- Nehru’s 17-year tenure as India’s prime minister (1947-1964) is replete with strategic blunders and monumental diplomatic failures that will continue to haunt India for many generations.
- The Kashmir issue stems directly from Nehru’s ill-advised choices during the 1947 Pakistani attack, becoming a persistent challenge on India’s geopolitical scene.
- Nehru’s aversion to military firepower weakened India’s defense, evidenced by a rejection of modern guided missiles in the 1950s.
- Nehru’s diplomatic missteps include rejecting a permanent seat in the U.N. Security Council and hindering ties with the U.S.
- The Bandung Conference highlighted Nehru’s misguided efforts to build China’s positive image, impacting global politics in the long run.
- Nehru’s neglect of Tibet and opening India’s Northeast to Christian missionaries helped shape India’s security challenges for generations to come.
Jawaharlal Nehru served as the Prime Minister of India from 1947 to 1964. Over his 17-year tenure, a period crucial for India’s recovery from centuries of colonial rule, he managed to inflict incalculable damage to the country’s interests through a series of blunders, which, when viewed in realpolitik terms, could be considered treasonous. Way over his head in events he couldn’t begin to understand, he winged his way through situations that required careful thinking, strategizing, and long-term planning. Practically every decision he took came back to bite India. The numerous blunders he committed continue to haunt India – both in its immediate neighborhood and globally.
Nehru’s cronies often describe him as the “architect of modern India,” but according to historian and author Sita Ram Goel, he was “no more than a combined embodiment of all imperialist ideologies which had flocked to this ancient land in the company of alien invaders Islam, Christianity, White Man’s Burden, and Communism.” [1]
Gifted a Large Portion of Kashmir to Pakistan
On October 22, 1947, just two months after India became an independent country, Pakistan launched an attack on Kashmir with the view to annex the territory. The attacking force comprised Pakistan Army soldiers and tribesmen from the northwest, and together they started killing innocent civilians and raping and abducting hundreds of women. During the early days of the war, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru visited the Srinagar airfield and was briefed by Indian Air Force pilots. What happened next was stand-up comedy in the tragic backdrop of the war.
Upon learning that the IAF was using 500-pound bombs to target the Pakistani raiders, Nehru immediately started arguing that it was an “excessive use of force” and the less powerful 250-pound bomb should be used. Says Lt. General Eric A Vas: “He was told the target area was crisscrossed with nullahs and deep valleys and less powerful bombs would be ineffective. Nehru protested that this violated the principle of minimum force.”[2]
Despite Nehru’s constant interference during the war, the Indian Army threw back the Pakistanis. It was about to liberate all of Kashmir when, inexplicably, Nehru ordered a ceasefire, leaving a fifth of the state in Pakistan’s hands. Major General Kulwant Singh, the commander of the force tasked with beating back the Pakistani infiltrators, says he restrained the Indian Army from recovering these territories on a directive from Nehru. “It appears that, wittingly or unwittingly, Nehru was part of the plot to restrain the Indian Army from recovering the entire Muzaffarabad-Poonch belt and the Gilgit Agency,” comments documentary maker Iqbal Chand Malhotra.[3]
The ceasefire meant that the Kashmir problem would never be resolved. For over 75 years now, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir has been the primary infiltration point for Islamic terrorists who have launched numerous deadly attacks on India. Pakistan also ceded a slice of the stolen territory to China, which allowed Beijing to build a tunnel to Pakistan. Since PoK is on a much higher elevation, it has given a strategic advantage to the Pakistan Army against the Indian Army.
