2nd Session
85th Plenary Meeting, 19th September, 1947
We meet today in a disturbed and unhappy world. Economic dislocations have
caused widespread suffering, and there is apprehension that the world might be
plunged into still deeper distress. Looming ominously over the whole situation
is the fact that the great Powers, instead of coming closer together, are
drifting farther apart. There is tension, suspense and anxiety, and an uneasy
awareness that things are perhaps moving towards some new and annihilating
disaster for mankind, and that not enough is being done to check this trend and
direct our course to a more promising future.
It is against this background that I should like to present India's position.
Since we last met, a year ago, a momentous change has taken place in our
domestic situation. A comparatively brief phase in our very ancient history -
when the fortunes of our people and their political condition were subjected to
an alien Power - has been brought to an end.
For India, and indeed for Asia, 15 August, 1947 was a fateful day. It saw the
triumph of an experiment unique in history, started by that great soul who may
well be called the Father of the Indian nation, Mahatma Gandhi. In the past, I
have not hesitated to criticize British policy towards my country. But on this
occasion, with equal readiness, I desire to place on record before this great
Assembly, the warm appreciation of the Indian people for the spirit which moved
British statesmen to make a voluntary surrender of authority over India. It
cannot be easy for people to divest itself of an empire, and for the sake of an
enduring world peace, I would commend this example to those other nations which
bear towards their colonies the relationship which existed between the United
Kingdom and India until yesterday. In particular, I should like to mention the
case of Indonesia, whose cultural ties with India date back many centuries and
whose
future is of vital importance to the peace and security of Asia. Indonesia has
been fighting valiantly to be free and presents a challenge to the United
Nations.
I should not, however, be true to myself, nor would I accurately reflect the
sentiments of my people, if I were to withhold from this Assembly the sadness
that is in our hearts that freedom has come to us only through division which,
in its turn, has led to strife - temporary, we hope - in certain parts of our
country.
In what is for us, as for the rest of the world, a time of historic transition,
we are beset with a multitude of problems. In many respects they are not
dissimilar to the problems that face most countries in the world today; but the
circumstances in which we have been called upon to solve them have, inevitably,
been conditioned by the policies which prevailed during the period of foreign
rule in India.
I mention this lest there should be any misunderstanding as to the magnitude and
the special complexity of the tasks to which the new-born Government of free
India has so energetically set its hand. Comprehensive schemes of reform,
reconstruction and development in every field of our national life are either
being worked out or, in some instances, are actually in the process of
execution.
The endeavour to raise the standard of living and forge new and free
institutions for a people would be no easy matter even in a period of assured
peace and general prosperity. It is at least no easier in these troubled times,
when hunger, uncertainty and fear stalk through our land as through so many
other lands. However, I am glad to have the opportunity today of stating from
this rostrum that in spite of the adverse conditions, many of which we have
inherited, our Government is forging ahead with the full confidence and support
of the people.
I would now like to deal briefly with some problems facing us here. At the
present time there is a heated controversy over the unanimity rule in the
Security Council. The operation of this rule has the effect, in some cases, of
producing a stalemate and inhibiting the implementation of the majority will in
the Security Council. Such deadlocks are discouraging and disappointing, and we
would therefore advise moderation and restraint in the exercise of what is
called the veto. The unrestrained use of this power is to be condemned as much
as the abuse of any other power. At the same time, the permanent members of the
Council have an obligation to strive to the utmost to widen the area of
agreement among its members, both permanent and non-permanent.
In the last analysis, the success of the Security Council and the peace and
welfare of the world depend not upon the enforcement of a majority decision
taken by the great Powers, but upon the forbearance, tolerance and wisdom with
which they seek to achieve and maintain unity among themselves.
It is sometimes said that this is an issue between the great Powers on the one
side and the small and medium Powers on the other. While it is convenient to
speak of the permanent members of the Council as "great Powers", the
tendency to classify countries as great and small is not useful. For instance, I
would not like to assign India to any of these categories. We are all great in
some respects, and no doubt small in others, but we all have an equal right to
consideration in this Assembly in accordance with the principles laid down in
the Charter.
