India has been a strong champion of the United Nations, and that is the only ray of hope in the world threatened with nuclear wars. We have all along maintained that international conflicts should be settled by sitting round the table, the use of force should not be resorted to and that all disputes should be settled by negotiation. We have adopted an independent policy in the international sphere away from the warring groups because we think that it is the only correct policy not only in the best interests of our nation but also in the interests of world peace. By this policy, India has achieved a certain stature. We command respect. The peoples of the world look to our Prime Minister when they are in distress not because we have armaments, but because we try to adopt a policy based on moral considerations in the international sphere. This moral force which India has come to possess, demands that whenever there is any aggression we should support the just cause; and in the past, when the independence of any nation was threatened, India did not keep quiet. We also supported the right and the just cause without being afraid of any power.
You are aware that the question of Tibet was raised in the United Nations in 1950 when the armies of China marched into that country. On 25 October 1950 the Chinese army entered Tibet and on 7 November 1950 the leaders of Tibet sent a complaint to the United Nations against the Chinese aggression. On 18 November 1950 the representative of El Salvador moved the United Nations formally and asked the General Assembly to create a special committee to study what measures should be adopted by the United Nations General Assembly to assist Tibet against the unprovoked Chinese aggression. But when the Steering Committee of the United Nations met, the Indian representatives asked the committee to drop the whole matter and gave the assurance that the Chinese forces that were advancing had stopped and that the committee need not go into this matter.
The Government of India wanted that China and Tibet should settle the issue by peaceful negotiations and our Prime Minister advised the Dalai Lama to come to an agreement with Communist China, in view of the assurances given by the Prime Minister of China, who visited India during those days. As a result of our assurances, the Dalai Lama came to an agreement, the seventeen-point agreement, with China.
I need not go into history now. What has happened in Tibet is clear. It is clear that the Sino-Tibetan agreement of 1951 has been violated. The Dalai Lama has been forced to leave his country and to seek refuge in India. With him, thousands of Tibetans have come to our country. Even then, the Government of India wanted the situation to calm down in the hope that wisdom will prevail and a satisfactory solution of the Tibetan problem will be found out.
What is happening in Tibet is very painful to all the lovers of freedom and to all those who believe in human dignity. They are aghast at the fate of the Tibetans. Now, it is not a question of Tibetan independence or autonomy. But the question is whether Tibet will remain as an entity, whether Tibet’s distinct personality will survive or the Tibetan people will be annihilated. We are aware, and the Dalai Lama has confirmed, that a large number of Chinese are being settled in Tibet. Five million have already been settled and four million are in the process of being settled. Besides this, there are a large number of army officials.
The whole aim of China is to reduce the Tibetans to a minority in their own country and thus to destroy the Tibetan personality. It is a new phenomenon; it is a new type of imperialism. Except in South Africa, the Western countries, I mean the imperialists, subjugated other races, but they never tried to outnumber them in their own country so as to wipe them out completely from the map of the world. France has subjugated Algeria, but the Government of France respects the distinct personality of Algeria. But it appears that the people of Tibet will have to go the way of Inner Mongolia. Outer Mongolia, though not truly independent, has something of its own, but Inner Mongolia has been annexed and it has ceased to exist as a separate entity. That is happening in Tibet. The Human Rights Charter, to which Communist China is party—because the charter of human rights was approved at the Bandung Conference of Afro-Asians attended by China—these human rights are being violated in Tibet. According to the International Commission of Jurists, the people of Tibet had been denied, and are still being denied, the right to liberty, life and security. Forced labour has been inflicted on the Tibetans; tortuous, cruel and degrading treatment is being inflicted on them; rights of homes and privacy have been violated; freedom of movement within the state and the right to leave and to return to Tibet have been denied; marriages have been forced upon unwilling parties; property rights have been arbitrarily violated and freedom of religion and worship have been systematically denied. If human rights are to be violated in this manner, and by a nation which is seeking admission to the United Nations, the world, and especially our country, cannot and should not remain a silent spectator.
In addition to the violation of human rights, the International Commission of Jurists has come to the conclusion, and they have evidence to show, prima facie case of a systematic intention to destroy in whole or in part Tibet as a separate nation and to put an end to Tibetan interest. A prima facie case of genocide according to the convention of 1948 has also been made out by the commission. I need not go into these charges. Unless a commission of independent countries can go into Tibet and find out for themselves what is happening, nothing can be said. In addition to this, the Dalai Lama has stated that during this upsurge sixty-five thousand people have perished and the people of Tibet have been denied freedom to frame their future according to their own ideas and conceptions.
