May 27 this year happens to be Jawaharlal Nehru's fortyninth death anniversary. On this occasion we are publishing excerpts from Nehru's speeches on India-Pakistan relations.
Some recent events, more especially the talks which I have had with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, have resulted in an agreement which has produced a very marked change in the tense atmosphere. This change was immediately reflected, to a large extent, in the press of the two countries. This is, indeed, remarkable. I have often sat down and thought about how it happened. If we analyse the Agreement, we may not like some of its clauses; but the fact remains that the really important thing is not the contents of the Agreement but the fact that it came about. Its real importance is not in its details but in the fact that there has been an agreement—an agreement of the right type.
It is clear that the reaction to the Agreement represents a certain urge and desire in the people's minds. Large numbers of people were rather afraid of what was hapeening and wanted an escape, a way of putting an end to the existing bitterness. They were frustrated; but they could not do anything. In fact, no individual could do anything when millions were moved by passion and fear. But, as soon as a way was found, there was a powerful reaction which showed that the basic feelings and urges of the people of India and Pakistan were essentially against the continuance of the poisonous atmosphere. Everywhere there was a desire to seize on anything that brought security and peace of mind to them. In spite of this we have obviously not solved our problems—what is more, we are not going to solve them suddenly. Nevertheless, the fact that there is a very healthy desire in the minds of the people is, in itself, a most hopeful sign...
Their geographical position being what it is, India and Pakistan cannot help playing an important role in Asia. If India and Pakistan follow more or less a common policy, it will make a big difference today. If India and Pakistan follow a contrary policy and are opposed to each other, they will obviously be neutralising each other and cannot play that role. Any common sense approach to the matter shows that India and Pakistan can only do great harm to both.
It may disable them for a generation and render them incapable of making the progress which is so necessary if they are to play a larger role in Asian and world affairs. This seems to be quite correct logically. It is true, I think, that India and Pakistan, from the standpoint of geography, history, culture and economics, are so connected that normally they should co-operate with each other in the fullest measure. We should try to develop a common approach to foreign policy, defence and many other things; we should come closer together in regard to these policies and co-operate. That would be the natural course for the two countries.
I am perfectly convinced in my own mind that, unless some catastrophe were to over-whelm us, this is inevitable. Because of our very close contacts we cannot be indifferent to each other. We can either be more than friends or become more than enemies.
When individual or group contacts are broken, inevitably, hostility and bitterness are produced. What has happened here? A closer contact is bound to come about because it is to the advantage of both; I speak of sheer opportunism and not idealism at all. Therefore, I say it is quite inevitable. How it is to happen I do not know but everything points to that end; and in spite of all the terrible experiences we have had during the last two-and-a-half years, every approach of logic and reasonable talk leads to this conclusion and every other approach contrary to this leads to something which is very dangerous for Pakistan and for India. It may take a generation for us to make good. This conflict and wasteful effort will wipe us out from the face of the earth. The natural conclusion is that we should try our utmost to develop friendliness and not do anything which is contrary to the whole course of our history and to the modern currents in the world.
Ultimately, we cannot go against the currents of history. I am quite sure of the desire of our people and so I have arrived at this conclusion. It is clear that, though we may have been partitioned and divorced from each other, our own historical, cultural and other contacts—geographical, economic and other—are so fundamental that, despite everything that happend and despite passion and prejudice and even gross inhumanity, ultimately the basic ties will survive. These are the things that will keep us together, unless India and Pakistan prove to be backward even culturally. Then, of course, all this will have only been talk and nothing else. If India and Pakistan do not ultimately come together, they will only prove that they have no cultural standards to maintain...
Well, I have ventured to place before you my ideas frankly and I hope that you, who wield such a great deal of influence through your newspapers, will use your influence in solving our problems and removing the sense of insecurity in the minority communities. Big things are happening in the world and big things will happen. A month ago, there was mounting tension between India and Pakistan and there was a possibility of conflict. People became afraid that the trouble might spread to other parts of the world; and then India and Pakistan ceased to be of much value in world affairs as they were wrapped up in their own problems. When this Agreement was concluded, it raised high hopes and the world saw that we would not be swept off our feet and that we were capable of steering ourselves away from disaster.
In this context, we immediately became more important than we were when we were tied up with our own difficulties. So, we must work the Agreement to the advantage of both India and Pakistan. There are things in which Pakistan can, in some ways, help India and India can help Pakistan similarly. There is nothing that should come in the way of India and Pakistan helping each other.
