Republic of China. We have had a great deal of j China being admitted to the United difficulty in these Commissions because, as Nations. Well, I do not know what more always, we were trying to j achieve is required of us. Year after year, we something, not merely to j oppose and have brought this matter in the United denounce. It is quite easy ; to oppose and Nations. Year after year, we have spoken express one's opinions ; strongly about there about it and not only there, but things one dislikes. But where you are elsewhere also and even this year we are trying to hold a thing together which tends bringing it forward. to crack up, where you are trying to convince people not to take up extreme attitudes, it is always a difficult position. I Then there is the question of disar- think that the record of the last few years, mament. It is a very vital and important whatever the policy has been of these issue in the world today. But every various Commissions, in Indo-China, has approach to it somehow has foundered been a good one. All the Commissions, I because of the suspicions of the Major say, not India alone, but all the Powers concerned. I may mention here Commissions generally and more that I am happy that the United States and particularly the record of India has been the United Kingdom have decided and certainly, I think, a creditable one and one proclaimed that they will stop nuclear which has avoided crises repeatedly. So far tests for a year from the end of October. as the last Commission is concerned and so One may ask, why have this rather long far as any Commission there is concerned, period of two months? To have more we have been of opinion that they are tests? Yes, that is so. The less we have connected together in a • sense by the the better, because it has been shown by a agreement in Geneva and that they should very responsible body of scientists continue till they are all wound up appointed by the United Nations that simultaneously having finished their work. these tests—every single one of them— They may continue at the lower scale, if are harmful to some extent. But to what you like, just formally, but they cannot be extent, of course, opinion may differ and wound up. That is our interpretation of the the piling of tests is really and ultimately agreement made at Geneva. a crime against the future and against humanity. So, we are happy—as we were Now in Cambodia, the work of the happy when the Soviet Union stopped Commission is very largely over. In Laos their tests—that the United States and the it was also largely over and we wanted, United Kingdom have also stopped their therefore, to reduce these Commissions nuclear tests, and I hope that the stoppage to the" very minimum. Some people by all these countries is for good and no however were of opinion that the Laos other country will undertake them, Commission should be wound up. because we are really on the verge of Ultimately we arrived at a compromise other countries also developing the power decision that the Commission should be to manufacture atom bombs and if atomic postponed or should adjourn indefinitely. and nuclear weapons are spread out That is, we withdraw all our people from among a number of countries, it will there but it can be summoned afterwards become almost physically impossible and meanwhile, for form's sake, one of then to have any system of control. our officers in the neighbouring coun- Therefore, unless this suspension leads to tries may represent us even in Laos if some actual solid achievements in regard necessity arises. to disarmament, the position will remain SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: May I ask insecure and rather dangerous. whether it means that the functions of the Commission have completely ceased and One hon. Member—I think it was it has no function till it is reconvened probably Mr. Bhupesh Gupta—talked under the agreement that has been about the last Commission in Indo- reached? 46 RSD—3. 1247 International [RAJYA SABHA] Situation 1248 SHRI JAWAHARLAL NEHRU: who is bombing you from the air. It was Naturally, if it is, not there it is not only when the plane crashed and he was functioning. It is obvious. I don't think it captured, then of course it was known is a 100 per cent desirable decision but I that he was so and so, belonging to this do think broadly it meets the situation private air company functioning from because their functions had almost, not Formosa. But apart from this we have quite 100 per cent, but almost, ended, and had no evidence of the U.S. Government in theory, therefore, their functions interfering in any way in this civil war. continue though not in practice. Of course they are not there but they can go SHRI TRILOCHAN DUTTA (Jammu back and take them up if necessity arises and Kashmir): When Mr. Dulles said in a so that the letter of the law has been statement that the U.S. Government was followed and in practice, no harm done, considering the recognition of the Rebels' though I would have liked of course for Government, did it not constitute an someone to be there even in a small way. encouragement to the Rebels and an The real difficulty of course, as everyone indirect interference in the affairs of knows, is in regard to Viet-Nam Indonesia? Commission. Laos and Cambodia offered difficulties, offered problems—true—but SHRI JAWAHARLAL NEHRU: I have not that type of more intractable no recollection of that statement having problems which North and South Viet- been made by Mr. Dulles. What may Nam offered and I don't know when this have encouraged the rebels was, some Viet-Nam problem will be nearer favourable press comments in the U.S. solution. Certain newspapers had for some time encouraged the rebels or wrote encouragingly about them but I have The hon. Member Dr. Kunzru asked absolutely no recollection of Mr. Dulles questions about Indonesia. Well, broadly having made that remark. I cannot say . speaking, one may say that most of the . . rebel areas in Indonesia are under the control of the Government. There may be small pockets here and there. A great deal (Interruptions.) was said about the foreign interference in Indonesia. There was interference but we DR. R. B. GOUR (Andhra Pradesh): have no indication, no proof, that the He is a free-lancer . . . interference was what might be called official or Governmental. There was SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: Mr. Dulles interference by certain freelancers, said that the Government was consi- American free-lancers, who have their dering the question of recognition of the headquarters in Formosa, specially some Government of the Rebels—the so-called air men of note, who have been carrying Rebel Government—that had come into on some kind of traffic, legitimate and existence. maybe sometimes illegitimate, in the air. They have got air-companies stationed SHRI JAWAHARLAL NEHRU: I am there and some American airmen unable to say anything about it. I am certainly lent their services or were hired merely saying what the facts I possessed by the Rebels in Indonesia and they did are and if Mr. Dulles had said that, Mr. some damage in Indonesia against the Dulles must have been considering that. Government. It was a bad thing and in That is all that I can say. Anyhow for fact one of them was actually captured by some time past, the U.S. policy has been the Indonesian Government and many of definitely favourable to the Indonesian these facts came out then because it is Government and in fact they have very difficult to find out unless you actually been carrying out some old capture the man, as to contract decisions about supplying them or selling them some arms, etc. 1249 International [27 AUGUST 1958] Situation 1250 About the movement of the U.S. Fleet in that is two days after the approach was made the Indian Ocean, naturally a movement of to us, we sent them our reply containing our this major type attracts attention and may be recognition and on the 24th, I think this was considered possibly, prima facie, as some published. So I don't see where the delay kind of hostile move, potentially hostile, comes in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to press SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: I would like to your amendment or do you want to withdraw ask the Prime Minister how he views it? statements such as this which appeared in the American papers with regard to the SHRI BHUPESH GUPTA: I am always in appearance of these troops in the Indian favour of a compromise, but if a compromise Ocean. Here it is stated: is denied, then necessarily I have to press it.