Also, it is clear that the British knew Nehru’s weakness for women, and Louis Mountbatten, the Governor General, “left Nehru alone” with his wife Edwina, whose role was “to work on Nehru to accept a ceasefire in Kashmir.”[4]
Mountbatten and Edwina’s daughter Pamela Hicks has said her father used her mother, Edwina, who shared a “deep emotional love” with Nehru, to influence him to refer the Kashmir issue to the United Nations. Hicks, who has recounted the relationship between Nehru and her mother in the book ‘India Remembered: A Personal Account of the Mountbattens During the Transfer of Power,’ said it was possible that Edwina’s influence played a role in Nehru’s decision to refer Kashmir to the Security Council.[5]
Hampering India’s defense
Another comical episode dates back to the late 1950s. The IAF was keen to purchase modern guided missiles, and negotiations with the British government were underway. During Nehru’s visit to the U.K., the Indian defense attache arranged for the screening of a short demonstration film. Lt General Vas narrates what happened next: “The brief film was very realistic and ended with a loud bang as a missile shot down an ‘enemy’ plane in a cloud of flame. Nehru got up in a rage, shouting, ‘I will have nothing to do with these sorts of weapons, ‘ and stormed out of the room, followed by his daughter Indira Gandhi.”[6]
Comedy aside, Nehru had a severe aversion to the men in uniform. He ensured the military had little to no influence in the national decision-making process. Even in military matters, he ignored his generals and preferred to listen to his political cronies and foreign ambassadors.
In 1951, when the political leadership led by Nehru was singing the cringe-inducing “Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai” slogan, army chief K.M. Cariappa saw the looming threat and presented an outline plan for the defense of Arunachal Pradesh – a strategic state on the China border. Nehru snubbed him, saying it was not the commander-in-chief’s business to tell the Prime Minister how to defend the country.” He advised Cariappa to worry only about Pakistan and Kashmir; as far as (Arunachal Pradesh) was concerned, the Chinese themselves would defend our frontiers.”[7]
In 1958, when a Chinese military delegation visited Ambala, Haryana, Lt Col (later Lt Gen), JFR Jacob of the 4th Infantry Division was asked to organize a firepower demonstration for them. During the banquet organized for the visitors, Jacob was taken back by the highly provocative remarks of a Chinese general who said, “China would never forget that Indian troops took part in the sacking and looting of the Summer Palace (in Beijing) during the 2nd Opium War.” He went on to make other contentious remarks, writes Jacob.[8]
Jacob reported the conversation to his commanding officer, Maj General B.M. Kaul – a Nehru lackey who got the job because he was the Prime Minister’s cousin. Kaul dismissed the matter, saying Jacob must have misunderstood the Chinese general. Jacob replied that he had not, but Kaul did not listen.
Four years later, Kaul was made the commander of IV Corps, which had the task of stopping a Chinese invasion. When the PLA attacked, Kaul left the battlefield in a special aircraft and checked himself into a VIP ward in a military hospital in Delhi. The Chinese quickly overran the lightly armed and poorly equipped Indian brigade, culminating in the ignominious defeat of the 1962 War.[9]
Harakiri at the UN
Nehru sacrificed India’s strategic interests by rejecting a permanent seat in the U.N. Security Council with the right to veto any resolution India did not approve. In August 1950, just three years after India became independent, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, India’s ambassador to the U.S. and also the Prime Minister’s sister, wrote to Nehru from Washington: “One matter that is being cooked up in the State Department should be known to you. This is the unseating of China as a Permanent Member of the Security Council and of India being put in her place… Last night, I heard from Marquis Childs, an influential columnist of Washington, that (John Foster) Dulles has asked him on behalf of the State Department to build up public opinion along these lines. I told him our attitude and advised him to go slow in the matter as it would not be received with any warmth in India.”[10]
“We shall go on pressing for China’s admission in the U.N. and the Security Council…..India, because of many factors, is certainly entitled to a permanent seat in the Security Council. But we are not going in at the cost of China.” – Nehru’s wrote to his sister and India’s ambassador to the U.S., Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit.
Nehru wrote back: “In your letter, you mention that the State Department is trying to unseat China as a Permanent Member of the Security Council and to put India in her place. So far as we are concerned, we are not going to countenance it. That would be bad from every point of view. It would be a clear affront to China, and it would mean some kind of a break between us and China. I suppose the State Department would not like that, but we have no intention of following that course. We shall go on pressing for China’s admission in the U.N. and the Security Council…..India, because of many factors, is certainly entitled to a permanent seat in the Security Council. But we are not going in at the cost of China.”[11]
In 1955, the Russians made a similar offer, with the difference that India would be the sixth Council member. But Nehru told Russian leader Nikolai Bulganin that it was not “an appropriate time” for India to be made a permanent member and that “we should first concentrate on getting China admitted.”[12]
Later that year, in a note on his tour of the Soviet Union and other countries, Nehru wrote: “Informally, suggestions have been made by the United States that China should be taken into the United Nations but not in the Security Council and that India should take her place in the Security Council. We cannot, of course, accept this as it means falling out with China, and it would be very unfair for a great country like China not to be in the Security Council. We have, therefore, made it clear to those who suggested this that we cannot agree to this suggestion. We have even gone a little further and said that India is not anxious to enter the Security Council at this stage, even though, as a great country, she ought to be there. The first step to be taken is for China to take her rightful place and then the question of India might be considered separately.”[13]
Nehru was maniacally obsessed with China, to the point where he incessantly talked about getting China ushered to the U.N. high table on a priority basis before India. Clearly, he was steering India’s foreign affairs without the strategic vision or skills for the job, making reckless decisions and disdainfully disregarding his own advisors.
