How Nehru turned down permanant UNSC Seat

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by ajtr, Nov 1, 2010.

  1. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    HEPY to see Nehru


    Even before Jawaharlal Nehru started packing his bags for his journey to China in October 1954 (‘Laying out the Red carpet’, IE, October 18) Stalin’s successors in the Soviet Union had started befriending India, and particularly him, with a view to persuading him to visit their country. But he did not want to be seen to be getting closer to the USSR even though this country’s relations with the United States had deteriorated after Washington’s decision to extend military aid to Pakistan and thus bring the Cold War “to India’s doorstep.” He was courteous to Soviet leaders and conveyed to them that he would welcome technical aid from them. But when the Soviet ambassador in New Delhi suggested, and even offered, a draft of a non-aggression treaty including the Five Principles delineated in the India-China agreement on Tibet, Nehru politely declined. He cited India’s chairmanship of the three control and supervisory commissions in Indochina appointed under the Geneva Agreement.

    By early 1955, however, things had changed. In February that year a large-scale Soviet economic aid programme was inaugurated with the much-applauded agreement on setting up the Bhilai steel plant. Nehru’s opposition to John Foster Dulles’s “pactomania” to create a circle of alliances, and to the extension of spheres of influence in Asia, was backed by the Soviet Union. So Nehru decided to go there and to several Eastern European countries. On their part, the Soviet leaders, engaged in changing Stalin’s policies slowly and subtly, were appreciative of his general policies, which they considered “helpful” to their own interests.

    Thus it was that on arrival in Moscow on June 7, 1955, Nehru found that his hosts had organised an “unprecedented” welcome for him. The entire presidium was present at the airport, and huge crowds lined the streets in an obvious attempt to outdo China. The Pravda editorial recorded: “With the very active participation of the Soviet Union and the Republic of India, the flames of war in two Asian areas, Korea and Indochina, have been put out.” As Zhou Enlai had done in Beijing, so in Moscow, Prime Minister Nikolai Bulganin rode with Nehru in an open car. In both cases this was the first and the last occasion that Communist leaders gave up, even temporarily, their bullet-proof limousines. Remarkably, The New York Times’ correspondent in the Soviet capital reported that there was “spontaneity” in the Russian people’s exuberant welcome to the Indian prime minister.

    Nehru’s talks with the Soviet leaders were extensive and spread over several days. Interestingly, he began with V. M. Molotov, the veteran foreign minister who was to leave Moscow the next day. For the rest of the time Bulganin was his main interlocutor, though Nikita Khruschev, Anastas Mikoyan and some others joined them from time to time. Of the subjects discussed, quite a few, such as the “sabotaging” by the US of the elections in both parts of Vietnam ordained by the Geneva Conference, have little relevance today. But there were several substantive issues of great import at that point of time, on which Nehru disagreed with his hosts as often as he agreed with them. This made no difference to their deference to him.

    For instance, when Bulganin and Khrushchev severely criticised the United States for its “aggressive attitudes”, Nehru first made a double-edged remark — “I don’t see why a strong man should always go about showing his muscles” — and then drew their attention to the “more hopeful elements in the US situation”. He cited the “eclipse” of Knowland and McCarthy (the two virulently anti-Communist senators); the differences between Dulles and Eisenhower, and the more conciliatory attitude of the US president; and so on. He also declined the Soviet offer of the sixth permanent seat on the UN Security Council and told them that some in America were suggesting that India should replace China in the council. This was to “create trouble between us and China.” Nothing, he added, should be done until the China’s admission into the UN and allied issues were settled.

    On his visit to the Soviet Union and talks with the Soviet leaders, Nehru wrote two very elaborate notes, quite apart from several other minutes and many letters, most notably to Lady Mountbatten and President Eisenhower. It is impossible to summarise them even cursorily in one article. Let me therefore underscore two of his basic points. First, Nehru had first visited the USSR nearly 30 years earlier, and was much impressed by its economic achievements. As PM he knew that much had gone wrong, too. However, he could not say whether “slave labour” and “concentration camps” existed or not. Yet, having seen millions of people all across the country, he could say that the general look of them was “happy and cheerful.” They looked “well-fed and were adequately clothed.” There was “no civil liberty as Indians knew it”, but this did not seem to be missed “because it had never been known in Russia.”

