What do you think?
Rate this book
Self-Deception : India's China Policies; Origins, Premises, Lessons
On what assumptions was Pandit Nehru confident that China would not invade India in 1962? Why and on what basis did he scotch all warnings in Tibet and our entire border? What did he do when those assumptions proved wrong? What eventually led to the debacle of 1962? Are the same delusions and mistakes not being repeated now? Why will the consequences be any different? This is a devastating analysis and warning on India's policy and approach regarding China, based on Nehru's notes to his officers, his correspondence, including letters to chief ministers and his speeches in and out of Parliament.
398 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2008
21 people are currently reading
348 people want to read
About the author
Arun Shourie
39 books299 followersIndian economist, journalist, author and politician.
He has worked as an economist with the World Bank, a consultant to the Planning Commission of India, editor of the Indian Express and The Times of India and a Minister of Communications and Information Technology in the Vajpayee Ministry (1998–2004). He was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 1982 and the Padma Bhushan in 1990.
Popularly perceived as one of the main Hindu nationalist intellectuals during the 90s and early 2000s.
He has worked as an economist with the World Bank, a consultant to the Planning Commission of India, editor of the Indian Express and The Times of India and a Minister of Communications and Information Technology in the Vajpayee Ministry (1998–2004). He was awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 1982 and the Padma Bhushan in 1990.
Popularly perceived as one of the main Hindu nationalist intellectuals during the 90s and early 2000s.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
January 20, 2014
When Arun Shourie writes a book, there are three kinds of reactions. The Congress doesn’t speak, the communists denigrate the book and the nationalist becomes sad on reading the book. All three reactions are wholly justified as they are true. The fact of the matter is that the book, true to Shourie’s style, contains detailed analysis, in-depth and incisive evidences to back the analysis and then in the end, the way forward from the current situation.
And, as usual, the way forward is coolly forgotten by the country that continues to live in utopian dreams.
The subject of this book is also on similar lines – Indian nationalism, India’s foreign policy, how the leaders let the country down and what needs to be done to take it forward from the then current abyss. In this book, the leader that has let the country down is, hold your breath, Pandit Nehru. Yes, of all people, how Panditji screwed India’s foreign policy and the aftereffects of that carefully cultivated folly called ‘NAM – Non Aligned Movement’ and the case of mis-placed self-promotion that cost the country dear.
No, this is not an anti-Congress book from a BJP writer. For practical purposes, after Vajpayee started to recede from politics due to health reasons, Shourie has never played any role in the BJP. However, his forthrightness and fortitude are all the same.
It begins with Panditji’s lofty ‘ideals’ at the time of independence in 1947, goes on to explain the lies that he imagined to be true and the imaginary position that he commanded in world affairs and therefore chose to ignore the obvious evil, China and its communist upsurge.
Panditji is warned, with great foresight, by Rajendra Prasad, the then President of the Nation, Sardar Patel, the then Home Minister on China’s evil designs. He is repeatedly sent long lists of evidences from different officers of the Indian Government from Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Tibet, Beijing ( then Peking ). Panditji chooses to ignore each and every one of these evidences and letters. In fact, he admonishes the writers of these letters.
It becomes a habit for Panditji to putdown the very officers of the government who choose to do their duties. Officer after officer presents Panditji with the situation on the ground in Tibet, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin and Lhasa. And every time each of these officers are admonished by Panditji. He puts them down either for their usage of the term ‘communist’ or for the term ‘McMahon Line’. Or otherwise he chides them for some language usage. With these he wishes his hand away from the main problem of China.
The officers repeatedly talk about the issue of China issuing maps that show large parts of Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Tibet as their territory. First he rubbishes them that those were old maps. Later he says the Chinese government doesn’t have time to issue new maps and hence ignore that. And these are exactly the lines spoken by Chou-en-lai, the then Premier of China. And what ever Chou-en-lai says, Panditji repeats.
When opportunity presents itself for Panditji to discuss these issues with Cho-en-lai, he prevaricates. Instead he speaks about Cuba, Algeris, Korean war, the US-Britain imperialism etc.
These, Shourie presents from Panditji’s own letters o his Ambssadors to China, Letters to the Chief Ministers and hid various press conferences. And what we see is that first Pandithi refutes and puts down the questioner, then after some years seems to slightly agree but hide under the garb of ‘socialist thought’ and later only when China attacks in 1962, does he acknowledge the Chinese threat.
And the issue of the Chinese communist threat to India has been there from 1950 onwards.
We also get to know the great debates and questions that happen in Lok Sabha when Panditji is questioned by Prof.N.G.Ranga, Acharya Kripalani and Atal Bijari Vajpayee. Yes, Vajpayee is relentless in his questioning of Panditji on China.
Towards the later part of the book, we get a glimpse of China’s growing hegemony in the world – oil diplomacy, funding diplomacy and later military diplomacy, the way countries in Latin America that are not eligible for IMF loans are provided loans in return for oil favours, the way deep water ports are constructed in Gwadar Pakistan, Sri Lanka almost free of cost with the only condition that China would have first rights for oil transport through these ports, the way oil pipelines have been laid from Burma deep into China, the way Tibetan rivers are diverted to provide water to Central China – all these are explained in great detail with evidence.
And the Chinese way of usurping territory – ignore complaints, silently encroach and set up base and later claim that they had never had any contention in the area under question. The other tactic is ‘murder with borrowed knife’ – arm the enemy’s enemy. And China excels in that.
And what is also explained is the complete policy paralysis in India right from the days of Panditji to the current regime when inaction is eulogized as policy and strategy, ignorance is camouflaged as wisdom and policy paralysis has become the norm.
And towards the end of the book, we get the complete but abysmal picture of the current state of affairs especially with respect to foreign policy ( better that we don’t discuss about the other fronts like Finance, Education etc ).
The book leaves you with a deep sense of shattered national pride.
A must read for every Indian nationalist.
And, as usual, the way forward is coolly forgotten by the country that continues to live in utopian dreams.
The subject of this book is also on similar lines – Indian nationalism, India’s foreign policy, how the leaders let the country down and what needs to be done to take it forward from the then current abyss. In this book, the leader that has let the country down is, hold your breath, Pandit Nehru. Yes, of all people, how Panditji screwed India’s foreign policy and the aftereffects of that carefully cultivated folly called ‘NAM – Non Aligned Movement’ and the case of mis-placed self-promotion that cost the country dear.
No, this is not an anti-Congress book from a BJP writer. For practical purposes, after Vajpayee started to recede from politics due to health reasons, Shourie has never played any role in the BJP. However, his forthrightness and fortitude are all the same.
It begins with Panditji’s lofty ‘ideals’ at the time of independence in 1947, goes on to explain the lies that he imagined to be true and the imaginary position that he commanded in world affairs and therefore chose to ignore the obvious evil, China and its communist upsurge.
Panditji is warned, with great foresight, by Rajendra Prasad, the then President of the Nation, Sardar Patel, the then Home Minister on China’s evil designs. He is repeatedly sent long lists of evidences from different officers of the Indian Government from Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Tibet, Beijing ( then Peking ). Panditji chooses to ignore each and every one of these evidences and letters. In fact, he admonishes the writers of these letters.
It becomes a habit for Panditji to putdown the very officers of the government who choose to do their duties. Officer after officer presents Panditji with the situation on the ground in Tibet, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin and Lhasa. And every time each of these officers are admonished by Panditji. He puts them down either for their usage of the term ‘communist’ or for the term ‘McMahon Line’. Or otherwise he chides them for some language usage. With these he wishes his hand away from the main problem of China.
The officers repeatedly talk about the issue of China issuing maps that show large parts of Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Tibet as their territory. First he rubbishes them that those were old maps. Later he says the Chinese government doesn’t have time to issue new maps and hence ignore that. And these are exactly the lines spoken by Chou-en-lai, the then Premier of China. And what ever Chou-en-lai says, Panditji repeats.
When opportunity presents itself for Panditji to discuss these issues with Cho-en-lai, he prevaricates. Instead he speaks about Cuba, Algeris, Korean war, the US-Britain imperialism etc.
These, Shourie presents from Panditji’s own letters o his Ambssadors to China, Letters to the Chief Ministers and hid various press conferences. And what we see is that first Pandithi refutes and puts down the questioner, then after some years seems to slightly agree but hide under the garb of ‘socialist thought’ and later only when China attacks in 1962, does he acknowledge the Chinese threat.
And the issue of the Chinese communist threat to India has been there from 1950 onwards.
We also get to know the great debates and questions that happen in Lok Sabha when Panditji is questioned by Prof.N.G.Ranga, Acharya Kripalani and Atal Bijari Vajpayee. Yes, Vajpayee is relentless in his questioning of Panditji on China.
Towards the later part of the book, we get a glimpse of China’s growing hegemony in the world – oil diplomacy, funding diplomacy and later military diplomacy, the way countries in Latin America that are not eligible for IMF loans are provided loans in return for oil favours, the way deep water ports are constructed in Gwadar Pakistan, Sri Lanka almost free of cost with the only condition that China would have first rights for oil transport through these ports, the way oil pipelines have been laid from Burma deep into China, the way Tibetan rivers are diverted to provide water to Central China – all these are explained in great detail with evidence.
And the Chinese way of usurping territory – ignore complaints, silently encroach and set up base and later claim that they had never had any contention in the area under question. The other tactic is ‘murder with borrowed knife’ – arm the enemy’s enemy. And China excels in that.
And what is also explained is the complete policy paralysis in India right from the days of Panditji to the current regime when inaction is eulogized as policy and strategy, ignorance is camouflaged as wisdom and policy paralysis has become the norm.
And towards the end of the book, we get the complete but abysmal picture of the current state of affairs especially with respect to foreign policy ( better that we don’t discuss about the other fronts like Finance, Education etc ).
The book leaves you with a deep sense of shattered national pride.
A must read for every Indian nationalist.
July 15, 2020
Every Indian must read this book, particularly given the current context. This goes beyond 1962 and describes in detail how flawed economic and strategic policies of successive Indian governments have ensured that there is a huge gap between China and India. The sad part is that in 1980, India was ahead of China on every economic parameter that is considered. our GDP (PPP) and per-capita income were better than that of China but due to flawed socialist economic policies followed by the successive Indian governments between 1980 and 1991, there was a drastic reversal of fortunes and China aided by Deng's reforms at the same time, lept forward, leaving India behind.
Today, China's economy is about 6 times larger than ours. Their defence budget is way bigger than ours. They have made huge investments in R&D which is something where we have miserably failed. The only way India can take on China in the given situation is through building alliances with like-minded countries like Japan, the US, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia, the UK, and others who have concerns about the rise of China. Arun Shourie delivers a brilliant book, yet again!
Today, China's economy is about 6 times larger than ours. Their defence budget is way bigger than ours. They have made huge investments in R&D which is something where we have miserably failed. The only way India can take on China in the given situation is through building alliances with like-minded countries like Japan, the US, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia, the UK, and others who have concerns about the rise of China. Arun Shourie delivers a brilliant book, yet again!
November 2, 2019
India-China relationship discourse throws lights on national security based on retro threats that China imposed on it & other South-East-Asia countries through warfare activities. The large portion of the discourse covers the span from 1950 to 1963 and takes through the sequences chronologically.