Now the question is raised that since China is not a member of the United Nations, no useful purpose will be served by referring this question to that august body. May I submit that India joined the nations who branded North Korea as an aggressor though North Korea was not a member of the United Nations. We did not say at that time that since North Korea is not in the United Nations we are not going to join in condemning North Korea as an aggressor. We want that China should be admitted to the United Nations because we have faith in the United Nations and we think that whatever the form of government the people of China may have, since the Government of China is the actual government and is actually in possession of the administration of that country, China should be admitted to the United Nations. But everything does not depend on us. China is not there. But it does not mean that we should not refer the Tibetan issue to the United Nations.
Another point made out is that if the Tibetan issue is referred to the United Nations it might intensify the cold war. When the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt took place the whole world joined in denouncing that aggression and no country including ours, raised the apprehension or the fear that no, the Anglo-French aggression should not be denounced because it will become a part of the cold war. The Tibetan issue has nothing to do with the cold war. It is a question of the fight of man. It is a question whether smaller nations can rest in this world or not, or will they have to lose their entity, will they have to be wiped out. India has a moral duty to the people of Tibet. We have a moral responsibility. Apart from the considerations of India’s security, with our age-old relations with Tibet, how can India remain silent when before our own eyes a nation, the personality of the people of Tibet, is being destroyed?
Suppose, India does not refer the question to the United Nations; some other country may raise it. I would like to know what will be our policy in that case. We cannot prevent other nations from raising that issue. What shall be the policy of our government? All our attempts for a peaceful solution of the Tibetan tangle have failed. In spite of the best wishes of our Prime Minister, the Chinese communist leaders are not prepared to heed to the voices of wisdom, reason and justice. On the contrary, they are branding India as imperialist and also the Indian people. India relinquished its extraterritorial rights that accrued to us from the British. The other day, our Prime Minister objected to the boundary line between India and China being called as the MacMahon line: actually objected; he said, he disliked, I think because
the very name MacMahon smacks of British imperialism. As Shakespeare has remarked, there is nothing in a name. But, it showed how deep our feelings are against imperialism. But then, the Chinese communists are branding us as imperialists.
Propaganda against India, against the people of India, has been let loose by China. According to a journalist, he has estimated that in seven days from 20 to 30 April, China, through its official newspapers, news agencies and radio, has published, distributed and broadcast seventy-seven articles, commentaries and editorials, totalling more than forty thousand words, condemning India in the most unrestrained language imaginable. Indians in Tibet are being· harassed. Police are still posted in front of our mission in Lhasa. Indian currency has been declared illegal. Cartographic aggression including thirty thousand square miles of territory of India is still there. Our protest notes are not even replied to. Do we think that in the present circumstances China can be induced to accept the just demands of the Tibetan people? The Dalai Lama has clearly stated that he and his fellows are not against social or economic reforms in Tibet. But now that stage has passed and I do not think there is any other course left for India but to mobilize world opinion against the Chinese aggression of Tibet. Even though China is not a member of the United Nations, if the Government of India takes that issue to the United Nations and we are in a position to mobilize world opinion in favour of the Tibetan people, I am sure something good will come out of it. As a nation that has faith in the United Nations, that is the only course left open for us.
When the Government of India has decided to raise the issue of China’s recognition and admission into the United Nations, in spite of all that is being done and said against India by the Chinese communists, I think it is but proper that the Tibetan issue should also be raised by our government in the forthcoming meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The government will have the benefit of knowing the wishes of the House in this matter, and I am sure my resolution will get wide support, and the government will accept it and will discharge the moral duty to the people of Tibet as a free nation.
With these words, I move the resolution.
A myth (New Delhi, August 1968)
J.R.D. TATA (1904–1993)
This speech made to the Planning Commission stands in sharp contrast to Nehru’s advocacy of a planned economy and a socialistic pattern of society. J.R.D. Tata was the head of India’s largest private sector industrial unit, Tata Sons. He was also personally close to Jawaharlal Nehru, yet his views on the Indian economy were never reckoned with. His entrepreneurship, too, flourished in spite of various government controls. He once remarked sadly to a friend, ‘my life has been a struggle—never once has any Prime Minister asked me what I thought of the economic policy of the country. In no other country would this have happened.’ J.R.D. spoke his mind in this speech. Other industrialists possibly shared his views but were never so forthright in expressing their opinions.
The alleged ‘danger of concentration of economic power’ is a phrase that occurs with deadly frequency in the Approach Paper (to the Fourth Five-Year Plan) and in almost any economic discussion with any Left Wing planner or government official. We, Indians, prone as ever to swallowing and repeating readymade catch phrases and slogans without understanding or analysing their meaning, have happily taken to this non-existent bogey deliberately planted in gullible minds by our leftist propagandists.
It would seem that the greatest danger to this country today does not come from our multiplying population, from the threats across our borders, from communal bigotry and strife, from the continued poverty of our people, but, believe it or not, from the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few individuals or firms, conducting large operations—that is, large by Indian standards but small by world standards.
