We have to face the position as it is today, namely, that whatever armaments one side or other might possess, war will lead to consequences which will result in not gaining an objective but ruin. Therefore, the first thing we have to settle is that war must be avoided. Naturally war cannot be avoided if any country takes to a career of conquest and aggression. Secondly, we countries of Asia have to consider whether we can, all of us put together, certainly not singly, prevent the great powers or big countries going to war. We certainly cannot prevent the big countries going to war if they want to but we can make a difference. Even a single country can make a difference when the scales are evenly balanced. What are we going to do? Are we going to throw our weight in the scales on the side of peace or war? It is no use blaming the Soviet Union or America. It is perfectly true that at the present moment we, not only in Asia but in Europe as well, have every reason to dislike and oppose, not only external aggression, but internal subversion and all the rest of it.
Let us then talk of the steps we can take. The first step is to make our view clear that these things should not happen. So far as I am concerned, it does not matter what war takes place; we will not take part in it unless we have to defend ourselves. If I join any of these big groups I lose my identity; I have no identity left, I have no view left. I may express it here and there generally but I have no views left. If all the world were to be divided up between these two big blocs, what would be the result? The inevitable result would be war.
Therefore every step that takes place in reducing that area in the world which may be called the “unaligned area” is a dangerous step and leads to war. It reduces that objectivity, that balance, that outlook which other countries without military might can perhaps exercise.
Are we choosing war deliberately or moving unconsciously towards war, which cold war implies. I say that there is no alternative for any country, unless it wants war, but to accept the concept of peaceful coexistence. In some countries the very word, peace, is looked upon with horror. It is most amazing. That word is considered dangerous.
Honourable members laid great stress on moral force. It is with military force that we are dealing now but I submit that moral force counts and the moral force of Asia and Africa must, in spite of the atomic and hydrogen bombs of Russia, the USA or another country, count! Unfortunately, in discussing this very desirable proposition put forward by the Prime Minister [U Nu] of Burma, we have drifted to all kinds of other things. On the face of it, nobody can challenge the proposition of the Prime Minister of Burma. All that may be said of it is that it does not go far enough, that it is rather reiterating, even repetitive, of the Charter. Every truth that you say is likely to have originated somewhere or other. The point is that a certain truth has a certain application at a particular moment. If it has no application at a particular moment, it will be forgotten. Why does this simple word “coexistence” raise all sorts of turmoil in peoples’ minds? Because it has a significance in the present state of the world. Otherwise everybody recognises it. What is the alternative to peaceful coexistence? There may be coexistence, not peaceful, but something in the nature of cold war. Why then be afraid of the word? Are we choosing war deliberately or moving unconsciously towards war, which cold war implies. I say that there is no alternative for any country, unless it wants war, but to accept the concept of peaceful coexistence. In some countries the very word, peace, is looked upon with horror. It is most amazing. That word is considered dangerous.
So I submit, let us consider these matters practically, leaving out ideologies. Many members present here do not obviously accept the communist ideology, while some of them do. For my part I do not. I am a positive person, not an “anti” person. I want positive good for my country and the world. Therefore, are we, the countries of Asia and Africa, devoid of any positive position except being pro-communist or anti-communist? Has it come to this, that the leaders of thought who have given religions and all kinds of things to the world have to tag on to this kind of group or that and be hangers on of this party or the other carrying out their wishes and occasionally giving an idea? It is most degrading and humiliating to any self-respecting people or nation. It is an intolerable thought to me that the great countries of Asia and Africa should come out of bondage into freedom only to degrade themselves or humiliate themselves in this way. Well, I do not criticise these powers. They are probably capable of looking after themselves and know what is best for themselves. But I will not tie myself to this degradation. Am I to lose my freedom and individuality and become a camp-follower of others? I have absolutely no intention of doing that.
Has it come to this, that the leaders of thought who have given religions and all kinds of things to the world have to tag on to this kind of group or that and be hangers on of this party or the other carrying out their wishes and occasionally giving an idea? It is most degrading and humiliating to any self-respecting people or nation. It is an intolerable thought to me that the great countries of Asia and Africa should come out of bondage into freedom only to degrade themselves or humiliate themselves in this way.
A reference was made to these various attacks made in the Middle East, South-East Asia and so on. The whole course of the discussion has proceeded on that theme. Mr Mohammad Ali [Prime Minister of Pakistan] put forward an excellent resolution. Certainly the first four points in that resolution are acceptable to us all. The fifth deals with self-defence, singly or collectively: I do not deny the right of any country to defend itself. It is a natural right that cannot be denied. Then why is it put there? It has been put there because of these pacts that have been organised in Western and Eastern Asia. If that is the position I am not prepared to accept it. If that point is put there to cover those pacts, how can we accept it? I do not challenge Mr Mohammad Ali’s right to enter into any pacts although I may disagree with him, but under cover of words to ask this Conference to accept the principle of those pacts is, I submit, something that should not be done. It is open to him to have those pacts. It is open to me not to have them. But to bring in this way the collective defence pacts made in the last year is going far beyond our subject and bringing in things which are highly controversial and which tend to lead to fundamental differences of opinion.
I submit to you, every pact has brought insecurity and not security to the countries which have entered into them. They have brought the danger of atomic bombs and the rest of it nearer to them than would have been the case otherwise. They have not added to the strength of any country, I submit, which it had singly. It may have produced some idea of security, but it is a false security. It is a bad thing for any country thus to be lulled into security.
