Pin It

1962 was a year of setback for India in the wake of the unprovoked Chinese aggression. The Chinese overwhelmed our forces and occupied our territories. In a sense, 1962 was also the finest hour for India, because the misfortune brought the Indian people together, made them forget their differences and take a united stand against the aggressor.

Speaking on the proclamation approving the resolution on Emergency by the Government, Anna says that “we might march as one people wedded to one principle having one aim, that is to chuck out the Chinese and safeguard the country.” Anna also asks the Government to “enter the name of the DMK in the roll call of honour for the safety, for the dignity and future of this country.”

A champion of Dravida Nadu and an avowed votary of separatism, when faced with the danger of foreign aggression rises to the level of the tallest of India’s patriots and places at the disposal of the country the entire resources of his Party for meeting the challenge of the foreign aggressor. In a sense, Anna was rewriting the history of India. It has been the tragedy of India’s past that whenever the country was faced with foreign aggression, from the time the Aryan hordes thundered into India, the Indian princes fought among themselves and some of them joined the foreigner against the interests of their own country. The Chinese aggression was also responsible for Anna’s modifying his pet concept of an independent Dravida Nadu. As Anna himself stated in an interview with the Editor of “The Illustrated Weekly of India” in September 1965, “ we have since withdrawn the demand for Dravida Nadu. We first realized its dangerous potentialities at the time of the Chinese aggression……… Indeed session. We issued a statement to the press announcing the suspension of our agitation in favour of Dravida Nadu” (Illustrated Weekly of India, 26th November 1965).india china warMr. Chairman, Sir I rise today to support the motion brought forward by the Home Minister, not only on my behalf, but also on behalf of the Party to which I have the honour to belong, the DMK. Very rarely indeed do legislative bodies with one mind confer extraordinary powers on the Government. The very fact that all the parties are united in arming the Government with emergency powers is positive proof that here has arisen a state, when group and political differences ought to be submerged in the one cardinal principle of safeguarding the dignity, independence and freedom of the country.

Sir, I was reading the news about Chinese incursions while I was confined in a cell at the Central Jail, Vellore. Naturally, I was infuriated at the ruling Party. But when I read the news about the incursions of the Chinese, the most depressing period of my jail life were those three or four days when I was reading that wave after wave of Chinese aggressors were crossing the frontiers, and our warriors in spite of fighting valiantly, were forced to give up certain places and certain posts. This is a time not for elaborate explanations of the situation. This is a time indeed, not for discussing a motion. We meet here today, to solemnly pledge ourselves to the one great task of driving out the aggressor from our frontiers.

As soon I was released on the 2nd of last month, I issued a statement that the Party to which I have the honour to belong, the DMK Party, would put a moratorium on all its activities, agitational or otherwise, and direct its entire energy and place its entire apparatus at the disposal of the Government of India to thwart the ambitions of the aggressor.

That there is an aggressor, one need not doubt. Whatever may be the aim of the aggressor, our aim is clear. We want to safeguard the dignity of the country and the dignity of democracy. It is not usual at this stage to probe into the ideological causes of this great conflict. I do not consider this a mere incursion. I think knowingly or unknowingly, we are now engaged in an ideological conflict. The world is divided today into two camps, the democratic and the undemocratic. There is also the principle of co-existence. If democracy is to co-exist with other systems of Government, democracy should show that in times of crisis and tension, it is as strong as, if not stronger than, the other systems of government. Therefore democratic bodies, forgetting political differences and political prejudices, have come forward pronounce with one voice, that aggression shall be defeated, the Chinese shall be pushed back to their frontiers.

Sir, the news came as a shock to men of my type. When I say men of my type, I refer to people who did not have previous occasion of listening to or addressing august assemblies of this sort. I represent the man in the street. We always thought that no country would dare to commit aggression on this country because we were so confident that our principle of non-alignment, our principle of neutrality, had been appreciated by the intelligent countries of the world. We were also very confident because of the great friendship that was forged between China and India, the cause of China when China was friendless at the UNO at every international forum, and even in this House and the other House, was Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who stood as the champion of Chinese independence. It was he who was pleading for the entry of China into the UN Organisation. That is why we had a legitimate confidence that there would be no clash at all between China and India. We thought that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru would have instilled the full bonding spirit in the Chinese mind. But knowing Chinese history, we know that China and the Chinese stand more for puzzles than for explanations.

