THE 24th of October has now been declared the
United Nations Day. It was therefore duly celebrated in every country in the
world. Speeches were delivered on the occasion by the leading men of all countries.
Although there was in all those speeches a tone of disappointment that the
U.N.O. was not as yet as much of a success as it ought to be, that it was
becoming more and more a public platform for carrying on interested propaganda,
the point was stressed by everyone that there would be no hope of peaceful
progress unless the need for such an organisation was universally recognised
and all efforts made to strengthen it. Today the gap between war and peace is
very narrow. It is therefore necessary that all well-wishers of humanity should
try to widen this gap and make war an impossibility. There is nothing to
warrant the loss of all hope in the capacity of the U.N.O. to fulfil this
purpose. It might not have achieved much during the three years of its existence.
But three years is a very-very short period in the history of mankind. Moreover
organisations like these are not perfect from the very beginning. They too have
to evolve and evolve also through strife and friction. It is not therefore
surprising that the quarrels among the great powers which have become a
permanent feature of the U.N.O. attract the attention of the world much more
than the unspectacular work done by it and by the other international bodies
associated with it. But no one should on this score belittle its significance.
Whatever else it might or might not achieve, it serves admirably the purpose of
creating world opinion on all international issues. And opinion has a moral
force behind it. No great power will embark on a war unless it is able to have
a considerable body of public opinion to support it. From this standpoint the
educational value of the U.N.O. is great and this aspect was specially stressed
by Premier Attlee in his broadcast on the United Nations Day when he observed
as follows: “The United Nations needs our support more than ever before. The
best support it can have is an intelligent and well-informed public opinion
here in Britain and in every other country so that the peoples of the world
should know both the facts and the issues at stake. We must never relax in our
work for this great and vital attempt to establish peace.” Let us therefore
renew in this spirit our pledge of loyalty to the United Nations and strive our
utmost to transform it into a real parliament of man in a federation of the
world.
Is international peace possible? This is the
question which every one is asking. This is because everywhere there is unrest.
The world is passing through a period of revolution. There is a questioning of
the old basis of power and authority on the ground that those who are holding
power are not utilising it in the interests of all. This is at the root of the
revolt of colonies and dependencies especially in South-East Asia against
European Imperialism. It is this that has brought about the overthrow of
British power in India, Burma and Ceylon and the movement against it even in
Africa. This is responsible for the opposition of several sections of working
classes in Western Europe to the democratic government of the parliamentary
type. It is of course true that there is always bound to be a gulf between the
ideal and the actual and that imperfect as man is it is impossible for him to
create a perfect world. But there is one difference. There are times when men
become reconciled to the imperfections they find around them and it is such
times that we call normal. During such times those sections of society who
occupy an inferior and unprivileged status are either unconscious of it or are
satisfied with explanations put forward in support of such a state of affairs.
But there arise times when there is an awakening among them and when they begin
to question the justice of the social order with which they are integrated. It
is then that revolutions begin. And this is what is happening today.
The fight is not so much between those who want a
revolution and who do not want it. In many cases it is one between those who
think that it is possible to bring it about through peaceful means and those
who do not believe in such methods. It is also between those who believe that
the old order has at least a few values which deserve to be perpetuated and
which are in danger of being destroyed along with the rest if revolutions are
brought about by violence and those who think that no real changes are possible
unless we start with a clean state. There is nothing in history or theory to
conclusively prove the truth of either thesis. Revolutions have been brought
about by peaceful means in some cases while in other cases violence became
inevitable. But it is wisdom to resort to peaceful means and not lose hope in
their efficacy until there is a highly substantial evidence against the
prospects of such a course.
The cleavage between the East and the West, between
Soviet Russia and the United States and between communism and democracy which
is threatening to bring about the destruction of civilisation itself is of this
character. And it is but natural that all those who put faith in revolution
through peaceful means and in revolution which will not destroy the elements of
value in the culture of the past in its impatience to start with a clean state
are not organising themselves against those who believe fanatically in violent
methods for bringing about changes in the social order. It is in this light that
we have to view the present day activities of the Western democratic powers and
their allies on one side and Soviet Russia and her allies on the other.
