D
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Guest
The sacrifice of Tibet: Extraordinary delusions and temporary insanity
By Rajeev Srinivasan
Rediff
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
On November 18 every year, I silently salute the brave
souls of C Company, 13th Kumaon Regiment, who in 1962 died
practically to the last man and the last bullet defending
Ladakh against the invading Chinese Army. These brave 114
inflicted heavy casualties and prevented the Chinese from
overrunning Leh, much like Spartans at Thermopylae held the
line against the invading Persians many moons ago.
But have you ever wondered why these brave men had to
sacrifice themselves? One answer seems to be that is
because of the extraordinary delusions that affected a
number of the dramatis personae on the Indian side: notably
Jawaharlal Nehru, KM Panikkar and VK Krishna Menon.
A deadly combination of blind faith, gross megalomania, and
groupthink led to the debacle in the war in1962; but its
genesis lay in the unbelievable naivete that led these
worthies to simply sacrifice a defenseless sister
civilisation to brutal barbarians.
Furthermore, they were far more concerned about China's
interests than about India's! Generations to come will
scarcely believe that such criminal negligence was
tolerated in the foreign policy of a major nation.
In a well-researched book, timed for the one hundredth
anniversary of the opening of Tibet by the British, Claude
Arpi, born in France but a long-term resident of India, and
one of India's leading Tibet and China experts, argues that
India's acquiescence to the enslavement of Tibet has had
disastrous consequences. The book is Born in Sin: The
Panchsheel Agreement subtitled The Sacrifice of Tibet,
published by Mittal Publications, New Delhi, 2004, pp. 241,
Rs. 495, ISBN 81-7099-974-X. Unless otherwise noted, all of
the quotations here are from this book.
Arpi also touches upon the difficulty scholars face with
piecing together what actually happened in those momentous
years leading to the extinction of Tibet and the India-
China war of 1962, because the majority of the source
materials are held as classified documents in the
Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund or the Ministry of External
Affairs.
The historian is forced to depend on the sanitised Selected
Works of Jawaharlal Nehru and the restricted Official
Report of the 1962 War. If the relevant documents were made
public at the very least we might learn something from
them. Where is Aruna Roy, crusading champion of the
people's right to know who has now accepted a sinecure
under the UPA? Why are the Nehru Papers controlled by Sonia
Gandhi?
The story really begins exactly one hundred years ago, in
September 1904, when the British Colonel Francis
Younghusband entered Tibet and forced the hitherto insular
kingdom open at the point of a gun. The Lhasa Convention of
1904, signed by the British and the Tibetans, put the seal
of British overlordship over Tibet. The parallels with
Commodore Perry of the US and his black ships opening up
Japan are obvious. However, unlike Japan, which under the
Meiji Restoration took vigorously to westernisation, Tibet
continued to distance itself from the outside world, much
to its later disadvantage.
Perhaps we need to look further in history, as Arpi did in
his earlier book, The Fate of Tibet: When Big Insects Eat
Small Insects. The Tibetans were a feared, martial and
warlike race that had always, in its impregnable mountain
fastnesses, held the expansionist Han Chinese at bay.
However, in the 7th century CE, Buddhism came to Tibet, and
they became a pacifist nation. Says Arpi: 'Tibet's
conversion had another consequence on its political
history: a nonviolent Tibet could no longer defend itself.
It had to look outside for military support to safeguard
its frontiers and for the protection of its Dharma. This
help came first from the Mongol Khans and later the Manchu
Emperors when they became themselves followers of the
Buddha's doctrine.'
The sum and substance of China's alleged historical claim
to Tibet is this: that the Mongol Khans had conquered both
China and Tibet at the same time. This is patently absurd,
because by the same token India should claim Australia, New
Zealand and Hong Kong as its own, because India and these
territories were under British rule at the same time.
In fact, since the Mongol Khans and the Manchu Emperors
accepted the Dalai Lama as their spiritual preceptor, it is
clear that it was China that was giving tribute to Tibet,
not vice versa: so Tibet could claim Han China as its
vassal.
