PANDIT NEHRU

AT

THE UNITED NATIONS

Addresses by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru

at the United Nations General Assembly

Edited

by

E. S. Reddy
 CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

I. ADDRESS TO THE THIRD SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Paris, November 3, 1948

II. MESSAGE BROADCAST BY UNITED NATIONS RADIO

Lake Success, New York, May 5, 1950

III. ADDRESS TO DELEGATES TO THE ELEVENTH SESSION OF THE

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

New York, December 20, 1956

IV. ADDRESS TO THE ASIAN-AFRICAN GROUP AT THE UNITED

NATIONS

New York, December 21, 1956

V. ADDRESS TO THE COMMONWEALTH GROUP AT THE UNITED

NATIONS

New York, December 21, 1956

VI. ADDRESS TO THE FIFTEENTH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

New York, October 3, 1960

VII. SPEECHES ON FIVE-POWER RESOLUTION FOR EASING WORLD

TENSION

New York, October 5, 1960

VIII. ADDRESS TO THE SIXTEENTH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

New York, November 10, 1961

 INTRODUCTION

This booklet contains the addresses delivered by Prime Minister Jawaharlal

Nehru at the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, 1956, 1960 and 1961.

He attended the third session of the General Assembly in Paris after the
Commonwealth Prime Ministers` Conference in London, and delivered an address
on November 3, 1948, in which he proclaimed the adherence of India, completely
and absolutely, to the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter and
its commitment to work for the realisation of those principles and purposes. He
drew special attention to the emergence of Asia in world affairs and the need to
end colonial and racist domination all over the world.

His first visit to the United Nations Headquarters was in December 1956,
during an official visit to the United States. On that occasion, he did not deliver a
formal address to the United Nations but spoke to a meeting of all the delegations
of the General Assembly, as well to the Asian-African Group and the
Commonwealth Group at the United Nations.

The main concern of the United Nations and of Pandit Nehru at the time was
with the crises resulting from the invasion of Egypt by forces of the United
Kingdom, France and Israel, and the intervention of Soviet armed forces to
suppress opposition in Hungary.

In 1960, he attended the fifteenth session of the General Assembly in New

York at a time of grave international tension. An American U-2 plane had been
shot down over Soviet territory in April and in the wake of that crisis a four-
Power summit meeting, scheduled for May in Paris, was aborted. The
developments in the Congo had led to great Power confrontation; the Soviet
Union denounced the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Dag Hammarskjold,
and demanded a triumvirate to head the Organisation.

The main address of Prime Minister Nehru was, therefore, devoted primarily to
the problem of war and peace, disarmament and the situation in the Congo. He
emphasised the importance of the United Nations and opposed a weakening of its
executive.

He spent several days at the United Nations, meeting many Heads of State and
Government present in order to promote a relaxation of international tension. He
joined with leaders of four other non-aligned countries - Kwame Nkrumah of
Ghana, Sukarno of Indonesia, Gamal Abdel Nasser of the United Arab Republic
and Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia - in proposing a resolution expressing deep
concern over the deterioration of international relations, and expressing the hope
that the President of the United States (General Dwight Eisenhower) and the
Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (Nikita Khrushchev) renew
their interrupted contacts. Though the resolution had to be withdrawn, when it
was truncated by procedural maneuvres by the West, it served to convey world
concern over the situation.

Pandit Nehru again addressed the General Assembly on November 10, 1961, at
the conclusion of his official visit to the United States. By that time, contacts
between the United States and the Soviet Union had been renewed at a high level,
though tension remained high. Foreign mercenaries from the Congo had been
expelled and the integrity of that country preserved, largely with the assistance of
Indian peacekeeping forces. U Thant of Burma had been unanimously elected
Acting Secretary- General of the United Nations. The address of the Prime
Minister focussed on measures to promote peace and international cooperation.

These addresses reflect his strong support for the United Nations and his hopes
for the strengthening of that Organisation as an instrument for international
cooperation.

While he did not hesitate to criticise the failings of the Organisation, caused by
the realities of international relations, he constantly emphasised, in these
addresses and other statements, that the United Nations represented forces of
peace and prevented many situations from developing into violent conflicts, apart
from directing attention towards programmes of economic and social progress.

He was the first world statesman to draw world attention forcefully to the fact
that entirely new thinking had become essential with the development of weapons
of mass destruction.

"The choice today before the world is a choice which has never come to it
before: it is a choice of self-extinction, practical extinction or survival.

"... under modern conditions either war must be ruled out, or the world,
civilisation and humanity have to submit to the ending of all that they have
laboured for over thousands of years.

"... there is no victory today for any country in a major war - only defeat
and extermination for all."

While the addresses of Prime Minister Nehru have a great historic value, as
early warnings of the dangers of the drift in great Power relations and the need to
revitalise the United Nations, they are also of particular relevance today as the
great Powers finally begin to move away from their disastrous confrontation and
recognise the usefulness of the United Nations.
 The new thinking that Pandit Nehru urged must lead to a total prohibition of
nuclear weapons and a general and complete disarmament, as well as the widest
international cooperation for the solution of human problems, many of which
have been aggravated by four decades of the cold war. His view of the role of the
United Nations is worth recalling today:

"The main purpose of the United Nations is to build up a world without

war, a world based on the co-operation of nations and peoples. It is not
merely a world where war is kept in check for a balancing of armed
forces. It is much deeper than that. It is a world in which the major causes
of war have been removed and social structures built up which further
peaceful cooperation within a nation as well as between nations."

He recognised the vital importance for the United Nations of the backing of
public opinion, and stressed that what it had accomplished was largely due to
aroused public opinion...

E. S. Reddy
Former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations
I. ADDRESS TO THE THIRD SESSION OF THE UNITES
NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PARIS, NOVEMBER
3, 1948
I am grateful for the opportunity that has been given to me to address this great
Assembly. I feel a little embarrassed and a little overwhelmed on this occasion,
because this Assembly represents the world community, and, whether we who are
present here are big men and women or small, we represent a mighty cause and
something of the greatness of that falls upon us too, and makes us, for the
moment, greater perhaps than we are.

Therefore, in venturing to address this Assembly, I feel embarrassed. You have

been dealing with intricate and difficult problems, and I do not, and I would not,
venture on this occasion to say anything about those great problems that confront
you. You can carry the burdens and sorrows of the world.

Ends and Means

But I have often wondered whether, in dealing with those problems, the
approach that is normally made to them is the right one. The Charter of the United
Nations has laid down in noble language the principles and purposes of this great
organisation. I do not think it would be possible to improve upon that language.
The objectives are clear; our aim is clear; and yet, in looking at that aim, we lose
ourselves often, if I may venture to say so, in smaller matters and forget the main
objective that we were looking at. Sometimes it seems that the objective itself gets
a little clouded.

I come from a country which, after a long struggle, though that struggle was a
peaceful struggle, attained her freedom and her independence. In these long years
of struggle we were taught by our great leader never to forget not only the
objective we had, but also the methods whereby we should achieve those
objectives. Always he laid stress on this, that it was not good enough to have a
good objective, that it was equally important that the means of attaining those
objectives were good; means were always as important as ends. You will permit
me to repeat that here, because I am convinced that, however good the ends, the
larger ends of the United Nations, or the lesser objectives which we may from
time to time have before us, either as individual nations or as groups of nations, it
is important that we should remember that the best of objectives may not be
reached if our eyes are bloodshot and our minds clouded with passion.

Therefore, it becomes essential for us, for a while, to think more of how we are
doing things than what we are aiming at, even though we should never forget
what we are aiming at. It becomes necessary for us always to remember the
principles and the purposes for which this great Assembly was formed.
Hatred and Violence

Now, a mere repetition of those principles and purposes would perhaps indicate
to us how sometimes, with passion and prejudice, we swerve away from that path.
This Assembly took shape after two mighty wars and as a consequence of those
wars. What has been the lesson of those wars? Surely the lesson of those wars has
been that out of hatred and violence you will not build peace. It is a contradiction
in terms. The lesson of history, the long course of history, and more especially the
lesson of the last two great wars which have devastated humanity, has been that
out of hatred and violence only hatred and violence will come. We have got into a
cycle of hatred and violence, and not the most brilliant debate will get you out of
it, unless you look some other way and find some other means. It is obvious that if
you continue in this cycle and have wars which this Assembly was especially
meant to avoid and prevent, the result will not only be tremendous devastation all
over the world, but non-achievement by any individual Power or group of its
objective.

How, then, are we to proceed? It may be that it is difficult to get this hatred and
prejudice and fear out of our minds. Nevertheless, unless we try to proceed in this
way, to cast out this fear, we shall never succeed. Of that I am quite convinced.

Emergence of Asia and Struggle against Colonialism

You meet here, representatives of all nations of the world, or nearly all.
Inevitably, you have behind you and before you the immediate great problems
that confront more especially Europe, which has suffered so much.

May I say, as a representative of Asia, that we honour Europe for its culture
and the great advance in human civilisation which it represents? May I say that
we are equally interested in the solution of European problems; but may I also say
that the world is something bigger than Europe, and you will not solve your
problems by thinking that the problems of the world are mainly European
problems? There are vast tracts of the world which may not in the past, for a few
generations, have taken much part in world affairs. But they are awake; their
people are moving and they have no intention whatever of being ignored or of
being passed by.

That is a simple fact I think we have to remember, because unless you have the
full picture of the world before you, you will not even understand the problem,
and if you isolate any single problem in the world from the rest, you do not
understand the problem. Today I do venture to submit that Asia counts in world
affairs. Tomorrow it will count much more than today. Asia till recently was
largely a prey to imperial domination and colonialism; a great part of it is free
today, part of it still remains unfree; and it is an astonishing thing that any country
should still venture to hold and to set forth the doctrine of colonialism, whether it
is under direct rule or whether it is indirectly maintained in some form or other.
After all that has happened, there is going to be no mere objection to that, but
active objection, an active struggle against any and every form of colonialism in
any part of the world. That is the first thing to remember.

We in Asia, who have ourselves suffered all these evils of colonialism and of
imperial domination, have committed ourselves inevitably to the freedom of every
other colonial country. There are neighbouring countries of ours in Asia with
whom we are intimately allied. We look at them with sympathy; we look at their
struggle with sympathy. Any Power, great or small, which prevents the attainment
of the freedom of those peoples does an ill turn to world peace.

Great countries like India who have passed out of that colonial stage do not
conceive it possible that other countries should remain under the yoke of colonial
rule.

Racial Equality

There is another problem which we in Asia regard as a vital problem, and it is a

question to which I want to draw attention: that is the question of racial equality,
which is something which is laid down in the provisions of the United Nations
Charter. It is well to repeat that, because after all this question of racial equality
has frequently been spoken about in the Assembly of the United Nations.

I do not think I need dwell on any particular aspect of that question, but I would
remind this Assembly of the world-wide aspects of this question. Obviously there
are large regions of the world which have suffered from this question of racial
inequality. We also feel that there is no part of the world where it can be tolerated
in the future, except perhaps because of superior force. If racial inequality is
practised, if it is a menace to world peace and if it violates the principles of the
United Nations Charter, to tolerate it is obviously to sow the seeds of conflict.

The effects of this inequality in the past have made themselves felt in Asia,
Africa and other parts of the world much more than in Europe, leading towards a
conflict in the future, and it is a problem which, if it is not properly understood,
will not be solved.

Urgent Economic Problems

It is a strange thing that when the world lacks so many things, food and other
necessities in many parts of the world and people are dying from hunger, the
attention of this Assembly of nations is concentrated only on a number of political
problems. There are economic problems also. I wonder if it would be possible for
this Assembly to take a holiday for a while from some of the acute political
problems which face it, and allow men’s minds to settle down and look at the vital
and urgent economic problems, and look at places in the world where food is
lacking.

I feel that today the world is tied up in fears and apprehensions, some of them
justified no doubt. But where a person feels fear, bad consequences and evil
consequences follow. Fear is not a good companion. It is surprising to see that this
sense of fear pervading great countries - fear, and grave fear of war, and fear of
many things.

Well, I think that it is admitted, or it will be admitted, that no aggression of any

kind can be tolerated, because the very idea of aggression must upset the balance
and lead to conflict. Aggression of every type must be resisted.

There are other forms of fear; there is the fear of war. In existing circumstances
it is difficult for people to say that they will not defend themselves, because if
there is fear of aggression one has to defend oneself against aggression. We have
to defend ourselves but even in defending ourselves, we must not submit
ourselves to this Assembly without clean hands. It is easy to condemn people. Let
us not do so. Who are there without blame, who cannot themselves be
condemned? In a sense, of us all who are gathered here today in this continent of
Europe, are there any who have not been guilty in many ways? We are all guilty
men and women. While we are seeking points where error occurs, we should not
forget that there is not one of us who is exempt from blame.