It is in this that the real significance of the
conference of the prime ministers of the Dominions constituting the British
Commonwealth of nations which was held in London in the second and third weeks
of October lies. It was a conference of states whose governments believe in
democracy and who are opposed to totalitarianism of any kind. These governments
are all of them anti-communist and are convinced that communism is the greatest
and the most serious enemy of real progress towards freedom and prosperity and
that strong measures–including even war if necessary–should be resorted to for
suppressing communism. Frank and free discussions among the prime ministers
were possible and were even fruitful mainly because though they came from
countries and peoples differing from each other in race, language, religion,
and culture there was a fundamental agreement among them that democracy was
worth preserving and fighting for and that it is only in a democratic regime
that the maximum amount of freedom coupled with material and moral welfare can
be secured. If the conference was a success–and all observers are agreed on its
being a success–it is because of this spiritual unity which bound all the
participants and of the existence of an agreement among them in regard to
fundamentals.
It is necessary at this stage to know precisely the
nature of the subjects on which the prime ministers of the several dominions
arrived at an understanding even though it was only of an informal character.
These have been summed up in the communiqué that was issued at the conclusion
of the conference. All of them were agreed that world peace should be
established on a democratic basis (and not on a communistic one), that to
secure this object they should build up the economic strength of their
countries and take all appropriate measures to deter and resist aggression
(instead of a policy of surrender and appeasement as at Munich), and that they
should do their best to encourage increased production of wealth and achieve a
higher standard of living especially for the peoples of the less developed
countries of the world (as in South East Asia). This is a point on which it is
said Pandit Nehru was very particular. It is a clear realisation by the
conference that the remedy against communism is not to physically fight it but
to destroy the causes which are favourable for the growth of the communistic
disease. And among these causes the most potent is the poverty of the masses of
people in the backward countries of the world exploited by the European nations
and it is only when this poverty is removed that the communistic disease can be
effectively cured. The conference also welcomed the association of the United
Kingdom with the other West European nations under the Brussels Treaty and took
the view that this was in accordance with the interests of the other members of
the Commonwealth and the promotion of world peace. This makes it clear that all
the Commonwealth nations feel that the Soviet aggression on Western democracies
should be put an end to and that the West European Union is a vital factor in
the realisation of this aim and as such there is no conflict of interests
between the Commonwealth as a whole and the West European Union.
The question however is now asked whether the
British Commonwealth of Nations will work at all under the circumstances
created by the British withdrawal from India, Pakistan and Ceylon. Such a doubt
arises because of two contingencies. One is that these three states may declare
themselves to be Republics. Whatever Pakistan or Ceylon may or may not do there
is no uncertainty on this issue so far as India is concerned. It is a sovereign
Republic that the Constituent Assembly has decided on establishing in India. As
a republic, India will not accept the King of England as her King–which as a
Dominion she now does. The Crown will cease to be the common link between India
on one side and the older dominions on the other. In the absence of such a
constitutional link what is there to bind India politically to the
Commonwealth? This is a crucial question. The other feature of the situation is
that in the case of the older dominions–Canada, Australia and New Zealand–the
Crown is not the only link with the United Kingdom. There is the bond of common
race, a common language, a common religion, and a common culture and
civilisation. It is this bond of sentiment that is even more powerful than that
of the Crown. But there is no such connection at all between England on one
side and the three new dominions of India, Pakistan and Ceylon. In the absence
therefore of a common Crown and of these sentimental and cultural bonds it is felt
by many that it will be impossible to integrate India, for instance, with the
British Commonwealth of Nations.
