Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-07-13
Offending Mr.. Nehru

Vice President Nixon is under the
guns again-thiS time because he has
said some things that are supposed to
have offended midas Prime Minister
Nehru.
Mr.. Nixon'S first comment was made
in speech at Manila on July A. He said
that ASiaS neutral countries had "far
more to gain by standing together with
the free nations than by remaining aloof."
Mr.. Nehru, replying in London, said he
thought this was "undemocratic" because
it implied that Mr.. Nixon wanted all
people to think as he does A few days
later, in PakiStan, Mr.. Nixon spoke again.
He said that anyone "who suggests that
Red assistance is not inconsistent with
freedom is reading history incorrectly"
And he added that Soviet aid is offered,
not with strings, but with rope attached,
and "the recipient runs the almost certain
risk of having the rope tied around his
neck"
That is the substance of the exchange
which set the hand-wringers to work in
this country. Senator Kefauver said it
is an incredible fact" that Mr.. Nixon is
engaging in what appears to be an open
feud with Prime Minister Nehru. Repre-
sentative Celler said he thought it was
deplorable that Mr.. Nixon had "gone out
OF his way to give needless offenSe to the
government of India" And others have
made similar contributions to this teapot
tempest.
Mr.. Nixon, 1t seems to us, was merely
stating what he believes to be true, and
what probably is true. There is no good
reason why he should not have said pre-
cisely what he did say. The notion that
a spokesman for the United States should
guard his tongue and say nothing, even
though what he says is true, lest it might
offend someone is strange, to say the
least
We do not know whether Mr.. Nehru
really was offended or not. But if he
was, he had little right to be. For it is
doubtful that anyone alive today has been
more outSpoken and more blunt in his
criticisms of others than the Indian
Prime Minister.
He has said, for instance, that "com-
munism, for all its triumphS in many
fields, brushes the free spirit of man."
which sounds pretty much like what Mr..
Nixon was saying. He has denounced the
Atlantic pact and the United Nations.
He has accused the United States of a
design to dominate Asia" for an indef1-
mite period. He has attacked Britain for
its policies in the Middle East, and South
Africa for its racial policies The Baghdad
and SEATO pactS have come under the
lash of the Indian leaders sharp tongue.
In fact, If there has been any occasion on
which Mr.. Nehru has maintained dis
Greet silence for fear of wounding some
ones Sensibilities it does not come readily
to mind
We do not say this in any spirit of
criticism of Mr.. Nehru. He is a man
with an enormously difficult problem on
his hands in his own country. He is try
ing to work it out in his own way. If he
thinks midas best interests are served
by remaining aloof from both the West
and the Communist bloc, he ought to
remain aloof. And he has every right,
as he has done on many occasions, to
attack both blocs and set forth the rea-
sons why he wants no ties with either.
1t seems to us, however, that Mr..
Nixon is entitled to at least as much free
uOLil VI SpccCIl DIS MI. NeLTu. IL lie ILllIlhS
the Asian nations would be better off by
standing with the West than by remain
ing aloof, why shouldn't he say so? Be-
cause Mr.. Nehru might take offense? We
doubt very much that that is the case.
In any event, Mr.. Nehru certainly would
resist any attempt to curb his free
wheeling comments on the policies of
other nations. And our guess is that he
must be slightly amused by the current
efforts in this country to gag Mr.. Nixon.