I realize that there are other parties which are not as shocked as myself, because they have been issuing notes of warning from time to time from this and the other House, that our policy of appeasement, that our policy of non-alignment, that our policy of neutrality, that this policy of decrying military blocs and pacts is going to land us not in the land of happiness, but in the land of danger. Therefore, some of the Members of the other political parties who were issuing warnings, rose in this House and in the other House, to say that what they had feared all along had come to pass, but even in that, there was a note of restraint and responsibility. That can only be found in the noblest of democratic assemblies. In this House, during these 3 or 4 days, all the discussions that took place and the sentiments expressed were so responsible, and there was so much restraint, that the Prime Minister has come forward with a courageous statement to say that at a suitable time, an enquiry would be conducted into the nature of the unpreparedness and the persons responsible for it. It was only the most courageous of men that could have come forward to order an enquiry into it. Whatever may be the differences that we as opposite political parties may have, and we do have differences with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as the head of the administration as the Leader of the Congress Party, nobody doubts his claim of the great role to being the redeemer and resurrector of this nation and as the repository of the ennobling ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity. Therefore, when some of us offer our suggestions, it is with that noble spirit that the democratic leader comes forward halfway to meet us and considers the suggestions given by us.

We have to find out one thing because it is very necessary to strengthen our war effort. We have to find out the exact attitude behind the Chinese invasion. Why should China fight over the frontier when this country has been prepared to sit round a table and discuss the frontier question? Why should the Chinese come wave after wave and occupy border areas like Tawang, dig trenches there, make Tawang into a military camp and await the proper moment to leap forward? What was it that was done by this country to infuriate China, and why should the Chinese people think that their frontier lies very near Uttar Pradesh? If we probe into the attitude of the Chinese, I think we will have to consider the other problem which I mentioned earlier, that this is an ideological conflict. The Chinese think that our policy of non-alignment, that our policy of neutrality, means weakness. They think that we are left without friends. They think that because we are wedded to the principle of Panchsheel, we cannot fight. We have always been saying that we will not fight. That does not mean that we cannot fight. Our warriors at the valley of the immortal have laid down their lives. We have more men with increased striking power, and we will have to prove to the Chinese that when we say that we will not fight, it does not mean that we cannot fight. More and more arms ought to be supplied to the warriors there, and the whole country should stand alongside those warriors at the front. During wartime, the home front is as important as the actual battlefield.

In the minds of men today, we find a remarkable unity of purpose and a determination which only doughty warriors can command. The resources of the people and the response of the people is pouring forth spontaneously is an increasing measure. But we will have to ponder whether this is enough. Our Prime Minister has stated that it is not going to be a war for months or years, but it is going to be a prolonged affair. If it is going to be a prolonged affair, do we not have the right to demand that we should formulate our policy to meet not only a prolonged struggle, but also the situation where China thinks it can declare war on India? Even today, they are saying that there is no war between India and China. Their agents of propaganda are saying that the real friendship between the India people and the Chinese people has not been disturbed, that they have occupied only their own territory and not India territory. Sir, the peace offensive of China is as terrible as its war offensive. Therefore we should be clear in our minds as to how, where and to what extent we should commandeer the resources of this country. True it is that men and women from the lowest strata and the highest strata, have come forward with their help and contributions. But while the poor men have come forward and given princely sums, the Princes have been very poor in their contributions. I would say that the amount spent on the privy purses of the Princes, ought to be cut down for one year, at least for one year, so that the man in the street may know that this is a time when everyone is prepared to sacrifice in a graded manner.

A Prince is not only a titular head. He should be a Prince in character. When the whole country is faced with such a danger, it will not be beyond his capacity or ability to give up his privy purse.

