Deen Dayal Upadhyaya

You are here : Home >> Articles >> The Meaning of our Nagpur Resolution


The Meaning of our Nagpur Resolution

-Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya
[Organiser, Political Diary, 15 February, 1960]
The Eight Session of Bharatiya Jana Sangh at Nagpur has been a fine success. This view is held almost by all, whether they are with us or against us. Their judgement may be based mainly on what they could observe in the elaborate arrangements, huge crowds, the number of delegates, and the enthusiastic reception that the people of Nagpur gave. The people and the press body co–operated; they contributed all they could in making the session a success. Surely all this was not to commemorate something that Jana Sangh had achieved but only to pave the way for what people wanted it to achieve. Great expectations have been raised. An immense responsibility therefore devolves on our shoulders. The principle concern of the delegates was–and should–to devise ways and means how best the organisation could fulfil the needs of the nation. It is with this feeling of responsibility and sense of duty that they took part in the deliberations of the Subjects Committee and other meetings. Though no rolls were called and no quorum bells were rung. Yet the delegates were always in their seats punctual to the minute. The whole programme was so crowded that it looked like one continuous stretch of planned activity from the flag hoisting ceremony in the beginning to the thanks giving in the end. If the delegates impart the same sense of the urgency to the organisations task that they have set before themselves in their respective areas, it will not be long and difficult to accomplish the enormous work that the nation has commissioned them to do. This time we departed from the usual practice of adopting a number of resolutions on all and sundry topics. Instead the session discussed and adopted comprehensive resolutions on the economic, political and international situations. A resolution on the Chinese aggression and on the integration of Kashmir was exceptions to the above rule. Their importance justified their special treatment. The Working Committee, however [adopted a few more resolutions concerning student indiscipline, Indo-Pak relations and the Punjab situation.

The question of Chinese aggression is uppermost in the mind of the people. There is hardly any difference of opinion among the different parties and sections of the people (except the Communist party) that this aggression should be vacated. But there is a painful lack of clear thinking on the issue. How the danger should be met, and what steps should be taken to force the Chinese quit Indian territory, are questions that need clear cut and unambiguous answers. No amount of vituperative eloquence or sorrowful remonstrance against China will lead to practical result. Expressions of pious wishes and arguments about out justified claims will hardly make and impact on the expansionist, arrogant and intransigent China. China has aggressed, and that is a fact. But it is no use entering into a wordy duel with her. What we need is a probe into our own weaknesses. So long as we continue to direct our polemic missiles against China we may not be able to discern the basis error in our Defence and China policies. For re-gaining what we have lost through our weakness and wrong judgement of men and matters, strong arguments to support our case will not be lacking. But the eternal truth of the Vedas, and all the Puranic and historic allusions to the Himalayas, will have no significance, if the Chinese continue to hold their own in Ladakh and Longju and we simply acquiesce.

The Jana Sangh’s China resolution, therefore, analyses the policy of the Government of India in so far as it led to, or tolerated, Chinese aggression, and it has demanded a change in that policy. It expresses “concern and indignation at the continued occupation of Indian territory by China and the Government’s failure to secure vacation of the aggression.” Besides the present aggression Jana Sangh also feels that China has designs to march further deep into Indian territory. There are people and the Government of India is with them–who in their credulity believe that the present inroads of China into Ladakh and NEFA are simply an extension of the Chinese attempt to crush the Tibetan revolt and that these therefore need not cause and anxiety to us with regard to the country’s security and integrity. Bharatiya Jana Sangh does not agree with them. It is not today but in December 1953, that Jana Sangh sensed the evil intentions of China and sounded a note of warning to the Government. But unfortunately the Government relied more on the hypocritical utterances of panchsheel mantrams by China than on the sincere warnings of our own people.

Bharatiya Jana Sangh considers the question of Tibet’s independence as intimately connected with the defence of India’s borders. The defence borders of a country always extend far beyond its political boundaries. It was with this view that the British Government took pains to neutralise Tibet and Afghanistan. If India did not suffer at the hands of Chinese hordes in the past it was because Tibet always acted as a buffer. Friendship between India and China, as also respect for each other’s sovereignty and integrity, depend not on solemn declarations of panchsheel but on the solid foundations of Tibet’s independence. Any proper understanding of the Chinese peril and of our own interests would have led the Government of India into refusing to recognise Chinese suzerainty over Tibet or to relinquish our rights there in favour of an imperialistic Government. What–ever the difficulties, a retracing of steps is necessary if we want to safeguard our frontiers and secure to Tibetan people their free and sovereign existence.

The resolution also states Jana Sangh’s views with regard to negotiations with China. In this case we have to distinguish between a principle and the circumstances in which it can be practiced. Jana Sangh believes in the principle that international disputes should be solved by peaceful negotiations. But when one side uses force, there is no basis for negotiations. Unless the aggrieved party is adequately and properly compensated, there cannot be negotiations between an aggressor and the aggressed. If one resorts to them it amounts to putting a premium on aggression. A country following such a policy will never be able to defend her territory. It will invariable be a lose in any bargain.

It must be clearly stated here that though the Prime Minister last time refused Chou-En-lai’s invitation to Rangoon, he is preparing the ground for a meeting with the Chinese premier. Jana Sangh considers it dishonourable and harmful. Inspite of the much publicised Sino–Burmese border agreement. We are frankly sceptical about the outcome of any meeting between the Prime Minister of the two countries–unless our Prime Minister surrenders the China occupied areas of Ladakh for a temporary and doubtful recognition by China of the Mcmahon Line.

Some people look to Russia in this regard and are eagerly awaiting the visit of Khrushchev. Jan Sangh feels that in the first instance Khrushchev is not likely to use his influence against China and, in the second place, even if he does, it will be more harmful to India’s interests than Chinese occupation of parts of our territory. It will be a great diplomatic Victory for Russia which will throw us headlong into the communist camp.

U.S.A. may also use similar tactics. Pakistan may be instigated to commit aggression and then to come to some terms at the some terms at the behest of U.S.A. That will also have a demoralising effect on the whole of South East Asia. The only honourable and desirable course open to us is to sustain our rightful claims on our own strength.

It is therefore necessary that we refuse to negotiate until aggression is vacated. It may be that China and the Government of India may continue a protracted correspondence and thus postpone any final action. China in the meanwhile will consolidate her gains, while the Government of India will have then by pacified the deeply agitated mind of the people in this country. It will ultimately mean a de facto recognition of the status quo, as in the case of Kashmir. Jana Sangh is not prepared to tolerate this stage of affairs. It has therefore demanded active steps to liberate the occupied territory, and it will continue to agitate till the Government moves to vindicate India’s honour and to restore status quo ante aggression.
Compiled by Amarjeet Singh, Research Associate & Programme Coordinator, Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation, 9, Ashok Road, New Delhi - 110001
Content copyright © Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation
Designed & Developed by Dreamlabz Technologies
home page email us