DID NEHRU REFUSE PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP OF U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL?

 

The Right Wing anti Nehru lobby often lobs this accusation that the UNSC membership was offered to him on a platter and he refused. Wait, it gets worse; it is said that he saw to it that China got the coveted seat instead. I often wondered how on earth this can be possible. When the United Nation was formed, after the Second World War in 1945 where was India? It was simply a British colony, burning in its own problems. Why would the world even bother to offer a seat of power to a country that was not even independent? So, was this offer made later, after our independence, when Nehru was our Prime Minister? And did he really refuse?  The well researched answer is ‘he didn't’. This myth has lived longer than required and this now is being circulated in such a simple way that the complexity of the matter gets washed away. The matter in reality is much more complex than it appears to be.

 

Before knowing the about India's offer we need to travel right back to the time of World War II. United Nations was built as an extension of the Allies [US, UK, USSR, China, France] who fought the Axis powers [Germany, Italy, Japan]. It was a term used by Franklin Roosevelt the then President of the US as a Synonym to the Allies. It was Roosevelt who Coined the term Four Policemen, which was nothing but a Council with the Big Four Which Roosevelt Felt would be the Guarantor of World Peace. Roosevelt also Proposed that The Four Policemen would be responsible for keeping order within their Spheres of influence: Britain in its empire and Western Europe, the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and the central Eurasian landmass, China in East Asia and the Western Pacific; and the United States in the Western Hemisphere.

The Big Four nations became the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. When the United Nations was officially established later in 1945, France was in due course added as the fifth permanent member of the Security Council because of the insistence of Churchill.

 

China was an original member of UNSC and not an added one

In WWII, Republic of China was a critical member of the Allies. When it comes to WWII we tend to focus more on Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy than on equally Expansionist Imperial Japan. Japan was taking large strides in Asia. China was struck by the brutality of Imperial Japan's Invasion in the Second Sino-Japanese War. For Roosevelt China's Fight back against Japan meant a Strategic Victory for the Allies in the Pacific region. And because of that FDR China had already become a Key Power by 1945. China might have been a poor country then, but thanks to WWII it had become a Key player in global politics and it deserved the Permanent Seat in UNSC.

Though India became a founding member of UN just like other Colonies [New Zealand, Canada ] but at that time no one would have imagined India to be a major player of Global Politics which it is today.

 

Change in China’s fortunes

Fates soon took a turn around in China, on 1st October, 1949 when Mao Zedong's People Liberation Army decisively defeated the army of Republic of China (ROC) and took the Control of mainland China, thus establishing People’s Republic of China (PRC). This was Chinese Communist Revolution and because of this the Nationalist Government of ROC evacuated to Taiwan (Formosa) and continues to Govern from there. Mao's troops overpowered Republic of China and shattered Roosevelt's dream of China playing a major ally in the Pacific. As they turned into a Communist State the relationship of US and China got bitter. US took away China's membership and gave it away to the government that now moved to Taiwan. But by 1970s PRC was able to gather much support from the rest of the world, their relationship with USA got a bit better due to Nixon's arrival in 1972 with his ping-pong diplomacy. Also it didn't make sense to give a UNSC permanent seat to a small rebel Government sitting in Taiwan.

 

So, what is the story about this UNSC seat to India?

Contrary to popular belief, India didn't get any firm offer. It was a mere tease given by Superpowers US and USSR at different times. If we go by what is documented by authors and journalists then it seems both American and Russian governments were tempting a democratic India to be in their group.

 

The American Offer

What was the context of the US offer for India to join the UN Security Council? Nehru’s reference to the USA’s offer is frustratingly vague with no hint of the circumstances or timing in which it was made. However, research done in the correspondence of Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, Nehru’s sister, and holder of various major diplomatic positions in the late 1940s and early 1950s, illuminates the subject. China was now a communist nation and so America was hesitant to add it as a permanent member of the UNSC with veto rights. The democratic government in Taiwan was too small a country to deserve this august distinction. Mrs. Pandit in her letters to her brother Nehru wrote that the U.S. State Department was mulling with the idea of unseating China from the Permanent Membership in the Security Council and of putting India instead.

