Leaders of Arab Non-Alignment

[(TRIBUTE

Eminent political scientist, writer and foreign affairs commentator Professor Bhabani Sengupta, 89, died in the Capital on January 18, 2011 after prolonged illness. For several years he was associated with the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi. Besides being a prolific analyst of international events, he was a creative writer and wrote several novels in Bengali under the pen-name ‘Chanakya Sen’. Under that pseudonym he also wrote several articles in Mainstream soon after its inception. While offering homage to his memory we are reproducing his first piece in this journal on January 12, 1963 as well as the statement issued in his defence by several academics when he was attacked after his resignation as the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) in the PMO during the premiership of I.K. Gujral in the first half of 1997. (This appeared in Mainstream on May 17, 1997.) )]

by Chanakya Sen

The visit to India of two foremost leaders of the Arab world, Prime Minister Aly Sabry of the United Arab Republic and Prime Minister Rashid Karame of the Lebanon, at a time when this country is engaged in a meaningful struggle against Chinese arrogance and militarism is an event of extraordinary significance. For, these two Arab leaders represent not only the vanguard of the Arab revolutionary movement, but also the sturdy policy of Arab non-alignment or positive neutrality which binds them closely with India.

The missions of Mr Aly Sabry and Mr Rashid Karame are not the same. The former has joined the Prime Minister of Ceylon, Mrs Bandaranaike, to plead for India’s acceptance of the Colombo Conference proposals as the basis of a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Sino-Indian border dispute. The latter comes to New Delhi next week on an official visit on an invitation from the Indian Government. Incidentally, Mr Karame will be the first Prime Minister of the Lebanon to come to India on such a visit.

The Chinese Government received the Bandaranaike mission with great cordiality. The Chinese Prime Minister, Mr Chou En-lai, the Foreign Minister, Mr Chen Yi, and other top-ranking Chinese leaders have had prolonged discussions with Mrs Bandranaike and the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Subandrio. From the public speeches of the Chinese leaders as broadcast over Peking Radio, it would seem that the Chinese Government has made up its mind to accept the Colombo proposals as the basis for negotiations provided the Government of India, too, is ready to accept them.

India’s reaction to the Colombo proposals has not been entirely unfavourable. So far these proposals have not been officially disclosed; nor are they final in scope or character. Rather, the six non-aligned nations which assembled in Colombo to find a solution of the Sino-Indian dispute regard them as the first step towards a settlement. While the proposals have been under study in New Delhi for about a month, Prime Minister Nehru has commented that there are certain things about them which are rather vague. The Government of India, he added, was waiting for Mrs Bandaranaike and Mr Aly Sabry to come to New Delhi in order to get these vague aspects clarified.

Presumably, the Colombo proposals will be judged in New Delhi for one central thing: whether they secure India’s minimum demand, withdrawal of the Chinese forces to the pre-invasion boundary line. In other words, vacation of the latest Chinese aggression. The Chinese Government has so far arrogantly refused to accept this demand, although they say that if their own peace proposals are implemented, their forces will have withdrawn beyond the pre-invasion line. The only explanation of this apparent contradiction in the Chinese stand is that they consider acceptance of the Indian demand as admission of invasion of this country. This the Chinese Government is not prepared to do.

One should imagine that the Indian Government will not quibble over this matter if it is certain that the invasion has been vacated. The Colombo proposals are aimed at securing a Chinese withdrawal beyond the September 8 line; but they require India not to occupy the areas vacated by the Chinese. The vacated area would constitute a no-man’s land; and the two sides are to return to the conference table to negotiate a settlement.

UAR’s Role

IT is in this context that the visit of Mr Aly Sabry to India is important. For, of all the non-aligned countries the UAR was the first to grasp the far-reaching dangers of the Sino-Indian border war. The UAR Government realised that if the war could not be brought to a speedy end, all kinds of Cold War forces would enter the field and make the situation complicated; that non-alignment would be in danger. And it also realised that there can be a settlement honourable to both sides only on one basis: that neither party wants to make territorial gain from war. Since in this war it was China that committed aggression and advanced deep into Indian territory, the four-point proposals made in the middle of November in a resolution adopted by the UAR Presidential Council enjoined upon China to vacate the aggression and return to the pre-invasion line. It is a pity that the Chinese Government turned down this very reasonable and rational suggestion.

It was, however, these proposals of the UAR Government which Mr Aly Sabry took to Colombo, and the Colombo proposals bear a close resemblance to them. So, the presence of Mr Aly Sabry in New Delhi when the Colombo proposals are discussed will be a measure of assurance to the Indian Government that the non-aligned nations are not selling peace to India without honour and dignity.

Hero of Tripoli

THE Lebanese Prime Minister is not directly involved in the Sino-Indian conflict, although newspapers in the Lebanon have stood firmly by India and have not minced words in condemning the Chinese attack. This is important because the present Government of the Lebanon fully adheres to the principle of peaceful co-existence and non-alignment, and Mr Karame himself belongs to the Arab nationalist vanguard. He had resigned from Prime Ministership in 1958 when the former Lebanese President, Camile Chamoun, had influenced the Lebanese Parliament to vote for the Eisenhower Doctrine. Mr Karame retired to his home town of Tripoli to organise a popular resistance movement precedented only by the Lebanese resistance to the French bid to reoccupy the country towards the end of the Second World War. When the United States intervened in the Lebanon by sending Marines in the wake of the Iraqi Revolution, Rashid Karame intensified the struggle for Lebanese independence. All over the Arab world he was known as the Hero of Tripoli. When the crisis came to an end with the stepping down of Chamoun and the election of General Chahab as President, Rashid Karame was the obvious choice for Prime Ministership.

Under the leadership of President Chahab and Prime Minister Karame, the Lebanon, which happens to be the only Arab country wedded to the parliamentary democratic form of government, has been following the policy of positive neutrality and friendly, peaceful co-existence with all countries. The Lebanon is a prosperous small country thriving on trade and commerce; its per capita income of Rs 2000 is probably the highest in Asia and Africa. The country has now adopted a policy of industriali-sation; there has been tremendous progress in the cultural field (with 95 per cent of the people literate); while in Arab politics, the government is firmly in favour of social, political and economic progress.

There is not the slightest doubt that Mr Karame will announce his country’s solidarity with India in her struggle with China. This support is of the utmost importance to our country at this juncture. It will not only give the lie to the Peking propaganda that India stands “isolated” from the Afro-Asian nations, and that she has ceased to be non-aligned. What is even more important, it will make the people of India feel that non-alignment is still a live force; that countries of the Arab world which care for independence and progress are with them; and that they can count upon the support of the non-aligned nations. It will also take the wind out of the sails of those within India who decry the utility of non-alignment.

(Mainstream, January 12, 1963)