Mr. Arun Shourie's work is always the result of thorough research and hence becomes important source of information. He always insists on reading a lot about everything immaterial to what news reporters or news agencies bring forth. Along with providing the factual information, Shourie explicitly exchanges his blatant views over the decisions taken in the past by the leaders that caused us damage, which if done around the time would have saved us dignity in huge.
The book weaves stories through letters written by Pt. Nehru to the China government authority, mostly to Chou En Lai, in the context of the confusion and adamancy shown by them and misleading Indian eastern parts with them through their maps. This is an enigma which still persists between both the nations.
The trajectory through the letters and speeches given by Pt. Nehru in House, to the Chinese officials, or other global leaders, conversations that held between him and Chou En Lai, discloses the character of the relationship which was forming steadily between both the nations. India as represented by Pt. Nehru, got itself misguided by Chinese histories. The tactics in politics are fundamental. China is characteristically communist and hideous conspiracy against India it was building through attacks on Tibet, were portending Pt. Nehru to devise mechanism to strengthen military powers.However, his conspicuous arguments to deny China's ambitions about usurping most of the lands having similar culture or belonging to it in the history is regrettable now.
China's strengths today is the manifestation of their strong desire and fear of not loosing ever to any foreign rule, They have expanded their force into national security and defence, nuclear weapons, adversary warfare, education, industrialization, research and technology, per se in manifolds, that they are emerging to become global economy and force very soon.
Shourie mentions that the gap to fill in by India will be wrong to think as China has leapt forward humongously, and hence India needs to enforce strictly on some thought provoking advices that Shourie mentions in the end of the book.
The book also has various illustrations and notes derived from different paperwork done by think tanks from all over the world. There are some unknown or forgotten instances about serious attacks done by China on national security maliciously.
Mr. Arun Shourie's work is always the result of thorough research and hence becomes important source of information. He always insists on reading a lot about everything immaterial to what news reporters or news agencies bring forth. Along with providing the factual information, Shourie explicitly exchanges his blatant views over the decisions taken in the past by the leaders that caused us damage, which if done around the time would have saved us dignity in huge.
The book weaves stories through letters written by Pt. Nehru to the China government authority, mostly to Chou En Lai, in the context of the confusion and adamancy shown by them and misleading Indian eastern parts with them through their maps. This is an enigma which still persists between both the nations.
The trajectory through the letters and speeches given by Pt. Nehru in House, to the Chinese officials, or other global leaders, conversations that held between him and Chou En Lai, discloses the character of the relationship which was forming steadily between both the nations. India as represented by Pt. Nehru, got itself misguided by Chinese histories. The tactics in politics are fundamental. China is characteristically communist and hideous conspiracy against India it was building through attacks on Tibet, were portending Pt. Nehru to devise mechanism to strengthen military powers.However, his conspicuous arguments to deny China's ambitions about usurping most of the lands having similar culture or belonging to it in the history is regrettable now.
China's strengths today is the manifestation of their strong desire and fear of not loosing ever to any foreign rule, They have expanded their force into national security and defence, nuclear weapons, adversary warfare, education, industrialization, research and technology, per se in manifolds, that they are emerging to become global economy and force very soon.
Shourie mentions that the gap to fill in by India will be wrong to think as China has leapt forward humongously, and hence India needs to enforce strictly on some thought provoking advices that Shourie mentions in the end of the book.
The book also has various illustrations and notes derived from different paperwork done by think tanks from all over the world. There are some unknown or forgotten instances about serious attacks done by China on national security maliciously.
October 11, 2015
Its unfortunate but unflinching truth that almost all countries lose sleep over their neighbours, India is no exception to the rule and we are blessed with not one but multiple of such neighbours. A prudent course of action for a country in our situation would be have a highly developed foreign policy and national defence system. We have neither of these two, Indian psyche have been increasingly focused on most pressing (read breaking news of the day) for ages and this has resulted in many tragic yet avoidable losses for the country.
If we were to name a country which is out there to do us a harm, all of us would name Pakistan without blinking our eye,and what we overlook is the biggest threat to our nation is China.
This book tries to rectify that, Arun shourie lays bare the action of a single individual who was most appropriately placed by history to stop events that took place from happening,but in a ironical chain of events, he himself led to create a foundation for those very outcomes. Nehru had a high opinion of himself which would have been a great asset if had been able to see in terms of anything but black and white. He wanted to be a statesman and in his pursuit of this he somewhat neglected his core duty of defending his own country. He was so busy saving world that he became an instrument of his own country's shame and loss.
Everyone has a lot to learn from this reading but most above all for all Indian's it is necessary that they first learn about past without any bias and than use those learning in shaping our preparation for future. Any country may wish to remain peaceful , but forced with war by its neighbours it has no choice other than to defend that highly cherished peace. India as mentioned above is surrounded by countries who are against the rise of India (either as peaceful nation or regional hegemony), hence we above all must be prepared to fight for ourselves.
If we were to name a country which is out there to do us a harm, all of us would name Pakistan without blinking our eye,and what we overlook is the biggest threat to our nation is China.
This book tries to rectify that, Arun shourie lays bare the action of a single individual who was most appropriately placed by history to stop events that took place from happening,but in a ironical chain of events, he himself led to create a foundation for those very outcomes. Nehru had a high opinion of himself which would have been a great asset if had been able to see in terms of anything but black and white. He wanted to be a statesman and in his pursuit of this he somewhat neglected his core duty of defending his own country. He was so busy saving world that he became an instrument of his own country's shame and loss.
Everyone has a lot to learn from this reading but most above all for all Indian's it is necessary that they first learn about past without any bias and than use those learning in shaping our preparation for future. Any country may wish to remain peaceful , but forced with war by its neighbours it has no choice other than to defend that highly cherished peace. India as mentioned above is surrounded by countries who are against the rise of India (either as peaceful nation or regional hegemony), hence we above all must be prepared to fight for ourselves.
August 5, 2016
Self-Deception: India’s China Policies – Origins, Premises, Lessons by Arun Shourie
Focus on India’s relations with China never recedes to a point where the contents of a book on it become anything less than riveting. Add to it meticulous research and scholarship of an author like Arun Shourie and you have an absorbing read on your hands. Self-Deception: India’s China Policies – Origins, Premises, Lessons turns its spotlight largely on the history of our diplomatic handling of China, especially by the first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru. It does traverse the more contemporary ground too, albeit briefly.
The central theme of the argument has been this: our handling of relations with China has been extremely inept and self-deluding. We have lived – and continue to do so – in a bubble of denial, often ignoring signs of clear and present danger. In the 50s, we somehow convinced ourselves that there was no pending border issue with China, that somehow our supplicant acceptance of China’s annexation and absorption of Tibet had bought us a permanent seat on the table of friendship, that the Chinese leadership was dependent on our sagacity for learning the nuances of diplomacy and that every Chinese aggressive or hostile move needed to be explained away by us lest the country became anxious! It appeared that we had forgotten that self-generated ‘hope’ should hardly be the sole pillar of foreign policy.
The book solidly relies on documentation. Letters from Prime Minister Nehru to the Chief Ministers, minutes of meeting between Nehru and Chou En Lai and speeches in the parliament have been quoted extensively. There is little to redeem us in those documents.
Many years ago I had read Neville Maxwell’s India’s China War. The conclusions that Maxwell had reached regarding our diplomatic handling of the border dispute were exactly the same. This book provided me with a gloomy confirmation.
Have things changed since? I wish there were reassuring signs but neither the book nor media reports provide us with any. Only recently we described a blatant Chinese intrusion thus: “one little spot is acne, which cannot force you to say that this is not a beautiful face... that acne can be addressed by simply applying an ointment.”
When Arun Shourie was the editor of the Indian Express, he was known for outstanding investigative journalism. Indeed, he was the pioneer in that form of print-media, one who unerringly dug up facts and presented his reports without fear. Later, even as a Union Minister he was known for his competence and probity. All this is reflected in his writing.
The book is highly recommended for anyone with an interest in the trajectory of relations between China and India – and the course correction that ought to be applied.
Self-Deception: India’s China Policies – Origins, Premises, Lessons Arun Shourie Focus on India’s relations with China never recedes to a point where the contents of a book on it become anything less than riveting. Add to it meticulous research and scholarship of an author like Arun Shourie and you have an absorbing read on your hands. Self-Deception: India’s China Policies – Origins, Premises, Lessons turns its spotlight largely on the history of our diplomatic handling of China, especially by the first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru. It does traverse the more contemporary ground too, albeit briefly. The central theme of the argument has been this: our handling of relations with China has been extremely inept and self-deluding. We have lived – and continue to do so – in a bubble of denial, often ignoring signs of clear and present danger. In the 50s, we somehow convinced ourselves that there was no pending border issue with China, that somehow our supplicant acceptance of China’s annexation and absorption of Tibet had bought us a permanent seat on the table of friendship, that the Chinese leadership was dependent on our sagacity for learning the nuances of diplomacy and that every Chinese aggressive or hostile move needed to be explained away by us lest the country became anxious! It appeared that we had forgotten that self-generated ‘hope’ should hardly be the sole pillar of foreign policy. The book solidly relies on documentation. Letters from Prime Minister Nehru to the Chief Ministers, minutes of meeting between Nehru and Chou En Lai and speeches in the parliament have been quoted extensively. There is little to redeem us in those documents.
Many years ago I had read Neville Maxwell’s India’s China War. The conclusions that Maxwell had reached regarding our diplomatic handling of the border dispute were exactly the same. This book provided me with a gloomy confirmation. Have things changed since? I wish there were reassuring signs but neither the book nor media reports provide us with any. Only recently we described a blatant Chinese intrusion thus: “one little spot is acne, which cannot force you to say that this is not a beautiful face... that acne can be addressed by simply applying an ointment.” When Arun Shourie was the editor of the Indian Express, he was known for outstanding investigative journalism. Indeed, he was the pioneer in that form of print-media, one who unerringly dug up facts and presented his reports without fear. Later, even as a Union Minister he was known for his competence and probity. All this is reflected in his writing. The book is highly recommended for anyone with an interest in the trajectory of relations between China and India – and the course correction that ought to be applied.
Focus on India’s relations with China never recedes to a point where the contents of a book on it become anything less than riveting. Add to it meticulous research and scholarship of an author like Arun Shourie and you have an absorbing read on your hands. Self-Deception: India’s China Policies – Origins, Premises, Lessons turns its spotlight largely on the history of our diplomatic handling of China, especially by the first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru. It does traverse the more contemporary ground too, albeit briefly.
The central theme of the argument has been this: our handling of relations with China has been extremely inept and self-deluding. We have lived – and continue to do so – in a bubble of denial, often ignoring signs of clear and present danger. In the 50s, we somehow convinced ourselves that there was no pending border issue with China, that somehow our supplicant acceptance of China’s annexation and absorption of Tibet had bought us a permanent seat on the table of friendship, that the Chinese leadership was dependent on our sagacity for learning the nuances of diplomacy and that every Chinese aggressive or hostile move needed to be explained away by us lest the country became anxious! It appeared that we had forgotten that self-generated ‘hope’ should hardly be the sole pillar of foreign policy.
The book solidly relies on documentation. Letters from Prime Minister Nehru to the Chief Ministers, minutes of meeting between Nehru and Chou En Lai and speeches in the parliament have been quoted extensively. There is little to redeem us in those documents.