The distinguished delegate of Turkey referred to NATO. I have nothing to say against NATO. It is open to European countries to join it for self-defence. I cannot challenge it in the slightest. But I should like to point out to this assembly that this conception of NATO has extended itself in two ways. It has gone far away from the Atlantic and has reached other oceans and seas. Leave that alone. Secondly, do honourable members of this Conference realise that the NATO today is one of the most powerful protectors of colonialism? I say that explicitly. I am not saying that indirectly, but directly and explicitly. Here is the little territory of Goa, in India, which Portugal holds. We get letters from the NATO powers–mind you, Portugal is a member of NATO–and Portugal has approached its fellow members in the NATO on this point–telling us, “You should not do anything in regard to Goa, you should not do this and that.” I will not mention these powers; they are some of the so-called big powers. It does not matter what powers they are, but it is gross impertinence. The Republic of India told them that it is gross impertinence on their part. Let there be no doubt about it, we shall deal with this little matter in the way we like.
Every pact has brought insecurity and not security to the countries which have entered into them. They have brought the danger of atomic bombs and the rest of it nearer to them…It may have produced some idea of security, but it is a false security. It is a bad thing for any country thus to be lulled into security.
The distinguished delegate of Iraq was eloquent about Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. Does he realise that these three territories would probably have been independent if it were not for NATO? Today because of the assistance given by these great powers NATO has bases for various purposes in these parts of the world. So we must take a complete view of the situation and not be contradictory ourselves when we talk about colonialism, when we say “colonialism must go”, and in the same voice say that we support every policy or some policies that confirm colonialism. It is an extraordinary attitude to take up.
So I do submit that we must for the moment leave out past history, as to what happened in Potsdam, at the Cairo Conference and at Yalta, as to what President Roosevelt said or Winston Churchill said and what somebody else did. All post-war confusion has arisen from all kinds of steps taken, right or wrong, in the past. And we have to suffer today because of this confusion, because it clouds our view of the total world situation. Turkey said that the US and other powers disarmed rapidly after the war. Let us admit that. What happens today? Can we forget that the situation we have to face today is that the world, a good part of it, is ranged with one big bloc or other, both having a certain ideology? I do not know the ideology of the Western bloc. Certainly it is not one single ideology; those in it differ, but in a military sense they hold together. There are other countries in the world which have not aligned themselves in this way. Some may sympathise with this bloc or the other, and some may not. Two big colossuses stand face to face with each other, afraid of each other.
Today in the world, I do submit, not only because of the presence of these two colossuses but also because of the coming of the atomic and hydrogen bomb age, the whole concept of war, of peace, of politics, has changed. We are thinking and acting in terms of a past age. No matter what generals and soldiers learned in the past, it is useless in this atomic age. They do not understand its implications or its use. As an eminent military critic said: “The whole conception of war is changed. There is no precedent.” It may be so. Now it does not matter if one country is more powerful than the other in the use of the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb. One is more powerful to cause ruin than the other. That is what is meant by saying that the point of saturation has been reached. However powerful one country is, the other is also powerful. It is the world that suffers; there can be no victory. It may be said, perhaps rightly, that owing to this very terrible danger, people refrain from going to war. I hope so. The difficulty is that while governments want to refrain from war, something suddenly happens and there is war and utter ruin. There is another thing: because of the present position in the world, there is not likely to be aggression. If there is aggression anywhere in the world, it is bound to result in world war. It does not matter where the aggression is. If one commits aggression, there is world war.
Today, a war, however limited it may be, is bound to lead to a big war. Even if tactical atomic weapons, as they are called, are used, the next step would be the use of the big atomic bomb…In a country’s life-and-death struggle, it is not going to stop short of this. It is not going to decide on our or anybody else’s resolutions but it would engage in war, ruin and annihilation of others before it allows itself to be annihilated completely.
I want the countries here to realise it and not to think in terms of any limitation. Today, a war, however limited it may be, is bound to lead to a big war. Even if tactical atomic weapons, as they are called, are used, the next step would be the use of the big atomic bomb. You cannot stop these things. In a country’s life-and-death struggle, it is not going to stop short of this. It is not going to decide on our or anybody else’s resolutions but it would engage in war, ruin and annihilation of others before it allows itself to be annihilated completely. Annihilation will result not only in the countries engaged in war, but owing to the radioactive waves, which go thousands and thousands of miles, it will destroy everything. That is the position. It is not an academic position; it is not a position of discussing ideologies; nor is it a position of discussing past history. It is looking at the world as it is today.
The leaders of the great nations like the President of the United States have to carry a world of responsibility in having to face this position. So are the leaders of the United Kingdom and Russia. It is a tremendous burden. I do not know at what time an error might be made this way or that way which would lead to war.
Now, therefore, are we, the Asian and African countries, going to look on it passively or are we going to take a step which will upset the balance on one side or the other? This is not a question of security. Will not security be damned if war comes? Who is going to protect us if war comes and if atomic bombs come? Of course, every country will look after itself, but it will be difficult to do that with atomic bombs, radioactive waves and all that. Therefore, I would beg this Conference to appreciate the gravity of this situation. It is a very grave situation indeed. We have not discoursed Formosa and the rest, nor is it necessary for us to discuss the merits of the question. But the fact is that in the Far Eastern countries the situation is very grave. One does not know where it will lead to. Therefore, can we not in our own way say something peacefully, and in a friendly way, firmly declaring something, which will set the scales in favour of peace? That is the problem.
This is part of ThePrint’s Great Speeches series. It features speeches and debates that shaped modern India.
On a lighter note, history will be even kinder to Pandit Nehru than to Dr. Singh.