THE PROBLEM OF CO-EXISTENCE

By Prof. M. VENKATARANGAIYA, M.A.

The word ‘co-existence’ is now on the lips of every one. There is much talk and writing about it. It has come to be included in the list of those blessed words whose pronunciation and hearing seem to bring calm and consolation to many troubled minds. What then is exactly the idea and the implication behind the word? It may be of some value to enquire.

It is necessary at the outset to grasp that it is in a special context that the word is being used today. The context is that of the cold war which has threatened to bring about a third world war. For the last eight years the two giants–Soviet Russia and the United States–have been facing each other as determined foes, believing that the existence of either depends on the destruction of the opponent and that it is not possible for both of them to exist together, either physically or morally or spiritually. Both have therefore been engaged in making unprecedented preparations for the transformation of the cold war into an open war, and these

preparations have taken various forms.

One of these forms consisted in the pressure on the smaller States and the weaker States in the world with a view to convert them into the position of satellites. It will be a useful historical exercise to explore and discover who began this process after the second world war. But whoever began it, it was Soviet Russia that first achieved success in the enterprise. Within three years of the close of the war Soviet Russia brought the three Baltic States, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, etc., within her control and made them her satellites, completely sovietising them in their internal and external policies. They are today a part of her empire and hold in relation to her the same position that South Korea, Formosa and the Philippines hold towards the United States, or Malaya, the Gold Coast etc., towards Great Britain. Preliminary successes in the process only encouraged the giants to extend it further. Every State in the world lying outside the two power-blocs is being increasingly subjected to continued political pressure from both parties and is not allowed to pursue its existence in its own way. It is this pressure that is most resented especially by States like India, and it is responsible to some extent for the exaggerated importance they have come to attach to neutralism. They plead for co-existence as a means of relief from this excessive pressure, though this is not the whole explanation of their attitude.

The reply of the United States to this policy of Soviet Russia was to imitate her and to secure satellite States for herself. The only difference between the two has consisted in the means used for the purpose. The United States is the richest country in the world. The technological skill of her population is the basis of her prosperity. It is therefore through the instrument of economic aid that she has tried to bring States within her sphere of influence. And in several cases it was supplemented by military aid and technical aid.’ All this has become possible because of her enormous riches. The West European States, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey, Thailand, the Philippines, Formosa and South Korea and Pakistan are now subject to American economic and military domination. In several of these States the governments are democratic only in name; and in several others they do not even bear that name. Very many of them are reactionary in character and they cannot support themselves against popular forces, unless it be with the economic and military help of the United States. This help is as much necessary to them as the help of the Soviet armies and of the Soviet-dominated Communist parties are necessary to the leftist governments in the Soviet satellite States. While there has been an extraordinary growth in talk about the steady expansion of democracy and freedom, there is really more of imperialism–and where open imperialism is absent, more of indirect rule and domination by the U. S. S. R. and the United States–in every part of the world. In every country which is still independent a struggle is going on between pro-Soviet and pro-American parties, and those who dislike this struggle are anxious to carry on propaganda in favour of co-existence, which they think will remove the tension between the two giants and bring domestic peace and calm to their countries.

The cold war has also resulted in a growing expenditure on armaments. This is as much true of Soviet Russia as of the United States. Much of the wealth of the world is being diverted to the manufacture of instruments of warfare, even though more than one half of the world’s population–especially in Asia and Africa–is suffering from dire poverty and is in need not of weapons of warfare but of more food, more clothing and more shelter. There are several nations who are tired of war either because they have, like the French, suffered too much and too frequently from it, or, like large numbers of Germans, because it has not brought to them the blessings claimed for it by their Kaisers and their Hitlers. There are other countries like India which are not for war, primarily because they are countries which have achieved freedom recently and which have to concentrate their attention on the consolidation of their freedom and on economic improvement. It is from these quarters that the demand for co-existence is highly vocal and strong.

Finally we have to take note of the influence exercised by the accumulation of Atomic, Hydrogen and Cobalt bombs. Every one is now conscious of their unlimited powers of destruction. So long as their manufacture was a monopoly of the United States it was felt by the Americans that an atomic war would destroy only the Soviets. But now that the Soviet also has her pile of such bombs, the feeling is that any atomic war would destroy both, and that the physically poisonous atmosphere which the explosion of such bombs on a large scale would create would destroy the neutral world also. If today the language of co-existence is spoken by both the U. S. S. R. and the United States, it is the outcome of this realisation that war would not pay them.