There is no doubt a great deal of force in this
view and this is the reason why Pandit Nehru is trying his utmost to explore
the means by which the association with the United Kingdom can be maintained
even after the link of the common Crown is broken. This is a question in the
main for the jurists and it may be safely assumed that they will devise some
method by which the association can be maintained even after India declares
herself a Republic.
The real question however is whether Pandit Nehru
will be able to convince his countrymen that it is a matter of great advantage
to India to remain a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. There is a body of
people in the country who hold the opinion that there should be no more of any
kind of political association between India and the Commonwealth and that any
such association is a sign that India has not as yet become completely
sovereign and independent. This is however not a strong argument to be
seriously considered. The Commonwealth is a group of independent states. The
Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the Statute of Westminster of 1931, are clear
on this point. The right to secede is recognised in the subsequent
pronouncements of the British Government relating to India. A member of the
Commonwealth has a right to neutrality in a war to which England or any other
member is a party. The dropping of the prefix “British” while referring to the
“Commonwealth” in the concluding communiqué of the recent conference is another
proof that there is no intention on the part of the “British” element in it to
dominate over the rest. It may therefore be concluded that membership of India
in the Commonwealth is not inconsistent with her status as an independent
sovereign republic. There is however another body of opinion opposed to such
membership on the ground that it would mean India definitely aligning herself
with the Anglo-American bloc in opposition to the Soviet bloc in the present
international situation and that as such it is in conflict with the policy of
Pandit Nehru that India should follow an independent foreign policy of her own.
The question here is whether it will be possible for India to remain isolated
from these blocs? In a world where there is no prospect of war and where all
international disputes are settled by judicial means it is possible for any
state to remain isolated. But that is not the situation a present and for a
long time to come. Every state therefore has to take measures for there are
very few states in the world who can accomplish this task in isolation. India
cannot do this. Though she can raise an army of any numerical strength she is
not in a position to equip it properly owing to lack of industries which can
produce the materials required for the purpose. Even for starting such
industries capital goods and technical skill have to be imported from abroad.
She has no navy worth the name to defend the three thousand miles of her coast-line.
Her air arm is weak. In such a situation she will have to ally herself with
some power which can help her in the period of transition. It is quite possible
for her to get some supplies of machinery and technical skill from countries
like Switzerland and Czechoslovakia. But these will not be much. She has
therefore to choose as between England and America on one side and Russia on
the other. And as long as she is wedded to democracy and to the establishment
of socialism by evolutionary processes and as long as she is opposed to
communism and is interested in the suppression of communism in the neighbouring
countries like Burma, Malaya, Indonesia etc. it is neither possible nor
desirable for her to ally herself with Soviet Russia and get the help she needs
from her for defence purposes. It is also not likely that Russia is in a
position to give her this material help. The conclusion that follows is that
even at the risk of incurring Soviet suspicion it is better for India to have
some kind of association with the Commonwealth until she is strong enough to
stand on her own legs in matters of defence. Another section of opinion is
opposed to India’s membership of the Commonwealth on the ground that there are
fundamental points of disagreement between her and Pakistan on certain matters
like Kashmir, and between her and South Africa on certain either matters, that
membership of the Commonwealth has not brought about any peaceful solution of
these issues, that there is a tendency on the part of Britain and the Dominions
to adopt an anti-Indian point of view and support Pakistan and S. Africa and
that in such an atmosphere there will be a tendency for discussions at the
Commonwealth conferences becoming partisan, the Indian delegates always
occupying the position of a minority. The fear is that the Commonwealth might
become something like the U.N.O. in which the Anglo-American bloc and the
Soviet bloc stand opposed to each other on every issue. Is it therefore
worthwhile for India to associate herself with an organisation in which the
dice are always loaded against her and through which an undesirable amount of
moral pressure might be brought to bear on her resulting in her being compelled
to agree to policies fundamentally opposed to her interests? These critics have
not forgotten how British pressure was responsible for the Congress being
compelled to accept the partition of the country. There is a good deal of force
in this argument–more force than in either of the two previous ones. And it is
this to which it will be difficult for our leaders to give a satisfactory
answer especially in the light of the attitude adopted even recently by the
spokesmen of the British Government on the Kashmir and Hyderabad issues.