Deputy Prime Minister Vallabhbhai Patel, in a note to the Prime Minister, warned about the dangers of supporting China at the U.N.: “Outside the Russian camp, we have practically been alone in championing the cause of Chinese entry into the UNO. In spite of this, China is not convinced about our disinterestedness; it continues to regard us with suspicion, and the whole psychology is one, at least outwardly, of skepticism, perhaps mixed with a little hostility.”[14] Nehru’s misplaced generosity was repaid in full in 1962 when the Chinese sent 80,000 PLA soldiers across the Himalayan border and occupied 90,000 sq km of land in Ladakh. While India was projecting China as an Asian sister state, the Chinese had been planning to teach India a lesson.
So, every time China criticizes or opposes India at the United Nations, you can thank Nehru for it.
Bandung blunder
Not only did Nehru pave the way for China’s inclusion in the U.N. Security Council at India’s expense, he was also responsible for creating a positive image of China among Asian leaders and, eventually, Westerners.
When the communists led by Mao rolled over China, nearly all Asian countries were alarmed at China’s aggressive backing of communist movements in Asia. They looked up to Nehru and India as a role model, but instead of capitalizing on this goodwill, Nehru worked hard to ensure that Asian countries became less hostile towards China. He achieved this miracle at the 1955 Bandung Conference in Indonesia.
Initially, several countries, including Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia, were opposed to China being invited, as the communist regime was not recognized. However, they relented on Nehru’s assurance that participation of any country in the conference would not mean its recognition by the other participants.
Here’s an account of how Nehru dressed up the conference to create a new Asian hero. “One of the most frequent among the visitors was Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai. It was his first debut in an Asian-African gathering, and although he was calm and unruffled, he did not seem quite sure of his position. Nehru took him under his wing. During mid-day recesses, the two used to walk hand in hand along the streets of Bandung with crowds cheering on both sides.”[15]
Bandung proved to be a windfall for China to rebrand itself. Zhou assured the representatives of Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia of his government’s determination not to interfere in their affairs. He issued a statement to the effect that the Chinese people were friendly to the American people. They did not want a war with the U.S. and declared China was willing to negotiate with the U.S. to relax tensions in East Asia, particularly over Taiwan.
This ultimately led to the Nixon-Mao summit in 1972, culminating in the massive flow of Western investments and technology to China.
Handing Tibet on a platter to China
Tibet gained independence from Chinese rule in 1912, becoming a crucial buffer state between India and China. Despite the geopolitical advantage of having such a buffer, Nehru did nothing to strengthen Tibet and ignored repeated requests for military assistance from the Lhasa government. Nehru’s approach seemed to treat Tibet as little more than a vassal or province of China.
For the land-hungry Chinese, Nehru’s lackadaisical approach to Tibet was an invitation to prey on the defenseless country. On October 25, 1950, barely two months after India had recklessly spurned the U.S. offer of permanent membership, Peking Radio announced that the process of “liberating” Tibet had begun.
The news of the Chinese invasion of Tibet provoked strong resentment in India. The day after the attack, the Indian government wrote to China, reminding the Chinese government of its assurances to India that they intended to solve the problem peacefully, to which the Chinese sent a scathing response, stating that Tibet was an internal matter of China and no foreign interference would be tolerated.[16]
Sardar Patel called the telegram “an act of gross discourtesy” and said, “It looks as though it is not a friend speaking in that language but a potential enemy.”[17] But Nehru remained unruffled and, as usual, did nothing.