Another thing that I would suggest is, that if it is going to be a prolonged war, we have to consider what ought to be the method by which we should arm our men. How are we going to arm our men at the front, if the front is to be extended, as I am afraid it will be extended? With what sort of weapons are we going to supply them? I was very happy to hear the Prime Minister tell us the other day that production is going apace, that factories are working round the clock, that more and more automatic weapons are being produced. But we should remember that while we go on producing them, China will not be keeping quiet. Perhaps, they are producing more weapons today. Because they live behind the iron curtain, we do not know their real strength. We do not know their potential strength, and we do not even know who their potential friends are. Therefore I would suggest that we should draw out the goodwill of the forty odd countries who have expressed their willingness to help us. In drawing upon their goodwill, the principle of non-alignment should not stand in our way. This country exists not for non-alignment, but non-alignment exists for this country. Therefore, if we find that non-alignment stands in the way of the security of this country, I would far rather forego the principle of non-alignment, than forego the independence of the country.

Sir, I may also point out that though theoretically, the principle of non-alignment is unassailable, the practical implementation of this principle ahs left grave doubts in the minds of the powerful countries of the world. Non-alignment, certain countries think and they have got a right to think so is only a cloak, a convenient cloak. I do not remember the name of the person who said it, but a statement was made that our principle of non-alignment is only a method or policy adopted for getting aid from both the blocs. That is the result of the practical implementation of the principle of non-alignment. Perhaps our representatives at the UNO have woefully failed to impress on the minds of the powers, the basic implications of this principle of non-alignment. I do not name anybody. But I would remind this House that a cloud of suspicion has been created by some of the words and some of the deeds that we have indulged in, in the last ten or twelve years. Therefore, I would ask the Government to choose such men for the UN Organanisation as can place before the world a clear enunciation of the implication of the principle of non-alignment. Though the principle application of that principle, there ought to be some liberalization. What should be the guiding principle in the application of this non-alignment? I find from the directory that alignment is good and men conversant with motor cars would know that without alignment a car never moves. Therefore, non-alignment is a negative thing, and it should not bar our progress. If by non-alignment, we mean that we are not going to allow ourselves to be placed in, or dragged into any military bloc, I can understand and appreciate it. I do not want India to be dragged into any military pact. But if it means that we will not move and move in the right direction, then it means that we have not understood clearly or that we have not been told clearly the implications of this principle of non-alignment. Therefore, I would say that all the democratic forces should align themselves, in counteracting the baneful effect of the undemocratic forces.

I suggest that while drawing on the goodwill of the forty odd countries that have declared their intention towards our country, see should send a representative delegation to the United States of America, to the United Kingdom, to Canada, and to such other countries as are friendly towards us, so that we can build up an arms aid consortium with those countries. We cannot pay for all the arms that we need. Nor can we go on producing more and more arms as more and more Chinese invade our country. Therefore, I suggest that this “arms aid consortium” should be established and a good-will mission for this purpose should be sent forthwith to the USA, the UK and Canada. A representative delegation preferably, with members not only from the ruling party but also from the opposition parties. I say this because we should show to the world outside, that it is not only the ruling party but also the other parties which are interested in maintaining the Government’s policy. I would say that we may even call for volunteers from other countries that are favourably disposed towards us. There is nothing wrong in that. There is nothing derogatory in that I do not mean to say that our battles are to be fought by other soldiers. But I would like the world to know that there are people who are prepared to lay down their lives for the cause of democracy. Therefore I would suggest that this goodwill delegation that I propose, should tour these countries, collect funds, collect arms, and also collect volunteers, so that China may know that our principle of neutrality is not something negative but something positive; that our attitude has created such an amount of goodwill in the minds of democratic countries that we are able to draw from the bank of goodwill, from this international bank of goodwill, at our will and pleasure. These are some of the suggestions that I want the ruling party to consider.

