Tribute to Indira Gandhi

The measure of a political leader's greatness is the
ability--particularly in times of challenge and change for
the nation--to lead his or her people from the familiar
but increasingly irrelevant to the new and therefore un-
known; from the world they know to where they have never
been. A leader who essentially remains wedded to the per-
ceptions of the past invites stagnation; to act, on the
other hand, without an understanding of tradition will
soon lose the support of the people and invite instability.

This terrible dilemma, which has so often destroyed
well-meaning but inept leaders, is particularly acute in
countries emerging from colonialism. Smooth evolution
from prideful past to a more productive future is, by its
very nature, impossible, for the very creation of the state
represents a sharp break with the past. Inevitably, in
building a new nation a great deal of energy must be de-
voted to forming the state and defining its domestic charac-
ter and international purposes. Even when the new nation
adopts the legal and bureaucratic structures established in
colonial times, its reality--its true personality--can find
no model in that foreign past. India is not a nation in
the European sense, bringing together a people with a
common language and a similar tradition. Rather, India is
a continent, a way of life, and an amalgam of rich cultures.
Foreigners have intruded, only eventually to retreat before
its impermeable, impenetrable and indestructible identity.
That majestic entity launched itself into nationhood after
the second World War using the premises of the European
state system but reflecting a quite distinct reality.

Indian leaders from Jawarhalal Nehru to Indira Gandhi
have faced a monumental task. They have had to preserve
and strengthen unity--always seeking to live up to the
truly magnificent principles of Mahatma Gandhi--in the
face of centrifugal forces left by history: a vast terri-
tory, a variety of cultural influences, and differing lan-
guages. They have had to strive to modernize their nation
without destroying the qualities that have made India so
unique. And they have had to create an independent role
for India in an ever more interdependent world in which
the nuclear powers were locked in ideological and geo-
political conflict.

Page Two

Thus was born the policy of non-alignment, which for
India, as for others, provided the rationale for a streng-
thened national identity and a foreign policy which sought
to insulate the nation from being drawn into conflicts
that were not relevant to Indian interests.

I have discussed India's special role at such length
in a memorial to Indira Gandhi because whatever the vicis-
situdes of the day-to-day Indian-American relationship,
Prime Minister Gandhi pursued the objectives imposed by
Indian necessities with admirable fortitude, great clarity
of purpose and extraordinary dedication.

America's relationship with India has, to be sure,
not always been an easy one. Indian interests have not
always been readily understandable for a nation like the
United States, itself relatively young and faced, for the
first time in its history, with global responsibilities.
Disagreements were inevitable, yet for us they were parti-
cularly difficult to accept because we saw India as a
fellow democracy whose independence and unity were impor-
tant to our own national interests.

Differences there were; differences there will continue
to be. But this should not obscure for Americans the reali-
zation that by enhancing the unity of her people and streng-
thening, with much ability and determination, the place of
India in the world, Prime Minister Gandhi was serving well
the cause of freedom for us all.

It would be hypocritical to pretend in her death to an
identity of views which, given different historical circum-
stances, could not exist. In my period in office I had the
privilege of several lengthy conversations with Prime Mini-
ster Gandhi. Fate at times positioned us on opposite sides
of issues of substantial importance to both countries. But
even as an adversary, I never waivered in my admiration for
her strength of purpose, extraordinary courage and unrelen-
ting persistence. She was, in a word, formidable. And I
never doubted that when our differences had been resolved
and passions had cooled, the underlying community of purpose
between our two nations would reassert itself.

So I think of Prime Minister Gandhi with great respect.
She held her country together and gave to it a deep sense
of purpose. She stood for peace. She strove for progress.
She sought to lessen global tensions. She was, as she prac-
ticed her statecraft, a worthy leader of a great and good
people who are the stronger for her stewardship.

Henry A. Kissinger

9-5-85 - #2

INDIRA GANDHI

The measure of a political leader's greatness is the ability--particularly in times of challenge and change for the nation--to lead his or her people from the familiar but increasingly irrelevant to the new and therefore unknown; from the world they know to where they have never been. A leader who essentially remains wedded to the perceptions of the past invites stagnation; to act, on the other hand, without an understanding of tradition will soon lose the support of the people and invite instability.

Inevitably, in building a new nation a great deal of energy must be devoted to forming the state and defining its domestic character and international

2

3

left by history: a vast territory; a variety of cultural influences, and differing languages. They have had to strive to modernize their nation without destroying the qualities that have made India so unique. And they have had to create an independent role for India in an ever more interdependent world in which the nuclear powers were locked in ideological and geopolitical conflict.

Thus was born the policy of non-alignment, which for India, as for others, provided the rationale for a strengthened national identity and a foreign policy which sought to insulate the nation from being drawn into conflicts that were not relevant to Indian interests.

I have discussed India's special role at such length in a memorial to Indira Gandhi because whatever the vicissitudes of the day-to-day Indian-American relationship, the Prime Minister pursued the objectives imposed by Indian necessities with admirable fortitude,

4

America's relationship with India has, to be sure, not always been an easy one. Indian interests have not always been readily understandable for a nation like the United States, itself relatively young and faced, for the first time in its history, with global responsibilities. Disagreements were inevitable, yet for us they were particularly difficult to accept because we saw India as a fellow democracy whose independence and unity were important to our own national interests.