Banish Fear

If we proceed to this problem, and discuss in peace the psychology of fear, if

we realise the consequences of what is happening, it is possible that this
atmosphere of fear may be dissipated. Why should there be this fear of war? Let
us prepare ourselves against any possible aggression, but let no one think that any
nation, any community, can misbehave. The United Nations is here to prevent any
fear or hurt, but at the same time let us banish all thought of an aggressive
attitude, whether by word or deed.

However, I feel that few of us can altogether avoid this attitude, whether it is in
the course of discussions before this Assembly or elsewhere. One tries to make
one`s points by this sort of language. It is always easy to make one’s points in the
course of a discussion, but there always rests a bitterness which complicates the
problem still further. As I have already said, I ask this Assembly to remember that
such great problems cannot be solved if our eyes are bloodshot and our minds are
obscured by passion.
I have no doubt that this Assembly is going to solve our problems. I am not
afraid of the future. I have no fear in my mind, and I have no fear, even though
India, from a military point of view, is of no great consequence. I am not afraid of
the bigness of great Powers, and their armies, their fleets and their atom bombs.
That is the lesson which my Master taught me. We stood as an unarmed people
against a great country and a powerful empire. We were supported and
strengthened because throughout all this period we decided not to submit to evil,
and I think that is the lesson which I have before me and which is before us today.

I do not know if it is possible to apply this to the problems which face the
world today. It is a terrible problem but I think if we banish this fear, if we have
confidence, even though we may take risks of trust rather than risk violent
language, violent actions and in the end war, I think those risks are worth taking.

In any event, there are risks - and great risks. If it is a question of taking risks,
why take risks which inevitably lead to greater conflict? Take the other risks,
while always preparing yourself to meet any possible contingency that may arise.

India’s Approach

It is perhaps not very proper for me to address this great Assembly in such
matters, because I have not been associated with it nor with all these different
problems in any intimate degree. However, there would have been no point in my
addressing you merely to repeat certain pious phrases. I feel strongly about this
matter, and that is why I should like to present the views and wishes of the Indian
people. And the Indian people happen to be three hundred and thirty millions in
number; it is well to remember that. We have had a year of freedom and a year of
difficulty. We have overcome many of those difficulties and we shall overcome
the others. We propose to go ahead at a rapid pace. We propose to build and
construct and be a power for peace and for the good of the world. We propose to
meet every aggression, from whatever quarter it comes, in every possible way
open to us.

However, we do not think that the problems of the world or of India can be
solved by thinking in terms of aggression or war or violence. We are frail mortals,
and we cannot always live up to the teaching of the great man who led our nation
to freedom. But that lesson has sunk deep into our souls and so long as we
remember it, I am sure we shall be on the right path. And, if I may venture to
suggest this to the General Assembly, I think that if the essentials of that lesson
are kept in mind, perhaps our approach to the problems of today will be different;
perhaps the conflicts that always hang over us will appear a little less deep than
they are and in fact gradually fade away.

I should like to state to this General Assembly, on behalf of my people and my

Government, that we adhere completely and absolutely to the principles and
purposes of the United Nations Charter and that we shall try, to the best of our
ability, to work for the realisation of those principles and purposes.

Road towards Peace

 In conclusion, may I congratulate the General Assembly on the resolution
introduced by the delegation of Mexico which it has just passed? It is certainly a
great resolution. If the General Assembly follows up that resolution, it will go a
long way on the road toward peace and the solution of the problems that are
before us. We may not solve those problems. No one can be optimistic enough to
think that all problems will fade away simply if we feel good; that is not what I
mean to say. The problems are difficult and intricate and they will take a lot of
solving. But I do feel that our approach to those problems should not be the
approach of anger and passion and fear. Then, perhaps, the problems will
gradually appear in a different light. Perhaps, we shall understand the other side
better; perhaps, the fear of one another will grow less in our minds, and then a
solution may come. At any rate, even if the solution does not come, this pall of
fear that surrounds us will grow less, and that in itself will be a partial solution of
the world problem.
 II. MESSAGE BROADCAST BY UNITED NATIONS RADIO,
LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK, MAY 5, 1950
The proposal to limit the United Nations by the exclusion of some nations has
surprised me greatly. Indeed, it seems to forget the very purpose and the very
name of the United Nations.

It is true that the high hopes with which the United Nations Organisation was
started have not been fulfilled. At the same time, there can be no doubt that the
mere fact of its existence has saved us from many dangers and conflicts. Also,
there is no doubt that in the world of today it is the only hope of finding a way for
peaceful cooperation among nations. If the United Nations ceases to be or if it
radically changes its position and nature, then there is nothing left which would
inspire hope for the future. We shall have to go through terrible experiences and
face disasters again before we return to something which offers a forum for all
nations, even though they differ from one another.

The whole conception of One World, however distant that One World may be,
involves an organisation like the United Nations. To imagine that strict
conformity to a single doctrine or approach can solve the problems of the world is
to forget the lessons of history and to ignore the realities of today. However
difficult the path, it has to be pursued by repeated attempts at cooperation on the
part of all nations. Once that attempt is given up, the consequence can only be a
preparation for conflict on a world-wide scale and, ultimately, the conflict itself.

Some people think that, in the circumstances of today, it is quite inevitable that
the world should be divided up into two hostile camps and that every country
should line up on this side or that. Hostility, no doubt, exists but there are many
countries who refuse to line up in this way. These countries believe that neither
the pressure of world events nor their own destiny requires this lining up on either
side and they, therefore, maintain their separate identity and viewpoint and thus
serve the causes they have at heart.

If any attempt is made to change the essential nature of the United Nations, it
will not lead to another or a more powerful organisation which can work for
peace. It would only mean the break-up of something that is actually and
potentially valuable with nothing to take its place. I think, therefore, that the
proposal to exclude any independent country from the United Nations is unwise
and harmful.
 III. ADDRESS TO DELEGATES TO UNITED NATIONS
GENERAL ASSEMBLY, NEW YORK, DECEMBER 20, 1956

The United Nations has grown in the eleven years of its existence. This year,
particularly, it has assumed an even more important position in world affairs than
previously. Of course, even if the United Nations did not do anything wonderful,
the mere fact of the United Nations itself is of the greatest significance to the
world. But recently it has shown that it can face problems courageously and deal
with them with a view to their ultimate solution.

Perhaps, of the many things that have happened in recent years, this is one of
the most hopeful. It may be that the United Nations decides something
occasionally which is not agreeable to some of you or to me. That is bound to
happen. But the point is that there is some forum like this, representing the world
community, which can deal with problems and, if not solve them suddenly by
magic, can positively try to solve them and ultimately, I hope, succeed, and
negatively prevent the consequences of no solution at all.

So this great responsibility and burden has fallen upon you. Although I have
many burdens to carry in my country - and in a distant way all of us are associated
with the work of the United Nations - nevertheless I have not had the privilege
and honour of ever coming here as a delegate. I have heard of your activities and
how, in spite of difficulties, in spite of apparent conflicts, gradually this sense of a
world community conferring together through its elected representatives is not
only happening but seizing the minds of people all over the world.

That, I think, is a great event. I hope that, gradually, each representative here -
while, obviously, not forgetting the interests of his country - will begin to think
that he is something more than the representative of his country, that he
represents, in a small measure perhaps, the world community. I hope that this
thinking in terms of the whole will gradually take the place of separate thinking,
in terms of each country.

Approach to Problems

Quite apart from the problems which you have to face, the thing that worries
me often is the manner of facing these problems. It is because of that that I
welcome this development - gradual, no doubt, and difficult - of a sense of facing
the problems from the larger point of view of the world and of the principles
which are laid down in the United Nations Charter and which should gradually be
translated into effect in the world.

You will forgive me if I refer to something which has very powerfully

influenced my own country. I represent a generation in my country which
struggled for freedom in a particular way, under the guidance of Mahatma
Gandhi. The one major lesson that Mr. Gandhi impressed upon us, in season and
out of season, was how to do things, apart from what we did. Objectives and ends
we all have, but what is important is how to proceed in attaining an objective so
as not to create a fresh problem in the attempt to solve one problem; never to deal
even with the enemy in such a way as not leave a door open for friendship, for
reconciliation.

In this respect our country and the United Kingdom - whatever our past history
of conflict may have been - did set a good example when we came to an
agreement resulting in the independence and freedom of India, and resulting,
further, in friendship between the two countries. It is rather a unique example that
we who, for generations past, had come into conflict with each other, with
resultant feelings of ill will and hostility, nevertheless - having solved the problem
of the independence of India - could forget that past of hostility and could be
friends. Certainly, credit for this is due to both parties, but to some extent it is also
certainly due to the manner of approach that we had under the guidance of Mr.
Gandhi. Always he was telling us: "You are fighting for a principle - for
independence. You are fighting against British imperialism; you are not fighting
the British people; you are not fighting anyone British; be friendly with them."

There were many occasions in India when there was tremendous anger and
bitterness at something that had been done; our people may have been shot down
or beaten down in public streets. But on no occasion, even when passions were
excited, do I remember that an Englishman could not walk unharmed through
even a hostile crowd in India. That is rather remarkable.

I do not say that Indians are more peaceful or better than others. It is not that at
all. They are as feeble specimens of humanity under stress and strain as any, but
this repeated lesson had been driven into our heads. And once or twice, when our
people misbehaved, Mr. Gandhi took a step which enraged us younger people at
the time. He stopped the whole movement. He said, "You have misbehaved. Stop
it. I do not care what the consequences are."

So, year after year, decade after decade, he trained us. I do not know if we
became any better for the training, but a certain habit grew - a habit of thinking as
well as a habit of action.

I gave that instance because I do feel that there is something in it, whether
dealing with national or international problems. Wars come, and whether wars
have been good or bad in the past may be argued. But after the war we often find
that the problems that we have to face are more difficult than before the war. The
problems have not been solved, even though victory has come. The question,
therefore, is to solve problems and not have other problems - perhaps more
difficult problems - afterwards.
 We cannot afford to take a short-term view. We must look ahead, and the only
way to look ahead assuredly is for some kind of world order - call it what you
will; "one world", or whatever it may be - to emerge in this world of ours. There
is no other way. That is obvious.

If that is so, nothing should be done, even in the excitement of the moment,
which comes in the way of the evolution of that order. Nothing should be done
which increases hostility, hatred and bitterness. There is plenty of hatred and
bitterness in the world today. We all feel it. I feel it; you feel it. We cannot
become angels, but nevertheless the actions we indulge in - in a larger way as
nations, or as individuals - might perhaps be so controlled, without giving up a
single principle or opinion that we may hold, as not to make the path of
reconciliation difficult.

World Public Opinion

Recently we have had, apart from the normal major problems of the world, two
developments, incidents, tragedies - call them what you will - which have
engaged the attention of this august Assembly. Whether it is in Egypt or in
Hungary, both were very important and very unfortunate happenings, and yet
both, perhaps, having an element of good in them too, not in the act itself but in
the consequences.

Many things have emerged from these which personally I welcome - apart from
the sorrow at the tragedies - and the one big thing that has emerged is that world
opinion - represented in the United Nations Assembly and elsewhere - is today a
strong enough factor not to tolerate what it considers wrong. That is a very
important factor which, in future, will probably deter or make more difficult any
such aberrations from the path of rectitude by any nation. Every country, weak or
strong, will have to think twice before it does something which enrages world
opinion. That is a good thing, and that itself shows this development of some kind
of conscience of the world.

After all, wars and other conflicts take place essentially because something
happens in the minds of men. In the constitution of UNESCO it is stated that wars
begin in the minds of men. It is perfectly true. Therefore, it becomes important
that any decision we may arrive at - and it should be according to principles no
doubt - must not lead to greater bitterness. To some extent it might. An attempt
should be made to avoid that. The attempt should be to solve the problem and not
merely to exhibit our anger at something that has happened, although there may
be cause for anger and annoyance. After all, we are working for the future. That
future can only be of cooperation between countries based on freedom of nations
and freedom of individuals.

Avoidance of War
 There are these two problems before you, and they are being dealt with by the
Assembly. I can offer no suggestion except what I have said in the way of an
approach to them; that is, the way of tolerance. Tolerance does not mean
carelessness; it does not mean just passivity. It means something active. It does
not mean forgetting any principle that you stand for that is laid down in the
Charter of the United Nations. It is of the greatest importance that the United
Nations, as all of us, should always keep the Charter in mind. That is the basis.

It may be that you cannot give effect to the Charter quickly or suddenly
because the world is imperfect. Nevertheless, step by step one should move in that
direction. The first thing to remember and to strive for is to avoid a situation
getting worse, and finally leading to major conflict because that means the
destruction of all the values one holds.