Many years ago I had read Neville Maxwell’s India’s China War. The conclusions that Maxwell had reached regarding our diplomatic handling of the border dispute were exactly the same. This book provided me with a gloomy confirmation.
Have things changed since? I wish there were reassuring signs but neither the book nor media reports provide us with any. Only recently we described a blatant Chinese intrusion thus: “one little spot is acne, which cannot force you to say that this is not a beautiful face... that acne can be addressed by simply applying an ointment.”
When Arun Shourie was the editor of the Indian Express, he was known for outstanding investigative journalism. Indeed, he was the pioneer in that form of print-media, one who unerringly dug up facts and presented his reports without fear. Later, even as a Union Minister he was known for his competence and probity. All this is reflected in his writing.
The book is highly recommended for anyone with an interest in the trajectory of relations between China and India – and the course correction that ought to be applied.
Self-Deception: India’s China Policies – Origins, Premises, Lessons Arun Shourie Focus on India’s relations with China never recedes to a point where the contents of a book on it become anything less than riveting. Add to it meticulous research and scholarship of an author like Arun Shourie and you have an absorbing read on your hands. Self-Deception: India’s China Policies – Origins, Premises, Lessons turns its spotlight largely on the history of our diplomatic handling of China, especially by the first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru. It does traverse the more contemporary ground too, albeit briefly. The central theme of the argument has been this: our handling of relations with China has been extremely inept and self-deluding. We have lived – and continue to do so – in a bubble of denial, often ignoring signs of clear and present danger. In the 50s, we somehow convinced ourselves that there was no pending border issue with China, that somehow our supplicant acceptance of China’s annexation and absorption of Tibet had bought us a permanent seat on the table of friendship, that the Chinese leadership was dependent on our sagacity for learning the nuances of diplomacy and that every Chinese aggressive or hostile move needed to be explained away by us lest the country became anxious! It appeared that we had forgotten that self-generated ‘hope’ should hardly be the sole pillar of foreign policy. The book solidly relies on documentation. Letters from Prime Minister Nehru to the Chief Ministers, minutes of meeting between Nehru and Chou En Lai and speeches in the parliament have been quoted extensively. There is little to redeem us in those documents.
Many years ago I had read Neville Maxwell’s India’s China War. The conclusions that Maxwell had reached regarding our diplomatic handling of the border dispute were exactly the same. This book provided me with a gloomy confirmation. Have things changed since? I wish there were reassuring signs but neither the book nor media reports provide us with any. Only recently we described a blatant Chinese intrusion thus: “one little spot is acne, which cannot force you to say that this is not a beautiful face... that acne can be addressed by simply applying an ointment.” When Arun Shourie was the editor of the Indian Express, he was known for outstanding investigative journalism. Indeed, he was the pioneer in that form of print-media, one who unerringly dug up facts and presented his reports without fear. Later, even as a Union Minister he was known for his competence and probity. All this is reflected in his writing. The book is highly recommended for anyone with an interest in the trajectory of relations between China and India – and the course correction that ought to be applied.
December 7, 2018
Take a bow. His immense knowledge about the external affairs is portrayed well in his writings. I am surprised why was Mr Shourie not given external affairs or defence portfolio in this current government. It would have made a world of good for India. India needs to change its policy towards this bully China. Now it's high time we indict the points told by Mr Shourie in our policies towards China. JAI HIND
July 12, 2012
shourie proved that nehru was a thorough moron, kennedy writes about nehru that "when i talked to that man, it felt like clutching at the mist" inspite of all this i feel that nehru gave india a vibrant democracy
March 25, 2016
A must read for anyone interested on indo china relation..author has beautifully put the hollow policies followed by Nehru vis a vis china..suggestion given by author at the end of book for strengthening indian position in regard to china should be implemented immediately...
August 1, 2014
Makes me feel that I need to read more. While the book always refers Nehru's works and official notings whenever a point is being made, the chances of selective quoting seems to be very high.
October 18, 2018
Excellent book.
Read
January 5, 2022The Marathi translation here is available on Amazon unlimited kindle deal, unlike the original English, and it was an extra factor balancing one towards reading it, apart from the original English book by Arun Shourie.
It takes a bit of getting used to, because translation of today's writing in English into another language not of Europe isn't easy, at best, involving as it does much that's outside the native experience. Perhaps it isn't that different, at that, from the French looking askance at Americanism that have invariably crept into French, and the bitter arguments about the desirability thereof versus inevitability, but on the other hand Indian languages have faced it for well over a millennium and half, some defeated by the incursions, others attempting to struggle back to their original life.
Here it's even more of the struggle, since it's about more, and after a few pages of reading what appears to be very stilted language, one gets used to it due to the sheer tremendous nature of the subject. Perhaps mist government officials are used to this after a few weeks in office, at that. It's only in the beginning of ones struggle with it that the extreme difference between reading this and a piece of original literature in the language is quite so stark, all the more so when one is reading for example writings by Madgulkar brothers.
Even without comparison with good literature, however, the work suffers from often being translated word by word as it goes along, and would have made far better sense if a little more time were spent mulling over a better translation, not quite word for word.
................................................................................................
As one begins reading, Arun Shourie in his fearless account of facts reminds the reader of just what has gone on vis-a-vis China, and to anyone who lived through the horror of 1962 war it's a reminder of the pains quite unnecessary; but what makes reading this a painful necessity is his account of what went on at various levels, from the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru aspiring yo be the next messiah of peace to the world - and not only thinking wistfully from that perspective, but actually acting and writing as if it were a fact, even forgetting thst others might not quite see it his way, or have every intention of taking advantage of a country not ready to go to war to defend herself.
One must say, they, all of them, forgot two important pieces of history. One they had lived through, and might just have been absorbed by China, was that of Hitler's tactics from Rheinland to Austria to Czechoslovakia to Poland; other was to recall that Mongolian history was closely related to that of China, and thus the claim to Tibet by china based on treaty between Kublai Khan and Tibet, even though it did not involve China, was the basis of China's claim to Tibet. China has since mao been nothing so much as attempting to be the heir to Attila the hun and Chingis Khan in their conquest of the world, but going slower and consolidating.
And more so, the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru. For some reason, he'd not learned any lesson at all, from any part of history, whether of ancient India being invaded and massacred by barbarians for centuries, or the history he'd himself lived albeit only from far, of Europe falling to Hitler for over half a decade because France and England were unwilling to go to war for either Rheinland or Czechoslovakia, much less Austria.
So he emulated Gandhi and forgot the lesson he should have learned from fall of Neville Chamberlain due to giving up Czechoslovakia for peace, despite having had a prior, much more personal lesson in Kashmir - and forgotten that Himaalayan region is not only dear to but revered by India.
Funny, his - the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru's - looking back is limited to colonial invader empires, in both India and Tibet! He never looks at era prior to Kublai Khan in case of Tibet, much less that before Mongolian migration to Tibet; and as for India, neither pre-colonial era nor sentiments of any Hindus seem to matter to him.
It a hardly likely that he was unaware of the reverence and love in India for Himaalayan ranges, which top pilgrimage destinations for India. And this isn't out of an enforced faith, but a history that goes back several millennia.
Repeatedly, he takes the stance that India cannot encourage Tibet to look to India for help, and any such indication from India will harm Tibet; this reminds one of the typical stance taken by most society, including very often parents and police, when confronted with domestic violence.
Over and over, words and attitudes from the then PM of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, towards Tibetan people and Tibet, remind one of those from Gandhi's towards Hindus caught across the borders at independence and required to take flight, if not massacred, without options; one is reminded of his repeatedly demanding refugees to be sent back to the newly created Pak, explicitly mentioning that they should go back even if only to be massacred, but do so with love of the muslims who were murdering them, without any rancour.
Nehru isn't going that far, but almost, in increasingly stating his views of refugees from Tibet, and expressing no concern for those massacred.
................................................................................................
As one reads this, one is returned to the initial impressions about the then PM, Jawaharlal Nehru, about his being a comparatively naive and unselfish man who'd been brought up a gentleman of the world and had only an aspiration to do well in cause of peace for the world and independence for various colonies of yore. He lacked the necessary shrewdness to deal with crooks and evil, bullies and beasts of prey, and treated his opponents as friends until they proved otherwise, and still thereafter as gentlemen. That he didn't stand by Tibet is no different from what France and England did to Czechoslovakia at Munich, and pretty much for the same reasons too.
One still recalls the impression one had, even young, that his demise was brought on earlier than expected, due to the heartbreaking attack by China, and the humiliation of facing a complete helplessness in face of loss of territory of India, the nation he gave his life to and was given charge of as her first PM post independence.
Shouldn't congress, especially those members who are his descendants, hate China for what they did to him? Instead of which, one finds the quarter Italian heir anxious to give Indian territory over to China! Well, it isn't his to give, but one may safely bet he wouldn't be so quick to hand over his other heritage.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
अनुक्रमणिका
बल छुटक्यो बंधन पडे...
इच्छा हेच धोरण
आपण स्वत:ची फसवणूक केली असण्याची शक्यता आहे
धोरण निश्चित होते
चिंता उडवून लावल्या जातात
समाधानकारक शिकवणी
वाहत गेले
दोन मैल या बाजूला किंवा दोन मैल त्या बाजूला
‘आम्ही रस्ता बांधत होतो‚ हे तुम्हाला समजलेही नाही...’
नांदी
या सबबी नाहीत‚ केवळ वस्तुस्थिती आहे
प्रपात
एक द्राविडी प्राणायाम
दरी
अटळ असणे हीच आपली आशा?
शिल्पा शेट्टी पुन्हा एकदा अरुणाचलला मागे टाकते
त्यांना ओळखणे‚ ते स्वत: आणि आपण कसे आहोत असे त्यांना वाटते‚ ते ओळखणे
बल हो बंधन छूटे...
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
बल छुटक्यो बंधन पडे...
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"‘A nation has security when it does not have to sacrifice its legitimate interests to avoid war,’ Walter Lipmann wrote long ago, ‘and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by war.’1
"Consider Aksai Chin: The unanimous resolution that the Parliament passed in the wake of the Chinese attack in 1962 notwithstanding, are we prepared to go to war to recover the area? Or, is it more likely that we will rationalize not going to war by giving credence to doubts: ‘Do we have an interest in the place? Is such interest as we have in it, vital? Is it legitimate?’ How many of us even know that this vast expanse that China grabbed at the time is two and a half times the size of Kashmir? ‘The only unfinished business in regard to Kashmir is to recover the part of Kashmir that Pakistan has usurped’—words of one of our prime ministers. Does anyone seriously believe that we will do anything substantive to recover any part of Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir in any foreseeable future? What about Arunachal? Are we confident that, when challenged over it by China, we will be able to hold it by war? Is China clear on that? Building up capacities to defend our interests apart, bearing sacrifices for them apart, are we one even on what our vital, legitimate national interests are?"