    On Soviet policy, his “general impression” was that a “marked change” had come over it and that this was not a temporary phase which gave him “hope for the future.” He felt that more than at any time in the past, there was “substantial reason to hope for peaceful approaches and settlements.”

    Nehru gave this appraisal also to British Prime Minister Anthony Eden and his colleagues in London, where he went for two days at Eden’s invitation in the midst of his East European journey, for consultations on the impending Four Power Conference in Berlin. As he recorded later, the British ministers were not convinced by what he told them, but were “too polite to say so”. After the Berlin Conference, Macmillan told Commonwealth high commissioners in London that his government was “under a debt of gratitude to the Indian prime minister whose assessment of the Russian situation was our guide throughout.. [We were] amazed to find how closely the Russian approach followed the line indicated by him.

    A lighter side of Nehru’s Soviet visit: in the Cyrillic script, Nehru is written as “HEPY”. A very senior Indian journalist reported to his news agency: “Everywhere Mr. Nehru goes, banners proclaim how happy the Russians are with his visit. But they always misspell the word happy.”

    The writer is a Delhi-based political commentator
     
  2.  
  3. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    UNSC Seat: Did Nehru Really Fumble?


    Was Nehru’s action 55 years ago an unpardonable bungling or a clever diplomatic move to save India from ignominy and enmity of powerful nations?

    Since long India has been fighting for a place as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). However, this struggle for a permanent UNSC seat is turning out to be a losing battle and would seemingly continue to be so for a variety of reasons for possibly many more decades to come. Before going into the pros and cons of the intriguing international situation, so vitally associated with the entry of a new permanent member to the UNSC, over a billion people in India reserve the right to question as to why the first Prime Minister of the country, Jawaharlal Nehru, refused the offer of a permanent UNSC seat made by the United States in 1955. Was it an unpardonable bungling by Nehru or a clever diplomatic move to save India from ignominy and enmity of powerful nations?

    Very few people know that in 1955 the then US President Dwight David Eisenhower was caught in an unenviable situation of choosing between the People’s Republic of China under the Communist regime led by Mao Tse Tung and the then Formosa or the present Republic of China for a permanent seat at the UNSC. While Communist revolution was new and was beginning to find a firm footing in the Chinese mainland or the present People’s Republic of China, Washington’s blue-eyed boy Seng Kai Sek was compelled to find shelter in the island of Formosa after fleeing from the Chinese mainland. While the US was dead against Communist China becoming a permanent member of the UNSC, Eisenhower could clearly visualize that any offer made in favour of Formosa, then ruled by a fleeing dictator, would be vehemently opposed by other permanent members of the UNSC, more particularly by the then Communist USSR.

    With the Cold War between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries being the order of the day in 1955 and India maintaining equidistance from both the blocks, perhaps President Eisenhower thought it prudent that India could fit into the permanent Asian seat in the UNSC, and accordingly the offer was made.

    On the other hand, reports indicate that the then Communist USSR, a permanent member in the UNSC, mounted pressure on New Delhi to vouch for Communist China for the permanent Asian seat in the UNSC, promising that an elusive sixth UNSC permanent member seat to be offered to India in the coming years.

    Today, 55 years later, as New Delhi runs from pillar to post for a permanent member seat in the UNSC, a review of Nehru’s decision to go by Moscow’s persuasion and plea in favour of China for a permanent UNSC seat could be of great significance. Perhaps a leader with lesser understanding of the then international scenario would have jumped to the conclusion of saying ‘‘Yes’’ to the US offer and possibly would have landed up biting dust. The crux of the matter at that point of time was the Cold War. The US, UK and France openly belonged to one block while of the Warsaw Pact countries USSR was the sole member in the UNSC. Moscow’s gameplan was obviously to have another Communist power as a permanent member in the UNSC to face the challenge of the NATO even within the security council. And hence the pressure on New Delhi to surrender the US offer in favour of China.

    Any observer with adequate knowledge of the raging Cold War and the international scenario in 1955 would agree that Washington’s offer of a permanent UNSC seat could never ensure India a cake walk into the Security Council. With every permanent member enjoying veto power it was clear as daylight that any proposal for the fifth member’s name made by a member of one block would be vetoed by the member(s) of the other block. Accordingly, in the face of a standing US offer, possibly Nehru could see through the Soviet gameplan of vetoing any member’s name till China made the entry into the Security Council as the permanent member from Asia. Perhaps realizing a near impossible task of making way to the Security Council with the two Cold War blocks calling the shots in tune with their confrontation, Nehru possibly could clearly visualize the ineffectiveness of the US offer and hence turned down the offer.