Because of the development of various new types of weapons, war has really
become an impossible proposition for any sane world or any sane country. Wars
have been terribly bad previously, and we have seen that wars have not solved
any question. Negatively they might have done something; positively, they have
not solved anything. Far from solving anything, they may bring enormous
destruction. So the very first thing to remember is the avoidance of war, and the
avoidance of creating a situation which might drive the world into war. Nobody
wants war, but perhaps we do not always think about creating situations which
might ultimately result in the madness of war. That may perhaps be the rather
negative side to this question.

The positive side consists in working actively for peaceful solutions based on
principles and at the same time based on the future cooperation of the world. We
have to live at peace with our neighbours. There is no other way to live. Today,
with various developments, every country is practically the neighbour of the
other. We therefore have to work for cooperation among all countries of the
world.

Cold War is Negation of United Nations

Unfortunately, we have had what is called the cold war. The cold war is better
than a hot war or a shooting war. It can be pulled back. When a shooting war
begins, nothing can be pulled back until it exterminates a large part of the world.
Nevertheless, surely the idea of the cold war is the very negation of what the
United Nations stands for.

Cold wars mean nourishing the idea of war in the minds of men. If we go on
nourishing the idea of war in the minds of men, then obviously there is always the
danger of its bursting out from the minds to other activities.

Mr. Gandhi, as you know, was devoted to non-violence and preached non-
violence all his life, and yet he said, "If you have a sword in your mind, it is better
to use it than to nurse it and nourish it in your mind all the time. Take it out, use it
and throw it away, instead of being frustrated in yourselves and always thinking
of the sword or the use of the sword and yet superficially trying to avoid it."

I submit to you that this idea of cold war is essentially, fundamentally wrong. It
is immoral. It is opposed to all ideas of peace and cooperation.

It may be, of course, that because human nature is weak, countries may quarrel.
That is a different matter. But let us at least be clear in our minds as to what the
right way is and try to follow that.

Military Alliances are now out of Place

We have, as we know, all kinds of military alliances. It is not for me, especially
on this occasion, to criticise them or to say that they are justified or unjustified.
Nevertheless, since you have been gracious enough to ask me to speak to you, it
would serve little purpose if I talked empty platitudes to you, and I want to place
before you what I have in my own mind. I am quite sure that at the present
moment, as we stand today, all these pacts and military alliances are completely
out of place.

I would go a step further. They are unnecessary, even from the point of view of
those people who have those pacts and alliances. I may admit for the sake of
argument that they were necessary at an earlier stage when conditions were
different, but in the circumstances of today. I do submit that these pacts and
alliances do not add to the strength of any nation. They only make that country or
some other country hostile. Thereby armaments are piled up, and disarmament
becomes more and more difficult. Hatreds continue; in fact, a cold war continues.

If it is our objective, as it must be of any reasonable person, that we must have

peace, then it follows necessarily that we must not have cold war. If we must not
have cold war, then it follows necessarily that we must not buttress our idea of
peace by past military establishments and pacts and alliances. All this seems to
me to follow logically. It may be that you cannot suddenly give effect to your
wishes. That is a different matter, and you must face it. But you must aim at that
and state that you aim at that.

I have no doubt that all the peoples of the world are passionately desirous of
peace. I doubt if there are any people anywhere - even those who sometimes talk
rashly about these matters - who desire war. Certainly the common man all over
the world desires peace passionately. If that is so, why should we not follow the
path of peace? Why should we be led away by fears, apprehensions, hatreds and
violence?

Presence of Foreign Forces and Bases Undesirable

 We have seen and we know that the presence of foreign forces in a country is
always an irritant; it is never liked by that country; it is abnormal.

It may be that an abnormal situation takes place because life is sometimes

illogical and abnormal. But the point is that the presence of foreign forces in
another country is abnormal and undesirable. It does not conduce even to
producing that sense of security which it is meant to produce.

I am a layman, of course, and I know nothing about warfare - but I do possess

some intelligence to consider these matters. I know that with the development of
warfare as it is developing today, as it has developed and will develop, any war
that takes place is likely to be a world war, with missiles hurled from vast
distances. If that is so, even the military practice of having places dotted all over
with armed forces and bases becomes unnecessary and becomes simply an irritant
and an invitation to some other party to do the same, to enter into competition in
evil and wickedness.

How are we to face this problem? I know that we cannot put an end to it by
passing a resolution, even in the United Nations General Assembly. However, if
we are clear in our aim, then surely we can work toward that end, even though it
may take some time.

Problem of Disarmament

Connected with that, naturally, is the very important problem of disarmament.

We all know how difficult it is. I remember that long ago the old League of
Nations had a Preparatory Commission for Disarmament. It worked for years and
produced dozens of fat volumes of arguments and discussions which the League
of Nations itself considered. And it came to nothing.

You cannot, by any manner of disarmament, make a weak country strong or a

non-industrial country the equal of an industrial country. You cannot make a
country which is not scientifically advanced the equal of a country which is.

You can lessen the chances of war, the fear of war. Ultimately, of course, the
entire question is - or at any rate, partly is - a question of confidence and of
lessening the fear of one another. For that purpose, disarmament helps, although it
does not equalise conditions. Dangers remain.

There is a powerful feeling for peace in every country and vast areas of the
world which are backward, poverty-stricken and unhappy, and which passionately
want progress, are having the world’s attention directed to their development.
Surely, that is not only good in itself, but will reduce the sense of fear that
pervades the world and oppresses us.

Countries Should be Independent

 What, then, can our possible steps be? I feel that we must aim at two or three
things.

One is that, according to the Charter, countries should be independent.

Countries that are dominated by another country should cease to be so dominated.
No country or, at any rate, very few countries in the world, can be said to be
independent in the sense that they can do anything they like. There are restraining
factors and quite rightly. In the final analysis, the United Nations itself is a
restraining factor in regard to countries misbehaving or taking advantage of their
so-called independence to interfere with the independence of others. Every
country’s independence surely should be limited in this sense. The first thing,
then, is to have this process of the independence of countries extended until it
covers the whole world.

Armaments do not Ensure Security

Secondly, there is this idea that we can ensure security by increasing our
armaments; this notion has been rather exposed recently, because obviously the
other party can increase its armaments and so, in a sense, the balance of arms
would vary but little. Total destruction may well be the result. Therefore, this
maintenance of armed forces all over the world on foreign soil is basically wrong,
even though such maintenance is with the agreement of the countries concerned.
Those countries may agree to it through fear of somebody else, in order to seek
protection, but it is not a good way of thinking.

If we could remove these armies and simultaneously bring about some measure
of disarmament - although I admit a difficulty in doing so suddenly - I believe the
atmosphere in the world would change completely. I think the natural result
would be a much more rapid progress towards peace and the elimination of fear.
Furthermore, I do not see how you can make progress so long as you, I and all of
us are constantly afraid and are thinking of becoming more powerful than the
other country, and thus speaking to the other country from a position of strength.
Obviously, the other country thinks in the same way and there can be no great
improvement in the situation.

I know that it can be said that all this involves risk to a particular nation or
group of nations. I do not think there is any way to avoid this risk. Human life is
full of risk and uncertainty and, certainly, the existing situation is full of risk and
danger. Therefore, even if you look at it from the point of view of taking a minor
risk to avoid a major one, such minor risk is an improvement. For my own part I
am quite certain there is no risk.

Choice has to be made

 We have seen in the world in the last two or three months how it reacts to what
it considers evil-doing. That is one of the healthiest signs apparent. Even a
country which might seem for the moment to be indulging in wrongful actions
does so because it believes it can carry some part of world opinion with it. If it
cannot carry such opinion, it is difficult for it to proceed. We have seen that even
the biggest and the strongest of nations cannot impose their will against world
opinion.

Therefore, we have developed a very strong protection against a country which

acts wrongly. Why not adopt this protection instead of these armies and
armaments and so on? Instead of countries having armed forces in other countries,
ostensibly to protect them, why not do away with the system of military alliances
and pacts, and face each other frankly and openly and, if there is a quarrel, deal
with it in a normal way, endeavouring to settle it by argument - either in the
United Nations or elsewhere?

We have come to a stage in the world when a choice has to be made. We really
cannot go on following the old path which leads to no particular destination
except the preservation of force and hatred.

I do feel strongly that the events in Egypt and Hungary have introduced in their
own way a certain new phase in historical development. This phase of historical
development must be dealt with by this august Assembly and by all countries with
understanding and sympathy, not with anger nor with the desire to humiliate
anybody, for then you get the psychology of cold war or war fever. Where you
drive a party into war and the choice becomes one of humiliation and surrender -
which few countries are prepared to accept - or war, that is a bad result to produce
even though our motives may be good. If it leads to something wrong, something
that we do not want, then we have erred.

To go back to what I ventured to suggest at the beginning, means are at least as

important as ends; if the means are not right, the end is also likely to be not right,
however much we may want it to be right. And therefore, here especially in this
world Assembly to which all the nations of the world look, I hope an example will
be set to the rest of the world in thinking always about the right means to be
adopted in order to solve our problems. The means should always be peaceful,
not merely in an external way in the non-use of armaments, but in the approach
of the mind. That approach, I have no doubt, will create an entirely different
atmosphere, a climate of peace which will help greatly in the solution of our
problems.
 IV. ADDRESS TO THE ASIAN-AFRICAN GROUP AT THE
UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK, DECEMBER 21, 1956

I wish to express my gratitude to you for this opportunity to meet the members
of this group which has played such an increasing part at the headquarters of the
United Nations and which represents the great continents of Asia and Africa. I am
grateful to you also, Sir, for the very kind and generous sentiments you have
expressed.

I do not quite remember when this group was first started - I am told more than
five years ago - and as with everything which has reality behind, it did not start
artificially, but grew out of circumstances which delegates from these countries
had to face. Anyhow it has grown now, and that is something obviously important
not only for our respective countries, but also for the United Nations.

It can powerfully affect the decisions of the United Nations this way or that
way, and it can affect the policies of our respective countries to some extent.
Some differences arise, I suppose, with all of us, in regard to various policies,
which each country naturally has to determine for itself. Our representatives here
may sometimes find it difficult to say or do something which might commit their
countries without their countries having occasion to consider the questions that
come up from day to day. But it is obvious that all of us who sometimes differ
from each other, facing different problems in each country, have some common
bonds, some common approaches to important questions which have led us to
form this group.

Changes in Asia and Africa

This group took a greater shape and form after the Bandung Conference which
represented countries of Asia and Africa. I have no doubt that this group,
representing Asia and Africa, performs a historic function.

I am not myself very anxious for groups to be formed on a continental basis or

a regional basis, which while on the one hand bringing some countries together,
inevitably results in separating them to some extent from the others who are
outside that group. But that argument, which may be valid in certain
circumstances, does not apply to this particular group. This is a big enough group;
it is a geographical group, even though there might be some differences amongst
them, but representing more specially countries that might be called under-
developed - the countries that should have greater attention for their development
- the countries to which not enough importance was attached in the past.

One of the many changes since the war is a certain shift in the balances in the
world due to changes in Asia and Africa, especially Asia. There is, however, a
tendency still for questions relating to even Asia and Africa, and much more so to
questions outside that region, to be decided by countries outside Asia and Africa.

The old habit that Asian and African problems could be decided by others has
no meaning at all today. But the old habit persists, and it is not an easy matter for
people and countries to get out of the ways of thinking to which they had grown
accustomed in the past. They have not adjusted themselves to the reality in Asia
and Africa. Asia and Africa are not static but changing and developing. This
basic fact should be kept in view.

I had the privilege of addressing the United Nations General Assembly about
eight years ago in Paris, and I laid stress even then on this fact. I imagine the
necessity for stressing this fact is not great today.

Recent months have seen many things happening in the world and more
especially one particular matter which powerfully affects countries in Asia and
Africa and others, a situation that arose in Egypt owing to invasion and
intervention. I have no doubt it will powerfully affect the future.

Building for the Future

May I say a word or two about how perhaps we might help in the solution of
these problems that affect us in Asia and Africa and even world problems which
are outside our region but which affect us?

This group consists of distinguished representatives of countries functioning in

the United Nations who have to grapple with problems with a view to their
solution, not merely with a view to expressing opinion strongly this way or that
way. After all, we are grappling with problems when we want to avoid war, when
we want economic and political and social progres, and when we want to develop
a feeling of good fellowship among ourselves and all other countries of the world.

The Bandung Conference was held for us to get together. It was not meant to be
some kind of conference opposed to Europe or America. That was not our
intention.