"Not long ago, at the India International Centre, during a discussion on India’s Tibet and China policy as part of the release of the original edition of this book, a commentator—a prominent fixture at discussions on China, on defence—said, ‘I am a south Indian, for heaven’s sake. I have not grown up with this feeling of Delhi being the centre of things. How does what happens to Tibetans concern us? If the Tibetans want to strive for their independence, good luck to them; let them do so on their own. Why should we allow ourselves to be dragged into their problem?’ Indeed, I have heard the same sort of dismissive righteousness on Kashmir—‘The fellows want to go? Let them go, for heaven’s sake. Let them go and suffer for their sins. That will teach them a lesson.’ Five years later, the same ‘analyst’ was holding forth on television. We should reach out and get the Chinese to invest in India, he declaimed. They will then have a stake in India. They are the only ones who have the money. They can build our infrastructure like no one else can…
"Nor is there any shortage of analysts like him in regard to our border with Tibet and China. They are suffused with a unilateral objectivity, espousing which is taken as the hallmark of ‘independent thinking’ in India. Books have been put out showing how in regard to Aksai Chin, for instance, the Indian borders were successively advanced northwards and eastwards by British surveyors in late nineteenth and early twentieth century. That the Chinese have similarly enlarged the entire concept of ‘China’ is not mentioned at all: is it not a fact that the original China was only one-third of what China is today? I hear similar ‘objectivity’ in regard to the eastern border, in particular in regard to Tawang. This cannot but dissipate national resolve; it cannot but further expose Tibetans to Chinese oppression; and it cannot but ultimately endanger India.
"And there is unilateral silence too: China conveniently shifts its statements on Jammu and Kashmir as its calculations change; but we must never whisper a word about the true position of Tibet in history; we must not whisper a word about what the Chinese are doing to beat down Tibetans; we must stick to Article 370, but not say a word about how the Chinese are systematically reducing Tibetans to a minority within Tibet—and the Uyghur within Xinjiang, as the Mongols have already been reduced to a helpless minority within Inner Mongolia. The Dalai Lama must not be seen anywhere near an official function. No official functionary must be seen attending any function that has to do with the Dalai Lama—lest the Chinese…
"Recall what happened in 2008.
"The brutal—the customarily brutal—way in which the Chinese government suppressed the protests by Tibetans in Lhasa in the months preceding the 2008 Beijing Olympics once again drew attention to the enormous crime that the world has refused to see: the systematic way in which an entire people have been reduced to a minority in their own land; the cruelty with which they are being crushed; the equally systematic way in which their religion and ancient civilization are being erased. Protests by Tibetans in different cities across the world, joined as they were by large numbers of citizens of those countries, had the same effect.
"No government anywhere in the world did what the Manmohan Singh government did in Delhi, no government reacted in as craven and as frightened a manner as our government did. The Olympic Torch was to be relayed across just about two kilometres—from Vijay Chowk to India Gate. The government stationed over twenty thousand troops, paramilitary personnel, policemen and plainclothes men in and around that short stretch. Tibetan refugees were beaten and sequestered. Government offices were closed. Roads were blocked. The Metro was shut down. Even members of Parliament were stopped from going to their homes through the square that adjoins Parliament, the Vijay Chowk.
"Do you think that any of this was done out of love for the Olympics?
"It was done out of fear of China.
"Dread as policy—that is all such steps are. But, of course, there is the rationalization, rather a premise: that if only we conduct ourselves properly, the dragon will turn vegetarian.
"On every issue—the WTO, economic liberalization, terrorism, Maoist violence, Arunachal, death for rapists, even for terrorists, name it—the pattern of discourse leaves the people feeling that there are two sides to the question: call ‘X’ knowing that he is for a step, call ‘Y’ knowing that he is against it; have each interrupt the other, interrupt both. The ‘debate’ done, rush to the next ‘breaking news’. As every issue has two sides, where is the reason to act, to bear sacrifice?"
................................................................................................
"‘Acne’"
"Delhi was surprised when news broke out that Chinese troops had come 19 kilometres into Indian territory and pitched tents in the strategic Daulat Beig Oldie. The rulers in Delhi acted true to form—as the news could not be suppressed, they set out to minimize what the Chinese had done: ‘Acne’, they said; a ‘localized problem’, they said.
"Soon, the Indian foreign minister was in Beijing. He was happy as can be—he had been able to call on the Chinese prime minister, after all.
"Did any clarity emerge as to why Chinese troops had intruded 19 kilometres into our territory? he was asked. ‘Frankly, I did not even look for it,’ the foreign minister said. ‘How we responded is clear to us. It is not clear why it happened. They were not offering that background and we were not asking for it at this stage.’ How considerate!
"Had China admitted the provocation? Again, the minister was empathy itself: ‘You cannot expect any country to say we provoked.’
"Not just that—he proceeded to furnish explanations that even the Chinese had not advanced! ‘It happened in a remote area,’ he said. ‘To get the message to government, it is a long haul. It will take a little time to analyse.’
"And he was statesman-like: ‘It is not helpful at this stage to apportion blame between them and us’—so statesmanlike as to be completely neutral between the arsonist and the fire-fighter!
"Has China given any assurances that such intrusions will not occur in the future? ‘I don’t think it is fair to ask for assurances… We already have agreement to address this kind of issues.’"
"Soon, he was giving expression to his ardent desire—that he aspired to live in China, ‘though not as India’s foreign minister,’ he added—we should be thankful for small mercies, I suppose.
"‘Acne’? ‘A localized problem’? ‘Not fair’? ‘Not helpful’? ‘Frankly I did not even ask for it’? ‘It happened in a remote area. To get the message to government, it is a long haul’? Of course, neither the prime minister nor the foreign minister mentioned that this was not just an inadvertent strolling into Indian territory. This time tents were pitched. The point of ingress that the Chinese had picked itself showed that it had been chosen carefully. ‘The PLA has carefully chosen its spot,’ Major General Sheru Thapliyal, a former commander of 3 Division, told the defence analysts Ajai and Sonia Shukla. ‘Along the entire 4,057 kilometres of the LAC, India is most isolated at DBO, being entirely reliant on airlift. In contrast, the PLA can bring an entire motorized division to the area within a day, driving along a first-rate highway.’3
Nor did they mention that this setting up of tents was but the latest instance of what China has been doing. It would not have been ‘fair’ to mention, as the foreign minister would say, that China has been steadily eating into the territory on our side of the Line of Actual Control; it would not be ‘fair’ to mention that they have already taken over the Galwan Valley and the Chip Chap Valley—and that by doing so they have already pushed the Line of Actual Control substantially further into India. Nor to mention that, further south, as Ambassador P. Stobdan pointed out in the wake of the incursion, since 1986 they have systematically scared away Indian herdsmen from the grazing lands within Indian territory, occupied the pastures and built permanent structures. It would not have been ‘fair’ to point out the cruel facts that the Ambassador listed: …
"In Eastern Ladakh, the 45-kilometre long Skakjung area is the only winter pasture land for the nomads of Chushul, Tsaga, Nidar, Nyoma, Mud, Dungti, Kuyul, Loma villages.… The Chinese advance here intensified after 1986, causing huge scarcity of surface grass, even starvation for Indian livestock. Since 1993, the modus operandi of Chinese incursions has been to scare Indian herdsmen into abandoning grazing land and then to construct permanent structures.
"Until the mid-1980s, the boundary lay at Kegu Naro—a day-long march from Dumchele, where India had maintained a forward post till 1962. In the absence of Indian activities, Chinese traders arrived in Dumchele in the early 1980s and China gradually constructed permanent roads, buildings and military posts here. The prominent grazing spots lost to China include Nagtsang (1984), Nakung (1991) and Lungma-Serding (1992). The last bit of Skakjung was taken in December 2008…4
"‘Acne’? ‘A localized problem’? Taken by itself, each one of the usurpations was! But taken together, the unremitting advances have a pattern—to go on pushing the Line of Actual Control, and hence ‘Chinese territory’ right up to the eastern banks of the Shyok and Indus rivers, and to absorb the entire Pangong Lake into China.
"The reactions of Indian officials ....
It takes a bit of getting used to, because translation of today's writing in English into another language not of Europe isn't easy, at best, involving as it does much that's outside the native experience. Perhaps it isn't that different, at that, from the French looking askance at Americanism that have invariably crept into French, and the bitter arguments about the desirability thereof versus inevitability, but on the other hand Indian languages have faced it for well over a millennium and half, some defeated by the incursions, others attempting to struggle back to their original life.
Here it's even more of the struggle, since it's about more, and after a few pages of reading what appears to be very stilted language, one gets used to it due to the sheer tremendous nature of the subject. Perhaps mist government officials are used to this after a few weeks in office, at that. It's only in the beginning of ones struggle with it that the extreme difference between reading this and a piece of original literature in the language is quite so stark, all the more so when one is reading for example writings by Madgulkar brothers.
Even without comparison with good literature, however, the work suffers from often being translated word by word as it goes along, and would have made far better sense if a little more time were spent mulling over a better translation, not quite word for word.
................................................................................................
As one begins reading, Arun Shourie in his fearless account of facts reminds the reader of just what has gone on vis-a-vis China, and to anyone who lived through the horror of 1962 war it's a reminder of the pains quite unnecessary; but what makes reading this a painful necessity is his account of what went on at various levels, from the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru aspiring yo be the next messiah of peace to the world - and not only thinking wistfully from that perspective, but actually acting and writing as if it were a fact, even forgetting thst others might not quite see it his way, or have every intention of taking advantage of a country not ready to go to war to defend herself.
One must say, they, all of them, forgot two important pieces of history. One they had lived through, and might just have been absorbed by China, was that of Hitler's tactics from Rheinland to Austria to Czechoslovakia to Poland; other was to recall that Mongolian history was closely related to that of China, and thus the claim to Tibet by china based on treaty between Kublai Khan and Tibet, even though it did not involve China, was the basis of China's claim to Tibet. China has since mao been nothing so much as attempting to be the heir to Attila the hun and Chingis Khan in their conquest of the world, but going slower and consolidating.
And more so, the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru. For some reason, he'd not learned any lesson at all, from any part of history, whether of ancient India being invaded and massacred by barbarians for centuries, or the history he'd himself lived albeit only from far, of Europe falling to Hitler for over half a decade because France and England were unwilling to go to war for either Rheinland or Czechoslovakia, much less Austria.
So he emulated Gandhi and forgot the lesson he should have learned from fall of Neville Chamberlain due to giving up Czechoslovakia for peace, despite having had a prior, much more personal lesson in Kashmir - and forgotten that Himaalayan region is not only dear to but revered by India.
Funny, his - the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru's - looking back is limited to colonial invader empires, in both India and Tibet! He never looks at era prior to Kublai Khan in case of Tibet, much less that before Mongolian migration to Tibet; and as for India, neither pre-colonial era nor sentiments of any Hindus seem to matter to him.
It a hardly likely that he was unaware of the reverence and love in India for Himaalayan ranges, which top pilgrimage destinations for India. And this isn't out of an enforced faith, but a history that goes back several millennia.
Repeatedly, he takes the stance that India cannot encourage Tibet to look to India for help, and any such indication from India will harm Tibet; this reminds one of the typical stance taken by most society, including very often parents and police, when confronted with domestic violence.
Over and over, words and attitudes from the then PM of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, towards Tibetan people and Tibet, remind one of those from Gandhi's towards Hindus caught across the borders at independence and required to take flight, if not massacred, without options; one is reminded of his repeatedly demanding refugees to be sent back to the newly created Pak, explicitly mentioning that they should go back even if only to be massacred, but do so with love of the muslims who were murdering them, without any rancour.