    Another reason why Nehru possibly rejected the US offer could possibly be to maintain friendly relations with all countries, regardless of blocks, or at least not to incur the wrath of any country, more particularly powerful nations. Perhaps Nehru was highly convinced that the American gameplan would come a cropper, leaving India to bite dust while relations with the Soviet Union and China would deteriorate to an all-time low. With the situation ensuring an almost certain fall and ignominy, it was only natural for New Delhi to reject the US offer. After all, any fool can aim for the moon, but the wise and the intelligent would always consider if a greater risk of crash-landing or still worse nose-landing could be on the cards. And certainly Nehru did not want to see India crestfallen after fighting a losing battle.

    Meanwhile, much water has flowed down the Mississipi, the Volga, the Ganga and the Yangtze Kiang in the last 55 years. Looking back now, nothing perhaps is as easy as criticizing Nehru for giving up the Security Council permanent member seat even by one without any knowledge of the Cold War that raged for decades together till the Soviet Union collapsed in the eighties.

    However, it is most unfortunate and ironic that today China is apparently turning out to be a mighty roadblock in India’s quest for a permanent seat in the UNSC. Likewise, the United States also has a different gameplan. Washington would not like to offend Pakistan, one of its frontline buyers of arms and other goods, by supporting India in the matter of a permanent seat in the UNSC. Ironically, today India can almost be certain of Moscow’s support among the powers enjoying veto in the Security Council. However, with raging turbulence than ever before on all fronts in the international arena, one can never be sure as to how many more decades India may have to wait for an opportune moment to enter the Security Council as a permanent member or if a UNSC permanent seat would remain an elusive dream for this nation for all times to come.

    Talmizur Rahman


    (The writer is a Guwahati-based journalist)
     
  4. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    two greatest blunders of Nehru in foreign policy.

     
  5. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    2,783
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    See! I am ready to forgive that scum for ignoring the UNSC. But the way he gifted Aksai Chin and refused to take Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Shaksam Valley with sheer force, disgusts me to no limits.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 2, 2010
    panduranghari likes this.
  6. maomao

    maomao Veteran Hunter of Maleecha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,498
    Likes Received:
    4,145
    Man I never knew he almost refused to be a contender of UNSC, man Nehru was truly a curse for the nation and for fallacies we pay the price even today, and not to forget the dynasty he gave us to live with!
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2010
    panduranghari likes this.
  7. Madhavbhartia

    Madhavbhartia Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    No point talking about of Nehru did right or wrong...The concern shld be present and future...not past....Now India needs to make its way to UNSC....
     
  8. Oracle

    Oracle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    UNSC is a bunch or jokers paradise. We should concentrate more on our internal affairs like maoists, terrorism in NE rather than a seat in the UNSC. Charity begins at home. Home is where we should start with, first.
     
  9. vinay535

    vinay535 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    mike uniform mike bravo alpha india
    i dont know if Nehru did right or wrong but i have ques to ask
    1. Was India ready for UNSC seat in 1955 ? i mean economically and militarily.
    2. What have we lost by not having it ?
     
  10. Oracle

    Oracle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    Nehru did not have a vision.

    YES. Compare that to China, was China ready both economically or militarily, hell NO.

    Nothing. As I said, UN is a bunch of jokers. Why do the West need NATO, ISAF if UN was enough?
     
  11. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    present and future actions of an individual or a nation are always depend on what he did wrong and what he did right in past so that his present is like this today and in future he dont repeat his past mistakes.Thats the only reason why people stuy history to learn from it so as not to repeat the foolish mistakes of our forefathers in our lives that our children/grandchildren curse us in future like we doing with our favorite chacha nehru here.
     
  12. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Good.answered to the point.Some indians always has habit to demean india with in direct question ....like was india ready for it....india will never be ready unless it takes up the responsibility and leadership to boot for
     
    panduranghari likes this.
  13. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,317
    Likes Received:
    3,891
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    Had Nehru taken that UNSC seat, Himsagar Express would be going between Kanyakumari and Muzzafarabad, not the present Kanyakumari to Jammu Tawi, we'd have set up a land route to the Soviet Union and solved our energy crises in the 60s~80s, and become a much stronger economy. Again, it goes to show what an idiot Nehru was, with foreign policy.
     
