A. — That is a difficult question for me
to answer because you are wanting me to tell you what American policy
is, what is United States policy.
What I say is this: That I
gathered the impression that the policy of the United States—I am not
referring to any basic change—but it is a flexible policy adapting
itself to circumstances. How it will adapt itself I can't say, but it is
not as rigid as I thought.
SARAH McCLENDON,
of The El Paso (Tex.) Times — Mr. Prime Minister, sir, you are familiar
with our program whereby we sell our surplus commodities to the foreign
Governments in exchange for their local currencies, and then we loan
part of this local currency back to you. I wonder if you find this
program helpful or harmful?
A. — Well, That is kind of a broad
question, which I can't answer broadly. But in so far as it has happened
in India, it has been helpful, very helpful to us. Recently there was a
wheat deal, which was very helpful to us.
JOHN M. HIGHTOWER,
of The Associated Press — Mr. Prime Minister, do you find that the
policy of the United States with respect to Red China is less rigid than
you thought?
A. — No, I am afraid I can't answer that question because I really cannot say "yes" or "no" to that.
PAUL
A. SHINKMAN of Washington radio stations — Mr. Prime Minister, you said
in your address to the American people last night that your economic
program in India calls for purposeful planning and the willing and
active cooperation of your own people. Are we to understand from that
that you don't require also material support from outside, for example,
from this country?
A. — We have to face such a tremendous
problem—the problem may be divided up into two parts. One is the major
part, really, what we have to do in our own country, and the resources
we have to raise in our own country, which inevitably must fall on the
people.
The other is when you industrialize, you have to get
machinery from abroad, which involves foreign exchange and the like,
which, whatever the effect on the people, of the countries accept unless
they export and get things in exchange.
However, a brief answer
to your question is that foreign help in this matter can be and is of
great assistance, even though the quantum of foreign help, compared to
what the country does, is small. The real burden falls infinitely more
on the people of the country, but even the relatively small help that
comes is of vital importance. It can make a difference; therefore, it is
very welcome.
The Kashmir Question
A. D.
ROTHMAN, of The Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald — Mr. Prime Minister,
in view of the fact that India has constantly stressed its belief in the
self-determination of nations, there is a considerable feeling that
there is inconsistency between that point of view and India's actions in
relation to holding a referendum in Kashmir. Can you clarify that for
us?
A. — Well, I will answer your question briefly, but you
don't expect me to clarify a question which has rather baffled people
for the last eight years. The papers on that question run into about
that number of volume (gesturing) . . .
You must remember the
beginnings of the Kashmir trouble. The beginnings were unabashed
aggression, armed aggression on Kashmir, and unless you keep that in
view, you won't understand the rest of it. We talk about aggression a
great deal. There is no doubt that that was aggression, and there is no
doubt that the United Nations Commission that went there acknowledged
the fact, too.
It must follow from that—you talk about a
plebiscite or a referendum. The first thing laid down by the United
Nations Commission was that Pakistan armies should withdraw, and the
aggression should cease.
Well, it is eight years, and they haven't
withdrawn yet. Nothing else follows unless that is done. As a matter of
fact, in Kashmir there have been elections, there is an elected
Assembly, there are going to be elections on an adult basis in about
three months' time, and I really would invite any of you gentlemen who
care to, go and have a look around there, and then form an opinion.
MR.
McGAFFIN — Mr. Prime Minister, could we go back for a minute to your
answer about the United States policy being not as rigid as you thought
it was? Could you give us some instances of that sir, not as rigid in
the question of Asian neutralism, perhaps?
A. — I can't give you
instances because I am giving impressions of approaches. I may not have
got a correct impression, quite possibly, because it is not that any
particular—in regard to any particular subject we discussed, and I found
as change there, but the general approach to these problems seems to me
to be governed by an appreciation of a changing world, and trying to
fit in with these changing conditions.
JOSEPH CHIANG, of The
Chinese News Service — In regard to the questions of China, sir, as you
know, the United Nations, the American Governments and other free
nations of the world recognize the Chinese National Government in
Formosa. Do you think they are wrong?
A. — Surely you do not
expect me to be rude to anybody. The fact that we do not recognize it,
or we recognize the government on the mainland should indicate our views
on the subject.
On Soviet and Moral Force
EDWARD P.
MORGAN, of The American Broadcasting Company — Mr. Prime Minister,
India is held up as an exponent of moral force in the world. How does
the Soviet Union fit into your definition of moral force, and whether it
fits or not, do you judge that the present policies of the Soviet Union
add up to a force for good in the world?