Nehru isn't going that far, but almost, in increasingly stating his views of refugees from Tibet, and expressing no concern for those massacred.
................................................................................................
As one reads this, one is returned to the initial impressions about the then PM, Jawaharlal Nehru, about his being a comparatively naive and unselfish man who'd been brought up a gentleman of the world and had only an aspiration to do well in cause of peace for the world and independence for various colonies of yore. He lacked the necessary shrewdness to deal with crooks and evil, bullies and beasts of prey, and treated his opponents as friends until they proved otherwise, and still thereafter as gentlemen. That he didn't stand by Tibet is no different from what France and England did to Czechoslovakia at Munich, and pretty much for the same reasons too.
One still recalls the impression one had, even young, that his demise was brought on earlier than expected, due to the heartbreaking attack by China, and the humiliation of facing a complete helplessness in face of loss of territory of India, the nation he gave his life to and was given charge of as her first PM post independence.
Shouldn't congress, especially those members who are his descendants, hate China for what they did to him? Instead of which, one finds the quarter Italian heir anxious to give Indian territory over to China! Well, it isn't his to give, but one may safely bet he wouldn't be so quick to hand over his other heritage.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
अनुक्रमणिका
बल छुटक्यो बंधन पडे...
इच्छा हेच धोरण
आपण स्वत:ची फसवणूक केली असण्याची शक्यता आहे
धोरण निश्चित होते
चिंता उडवून लावल्या जातात
समाधानकारक शिकवणी
वाहत गेले
दोन मैल या बाजूला किंवा दोन मैल त्या बाजूला
‘आम्ही रस्ता बांधत होतो‚ हे तुम्हाला समजलेही नाही...’
नांदी
या सबबी नाहीत‚ केवळ वस्तुस्थिती आहे
प्रपात
एक द्राविडी प्राणायाम
दरी
अटळ असणे हीच आपली आशा?
शिल्पा शेट्टी पुन्हा एकदा अरुणाचलला मागे टाकते
त्यांना ओळखणे‚ ते स्वत: आणि आपण कसे आहोत असे त्यांना वाटते‚ ते ओळखणे
बल हो बंधन छूटे...
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
बल छुटक्यो बंधन पडे...
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"‘A nation has security when it does not have to sacrifice its legitimate interests to avoid war,’ Walter Lipmann wrote long ago, ‘and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by war.’1
"Consider Aksai Chin: The unanimous resolution that the Parliament passed in the wake of the Chinese attack in 1962 notwithstanding, are we prepared to go to war to recover the area? Or, is it more likely that we will rationalize not going to war by giving credence to doubts: ‘Do we have an interest in the place? Is such interest as we have in it, vital? Is it legitimate?’ How many of us even know that this vast expanse that China grabbed at the time is two and a half times the size of Kashmir? ‘The only unfinished business in regard to Kashmir is to recover the part of Kashmir that Pakistan has usurped’—words of one of our prime ministers. Does anyone seriously believe that we will do anything substantive to recover any part of Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir in any foreseeable future? What about Arunachal? Are we confident that, when challenged over it by China, we will be able to hold it by war? Is China clear on that? Building up capacities to defend our interests apart, bearing sacrifices for them apart, are we one even on what our vital, legitimate national interests are?"
"Not long ago, at the India International Centre, during a discussion on India’s Tibet and China policy as part of the release of the original edition of this book, a commentator—a prominent fixture at discussions on China, on defence—said, ‘I am a south Indian, for heaven’s sake. I have not grown up with this feeling of Delhi being the centre of things. How does what happens to Tibetans concern us? If the Tibetans want to strive for their independence, good luck to them; let them do so on their own. Why should we allow ourselves to be dragged into their problem?’ Indeed, I have heard the same sort of dismissive righteousness on Kashmir—‘The fellows want to go? Let them go, for heaven’s sake. Let them go and suffer for their sins. That will teach them a lesson.’ Five years later, the same ‘analyst’ was holding forth on television. We should reach out and get the Chinese to invest in India, he declaimed. They will then have a stake in India. They are the only ones who have the money. They can build our infrastructure like no one else can…
"Nor is there any shortage of analysts like him in regard to our border with Tibet and China. They are suffused with a unilateral objectivity, espousing which is taken as the hallmark of ‘independent thinking’ in India. Books have been put out showing how in regard to Aksai Chin, for instance, the Indian borders were successively advanced northwards and eastwards by British surveyors in late nineteenth and early twentieth century. That the Chinese have similarly enlarged the entire concept of ‘China’ is not mentioned at all: is it not a fact that the original China was only one-third of what China is today? I hear similar ‘objectivity’ in regard to the eastern border, in particular in regard to Tawang. This cannot but dissipate national resolve; it cannot but further expose Tibetans to Chinese oppression; and it cannot but ultimately endanger India.
"And there is unilateral silence too: China conveniently shifts its statements on Jammu and Kashmir as its calculations change; but we must never whisper a word about the true position of Tibet in history; we must not whisper a word about what the Chinese are doing to beat down Tibetans; we must stick to Article 370, but not say a word about how the Chinese are systematically reducing Tibetans to a minority within Tibet—and the Uyghur within Xinjiang, as the Mongols have already been reduced to a helpless minority within Inner Mongolia. The Dalai Lama must not be seen anywhere near an official function. No official functionary must be seen attending any function that has to do with the Dalai Lama—lest the Chinese…
"Recall what happened in 2008.
"The brutal—the customarily brutal—way in which the Chinese government suppressed the protests by Tibetans in Lhasa in the months preceding the 2008 Beijing Olympics once again drew attention to the enormous crime that the world has refused to see: the systematic way in which an entire people have been reduced to a minority in their own land; the cruelty with which they are being crushed; the equally systematic way in which their religion and ancient civilization are being erased. Protests by Tibetans in different cities across the world, joined as they were by large numbers of citizens of those countries, had the same effect.
"No government anywhere in the world did what the Manmohan Singh government did in Delhi, no government reacted in as craven and as frightened a manner as our government did. The Olympic Torch was to be relayed across just about two kilometres—from Vijay Chowk to India Gate. The government stationed over twenty thousand troops, paramilitary personnel, policemen and plainclothes men in and around that short stretch. Tibetan refugees were beaten and sequestered. Government offices were closed. Roads were blocked. The Metro was shut down. Even members of Parliament were stopped from going to their homes through the square that adjoins Parliament, the Vijay Chowk.
"Do you think that any of this was done out of love for the Olympics?
"It was done out of fear of China.
"Dread as policy—that is all such steps are. But, of course, there is the rationalization, rather a premise: that if only we conduct ourselves properly, the dragon will turn vegetarian.
"On every issue—the WTO, economic liberalization, terrorism, Maoist violence, Arunachal, death for rapists, even for terrorists, name it—the pattern of discourse leaves the people feeling that there are two sides to the question: call ‘X’ knowing that he is for a step, call ‘Y’ knowing that he is against it; have each interrupt the other, interrupt both. The ‘debate’ done, rush to the next ‘breaking news’. As every issue has two sides, where is the reason to act, to bear sacrifice?"
................................................................................................
"‘Acne’"
"Delhi was surprised when news broke out that Chinese troops had come 19 kilometres into Indian territory and pitched tents in the strategic Daulat Beig Oldie. The rulers in Delhi acted true to form—as the news could not be suppressed, they set out to minimize what the Chinese had done: ‘Acne’, they said; a ‘localized problem’, they said.
"Soon, the Indian foreign minister was in Beijing. He was happy as can be—he had been able to call on the Chinese prime minister, after all.
"Did any clarity emerge as to why Chinese troops had intruded 19 kilometres into our territory? he was asked. ‘Frankly, I did not even look for it,’ the foreign minister said. ‘How we responded is clear to us. It is not clear why it happened. They were not offering that background and we were not asking for it at this stage.’ How considerate!
"Had China admitted the provocation? Again, the minister was empathy itself: ‘You cannot expect any country to say we provoked.’
"Not just that—he proceeded to furnish explanations that even the Chinese had not advanced! ‘It happened in a remote area,’ he said. ‘To get the message to government, it is a long haul. It will take a little time to analyse.’
"And he was statesman-like: ‘It is not helpful at this stage to apportion blame between them and us’—so statesmanlike as to be completely neutral between the arsonist and the fire-fighter!
"Has China given any assurances that such intrusions will not occur in the future? ‘I don’t think it is fair to ask for assurances… We already have agreement to address this kind of issues.’"
"Soon, he was giving expression to his ardent desire—that he aspired to live in China, ‘though not as India’s foreign minister,’ he added—we should be thankful for small mercies, I suppose.
"‘Acne’? ‘A localized problem’? ‘Not fair’? ‘Not helpful’? ‘Frankly I did not even ask for it’? ‘It happened in a remote area. To get the message to government, it is a long haul’? Of course, neither the prime minister nor the foreign minister mentioned that this was not just an inadvertent strolling into Indian territory. This time tents were pitched. The point of ingress that the Chinese had picked itself showed that it had been chosen carefully. ‘The PLA has carefully chosen its spot,’ Major General Sheru Thapliyal, a former commander of 3 Division, told the defence analysts Ajai and Sonia Shukla. ‘Along the entire 4,057 kilometres of the LAC, India is most isolated at DBO, being entirely reliant on airlift. In contrast, the PLA can bring an entire motorized division to the area within a day, driving along a first-rate highway.’3
Nor did they mention that this setting up of tents was but the latest instance of what China has been doing. It would not have been ‘fair’ to mention, as the foreign minister would say, that China has been steadily eating into the territory on our side of the Line of Actual Control; it would not be ‘fair’ to mention that they have already taken over the Galwan Valley and the Chip Chap Valley—and that by doing so they have already pushed the Line of Actual Control substantially further into India. Nor to mention that, further south, as Ambassador P. Stobdan pointed out in the wake of the incursion, since 1986 they have systematically scared away Indian herdsmen from the grazing lands within Indian territory, occupied the pastures and built permanent structures. It would not have been ‘fair’ to point out the cruel facts that the Ambassador listed: …
"In Eastern Ladakh, the 45-kilometre long Skakjung area is the only winter pasture land for the nomads of Chushul, Tsaga, Nidar, Nyoma, Mud, Dungti, Kuyul, Loma villages.… The Chinese advance here intensified after 1986, causing huge scarcity of surface grass, even starvation for Indian livestock. Since 1993, the modus operandi of Chinese incursions has been to scare Indian herdsmen into abandoning grazing land and then to construct permanent structures.
"Until the mid-1980s, the boundary lay at Kegu Naro—a day-long march from Dumchele, where India had maintained a forward post till 1962. In the absence of Indian activities, Chinese traders arrived in Dumchele in the early 1980s and China gradually constructed permanent roads, buildings and military posts here. The prominent grazing spots lost to China include Nagtsang (1984), Nakung (1991) and Lungma-Serding (1992). The last bit of Skakjung was taken in December 2008…4
"‘Acne’? ‘A localized problem’? Taken by itself, each one of the usurpations was! But taken together, the unremitting advances have a pattern—to go on pushing the Line of Actual Control, and hence ‘Chinese territory’ right up to the eastern banks of the Shyok and Indus rivers, and to absorb the entire Pangong Lake into China.
