Mr. Chairman, the turn this discussion has taken is a much wider one than that we had
already expected. In fact, it has covered the whole major heading. We have just had the
advantage of listening to the distinguished leader of the Turkish Delegation who told us
what lie, as a responsible leader of the nation must do and must not do. He gave us an
able statement of what I might call one side representing the views of one of the major
blocs existing at the present time in the world. I have no doubt that an equally able
disposition could be made on the part of the other bloc. I belong to neither and I propose
to belong to neither whatever happens in the world. If we have to stand alone, we will
stand by ourselves, whatever happens (and India has stood alone without any aid against a
mighty Empire, the British Empire) and we propose to face all consequences. . . .
We do not agree with the communist teachings, we do not agree with the anti-communist
teachings, because they are both based on wrong principles. I never challenged the right
of my country to defend itself; it has to. We will defend ourselves with whatever arms and
strength we have, and if we have no arms we will defend ourselves without arms. I am dead
certain that no country can conquer India. Even the two great power blocs together cannot
conquer India; not even the atom or the hydrogen bomb. I know what my people are. But I
know also that if we rely on others, whatever great powers they might be if we look to
them for sustenance, then we are weak indeed. . . .
My country has made mistakes. Every country makes mistakes. I have no doubt we will
make mistakes; we will Stumble and fall and get up. The mistakes of my country and perhaps
the mistakes of other countries here do not make a difference; but the mistakes the Great
Powers make do make a difference to the world and may well bring about a terrible
catastrophe. I speak with the greatest respect of these Great Powers because they are not
only great in military might but in development, in culture, in civilization. But I do
submit that greatness sometimes brings quite false values, false standards. When they
begin to think in terms of military strength - whether it be the United Kingdom, the
Soviet Union or the U.S.A. - then they are going away from the right track and the result
of that will be that the overwhelming might of one country will conquer the world. Thus
far the world has succeeded in preventing that; I cannot speak for the future. . . .
. . . So far as I am concerned, it does not matter what war takes place; we will not
take part in it unless we have to defend ourselves. If I join any of these big groups I
lose my identity. . . . If all the world were to be divided up between these two big blocs
what would be the result? The inevitable result would be war. Therefore every step that
takes place in reducing that area in the world which may be called the unaligned area
is a dangerous step and leads to war. It reduces that objective, that balance, that
outlook which other countries without military might can perhaps exercise.
Honorable Members laid great stress on moral force. It is with military force that we
are dealing now, but I submit that moral force counts and the moral force of Asia and
Africa must, in spite of the atomic and hydrogen bombs of Russia, the U.S.A. or another
country, count. . . .
. . . Many members present here do not obviously accept the communist ideology, while
some of them do. For my part I do not. I am a positive person, not an 'anti' person. I
want positive good for my country and the world. Therefore, are we, the countries of Asia
and Africa, devoid of any positive position except being pro-communist or anti-communist?
Has it come to this, that the leaders of thought who have given religions and all kinds of
things to the world have to tag on to this kind of group or that and be hangers-on of this
party or the other carrying out their wishes and occasionally giving an idea? It is most
degrading and humiliating to any self-respecting people or nation. It is an intolerable
thought to me that the great countries of Asia and Africa should come out of bondage into
freedom only to degrade themselves or humiliate themselves in this way. . . .
I submit to you, every pact has brought insecurity and not security to the countries
which have entered into them. They have brought the danger of atomic bombs and the rest of
it nearer to them than would have been the case otherwise. They have not added to the
strength of any country, I submit, which it had singly. It may have produced some idea of
security, but it is a false security. It is a bad thing for any country thus to be lulled
into security. . . .
….Today in the world, I do submit, not only because of the presence of these two
colossuses but also because of the coming of the atomic and hydrogen-bomb age, the whole
concept of war, of peace, of politics, has changed. We are thinking and acting in terms of
a past age. No matter what generals and soldiers learned in the past, it is useless in
this atomic age. They do not understand its implications or its use. As an eminent
military critic said: 'The whole conception of War is changed. There is no precedent.' It
may be so. Now it does not matter if one country is more powerful than the other in the
use of the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb. One is more powerful in its ruin than the
other. That is what is meant by saying that the point of saturation has been reached.
However powerful one country is, the other is also powerful. To hit the nail on the head,
the world suffers; there can be no victory. It may be said perhaps rightly that owing to
this very terrible danger, people refrain from going to war. I hope so.. The difficulty is
that while Governments want to refrain from war, something suddenly happens and there is
war and utter ruin. There is another thing: because of the present position in the world
there can be aggression. If there is aggression anywhere in the world, it is bound to
result in world war. It does not matter where the aggression is. If one commits the
aggression there is world war.
I want the countries here to realise it and not to think in terms of any limitation.
Today, a war however limited it may be is bound to lead to a big war. Even if tactical
atomic weapons, as they are called, are used, the next step would be the use of the big
atomic bomb. You cannot stop these things. In a country's life and death struggle, it is
not going to stop short of this. It is not going to decide on our or anybody else's
resolutions but it would engage in war, ruin and annihilation of others before it
annihilates itself completely. Annihilation will result not only in the countries engaged
in war, but owing to the radioactive waves which go thousands and thousands of miles it
will destroy everything. That is the position. It is not an academic position; it is not a
position of discussing ideologies; nor is it a position of discussing past history. It is
looking at the world as it is today.
Source:
Reprinted in G. M. Kahin, The Asian-African Conference (Cornell University
Press, 1956), pp. 64-72.
