"Dynamic Neutrality"

An Indian wit once described Jawaharlal Nehru as "a constantly expanding bundle of contradictions." Nehru is an aristocratic Brahman who turned Socialist, a fervent Asian nationalist who went to Cambridge and drank thirstily if not deeply of Western culture, a devout disciple of Gandhi's nonviolence who more than once has been known to beat rowdy followers over the head with a chair. In London last week, Nehru exhibited another specimen from his bulging bundle of contradictions. In one breath, he urged the U.S. to show "sympathy and understanding" toward Communist China, at all cost avoid further conflict in Asia. In the next, he showed no sympathy or understanding whatever in India's long dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir, thereby increasing the likelihood of more bloodshed on the Indian subcontinent.

Who's an Aggressor? At the London conference of Commonwealth ministers (TIME, Jan. 15), Nehru was the chief advocate of appeasing Communist China, was largely responsible for the conference's failure to come out for a clear-cut, honorable stand in Asia. Later, when the Chinese Communists rejected yet another U.N. cease-fire proposal (see above), Nehru let it be known that he considered their note "a counterproposal, not a rejection." Branding Communist China an aggressor, he said, would "bolt and bar the door" to further negotiations.

But in debate of the Kashmir issue, Nehru insisted that Pakistan must be labeled the aggressor, and that India could not stoop to appeasing aggressors. Over the weekend at Chequers, the Prime Ministers' country home, Attlee and Australia's Prime Minister Robert Gordon Menzies tirelessly tried to bring about an agreement between Nehru and Pakistan's Liaquat AH Khan. Crux of the matter was when and how a plebiscite should be held to determine the future of Kashmir's predominantly Moslem population. India insists that Pakistan withdraw not only its troops but also its "irregulars" (i.e., large numbers of Kashmir's own people who have rebelled against Indian rule), while India proposes to keep most of her troops in Kashmir to provide "protection" during the plebiscite.

Pakistan's Round. At a press conference, standing in front of a huge portrait of Gandhi and wearing an impeccable Western grey double-breasted suit, Nehru reported on the progress of negotiations. Pakistan, he said, was making things very difficult by "talk about a holy war."

Four hours later, Pakistan's Prime Minister Liaquat AH Khan, in an equally impeccable double-breasted blue suit, held a press conference of his own. As he told it, the story of the negotiations sounded different. The Commonwealth mediators had first suggested that a force of Australians and New Zealanders be stationed in Kashmir during the plebiscite, permitting both Indian and Pakistani forces to withdraw. "I accepted this proposal," said Liaquat. "Mr. Nehru rejected it."

Then the mediators had proposed a joint force of Indian and Pakistani troops. Said Liaquat: "I accepted this proposal. Mr. Nehru rejected it."

Then the mediators had suggested a local force recruited from Kashmir's own people under a U.N. command. Said Liaquat: "I accepted that proposal. Mr. Nehru rejected it."

Added Pakistan's Prime Minister: "While Mr. Nehru talks of giving freedom to the people to decide for themselves, he wants them to decide with Indian bayonets pointing at their heads."

British public opinion, which in the past had often favored Nehru, gave this round to Pakistan.

Pandit's Pedestal. From London, Nehru flew to Paris. At the airport, France's Premier Rene Pleven offered his guest champagne. But Nehru, a prohibitionist in public, smilingly said, "Milk." A perceptible shudder ran down the guard of honor. Everybody drank a white toast. Then Nehru drove off to work.

He had long sessions with India's ambassadors to eight European countries and his sister Madame Pandit, Ambassador to the U.S., who had been summoned to Paris for a briefing by the chief. He conferred with French officials, offering helpful advice on Indo-China (he disapproves of the Bao Dai regime). He also conferred with Frederic Joliot-Curie, Communist who was fired last year as France's atomic energy boss and now heads the Red "partisans of peace movement."

Nehru's policy, which he calls "dynamic neutrality," is based on several stubbornly held notions, chief among them that India should not align itself either with the U.S. or with Russia, but remain "independent." Both the American and the Russian systems, in Nehru's view, are too materialistic, but since Nehru is a sentimental socialist, he feels drawn to the Russians' collectivist version of materialism. He has admitted that world Communism is an expansionist movement, but he does not see Communism as in itself an evil. As a clincher to this argument, Nehru usually mounts his pandit's pedestal of superior wisdom, asserts that he understands the subtleties of the Eastern mind better than any Westerner; his understanding, however, does not seem to take note of the millions of Asians (including China's No. 1 philosopher, Hu Shih) who have shown strong distaste for Communism, and an equally strong desire for democratic, dynamic--but not neutral--leadership.

Last week Nehru's Washington representatives were busily trying to get a $200,000,000 gift of grain out of the U.S. Nehru's contempt for U.S. "materialism" would not prevent him from accepting the gift.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.