"The reactions of Indian officials ....
June 23, 2020
"When you're powerful, all shackles break and there is a way out of every problem"
This quote from the Guru Granth Sahib forms the basis of the policy we should have to face a mighty and expansionist neighbour like China.
I picked up this book after watching a video of Arun Shourie on Youtube at the launch of this book. Also, this seemed to be an opportune moment to understand the history of India China relations since Independence.
A major portion(almost all) of the book covers the events between 1949 and 1962 and the shaping up of India- China relations during that phase leading up to the 1962 war where we faced a humiliating defeat at the hand of Chinese and lost a 40,000sq km of our land in Aksai Chin.
I finished reading the Discovery of India a few days back and fell in love with the thoughts, ideas and idealism of Panditji and he is addressed as the same across the book. For the uninitiated, Jawaharlal Nehru is reverently called Pandit Ji in India. The idealism, the desire to establish or appear as a world leader of Non Aligned Movement, extremely poetic and liberal views on matters regarding foreign policy that Panditji held led to a disaster. While going through the letters and texts of the debates in parliament during this period, one understands how the Chinese were able to deceive Panditji who was so enamoured by his ideas that he was opaque to the sound advise of his fellow parliamentarians and bureaucrats.
The book, however is not a criticism of Nehru's policies in totality. After reading the book, the reader gets the understanding about the expansionist, racist and skeptical mindset of the Chinese and how they have been using deception as a policy to advance their aggression into other territories. The book is very well researched and is highly recommended for someone interested in understanding of India's China policy.
In case the book seems too heavy or uninteresting, the picture on the cover page with Dr. Manmohan Singh Genuflecting before Hu Jinatao sums up our Foreign policy from Chou En Lai to Xi Jinping.
It's an alarm clock for the world in general and India in particular to rise from the slumber of complacency and wake up to the threat that this mighty neighbour poses to the sovereignty of India and other countries of the world.
5 Stars !
This quote from the Guru Granth Sahib forms the basis of the policy we should have to face a mighty and expansionist neighbour like China.
I picked up this book after watching a video of Arun Shourie on Youtube at the launch of this book. Also, this seemed to be an opportune moment to understand the history of India China relations since Independence.
A major portion(almost all) of the book covers the events between 1949 and 1962 and the shaping up of India- China relations during that phase leading up to the 1962 war where we faced a humiliating defeat at the hand of Chinese and lost a 40,000sq km of our land in Aksai Chin.
I finished reading the Discovery of India a few days back and fell in love with the thoughts, ideas and idealism of Panditji and he is addressed as the same across the book. For the uninitiated, Jawaharlal Nehru is reverently called Pandit Ji in India. The idealism, the desire to establish or appear as a world leader of Non Aligned Movement, extremely poetic and liberal views on matters regarding foreign policy that Panditji held led to a disaster. While going through the letters and texts of the debates in parliament during this period, one understands how the Chinese were able to deceive Panditji who was so enamoured by his ideas that he was opaque to the sound advise of his fellow parliamentarians and bureaucrats.
The book, however is not a criticism of Nehru's policies in totality. After reading the book, the reader gets the understanding about the expansionist, racist and skeptical mindset of the Chinese and how they have been using deception as a policy to advance their aggression into other territories. The book is very well researched and is highly recommended for someone interested in understanding of India's China policy.
In case the book seems too heavy or uninteresting, the picture on the cover page with Dr. Manmohan Singh Genuflecting before Hu Jinatao sums up our Foreign policy from Chou En Lai to Xi Jinping.
It's an alarm clock for the world in general and India in particular to rise from the slumber of complacency and wake up to the threat that this mighty neighbour poses to the sovereignty of India and other countries of the world.
5 Stars !
January 14, 2022
As one begins reading, Arun Shourie in his fearless account of facts reminds the reader of just what has gone on vis-a-vis China, and to anyone who lived through the horror of 1962 war it's a reminder of the pains quite unnecessary; but what makes reading this a painful necessity is his account of what went on at various levels, from the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru aspiring yo be the next messiah of peace to the world - and not only thinking wistfully from that perspective, but actually acting and writing as if it were a fact, even forgetting thst others might not quite see it his way, or have every intention of taking advantage of a country not ready to go to war to defend herself.
One must say, they, all of them, forgot two important pieces of history. One they had lived through, and might just have been absorbed by China, was that of Hitler's tactics from Rheinland to Austria to Czechoslovakia to Poland; other was to recall that Mongolian history was closely related to that of China, and thus the claim to Tibet by china based on treaty between Kublai Khan and Tibet, even though it did not involve China, was the basis of China's claim to Tibet. China has since mao been nothing so much as attempting to be the heir to Attila the hun and Chingis Khan in their conquest of the world, but going slower and consolidating.
And more so, the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru. For some reason, he'd not learned any lesson at all, from any part of history, whether of ancient India being invaded and massacred by barbarians for centuries, or the history he'd himself lived albeit only from far, of Europe falling to Hitler for over half a decade because France and England were unwilling to go to war for either Rheinland or Czechoslovakia, much less Austria.
So he emulated Gandhi and forgot the lesson he should have learned from fall of Neville Chamberlain due to giving up Czechoslovakia for peace, despite having had a prior, much more personal lesson in Kashmir - and forgotten that Himaalayan region is not only dear to but revered by India.
Funny, his - the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru's - looking back is limited to colonial invader empires, in both India and Tibet! He never looks at era prior to Kublai Khan in case of Tibet, much less that before Mongolian migration to Tibet; and as for India, neither pre-colonial era nor sentiments of any Hindus seem to matter to him.
It a hardly likely that he was unaware of the reverence and love in India for Himaalayan ranges, which top pilgrimage destinations for India. And this isn't out of an enforced faith, but a history that goes back several millennia.
Repeatedly, he takes the stance that India cannot encourage Tibet to look to India for help, and any such indication from India will harm Tibet; this reminds one of the typical stance taken by most society, including very often parents and police, when confronted with domestic violence.
Over and over, words and attitudes from the then PM of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, towards Tibetan people and Tibet, remind one of those from Gandhi's towards Hindus caught across the borders at independence and required to take flight, if not massacred, without options; one is reminded of his repeatedly demanding refugees to be sent back to the newly created Pak, explicitly mentioning that they should go back even if only to be massacred, but do so with love of the muslims who were murdering them, without any rancour.
Nehru isn't going that far, but almost, in increasingly stating his views of refugees from Tibet, and expressing no concern for those massacred.
" ... ‘They have used the language of the cold war regardless of truth and propriety. This is peculiarly distressing in a great nation with thousands of years of culture behind it, noted for its restrained and polite behaviour. The charges made against India are so fantastic that I find it difficult to deal with them.’ ... "
Perhaps he forgot that the civilisation, most often, especially outside India and her peculiar caste system and philosophy so different from all others, belongs to the upper echelons of power and wealth in the world, a thin veneer at that; and when that's so, it's instantly thrown off at a moment's notice; hence too the all too easy conversions of most of the world yo the two conversionist abrahmic religions. His own behaviour reflected, on the other hand, civilisation of India, ingrained deep, despite the veneer of English education and more, despite his preference for other civilisations over that of India. Hence the immediate switch of Chinese crowds cheering him to Chinese people hostile to India, and hence too the continuing disbelief of his own in this change, and his continuing courtesy. Tibet is closer to India in this respect too, and in most respects has always been, with a false opposite appearance due to racist view of world outside India, due to migration from Mongolia to Tibet giving an appearance of the population being Chinese.
***
Repeatedly, China accused Tibetans, and everyone but their own invasion, but especially Tibetans taking refuge else where, of bring anti Chinese and thus provoking the world against them, as a justification for the genocide perpetrated against Tibetan people by China, albeit never admitted.
How's this different from Hitler's pronouncements re Jews in the world?
Obviously it was an attempt to not so subtly blackmail Jawaharlal Nehru into forcing Tibetan refugees, including Dalai Lama, to be handed over to China for extermination.
And wasn't China's occupying Tibet on strength of the flimsy, not quite legitimate connection of a treaty between Tibet and Kublai Khan who styled himself"Mongolian emporer of China" directly in violation of Woodrow Wilson's principles whereby League of Nations had heard various groups through the world petition regarding their independence?
Why did Jawaharlal Nehru think China invading Tibet was any different from Hitler's invasion of Europe, or Chingis Khan invading Asia and Europe?
Author quotes Jawaharlal Nehru saying -
"In a long-term view, India and China are two of the biggest countries of Asia bordering on each other and both with certain expansive tendencies, because of their vitality."
And comments -
"China is the one that has invaded and taken over Tibet. India has done nothing of the kind. But, to justify not doing anything about the Chinese invasion, Panditji implies that we are the same kind; hence, why be so upset at what China has done?"
One notices a trend in Jawaharlal Nehru's pronouncements at this time, mostly in his writings regarding the is due of China invading Tibet and consequences of danger to India, to equalise it by pretending India is equally guilty, and therefore must not accuse China; this trend of false equalisations to accuse India - and especially Hindus - fraudulently, has been since carried to absurd extremes since, by all sorts of sources including leftists, congress, and of course West, including pretence that Hindus are terrorists or that there is a Hindu terrorism. But it's shocking to see that it began with someone known not for dishonesty.
***
As Arun Shourie begins the chapter after the visit by Chou En-lai to India, with what Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to chief ministers from Mashobra after the visit by Chou En-lai, what suddenly becomes startlingly clear is that Jawaharlal Nehru had long ago, perhaps always, accepted China's claim over Tibet! But why? It certainly was not acceptable to India that China own Himaalayan region, why did Nehru have this view? The answer is clear- perhaps this, more than anything else, proves that his critics are correct when they point out that he was at heart English, not Indian, not Hindu, which in fact they are quoting him as saying. And until British rule woke up India, political rulers had not mattered as much to India, which is - and had always been, a land united by culture, tradition, et al. So there had been no claim by India over Tibet, and of course British had always followed the policy of least expenditure for most profits - hence the difficult regions left administered by locals, and hence too acceptance of claim by china over Tibet.
Jawaharlal Nehru, of course, had made further mistakes in refusing even the countries that pleaded to join india - Nepal, Baluchistan, and at one point a decade after independence, Pakistan too! And, of course, he'd stopped Indian army from finishing a complete takeover of Kashmir, and had instead gone to U.N., eager more to prove himself to the world a Gandhian man of peace, leaving huge problems for India instead - and the world, eventually!
***
As one reads this book, one is returned to the initial impressions about the then PM, Jawaharlal Nehru, about his being a comparatively naive and unselfish man who'd been brought up a gentleman of the world, and had only an aspiration to do well in cause of peace for the world and independence for various colonies of yore. He lacked the necessary shrewdness to deal with crooks and evil, bullies and beasts of prey, and treated his opponents as friends until they proved otherwise, and still thereafter as gentlemen. That he didn't stand by Tibet is no different from what France and England did to Czechoslovakia at Munich, and pretty much for the same reasons too.
One still recalls the impression one had, even young, that his demise was brought on earlier than expected, due to the heartbreaking attack by China, and the humiliation of facing a complete helplessness in face of loss of territory of India, the nation he gave his life to and was given charge of as her first PM post independence.