In desperation, the Lhasa Government requested India to sponsor Tibet’s case before the United Nations. Nehru was anxious to avoid creating further difficulties in the way of peaceful settlement, and the Tibetans were advised that if they wanted to take the case to the U.N., they should do so directly. Eventually, tiny El Salvador sponsored the pro-Tibet resolution at the U.N.
[Nehru] said China would be too preoccupied with her internal problems of economic development, social change, and agrarian reform to venture upon any foreign aggression.
Shockingly, despite China’s naked aggression against Tibet and an apparent snub directed at India, Nehru continued to plead for the admission of the communist country to the United Nations. According to Indian diplomat Subimal Dutt, appointed to negotiate with China, Nehru refused to accept what everyone could see – that China was poised to become India’s major adversary. “So far as India was concerned, Nehru did not feel that Peking represented a threat to Indian interests in the foreseeable future. He said China would be too preoccupied with her internal problems of economic development, social change, and agrarian reform to venture upon any foreign aggression.”[18]
On April 29, 1954, India and China signed the Panchsheel Agreement on peaceful coexistence. “By this agreement, India surrendered her traditional rights in Tibet and also shut down her consulates in Lhasa and Kashgar in Xinjiang. By signing this agreement, India accepted and condoned China’s usurpation of a vast swathe of her territory in the Aksai Chin region of Jammu and Kashmir and also acquiesced to the organized loot of her mineral resources in Aksai Chin by the Soviet Union and China,” says Malhotra[19].
Thus, it was under Nehru’s watch that the Tibet border became militarized. With the Prime Minister offering Tibet on a platter to the dragon, the PLA was now in a position to threaten India, with major Indian cities within the Chinese bomber range. With the buffer gone, China found it easy to roll over the poorly equipped Indian troops. Today, 50,000 Indian soldiers are on permanent deployment along the entire 3,488 km Himalayan border – a logistical nightmare that no other country in the world faces.
Spurning America
The Americans were well aware of India’s potential and strongly supported the country during the freedom struggle against British rule. The two countries should have been natural allies. But Nehru had other ideas. Shortly after Indian independence in 1947, the United States invited the prime minister on a state visit, but he declined, perhaps influenced by his British friends.
The following year, the Americans extended another invitation, and this time, Nehru agreed to undertake a three-week tour of the U.S. in October 1949. The trip was a fiasco from the start. Coming after weeks of speculation and with rising expectations, the visit proved to be a great disappointment for nearly all concerned, writes American author and foreign policy historian Dennis Merrill. “Awkward incidents and gaffes plagued the tour. The occasional flaunting of American wealth particularly offended Nehru. At one luncheon with businessmen in New York, he took offense when the man seated next to him pointed around the table and boasted that the combined party represented a net worth of $20 billion.”[20]
American author Stephen P. Cohen explains Nehru’s hypocrisy: “Many Indian leaders had been educated in Britain or British-oriented institutions in India and had little personal or intellectual interest in America. If anything, they had absorbed leftist British views that the United States was the epitome of capitalism, and they shared a prejudice that Americans lacked the cultural refinements of the British.”[21]
Nehru treated his U.S. week as more of a sightseeing tour. What could have been an epochal visit became a non-event. India’s Finance Minister C.D. Deshmukh, who accompanied Nehru to Washington, noted that Nehru ignored his suggestions for more extended talks on American economic investment in India. The Prime Minister apparently thought it was beneath his dignity to appear too eager a supplicant.[22]
Nehru also upset the American leadership by his constant harping on non-alignment. But India’s non-alignment was a fig leaf for Nehru’s laziness as a leader. Rather than doing the hard work of creating a prosperous nation, he wanted to change the world – or pretend to change the world. At any rate, India’s tilt towards Moscow – while criticizing American policy around the world – was pure hypocrisy.
Having alienated the Americans, Nehru went into the arms of the communists, leading to a 50-year freeze in ties with the West. India became a pariah in the West due to Nehru’s pro-Soviet stance and his frequent anti-West diatribes. Only in 1991, when P.V. Narasimha Rao became the Prime Minister, was India finally accepted as a member of the free world. Unfortunately, by then, the U.S. had propped up Pakistan as a nuclear-armed adversary, a situation that limited India’s options to act militarily against its rogue neighbor.
