i don’t normally talk much politics on here - but i’ve been interacting with way too many right-wingers lately - and holy shit. i didn’t know the misinformation ran this deep. since bhakts and the current government love to shit on previous congress governments (especially nehru’s) for all this country’s problems - i’d like to contribute to some discourse by debunking some every now and then.
probably the biggest thing peddled against nehru - he gave up a permanent seat on the UNSC - to China at that.
let’s establish some context here. the UNSC was formed at the end of the second world war - with 5 permanent members - the USA, the UK, France, USSR and china. in the early 1950’s, after the chinese revolution - china had been split into 2 - the communist PRC (what you’d informally call china) and the ROC (taiwan). a dilemma arose as to which one of these china’s would take the seat. in this chaos - an informal communication occured between the american administration and nehru - floating the idea that if this matter weren’t to be resolved - india MIGHT be up to get a permanent seat. another idea was floated around along similar lines by the USSR in 1955.
in an informal letter to, the indian ambassador to the US (and his sister) vijayalakshmi pandit, nehru is seen rejecting this idea. his reasoning was that this might be seen as a backhanded move by china. as two countries that had just recently deposed their colonial overlords - nehru thought it would be more prudent to india and china to remain on friendly terms, ensuring asian solidarity.
(this ofc banked on china’s goodwill. that kinda came crashing down in 1962. but that is a separate discussion).
an important point to note is that these were all INFORMAL exchanges. there is no official record of the UN offering india a permanent UNSC seat. additionally, a permanent UNSC isn’t something the CIA or the KGB hands out to countries. it requires extremely stringent process that needs the approval of 2/3rd’s of the general assembly. nehru is ALSO on record saying that india had NOT officially been offered a permanent seat, in answer to a question raised in a parliament session in 1955.
was a permanent seat a guaranteed reality? no. was nehru short-sighted? maybe. did he reject a permanent seat that crippled india’s standing in the world order? absolutely not. like many things peddled by the right-wing - they take a complex issue, strip it off nuance, make a reactionary headline that their rabid base will then eat up. please do not fall for it. do your own research.