The Lhasa Convention was followed by the Simla Convention
in 1914 that laid out the McMahon Line defining both the
Indo-Tibetan border, and the division of Tibet into 'Outer
Tibet' (which lies along the border with India) and 'Inner
Tibet' which includes Amdo Province and part of Kham
Province. It is worthwhile to note that the Chinese were
not invited to discuss the McMahon line, nor was their
acceptance of this line sought. Tibetans signed this treaty
as an independent nation. The British government emphasised
this in a note to the Chinese as late as 1943: 'Since the
Chinese Revolution of 1911,... Tibet has enjoyed de facto
independence.'
When India became independent, K M Panikkar wrote: 'A China
[organised as a Communist regime annexing Mongol, Muslim
and Tibetan areas] will be in an extremely powerful
position to claim its historic role of authority over
Tibet, Burma, Indo-China and Siam. The historic claims in
regard to these are vague and hazy?' Yet soon thereafter
Panikkar became the principal spokesperson for China's
interests, even though his job was Indian Ambassador to
China!
As soon as the Communists came to power, in 1950, they
started asserting their claims: 'The tasks for the People's
Liberation Army for 1950 are to liberate [sic] Taiwan,
Hainan and Tibet.' A Scottish missionary in Tibet said the
PLA officers told him that once Tibet was in their hands,
they would go to India.
On October 7, 1950, Mao Tse-Tung's storm troopers invaded
Tibet. But under Panikkar's influence, Nehru felt that the
loss of Tibet was worth the price of liberating Asia from
'western dominance'. Panikkar said: 'I do not think there
is anything wrong in the troops of Red China moving about
in their own country.'
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was one of the few in the Indian
government who recognised the menace from China. He wrote:
'We also have to take note of a thoroughly unscrupulous,
unreliable and determined power practically at our doors?
[It is clear that] we cannot be friendly with China and
must think in terms of defense against a determined,
calculating, unscrupulous, ruthless, unprincipled and
prejudiced combination of powers, of which the Chinese will
be the spearhead? [It is obvious to me that] any friendly
or appeasing approaches from us would either be mistaken
for weakness or would be exploited in furtherance of their
ultimate aim.'
How prophetic Patel was! Unfortunately, he died soon after
he wrote this. Interestingly, the very same words apply in
their entirety to India's dithering over Pakistan today, 54
years later. The Pakistanis are also exploiting India's
appeasement and friendliness.
But Nehru, it appears, had decided to sacrifice Tibet,
partly in order to appease China, partly because of his
distaste for what he considered 'imperialist treaties' (in
this case the Lhasa Convention that gave enormous rights in
Tibet to the British, and, as their successor, to the
Indian government) and partly in order to act as mediator
between China and the West over the Korean War.
Observers could see what was going to happen. The American
ambassador Henderson noted: 'The UK High Commission would
like to be able to argue with Indian officials that if GoI
bows to Communist China's blackmail re Tibet, India will
eventually be confronted with similar blackmail not only re
Burma but re such areas as Assam, Bhutan, Sikkim, Kashmir,
Nepal.' Absolutely correct, for this is exactly what is
happening today.
Nehru and Panikkar simply did not see the threat from
China, so enamoured were they of the great Communist
Revolution there. Nehru said: 'The biggest event since the
last War is the rise of Communist China'. Part of his
admiration arose from his distaste for the Buddhist culture
of Tibet: 'We cannot support feudal elements in Tibet,
indeed we cannot interfere in Tibet'. Now doesn't that
sound exactly like Xinhua propaganda, which Nehru seems to
have internalised?
A Canadian high commissioner had a different theory:
'[Panikkar] had no illusions about the policies of the
Chinese government and he had not been misled by it. He
considered, however, that the future, at least in his
lifetime, lay with the communists, and he therefore did his
best to get on well with them by misleading Nehru'. That
might be considered treason in certain circles.
Whatever the reason, we can see why Zhou-en Lai is rumored
to have referred to the Indians in general and Nehru in
particular as 'useful idiots'. (There is no reference to
this in the Arpi book). In every discussion with Panikkar,
the Chinese hosts smilingly avoided the question of
settling the border, but they made sure that India
acknowledged Chinese hegemony over Tibet. The Indians were
thoroughly outsmarted, partly because they were willing
victims dazzled by the idea of Communism.