A. — Well, first of all, I disclaim entirely any—well, any claim to moral force for India as a country.
I
do think that our leader, Mr. Gandhi was an exponent, and a very
powerful one, of moral force, and he has influenced India greatly in the
right direction, and we tried, to some extent, to follow what he said.
Sometimes we fail, sometimes we succeed in a small measure. That is, I
do not wish anyone to imagine that we in India think ourselves more
moral, more higher or better in any way than others. We do think that
our leader set us a very fine example, and we try to keep it in mind, to
the best of our ability.
About the Soviet Union, as about any
country, including India, I think you will find that there is a great
deal of good and bad, both. The proportions may vary. I don't know if
you want me to discuss communism as such, or the application of it.
Those are big questions; obviously there are many things in the Soviet
Union in the past and in the present with which I do not agree.
Many
things have happened, but I have found, taking the present conditions
as they are today, the people of the Soviet Union are an extraordinarily
friendly people, hospitable people, and passionately desirous of peace.
I
believe also that many recent tendencies in the Soviet Union have been
in the right direction of liberalization, democratization, and I should
like those tendencies to function in an increasing measure. I believe
they will function.
I don't think it is possible, because of a
variety of reasons, for them to be stopped or for the Soviet Union to go
back to conditions, say a few years back, before those tendencies came
into evidence.
Now, what the future will show I don't know.
Questioned on Stalinism
Q.
— Are you saying by that, sir, that you believe that is it your own
judgment that the so-called Stalinist element of the Russian Government
is defeated?
A. — Did you say defeated?
Q. — Yes, that is what I said.
A.
— Well, I would put it this way: That the post-Stalin policy cannot, I
think, be suppressed or made to revert to the pre-Stalin—to the previous
policy, I don't think—it may, it may be delayed. It may be obstructed
occasionally, because that policy is not a question really of a few
people at the top merely thinking so, but something representing broad
opinions and developments.
For instance, take the Russian people
as a whole. During the last generation or so, a people which were
largely illiterate have become very literate. They read tremendously. It
makes a difference to a whole people if they are reading a great deal,
even if the literature they read is limited. It makes them think; it
broadens them.
Then they have become technically minded. They are
all working machines now. The old muzhik [peasant] is there no longer.
At present he works a tractor.
All these have made a difference,
and these differences ultimately show themselves in political
organization and other matters or political views—they affect them.
So I don't think—I think the changes are fundamental, the changes toward democratization and liberalization.
CHALMERS
ROBERTS — Mr. Prime Minister, do you think it possible—and you are a
student of Marxism from away back—do you think it is possible that those
changes or that liberalization can go in a Communist country to the
extent of its becoming democratic in the sense you spoke of last night
about India and the United States?
A. — If you refer, by
democratic you mean, some kind of parliamentary system of government,
well, I don't think so. I don't think anybody in Russia has experienced,
has had in the past, experience of it or thinks of democracy in terms
of parliamentary government.
After all, parliamentary
government is—even today does not extend to too many countries in the
world. But I should imagine that other forms of democratic expression,
that is, the people's will prevailing, which will almost inevitably take
shape.
You ask me about Marxism. I am no authority on Marxism,
but I should like people to remember always Marx, who was a very big
man, lived in Western Europe, in the early nineteenth century.
Now,
surely conditions have changed in the last hundred years, and any
argument based on what happened in England in the early nineteenth
century is not applicable today; and any persons holding on to that
argument, well, are not living in the present. They are living in the
past, and have—and in so far as they have closed minds, they don't go
ahead in their thinking or in their actions.
MR. GORDON — Mr.
Prime Minister, how would you propose that the world today take an
initial step toward disarmament, and what should that step be?
A. —
Well, that is rather an intricate question. But disarmament, I take it,
means lessening of the arms possessed or the armies, reduction of the
armies, lessening of the armies, restrictions on the use of atomic
warfare—all these are various steps.
But behind all that is the
necessity to create a certain confidence that no party will misuse that.
That is the important thing really and, therefore, I suppose it is
essential that arrangements should be made for some kind of checking and
inspection to satisfy one's self that the agreement is not broken.
I
can hardly discuss the details of it, but I do feel that after this
long disarmament, the two main parties concerned are remarkably near
each other; actually, factually what was put forward is not very
different, and can easily be ironed out.
There is, of course, the background of lack of confidence. That is the real thing, not the proposals.
RUGGERO ORLANDO, of Italian Radio and Television — Mr. Prime Minister, do you consider Russia and China a single bloc?
A. — No, sir, not at all. I think they are very different from a single bloc.
R.