We are building for the future, not merely deciding problems on which votes
might be taken in the U. N. today or tomorrow. We are building up a future not
of conflict between continents, but a future of cooperation and good fellowship of
free and independent nations. We should take no steps that take us into another
direction. Things have happened in the world which have moved us greatly and
have angered us, yet anger does not help us in solving the problems. The angered
actions of today may be stumbling blocks of tomorrow.

This juncture of history - which I consider a very important juncture because I

do believe that we have arrived at a certain phase in historical development which
is of great importance - may well lead us away from all the troubles of the "Cold
War" and conflict between nations, towards a somewhat better and cooperative
future.

I do not say that this will happen suddenly, but I do say that something has
been happening, which has been more evident lately, and we should take
advantage of it. It is obvious that each country can play a helpful role, and the U.
N. can play the most helpful role of all. This group can play an important role, not
only by pressing the claim of Asian and African countries, but in doing so
impressing the world that we are working not merely in an angry way reflecting
the passions of the moment, but that we have in view the future which we and
others will inherit.

I do trust that this may be kept in view, that the prestige of this group will rise
and that it will wield more influence than its votes in the General Assembly,
because we stand for something constructive and not destructive. We want
constructive efforts to solve the problems of the world.

May I finally express my great pleasure at some of the recent admissions of

members to the United Nations and to this group, including Japan which came in
a few days ago. A little before that Morocco and Tunisia and Sudan came in, and I
have no doubt that these countries will play a very important part in the United
Nations and more especially in this group.

I am very grateful to you, friends, for this opportunity to meet you and say a
few words to you.
 V. ADDRESS TO THE COMMONWEALTH GROUP AT THE
UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK, DECEMBER 21, 1956

Mr. Pearson, Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you know, I have come to this great city and great institution just for two
days, and I have had a large number of engagements, but I am particularly glad
that it was possible for me to come here for a short time and meet the
representatives of the Commonwealth at the United Nations. I know that the
Commonwealth group here meets from time to time to discuss matters and
express their respective opinions. I think that is a good thing. It is not enough
merely to deliver formal speeches at the United Nations. It is much more
important that we should discuss problems and matters in a more informal way
amongst ourselves. That helps at least to understand the other’s position, even if
one does not wholly agree, and that is a great thing.

You have just referred, Mr. Pearson, to certain statements of mine in regard to
the Commonwealth during the last two or three months. I spoke in our own
Parliament on several occasions about the Commonwealth and made perfectly
clear what the attitude of our Government is to it, in spite of differences of
opinion on important matters. I do attach importance to this Commonwealth
connection which I think is not only good for ourselves, but is good also to the
larger cause of peace that we represent.

There are far too many disruptive tendencies in the world: any tendency which
brings together rather than separates is to be welcomed. The Commonwealth
represents such a powerful tendency and shows vitality; it can help in our having
many common approaches and common ways of working in spite of our
differences.

I hope that these meetings of your group here will continue and will help each
one of us to thrash out problems and reach agreements if possible; and even if we
differ, to agree to differ and remain friends and associates in the Commonwealth.
 VI. ADDRESS TO THE FIFTEENTH SESSION OF THE
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, NEW YORK,
OCTOBER 3, 1960
I am a newcomer to this Assembly and not accustomed to its ways and
conventions. I seek, therefore, the indulgence of the President, and the indulgence
of the members of the Assembly for what I have to say.

I have listened attentively and with respect to many of the speeches here, and
sometimes I have felt as if I were being buffeted by the icy winds of the cold war.
Coming from a warm country, I have shivered occasionally at these cold blasts.

Sitting here in this Assembly chamber, an old memory comes back to me. In
the fateful summer of 1938 I was a visitor at a meeting of the League of Nations
in Geneva. Hitler was advancing then and holding out threats of war. There was
mobilisation in many parts of Europe and the tramp of armoured men was heard,
but even so the League of Nations appeared to be unconcerned with the shadow of
war and discussed all manner of topics but not the most vital subject of the day.

War did not start then. It was a year later that it descended upon the world with
all its thunder and destructive fury. After many years of carnage that war ended
and a new age, the atomic age, was ushered in by the terrible experiences of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fresh from these horrors the minds of men turned to
thoughts of peace and there was a passionate desire to put an end to war itself.

Tribute to the United Nations

The United Nations took birth on a note of high idealism, embodied in the
noble wording of the Charter. There was this aspect of idealism, but there was
also a realisation of the state of the post-war world as it was then, and so
provision was made in the structure of the Organisation to balance certain
conflicting urges. There were the permanent members of the Security Council and
the provision for great Power unanimity. All this was not very logical, but it
represented certain realities of the world as it was. Because of this we accepted it.
At that time many large areas in Asia, and even more so in Africa, were not
represented in the United Nations as they were under colonial domination. Since
then the colonial part of the world has shrunk greatly and we welcome here many
countries from Africa in their new freedom. The United Nations has become
progressively more representative, but we must remember that even now it is not
fully so.

Colonialism still has its strong footholds in some parts and racialism and racial
domination are still prevalent, more especially in Africa.

During these past fifteen years the United Nations has often been criticised for
its structure and for some of its activities. These criticisms have often had some
justification behind them, but looking at the broad picture I think that we can
definitely say that the United Nations has amply justified its existence and
repeatedly prevented our recurrent crises from developing into war. It has played
a great role, and it is a little difficult now to think of this troubled world without
the United Nations. If it has defects, those defects lie in the world situation itself
which, inevitably, it mirrors. If there had been no United Nations today, our first
task would have been to create something of that kind. I should like, therefore, to
pay my tribute to the work of the United Nations as a whole, even though I might
criticise some aspects of it from time to time.

Move Forward to Full Cooperation among Nations

The structure of the United Nations when it started was weighted in favour of
Europe and the Americas. It did not seem to us to be fair to the countries of Asia
and Africa, but we appreciated the difficulties of the situation and did not press
for any changes. With the growth of the United Nations and with more countries
coming into it, that structure today is still more unbalanced.

Even so, we wish to proceed slowly and with agreement and not to press for
any change which would involve an immediate amendment of the Charter and the
raising of heated controversies. Unfortunately, we live in a split world which is
constantly coming up against the basic assumptions of the United Nations. We
have to bear with this and try to move ever more forward to that conception of full
cooperation between nations. That cooperation does not and must not mean any
domination of one country by another, any coercion or compulsion forcing any
country to line up with another country. Each country has something to give and
something to take from others. The moment coercion is exercised, that country’s
freedom is not only impaired but also its growth suffers.

We have to acknowledge that there is great diversity in the world and this
variety is good and is to be encouraged, so that each country may grow and its
creative impulse may have full play in accordance with its own genius.

Hundreds and thousands of years of past history have conditioned us in our

respective countries, and our roots go deep down into the soil. If these roots are
pulled out, we wither, but if these roots remain strong and we allow the winds
from the four quarters to blow in upon us, then they will yield branch and flower
and fruit.

World Without War

Many of the speakers from this forum have surveyed the world scene and
spoken on a variety of problems. I should like to concentrate on what I consider to
be the basic problem of all. If necessity arises we may, with the permission of the
President, intervene later with regard to other problems.
 My own mind is naturally filled with the problems of my own country and our
passionate desire to develop and put an end to the poverty and low standards
which have been a curse to our hundreds of millions of people. To that end we
labour, as indeed other under-developed countries are also doing.

Seated here in this tremendous and impressive city of New York, with all the
achievements of modern science, technology and human effort, my mind often
goes back to our villages in India and my countrymen who live there. We have no
desire to imitate or to compete with any other country, but we are firmly resolved
to raise the standards of our people and give them the opportunities to lead a good
life. Even though this fills our minds, I do not propose to speak to you on this
subject here because there is something else that is of even greater importance,
that is, peace.

Without peace all our dreams vanish and are reduced to ashes. The Charter of
the United Nations declares our determination "to save succeeding generations
from the scourge of war", and "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights...
and for these ends to practise tolerance and live together in peace and with one
another as good neighbours."

The main purpose of the United Nations is to build up a world without war, a
world based on the co operation of nations and peoples. It is not merely a world
where war is kept in check for a balancing of armed forces. It is much deeper than
that. It is a world from which the major causes of war have been removed and
social structures built up which further peaceful cooperation within a nation as
well as between nations.

In the preamble of the Constitution of the United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organisation it is stated that wars begin in the minds of
men. That is essentially true, and ultimately it is necessary to bring about this
change in our minds and to remove fears and apprehensions, hatreds and
suspicions.

Disarmament is a part of this process for it will create an atmosphere helpful to

cooperation. But it is only a step towards our objective, a part of the larger effort
to rid the world of war and the causes of war. In the present context, however,
disarmament becomes of very special importance for us all, overriding all others.
But we must always remember that even in pursuing disarmament we have to
keep in view our larger purpose.

Choice is between Annihilation and Peaceful Co-existence

For many years past there has been talk of disarmament, and some progress has
undoubtedly been made in so far as plans and proposals are concerned. But still
we find that the armaments race continues, and so also the effort to find ever more
powerful engines of destruction. Fear and hatred overshadow the world. If even a
small part of this effort was directed to the search for peace, probably the problem
of disarmament would have been solved by this time. Apart from the moral
imperative of peace, every practical consideration leads us to that conclusion, for
as everyone knows, the choice today in this nuclear age is one between utter
annihilation and destruction of civilisation, or of some way to have peaceful co-
existence between nations. There is no middle way.

The world consists of a great variety of nations and peoples differing in their
ideas and urges and in their economic development. All of them desire peace and
progress for their people, and yet many of them are afraid of each other and
therefore cannot concentrate on the quest for peace. We must recognise this
variety of opinion and objectives in the world and not seek to coerce or compel
others to function according to our own particular way. The moment there is an
attempt at coercion, there is fear and conflict and the seeds of war are sown. That
is the basic philosophy underlying the attempt to avoid military or other violent
methods for the solution of problems. That is the main reason which impels those
countries who are called "unaligned" to avoid military pacts.

If war then is an abomination and the ultimate crime which has to be avoided
and combated, then we must fashion our minds and policies accordingly and not
hesitate because of our fears to take steps forward. There may be risks but the
greatest risk is to allow the present dangerous drift to continue. To achieve peace
we have to try to develop a climate of peace and tolerance and avoid speech and
action which tends to increase fear and hatred.

United Nations and Disarmament

It may not be possible to reach full disarmament in one step, though every step
should be conditioned to that end. Much has already been done in these
discussions of disarmament; but the sands of time run out and we dare not play
about with this or delay its consideration. That, indeed, is the main duty of the
United Nations today and if it fails in this, the United Nations fails in its main
purpose.

We live in an age of great revolutionary changes brought about by the advance

of science and technology. Therein lies hope for the world and also the danger of
sudden death. Because of these advances the time we have for controlling the
forces of destruction is strictly limited. If within the next three or four years
effective disarmament is not agreed to and implemented, then it may be too late
and all the good will in the world will not be able to stop the drift to certain
disaster. We may not therefore delay or postpone the consideration of this vital
problem.

In the context of things today, two great nations, the United States and the
Soviet Union, hold the key to war and peace. Theirs is a great responsibility. But
every country, small or big, is concerned in this matter of peace and war and
therefore every country must shoulder this responsibility and work to this end.

It is easy to criticise the action or inaction of any country; but this criticism
does not help us much; it only increases tension and fear, and nations take up rigid
attitudes from which it is difficult to dislodge them. The issues before the world
are too vital to be left to a few countries only or to be affected by personal likes or
dislikes. In order to deal with these big issues effectively we have to take big and
impersonal views. It is only the United Nations as a whole that can ultimately
solve this problem. Therefore, while all efforts towards disarmament must be
welcomed, the United Nations should be closely associated with them.

The question of disarmament has been considered at various levels. There is

general disarmament and the ending of test explosions of nuclear and thermo-
nuclear weapons. So far as test explosions are concerned, considerable progress
has been made by the Conference which has been meeting in Geneva. Indeed, it
would appear that an agreement has been reached there on many basic issues and
only a little more effort is needed to complete this agreement. I suggest that a final
agreement on the subject should be reached as early as possible. That is not,
strictly speaking, disarmament, but undoubtedly any such agreement will bring a
large measure of relief to the world.

Disarmament must include the prohibition of the manufacture, storage and use
of weapons of mass destruction, as well as the progressive limitation of
conventional weapons. It is well to remember that there is a great deal of common
ground already covered, and the various proposals made by different countries
indicate this common ground, but certain important questions have not yet been
solved. Behind all this lies the fear of a surprise attack and of any one country
becoming stronger than the other in the process of disarmament. It is admitted that
disarmament should take place in such stages as to maintain broadly the balance
of armed power. It is on this basis only that success can be achieved and this
pervading sense of fear countered.

