Evening star., 1950-10-17
Realism and Mr.. Nehru

1t is difficult to follow or admire much of the
reasoning behind Prime Minister Nehru's state
ment on India's attitude as regards the recent
crossing of the 38th Parallel in Korea and the
proposed establishment of special United Nations
forces to deal with possible acts of aggression in
the future
Under Mr.. Nehrus leadership India has
backed the Security Councils historic June 27
decision to put down the Korean aggressors. Yet
he and his government have abstained in the
u N. from going along with the General As
semblys overwhelming vote in favor of crossing
the 3Sth Parallel. His position on that point,
though not one of opposition under any circum-
stances is that the crossing ought to have been
held up pending an effort to work out peaceful
settlement with the enemy. His fear has been
that the pursuit of that enemy might lead to a
large-Scale war.
Apparently rather than risk such war, Mr..
Nehru would have preferred to keep our Ameri-
can and other U. N. forces south of the 38th
Parallel while statesmen tried to work out some
sort of deal with the Communist aggressers But
if experience has taught anything at ALL it has
taught that such deals do not work. They do not
work because the Reds do not honor them. The
Nehru thesis lacks realism and logic for the
simple reason that the enemy in this instance
unless stripped of his military strength and his
settlement only long enough to get prepared
for another attempt to take over the whole of
Korea and drag it behind the Iron Curtain.
Similarly, 1t is difficult to find realism or logic
in Mr. Nehru's views on the proposal to organize
special U. N. armed forces to cope with future
aggression. Thus, on the one hand, he firmly de-
clares that aggression cannot be tolerated" and
that it must be countered, if necessary, with
military means. On the other hand however,
he is against the idea of having fighting units in
the United Nations because he feels they would
be more likely to lead to a general war than to
discourage one. Unless there is some subtlety
here that escapes detection at first glance, what
this reasoning does is to knock itself out both
coming and going. At any rate, it would seem
to argue that the world ought not to establish the
very military means which Mr. Nehru himself
admits may be necessary to counter the kind of
aggression which he says Cannot be tolerated"
Mr.. Nehru Is undeniaby one of the great
leaders of Asia. But this latest statement of his
is far from impressive BY Western standards at
least, 1t is sef-contradctory 1t is confusing. It
is illogical. In the teeth of everything that has
happened in recent years, it suggests that the
Kremlin directed Communist conspiracy against
the freedom and happiness of the world can be
held in check and eventually done away with not
so much by military preparedness as by kind
OF sweet or t1mld reaSonableneSS Gandhi-like
passive resistance and the gentle diplomacy of
mediation and conciliation.
If Mr.. Nehru really believes this then he has
succumbed to wishfulness, and the free world can
only hope that he will soon snap out of it. For
the development of independence in Asia, to-
gether with the long-range peace-preseving
effectiveness of the United Nations, depends in
large measure on an India wide-awake to the
dangers of these times-an India resolute enough
to join with like-minded lands in seeking COL
lective security against force ready to walk
over any country whose diplomacy is not backed
up by armed strength.