I have written about the obsession of history experts over the 1962 Sino-Indian Conflict and the events that led up to that conflict. I have written about the misinformation which had gained currency over the years by mere repetition, despite glaring inaccuracies and contradictions. I had expressed frustration with the intellectual laziness of those who consume this misinformation without rational thinking and the TV Anchors who play along with these experts.
In context of recent military disengagement along the Sino-Indian border, NDTV Anchor, Vishnu Som, sought opinion of Nirupama Menon Rao, former Foreign Secretary of India. Rao exhorts Som not to overlook the “central fact” that China is in occupation of 38,000 square kilometers of Indian territory, and promptly announces the arrival of 60th anniversary of the 1962 Sino-Indian Conflict. Rao thus accuses China of habitual encroachment.
Right at that time, during the interview, I heard something I hoped to hear for many years yet did not expect; Som asks Rao why she did not resolve the border dispute while she was in the government. This is precisely the type of questioning and challenging by journalists that I have been hoping for years, which Som had finally delivered!
Half Truths Peddled as “History”
There has been no shortage of “historians” who tell us of great blunders supposedly committed by Jawaharlal Nehru and VK Krishna Menon regarding China. Sixty years later, a new book seemingly comes out every month while the articles or TV debates on the subject are dime-a-dozen. All these experts pat themselves on their backs for being brave trailblazers in criticizing a “revered figure” such as Nehru, while the truth is that Nehru is the most demonized Indian politician, second only to Krishna Menon.
These experts assert that their only intention is to excavate the truth and that they are taking risks for noble purpose of helping Indians learn from the mistakes made by Nehru and Menon. Yet these brave historians seem to lack courage to question anybody other than Nehru or those who can be safely portrayed as close to Nehru. None of these historians discuss why those lessons were not learnt already in six decades since death of Nehru. None of them question any Prime Minister after Nehru for not solving the Sino-Indian border crisis.
Easier Said Than Done
When the responsibility was put on her own shoulder, Rao quickly backs down and argues that it is too complicated and impossible to do in a democracy. If it is impossible, why did she confidently blame Nehru in the book she published just few months ago?
Rao goes on to suggest that since Indian PM (Narendra Modi) is constrained by public opinion, China’s Xi Jinping should make few concessions and resolve the dispute instead. It is bizarre enough to expect the supposedly habitual aggressor to give up his advantage and make unilateral concessions. Even stranger is the fact that when the discussion moves away from 1962, Rao’s expectations drop drastically, and the 38,000 square kilometers of territory ceases to be the “central fact”!
A Word on Aksai Chin
The 38,000 square kilometers of supposed Indian territory that China is in possession of, is Aksai Chin, which not just Rao but several others claim to have been lost to China during 1962 War. Yet our own expert, Avtar Singh Bhasin, another “brave critic of Nehru,” argues that India neither had any legal claim over Aksai Chin nor was ever in possession of Aksai Chin.
Bhasin denies China encroaching on any Indian territory and blames Nehru for not trusting China. Bhasin was Director of Historical Division in the Ministry of External Affairs, Senior Fellow of the Indian Council of Historical Research, and Honorary Fellow at the Institute of Contemporary Studies at Nehru Memorial Museum and Library.
While I’m not endorsing either view, it is a contradiction that needs to be resolved because these are competing claims of India’s own opinion leaders. There is no point in fanning both arguments simultaneously if India’s intent is not to smear Nehru for political gains of BJP, but to solve the problem.
Bhasin painstakingly describes inconsistencies in Nehru’s border claims over a 15-year period to paint a picture of a clueless Nehru, without understanding the context in which Nehru took those positions. Regardless of Nehru’s positions and opinions, the facts should not change. Laughing at Nehru, while ourselves are unable to ascertain these facts despite 60-years of hindsight, is laughable by itself.
Truth on Aksai Chin Shall Set India Free
This is not a trivial matter. If Aksai Chin legitimately belongs to Tibet or China, assertions that India had lost 38,000 square kilometers, apparently the size of Switzerland, are false. But if Aksai Chin legitimately belongs to India as claimed by many, including the union home minister, the next question is, when did China seize possession of those 38,000 square kilometers from India?
Based on 1959 Kongka Pass Incident, given that Kongka Pass is on the southwestern edge of Aksai Chin, it is evident that China had control of entire Aksai Chin at least by 1959, three years before the 1962 War. So, the claim that India had lost Aksai Chin “in course of” 1962 War is false. India certainly made a claim over Aksai Chin, and probably even tried to seize Aksai Chin in 1962 and failed. But that does not amount to losing it during the course of 1962 War.
If India really lost those 38,000 square kilometers, it was long before 1962 and much before Indian Independence in 1947. Based on Bhasin’s argument that Tawang, which is now in the state of Arunachal Pradesh, was under control of Tibet until 1951, India had gained (not lost) territory during Nehru’s tenure.
How TV Anchors Encourage Misinformation
Karan Thapar, in his interview of Bhasin that was conducted in April 2022, calls it “one of the most important interviews” he had ever done. Thapar says that Bhasin’s book should be translated into every language and that every Indian should be convinced of China’s benevolence. Thapar claims that every Indian should recognize that Nehru had committed a blunder by supposedly spurning China’s friendly gestures, so that a new start can be made in Sino-Indian relations.
Bhasin claims that Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai had offered to resolve the border issue even after the 1962 War. Bhasin accuses Nehru of supposedly ignoring the offer once again, and attributes to current problems along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Let us accept Nehru’s alleged stupidity for a moment. Zhou and Mao were in power until 1976 while Nehru had died in 1964. Why didn’t Lal Bahadur Shastri, who succeeded Nehru as Prime Minister, take up Zhou’s offer and solve the border crisis? Thapar did not bother to ask that question.
Just four months later, in his interview of Shashi Tharoor, Thapar had violently agreed with Tharoor that China was deceitful with ulterior motives of seizing our territory. Thapar expressed no disagreement with Tharoor’s view that Nehru was wrong in supposedly trusting the Chinese, despite Sardar Patel supposedly warning Nehru against befriending China. Thapar made absolutely no attempt to convince Tharoor of Bhasin’s view that China had meant well.