Vijay Lakshmi Pandit and Nehru

Nehru’s response within the week and it was unequivocal. He did not like the idea; he wrote “So far as we are concerned, we are not going to countenance it. That would be bad from every point of view. It would be a clear affront to China and it would mean some kind of a break between us and China. We shall go on pressing for China’s admission in the UN and the Security Council.” Nehru felt that if China is denied its UNSC position communist Russia might walk out of the United Nations too and that would mean an end to the United Nations and further drift towards war. Nehru further wrote “India because of many factors, is certainly entitled to a permanent seat in the security council. But we are not going in at the cost of China.”

Nehru’s determined rejection of the US plan to place India in China’s seat at the UN Security Council reflected the particular reverence and centrality placed on the UN by what one might call a “Nehruvian” foreign policy. Nehru’s argument for rejecting the State Department’s plan was strongly influenced by his concern that it would undermine the integrity of the UN to the extent it would cease to exist “as we have known it” and marking therefore a “further drift towards war.” Contrary to the American view Nehru was of the opinion that China, whether it was communist or not, was going to be central to the post-war international world. Finally this also demonstrated Nehru’s conviction that India did deserve a seat on the Security Council, but this was not to be gained at the cost of firm principle. The ultimate isolation of the PRC from the world, India, and even its closest ally, the USSR, by the time of Nehru’s death in 1964 suggests his policy of engagement and socialization with China had failed.

 

The Russian Offer

In the Wikipedia pages on India Russia relations there is a mention of the Russian Premier Nikolai Bulganin offering Nehru a permanent membership of the UNSC during his landmark visit to the country in 1955. In 2002, AG Noorani in his article “The Nehruvian Approach,” review of Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, second series, vol. 29, edited by H. Y. Sharada Prasad and A. K. Damodaran, [Frontline 19, no. 2 (January-February 2002), http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1902/19020810.htm] after doing extensive research on this subject felt that Nehru was correct in making little of this offer, as the offer was in fact unlikely to materialize in reality; and even if the Soviets were sincere about facilitating India’s accession to the Security Council as a permanent member, this would have caused major problems for India’s overall foreign policy strategy by complicating its relations with China and the major powers.

Bulganin’s response to Nehru’s reservations indicated that the “offer” was not a real one, but more a means of sounding out India’s views, as Bulganin agreed with Nehru that the time was not right for pushing a new permanent member into the Security Council. Furthermore, by then India had already rejected a similar suggestion made by the US.

 

Nehru’s response

As a true champion of the spirit of the United Nations Nehru said “We cannot of course accept this as it means falling out with China and it would be very unfair for a great country like China not to be in the Security Council. We have, therefore, made it clear to those who suggested this that we cannot agree to this suggestion. We have even gone a little further and said that India is not anxious to enter the Security Council at this stage, even though as a great country she ought to be there. The first step to be taken is for China to take her rightful place and then the question of India might be considered separately.”

Responding to a question in the Lok Sabha on September 27, 1955 by Dr. J.N. Parekh on whether India had refused a seat informally offered to her in the U.N. Security Council Prime Minister Nehru said “There has been no offer, formal or informal, of this kind. Some vague references have appeared in the press about it which have no foundation in fact. The composition of the Security Council is prescribed by the UN Charter, according to which certain specified nations have permanent seats. No change or addition can be made to this without an amendment of the Charter. There is, therefore, no question of a seat being offered and India declining it. Our declared policy is to support the admission of all nations qualified for UN membership.”