Something should be done by the British to convince India that they and the
governments of the other dominions are not prejudiced against her. And in the
second place the Commonwealth should bring into existence some institution of a
judicial character which will impartially decide disputes arising between one
member of the Commonwealth and another without unofficial wars going on between
them.
It is not possible in the limited space available
here to go into further details about the pros and cons in regard to India’s
association with the Commonwealth. The matter is coming before the Constituent
Assembly when it meets on November 4. But the issues are highly complicated and
any decision will have to be arrived at after a full and complete consideration
of all the advantages and disadvantages.
The Commonwealth Conference has produced one very
important result on the scheme of western democracies for defence against
Soviet aggression. Britain is now on firmer ground in coordinating the defences
of the countries constituting the Western European Union under the Brussels
Treaty. Even before the Conference steps were taken to have a committee of
defence with Viscount Montgomery as its chairman and commanders were also
appointed to the army, the navy, and the air fleet to be organised for the
purpose. An important meeting of the foreign ministers of the five countries
was held in the last week of October and vital decisions taken on the details
of the defence plan. Count Sforza, the Italian Foreign Minister has been urging
for the inclusion of Italy also in W. European Union especially after the visit
of General Marshall, the United States Secretary of State to Rome. Whether in
view of the restrictions imposed on the size of the Italian army by the peace
treaty the inclusion of Italy will be of much use is a point for consideration.
Besides this there is the talk that the United States is anxious to come to
some understanding with Franco of Spain, resume diplomatic relations with him
and even grant him a loan so that she might get air bases in that country in any
war against Soviet Russia in Western Europe. More important than this is the
progress reported in the formation of an Atlantic Pact linking Western Europe
with North America in a formal defensive alliance. Plans of a military
character have been worked out in Washington and they were discussed by the
five foreign ministers at their conference. How much of importance is attached
to this is indicated by a recent declaration of Mr. Paul G. Hoffman, Marshall
Plan Administrator in Europe, that the binding of W. Europe and North America
into a Union so firm that no aggressor will dare to march against it was the
key to the avoidance of a third world war. The one conclusion that has to be
drawn from all this is that the Western democracies do not want to be taken by
surprise this time by any aggressor as had happened to them when Hitler
attacked them in the second world war. Moreover the United States is determined
to be in the war from the very commencement of it. This determination is also
responsible for the defeat inflicted by the Anglo-American bloc in the General
Assembly of the U.N.O. on the motion of Soviet Russia that all the powers
should immediately reduce their armaments by a third. The vetoing by Russia of
the neutral powers resolution on the Berlin crisis in the Security Council will
only stiffen the hostile attitude of the Western Democracies towards Russia and
intensify their preparation for war.
It is in this context that the unstable conditions
in France are of the greatest significance. France holds the key to the defence
of Western Europe against Soviet aggression and communistic expansion. There is
however a strong communist party in the country. It has taken advantage of the
genuine discontent prevailing among the working classes and through its
confederation of labour has brought about a strike of miners which has been
going on now for three weeks. There have been open clashes between the strikers
on one side and the police and the military on the other. The country is on the
actual brink of a civil war. Under instigation from the Cominform the French
Communists are now determined on sabotaging the Marshall Aid plan in France,
create economic chaos, and make it impossible for the centre parties to carry
on any government. To them strikes are instruments to be used primarily for
political and not economic purposes. The result is that General De Gaulle with
his supporters on the right is threatening to use force and seize power. The
centre parties are therefore between the Scylla of the leftists and the
Charybdis of the rightists–a dictatorship seems to be inevitable if stability
is to be restored. The question is whether America and Britain will succeed
through their economic recovery programmes in preventing the collapse of the
centre parties and the rise of dictatorship? The world is waiting for an
answer.