There is an argument as to whether disarmament should precede controls or

whether controls should precede disarmament. This a strange argument because it
is perfectly clear that disarmament without controls is not a feasible proposition.
It is even more clear that controls without disarmament have no meaning. The
whole conception of controls comes in only because of disarmament. It is not
proposed, I hope, to have controls of existing armaments and thus in a way to
perpetuate those armaments. It must therefore be clearly understood that
disarmament and a machinery for control must go together, and neither of these
can be taken up singly. It seems very extraordinary to me that great nations should
argue about priorities in this matter and make that a reason for not going ahead.
Therefore, both questions should be tackled simultaneously and as parts of a
single problem.
 Success may not come immediately, but it is, I think, of the greatest importance
that there should be no gap, no discontinuity, in our dealing with this problem.
Once there is discontinuity, this will lead to a rapid deterioration of the present
situation and it will be much more difficult to start afresh.

A proposal has been made that this question of disarmament should be referred
to a group of experts. One can have no objection to such a reference but, in fact,
experts have been considering this matter during the past many years and we have
the advantage of their views. In any event, any reference to a committee of
experts should not lead to any postponement of the major issue. Any such delay
would be disastrous. Possibly while the major issues are being considered by the
United Nations commissions or other committees, a reference of any particular
special aspect might be made to the experts. What is important is that the United
Nations at this present juncture should ensure that there is adequate machinery for
promoting disarmament and this machinery should function continuously from
now onwards.

The fear of surprise attacks or accidental happenings leading to dangerous

consequences is undoubtedly present. That itself is a reflection of the climate of
cold war in which unfortunately we are living. The best way to deal with this fear
is to reduce this international tension and create an atmosphere which will make it
very difficult for any surprise attack to take place. In that atmosphere, even some
accidental happening may not lead to a final crisis.

In addition to this, such other steps as may be considered necessary for the
prevention of surprise attacks should be taken. Thus, if there is an agreement on
the subject of nuclear tests and the use of vehicles, immediately the danger from
surprise attacks will be greatly lessened.

Ferment in Africa

While disarmament is by far the most important and urgent problem before the
United Nations and is a subject which brooks no delay, we have to face today a
situation in Africa, in the Congo, which has led the United Nations to assume
heavy and novel responsibilities. Everyone present here, I am sure, warmly
welcomes the coming of independence to many parts of Africa and to many
peoples there who have suffered untold agony for ages past. We can see very well
that the United Nations has shown its readiness to help them in various ways.

There are three aspects of these African problems. First, there is the full
implementation of the independence and freedom that have been achieved.
Secondly, there is the liberation of those countries in Africa which are still under
colonial domination. This has become an urgent task. Today, some of these
countries are almost cut off from the outside world and even news is not allowed
to reach us. From such accounts as we have, the fate of the people there is even
worse than we have known in other parts of Africa. Thirdly, there is the question
of some countries in Africa which are independent, but where that freedom is
confined to a minority and the great majority have no share in it and, indeed, are
suppressed politically, socially and racially in defiance of everything that the
United Nations and the world community stand for. Racialism and the doctrine of
the master race dominating over others can be tolerated no longer and can only
lead to vast racial conflicts.

Recent developments in Africa have indicated the great danger of delay. It is

not possible any longer to maintain colonial domination in any of these countries,
and I think it is the duty and the basic responsibility of the United Nations to
expedite this freedom. There is a tremendous ferment all over the continent of
Africa, and this has to be recognised and appreciated and met with foresight and
wisdom.

United Nations Role in the Congo

The question of the Republic of the Congo has come before us especially and
cast on the United Nations difficult responsibilities. The first thing that strikes one
is the utter failure of the colonial system which left the Congo in its present state.
Long years of colonial rule resulted in extracting vast wealth from that country for
the enrichment of the colonial Power, while the people of the country remained
utterly poor and backward.

What is the role of the United Nations in the Congo? The situation there is a
complicated and frequently changing one, and it is not always easy to know what
is happening. Disruptive forces have been let loose and have been encouraged by
people who do not wish well to this newly independent State. Some footholds of
the old colonialism are still engaged in working to this end. It appears that many
thousands of Belgians, including military men, are still in the Congo, more
especially in Katanga Province. Because of past colonial history, this is
particularly unfortunate and is likely to be considered a continuation of
occupation, by whatever name it may be called. Also, it is an encouragement to
the disruption of the State.

We must realise that it is essential to maintain the integrity of the Congo for, if
there is disintegration of the State, this is bound to lead to internal civil war on a
large scale. There will be no peace in the Congo except on the basis of the
integrity of the State. Foreign countries must particularly avoid any interference in
these internal affairs or encouragement to one faction against another.

The role of the United Nations is a mediatory one: to reconcile and to help in
the proper functioning of the Central Government. Help in the development of the
Congo is again a tremendous and long-term problem. Ultimately it is the people
of the Congo who will have to produce their own leadership, whether it is good or
bad. Leadership cannot be imposed, and any attempt to do so will lead to conflict.
The United Nations obviously cannot act all the time as policeman, nor should
any outside Power intervene.

There is at present an elected Parliament in the Congo, though it does not

appear to be functioning. I think that it should be the function of the United
Nations to help this Parliament to meet and function so that, out of its
deliberations, the problems of the Congo may be dealt with by the people
themselves. Decisions must be those of the Parliament as representing the people
of the Congo, and not of others. The functioning of Parliament may itself lead to
the ironing out of internal differences. I hope that it will be possible soon for the
Congo to take its place in the Assembly of the United Nations.

The Security Council has repeatedly laid stress on Belgian military personnel’s
leaving the Congo. These decisions have apparently not been given full effect.
This is highly undesirable. It seems to me of great importance, in view both of
past history and present conditions, that every type of Belgian military or semi-
military personnel should leave the Congo. The General Assembly might well
consider sending a delegation to the Congo to find out what foreign troops or
other personnel, apart from those sent on behalf of the United Nations, are still
there and how far they are interfering in local affairs.

Recently an emergency special session of the General Assembly considered the

situation in the Congo and made certain suggestions. I think that the resolution
adopted by the emergency special session has rightly indicated the broad lines of
approach, and the basic principles laid down in it should be implemented.

Adapt United Nations Machinery

The Congo situation has emphasised the increasing responsibilities of the

United Nations. Not only have military forces been sent there, but the problem of
the development of a huge country has become partly the responsibility of the
United Nations. These responsibilities cannot be shirked, and it may have to be
considered how best to shoulder these responsibilities.

Two aspects have to be borne in mind. The broad policies in these grave
matters must be laid down by the General Assembly or by the Security Council.
In so far as executive action is concerned, it would not be desirable for the
executive to be weakened when frequent and rapid decisions have to be made.
That would mean an abdication of the responsibilities undertaken by the United
Nations.

If the executive itself is split up and pulls in different directions, it will not be
able to function adequately or with speed. For that reason, the executive should be
given authority to act within the terms of the directions issued. At the same time
the executive has to keep in view all the time the impact of various forces in the
world, for we must realise that unfortunately we live in a world where there are
many pulls in different directions. The Secretary-General might well consider
what organisational steps should be taken to deal adequately with this novel
situation.

It has been suggested that some structural changes should take place in the
United Nations. Probably some changes would be desirable, as I have indicated
above, and because of the emergence of many independent countries in Asia and
Africa. But any attempt at bringing about these structural changes by an
amendment of the Charter at the present juncture is likely to raise many
controversial questions and thus add greatly to the difficulties we face.

It should be possible for us, even within the terms of the Charter, to adapt the
United Nations machinery to meet situations as they arise, in view more
especially of the increasing responsibilities of the United Nations.

If, as I earnestly hope, disarmament makes progress, then another domain of

vast responsibility will come to the United Nations. It will have to be carefully
considered how this responsibility is to be discharged. Possibly several special
commissions, working together under the umbrella of the United Nations, might
be charged with this task.

I have referred to the situation in Africa and to the Congo, as it is an immediate

issue for us, but I should like to make it clear that neither this immediate issue
nor any other should be allowed to delay the consideration of what I consider the
most vital issue facing us in the world, that is, the disarmament issue.

Representation of China

I do not propose to deal with many other matters here but, in view of the
controversy that is at present going on in the General Assembly, I should like to
refer briefly to the question of the proper representation of China in the United
Nations. For a number of years India has brought this issue before the United
Nations because we have felt that it was not only improper for this great and
powerful country to remain unrepresented but that this had an urgent bearing on
all world problems, and especially those of disarmament.

We hold that all countries must be represented in the United Nations. We have
welcomed during this session many new countries. It appears most extraordinary
that any argument should be advanced to keep out China and to give the seat
meant for China to those who certainly do not and cannot represent China.

It is well known that we in India have had, and are having, a controversy with
the Government of the People’s Republic of China about our frontiers. In spite of
that controversy, we continue to feel that proper representation of the People’s
Republic of China in the United Nations is essential, and the longer we delay it
the more harm we cause to the United Nations and to the consideration of the
major problems we have before us. This is not a question of liking or disliking,
but of doing the right and proper thing.

Membership of Mongolia

In this connexion, I should like to mention another country, Mongolia. When

we are, rightly, admitting so many countries to the United Nations, why should
Mongolia be left out? What wrong has it done, what violation of the Charter?
Here is a quiet and peaceful people working hard for its progress, and it seems to
me utterly wrong from any point of principle to exclude it from this great
Organisation.

India has a special sentiment in regard to Mongolia, because our relations go

back into the distant past of more than 1,500 years. Even now there are many
evidences of those old contacts and friendly relations between these two
countries. I would earnestly recommend that Mongolia be accepted in this world
assembly of nations.

Algerian Freedom

There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, and that is Algeria. It
has been a pain and a torment to many of us in Asia, as in Africa and possibly
elsewhere, to witness this continuing tragedy of a brave people fighting for its
freedom. Many arguments have been advanced and many difficulties pointed out,
but the basic fact is that the people have struggled continuously for many years at
tremendous sacrifice and against heavy odds to attain independence. Once or
twice it appeared that the struggle might end satisfactorily in freedom by the
exercise of self-determination, but the moment slipped by and the tragedy
continued.

I am convinced that every country in Asia and Africa and, I believe, many
countries in other continents also, are deeply concerned over this matter and hope
earnestly that this terrible war will end, bringing freedom in its train for the
Algerian people. This is an urgent problem to which the United Nations must
address itself in order to bring about an early solution.

Five-nation Resolution

Two or three days ago I presented, on behalf of Ghana, the United Arab
Republic, Indonesia, Yugoslavia and India, a resolution to the General Assembly.
That resolution is a simple one and requires little argument to support it. It does
not seek to prejudge any issue. It does not seek to bring pressure to bear on any
country or individual. There is no cynicism in it. The main purpose of that
resolution is to avoid a deadlock in the international situation. Every
representative present here knows how unsatisfactory that situation is today and
how gradually every door and window for the discussion of vital issues is being
closed and bolted.

As the resolution says, we are deeply concerned with the recent deterioration in
international relations which threatens the world with grave consequences. There
can be no doubt that people everywhere in the world look to the Assembly to take
some step to help to ease the situation and lessen world tension. If the Assembly
is unable to take that step, there will be utter disappointment everywhere, and not
only will the deadlock continue but there will be a drift in a direction from which
it will become increasingly difficult to turn back.

The Assembly cannot allow itself to be paralysed in a matter of such vital

importance. The responsibility for this deadlock has to be shared by all of us, but
in the circumstances as they exist in the world today a great deal depends upon
the two mighty nations, the United States and the Soviet Union, and if even a
small step could be taken by them the world would heave a sigh of relief. We do
not expect that by the renewal of contacts between these two great countries some
solution is likely to emerge. We do not underrate the difficulties. Realizing all
this, and after giving a great deal of thought to these matters, we decided to share
our apprehension with the Assembly and to suggest this step which undoubtedly
will help to ease tension.

The resolution has not been placed before this Assembly to add to the
controversies already existing, nor to embarrass anyone, but solely with the
desire, anxiously felt, that something must be done. We cannot meet here in this
Assembly and sit helplessly by, watching the world drift in a direction which can
only end in catastrophe.

Last night I received a letter from the President of the United States in which he
was good enough to deal with this resolution. I presume that the other sponsors of
this resolution have also received a similar reply. This reply has appeared in the
Press. I am grateful to the President for writing to me in reply immediately after
receiving our communication. Although this reply does not indicate that any
contacts such as we have recommended are likely to take place in the near future,
I should like to point out to this Assembly that the President has not wholly
rejected the idea.

The door is still open for consideration, and the President of the United States
has expressed his deep anxiety to help in the lessening of international tensions.
The President has pointed out that:

"... the chief problems in the world today are not due to differences
between the Soviet Union and the United States alone, and therefore are
not possible of solution on a bilateral basis.
 "The questions which are disrupting the world at the present time are of
immediate and vital concern to other nations as well."