 

BUSTING MYTHS ABOUT HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE

High blood pressure is one of the most prevalent health conditions in the world, affecting 1 in 4 men and 1 in 5 women on a worldwide scale according to the World Health Organization. Nearly 1.13 billion people in the world are suffering from the condition, and less than half have the condition under control, which is very alarming given that high blood pressure is known to contribute to heart attacks and heart failure, stroke, and kidney failure. In India only 12% of hypertensives are controlled and so complications of high blood pressure are very common. 234 million Indians suffer from high blood pressure, 11.3% of them between the age of 13 and 49! Needless to say, the scale of this global problem makes it the subject of continuous research, and every year, scientists learn more about the causes and ways to treat and prevent hypertension.

Unfortunately many of these people have no idea they have the disease or knowingly neglect their condition, exposing themselves to the risk of heart disease, stroke, and other no less serious complications. In part, this is because many of us are misled to believe that high blood pressure is not a serious issue, or that only older people suffer from it. None of that is true. There are quite a lot of dangerous myths surrounding high blood pressure, myths that end up causing a great deal of harm to hypertension sufferers all across the globe.

 

1. Hypertension isn’t a serious condition:

Hypertension is one of the most common chronic irreversible health conditions in the world and India is no exception. Nearly half of the overall adult population suffers from hypertension but a vast majority are not even aware of it. The severity and potential dangers of this health condition are too grossly underestimated, and many consider high blood pressure to be no big deal. This is just not true, and in reality, high blood pressure can lead to many serious complications and even sudden death.

Over time, hypertension makes larger blood vessels less elastic, which impairs the oxygen supply to various organs, and can even make small blood vessels in the brain burst and become blocked. Thus, high blood pressure can lead to the following health issues:

• Heart attack
• Heart failure
• Irregular heartbeat (or arrhythmia - this can lead to sudden death)
• Chest pain, also known as angina
• Stroke
• Kidney damage.
• Vision loss
• Sexual dysfunction,
• Peripheral artery disease.

So, hypertension is a very serious condition that requires treatment and lifestyle adjustments. 

 

2. I don’t use salt in my food, so I’m managing my sodium levels

Managing your sodium intake is crucial when you have high blood pressure. Many people confuse sodium intake with the amount of salt they add to their foods, but in reality, reducing or eliminating the use of table salt in your diet or replacing it with LONA (low  sodium salt) is just part of the solution. As a matter of fact, processed foods account for at least 40% of our daily sodium intake. Thus, Pizza, Sandwiches, Bread, Eggs and omelets, Sandwich meat, Canned soup, Chips, pretzels, crackers, and other savory snacks like daalmot, chaat, chanachoor, jhalmuri all have salt and add to our sodium load. Even sweet ultra-processed foods, such as chocolate, candy, breakfast cereals, and soft drinks are extremely high in salt. Therefore, looking at labels is key - search for the keywords “sodium”, “Na”, and “soda” on the ingredient label. Also understand that consuming added sea salt or kosher salt or sendha namak is the same as regular table salt, as all three of these have the same sodium content. The WHO recommends cutting down your daily sodium intake to 5 grams a day, a small sacrifice to pay for your cardiovascular health. Doing so, according to the WHO feels, would prevent 2.5 million deaths every year.

 

3. Hypertension is inevitable

Another common misconception is the idea that high blood pressure cannot be prevented, especially in older age, and everyone is bound to get it. Although hypertension is more prevalent in older adults, it’s by no means a normal part of aging. Not all seniors and not only older people suffer from this condition: the condition affects 63.1% of people 60+ years old, 33.2% in the 40-59 age range, and 7.5% in the age range of 18-39. In addition, many people also believe that they will surely have hypertension if the condition runs in the family. While it is certainly true that hypertension has a genetic component, maintaining a healthy lifestyle and diet can cancel out the genetic predisposition to high blood pressure to quite an extent. A 2018 study looking at 277,005 patients concluded that adherence to a healthy lifestyle - healthy diet, limited alcohol consumption, low urinary sodium excretion, low body mass index [BMI], and increased physical activity, is associated with lower blood pressure regardless of the underlying blood pressure genetic risk. Therefore, though hypertension isn’t curable, it’s very much so preventable, no matter what your genetic risk or age is.