When confronted with the question of the undefined border,
Nehru said, "All these are high mountains. Nobody lives
there. It is not very necessary to define these things."
And in the context of whether the Chinese might invade
India, here's Nehru again: "What might happen is some petty
trouble in the borders and unarmed infiltration. To some
extent this can be stopped by checkposts? Ultimately,
however, armies do not stop communist infiltration or
communist ideas? Any large expenditure on the army will
starve the development of the country and social progress."
The naivete leaves the neutral observer speechless. What
might be even more alarming is that there are supposedly
serious Old Left analysts today, in 2004, who mouth these
same inanities about not spending money on the Indian Army.
Why they do not take their cue from China, with its
enormous Army, is mysterious, because in all other respects
they expect India to emulate China. Except that is, no
nukes, no military might for India.
By not asserting India's treaty rights in Tibet, which
would have helped Tibet remain as a neutral buffer zone,
Nehru has hurt India very badly. For, look at what is
happening today. Nepal is under relentless attack by
Maoists, almost certainly supported by Chinese money. Large
parts of India are infested with violent Maoists. Much of
West Bengal is under the iron grip of Marxists, who clearly
take orders from Beijing.
It is in this context that the so-called Panchsheel
Agreement was written. Given that the Indian side had a
priori decided to surrender all its rights to the Chinese,
in return for vague promises of brotherhood, it is perhaps
the most vacuous treaty ever signed. However, Nehru opined:
"in my opinion, we have done no better thing than this
since we became independent. I have no doubt about this?I
think it is right for our country, for Asia and for the
world."
Famous last words.
Nehru believed that the five principles which are referred
to as Panchsheel were his personal, and major, contribution
to world peace. Based on his impression of his stature in
the world, he thought that the Panchsheel model could be
used for treaties all over the world, and that it would
lead to a tremendous breaking out of peace everywhere.
Nehru was sadly mistaken. There was nothing particularly
remarkable about the principles themselves: they were not
his invention, but were merely common-sense provisions used
widely. And he had a megalomaniac idea of his own influence
around the world: he did not realise that he cut a slightly
comical figure. In his own mind, and in the minds of his
toadies, he was the Emperor Ashoka returned, to bring about
World Peace.
Here are the Five Principles:
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 mutual benefit
5. Peaceful co-existence
The Chinese immediately violated every one of these
principles, and have continued to do so happily. For
instance, even while the treaty was being negotiated, the
Chinese were building a road through Aksai Chin in Jammu
and Kashmir, and in perhaps the most unbelievable aspect of
this whole sorry mess, India was actually supplying rice to
the Chinese troops building the road through Indian
territory! This is distinctly surreal!
The problem was that Nehru had no sense of history. He
should have read RC Majumdar: "There is, however, one
aspect of Chinese culture that is little known outside the
circle of professional historians? It is characteristic of
China that if a region once acknowledged her nominal
suzerainty even for a short period, she would regard it as
a part of her empire for ever and would automatically
revive her claim over it even after a thousand years
whenever there was a chance of enforcing it."
And this was the 'ally' Nehru found against the
'imperialists' of the West! He went so far as to decline a
seat at the UN Security Council because the China seat was
held by Taiwan. He did not want India to be in the Security
Council until China was there too!
Since many people are curious about this, here is chapter
and verse: it is in the Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru,
Series II, Vol. 29, Minutes of meeting with Soviet Leaders,
Moscow, 22 June 1955, pp. 231. Here is the conversation
between Nehru and Soviet Premier Marshal Bulganin:
"Bulganin: While we are discussing the general
international situation and reducing tension, we propose
suggesting at a later stage India's inclusion as the sixth
member of the Security Council.