Madam, I am very glad that we have had an assurance from the Government side, that the price level will be kept, because the home front depends entirely on controlling the price level. War creates a scare only when people find the necessities of life denied to them, or when the prices of the necessities of life are soaring high. Therefore, if the Government comes forward with the assurance that the home front will be very strong. As far as the food front is concerned, the Food Minister has assured us that we need have no misgivings about the stock. But the stock is not as important as future production and, therefore, future food production should be at a very high level and the very pertinent and very timely suggestion given by the Hon. Sri V.T. Krishnmachari about the food front, may be looked into. I would also suggest that when we want the peacetime economy to be geared to the war-time economy, measures ought to be formulated. It is not very easy, because a peace-time economy is based on plenty and a war-time economy is based on scarcity. Therefore a Directorate of Economic Affairs should be set up to correlate peace-time economic machinery to war-time purposes. For all these things, I would suggest that the ruling Party should take other political parties into its confidence. I am not thinking in terms of Defence Committees and the like, but I am asking for an intimate contact between the different political parties and the ruling party. Any suggestion ought to be welcomed; any contribution ought to be welcomed by the ruling party so that we can move, not as this or that political party, but as a solid phalanx to meet the Chinese attack.

Madam, I do not think I should travel over the controversial ground, but one Hon. Member did take us into that controversial subject. He was saying that our attitude towards the Tibetean crisis was not wrong. I beg to differ. We have a very vital interest in Tibet, Bhutan, Sikkim and Nepal because they form the natural buffer states of India. You will find ample evidence in history, whether it is during the Huan Dynasty or during the revolutionary period of Sun Yat Sen, that China has become the Yellow peril and a world-wide danger. Of course, now there has been a mixture of yellow and red, and I do not know what colour it comes strong, it casts its covetous eyes on the frontiers of other countries. I read the speech of a very great dignitary of China after the Tibetan incident. Instead of saying that Tibet belongs to China, he indulged in a curious logic. He said that Tibet belongs to China and Bhutan, Sikkim and Ladakh belong to Tibet and therefore, the Ladakhis, Bhutanese and Sikkimese are Tibetans and that they must come to the great motherland of China. Madam, if this theory is translated into action, it may not be merely a prolonged conflict: it may even lead to a prolonged war, and you should be prepared for all eventualities. Therefore I suggest, that we should forthwith formulate schemes for taking into our fold the democratic countries, I hope they will come.

Madam, I read the other day, the appeal issued by the Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Mr Gopala Reddi, asking newspapers to come forward to donate space. I offer to donate as much space as the Minister desires in all the dailies and weeklies which our Party has got, but while donating this space, I would request the Information and Broadcasting Minister to gear up the radio to war-time purposes rather than to peace-time purposes. I was very pained to hear the time, and again our radio telling us, “Chusul is still in our hands”, as if it is a regrettable thing that it is in our hand. Our radio should become the charge house for emanating propaganda of the right sort to counteract the propaganda of the other side. Why don’t we think of asking members of different political parties to talk of the difficult terrain and the dangers that they have to face? Why don’t we ask our people who have donated to come and announce their donations over the radio, stating that they have donated so much and asking others for donations? Madam, propaganda is such a delicate weapon. Today we find that non-democratic countries know more about the full the implications of propaganda than the democratic countries. Therefore, while I am prepared to offer space in the papers which our party has got, we have got two or three dailies and ten or fifteen weeklies I am saying that the propaganda system ought to be geared up, and the other parties should also be given a proper place, so that we mind march as one people wedded to one principle, having one aim and that is to chuck out the Chinese and safeguard the country.

Madam, I do not want to take more time of this House. I would have liked this Session, to end with this plea so that we might meet again, come forward and discuss other items. If we go on discussing other items and other Bills, I think we are disturbing the solemnity of the occasion and, therefore in supporting the Resolution brought forward by the Home Minister, I enter the name of the DMK in the roll call of honour that is being now formulated for the safety, for the dignity and future of this country, this nation.

Thank you.

(C.N. Annadurai's speech at Parliament on November 1962)


 You can send your articles to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Pin It

Add comment


Security code
Refresh