May I respectfully express my complete agreement with what the President has
said? We are convinced that these great questions cannot be dealt with on a
bilateral basis, or even by a group of countries. They are of immediate and vital
concern to the entire world and to all those who have gathered here at this General
Assembly session from the four corners of the earth. It was because of this feeling
that some of us ventured to put this resolution before the General Assembly. If the
matter were of concern only to two countries, then perhaps no necessity would
have arisen for us to raise it here.

Nor did we think that a mere renewal of contacts would lead to some magical
solution. Such a solution will come only after long and arduous labour in which
many countries participate. But we did think that, in this present situation of
dangerous drift, even a small approach on behalf of the two great representatives
of two great countries would make a difference and might mark a turn of the tide.

Oppressed by the growing anger and bitterness in international relations, we

wanted to find some way out, so that further consideration might be given to these
problems. We have suggested no remedy, no particular solution, in our draft
resolution. But we did feel, and we still feel, that the General Assembly should
consider this problem and try its utmost to find a way to remove the new barriers
that have arisen.

As the President of the United States has rightly stated, the importance of these
matters is such as to go beyond personal or official relations between any two
individuals. We are dealing with the future of humanity, and no effort which
might improve the present situation should be left undone. It was with that
intention that we put forward the resolution, as a part of the efforts that should be
made to open the door for future consultations, not only between the two eminent
individuals who are mentioned in the resolution, but by the world community.

I earnestly appeal to the General Assembly to adopt the resolution unanimously

at an early date, and I trust that it will do so.

Labour for Peace

In this world, enveloped and bedevilled by the cold war and all its progeny,
with problems awaiting urgent solution, I have ventured to add my voice in
appeal. I do believe that the vast majority of people in every country want us to
labour for peace and to succeed. Whether we are large or small, we have to face
large issues, issues vital to the future of humanity. Everything else is of lesser
importance than this major question.
 I am absolutely convinced that we shall never solve this question by war or by
the mental approach which envisages war and prepares for it. I am equally
convinced that if we aim at the right ends right means must be employed. Good
will not emerge out of evil methods. That was a lesson which our great leader,
Gandhi, taught us - and, though we in India have failed in many ways in
following his advice, something of his message still clings to our minds and
hearts.

In ages long past, a great son of India, the Buddha, said that the only real
victory is one in which all are equally victorious and there is defeat for no one. In
the world today, that is the only practical victory. Any other way will lead to
disaster. It is therefore this real victory of peace, in which all are winners, that I
should like the Assembly to keep before it and endeavour to achieve.
 VII. SPEECHES ON FIVE-POWER RESOLUTION FOR
EASING WORLD TENSION, OCTOBER 5, 1960

A. Speech on the Australian Amendment

I should like at the beginning to say that I welcome the small amendment to the
five-Power resolution which was proposed by the Foreign Minister of the United
Arab Republic. This amendment makes no effective change, but I think it is a
happier way of putting forward the idea contained in the draft resolution.

Some three or four days ago, when it was my privilege to put forward this
resolution from five nations before the Assembly, I expressed the hope that it
would be unanimously accepted. It did not seem to me reasonably possible that
any member of this Assembly could object to that resolution. It is simple. It is
straightforward. There is nothing contained in it against this person or that person
or this group or that group. But it does represent a strong desire, a passionate
desire, to get things moving. It does represent the feeling that this Assembly
should not sit by helplessly watching, paralysed, as if it could not act. It
represented something to do - not much, maybe; but it might come to something.

Nothing can be worse than this Assembly arriving at a stage where it cannot
move and can only deliver speeches about general problems. Therefore, it was
with considerable surprise that I received the next day or the day after the
amendment submitted by Australia. I read it with care. I found some difficulty in
understanding it. I read it again. And the more I read it the more surprised I was
that any member of the Assembly should have put this forward as an amendment.

Not an Amendment

I venture to place before this Assembly my reasons for this. First of all, it
seemed to me, quite patently, that it had nothing to do by way of amending the
proposition which we had put forward. It is not an amendment. Perhaps I do not
know the rules of this Assembly, but it is not an amendment. The Prime Minister
of Australia, in his speech, made it quite clear that it is not an amendment,
although he may call it so. Therefore, it is not an amendment.

It may be, of course, a separate draft resolution in some form or another. It

might have been brought forward and considered by the Assembly. Of course, if it
was so considered, I would have much to say about it and against it; but, anyhow,
it might have been considered separately. It is not an amendment to this resolution
which the five nations have put forward. I could not understand this departure
from the normal workings of this Assembly. I could not quite understand what
meaning lay behind this so-called amendment.

I have the greatest respect for the Prime Minister of Australia, more especially
for his keen mind and ability. I wondered if that keen mind and ability had not
tried to cover up, with a jumble of words, something which had no meaning at all
- or the wrong meaning. So I was particularly keen and anxious to listen to the
Prime Minister of Australia in order that he might throw some light on this aspect
of this question which I had failed to understand. And I listened to him with great
care. And the more I listened the more confused I grew. And the more I listened
the more I realised that there is no substantive idea in this motion, but some idea
of just dislike of what the five-nation resolution had suggested. Why dislike it?
That, I could not understand.

He said, clearly, that he dissented from the last paragraph of that resolution - a
very big paragraph, a very innocuous one; nevertheless, a paragraph with very
considerable meaning. In fact, the whole draft resolution led up to that; the rest is
a preamble. Therefore, he dissented from the very basis of this draft resolution.
He came forward with his amendment to it, and he said that the effect of this draft
resolution, if carried, would be undesirable. I wondered if I had understood him
correctly or if I had made some mistake in regard to what he said. Why, I ask the
Prime Minister, from any point of view, from any approach, could the adoption of
this resolution possibly be undesirable? I have given thought to this matter, and I
am quite unable to understand this reasoning. Therefore, it must be undesirable
from some point of view of which I am not aware. It must be undesirable from
some point of view which has nothing to do with this resolution. That is the
conclusion I arrived at.

I would put to the Assembly, with respect and without meaning offence: is this
rather trivial way of dealing with this not only important but vital question which
is shaking the world - the question of world conflict and how to avoid it -
rendered proper, by calling it an amendment of the resolution? I submit that we
are discussing - although we are using simple words here - very important
matters, matters affecting this Assembly, matters affecting the world.

The Prime Minister, in his argument, talked about a conference. Why does our
resolution suggest a meeting or a conference? I would beg him to read the
resolution again and again, because he has failed to understand it. It does not
necessarily suggest a conference or a meeting. It suggests a renewal contacts.

Then again, he asked, why should two people meet? Why should not four
meet? Why dismiss the United Kingdom and France? Why omit them from
summit talks? These are quotations which I took down when he was speaking.
Why all this? he asked. Well, simply because there is no "why?" about it -
because nobody is dismissing anybody, or pushing anybody out, or suggesting it.
He has again missed the point of the resolution and has considered, possibly, that
there is some kind of, shall I say, secret motive behind this. I really regret that any
such idea should have gone abroad.

The draft resolution was put forward in all good faith for the purposes named in
it, and to suspect it of some secret device to push somebody out, or not to pay
adequate respect to some country, is not fair of the honourable gentleman. Indeed,
I greatly regret to say that the Prime Minister of Australia has done very little
justice to himself in proposing this amendment or in making the speech he did.
And I am sure that the Assembly will not look at this matter from the superficial
points of view which the Prime Minister put forward, but will consider it from the
basic point of view which is of the highest importance to the Assembly and to the
world.

Role of the Assembly

Let us look at this amendment, which I think is not amendment. The wording is
interesting. It says:

"Recalling that a Conference between the President of the United States

of America, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, the President of the French Republic and the
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland was arranged to take place in Paris on 17 May 1960,"

now note the words

"in order that these four leaders should examine matters of particular
and major concern for their four nations,"

It is a private matter between the four nations, according to the Prime Minister of
Australia. What has the Assembly to do with it? Then, this amendment says:

"Believing that much benefit for the world could arise from a
cooperative meeting of the Heads of Government of these four nations in
relation to those problems which particularly concern them,"

Now this is a very extraordinary idea to put before the Assembly - that is, that
these matters, these so-called summit meetings and the rest, are private concerns
of the four eminent dignitaries, Heads of State or Prime Ministers, of these four
countries. Where does the Assembly come in? Where do all of us who happen to
be in the outer darkness come in?

The Prime Minister of Australia then said that we, the sponsors of this draft
resolution, had fallen into some communist trap which was aimed at describing
the world as being divided up, or as dealing with two great protagonists and
ignoring the world.

What the communist technique may be in regard to this matter I am not aware.
It may be like this, it may not be: I am not particularly concerned with these
techniques. But it seems to me that the Prime Minister of Australia’s technique is
obvious. It is, "There are these four great Powers" - whom we respect, of course,
whom we honour - "so leave it to them. What business has the Assembly to deal
with these matters? It is obvious - his amendment says so. Now surely this kind of
thing, this idea, this approach, cannot, should not, must not be accepted.

When we suggested that these two distinguished Heads of great States should
renew contacts it was not with an idea that they should discuss the affairs of the
world and finalise them. I, personally, would not agree to any finalisation of these
matters with two Powers, or four Powers or ten Powers. Only the Assembly
should finalise them. But it is true that, in dealing with these tremendous
questions, it is convenient and desirable for matters to be discussed in small
groups and - more particularly in a question such as disarmament - by some of the
countries which have most to disarm. Most of the people sitting here have nothing
to disarm, or practically nothing, although we are greatly interested in the
disarmament of others so that war may not break out and destroy the world.

So that it is right that two Powers, or four Powers, or ten committees or

commissions may consider these matters quietly - not always making speeches at
each other, as is done in the Assembly, but from a constructive point of view.
That is all right - but remembering always that in a matter of this magnitude no
group of Powers, however big, can dispose of the destiny of the world.

But that appears to be the idea in the mind of the Prime Minister of Australia,
and because he has that idea that four Powers should dispose of this he was,
naturally and rightly, somewhat irritated at the idea that only two Powers should
do so. Well, it is not my intention that any two Powers, or four or six or more,
should do so. Therefore, I should like to disabuse him of this wrong opinion that
he has in mind.

Assembly Should Act

My difficulty in dealing with this amendment is that it proceeds, I imagine,

from some kind of basic suspicion that there is a trick. The Prime Minister cannot
put his finger on what the trick is, but there must be a trick because the idea has
not come from him or his group. That kind of thing may sometimes happen.
Personally, I am rather innocent of the working of the Assembly. I do not know if
the members who come here often play these tricks on each other. But certainly I
can assure the Prime Minister, with all earnestness, that there is no trickery in this
resolution.

However, there is something which I would like him to appreciate, and that is
that there is passion in this draft resolution. It is not a question of words. The
Prime Minister said - and I was happy to hear it - that he prayed daily for the
avoidance of armed conflict. I earnestly hope that his prayers will have effect, and
that all our prayers will have effect. But even prayers require some action and we
meet here not merely to pray - although prayer is good - but for action, to give a
lead to the world, to induce people, to request people, to urge people to act in a
particular way, and sometimes to push people to act in a particular way. That is
the only thing we can do.

And this draft resolution that we have ventured to put before the Assembly, in
its simple form of words, represented that passion and that conviction that
something must be done, or that, at any rate, the beginnings of something must
take place so that it might take effect later on. Above all, it seemed to us that for
the Assembly to meet, with members coming here from the four corners of the
earth, and to avoid discussing this matter was a confession of helplessness and of
paralysis of a great Organisation, which was intolerable. I submit that it would be
an intolerable position that the Assembly could not deal with these matters
because some people were angry with each other.

Anger may be justified; nevertheless, it cannot override the major

considerations that we have to deal with. We realise that this resolution cannot
lead us into the path of a solution, cannot lead even to a basic consideration of
these problems. As things are, we must recognise the facts, and the facts are that
this cannot be done at this stage. But what we were concerned with was the hope
that this glacier, as it were, that had come to surround us, might be pushed a little
or might be made to melt here and there, so that in the future discussions could
take place at suitable times. At the present moment they cannot.

Let us be frank about it: this great country, the United States, is engaged in a
great election and it is not convenient for it - I quite recognise that - to enter into
these basic talks. That is true. But even now, if nothing is done to arrest the
process of deterioration, then it can become more difficult even at a later stage to
have those talks. That is a fact to be borne in mind. Therefore we suggested that
this small but highly important step might be taken as an urgent move towards the
renewal of contacts. Remember that.