As the head of the largest industrial group in the private sector, I must be possessed of a tremendous concentration of economic power. As I wake up every morning, I carefully consider to what purpose I shall apply my great powers that day. Shall I crush competitors, exploit consumers, fire recalcitrant workers, topple a government or two? I wish Dr Gadgil or some other eminent protagonist of this theory would enlighten me as to the nature of this great power concentrated in my hands. I have myself totally failed to identify, let alone exercise it.
Surely economic power in private hands, if it means anything at all, must be the power to make economic decisions, such as to start a new industry where and when one pleases, to raise capital and borrow money, to employ labour, to appoint managers and fix their remuneration, to fix prices for the goods and services one sells, to travel abroad for business or pleasure, to enter into contracts for managerial or other services, and so forth. Isn’t it odd that these are the very economic powers, the exercise of which are almost totally denied to businessmen in our country?
Let us face it, gentlemen. The bogey of concentration of economic power in private hands is a myth deliberately propagated by those who are bitterly opposed to any form of large-scale private enterprise.
In fact, the only fearsome concentration of economic power that exists today, lies in the hands of our ministers, planners and government officials. It is that concentration of economic power which is the real threat to our democracy. It is the economic power wielded by those gentlemen, and not by industrialists, which causes the agonizing delays, the misconceived policies and the mismanagement from which our economy has suffered for so long.
Strangely enough, if a large business house like Tatas does not embark for a while upon any new major industrial venture, it is accused of inactivity and lack of dynamism. If it seeks to diversify into a promising medium-sized venture, it is accused of attempting to crush, or block the growth of, small entrepreneurs. If it wishes to embark on a major capital intensive project, it is accused of monopolizing capital resources and adding to its concentration of economic power!
The Approach Paper seeks to deny large firms institution finance in order to avoid the concentration of economic power, ignoring the fact that it is the large companies with their large human and physical resources which are best able to execute large projects. What is ‘large’? This obsessional and almost psychopathic fear, pretended or otherwise, of the concentration of economic power has become a major factor in the economic policies of the government. It is because of this obsession that the Managing Agency System is sought to be totally abolished irrespective of the managerial upheaval it will cause.
It is time, I submit, that this question and the allied one of monopolies be taken away from the political arena and entrusted to a commission or other permanent quasi-judicial body, which would investigate and decide on each case on a pragmatic basis. Let the proposed Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission be entrusted with the task, amongst others, of dealing with all charges of concentration or misuse of economic power. Otherwise this vague charge will continue to poison and paralyse every important economic issue affecting the private sector that comes before the government.
The presidential system (Bombay, February 1968)
J.R.D. TATA (1904–1993)
This speech was delivered at the annual general meeting of the Indian Merchants’ Chamber. What is significant is that it took India’s leading industrialists to voice the first doubts about the merits of imposing the Westminster parliamentary model on India. The reasons J.R.D. Tata gave for why the presidential system was more appropriate for India are relevant even today, four decades on.
While I have always advocated, and still do, that businessmen should not mix business with politics, this does not mean that in their capacity of educated and responsible citizens, they should not take interest in political matters and form rational views on them. In fact, in our tightly planned, regulated and controlled economy, no intelligent analysis of economic issues is possible without taking into account the dominating influences of politics.
In the last fifteen years and more, our Five-Year Plans have been formulated by the governm
ent and passed by Parliament, our economic activity controlled by a spate of legislation and executive decisions. All economic power has been centered in ministers and members of central and state legislatures and in the bureaucracy. Today also, more than ever before, every problem is considered and every decision made on the basis of political consideration.
Unless the political system in force functions effectively, unless there is political stability and the rule of law prevails, all efforts to improve the economic climate must be frustrated. On the basis of this criterion and in the light of the recent outrageous events in Bengal and our other legislative assemblies, the proliferation of parties and groups within parties, the scramble for power or for the retention of power, the disintegration of law and order in many parts of the country, the increasing weakness of the Central Government, is there not justification for the view I hold that the political system of government we have adopted is in the process of failing?
On that assumption, the thesis I put before you today is that the British parliamentary system of government, which we have enshrined in our Constitution is unsuited to the conditions in our country, to the temperament of our people and to our historical background. Take a look at the broad geographical sweep south of Europe, from the Atlantic in the West to the Pacific in the East, from Morocco up to Japan and you will find no country except India, Ceylon and Malaysia where this system successfully prevails. It is worth noting also that only in countries of considerably greater political maturity and with a much smaller population than ours, has the system worked, or is still working, usually in a modified form.
It may be argued that other countries like France, for instance, have in the past been politically unstable for decades and yet survived and progressed, that the present political instability in our country is a passing phase—the growing pains of an infant democracy—that India will survive intact as it has survived thousands of years of even more severe political instability. I fear this is dangerous wishful thinking, which ignores the tremendous changes—political, economic and technological—that are taking place here and in the rest of the world, quite apart from the tremendous impact of our population explosion.
The Great Speeches of Modern India Page 28
