Author: Rajeev Srinivasan
Publication: Rediff.com
Date: March 25, 2008
URL: http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/mar/25rajeev.htm
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.
* The Chinese are planning the northward diversion
of the Brahmaputra, also known as the Tsangpo. This would make North India
a desert
* 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
* 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
* 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
* The Chinese dump large amounts of nuclear
waste in Tibet, which will eventually make its way down to India via the rivers
* 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.