Shouldn't congress, especially those members who are his descendants, hate China for what they did to him? Instead of which, one finds the quarter Italian heir anxious to give Indian territory over to China! Well, it isn't his to give, but one may safely bet he wouldn't be so quick to hand over his other heritage.
Shourie gives excerpts from Jawaharlal Nehru's writìngs that show his awakening to reality of China, and reminds the reader that Sardar Patel had warned him a decade prior to this, which would hsve been sufficient time for fortifications of the border - and, of course, a different, safer policy regarding Tibet, much better for Tibet- if only he'd not brushed it aside.
Shourie doesn't say most of the above, of course, leaving it to the reader to infer. But he also doesn't say the obvious - thst it was fault of Gandhi, not India, in that Nehru was not the elected first PM of India- he was forced on India by Gandhi, who commanded Sardar Patel to step aside despite being elected. If only Sardar Patel had not obeyed this supposedly saint but in reality a dictator who routinely went on hunger strike fasting unto death - but never against a bully who'd be unaffected letting him starve to death, only against those who cared - India, and too Tibet, but certainly Kashmir, even Nepal and Balochistan, and for that matter, Pakistan (including today's Bangladesh), would have had a much safer, progressive, better history after 1947.
The mental and emotional stress reader sees Jawaharlal Nehru going through, as one reads the excerpts in this chapter from his writings, showing his agony of not only facing reality of his having been incorrect about China, but of being now forced to make a choice, unwilling to let go of the beautiful ideals of world peace and friendship, and instead having to face possible war if not willing to allow territory of India overrun by a belligerent bully - the agony he's going through is all too familiar to anyone who's known even one woman in agony, about the only husband and the father of her children - and the only man she's ever been with - leaving nobody in any doubt thst he has been, and intends to, not only spend nights regularly elsewhere, but also assault the wife and children brutally, as and when he chooses when he's home.
Jawaharlal Nehru being so unwilling to let go of his beautiful ideals is only slightly different from the wife and mother agonising over her possible choices, if any. He had more and better choices, and a guarantee that India and the world woukd support his fighting back a bully. World may not be unkind to Neville Chamberlain, but forgets him when the much longed for peace turns out to be a trap of the villain that he's been shamefully tricked into; world may not worship Churchill and villains of his own nation may badmouth FDR, but they had the satisfaction of having saved their nations, possibly the whole world, just as likely humanity and civilisation. Women in quandary in personal life rarely have such a guarantee of support if they choose to fight back.
But roots of the reason Jawaharlal Nehru faced such agony was not too different from that of the woman facing a domestic situation - just as her early conditioning imprinting on her thst her virtue equals her not leaving her husband, never rebelling, and never thinking of herself, making no decision except thise approved by parents and husband - Jawaharlal Nehru's formative years, after the education in England amongst English sons of upper strata as a gentleman, were completely overshadowed by Gandhi. Hence his stopping Indian army from taking Kashmir, refusing Balochistan and Nepal's pleas to join, refusing Ayub Khan when he sent message to reunite, and leaving a legacy of bloodshed to be faced by India for decades, beginning with 1962 total betrayal of his love and friendship by China. It went against all idea of virtue for him to get ready for a possible war, just as it goes against an average woman's upbringing to be ready for self defense.
Arun Shourie brings out a shocking treatment given General Cariappa, whom Jawaharlal Nehru mentions as "an ex-commander-in-chief" of the Indian army, but Arun Shourie names, by the PM in his writings, treating him with the usual disdain accorded anyone who recommends anything that Nehru isn't yet ready to receive; it's unclear if it's Cariappa he's referring to, but the suggestion he's scoffing at is simply positioning army at the border. It's clear, even if there had been no attack in 1962, that this was a dire necessity and only prudent course of action after china had attacjed tibet and claimed it belonged to China. If Jawaharlal Nehru had had an open mind, he'd have considered it and understood it was the only way - and this should have happened beginning with any advice from Sardar Patel. As it is, his mind was closed with two strong gates or possibly three - English gentleman's code, leftist ideology and Gandhian insistence on not only being but being seen as man of peace.
India was lucky he did not go quite as far as Gandhi in pursuit thereof, and when China did attack, he did not simply hand over the territory demanded - unlike Gandhi who'd insisted India give up a million square miles when Pakistan occupied that sizable chunk in the east, claiming not Ganga but another smaller river as the border.
***
November 8th sees a stormy session of parliament, with 165 members speaking.
Jawaharlal Nehru replies on November 14, 1962, his birthday. Not a happy one, thus birthday.
But reading excerpts selected by Arun Shourie, one is struck here for the first time by a tactic used, however subconsciously, by the then PM, which has since been used - completely consciously and deliberately in their case - by the opposition since 2014 That has until 2014 ruled India for most of the decades since independence, chief of which has been congress alone, and then congress either supported by left or vice versa.
It is this - Jawaharlal Nehru then says that any criticism by anyone is not against anyone including any minister in the government, but the army; and having said that, he calls it unfair.
He wasn't known to be capable of conscious, deliberate dishonesty; but following neither leftist thought nor Gandhian politics is possible without a dish9at some level, or an acceptance thereof, subconsciously. And this is a huge example of that.
No one in india then had any thought or emotion of any criticism against the Indian military, and this has been since too, with the exception of the UPA government of the decade between 2004 to 2014, who roped in army amongst the accused - and a stray one or two amongst the conspirators - for the nefarious purposes of fraudulently portraying Hindus as terrorist, by kidnapping, torture and threats of dire consequences to families, chiefly women. Those political parties and persons have not stopped this maligning of the Indian army as part of malicious fraudulent accusations against Hindus, since.
But in 1962 it was especially out of the question, and this tactic used by the then PM was clearly a cowardly deceptive attempt to deflect the severe criticism, that was chiefly of his faults of policy, and other shortcomings that were heavily to be paid for by India and her various parts separated, and Tibet. Some of the criticism was too against his preferred advisers such as chiefly Krishna Menon and another leftist. The former had proposed doing away with Indian army and converting the arms and ammunition factories to turn out cheap aluminium pots and pans for poor.
But Indian army was, especially in 1962, deservedly cherished, respected and more, by India. Nobody would have even thought of blaming any soldier of the Indian army, except him - and it was the worst falsehood on his part to seek to deflect his own blame by pointing fingers at those whose advice wasn't heeded and those who were paying valiantly then for his mistakes with their lives. They often, as they did at Rezang-La, exceeded the commands and went to unimaginable lengths, daunting the enemy in the process. They deserved every bit of the paens then written and sung for them, bringing tears as per legend to the PM's eyes on hearing just one. According to a current analysis, Rezang-La was responsible for China stopping and declaring ceasefire, although common whisper since 1962 has given credit to U.S. - specifically, to JFK - for a quiet communication. Shourie gives other excerpts of his various speeches in 1963, blaming him chiefly for Chinese attack and ending the chapter with "He never recovers", mentioning his credibility having gone low.
It is definitely required to take stock realistically of the situations, policies et al, as it is to be alert against such attacks; but despite Nehru's speeches and writings attempting to keep up an atmosphere or a pretence of friendship, it does come through that he wasn't quite blind to reality, but only trying to pull through the difficult initial years of recovering from post colonial poverty that colonial regimes had imposed on India after centuries of loot; ....
One must say, they, all of them, forgot two important pieces of history. One they had lived through, and might just have been absorbed by China, was that of Hitler's tactics from Rheinland to Austria to Czechoslovakia to Poland; other was to recall that Mongolian history was closely related to that of China, and thus the claim to Tibet by china based on treaty between Kublai Khan and Tibet, even though it did not involve China, was the basis of China's claim to Tibet. China has since mao been nothing so much as attempting to be the heir to Attila the hun and Chingis Khan in their conquest of the world, but going slower and consolidating.
And more so, the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru. For some reason, he'd not learned any lesson at all, from any part of history, whether of ancient India being invaded and massacred by barbarians for centuries, or the history he'd himself lived albeit only from far, of Europe falling to Hitler for over half a decade because France and England were unwilling to go to war for either Rheinland or Czechoslovakia, much less Austria.
So he emulated Gandhi and forgot the lesson he should have learned from fall of Neville Chamberlain due to giving up Czechoslovakia for peace, despite having had a prior, much more personal lesson in Kashmir - and forgotten that Himaalayan region is not only dear to but revered by India.
Funny, his - the then PM Jawaharlal Nehru's - looking back is limited to colonial invader empires, in both India and Tibet! He never looks at era prior to Kublai Khan in case of Tibet, much less that before Mongolian migration to Tibet; and as for India, neither pre-colonial era nor sentiments of any Hindus seem to matter to him.
It a hardly likely that he was unaware of the reverence and love in India for Himaalayan ranges, which top pilgrimage destinations for India. And this isn't out of an enforced faith, but a history that goes back several millennia.
Repeatedly, he takes the stance that India cannot encourage Tibet to look to India for help, and any such indication from India will harm Tibet; this reminds one of the typical stance taken by most society, including very often parents and police, when confronted with domestic violence.
Over and over, words and attitudes from the then PM of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, towards Tibetan people and Tibet, remind one of those from Gandhi's towards Hindus caught across the borders at independence and required to take flight, if not massacred, without options; one is reminded of his repeatedly demanding refugees to be sent back to the newly created Pak, explicitly mentioning that they should go back even if only to be massacred, but do so with love of the muslims who were murdering them, without any rancour.
Nehru isn't going that far, but almost, in increasingly stating his views of refugees from Tibet, and expressing no concern for those massacred.
" ... ‘They have used the language of the cold war regardless of truth and propriety. This is peculiarly distressing in a great nation with thousands of years of culture behind it, noted for its restrained and polite behaviour. The charges made against India are so fantastic that I find it difficult to deal with them.’ ... "
Perhaps he forgot that the civilisation, most often, especially outside India and her peculiar caste system and philosophy so different from all others, belongs to the upper echelons of power and wealth in the world, a thin veneer at that; and when that's so, it's instantly thrown off at a moment's notice; hence too the all too easy conversions of most of the world yo the two conversionist abrahmic religions. His own behaviour reflected, on the other hand, civilisation of India, ingrained deep, despite the veneer of English education and more, despite his preference for other civilisations over that of India. Hence the immediate switch of Chinese crowds cheering him to Chinese people hostile to India, and hence too the continuing disbelief of his own in this change, and his continuing courtesy. Tibet is closer to India in this respect too, and in most respects has always been, with a false opposite appearance due to racist view of world outside India, due to migration from Mongolia to Tibet giving an appearance of the population being Chinese.
***
Repeatedly, China accused Tibetans, and everyone but their own invasion, but especially Tibetans taking refuge else where, of bring anti Chinese and thus provoking the world against them, as a justification for the genocide perpetrated against Tibetan people by China, albeit never admitted.
How's this different from Hitler's pronouncements re Jews in the world?
Obviously it was an attempt to not so subtly blackmail Jawaharlal Nehru into forcing Tibetan refugees, including Dalai Lama, to be handed over to China for extermination.
And wasn't China's occupying Tibet on strength of the flimsy, not quite legitimate connection of a treaty between Tibet and Kublai Khan who styled himself"Mongolian emporer of China" directly in violation of Woodrow Wilson's principles whereby League of Nations had heard various groups through the world petition regarding their independence?