We think we were perfectly right. Let us consider what the effect would be if
the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia were to be followed. It would mean -
the amendment says so quite clearly - that this renewal of contacts would not take
place, that the negative view prevails and that we should wait for some future
occasion, which obviously is a fairly distant occasion now, for some kind of
summit conference to be held. I am in favour of a summit conference, but I
realise, and the Assembly realises, that it cannot be held in the next few months.
Therefore, we should have to wait and spend our time, presumably, in daily
prayer that this might take place and that war might be avoided.

I submit that this position is not only a completely untenable position, but it
verges on absurdity, and I am surprised that a man of the high ability of the Prime
Minister of Australia should put it forward. Also, this amendment, I regret to say,
does have a tinge of the cold war approach, and it is obvious that if we are to seek
solutions for these mighty problems it is not through such approaches that we
shall do so. Charge and counter-charge, accusation and counter-accusation - we
have had plenty of them and perhaps we shall go on having them. But the fact
remains that if we are to deal with serious questions it is not by accusing each
other or by bringing counter-accusations in reply. We are out to achieve
something, and if we want to achieve something we have to recognise facts as
they are and deal with the problem as it is. We cannot merely satisfy ourselves by
making charges and counter-charges.

There is, I feel - though I hope I am wrong - some of this cold war approach in
the so-called amendment of Australia. I am anxious, therefore, that this resolution
that has been sponsored by the five nations should be adopted - adopted
unanimously, or, if not unanimously, nearly unanimously. Not to adopt it would
be a dangerous thing from the point of view of the objectives we have and those
for which the United Nations stands, from the point of view of creating some kind
of disengagement, some kind of "detente" in this matter - the beginnings of it, at
least; not a solution - a solution will come later - but some little movement in the
right direction. It would be dangerous, it would be harmful, it would be wholly
unjustifiable not to pass it. Therefore it should be passed

I still hope that the Prime Minister of Australia will realise that his amendment
is not what he apparently imagined it to be, and that it is a harmful amendment
which shows a certain lack of care as to what should or should not happen. The
amendment would say that we should let months pass and then those four great
countries can meet together and possibly renew their charges and counter-charges.
Now, that is not good enough. Even if we of the humbler countries, without vast
armies and nuclear weapons, may sometimes unburden our hearts, I hope; and if
we cannot unburden our hearts and our minds in the Assembly, what are we to
do? Are we just to be shepherded into this group or that group and say what we
are told to say here and there, and not be allowed even to express our innermost
feelings? I do submit that this kind of approach would not be right, for any of us.

The Minister or Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Republic has moved a
small amendment. We would not object to small amendments if they bettered the
resolution and if the purpose of the draft resolution remained and was not
distorted and changed completely into something entirely the opposite of it.
Therefore, I beg again to press for the adoption of this resolution if not
unanimously then nearly unanimously.

B. Speech on Voting Procedure

I do not understand what this means. I was not aware, and I believe that this
Assembly was not aware of the formal, diplomatic official contacts of the United
States of America and the Soviet Union being interrupted. Therefore, this
statement has no meaning at all. In fact, it would put the Assembly in the rather
absurd position of making in a formal resolution a statement which is wholly
incorrect. I submit that an amendment which reduces a draft resolution, or a part
of it, to absurdity is not in order and certainly cannot be accepted.

I can understand come representatives of some countries not agreeing with this
proposition and voting against it. That is understandable. But one cannot reduce it
by an amendment to a meaningless jargon or indeed worse than that, to suggest
something which is not a fact. It is not a fact. I trust all of us agree that the
official, normal diplomatic relations of these two countries mentioned here have
not been interrupted at any time, whatever their sentiments or feelings might have
been on this issue.

I submit therefore that on this point alone such an amendment would be most
unfortunate and would not bring great credit on those who have put it forward
because it reduces a resolution of this General Assembly to something
approaching absurdity.

I do not wish to say anything else except to point out again that when this draft
resolution was put forward I ventured to express the hope that it would be
unanimously passed because I did not see anything to which anyone could object.
But that has not been so and it has been opposed, or amendments have been
introduced - one amendment has been rejected. This amendment I feel should not
be put forward at all. But anyhow, because of this debate, this simple and, as I
thought, non-controversial resolution has become rather a major issue attracting
fully the attention not only of this Assembly but probably a good part of the
world.

We have to remember that whatever we may decide on this will have larger
repercussions and consequences than otherwise might have been so. And if on
this occasion, having attracted the attention of the world to a particular matter, we
decide something which cannot be logically argued, which states a fact which is
not a fact, I submit that it will not be good for the Assembly to be put in this way
before the world.

Some objection has been made; it has been stated that this brings in persons -
individuals. I would submit that this is not quite correct. It refers to high offices. It
is true that each high office at the present moment is occupied by an individual, as
it must be. But the purpose is not to bring in individuals but rather to refer to the
high offices concerned.

Therefore, I submit that this amendment is not in order; it is not logical and will
put this Assembly in considerable difficulty in passing something which cannot
be justified on the facts of the situation. On its merits, I submit also that it is
undesirable.

C. Speech Withdrawing the Resolution

 The President was good enough to allow the sponsors of the draft resolution an
opportunity to consult amongst themselves on the position that has been created
because of certain changes that have been made in this resolution. The sponsors
have taken advantage of this opportunity and have consulted amongst themselves
and with others, many others, who have supported this draft resolution. We feel
that the changes that have been made are of such a character as to make a
difference to the purpose of this resolution.

I ventured to say earlier today that if any verbal changes were made without
affecting the substance of it, we would gladly accept those changes. But the
present changes that have been made, according to our thinking not only make
part of this draft resolution contrary to fact, as we ventured to point out earlier
today, but also make an essential change which, according to our thinking, takes
away, as I have said, from the main purpose underlying this draft resolution.

That draft resolution was drafted under great stress of feeling, almost
oppression, at what it describes as "the recent deterioration in international
relations". And further, all over the world people will be looking to this Assembly
to give them a lead, to indicate some step to prepare the way for the easing of this
world tension. Again, the draft resolution refers to "the grave and urgent
responsibility that rests on the United Nations to initiate helpful efforts".

As it has now been changed, it seems to us that that essential urgency has gone,
that that passionate feeling that something should be done has faded away in the
wording of the draft resolution as it is. And something has been said in it which is
not true to fact, that is to say, that these two great countries, the United States and
the Soviet Union, should renew their contacts. As I stated before, there has been
no break in those contacts politically, diplomatically or otherwise. Therefore it is
not a correct statement. It does not seem proper that the Assembly should be
responsible for a statement which is so patently incorrect. At any rate, the
sponsors of this draft resolution do not wish to associate themselves with such a
statement. But that is a relatively minor matter. The major point is that the draft
resolution as it stands now lacks that sense of passion and energy and dynamism
which we thought this situation required.

We have had a considerable discussion over procedural matters. It was far from
our intention to take up the valuable time of the Assembly in discussions about
procedure. But, as has become evident during these discussions, behind those
procedural matters lay high questions of policy. We held certain opinions about
the procedural matters also, but I shall not refer to that now. It transpired
throughout the discussion at this late hour in the evening that there were
differences of opinion on basic matters, and that those differences were sought to
be expressed in these changes which now form part of this draft resolution. For
us, therefore, the purpose for which we had submitted this draft resolution is not
being served. It may indeed create an impression that, shall I say, this Assembly
has taken up these matters without that sense of urgency which we thought was
necessary.

From another point of view, all this discussion has seemed to us to raise major
moral issues. I shall not go into them in any detail and take up the time of the
Assembly in regard to them but we do consider that this resolution did involve a
moral issue and the way it has been changed has deprived it of that moral
approach.

Because of all these reasons, the sponsors of this resolution feel that they
cannot associate themselves any longer with this resolution as it is now after these
changes. Therefore, I would like to withdraw this draft resolution because its
sponsors are unable to support it as it is.
 VIII. ADDRESS TO THE SIXTEENTH SESSION OF THE
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, NEW YORK,
NOVEMBER 10, 1961
It is a little over a year now since I had the honour of addressing this Assembly.
In the course of this year much has happened and this Organisation, which
represents the world community, has faced many crises. Among these crises has
been the tragic death of the late Secretary-General, Mr. Hammarskjold, who,
during the many years of his high office, shaped to some extent the working of
this Assembly and enlarged its functions. I would like to pay tribute to the
memory of Mr. Hammarskjold.

To you, Sir, who occupy now this high seat of the Secretary-General, I offer
my warm welcome and regard and greetings. And I can assure you that we, in
common with others, not only welcome you here but offer you our full
cooperation, for you represent the United Nations, to which all of us must offer
cooperation.

These last years of difficulty and crisis have brought out more than ever before
the importance of this Organisation. Indeed, one wonders what the world would
be like if the United Nations ceased to be or did not function. Therefore, it is of
the highest importance that this great Organisation should not only function but
should function with effectiveness and with the support of the countries
represented here.

I hope that under the Acting Secretary-General’s guidance the United Nations
will advance from strength to strength and will serve the cause of the peace of the
world and the cause of removing the remnants of foreign domination from various
parts of the world.

The General Assembly and the Security Council took many steps in the last
year or more in regard to these matters and thereby somewhat enlarged the
functions of the Organisation and showed what it could do. Unfortunately, those
steps did not immediately yield the results that we had hoped for, and that was
true because of various difficulties and the rather obstructive methods which were
employed by some. But I trust that in future we shall work with greater unanimity
and effectiveness in carrying out the decisions of the United Nations.

UN Must Succeed in the Congo

In one place, the Congo, the United Nations has undertaken a great
responsibility, and on the success of that venture of the United Nations depends in
many ways the future of the United Nations itself, or its future effectiveness. It
may continue, of course, even after a lack of success there, but it would then
continue as an ineffective body whose mandate does not run far. Therefore, it is of
the utmost importance that the work that this great Organisation has undertaken in
the Congo should succeed and should yield results.

All the countries represented here are interested in this vital problem. We in
India are to some extent a little more interested than some others because, at the
invitation of the United Nations, we have placed some of our resources and some
of our armed forces at the disposal of the Organisation for service in the Congo,
and we are naturally concerned that their use should yield success.

I have referred to the Congo - and I am not going to refer to each individual
problem facing the United Nations - because the Congo has become the symbol
and the touchstone of success for the activities of the United Nations.

New Members

During the last year, many additions have been made to the membership of the
General Assembly. New countries have come here, chiefly from Africa, and I am
happy about this enlargement. More particularly I should like to mention the
name of just one country because, for years, we have been suggesting that name
and hoping that that country will be admitted. I refer to Outer Mongolia, and I am
happy that at last that country has found a place in this Assembly.

Emergence of Africa

When future historians write about this period in which we are living, they may
well say that an outstanding feature of this period was the emergence of African
countries, the new life that is coursing through the veins of Africa, which I think
is, historically speaking, of vital importance today.

Because of that vitality and tremendous urge in the various countries of Africa,
we find problems arising that are problems of a new vitality, and not problems of
a decadent people - they are the problems of a new life emerging. Sometimes they
are troublesome problems, but we must recognise that they are problems of
growth and therefore problems which should encourage rather than discourage us.

In Africa, there is the Congo, to which I have referred, and there is the nearby
country of Angola under Portuguese rule. It is well to remember that while
colonialism is a fading institution and, historically speaking, a disappearing one,
nevertheless today a fairly big empire remains in Africa and elsewhere under
Portuguese rule when bigger empires have ceased to be. Apart from this
theoretical question, practically speaking what we have heard of events in Angola
has been distressing in the extreme. If it is distressing to us, we can imagine how
much it must distress people in Africa. I earnestly hope that this remnant of
colonialism will also peacefully change.
 In the Congo there have been difficulties. The Security Council decided about
eight or nine months ago on two basic principles about the Congo: one was the
unity of the Congo, a republic, and the other was the removal of foreign
mercenary elements. I have no doubt, and probably other members here present
have no doubt, that much of the trouble in the Congo has been due to external
encouragement and intervention. If this kind of activity continues, the problems
will become more difficult of solution. Therefore, it is necessary that the problem
should be solved as soon as possible and that these foreign elements should be
removed or should be made to leave Katanga province and other parts of the
Congo.

There is really no half-way house to this: one either has unity in the Congo or
not. If there is no unity, the Congo will split up and instead of one problem we
shall have to face many problems, each more difficult than the other, and not only
will the Congo split up, but the United Nations will suffer a serious setback.

Therefore, I would beg this Organisation to consider what steps should be taken
which would be effective and would yield quick results.

There are other colonial problems, of course. There is Algeria. I can only say
that the terrible sufferings that the people of Algeria have undergone during the
last eight years must end in fulfilment of that people’s hopes. I am sure they will,
but I would hope that they will do so soon and that the story of their agony will
not drag on. There are some indications that perhaps this may happen soon. I hope
those indications point in the right direction.