Nehru: Perhaps Bulganin knows that some people in USA have
suggested that India should replace China in the Security
Council. This is to create trouble between us and China. We
are, of course, wholly opposed to it. Further, we are
opposed to pushing ourselves forward to occupy certain
positions because that may itself create difficulties and
India might itself become a subject of controversy. If
India is to be admitted to the Security Council it raises
the question of the revision of the Charter of the UN. We
feel that this should not be done till the question of
China's admission and possibly of others is first solved. I
feel that we should first concentrate on getting China
admitted."
The casual observer might wonder whether Nehru was India's
prime minister, or China's. Besides, the Chinese have now
repaid all this support. India insisted that India should
not be in the Security Council until China was in it, too.
Now China insists that India should not be in the Security
Council until Pakistan is in it, too. Seems fair, doesn't
it?
What is the net result of all this for India? It is a
strategic disaster. Forget the fact that the Tibetan
civilisation has been decimated, and it is an Indic
civilisation with practically no relationship to Han
Chinese civilisation. Strictly from India's security
perspective, it is an unmitigated catastrophe.
Analyst Ginsburg wrote in the fifties: 'He who holds Tibet
dominates the Himalayan piedmont; he who dominates the
Himalayan piedmont, threatens the Indian subcontinent; and
he who threatens the Indian subcontinent may well have all
of Southeast Asia within his reach, and all of Asia.'
Look at the situation in Tibet today.
o The Chinese are planning the northward diversion of the
Brahmaputra, also known as the Tsangpo. This would make
North India a desert
o The Chinese have on several occasions used 'lake bombs'
to flood Indian territory: as the upper riparian state
based on their occupation of Tibet, they are able to do
this, for example on the Sutlej
o Hu Jintao, who was the Butcher of Tibet, is now a top
strongman in Beijing. Under his sponsorship, a railway line
will be finished in 2007 linking Lhasa to eastern China.
This would be an excellent mechanism for bringing in both
large numbers of Han immigrants to swamp the remaining
Tibetan people, and also to deploy mobile nuclear missiles
o The Chinese are deploying advanced nuclear missiles in
Tibet, aimed at India, Russia and the US. With the railway
line, they will be able to move these around and even
conceal them quickly in tunnels and other locations
o The Chinese dump large amounts of nuclear waste in
Tibet, which will eventually make its way down to India via
the rivers
o The India-Tibet border is still not demarcated.
It is difficult to imagine a more disastrous foreign policy
outcome than what happened between India and China. Claude
Arpi is owed a debt of gratitude by all of us in India who
care about the nation's progress and even its survival.
If the rather well-thought-of founding prime minister of
the country was so uncaring about India's interests, one
shudders to think what might be going on today with some of
the ministers who are accused in criminal cases.
But even more than that, Arpi's detailed analysis and
painstaking research on the process through which Tibet was
enslaved is an instructive case study in how barbarians are
always at the gates, and how, as Will Durant said,
'Civilisation is a precious good, whose delicate complex
order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by
barbarians invading from without and multiplying from
within'.
One of the profound lessons to be taken away is that it is
the lack of respect for the spiritual that has led to this
cataclysm. As Ministry of External Affairs observer, Apa
Pant, pointed out about Tibet and the Han Chinese
colonisation: 'With all its shortcomings and discomforts,
its inefficiencies and unconquered physical dangers, here
was a civilisation with at least the intention of
maintaining a pattern of life in which the individual could
achieve liberation? The one so apparently inefficient, so
human and even timid, yet kind and compassionate and
aspiring to something more gloriously satisfying in human
life; the other determined and effective, ruthless, power-
hungry and finally intolerant... In the corridors of power
[in official India], Tibet, Buddhism, the Dalai Lama, were
all regarded as ridiculous, too funny for words; useless
illusions that would logically cease to exist soon, thanks
to the Chinese, and good riddance.'
In the final analysis, Tibet was lost because those in
power in India were dismissive of matters spiritual. It is
the Empire of the Spirit that has made India what she has
been all these millennia, and once the rulers start
dismissing that, it is clear that we are in the Kali Yuga,
the Dark Ages. It is the end of living, and the beginning
of survival.