 

4. Only men suffer from high blood pressure

A poor diet, low activity levels, and being overweight can increase one’s risk of high blood pressure for both men and women. In fact, in the age range of 45–64 years, men and women have a nearly identical risk of hypertension. What’s more, after 64 years old, women have a higher risk of hypertension than men. The only age range in which men are more likely to develop hypertension is 45 years old and younger.

 

5. You’re fine if only one of the measurements is high

Blood pressure (bp) readings consist of two measurements - the top (systolic) blood pressure and the second (diastolic) blood pressure. Systolic measurements show the pressure with which blood runs through the veins during a heartbeat, whereas the diastolic measurement reflects the blood pressure while your heart is resting. Systolic blood pressure of 130 and above is considered high, as is diastolic pressure of 80 and greater. Oftentimes, people pay more attention to the top number, as higher systolic pressure is associated with an increased risk of stroke and heart attack in older adults. However, higher diastolic measurements are just as important as systolic ones, and you must seek treatment if you get any consistently high readings to prevent your organs from damage.

 

6. Low blood pressure isn’t an issue

Low blood pressure, or hypotension, is definitely less talked about than hypertension, but that doesn't mean that hypotension is benign. While many people have a naturally lower blood pressure than others, drops in blood pressure can be a concern, as it can cause dizziness, or make you faint or go into shock. The first two are a concern, especially for the elderly, as they often lead to a serious fall. Shock, on the other hand, is even more dangerous, as it can cause sudden death if not treated immediately.

 

7. Everyone should be controlled at 120/80

This is simply not true for people above the age of 45. We can add 10 mm to the systolic blood pressure after 45 and 130 mm is good enough. According to the most recent American guidelines released by the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology in 2017, any blood pressure with a systolic (higher) reading past 130 is considered hypertension. In Europe this critical reading however is 140. In fact studies have shown that in patients above 80 years of age blood pressure values below 140/90 didn’t decrease risk of mortality, but increased it by 26%. Unfortunately, it remains unclear what role a relatively high blood pressure may play in assisting older adults and what should be considered as “normal blood pressure” for this age group. It is clear, however, that a blanket approach to mass lowering of blood pressure may not be the correct treatment strategy either.

8. Surely, I would notice the symptoms if I had hypertension

Nothing can be farther from truth. There's a reason why doctors call hypertension "the silent killer". Unfortunately, most people don't know that they have the condition until they start measuring their blood pressure regularly. In fact, many in India are diagnosed once they have complications of hypertension. It can take years of having the condition for common symptoms like feeling tired, dizzy, lightheaded, or confused to appear. Therefore, it's safest to measure your blood pressure regularly, especially if you're older or have a genetic predisposition to hypertension.

 

9. Once my blood pressure normalizes, I can stop taking my medicines

If you were diagnosed with hypertension, you'll likely be suffering from the condition for life, at least until doctors find a cure for it. Medication may bring your blood pressure back to normal, but that doesn't mean that you have to stop taking it, even if you also adjust your lifestyle and diet. Never discontinue a blood pressure medication prescription without your doctor’s knowledge and approval. Expect to treat high blood pressure for life. Your physician will sometimes reduce your drug dosages or even change it after achieving normal blood pressure and maintaining it for a year or more, although it is rare for the treatment to be stopped entirely.

 

10. Doctors ask for too many investigations even when I am OK

This is called target organ survey; your eyes, brain, heart and kidneys are the target organs which hypertension is likely to involve. These organs need periodic monitoring to ensure that they are in perfect shape. Don’t feel cheated if all your investigations come out to be normal. That is in fact good news!

 

 

High blood pressure doesn’t have any symptoms and many who suffer from it don’t get to know till it is very late. It remains the most common cause of premature death and so instead of getting entangled in the web of myths surrounding hypertension we must understand its seriousness and make necessary life style modifications and take our anti-hypertensive drugs regularly.