Taking all these points together what has to be grasped is that co-existence has come to mean a state of affairs in which the United States and the U. S. S. R. would not enter into any open war and would reconcile themselves to each other’s existence. It now remains to see how far this principle will be adhered to in practice and the implications of such adherence.

The principle of co-existence can be effective in practice only when Soviet Communism abandons its faith in world Communism through revolution. It is an article of faith with the Marxists that, though the destruction of Capitalism is inevitable and will be brought about automatically by its own inherent weakness in the natural course of its history, this destructive process should be hastened by conscious human effort, that this effort should take the form not of peaceful argument and persuasion but of active revolution accompanied by bloodshed as all revolutions are bound to be, and that preparation for such effort should be by efficiently organised Communist parties in every Capitalist country through incitement of workers to go on strike frequently, through sabotage, and through fomenting all sorts of discontent. A necessary corollary of this faith is the need for establishing a party dictatorship dominated by the Communist minority and lasting for as long a time as is necessary to liquidate not only Capitalism within the particular country concerned but throughout the world–which naturally means an indefinite period. The philosophy of Communism is a philosophy which is totally opposed to the doctrine of co-existence. Will the leaders at the helm of affairs in the U. S. S. R. have the courage to give up their faith in this philosophy? There was a time when Stalin in his opposition to Trotsky proclaimed that Capitalism and Communism can co-exist and when, to get the American and allied help in the war against Hitler, he dissolved the Comintern–the organisation for bringing about world revolution. But it was only as a matter of expediency that this was done. The principle has never been abandoned and the goal of Communism is still world revolution. There is thus no real harmony between Communism on one side and the principle of co-existence. One is exactly the negation of the other.

It may be contended that it is not ideologies and religious faiths that really sway men’s minds and bring about wars, and that it is the realities of the world situation that determine the course of events. There is a great deal of truth in this point of view but it is necessary to understand the limits within which this is true. To what extent men are influenced by ideas and to what extent by the practical situations in which they find themselves–this has been an eternal problem. No universally satisfactory answer has been found for it and the evidence of history is not conclusive. There are ideas and ideologies which are far in advance of their age; and it is only when the time is ripe for their realisation that active efforts are made for the purpose. There are other ideas–the moral truths of a Buddha or a Jesus–which in spite of constant teaching are observed more in the breach than in practice. There is the element of duality in man–he is both good and evil. This is the reason why Communists may not be influenced completely by the Communist philosophy and why they may prefer a life of co-existence with Capitalism. Like all human practices the practice of Communism by Communists may swerve a great deal from its precepts. But what is the conclusion that one should draw from this? If for instance the Communist rulers of the U.S.S.R. today prefer to preach the doctrine of co-existence which, as has already been poised out, is a negation of their fundamental philosophy, what is it due to? Two points deserve consideration in this connection. They strictly adhered to the philosophy of Communism so long as it paid dividends to them. Their domination over the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe and their attempts to dominate Korea and Indo-China illustrate this. It was only when they met with an overwhelming resistance, as at the time of the Berlin blockade or in the Korean campaign, that they gradually switched on to the Principle of co-existence. They became converts to this principle, not because of their inherent faith in it but because of the extraordinary power built by their opponents through the Marshall Plan and schemes of military aid, and through the accumulation of conventional and atomic weapons. It is because America has grown enormously in the power to attack, and to defend herself when attacked, that the Soviet leaders have begun to feel that they should stop their policy of expansion. The conclusion for us is that the building of armaments is not futile, and that it is only when an intending belligerent is convinced that his enemy on the other side is sufficiently strong that he will speak the language of peace. One has to keep his powder dry. If today, the word co-existence is found on the lips of all people, and if steady propaganda is carried on in its favour, it is because of the increased military and economic strength of both, the parties.

There is also another point to be noted in this connection. History shows that aggression scope only when it meets with a determined and strong foe. It also shows that aggressors require time to consolidate their conquests and this makes them talk the language of peace. This does not mean that they are prepared to abandon for all time their aggressive intentions. The aggression of Islam in the first centuries of its history stopped only when it met with superior force. Religious wars in Europe stopped when each party went as far as it could and when it could not proceed any further through the pursuit of war. Neither party is prepared to yield its conquests and restore the status quo ante. Is the U.S.S.R. today prepared to liberate the States of Central and South-Eastern Europe? Is the United States prepared to give up her indirect control over the republics of South America or over her satellites like Greece or South Korea or Formosa? No one is willing to abandon the advantages gained through war.