Rajeev Srinivasan
http://www.rediff.com/news/srinivas.html
More at:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/mar/25rajeev.htm
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
By Rajeev Srinivasan
Rediff
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
On November 18 every year, I silently salute the brave
souls of C Company, 13th Kumaon Regiment, who in 1962 died
practically to the last man and the last bullet defending
Ladakh against the invading Chinese Army. These brave 114
inflicted heavy casualties and prevented the Chinese from
overrunning Leh, much like Spartans at Thermopylae held the
line against the invading Persians many moons ago.
But have you ever wondered why these brave men had to
sacrifice themselves? One answer seems to be that is
because of the extraordinary delusions that affected a
number of the dramatis personae on the Indian side: notably
Jawaharlal Nehru, KM Panikkar and VK Krishna Menon.
A deadly combination of blind faith, gross megalomania, and
groupthink led to the debacle in the war in1962; but its
genesis lay in the unbelievable naivete that led these
worthies to simply sacrifice a defenseless sister
civilisation to brutal barbarians.
Furthermore, they were far more concerned about China's
interests than about India's! Generations to come will
scarcely believe that such criminal negligence was
tolerated in the foreign policy of a major nation.
In a well-researched book, timed for the one hundredth
anniversary of the opening of Tibet by the British, Claude
Arpi, born in France but a long-term resident of India, and
one of India's leading Tibet and China experts, argues that
India's acquiescence to the enslavement of Tibet has had
disastrous consequences. The book is Born in Sin: The
Panchsheel Agreement subtitled The Sacrifice of Tibet,
published by Mittal Publications, New Delhi, 2004, pp. 241,
Rs. 495, ISBN 81-7099-974-X. Unless otherwise noted, all of
the quotations here are from this book.
Arpi also touches upon the difficulty scholars face with
piecing together what actually happened in those momentous
years leading to the extinction of Tibet and the India-
China war of 1962, because the majority of the source
materials are held as classified documents in the
Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund or the Ministry of External
Affairs.
The historian is forced to depend on the sanitised Selected
Works of Jawaharlal Nehru and the restricted Official
Report of the 1962 War. If the relevant documents were made
public at the very least we might learn something from
them. Where is Aruna Roy, crusading champion of the
people's right to know who has now accepted a sinecure
under the UPA? Why are the Nehru Papers controlled by Sonia
Gandhi?
The story really begins exactly one hundred years ago, in
September 1904, when the British Colonel Francis
Younghusband entered Tibet and forced the hitherto insular
kingdom open at the point of a gun. The Lhasa Convention of
1904, signed by the British and the Tibetans, put the seal
of British overlordship over Tibet. The parallels with
Commodore Perry of the US and his black ships opening up
Japan are obvious. However, unlike Japan, which under the
Meiji Restoration took vigorously to westernisation, Tibet
continued to distance itself from the outside world, much
to its later disadvantage.
Perhaps we need to look further in history, as Arpi did in
his earlier book, The Fate of Tibet: When Big Insects Eat
Small Insects. The Tibetans were a feared, martial and
warlike race that had always, in its impregnable mountain
fastnesses, held the expansionist Han Chinese at bay.
However, in the 7th century CE, Buddhism came to Tibet, and
they became a pacifist nation. Says Arpi: 'Tibet's
conversion had another consequence on its political
history: a nonviolent Tibet could no longer defend itself.
It had to look outside for military support to safeguard
its frontiers and for the protection of its Dharma. This
help came first from the Mongol Khans and later the Manchu
Emperors when they became themselves followers of the
Buddha's doctrine.'
The sum and substance of China's alleged historical claim
to Tibet is this: that the Mongol Khans had conquered both
China and Tibet at the same time. This is patently absurd,
because by the same token India should claim Australia, New
Zealand and Hong Kong as its own, because India and these
territories were under British rule at the same time.
In fact, since the Mongol Khans and the Manchu Emperors
accepted the Dalai Lama as their spiritual preceptor, it is
clear that it was China that was giving tribute to Tibet,
not vice versa: so Tibet could claim Han China as its
vassal.
The Lhasa Convention was followed by the Simla Convention
in 1914 that laid out the McMahon Line defining both the
Indo-Tibetan border, and the division of Tibet into 'Outer
Tibet' (which lies along the border with India) and 'Inner
Tibet' which includes Amdo Province and part of Kham
Province. It is worthwhile to note that the Chinese were
not invited to discuss the McMahon line, nor was their
acceptance of this line sought. Tibetans signed this treaty
as an independent nation. The British government emphasised
this in a note to the Chinese as late as 1943: 'Since the
Chinese Revolution of 1911,... Tibet has enjoyed de facto
independence.'
When India became independent, K M Panikkar wrote: 'A China
[organised as a Communist regime annexing Mongol, Muslim
and Tibetan areas] will be in an extremely powerful
position to claim its historic role of authority over
Tibet, Burma, Indo-China and Siam. The historic claims in
regard to these are vague and hazy?' Yet soon thereafter
Panikkar became the principal spokesperson for China's
interests, even though his job was Indian Ambassador to
China!
As soon as the Communists came to power, in 1950, they
started asserting their claims: 'The tasks for the People's
Liberation Army for 1950 are to liberate [sic] Taiwan,
Hainan and Tibet.' A Scottish missionary in Tibet said the
PLA officers told him that once Tibet was in their hands,
they would go to India.
On October 7, 1950, Mao Tse-Tung's storm troopers invaded
Tibet. But under Panikkar's influence, Nehru felt that the
loss of Tibet was worth the price of liberating Asia from
'western dominance'. Panikkar said: 'I do not think there
is anything wrong in the troops of Red China moving about
in their own country.'
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was one of the few in the Indian
government who recognised the menace from China. He wrote:
'We also have to take note of a thoroughly unscrupulous,
unreliable and determined power practically at our doors?
[It is clear that] we cannot be friendly with China and
must think in terms of defense against a determined,
calculating, unscrupulous, ruthless, unprincipled and
prejudiced combination of powers, of which the Chinese will
be the spearhead? [It is obvious to me that] any friendly
or appeasing approaches from us would either be mistaken
for weakness or would be exploited in furtherance of their
ultimate aim.'
How prophetic Patel was! Unfortunately, he died soon after
he wrote this. Interestingly, the very same words apply in
their entirety to India's dithering over Pakistan today, 54
years later. The Pakistanis are also exploiting India's
appeasement and friendliness.
But Nehru, it appears, had decided to sacrifice Tibet,
partly in order to appease China, partly because of his
distaste for what he considered 'imperialist treaties' (in
this case the Lhasa Convention that gave enormous rights in
Tibet to the British, and, as their successor, to the
Indian government) and partly in order to act as mediator
between China and the West over the Korean War.
Observers could see what was going to happen. The American
ambassador Henderson noted: 'The UK High Commission would
like to be able to argue with Indian officials that if GoI
bows to Communist China's blackmail re Tibet, India will
eventually be confronted with similar blackmail not only re
Burma but re such areas as Assam, Bhutan, Sikkim, Kashmir,
Nepal.' Absolutely correct, for this is exactly what is
happening today.
Nehru and Panikkar simply did not see the threat from
China, so enamoured were they of the great Communist
Revolution there. Nehru said: 'The biggest event since the
last War is the rise of Communist China'. Part of his
admiration arose from his distaste for the Buddhist culture
of Tibet: 'We cannot support feudal elements in Tibet,
indeed we cannot interfere in Tibet'. Now doesn't that
sound exactly like Xinhua propaganda, which Nehru seems to
have internalised?
A Canadian high commissioner had a different theory:
'[Panikkar] had no illusions about the policies of the
Chinese government and he had not been misled by it. He
considered, however, that the future, at least in his
lifetime, lay with the communists, and he therefore did his
best to get on well with them by misleading Nehru'. That
might be considered treason in certain circles.
Whatever the reason, we can see why Zhou-en Lai is rumored
to have referred to the Indians in general and Nehru in
particular as 'useful idiots'. (There is no reference to
this in the Arpi book). In every discussion with Panikkar,
the Chinese hosts smilingly avoided the question of
settling the border, but they made sure that India
acknowledged Chinese hegemony over Tibet. The Indians were
thoroughly outsmarted, partly because they were willing
victims dazzled by the idea of Communism.
