When Nehru Refused American Bait on a Permanent Seat for India at the UN

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by Dark Sorrow, Nov 25, 2017.

  1. mayfair

    mayfair Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,224
    Likes Received:
    6,212
    Location:
    India
    Wow..I don't even know how to respond to this epitome of outlandishness. You sir are either a troll par exemplary or completely deluded.

    Let's see how many fish you bait with this one..
     
    jackprince and Harsh01 like this.
  2. Screambowl

    Screambowl Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,165
    Likes Received:
    6,991
    Location:
    N/A

    You could be correct in bashing Nehru, so I do most of the time. But I am taking an opportunity to analyse things in a positive manner.

    It's not the Pakistan's and Kashmir which went wrong It is the UNSC and China part that went wrong. And then then game turned. You would be surprized to know that before the unification and the making of Communist China, the Mainland was very much diverse and it still is. The people in North China do not understand what people in South China speak, due to traditional language changes.

    Plan was going perfectly, Kashmir issue was raised, Pakistan got diverted from it's development towards more important Kashmir as Jinnah had already mentioned the importance of Kashmir. Nehru trusted Chinese and may have wanted China to vouch for India in Kashmir. Then the catastrophe struck, as PLA invaded Tibet. And there after things started getting complicated.

    Other wise as per my view, Pak would have been dismantled by early 80's completely. And whole of the J&K would have been under Indian administration. Only the lack of information on Chinese move through English or Soviets remained the biggest set back. It's not Nehru who backstabbed it's the interest of Britishers, Americans and Soviets to turn China in cold war created the tussle for Indians. And the Indian were caught unprepared to due negligence or lack of correct information.
     
  3. Chimpoo

    Chimpoo New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    10
    Not entirely sure that Nehru's initial rejection of a permanent UN seat for India,or for that matter his whole non-aligned policy ,was that crazy - at least up until 1950....

    I mean this was just before the Chinese annexation of Tibet and the invasion of the Korean Peninsula..

    Firstly,the Soviet Union was threatening to withdraw from the UN, if the People's Republic of China (mainland Communist China) was denied a permanent seat on the UN security council ,in favour the Republic of China(Taiwan). This would have brought back memories of Japan leaving the permanent council of the League of Nations,the forerunner to the UN, in the wake of its invasion and conquest of Manchuria ,back in 1933. This ,together with Germany's leaving the League the next year,marked decisive milestones in the failure of the league in avoiding a global conflict. Nehru would not have wanted to go down in history ,as a man who played a role in the failure of the UN

    Secondly,there was the real threat of a world war involving the western powers and the communist bloc, in which atomic bombs would in all likelihood be used. The two world wars and the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,under the then current President Truman, was in the forefront of many policy maker's minds. Serious consideration was given by the US leadership to using atomic bombs against China ,after its entry into the Korean War. Even later in 1954 then US president, Eisenhower, weighed using atom bombs to help relieve the French forces against the Communists , in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, in Vietnam. Here,perhaps it would be prudent to stay on the periphery and outside of any military obligations or entanglements. Of course, in the wake of the Soviet Union joining the US in the thermonuclear megaton club in 1955 and the potential destruction wrought by these devices,the possibility of such a global war taking place receded.

    Thirdly, the likes of Britain and France were still major colonial powers in Asia. Britain was fighitng an insurgency in Malaya and France was fighting a full scale was in Indo-China(present-day Laos,Cambodia and Vietnam(. There would have been this real fear of India falling back into the colonial sphere of influence,by allying itself with the west.
     
  4. Chimpoo

    Chimpoo New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    10
    That's probably a factor too. Perhaps,the likes of the Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and other Chinese political thnkers, on analyzing India's political leadership,recognised this too. Hence his authoring of the Five Principles of Co-existence(known in India as the Panchsheel),which India and China agreed to in treaty form,1954:
    1. Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
    2. Mutual non-aggression.
    3. Mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs.
    4. Equality and cooperation for mutual benefit.
    5. Peaceful co-existence.

    It was in the interests of the People's Republic of China,in light of its willingness to use military force on its borders, to have India as a pacifist and strategically passive actor.

    So,it stands to reason that the Chinese would have gone out of their way to extol Nehru's vision of peaceful co-existence and try to enhance Nehru's standing on the international stage.
     
  5. nimo_cn

    nimo_cn Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    3,717
    Likes Received:
    671
    I simply don't understand it, during the 1950s, republic of China and US were allies, how would US suggest replacing ROC with India?
     
  6. mayfair

    mayfair Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,224
    Likes Received:
    6,212
    Location:
    India
    Where does it say that US was offering to replace RoC with India or for that matter USSR? All the reports say is that US and USSR separately made offers of a permanent seat at the UNSC.
     
  7. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,504
    Likes Received:
    521
    The quote from this thread

    "One matter that is being cooked up in the State Department should be known to you. This is the unseating of China as a Permanent Member in the Security Council and of India being put in her place."
     
  8. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,504
    Likes Received:
    521
    Because they didn't, it was just kind of opinion exchange and test, far away from offer yet. But some Indians just took it too seriously.
     

Share This Page