There are people who say that war does not settle anything and that it is folly to take recourse to it. From this, premise the conclusion is drawn that co-existence is the only right policy for the U.S.S.R. and the United States to follow, and that it is the right policy for all nations. But this statement that war does not solve anything is only partially true. Many questions have been solved by war and they could not have been solved in any other way. There is not much use in shaking of “what might have resulted if people were peaceful.” American independence was secured through war which was necessitated when all peaceful means failed. Italian unity, German unity, the liberation of the Balkan peoples from the Turkish yoke, all these have been achieved through war. It is the loss inflicted on Britain in the first and second world wars that led to her withdrawal from India. If there were no such wars we would have been in the position in which Malaya, Indo-China and Tunisia and Morocco are today. The triumph of Communism in Russia as well as in China is the result of wars. All this is not to advocate war as the only instrument through which desirable changes can be brought about. It is only to point out that in the history of the human race and of the progress which it has so far made, war has been an effective means and that it has not been so far abandoned. This is due to the fact that unreasonable men yield on most occasions only to superior force and not to superior reason. Peace has not solved all human problems in the world of men. In an ideal world consisting of persons who are all angelic in their temperament, who are embodiments of perfect reason and wisdom, and who are not under the influence of emotions and evil instincts universal peace will rule. But men are not angels.

The Mahabharata war, which according to our tradition ushered in the evil Kaliyuga, would not have taken place if the Pandavas, who led a fairly peaceful life for twelve years in the forest, did not insist on the grant of at least five villages for them. They need not have taken recourse to war with all its destructive power for the sake of a few villages. But they did not adhere to such a course. They fought and won an empire. They tried diplomacy and negotiation but they failed to gain their objective through such means. They had then no conscientious objection to fighting a war and they were fortified in the justice and righteousness of their cause by the philosophy of Divine Wisdom taught by Sri Krishna through the great Bhagavad Gita.

The language of co-existence now freely used by the U.S.S.R. is also the result of the situation created by the proposals for the rearmament of Western Germany. The moment this rearmament becomes an accomplished fact, it becomes impossible for Soviet Russia to pursue her aggressive designs. It is a matter of shrewd tactics for her to say now that democracies and Communist States can and ought to exist as peaceful neighbours side by side, so that the wavering sections of the people in Western Europe may be encouraged to oppose German rearmament. The point however that requires to be seriously noticed is that it is again the growing strength of the West and the prospects of its still further growth that has made the U.S.S.R. a temporary convert to the policy of co-existence.

The conclusion to be drawn from this too brief–and necessarily too inadequate–analysis of the historical situation as it exists now is that in the human world the use of force is still all important element to be counted upon, and that if the threat to use force is to be prevented from resulting in an open atomic war there must be counter force at the disposal of the threatened nations. The possibility that nations will try to achieve their ends through war is real and it may not be always easy to change their attitudes through peaceful persuasion, diplomacy and negotiation. These instruments should of course be used but it will be folly and even stupidity to rely entirely on them. Force in the international world will have to be met with force. While every nation should wish for the best, it must be prepared for the worst. Let us imagine what will happen to a nation which entirely disbands its defence forces and renounces, not merely in theory but also in practice, its right to use arms as an instrument of national policy. Advocates of co-existence as a practicable guide to the conduct of States should not forget this. It is only as between States which are equal or approximately equal in strength that co-existence is a possibility.

Even though we consider Mahatma Gandhi the greatest man of his age and even though we take pride in being the ardent followers of his doctrine of non-violence and Ahimsa, we do not feel it safe as a State to do away with our defence forces and to rely entirely on training the nation to fight on non-violent lines. Logically it is impossible to defeat a nation of 350 millions offering passive resistance to an invader and non-violently non-co-operating with him. But we have not found it easy in practice to train a whole people or even an appreciable section of it to fight non-violently. We are on the other hand adding to our Naval and Air strength and making our military defences stronger and more efficient. There is nothing unnatural in this. There is nothing to be ashamed of. It is the only policy consistent with human nature–its dual quality. Men may in the long, very long, course of evolution during many millions of millennia become gods but that day is far away. We in the practical world are concerned with the present and the near future, and it will be sheer irresponsibility if we plan now to pursue a course of action as if we and the rest of mankind along with us have already become gods.

Co-existence as between the U.S.S.R. and the United States, and therefore as between Communism and Democracy, is possible only as long as they are both strong. The moment either party becomes relatively weak or is thought of as having become weak, co-existence becomes a myth. It may be that strength does not consist only of defence forces and weapons, that morale and the sources of the spiritual energy of the nation are important constituents of it, and that a nation which has only this material superiority may lose in the battle. But mere spiritual superiority without its being embodied in material strength is ineffective as history has shown. The soul and the body must always go together. A disembodied soul has no power of action on earth. It can only fly in the ethereal space.