Why did Jawaharlal Nehru think China invading Tibet was any different from Hitler's invasion of Europe, or Chingis Khan invading Asia and Europe?
Author quotes Jawaharlal Nehru saying -
"In a long-term view, India and China are two of the biggest countries of Asia bordering on each other and both with certain expansive tendencies, because of their vitality."
And comments -
"China is the one that has invaded and taken over Tibet. India has done nothing of the kind. But, to justify not doing anything about the Chinese invasion, Panditji implies that we are the same kind; hence, why be so upset at what China has done?"
One notices a trend in Jawaharlal Nehru's pronouncements at this time, mostly in his writings regarding the is due of China invading Tibet and consequences of danger to India, to equalise it by pretending India is equally guilty, and therefore must not accuse China; this trend of false equalisations to accuse India - and especially Hindus - fraudulently, has been since carried to absurd extremes since, by all sorts of sources including leftists, congress, and of course West, including pretence that Hindus are terrorists or that there is a Hindu terrorism. But it's shocking to see that it began with someone known not for dishonesty.
***
As Arun Shourie begins the chapter after the visit by Chou En-lai to India, with what Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to chief ministers from Mashobra after the visit by Chou En-lai, what suddenly becomes startlingly clear is that Jawaharlal Nehru had long ago, perhaps always, accepted China's claim over Tibet! But why? It certainly was not acceptable to India that China own Himaalayan region, why did Nehru have this view? The answer is clear- perhaps this, more than anything else, proves that his critics are correct when they point out that he was at heart English, not Indian, not Hindu, which in fact they are quoting him as saying. And until British rule woke up India, political rulers had not mattered as much to India, which is - and had always been, a land united by culture, tradition, et al. So there had been no claim by India over Tibet, and of course British had always followed the policy of least expenditure for most profits - hence the difficult regions left administered by locals, and hence too acceptance of claim by china over Tibet.
Jawaharlal Nehru, of course, had made further mistakes in refusing even the countries that pleaded to join india - Nepal, Baluchistan, and at one point a decade after independence, Pakistan too! And, of course, he'd stopped Indian army from finishing a complete takeover of Kashmir, and had instead gone to U.N., eager more to prove himself to the world a Gandhian man of peace, leaving huge problems for India instead - and the world, eventually!
***
As one reads this book, one is returned to the initial impressions about the then PM, Jawaharlal Nehru, about his being a comparatively naive and unselfish man who'd been brought up a gentleman of the world, and had only an aspiration to do well in cause of peace for the world and independence for various colonies of yore. He lacked the necessary shrewdness to deal with crooks and evil, bullies and beasts of prey, and treated his opponents as friends until they proved otherwise, and still thereafter as gentlemen. That he didn't stand by Tibet is no different from what France and England did to Czechoslovakia at Munich, and pretty much for the same reasons too.
One still recalls the impression one had, even young, that his demise was brought on earlier than expected, due to the heartbreaking attack by China, and the humiliation of facing a complete helplessness in face of loss of territory of India, the nation he gave his life to and was given charge of as her first PM post independence.
Shouldn't congress, especially those members who are his descendants, hate China for what they did to him? Instead of which, one finds the quarter Italian heir anxious to give Indian territory over to China! Well, it isn't his to give, but one may safely bet he wouldn't be so quick to hand over his other heritage.
Shourie gives excerpts from Jawaharlal Nehru's writìngs that show his awakening to reality of China, and reminds the reader that Sardar Patel had warned him a decade prior to this, which would hsve been sufficient time for fortifications of the border - and, of course, a different, safer policy regarding Tibet, much better for Tibet- if only he'd not brushed it aside.
Shourie doesn't say most of the above, of course, leaving it to the reader to infer. But he also doesn't say the obvious - thst it was fault of Gandhi, not India, in that Nehru was not the elected first PM of India- he was forced on India by Gandhi, who commanded Sardar Patel to step aside despite being elected. If only Sardar Patel had not obeyed this supposedly saint but in reality a dictator who routinely went on hunger strike fasting unto death - but never against a bully who'd be unaffected letting him starve to death, only against those who cared - India, and too Tibet, but certainly Kashmir, even Nepal and Balochistan, and for that matter, Pakistan (including today's Bangladesh), would have had a much safer, progressive, better history after 1947.
The mental and emotional stress reader sees Jawaharlal Nehru going through, as one reads the excerpts in this chapter from his writings, showing his agony of not only facing reality of his having been incorrect about China, but of being now forced to make a choice, unwilling to let go of the beautiful ideals of world peace and friendship, and instead having to face possible war if not willing to allow territory of India overrun by a belligerent bully - the agony he's going through is all too familiar to anyone who's known even one woman in agony, about the only husband and the father of her children - and the only man she's ever been with - leaving nobody in any doubt thst he has been, and intends to, not only spend nights regularly elsewhere, but also assault the wife and children brutally, as and when he chooses when he's home.
Jawaharlal Nehru being so unwilling to let go of his beautiful ideals is only slightly different from the wife and mother agonising over her possible choices, if any. He had more and better choices, and a guarantee that India and the world woukd support his fighting back a bully. World may not be unkind to Neville Chamberlain, but forgets him when the much longed for peace turns out to be a trap of the villain that he's been shamefully tricked into; world may not worship Churchill and villains of his own nation may badmouth FDR, but they had the satisfaction of having saved their nations, possibly the whole world, just as likely humanity and civilisation. Women in quandary in personal life rarely have such a guarantee of support if they choose to fight back.
But roots of the reason Jawaharlal Nehru faced such agony was not too different from that of the woman facing a domestic situation - just as her early conditioning imprinting on her thst her virtue equals her not leaving her husband, never rebelling, and never thinking of herself, making no decision except thise approved by parents and husband - Jawaharlal Nehru's formative years, after the education in England amongst English sons of upper strata as a gentleman, were completely overshadowed by Gandhi. Hence his stopping Indian army from taking Kashmir, refusing Balochistan and Nepal's pleas to join, refusing Ayub Khan when he sent message to reunite, and leaving a legacy of bloodshed to be faced by India for decades, beginning with 1962 total betrayal of his love and friendship by China. It went against all idea of virtue for him to get ready for a possible war, just as it goes against an average woman's upbringing to be ready for self defense.
Arun Shourie brings out a shocking treatment given General Cariappa, whom Jawaharlal Nehru mentions as "an ex-commander-in-chief" of the Indian army, but Arun Shourie names, by the PM in his writings, treating him with the usual disdain accorded anyone who recommends anything that Nehru isn't yet ready to receive; it's unclear if it's Cariappa he's referring to, but the suggestion he's scoffing at is simply positioning army at the border. It's clear, even if there had been no attack in 1962, that this was a dire necessity and only prudent course of action after china had attacjed tibet and claimed it belonged to China. If Jawaharlal Nehru had had an open mind, he'd have considered it and understood it was the only way - and this should have happened beginning with any advice from Sardar Patel. As it is, his mind was closed with two strong gates or possibly three - English gentleman's code, leftist ideology and Gandhian insistence on not only being but being seen as man of peace.
India was lucky he did not go quite as far as Gandhi in pursuit thereof, and when China did attack, he did not simply hand over the territory demanded - unlike Gandhi who'd insisted India give up a million square miles when Pakistan occupied that sizable chunk in the east, claiming not Ganga but another smaller river as the border.
***
November 8th sees a stormy session of parliament, with 165 members speaking.
Jawaharlal Nehru replies on November 14, 1962, his birthday. Not a happy one, thus birthday.
But reading excerpts selected by Arun Shourie, one is struck here for the first time by a tactic used, however subconsciously, by the then PM, which has since been used - completely consciously and deliberately in their case - by the opposition since 2014 That has until 2014 ruled India for most of the decades since independence, chief of which has been congress alone, and then congress either supported by left or vice versa.
It is this - Jawaharlal Nehru then says that any criticism by anyone is not against anyone including any minister in the government, but the army; and having said that, he calls it unfair.
He wasn't known to be capable of conscious, deliberate dishonesty; but following neither leftist thought nor Gandhian politics is possible without a dish9at some level, or an acceptance thereof, subconsciously. And this is a huge example of that.
No one in india then had any thought or emotion of any criticism against the Indian military, and this has been since too, with the exception of the UPA government of the decade between 2004 to 2014, who roped in army amongst the accused - and a stray one or two amongst the conspirators - for the nefarious purposes of fraudulently portraying Hindus as terrorist, by kidnapping, torture and threats of dire consequences to families, chiefly women. Those political parties and persons have not stopped this maligning of the Indian army as part of malicious fraudulent accusations against Hindus, since.
But in 1962 it was especially out of the question, and this tactic used by the then PM was clearly a cowardly deceptive attempt to deflect the severe criticism, that was chiefly of his faults of policy, and other shortcomings that were heavily to be paid for by India and her various parts separated, and Tibet. Some of the criticism was too against his preferred advisers such as chiefly Krishna Menon and another leftist. The former had proposed doing away with Indian army and converting the arms and ammunition factories to turn out cheap aluminium pots and pans for poor.
But Indian army was, especially in 1962, deservedly cherished, respected and more, by India. Nobody would have even thought of blaming any soldier of the Indian army, except him - and it was the worst falsehood on his part to seek to deflect his own blame by pointing fingers at those whose advice wasn't heeded and those who were paying valiantly then for his mistakes with their lives. They often, as they did at Rezang-La, exceeded the commands and went to unimaginable lengths, daunting the enemy in the process. They deserved every bit of the paens then written and sung for them, bringing tears as per legend to the PM's eyes on hearing just one. According to a current analysis, Rezang-La was responsible for China stopping and declaring ceasefire, although common whisper since 1962 has given credit to U.S. - specifically, to JFK - for a quiet communication. Shourie gives other excerpts of his various speeches in 1963, blaming him chiefly for Chinese attack and ending the chapter with "He never recovers", mentioning his credibility having gone low.
It is definitely required to take stock realistically of the situations, policies et al, as it is to be alert against such attacks; but despite Nehru's speeches and writings attempting to keep up an atmosphere or a pretence of friendship, it does come through that he wasn't quite blind to reality, but only trying to pull through the difficult initial years of recovering from post colonial poverty that colonial regimes had imposed on India after centuries of loot; ....
December 15, 2015
Wow, packed full of Sinophobic hyperbole. An insight into what 'nationalist' thinking on China-India relations is like amongst the Indian right. Alarming.
July 17, 2020
It’s a long narrative of how the vanity of being known as a leader with vision encompassing the globe rather than limiting just to his nation and the resultant blinkered outlook in handling China’s brand of imperialism, Panditji though being an ardent patriot, had jeopardised/marred the stature of India...and speaking of present day scenario he states how the the word ‘nationalism’ has been derogated to the status of becoming an abusive word and emphasises the urgent need to restore it to its primary status of a word that drives the nation to ‘unite’...
Read
November 10, 2023Completed reading "Self-Deception" by #ArunShourie.
His account of "India's China Policies" is a must read for those who want to know the mistakes our Governments committed since independence!
This book needs a "Volume 2.0" to understand which side did #India move since 2014.
His account of "India's China Policies" is a must read for those who want to know the mistakes our Governments committed since independence!
This book needs a "Volume 2.0" to understand which side did #India move since 2014.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews