Acharya J.B. Kripalani
on Tibet
(Lok Sabha Debate, 8 May, 1959)
THE subject is important, the time allowed is very short and I
will try to be as brief as possible. It is nothing unusual for
countries to criticise each other in their internal and external
policy. Nobody takes this criticism to be interference in the
internal affairs of the country. If it were so the hard criticism
that is being levelled by China itself against Yugoslavia would
be considered internal interference with that country. But in the
Communist world there are two standards of judgement-one
for themselves and the other for others with whom they think
they are in opposition.
The Rape of a Nation
Recently, China has become supersensitive to any criticism.
When a person is supersensitive, I am afraid, he has a bad
conscience. Even the mildest remarks of the Congress President
were denounced. Why? Because she said that Tibet was a
country. I can understand the wrath against me because I have
never believed in the bonafides, I have never believed in the
professions or the promises of the Chinese. Mine has been the
solitary voice in this House — almost solitary — raised against
this rape of a nation. As early as 1950 I said in this house that
the Communist Government in China was in charge of the
country. The Government of India, therefore, thought it right
that it should not be denied the membership of the UNO and we
advocated the cause of China. But if we had waited a little, we
would have been more cautious. Soon this nation, that had won
its freedom so recently, strangled the freedom of a neighbouring
nation with whose freedom we are intimately concerned. Our
Government’s attitude is understandable only on the assumption
that Tibet is a far-off country and is none of our concern. But
44
supposing what had happened in Tibet happens in Nepal, then I
am sure we will, whether we are well prepared or not, go to
war against China. In that case what would become of our
advocacy of China to the membership of the United Nations?
Then, Sir, again in 1954, I said in this House:
Recently we have entered into a treaty with China. I feel that
China, after it had gone Communist, committed an act of
aggression against Tibet. The plea is that China had the ancient
right of suzerainty. This right was out of date, old and antiquated.
It was never exercised in fact. It had lapsed by the flux of time.
Even if it had not lapsed, it is not right in these days of
democracy, by which our Communist friends swear, by which
the Chinese swear, to talk of this ancient suzerainty and exercise
it in a new form in a country which had and has nothing to do
with China. Tibet is culturally more akin to India than it is to
China. I consider this as much colonial aggression on the part
of China as any indulged in by the Western nations. Whether
certain nations commit aggression against other does not always
concern us. But in this case we are intimately concerned,
because China has destroyed a buffer state. In international
politics, when a buffer state is destroyed by a powerful nation,
that nation is considered to have committed aggression against
its neighbours.
England went to war with Germany not because Germany
had invaded England, but because it had invaded Poland and
Belgium.
Sir, again, I said in this House:
It is also well known that in the new map of China other border
territories like Nepal, Sikkim, etc. figure. This gives us an idea
of the aggressive designs of China. Let us see what the Chinese
themselves did in the Korean war… I do not say that because
China conquered Tibet we should have gone to war with it. But
this does not mean that we should recognise the claim of China
on Tibet. We must know that it is an act of aggression against a
foreign nation.
45
Again Sir, in the same year, I said:
A small buffer state on our borders was deprived of its freedom.
When we made a feeble protest we were told that we were the
stooges of the western powers. If I remember it right we were
called “running dogs of imperialism”.
Again, Sir, in 1958, talking about Panchsheel, I said:
This great doctrine was born in sin, because it was enunciated
to put the seal of our approval upon the destruction of an ancient
nation which was associated with us spiritually and culturally.
Sir, at that time, some Hon’ble Member intervened and asked:
“Is that nation suffering?” My reply was: “Whether it is suffering
or not is not the question. It was a nation which wanted to live
its own life and it sought to have been allowed to live its own
life. A good government is no substitute for self-government.”
China and the United Nations
Sir, some of our friends in the Rajya Sabha have said that we
should continue to plead the cause of China for the membership
of the United Nations. I respect their opinion. They think that
as a member of the United Nations, China would be subject to
some public opinion. This is not a fact. There is South Africa;
there is France; there is Russia and many other aggressive
nations. Because they are members of the United Nations they
have not ceased to be aggressive.
We are again told that though China might have broken
Panchsheel, we must stick to Panchsheel. Sir, I do not consider
that Panchsheel is a moral imperative. Even moral imperatives
cannot be stuck to unilaterally in the international world.
Panchsheel implies a mutuality of respect for each other’s
integrity and sovereignty. How can there be respect for these
things unless there is mutuality?
Panchsheel also implies peaceful coexistence. How can there
be peaceful coexistence unless it is an idea that applies to more
nations than one? You cannot have peaceful coexistence alone.
It is an impossibility. Panchsheel, therefore, implies mutuality
46
and you cannot practice it if others violate it. And we have seen
how nation after nation having sworn by Panchsheel have been
violating it.
China Not Friend of India
In the present case China has none better. It has not only violated
them, but has accused us of violating them.
Sir, I feel even if we go on emphasising our friendship with
China and saying Chini-Hindi, Bhai-Bhai (India and China are
Brothers) to the end of days, I tell you that this nation will never
be friendly to us. Why? Because a friendly nation does not go
and howl at another nation in the public market. If they have to
say that Kalimpong was — what do they call it — the command
centre, then it was open to them to have brought it through
diplomatic channels. And they did it six months back; the case
was investigated and the charge was found unfounded and a
report was sent to them. They had nothing further to say. Why
was not this method of diplomatic approach on this occasion
employed? Why this howling at a friendly nation in the market
place? I cannot quite understand how it is possible to be friendly
with this nation with this mentality.
Yet our efforts to save it will only result in this. They will not
give us credit for good intentions. They will only give us credit
for cowardice. It will never appear to a bully that you are doing
things out of your goodness; it will only appear to him that you
are being frightened.