H. SHACKLEFORD, of The Scripps-Howard Newspaper Alliance — Mr. Prime
Minister, last night you said colonialism in any form or anywhere was
abhorrent to India. Do you consider the Soviet Union a colonial power,
that is, a nation which imposes its will upon other nations, such as in
Eastern Europe?
A. — Well, it depends on what meaning you attach
to words in the English language. The word "colonial" has a certain
meaning, which I do not think applies in that context; but it does apply
in other contexts. That is, if you say the Soviet Union dominates over
another country, it is perfectly correct, of course—and it is a bad
thing, I agree with you. Just—you may use the word "colonial" in a
restricted way or in a wider way, whichever way you like, but the point
is that, apart from words, that the Soviet Union, as it has been seen
quite clearly in the case of Hungary, has exercised a dominating
influence and power there.
Long-term Loans Cited
FREDERICK KUH, of The Chicago Sun-Times — Mr. Prime Minister, can you say in what form can we cooperate with India's second Five-Year Plan a little more fully?
A.
— Well, in the main it is in certain forms of aid and in the form
chiefly of loans, long-term loans, which India can pay back gradually
later.
MILTON R. BERLINER, of The Washington Daily News — Mr.
Prime Minister, would you say that the United States policy today is
more sympathetic than it has ever been to India's nonalignment policy?
A. — I should imagine there is more understanding of it and, if I may say so, well, perhaps, a little appreciation of it.
MR.
STEELE — Mr. Prime Minister, some of us are slightly puzzled as to what
two gentlemen meeting for twelve hours straight on a rather muddy
Gettysburg farm could think to talk about. I wonder if you could at
least tell us the topics you discussed with the president.
A. —
You see, in India we are supposed to be a people given to contemplation
and leisurely talks. Perhaps some of that affected the President, too,
that day.
Q. — Can you enlighten us as to the topics that you did discuss, sir, not as to the substance of them?
A.
— No, but there are a large variety of topics. I really wouldn't even
suddenly remember all of them—unless I have to think. Various things
came into our minds. We discussed the past, we discussed the present, we
even had a peep into the future.
RICHARD HARKNESS, of The
National Broadcasting Company — Mr. Prime Minister, will you tell us,
sir, if the speeches and votes of Mr. Krishna Menon [Mr. Nehru's foreign
policy adviser] at the United Nations express properly and precisely
the foreign policy of you and your Government?
A. — Mr. Krishna
Menon and his delegation naturally keep in the closest touch with the
Government of India, and they know exactly what the background of the
Government of India's mind is on the subject.
Naturally, as from
day to day things happen, the delegation has to decide, they can't
confer every minute; and their broad—their decisions have been in
accordance with our policy.
I do not know to what particular thing
you refer. Speeches—well, whether things are expressed more strongly,
unless I see it I cannot say anything. I think there has been, perhaps,
some misunderstanding about every vote or about a phrase or a speech
here and there, because it has been considered apart from the context.
If the context to see it would appear to have a somewhat wider and
different meaning.
LILLIAN LEVY, of The National Jewish Post — Mr.
Prime Minister, in your considered judgment, sir, how can India help
resolve the difficulties, the differences and difficulties, between
Israel and her Arab neighbors, particularly Egypt, and thus contribute
to the stability in the vital area of the Middle East?
A. —
This question has become so very much more difficult after recent
occurrences, that is, after the Israelite invasion of Egypt, that I
honestly do not know what one can do at the present. I have, of course—I
hope and believe that something may be done in the future, but just at
the present moment, the question hardly arises or can hardly be
considered in a normal way.
Pressed on Prisoners
SPENCER
DAVIS, of The Associated Press — Mr. Prime Minister, can you say what
prospects there are for the release of the ten American prisoners who
are still being held in Communist China?
A. — Well, I should very
much like them to be released. I hope they will be released some time,
but I have not—it would not be right for me or fair for me to say
anything more because I am not responsible. How can I commit anybody?
Q. — Sir, in the context of India being a bridge between the United States and Communist China, and your—
A.
— I know that. But I find any statement made may be embarrassing
because I can say anything I am going to do, but for me to talk about
any other Government is not only embarrassing to me but to other
Governments, and it may not be true, so I get into a false position.
WARREN
ROGERS JR., of The Associated Press — Mr. Prime Minister, do you plan
to take up this question of the Americans in China with Chou En-lai?
A. — Well, obviously, we have discussed this with him, and we will discuss it with him.
FRANK
HOLEMAN, President of The National Press Club — I am sorry that is all
the time we have for questions this morning. I want to thank you again,
Mr. Prime Minister, and present the National Press Club Certificate of
Appreciation for appearing here and making news wherever you go.
PRIME MINISTER NEHRU — Thank you.