Today, there is talk of war everywhere. Everyone fears a war
breaking out between the two countries. If that happens, it will be a calamity
both for India and for Pakistan. India has written to the United Nations
because whenever there is a fear of conflict anywhere, the United Nations is
asked to promote a settlement and to stop fighting from breaking out. India,
therefore, wrote to the United Nations that however trivial the issue may
appear to be, it could lead to a war between the two countries. It is a long memorandum
and it has been cabled. Pakistan’s leaders have since issued long statements. I
would take leave to say that their argument does not appeal to me.120 You may ask if I approve of the Union Government approaching the United
Nations. I may say that I both140 approve and
do not approve of what they did. I approve of it, because after all what else
are they160 to do? They
are convinced that what they are doing is right. If there are raids from
outside the frontier of Kashmir, the obvious conclusion is that it must be
with the connivance of Pakistan. Pakistan can deny it. But the denial does not
settle the matter.
Kashmir has acceded the accession upon certain conditions. If
Pakistan harasses Kashmir and if Kashmir asks the Indian Union for help, the latter
is bound to send help. Such help, therefore, was sent240 to Kashmir. At the same time, Pakistan is being requested to get
out of Kashmir and to arrive at a settlement with India over the question
through bilateral negotiations. If no settlement can be reached in this way,
then a280 war is
inevitable. It is to avoid the possibility of war that the Union Government has
taken the step it did. God alone knows whether they are right in doing so or
not. Whatever might have been the attitude of320 Pakistan, if I had my way, I would have invited Pakistan’s
representatives to India and we could have met, discussed the matter and worked
out some settlement. They keep saying that they want an amicable settlement,
but they do nothing360 to create
the conditions for such a settlement. I shall, therefore, humbly say to the
responsible leaders of Pakistan that though we are now two countries, we should
at least try to arrive at an agreement so that we could live as peaceful neighbours.
Let us grant for the sake of argument that all Indians are bad, but Pakistan at420 least is a new-born nation which has come into being in the name
of religion and it should at least keep itself clean. But they themselves make
no such claim. It is not their argument that Muslims have committed no
atrocities in Pakistan. I shall, therefore, suggest that it is now their duty,
as far as possible, to arrive at480 an amicable
understanding with India and live in harmony with her. Mistakes were made on
both sides. But this does not mean that we should persist in those mistakes,
for then in the end we shall only destroy ourselves in a war and the whole of
the sub-continent will pass into the hands of some third power. That will be
the worst imaginable fate for us. I shudder to think of it. Therefore, the two nations
should come together with560 God as
witness and find a settlement. The matter is now before the United Nations. It
cannot be withdrawn from there. But if India and Pakistan come to a settlement,
the big powers in the United Nations will have to600 endorse that settlement. They will not object to the settlement.
They themselves can only say that they will do their best to see that the two
countries arrive at an understanding through mutual discussions. We may either
learn to live640 in amity
with each other or we may fight to the very end. That may be folly but sooner
or later it will purify us.
Now I have a few words about Delhi. I came to know of the incidents
which took place last evening. I had gone to the Camp for the evening prayer.
There are some Muslim700 houses at a
little distance from the Camp. About four or five hundred inmates of the Camp
issued out of720 the Camp to
take possession of the houses. I am told they did not indulge in any kind of
violence. Some of the houses were vacant. Some were occupied by the owners.
They tried to take possession even of the latter. The police were near at hand.
They immediately went to the spot and brought the situation under control. The
police have stayed on there. I understand they had to use tear gas. Tear gas
does not kill but it800 can be
pretty painful. I am told that something has happened today again. All I can
say is that it is a matter of great shame for us. Have the refugees not learnt
even from their immense suffering that they840 have to exercise some restraint? It is highly improper to go and
occupy other people’s houses. It is for the Government to find them shelter or
whatever else their need. Today the Government is our own. But if we defy our
own Government and defy the police and forcibly occupy houses, the Government
is not likely to continue for long. It is still worse that such things should
happen in the capital city of India where there are so many ambassadors from
all over the world. Do we want to show them the spectacle of people occupying
whatever they can? It is all the more regrettable that women and children were
used as a shield. It is inhuman. It is960 like Muslim rulers keeping a herd of cows in the vanguard of
their armies to make sure that the Hindus980 would not fight. It is uncivilized and barbaric behaviour. It is
still more barbaric to put women and children in front to provide against the
police making charge. It is abuse of womanhood. I must humbly ask all the
refugees not to behave in this way. Let them settle down. If they do not, then
apart from a war between India and Pakistan, we may kill ourselves in mutual
strife. We may lose Delhi and make ourselves the laughing-stock of the world.
If we want to keep India a free country, we must stop the things that are1080 at present going on.
The
country has travelled a long and difficult road in the decades since the dawn
of freedom. In the contestation of our present times, few remember Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru with admiration, many find numerous faults in1120 his
thinking, policies and actions in the seventeen long years of his prime
ministership. He did make mistakes, for which the nation has paid a great
price. His speech on the night of India’s freedom is rarely recalled now. But
it is worthwhile to do so for it embodies principles that are embedded in our Constitution
and sets out goals worth pursuing irrespective of ideological orientation and
changing forms and manifestations of public culture. Pandit Nehru dwelt on
India’s past1200 and its ideals. Not
surprisingly, he spoke of Mahatma Gandhi in glowing terms. Of course, there
were countless others who played stellar roles in the regeneration of the
Indian spirit during the long night of British colonial rule but there is no
doubt that Mahatma Gandhi galvanized the people like no one else did. He
fashioned the approach of non-violent1260 struggle
which inspired courage and resilience in ordinary persons. Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru’s contribution to setting up an institutional framework that1280 would
provide a firm foundation for the transformation of India, including through
fostering science and technology was immeasurable. In many ways, it is this
that set India apart from the other countries that achieved independence around
the same time as India did. The set of institutions were designed to check the
arbitrary exercise of power and were also mechanisms that would enable rapid
social change of a feudal society and catalyse economic development of a
country devastated by two centuries of exploitative colonialism. They were to
buttress democracy too. Today when India takes its democracy and peaceful and orderly change of
power through the choice of the people as a natural pillar of political life,
it is important to remember1400 that it was able to consolidate
democracy while many newly independent countries, including in our
neighbourhood, went under military rule. Credit must go to the people and also
to the early leaders led by Nehru and Sardar Patel who succeeded1440 in the integration of the
country at a time of great stress.
Over the past seven decades,
the commitment made for combatting poverty has been a priority of all
governments. The approaches may have changed and the socialistic system
followed by Nehru may have given way to the primary role being accorded to private
enterprise but the objective of poverty eradication remains at the top of the
agenda. There have been successes for the nation on this front and the living
condition of crores of people has improved but the aim of improving healthcare
and education has still to be fully achieved. Indeed, freedom would have had
little meaning if India became a camp follower of one of the two blocs as the
world descended into the era of the cold war. It took time and bitter lessons
to imbibe the lesson that interests should be the only guide in dealing with
the external world. 1595
