Was Nehru soft on China ? His 1959 letter to CMs clear the air

Last year, relations between India and China came under severe strain amid reports of fresh incursions by the Chinese Army into Ladakh, even though there was a confusing hesitation by Indian authorities to publicly acknowledge these. Nehru is often blamed for being soft on the Chinese, by those with little understanding of the complex issues involved. The extract this week is from a letter he wrote to the Chief Ministers on May 18, 1959.

“In my last letter to you I wrote something about the Tibetan developments. Since then, much has happened. The Dalai Lama is in our country {he reached India on 31 March 1959} and so are more than twelve thousand refugees from Tibet. Possibly some more might come. We have been heavily occupied with making arrangements for these refugees...

A more far-reaching problem for India is the future of our relations with China. It has been a proud boast both in India and China, that these two great countries often with a common border, have not had any military conflict during the last two thousand years or more of our relations... On the whole, India’s expansiveness stopped at the Himalayas and our forefathers crossed the mountains or the seas on cultural and religious missions.

As is well known, they went all over the south-eastern seas, carrying their art forms. There is hardly any evidence of any major military adventure outside the confines of India…. The Chinese spread much more both in Central Asia and in the South-East. India and China came into close touch with each other in the islands and mainland of South-East Asia. But there are no record of any major conflict. Both of them have left their strong impress over this vast area in South-East Asia; probably the Indian impress is the greater in the islands and part of the mainland.

Tibet was never looked upon by India as a political appendage or sphere of influence, except to some extent during British times, following the Younghusband Expedition in 1904…. China, on the other hand, was frequently trying to impose its domination or suzerainty over Tibet…. on the whole, the power of China imposed itself on Tibet and some kind of sovereignty or suzerainty was exercised there…. The Manchu Dynasty of China exercised quite considerable sway over Tibet.

After the revolution which put an end to the Manchu Dynasty in China, Tibet functioned autonomously and, to some extent, even as an independent country, though at no time did China acknowledge this independence. It was only after the new Communist Government came into existence in China that China decided to revert to its old rule and enforced its overlordship of Tibet. This was eight or nine years ago.

At that time there was no choice left to India but to recognise Chinese suzerainty. Indeed, even the British Government had done that, and we could not go back upon it. Practically we could do nothing. We endeavoured, therefore, to lay stress on the autonomy of Tibet under China’s suzerainty. Some people say now that it was wrong and weak on India’s part to have done this.

I find it very difficult to understand this argument. It has no basis either in constitutional law or in the practical facts of the situation. For us to refuse to acknowledge Chinese suzerainty would not have helped Tibet in the slightest. It would have meant not only a complete break with China, but also a much harsher occupation of Tibet right up to our frontiers, as India would then have been considered a hostile country with designs on Tibet.

When the present position arose in March last, we could not go back on our old policy. This would have been neither practical nor in keeping with our treaties. At the same time, the fact of the harsh suppression by Chinese armed forces of the Tibetan uprising created naturally a powerful reaction in India. In China this led to angry and wholly unbalanced references to India…

There has been a slight toning down in the Chinese attacks on India, but there is always a note of warning. If India continues to criticize us, we shall hit back. So far as we are concerned, we shall endeavour to hold to our present policy and use language of restraint, trying to avoid needless provocation, but obviously we cannot submit to any kind of dictation from China in regard to the Dalai Lama or the other refugees…”

(Selected and edited by Mridula Mukherjee, former professor of History at JNU and former Director of Nehru Memorial Museum and Library)