Jawaharlal Nehru, "Speech at Bandung," 1955
While many nations were compelled to align with either the United States or Soviet Union in the early years of the Cold War, some leaders pursued a different path: nonalignment. Nehru of India helped to forge this third way, and nonaligned countries included (at various times) Egypt, Ghana, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Ghana, and others.
Questions to consider: 1. If not military force, what strengths, in Nehru's view, do the assembled nations at Bandung, Indonesia offer the world? 2. On what grounds does Nehru defend the concept of nonalignment? 3. Why might such a strategy appeal to third world leaders during the Cold War? What might the risks be to being nonaligned in the 1950s and later? |
I belong to neither [Cold War bloc] and I propose to belong to neither whatever happens in the world. If we have to stand alone, we will stand by ourselves, whatever happens (and India has stood alone without any aid against a mighty Empire, the British Empire) and we propose to face all consequences. . .
We do not agree with the communist teachings, we do not agree with the anti-communist teachings, because they are both based on wrong principles. . . We will defend ourselves with whatever arms and strength we have, and if we have no arms we will defend ourselves without arms. . .
My country has made mistakes. Every country makes mistakes. I have no doubt we will make mistakes; we will stumble and fall and get up. The mistakes of my country and perhaps the mistakes of other countries here do not make a difference; but the mistakes the Great Powers make do make a difference to the world and may well bring about a terrible catastrophe. I speak with the greatest respect [for] these Great Powers because they are not only great in military might but in development, in culture, in civilization. But I do submit that greatness sometimes brings quite false values, false standards. When they begin to think in terms of military strength whether it be the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union or the U.S.A.-then they are going away from the right track and the result of that will be that the overwhelming might of one country will conquer the world. Thus far the world has succeeded in preventing that; I cannot speak for the future. . .
So far as I am concerned, it does not matter what war takes place; we will not take part in it unless we have to defend ourselves. If I join any of these big groups I lose my identity; I have no identity left, I have no views left. . . If all the world were to be divided up between these two big blocs what would be the result? The inevitable result would be war. Therefore every step that rakes place in reducing that area in the world which may be called the unaligned area is a dangerous step and leads to war. It reduces that objective, that balance, that outlook which other countries without military might can perhaps exercise.
Honorable members laid great stress on moral force. It is with military force that we are dealing now, but I submit that moral force counts and the moral force of Asia and Africa must, in spite of the atomic and hydrogen bombs of Russia, the U.S.A. or another country, count! Many members present here do not obviously accept the communist ideology, while some of them do. For my part I do not. I am a positive person, not an “anti” person. l want positive good for my country and the world. Therefore, are we, the countries of Asia and Africa devoid of any positive position except being pro-communist or anti-communist? Has it come to this, that the leaders of thought who have given religions and all kinds of things to the world have to tag on to this kind of group or that and be hangers-on of this party or the other carrying out their wishes and occasionally giving an idea? It is most degrading and humiliating to any self-respecting people or nation. It is an intolerable thought to me that the great countries of Asia and Africa should come out of bondage into freedom only to degrade themselves or humiliate themselves in this way.
Source: Engel, Jeffrey A., Mark Atwood Lawrence, and Andrew Preston. America in the World: A History in Documents from the War with Spain to the War on Terror. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014. Print. 209-210.
Image credit: by Royroydeb (AFP) [public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.
We do not agree with the communist teachings, we do not agree with the anti-communist teachings, because they are both based on wrong principles. . . We will defend ourselves with whatever arms and strength we have, and if we have no arms we will defend ourselves without arms. . .
My country has made mistakes. Every country makes mistakes. I have no doubt we will make mistakes; we will stumble and fall and get up. The mistakes of my country and perhaps the mistakes of other countries here do not make a difference; but the mistakes the Great Powers make do make a difference to the world and may well bring about a terrible catastrophe. I speak with the greatest respect [for] these Great Powers because they are not only great in military might but in development, in culture, in civilization. But I do submit that greatness sometimes brings quite false values, false standards. When they begin to think in terms of military strength whether it be the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union or the U.S.A.-then they are going away from the right track and the result of that will be that the overwhelming might of one country will conquer the world. Thus far the world has succeeded in preventing that; I cannot speak for the future. . .
So far as I am concerned, it does not matter what war takes place; we will not take part in it unless we have to defend ourselves. If I join any of these big groups I lose my identity; I have no identity left, I have no views left. . . If all the world were to be divided up between these two big blocs what would be the result? The inevitable result would be war. Therefore every step that rakes place in reducing that area in the world which may be called the unaligned area is a dangerous step and leads to war. It reduces that objective, that balance, that outlook which other countries without military might can perhaps exercise.
Honorable members laid great stress on moral force. It is with military force that we are dealing now, but I submit that moral force counts and the moral force of Asia and Africa must, in spite of the atomic and hydrogen bombs of Russia, the U.S.A. or another country, count! Many members present here do not obviously accept the communist ideology, while some of them do. For my part I do not. I am a positive person, not an “anti” person. l want positive good for my country and the world. Therefore, are we, the countries of Asia and Africa devoid of any positive position except being pro-communist or anti-communist? Has it come to this, that the leaders of thought who have given religions and all kinds of things to the world have to tag on to this kind of group or that and be hangers-on of this party or the other carrying out their wishes and occasionally giving an idea? It is most degrading and humiliating to any self-respecting people or nation. It is an intolerable thought to me that the great countries of Asia and Africa should come out of bondage into freedom only to degrade themselves or humiliate themselves in this way.
Source: Engel, Jeffrey A., Mark Atwood Lawrence, and Andrew Preston. America in the World: A History in Documents from the War with Spain to the War on Terror. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014. Print. 209-210.
Image credit: by Royroydeb (AFP) [public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.