Christianizing the Northeast
The Northeast is a sensitive area bordering China and Myanmar, and the presence of a large number of Christians in the area has proved to be a boon for China, which armed and financed the Christian population to wage guerrilla movements against India. True to Swami Vivekananda’s words, each Hindu who converts is not one Hindu less but one enemy more.[23] The conversion of the northeast people from their native folk religions to Christianity has put them on a path of opposition to the Indian state.
In 1840, there was not a single Christian in Nagaland. Despite persistent British attempts to convert the Nagas, only 2 percent of the state was Christian by 1911. [24]
Thanks to Nehru’s policies, Nagaland is “the only predominantly Baptist State in the World today.
That changed quickly on Nehru’s watch. In 1955, a bill was tabled in Parliament to regulate conversions and stop missionary activity in India. The bill, if passed, would have seriously handicapped the work of Christian missionaries, but Nehru struck it down, saying: “I fear that this Bill will not help very much in suppressing evil methods but might very well be the cause of great harassment to a large number of people.” Felix Alfred Plattner, a Jesuit missionary, commented: “Nehru had remained true to his British upbringing.”[25]
Nagaland’s Christian population surged, increasing to 46 percent in 1951, now at 88 percent. With Christianization came loyalty to the West, and “Christian convictions formed the heart of the emergent struggle for Naga independence.” The Baptists, with help from Pakistan and the West, started a long-running guerrilla war against India. Today, Nagaland is “the only predominantly Baptist State in the World.“[26]
Similarly, Meghalaya has a 75 percent Christian population; Mizoram 87 percent; and Manipur, once predominantly Hindu-Sanamahi, has shifted to 41 percent Christianity since 1931.
The religious transformation of the Northeast showcases the divisive nature of Christianity, which demands loyalty to the West and a complete break from the local traditions. In 2018, when the world observed International Yoga Day, Christian-majority Mizoram boycotted the celebration, saying yoga is “dipped in Hinduism.” Vanlalruata, a Mizo politician, said: “Ours is a Christian state. We cannot accept yoga because we think it is a part of Hinduism. We refuse the imposition to practice yoga, and we will keep opposing its celebration in the state.” While even Islamist Pakistan observes Yoga Day, Church organizations in Mizoram view yoga as “not compatible with Mizos and Christian belief.”[27]
Again, during the 2023 clashes between the Christian Kukis and Hindu Meiteis in Manipur, the Kukis appealed to the West to support them.[28]
The near complete Christianization of the Northeast has resulted in yet another security headache for India – thanks to Nehru policies (which were faithfully followed by Indira Gandhi, Nehru’s daughter and successor as India’s PM). Over 40 years ago, historian Sita Ram Goel predicted the outcome of the policy of appeasement and the needless toleration of the intolerant: “The first Prime Minister of independent India became the leader of a Muslim-Christian-Communist combine for forcing Hindus and Hinduism first on the defensive and then on the run for shelter.[29]
Closure
In 1949, New York-based journalist Walter Lippman praised Jawaharlal Nehru as “the greatest figure in Asia” and recommended that the U.S. consult with him on China, Indochina, and other regional issues.[30] In the U.S. Congress, a number of liberals were drawing attention to India’s democratic orientation and calling for economic aid to the country. Lippman said that “from every point of view – economically, politically and for purposes of defense – India is the logical choice.”
As surely as day follows night, Nehru will go down in history as one of India’s most incompetent leaders. Today, the vast majority of Indians understand that he placed India’s interests last in every situation. The myth built up by his liberal admirers is crumbling, and no amount of patchwork can rehabilitate the Prime Minister who was foisted on the people of India against their wishes.
Less than four years after independence, Nehru had frittered away all the goodwill India had accrued during the freedom struggle. According to Jagdish Prasad, a former member of the Governor General’s Executive Council, India was left with no friends in the West because of “self-praise,” “arrogant self-conceit,” and the belief that India’s foreign policy was “superior to that of all other powers because it is claimed to be based on truth and non-violence.”[31]
Even J.B. Kripalani, a Nehru loyalist, admitted in 1959 that India’s prestige built up under Nehru had not helped “advance any vital interests of India or diminish tension on her borders.” Kripalani argued: “The Indian government thought that the whole business of diplomacy consisted in enunciating the principles of international policy. But international politics is not concerned merely with the enunciation of abstract principles. It is very much concerned with international diplomacy, strategy, and tactics.”[32]
As surely as day follows night, Nehru will go down in history as one of India’s most incompetent leaders. Today, the vast majority of Indians understand that he placed India’s interests last in every situation. The myth built up by his liberal admirers is crumbling, and no amount of patchwork can rehabilitate the Prime Minister who was foisted on the people of India against their wishes.