Problem of World Survival

I do think that at this stage of the world’s history it has become impossible for
colonies to continue without creating complications which may lead to major
conflicts in the world. While that is so, it is a fact that as we stand or sit here
today, the world is facing even graver problems, the problems of world survival,
the problems of war and peace, and unless they are dealt with wisely and in a
statesmanlike manner, the future that stares us in the face is a very painful one.

More and more we live under a kind of regime of terror. Terror of what? Terror
of some kind of catastrophe like war descending upon us, some kind of disaster
when nuclear weapons are used and the future of the world’s survival is
imperilled. It is an odd circumstance that in spite of this general knowledge, the
full realisation of this basic fact today perhaps has not come to us and is not
appreciated by many Governments.

The choice today before the world is a choice which has never come to it
before: it is a choice of self-extinction, practical extinction or survival. Many
people think and talk about escaping from the disaster of a nuclear war by
burrowing under the earth and living like rats in a hole. Surely it is a strange
commentary on our times that we should be driven to that conclusion, instead of
diverting all our energies and all our strength to the prevention of that catastrophe.

The first thing to be realised is that there can no longer be any kind of normal
existence unless we get rid of this terror that hangs over us. How can that terror be
removed? There are basic problems before us - the German problem, the problem
of the city of Berlin and other problems elsewhere which I believe are capable of
solution, because I am convinced that no country deliberately desires war. I am
convinced that the people all over the world are passionately in favour of peace.
Why then are we unable to solve these problems?

It is difficult for me to say. The problems are difficult and they cannot be easily
solved; nevertheless, the alternative, not to solve anything, is infinitely worse. No
country, great or small, can easily agree to anything which wounds its honour and
self- respect. Even a small country cannot easily be offended today - that is, its
honour cannot be offended - much less a great country. No solution can therefore
be found which is based on the wounding of the honour or self- respect of a
country.

We talk about many problems like disarmament, and sometimes one has the
feeling that although there is apparent agreement, really behind it there is not that
faith in disarmament that is necessary, and that talks are some kind of attempt
more to put the other party in the wrong rather than to achieve something while it
is of the utmost importance that the achievement should take place. I am
convinced that the modern world cannot continue for long without full
disarmament. All these problems have come up again and again. Ultimately it is
perhaps true that the material advance which has taken place in the world - and
that is magnificent - has gone far ahead of the development of human minds,
which lag behind.

They do not fit in with the modern age, and the mind still thinks, in its narrow
terms of 100 or 200 years ago, of how nations functioned, how diplomats
functioned and how wars took place. We know, we have heard and we have read
about the new possibility of a nuclear war. Nevertheless, emotionally, we do not
understand it fully; otherwise it seems to me that it is impossible that there should
be these continuing deadlocks and impasses, because the fact is that under modern
conditions either war must be ruled out, or the world, civilisation and humanity
have to submit to the ending of all that they have laboured for over thousands of
years.

If that is true, then surely it is important and urgent that we should approach
this question with speed, deliberation and a determination to solve it, rather than
merely to show that the other party is wrong.

I mentioned disarmament. The Assembly at its fourteenth session decided

almost unanimously in favour of general and complete disarmament. The great
nations of the world have all committed themselves to that. The United States,
through its President, recently put forward proposals which are in line with what
this Assembly has decided. The Soviet Union has put forward proposals to the
same effect, varying slightly but essentially aiming at the same thing; even in
broad outline they have a good deal in common.

If that is so, what is getting in our way? Why should we not grasp this
opportunity when there is so much agreement, and remove this fear and terror
from peoples` minds, and devote all the great energies and resources of the people
to the world’s advancement?

I do not know, except that, as I have said, we are quite unable to get out of old
ways of thinking which ought to have no place in the modern world, old ways of
hatred and violence, not realising that violence today is not the violence of
yesterday but a violence which could exterminate all of us, not realising that there
is no victory today for any country in a major war - only defeat and extermination
for all.

If that is so, then surely this major and outstanding question must be dealt with
speedily and those great countries, especially those which have the greatest
responsibility because they possess the biggest weapons of warfare - nuclear
weapons - should address themselves again and again to negotiations, to talks, to
the consideration of this problem together to find some remedy, with the
determination, of course, that they will not separate until they have come to some
agreement.

Those agreements cannot be merely agreements of some countries, however

great. They must represent all the Members of the United Nations. But I do think
that it is better for those countries - a few of them - to deal with this problem
rather than for a larger body to deal with it at the start.

I feel, I may say, rather strongly on this question, although we in India are not
situated in one of the major theatres of a possible war - probably not.
Nevertheless, I feel that everything that man has striven for in the past thousands
of years is at stake today. Strongly as I feel about the freedom of colonial
countries and others, I do think that the major question and the biggest question
today is this question of war and peace and disarmament. There is not conflict
between those. In fact, the whole atmosphere of the world will change if
disarmament comes in, and these present problems move towards solution.

How then are we to do it? I do not know. The President was good enough to
refer to the wisdom of the East, or to my wisdom. It was kind of him to make that
reference to me, but I possess no greater wisdom than each one of us here; only
perhaps in some matters, some of us may feel a little more, some of us who have
experienced many ups and downs in their lives may think more deeply about
them. But it is wisdom that we want, it is the common wisdom that should come
to everyone. In the problems before us there are no mysteries. They are obvious
problems, and the fear of war is obvious; the fear that grips mankind is obvious.
How can we go on dealing with the secondary questions of the world and
discussing them, when this basic problem eludes us?

End Nuclear Tests

As a part of this question of disarmament there is the particular question today

of nuclear tests. The General Assembly passed a resolution recently about them. It
was, I think, a great misfortune that, after a period of abstinence from nuclear
tests, there has been a resumption. There can be no doubt that that turned the
attention of the world in a wrong direction, apart from the harm it might do.
Immediately the idea of a possible war became more prevalent, immediately it
became more difficult to have treaties for ending nuclear tests, because while
treaties are essential to achieve this purpose, when the whole atmosphere becomes
one of fear and apprehension, it becomes more difficult to produce a treaty.

I do think, and I would beg the countries concerned to realise, that they are
doing a great disservice to the world, to their own countries even, by not putting
an end to this business of nuclear tests, and putting an end to it by treaty, as
rapidly as possible.

The Assembly has passed a resolution in favour of some kind of voluntary

moratorium. No one imagines that a voluntary moratorium is going to solve this
question. There must be stricter controls, by treaty and otherwise. But while that
should be aimed at and worked for and achieved as rapidly as possible, the door
should not be left open, during the discussions, for these nuclear tests to go on.

Arguments may be raised that one party or one country secures an advantage
over the other and these arguments may have some substance. Yet my own
reaction to these nuclear tests is a very strong one. I think they are basically evil,
they encourage evil. Therefore, the sooner this evil is dealt with the better.

Year for International Cooperation

I cannot suggest any rapid or magic ways of dealing with the problems of the
world. But I find that perhaps the worst difficulty we have to face is to fight
something you cannot grip: an atmosphere, the imponderables of life, how people
suddenly are filled with fear, passion and hatred. How can we deal with them? We
live in this world of conflicts and yet the world goes on, undoubtedly because of
the cooperation of nations and individuals.

The essential thing about this world is cooperation, and even today, between
countries which are opposed to each other in the political or other fields, there is a
vast amount of cooperation. Little is known, or little is said, about this
cooperation that is going on, but a great deal is said about every point of conflict,
and so the world is full of this idea that the conflicts go on and we live on the
verge of disaster. Perhaps it would be a truer picture if the cooperating elements
in the world today were put forward and we were made to think that the world
depends on cooperation and not on conflict.

A proposal has been made by various people to the effect that more attention
should be directed to these cooperative ventures, especially for peace and in the
interest of peace, so that there may be more positive thinking on this subject and
people should realise that this cooperation is already taking place and can be
extended. Some years ago it was resolved to have an International Geophysical
Year. Although that was a specific subject, it has been suggested that perhaps this
Assembly might resolve to call upon the countries of the world to devote a year,
not to speeches about peace - I do not think that is much good - but to the
furtherance of cooperative activities in any field - political, cultural and whatever
fields there may be, and there are thousands of fields. That perhaps would direct
some of our energy and some of our thinking to this idea of cooperation, which
would create an atmosphere for solving the problems more easily. That by itself
will not solve any problems, but it will lessen this destruction and conflict which
now afflict the world.

I make this suggestion to you not in any detail but broadly, so that this
Assembly may consider it and, if it thinks it worthwhile, perhaps appoint a
committee to consider it further and make suggestions as to how this might
perhaps be done.

Encourage New Thinking

As you will have noticed, the words I am using can easily be called hackneyed
phrases or hackneyed thinking. There is nothing new or wonderful about them.
There is nothing new or wonderful about the truths of the world, and the truth is
that violence and hatred are bad - bad for individuals and bad for everybody.

The great men of the world have been those who have fought hatred and
violence and not those who have encouraged it, even in some supposedly
worthwhile cause, and we have arrived at the stage where this, I feel, has to be
checked. It really requires a new way of thinking, a new development of
humanity. Possibly we are going through that process, and possibly this very
crisis will wake up the mind of man and direct it to this new way of thinking. The
old way of thinking has landed us in this disastrous situation. Even though, as I
said, the world has made tremendous progress in many ways, progress which
manifestly can cure its material ills, what shall it profit the world if it conquers the
material ills and then commits suicide because it has not controlled its own mind?

Therefore, we have to undertake this vast task of encouraging this new

thinking, this new approach, the approach of cooperation, and that not on a mere
ideological basis but on the practical basis of sheer survival in this world. I would
beg the Assembly to consider the matter from this larger point of view and not
from the point of view of profit or loss to this nation or that nation, because the
choice before us is not one of profit or loss, but one of survival or loss to
everybody.

I realise that all this sounds very vague and amorphous and does not indicate
anything very special. What are we to do? Here are these problems of Germany
and Berlin and Southeast Asia. Undoubtedly there are those problems, and there
are the problems of Africa. Even if I had some detailed ideas about these subjects,
there is no occasion for me to put them forward. But I do think that the problems
of Germany and Berlin, difficult as they are and involving something more than
national conflicts - they involve large numbers of human beings and to me the
human aspect of such problems is always important - they are capable of solution,
if they are approached with the intention of solving them honourably and without
attempting to bring discredit or dishonour to any party.

Indo-China

With regard to Indo-China, you will remember the Geneva Conference which
was held five or six years ago. That Conference came to certain conclusions and
appointed three international commissions. The main conclusions were that the
countries concerned should be kept out of power conflicts, that they should be
helped, that they should not be entangled in these major conflicts, because it was
clear then that if they were so entangled they would perish, whatever the other
result of the conflict. To some extent the commissions functioned satisfactorily
and prevented this. Later some of those commissions were not allowed to function
as they should have done, and I think that much of the difficulty has arisen
because they were not allowed to function. It is not an easy question, but I think
that even these questions can be solved primarily on the basis of applying the old
Geneva Conference policy, which was agreed to by everyone, and allowing the
Commissions to function.

Cooperate or Perish

It has been very gracious of the President to invite me to address this

Assembly. I feel rather humble before it. I am no man of wisdom. I am only a
person who has dabbled in public affairs for nearly half a century and learned
something from them, and mostly what I have learned is how wise men often
behave in a very foolish manner; and that thought makes me often doubt my own
wisdom, or whatever you wish to call it. I question myself: "Am I right?"

I may have doubts about many things, but I have no doubt at all about some
things, because I have been conditioned in that way; I have grown up in that way
during long years of guidance from my old leader, Mahatma Gandhi, who taught
that hatred and violence are essentially bad and evil, and anything that promotes
hatred, therefore, is bad. One cannot solve questions by trying to destroy the other
party but by trying to win him over. You may not always win him over 100 per
cent, but there is no other way. Now apart from theory, apart from idealism, the
practical approach to the problem is such that the choice offered to the world is:
cooperate or perish. The choice is between peaceful coexistence or no existence at
all. There is no doubt about about it.

Therefore, I venture to suggest to the Assembly that these questions should be

looked upon from this broader point of view and with the urgency that they
demand. I am quite sure that the great nations and the small nations of the world
feel that way, but somehow irritations come, difficulties come; and that prevents
progress being made. But I do believe that the time is ripe for progress to be made
in that direction and these great countries should seize this opportunity and
proceed with it, not thinking too much about who makes the first move in this
direction, because the person who makes the first move will do the right thing,
will be respected, and it will not be considered that the first move or the second
move comes from weakness. Countries are strong today. A strong country does
not become a weak country by making the first move. Everybody knows a
country’s strength.

I am grateful to the President for the opportunity that has been given to me to
address this Assembly. Again I would repeat that the future of the world depends
so much on the continuance of the United Nations; without it, perhaps that future
itself would end.