[From address at the joint session of the Pakistan and India Newspaper Editors' Conference, New Delhi,
May 4, 1950]
The House is no doubt aware that, among the foreign countries we have to deal with, Pakistan is the most important. This is so for a variety of reasons. Apart from being our next-door neighbour, Pakistan shares her history and culture with us. Also, the problems in which we are mutually involved have, in a manner of speaking, brought us closer to each other. A large number of people in Pakistan have their friends and relatives here; similarly, people in India have friends and relatives in Pakistan. When people come over from the other side and meet their old friends, they embrace one another; they forget, for a moment, the new barriers that have sprung up between them and talk of old times with nostalgia. In spite of all that has happened, the two countries are intimately connected. As against all this, it is also true that grave problems have arisen, during the last three-and-a-half years, in our relations. These problems were inevitable consequences of Partition but what happened after it has made the situation considerably worse. All these years, we have been struggling to restore normal relations and although we have made some progress in this direction, they would certainly admit of improvement. Any problem bearing on our relations with Pakistan, whether it relates to East Bengal or the canal waters in the Punjab, has to be viewed not in isolation but as a part of Indo-Pakistan relations as a whole. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of fear and suspicion that vitiates our relations. Speaking on this subject, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee expressed the opinion that our attitude to Pakistan was contradictory. On the one hand, we talk of coming to terms with Pakistan and have entered into a trade pact with her which, he said, would only help Pakistan to become stronger in relation to us. On the other hand, he pointed out, we have taken a firm stand in Kashmir. It is true that we do both because both are necessary. Obviously, we cannot overlook any obstacles to better relations between the two countries if they exist. Nor can we go to war because the Kashmir issue remains unsolved. Though our attitude is logical in a theoretical sense, it postulates two antithetical courses of action. Our policy is, nevertheless, an integral whole. Let me sum it up for you. We are convinced that India and Pakistan must, as quickly as possible, revert to normality in their relations. The two countries are so situated that it is imperative that the relations between the two should be the most cordial. Being neighbours, they have a certain identity of economic interests. It is only when they promote their trade relations arising from their economic interdependence that their relations can return to normality. In the meanwhile, we cannot escape from the problems that detract from improved relations between Pakistan and us. We try to overcome them, not to lose hope and give them up as insoluble. Struggling in our search for agreement, we proceed slowly and patiently. Sometimes, we make a little progress and are heartened by it. Only recently we came to a trade agreement with Pakistan. We did not contract this agreement in a fit of generosity for Pakistan. Not that it is bad to be generous. On the contrary, generosity pays in the end provided you are not generous at somebody's expense or at the expense of your own country. I, however, maintain that we were not being generous to Pakistan. It was in the light of an objective appraisal of the situation from which, I assure you, all sentiment was divorced that we decided that a trade pact between the two countries was bound to be mutually beneficial. We stand to profit as much from it as Pakistan. I am afraid that some of us in this House welcome any opportunity to injure the interests of the other party but we should bear in mind the possibility that the harm might recoil on us. The trade pact was thus considered not only an objectively desirable step but also as one which would help in securing some normality in our relations...
Mr Bakar Ali Mirza said that he deeply regretted the partition of India. So do all of us. Nevertheless, I think we all realise that, however regrettable Partition was and however grave its consequences, the fact remains that we had agreed to it. Any attempt to go back on it is bound to prove utterly impractical. And to wish to do so seems to me merely sentimental...
[From speech during debate on Foreign Affairs in Parliament, New Delhi, March 28, 1951]
My friend, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, appealed for statesmanship in his speech and I entirely agree with him. But it is very difficult to say what statesmaneship really is. I do wish to say, however, that to think largely in military terms is not statesmanship. When I see that military objectives have become the goal of statesmanship, frankly, I am nervous and afraid. Our voice does not go very far in the inter-national assemblies but, anyhow, it gives us the satisfaction that we have said what we feel is right.
This approach has governed our actions in foreign policy and we have tried to apply it even to our relations with Pakistan. Of course, very special considerations apply to our relations with Pakistan because of our past history and because of the conflicts we have had. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a major conflict between India and Pakistan would be a disaster of the first magnitude for both the countries. I say that and I shall repeat it because some hon. Members do not wholly appreciate that. If a problem is difficult it will not be solved through war. All war does is to kill a large number of human beings and destroy their property. It is a solution only in the sense that it can exterminate the entire population of a country. War, nevertheless, is possible for various reasons, one among them being foolishness. If a country is foolish enough to have a war you cannot run away from it; you have to face it with all your strength and put an end to it. Therefore, we envisage war, if at all, as a purely defensive measure. That is why we wanted to reduce our army.
Our approach is not, if I may say so, one of piety or pacifism. It is an approach based on hard facts and on a cold-blooded realisation of facts. Since we want to avoid war, we offered Pakistan a no-war declaration which Pakistan did not wholly accept or agree to. And even a few days ago, this offer was repeated but they declined to accept it unless Kashmir was left out of it...
An hon. Member talked of statesmanship and I must say I do not quite know how to define statesmanship. There are probably many definitions. If I may suggest one, statesmanship is the ability to think not only of your immediate urge, not only of the action before you but also of the consequences of that action, to think not only of today but of what tomorrow and the day after might bring. In other words, perspective and vision are essential attributes of statesmanship. That test should be applied to some of the things that have been said here since yesterday. Proposals have been made in regard to East Bengal or Pakistan or Kashmir. It is futile, just because you are angry with Pakistan, to say, ‘To hell with Pakistan. Let us go ahead ourselves.' That you have lost your patience with something that is happening, is no justification for you to do the same thing. You have to think of the morrow's consequences. I am, at the moment, not talking about moral standards. I am merely applying the pragmatic test of action.
The actions you indulge in must have consequences and these consequences flow from action as inevitably as any law of physics or chemistry...
I hope this crisis in our relations with Pakistan will pass. I am convinced that the only thing that will ultimately settle our various problems is friendliness. I am also convinced that friendship is bound to come, in spite of bitterness in the intervening period. If so, why should we not try to arrive at a friendly settlement soon rather than pass through all kinds of disasters and troubles? Regardless of the provocation Pakistan has given us and in spite of the daily talk of jehad and so on, we shall always be ready to solve every problem peacefully and to develop friendly relations with Pakistan. At the same time, we have to take every precaution against the war with which we are being continually threatened...
[From reply to the debate on the President's Address in Parliament, New Delhi, August 11, 1951]