Citations
[1] http://voiceofdharma.org/books/ncr/2one.htm
[2] https://www.rediff.com/news/special/special-truly-an-extraordinary-fellow/20140518.htm
[3] https://morungexpress.com/nehrus-acceptance-of-ceasefire-in-1949-prevented-indian-army-from-retaking-all-of-jk
[4] https://morungexpress.com/nehrus-acceptance-of-ceasefire-in-1949-prevented-indian-army-from-retaking-all-of-jk
[5] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/edwina-behind-nehrus-un-referral-on-jk/articleshow/2212559.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
[6] https://www.rediff.com/news/special/special-truly-an-extraordinary-fellow/20140518.htm
[7] General V.K. Singh, Leadership in the India Army, page 43
[8] Lt General JFR Jacob, An Odyssey in War and Peace, page 37
[9] https://www.indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/ceasefire-of-indo-china-war-1962-victory-has-many-fathers-defeat-is-an-orphan/
[10] Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit Papers 1st Installment (Pandit I), Subject File No. 59
[11] The Wilson Centre, Not at the Cost of China, page 3; https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/not-the-cost-china-india-and-the-united-nations-security-council-1950
[12] The Wilson Centre, Not at the Cost of China, page 5, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/not-the-cost-china-india-and-the-united-nations-security-council-1950
[13] S. Gopal: Jawaharlal Nehru; Volume II; page page 303
[14] Ravindra Kumar, Life and Work of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, page 15
[15] Subimal Dutt, With Nehru in the Foreign Office, page 98
[16] Subimal Dutt, With Nehru in the Foreign Office, page 82
[17] Ashok Kalyan Verma, Rivers of Silence: Disaster on River Nam Ka Chu, 1962 and the Dash to Dhaka, page 203
[18] Subimal Dutt, With Nehru in the Foreign Office, page 76
[19] ‘Nehru’s acceptance of ceasefire in 1949 prevented Indian Army from retaking all of J&K, Morung Express; https://morungexpress.com/nehrus-acceptance-of-ceasefire-in-1949-prevented-indian-army-from-retaking-all-of-jk
[20] Ashok Kalyan Verma, Rivers of Silence: Disaster on River Nam Ka Chu, 1962 and the Dash to Dhaka, page 203
[21] Subimal Dutt, With Nehru in the Foreign Office, page 76
[22] Dennis Merrill, Indo-American Relations, 1947-50: A Missed Opportunity in Asia, Diplomatic History, Vol. 11, No. 3 (SUMMER 1987)
[23]https://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/vivekananda/volume_5/interviews/on_the_bounds_of_hinduism.htm
[24] https://www.himalmag.com/the-early-story-of-christianity-in-northeast-india-2020; https://www.dailypioneer.com/2014/columnists/the-sordid-politics-of-religious-conversions.html
[25] https://www.inaturalist.org/places/wikipedia/Nagaland#:~:text=Nagaland%20is%20known%20as%20%22the,the%20Assam%20mission%20in%201836
[26]https://www.inaturalist.org/places/wikipedia/Nagaland#:~:text=Nagaland%20is%20known%20as%20%22the,the%20Assam%20mission%20in%201836
[27] Our’s is a Christian state, remove Hindu Governor, demand Mizo Christian bodies – NewsBharati; https://www.newsbharati.com/Encyc/2018/6/2/Mizo-Christians-demand-removal-of-Governor.html
[28] https://www.rediff.com/news/report/war-is-not-between-meiteis-and-kukis-but–biren-singh-on-manipur-unrest/20231218.htm
[29] http://voiceofdharma.org/books/ncr/2one.htm
[30] New York Herald, January 10, 1949
[31] Aparna Pande, From Chanakya to Modi: Evolution of India’s Foreign Policy
[32] J.B. Kripalani, For Principled Neutrality: A New Appraisal of Indian Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 38, No. 1 (October 1959), pages 46-60