When confronted with the question of the undefined border,
Nehru said, "All these are high mountains. Nobody lives
there. It is not very necessary to define these things."
And in the context of whether the Chinese might invade
India, here's Nehru again: "What might happen is some petty
trouble in the borders and unarmed infiltration. To some
extent this can be stopped by checkposts? Ultimately,
however, armies do not stop communist infiltration or
communist ideas? Any large expenditure on the army will
starve the development of the country and social progress."
The naivete leaves the neutral observer speechless. What
might be even more alarming is that there are supposedly
serious Old Left analysts today, in 2004, who mouth these
same inanities about not spending money on the Indian Army.
Why they do not take their cue from China, with its
enormous Army, is mysterious, because in all other respects
they expect India to emulate China. Except that is, no
nukes, no military might for India.
By not asserting India's treaty rights in Tibet, which
would have helped Tibet remain as a neutral buffer zone,
Nehru has hurt India very badly. For, look at what is
happening today. Nepal is under relentless attack by
Maoists, almost certainly supported by Chinese money. Large
parts of India are infested with violent Maoists. Much of
West Bengal is under the iron grip of Marxists, who clearly
take orders from Beijing.
It is in this context that the so-called Panchsheel
Agreement was written. Given that the Indian side had a
priori decided to surrender all its rights to the Chinese,
in return for vague promises of brotherhood, it is perhaps
the most vacuous treaty ever signed. However, Nehru opined:
"in my opinion, we have done no better thing than this
since we became independent. I have no doubt about this?I
think it is right for our country, for Asia and for the
world."
Famous last words.
Nehru believed that the five principles which are referred
to as Panchsheel were his personal, and major, contribution
to world peace. Based on his impression of his stature in
the world, he thought that the Panchsheel model could be
used for treaties all over the world, and that it would
lead to a tremendous breaking out of peace everywhere.
Nehru was sadly mistaken. There was nothing particularly
remarkable about the principles themselves: they were not
his invention, but were merely common-sense provisions used
widely. And he had a megalomaniac idea of his own influence
around the world: he did not realise that he cut a slightly
comical figure. In his own mind, and in the minds of his
toadies, he was the Emperor Ashoka returned, to bring about
World Peace.
Here are the Five Principles:
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 mutual benefit
5. Peaceful co-existence
The Chinese immediately violated every one of these
principles, and have continued to do so happily. For
instance, even while the treaty was being negotiated, the
Chinese were building a road through Aksai Chin in Jammu
and Kashmir, and in perhaps the most unbelievable aspect of
this whole sorry mess, India was actually supplying rice to
the Chinese troops building the road through Indian
territory! This is distinctly surreal!
The problem was that Nehru had no sense of history. He
should have read RC Majumdar: "There is, however, one
aspect of Chinese culture that is little known outside the
circle of professional historians? It is characteristic of
China that if a region once acknowledged her nominal
suzerainty even for a short period, she would regard it as
a part of her empire for ever and would automatically
revive her claim over it even after a thousand years
whenever there was a chance of enforcing it."
And this was the 'ally' Nehru found against the
'imperialists' of the West! He went so far as to decline a
seat at the UN Security Council because the China seat was
held by Taiwan. He did not want India to be in the Security
Council until China was there too!
Since many people are curious about this, here is chapter
and verse: it is in the Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru,
Series II, Vol. 29, Minutes of meeting with Soviet Leaders,
Moscow, 22 June 1955, pp. 231. Here is the conversation
between Nehru and Soviet Premier Marshal Bulganin:
"Bulganin: While we are discussing the general
international situation and reducing tension, we propose
suggesting at a later stage India's inclusion as the sixth
member of the Security Council.