Asoka was one of the greatest of the rulers of the world. No other country produced a monarch like him. But what do the historians of India say about the consequences of his humanitarian policy? Very many among them attribute the downfall of the Mauryan Empire and the conquest of large portions of the country by the numerically weak Indo-Greeks and Indo-Bactrians and Scythians to the policy of non-violence adopted by him. In a standard book on Indian History widely used by students today there is this observation:

“The example of the pious Maurya king exercised an ennobling influence on succeeding generations. But the ruler who turned officers of State into religious propagandists, abolished the royal hunt and jousts of arms, entrusted the fierce tribesmen of the north-western and the southern provinces to the tender care of the preachers of morality, and did not rest till the sound of the war drum was completely hushed and the only sound that was heard was that of religious discourses, certainly pursued a policy at which the great empire-builders who came before him would have looked askance. And it is not surprising that within a few years of his death the power that had hurled back the battalions of Seleukos proved unequal to the task of protecting the country from the princelings of Bactria.”

It is not merely by open war that Communism can fight Democracy. It can do this through propaganda and through the policy of infiltration and sabotage which have become scientifically organised at its hands in recent years. Any honest and sincere adherence to the principle of co-existence implies that Communists abandon these instruments also. But there is nothing to indicate that these will be abandoned. On the other hand there is every probability that relaxation in international tension due to preparations for war may be accompanied by the strengthening of these instruments. The question therefore naturally arises whether co-existence under circumstances like these is capable of being realized in practice. The pressure which the two giants are exercising on nations which are still neutral may become more intensified, especially in the countries of South Asia and Africa which are economically undeveloped, and where the Communists are in a position to make an effective emotional appeal to the masses of people who have not the maturity needed to distinguish between utopia and reality, between slogans and reasoned statements, between promises and the extent to which they can be fulfilled. In a world where men are motivated only by reason and are not influenced by passion, complete freedom of discussion may be relied on to produce the best results in the matter of discovery of truth. Not so in the ordinary world, especially in the undeveloped countries. And discussion among intellectuals is not the same as propaganda carried on to influence the inflammable masses. And where the purpose of propaganda is not merely to spread truth but to persuade people to take immediate action even on violent lines, the principle of co-existence will become all the mote impracticable. It does not matter whether Democracy is destroyed openly by enemies coming from outside, or surreptitiously by enemies from within working secretly and underground. The ultimate outcome may be–not co-existence but the victory of only one kind and way of life. It is not war alone that destroys. There may be other and more effective and ultimately more dangerous weapons which bring about destruction. The lives of millions of people have been taken away through the so-called process of liquidation in several countries of the world in peace time. Their innocent children have been made to suffer. Their properties have been taken away. How far can the theory of co-existence be accepted as sound under conditions and circumstances like these? No one has so far put forward any solution to difficulties of this nature.

There are several other aspects of the problem of co-existence which need discussion and elaboration. There is a danger that co-existence may stand in the way of nations and peoples developing a richer and more varied life. It may mean the maintenance of things as they are. Even honest attempts on the part of some nations to help others who are in need of help may be interpreted as attempts to extend its influence and power, and steps may be taken to put a stop to them. The extension for instance of even economic aid to countries of South-East Asia by the United States is objected to on the ground that it will result in American influence becoming dominant in them. Similarly there are those who object to Soviet technicians rendering help to countries like China or India which are in need of such help. Phrases like ‘competitive co-existence’ have come into vogue, though it is not clear what they exactly mean.

We are living in dangerous times. The spirit of revolution is abroad. Two contending powers are engaged in exploiting the situation to suit their interests, and for some time they have been prepared to fight with each other to achieve their ends. They have now come to the view that war in the atomic age will let loose powers of destruction which may endanger their very existence, apart from the harmful effects which they may produce on the other areas of the world. They are therefore talking the language of co-existence. There are many other peoples on earth who are anxious that the principle of co-existence should be recognised and war averted. So far so good. But the view is here put forward that it is the growing strength of. their rivals that has converted the power blocs to the policy of co-existence and that, if the policy is to continue, this strength should be maintained. It has also been argued that co-existence may be sabotaged from inside and that, if the policy is to be effective, there must be a guarantee against such sabotage. A plea has been put forward for a more scientific study of the whole problem of co-existence and the conditions under which it will prove satisfactory, both as a philosophy of life and as a practicable guide to action.

Back