Differences there were; differences there will continue to be. But this should not obscure for Americans the realization that by enhancing the unity of her people and strengthening the place of India in the world, Prime Minister Gandhi was serving well the cause of freedom for us all.

It would be hypocritical to pretend in her death to an identity of views which, given different historical circumstances, could not exist. In my period in office

5

I had the privilege of several lengthy conversations with Prime Minister Gandhi. Fate at times positioned us on opposite sides of issues of substantial importance to both countries. But even as an adversary, I never waivered in my admiration for her strength of purpose. She was, in a word, formidable. And I never doubted that when our differences had been resolved and passions had cooled, the underlying community of purpose between our two nations would reassert itself.

So I think of Prime Minister Gandhi with great respect. She held her country together and gave to it a deep sense of purpose. She stood for peace. She strove for progress. She sought to lessen global tensions. She was, as she practiced her statecraft, a worthy leader of a great and good people who are the stronger for her stewardship.

INDIRA GANDHI

Every political leader must take his people from
the familiar to the essentially unknown; from the world they
know to where they have never been. A leader who confines
actions to the common experience invites stagnation; if he
too far outruns the traditional he will forfeit support.

This common problem of statesmen is particularly
acute for countries emerging from colonialism. Here there
can be no smooth evolution; indeed the very coming into
existence of the state represents a sharp break with the past.
A great deal of energy must be devoted to forming the state and
defining its internal and even more its international purposes.
Even when the new nation has adopted the legal structures
made familiar in colonial times, its real structure usually
finds no model in that past. India for example is not a nation
in the European sense, grouping a people of the same language

2

and identical tradition. It is instead a culture, a continent and a way of life. Foreigners have intruded on its dramatic life only to retreat eventually before its impermeable and inpenetrable identity. That majestic entity launched itself into nationhood after the second World War using the premises of the European state system but reflecting a quite distinct reality.

Thus Indian leaders have faced a heroic task. They have had to preserve and strengthen unity in the face of centrifugal forces left on a vast territory by history, a variety of cultural influences and even different languages. They have had to modernize without jeopardizing what gave their vast territory its identity. And they had to strengthen independence in a world where foreign policy had become global and nuclear powers were locked in ideological and geopolitical conflict.

Thus was born the policy of non-alignment which in its many meanings asserted the primacy of asserting the Indian

3

national identity and the insistence on running no
risks to peace for issues not defined as Indian objectives.

I have discussed India's special role at such length
in a memorial to Prime Minister Gandhi because whatever the ups
and downs of day-to-day Indian American relationship it
must be noted that she pursued the objectives imposed by Indian
necessities with admirable fortitude, clarity of purpose
and extraordinary persistance.

To be sure Indian priorities were not always easy
to understand for a nation like the United States, itself
relatively young and embarked for the first time in its history
on a global policy. Disagreements were inevitable all the
more grating as there was a conviction in the United States
that India was a fellow democracy and that its independence and
unity were major American interests. But these tactical
differences must never obscure the greater truth that in
fostering the unity of her people and enhancing India's

4

international role, Prime Minister Gandhi was saving as
well the cause of freedom in the world at large.

It would be hypocritical to pretend in her death to an
identity of views which given different historical circumstances
would not exist. In my period in office I had the privilege
of several lengthy conversations with Prime Minister Gandhi.
Fate positioned us on opposite sides of some issues such as the
crisis of 1971-72. But even then one could not help recognize
Prime Minister Gandhi as formidable. And even at the height of
the acrimony we in Washington were convinced that when the
passions had cooled and the immediate issues settled, the
underlying community of purposes would reemerge. This is indeed
what happened even in Prime Minister Gandhi's lifetime.

So I think of Prime Minister Gandhi with great respect.
She held her country together and imparted it a deep sense of
purpose. She stood for peace. She strove for progress. She
sought to soothe global tensions. In these efforts she was

5

worthy of the great history of her people and served mankind
by placing India into the front rank of the world's nations.

U.S.-INDIA ENTERPRISES, INC.

U.S.-Indian relations have not always been smooth, as was to be expected from differences in history, culture and geography. But they have been characterized by several underlying themes: both countries are democracies dedicated to the concept of human dignity. Both seek a world of peace. For the United States a strong, self-reliant and developing India serves our vital national interest. For an India playing a large role in international affairs will make by its very might a major contribution to the stability of South Asia and the peace of the world.

The process of development is, of course, a complicated one. It involves moving from a world of tradition to one of constant change. It involves a spiritual adventure as much as technological change, for it requires coming to grips with new ways of thinking and to make them part of a society's life.

2.

No country can really develop, therefore, primarily
on the basis of foreign aid. Development must become
part of the experience of the country concerned.

This is why India's friends watch her progress with
so much fascination. Prime Minister Nehru consolidated
India's independence; Prime Minister Indira Gandhi fought
for India's non-alignment and fostered its unity with fierce
integrity. The new Prime Minister Radjiv Gandhi seems
determined to build on these foundations an India that is
technologically and philosophically part of the contemporary
world and that has achieved this role by its own efforts.

Americans will observe these efforts with respect
and will want to give appropriate support. They have
admired the courage with which the new Prime Minister has
embarked on strengthening the unity of his country and
relating it to the rest of the world. They will surely
want to cooperate in a manner respectful of India's
tradition and political individuality.

3.

They will be convinced that whatever the differences of
perspective India's success will be a success for the
cause of freedom.

We wish Prime Minister Radjiv Gandhi every success
on his visit to the United States.