  14. vinay535

    vinay535 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    mike uniform mike bravo alpha india
    @ ajtr Asking a question doesnt mean demeaning . u shouldnt be judging me without even knwing me
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2010
  15. tony4562

    tony4562 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    49
    Just to clarify: in 1955 PRC was not on the security council, PRC was not even in the UN. It's ROC, aka Taiwan, that was representing China in the UN. ROC got the permanent seat on the security council as one of the 5 major victorious nations at the end of WWII. It then held onto the seat after retreating to taiwan in 1949. In the 50's most countries, and practically all western counteries, still recognized ROC as the sole legitimate government of China. I don't think it's even remotely possible that at the height of the cold war, US would take away the seat held by ROC, one of US's key allies fighting communism, to give it to India.

    PRC finally ousted ROC in 1971 from the UN and thereby inheriting the seat.
     
  16. Sridhar

    Sridhar House keeper Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,473
    Likes Received:
    1,015
    Republic of China

    Further information: China and the United Nations
    China, under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China (ROC) at that time, joined the UN as an original member on 24 October 1945, and as set out by the United Nations Charter, Chapter V, Article 23, became one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.[12] In 1949, as a result of the Chinese Civil War, the Kuomintang-led ROC government lost effective control of mainland China and relocated to Taiwan, and the Communist Party-led government of the People's Republic of China (PRC), declared on 1 October 1949, took control of mainland China. The UN was notified on 18 November 1949 of the formation of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China; however, the Government of the Republic of China continued to represent China at the UN, despite the small size of the ROC's jurisdiction of Taiwan and a number of smaller islands compared to the PRC's jurisdiction of mainland China. As both governments claimed to be the sole legitimate representative of China, proposals to effect a change in the representation of China in the UN were not approved for the next two decades, as the ROC was still recognized as the sole legitimate representative of China by a majority of UN members.
    By the 1970s, a shift had occurred in international diplomatic circles and the PRC had gained the upper hand in international diplomatic relations and recognition count. On 25 October 1971, the 21st time the United Nations General Assembly debated on the PRC's admission into the UN,[13] United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 was adopted, by which it recognized that "the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that the People's Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council," and decided "to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it."[14] This effectively transferred the seat of China in the UN, including its permanent seat on the Security Council, from the ROC to the PRC, and expelled the ROC from the UN.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_member_states
     
  17. rcscwc

    rcscwc Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Delhi
  18. rcscwc

    rcscwc Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Delhi
    That fool Nehru made so many blunders one wonders if he really was a patriot, or even an Indian. Recognising Tibet as part of China, giving up priveleges in Tibet, gifting away of Aksai Chin, not liberating Kashmir fully, genocide of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan with ethnic cleansing, hosting a large, hostile muslim population [recall that muslims had voted for Muslim League in the interim elections.]
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2010
    maomao and panduranghari like this.
  19. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    613
    well, what a joke and wet dream of losers !

    who can offer a permanent seat of UNSC?
    any change of UNSC strcutures could not be done ,hadn't it been agreed on all veto-holders.
    So,either SOviet or USA couldn't unilaterally change the structure of UNSC during cold war at all,neither can either of them now.

    Since 1945, China was already the veto-holder on UN,whether "CHina" was reprensented by PRC or Roc.

    Unfortuately, any such cheap offer from RUssia or USA would definitely be vetoed by ROC(republic of CHina) or PRC(People republic of CHina),
     
  20. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    You belong to ROC or PRC ? you can speak on behalf of only one of them. moreover activities like this can only happen with consensus . When Uncle sam wants something he gets it same way CHina was forced to agree on NSG issue for including India .
     
    panduranghari likes this.
  21. Agantrope

    Agantrope Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    68
    LOL buddy!!!
    What you think of the UNSC? That is literally offered to Allied forces who won the WW-II
    British Empire, French, USSR, USA, China offered that. But the hell this fool turned down the offer for the seat the Mao ruled commie land and now we are running the hell behind that.

    India had lost a lot because of him rather than any gain.
     

Share This Page