795.00/7–3050
The Prime Minister of India (Nehru) to the Secretary of State
My Dear Mr. Secretary of State, Very many thanks for your letter which was conveyed to me on the 26th July by your Ambassador in New Delhi.2
2. It was indeed good of you to have found time, in the midst of your urgent and anxious preoccupations to write to me so fully, I [Page 500] am also happy that you have written frankly, because it is only on this basis that we can understand each other, even though we may not always agree.
3. There are only two points, arising out of your letter, on which I think it desirable to dwell in some detail, and I shall do so, to quote your own words “on a strictly personal and confidential basis.”
4. The first relates to the People’s Government of China. You have referred to our conversations last year on the subject of the recognition of this Government. I explained to you then our point of view, and I think it worth while to recapitulate what I said.
Our recognition is not based either on approval of Communism or all the policies of the Peiping Government; it conforms to our views of the facts of authority over Continental China, which is far the greater part of China, and to our appraisal of the psychology of the majority of the peoples of Southeast Asia. A process of revolution is at work in most of these countries; Indonesia, Indo-China, Malaya and Burma offer abundant proof of this. It is both political and economical. In broad terms the political conflict is one between the urge of nationalism and Colonial rule. Communists have found an ally in nationalism especially in those countries where the resistance of Colonialism to nationalist aspirations has proved obdurate. The political evil of Communist totalitarianism has not proved an obstacle to this alliance so far nor is it likely to prove so in future as long as a people’s natural longing for freedom from foreign domination is not satisfied. Moreover since all the countries that I have mentioned have a predominantly agricultural economy and land reform is their crying need, any regime which carries out such reforms successfully is bound to make a sympathetic appeal. We felt withholding of recognition from the People’s Government of China would be to ignore these highly important considerations and to create a gulf not only between ourselves and China with whom we have a historical, almost immemorial, friendship but also misunderstanding between India and the peoples of Southeast Asia who are now struggling for their freedom. For us, situated as we are, and where we are, the recognition of the New China was not only inevitable but urgent. Our latest effort to seat China in the Security Council, an effort which, as I have already explained to you has been consistent and spreading over the last six months or so was prompted by the honest conviction that such a step was necessary to preserve the United Nations as a representative organisation and to maintain world peace. I think you will agree that so long as a nation of 450 million people remains outside the organisation, the organisation cannot be regarded as fully representative. [Page 501] This view has nothing to do with the condonation of aggression whether by China or by any other country. Were China to resort to acts which in our opinion constitute aggression we should not hesitate to adopt the same attitude towards China as we have towards North Korea. The reports that we have received from our Ambassador in Peiping have led me to the conclusion that given the chance the New China will take a line of its own and work for peace so vital to its economic and social reconstruction rather than try the hazards of war, of its own will or at someone else’s behest. But that chance can scarcely come if she is for whatever reasons kept out of the Community of Nations. I do not presume to challenge your sources of information but quite naturally have to be guided by my own.
5. My second point deals with your request to apprise our Ambassador in Peiping of the President’s statement with respect to Formosa and to continue our endeavour to persuade authorities there that they avoid intervention in the Korean situation or an attack on Formosa. The President’s statement about Formosa was repeated to our Ambassador in Peiping as soon as we received it from our Ambassador in Washington. Mr. Panikkar was advised in the first few days after the conflict in Korea started to impress upon the People’s Government of China the necessity in the interests of world peace of avoiding action that might extend the area of armed conflict. You may rest assured that we shall persist in this endeavour.
6. In conclusion I should like you to know that the divergence of our views on the Peiping regime detracts in no way from our desire for cooperation between our two countries to terminate the hostilities in Korea and to ensure for the world lasting peace.3
With [etc.]
- Transmitted to the Secretary of State by the Indian Ambassador (Pandit) under cover of a note, not printed, dated July 30.↩
- See telegram 210 from New Delhi, received at 4:17 a. m. on July 27, p. 478.↩
- On July 31, Mr. Acheson saw President Truman and made the following brief record of the conversation relating to Mr. Nehru’s message: “I reported to the President on Nehru’s last note to me which, he thought showed development of Nehru’s views in the right direction.” (795.00/7–3150)↩