This brings me to a question of grave importance with which we are confront in
this Assembly. What if the Assembly's recommendations .made only after
exhaustive and prolonged consideration and debate, are ignored and treated with
disrespect by Member States, especially by those to whom a recommendation is
specifically directed? I shall have more to say on this subject later, but it is
necessary at this point to call your attention to the fact that the South
African Government has taken no action to give effect to the principles
underlying the resolution we adopted here last year.1
A denial that discrimination has been practised against Indians in South Africa
is not, I submit, a serious or convincing reply to the General Assembly. The
correspondence recently published between the Prime Ministers of the two
dominions reveals India's anxiety to reach a fair and honourable settlement of
this issue. It concerns, if I may say so before this Assembly, not only the
relations between two dominions. Unresolved, it may spread misrepresentation and
conflict over a much wider sphere, because of its basically racial character. I
believe that this is not the only case where a Member State has disregarded the
clearly expressed will of this Assembly. It will therefore be necessary for us
to consider and determine the means that may be open to us to ensure that the
Assembly's decisions on such matters of importance are treated with respect.
The Indian delegation also feels concerned about what appears to us to be an
excessive eagerness on the part of some Member States to invoke the domestic
jurisdiction clause of the Charter (Article 2, paragraph 7) whenever a certain
type of question is raised.
We have no desire whatever, nor have we the power, to dispute the sovereignty of
a Member State, or to attempt to interfere, through the medium of the United
Nations or in any other manner, in their internal affairs. We in India know only
too well what such interference can mean, and we would resent and resist it as
firmly as any other country. It must be recognised, however, that every
international question may be regarded as having a national aspect, and we
cannot afford to permit a Member State to evade its obligations and thus reduce
the value of the Charter.
I have only touched on some of the more important questions that occur to us
when we consider the functioning of the United Nations during the past year. I
am not wholly satisfied-indeed, none of us, I believe, is wholly satisfied-with
the work we have accomplished and the results we have achieved. Millions of
humble folk in all countries are alarmed and bewildered, unable to comprehend
fully those mighty forces which are driving the great Powers into unfriendly
groupings, carrying with them by some sort of magnetic pull numbers of other
States as well.
We, in India, for our part, are aware of no compulsion to identify ourselves
wholly, or to associate ourselves systematically, with either or any of the
different groups. On the contrary, we consider it of paramount importance that
the distance between them should be narrowed down. We believe that our conduct
should conduce to that end, and that there are standards and principles and
ideals that transcend merely national interests, that transcend the exigencies
of the kind of power politics that has proved so calamitous in the past.
Accordingly, we shall offer our support to, or withhold it from, the proposals
submitted to us, solely in the light of our judgment of the merits of the case
in question. We stand for peace, and will devote our resources and energy
towards the abolition of all causes which lead to war. To those nations that
work with this aim, we shall gladly offer our full co- operation. The Indian
delegation feels that what is important today is not to set about revising the
Charter, or to divert our energies and devise complicated ingenious amendments.
The important thing today is that we should all observe faithfully the spirit
and the letter of the Charter, its principles and procedures, not only when it
is convenient to us, not only when it helps us to pursue aims and policies which
may have no connection with the Charter, but at all times and in relation to all
problems and difficulties.
If we are not prepared to implement the Charter in this spirit, I fear that no
modification or revision, no addition or abrogation of a phrase here and an
article there, will greatly improve the position. It may well have the opposite
effect.
Machinery, new or old, by itself, will not save us if we are not truly and
sincerely determined to remove war as a means of settling difference.
It has now become almost a platitude to say that a clash of ideologies underlies
the rift that is so noticeable in the world today. We, who come from the East,
who are intimately familiar with the dire want, the poverty and suffering and
starvation that prevail there, may be forgiven for thinking that ideology is
less important than practice. We cannot eat an ideology; we cannot brandish an
ideology, and feel that we are clothed and housed. Food, clothing, shelter,
education, medical services-these are the things we need. We know that we can
only obtain them by our joint efforts as a people, and with the help and
co-operation of those who are more fortunately circumstance than ourselves. The
conflict of ideology, or whatever it may be, that is plunging the world into
gloom and tension, seems so sadly irrelevant to these great human problems;
problems
that vitally affect a half, and perhaps more than a half, of the world's
population.
Our Organization, the United Nations, has no "ism" of its own; it
embraces all "isms" and ideologies; it embraces all civilisations of
the West and of the East; its principles cannot be said to derive exclusively
from either or any of the contending doctrines. That is why, in this most
critical time, and notwithstanding the discouraging factors, we continue to
place our faith in it.
We are indeed more firmly convinced than ever that the only way to avert a
catastrophe, the only road to peace and freedom and well-being for us all, is
through our steadfast and wholehearted, co-operation, at whatever
inconvenience, within the framework of the United Nations and in the spirit of
the Charter.
On behalf of my Government, once again I give you the pledge of our fullest
co-operation and our determination to do all that lies within our power, to see
that the establishment of the United Nations shall, in future, mark the
beginning of a new and less unhappy chapter in human history.