Nehru: Perhaps Bulganin knows that some people in USA have
suggested that India should replace China in the Security
Council. This is to create trouble between us and China. We
are, of course, wholly opposed to it. Further, we are
opposed to pushing ourselves forward to occupy certain
positions because that may itself create difficulties and
India might itself become a subject of controversy. If
India is to be admitted to the Security Council it raises
the question of the revision of the Charter of the UN. We
feel that this should not be done till the question of
China's admission and possibly of others is first solved. I
feel that we should first concentrate on getting China
admitted."
The casual observer might wonder whether Nehru was India's
prime minister, or China's. Besides, the Chinese have now
repaid all this support. India insisted that India should
not be in the Security Council until China was in it, too.
Now China insists that India should not be in the Security
Council until Pakistan is in it, too. Seems fair, doesn't
it?
What is the net result of all this for India? It is a
strategic disaster. Forget the fact that the Tibetan
civilisation has been decimated, and it is an Indic
civilisation with practically no relationship to Han
Chinese civilisation. Strictly from India's security
perspective, it is an unmitigated catastrophe.
Analyst Ginsburg wrote in the fifties: 'He who holds Tibet
dominates the Himalayan piedmont; he who dominates the
Himalayan piedmont, threatens the Indian subcontinent; and
he who threatens the Indian subcontinent may well have all
of Southeast Asia within his reach, and all of Asia.'
Look at the situation in Tibet today.
o The Chinese are planning the northward diversion of the
Brahmaputra, also known as the Tsangpo. This would make
North India a desert
o The Chinese have on several occasions used 'lake bombs'
to flood Indian territory: as the upper riparian state
based on their occupation of Tibet, they are able to do
this, for example on the Sutlej
o Hu Jintao, who was the Butcher of Tibet, is now a top
strongman in Beijing. Under his sponsorship, a railway line
will be finished in 2007 linking Lhasa to eastern China.
This would be an excellent mechanism for bringing in both
large numbers of Han immigrants to swamp the remaining
Tibetan people, and also to deploy mobile nuclear missiles
o The Chinese are deploying advanced nuclear missiles in
Tibet, aimed at India, Russia and the US. With the railway
line, they will be able to move these around and even
conceal them quickly in tunnels and other locations
o The Chinese dump large amounts of nuclear waste in
Tibet, which will eventually make its way down to India via
the rivers
o The India-Tibet border is still not demarcated.
It is difficult to imagine a more disastrous foreign policy
outcome than what happened between India and China. Claude
Arpi is owed a debt of gratitude by all of us in India who
care about the nation's progress and even its survival.
If the rather well-thought-of founding prime minister of
the country was so uncaring about India's interests, one
shudders to think what might be going on today with some of
the ministers who are accused in criminal cases.
But even more than that, Arpi's detailed analysis and
painstaking research on the process through which Tibet was
enslaved is an instructive case study in how barbarians are
always at the gates, and how, as Will Durant said,
'Civilisation is a precious good, whose delicate complex
order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by
barbarians invading from without and multiplying from
within'.
One of the profound lessons to be taken away is that it is
the lack of respect for the spiritual that has led to this
cataclysm. As Ministry of External Affairs observer, Apa
Pant, pointed out about Tibet and the Han Chinese
colonisation: 'With all its shortcomings and discomforts,
its inefficiencies and unconquered physical dangers, here
was a civilisation with at least the intention of
maintaining a pattern of life in which the individual could
achieve liberation? The one so apparently inefficient, so
human and even timid, yet kind and compassionate and
aspiring to something more gloriously satisfying in human
life; the other determined and effective, ruthless, power-
hungry and finally intolerant... In the corridors of power
[in official India], Tibet, Buddhism, the Dalai Lama, were
all regarded as ridiculous, too funny for words; useless
illusions that would logically cease to exist soon, thanks
to the Chinese, and good riddance.'
In the final analysis, Tibet was lost because those in
power in India were dismissive of matters spiritual. It is
the Empire of the Spirit that has made India what she has
been all these millennia, and once the rulers start
dismissing that, it is clear that we are in the Kali Yuga,
the Dark Ages. It is the end of living, and the beginning
of survival.
Rajeev Srinivasan
http://www.rediff.com/news/srinivas.html
More at:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/mar/25rajeev.htm
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.