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.”