 "INDIA AND UNESCO : THE IDEALS OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND UNDERSTANDING" BY K.P. SAXENA

On May 27, 1964, the Executive Board of UNESCO held a special meeting to pay tribute to the memory of Jawaharlal Nehru. Rene Meheu, UNESCO Director General said of him:

A great light has gone out....Jawaharlal Nehru has radiated over the world like a beacon of tolerance and understanding among the peoples. This is because, A great light has gone out.....Jawaharlal Nehru has radiated over the world like all his life long, he never ceased to behave in the supremacy of the spirit in history and because never, not even while in prison and not even while holding power.....-- did he allow the call of human brotherhood and the demands of individual and national freedom to become separate spiritual aspirations.

That is why, Rene Maheu explained, Nehru "was so great, why he was so rich and complex a personality, while remaining so easy to approach and so gracious in his way of life". Then he added:

It was because of this, deep and abiding belief in the supremacy of die spirit, because of the faith it enabled him to have in a future for the whole world of peace and progress founded upon the only kind of human solidarity which transcends differences and antagonisms between the castes and races, between the ideologies and nations, that is to say, intellectual and moral solidarity; it was undoubtedly for these reasons that he had special dilection for UNESCO.1

As we know, Jawaharlal Nehru was one of the builders of modern India and, as the first Prime Minister (and also its Foreign Minister), guided the destiny of the country for 17 years. In a way he represented the centuries old traditions, culture and philosophy of India which laid stress on peace, justice, spiritual values and respect for religious/cultural

1Jawaharlal Nehru : In Memoriam (Paris : UNESCO, 1964), pp.17-18.

pluralism, and envisioned world citizenship and universal brotherhood. Further, his philosophy and thinking embodied what India stood for during its struggle for national independence.2 As U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO,R.B.Wade ,aptly noted:

Pandit Nehru has embodied the aspirations of India .... no figure of our generation better symbolized his country.

At the same time, Ambassador We added:

Certainly no world leader has ever better symbolized the ideals for which UNESCO stands. Prime Minister Nehru's entire life was dedicated to those lofty objectives set forth in UNESCO's constitution.3

Let us turn briefly to the ideals and principles UNESCO represents.

The genesis of the ideals which UNESCO represents could be traced to the writings of various philosophers in Europe and Asia, from time immemorial. However, in the context of the 20th century developments which have added a new momentum and urgency to the problem of peace, the concept has its beginning in the early 1920s.

A French philosopher, Paul Valery's observation,"A society of mind is the prerequisite for a society of nations", provided a source of inspiration to thinkers and politicians alike and what followed was establishment of a unit in 1922 within the framework of the League of Nations, known as `The Committee on Intellectual Cooperation'. (Initially it was composed of 12 individuals which included such well- known scientists/scholars as Albert Einstein, Madame Curie and Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose.)

2Reference is to Indian. national movement guided by Indian National Congress. For a summarised version of the policies evolved by the Congress on, international cooperation, see Mahendra Kumar, India and UNESCO (New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1974), pp. 13-47.

3 UNESCO, Jawaharlal Nehru, n. 1, p. 44.

This humanist ideal greatly influenced those who in the 1940s worked towards the establishment of the United Nations whose network of institutions includes UNESCO, while the United Nations with its political organs like the General Assembly and the Security Council was designed to maintain peace and to save mankind from the scourge of war by diplomacy and preventive action, UNESCO was primarily designed for building up intellectual environment for peace by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science and culture.

At the preparatory conference convened in London in November 1945 and sponsored by France and Britain, the French representative declared that the aim of the proposed organization would be "to create the spirit of peace throughout the world". His counterpart from Britain concurred in this belief by saying: "Our watchword is educate so that the minds of the peoples shall be attuned to peace".

This philosophy is spectacularly summed up in the opening paragraph of UNESCO's Constitution: "Since. wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed".

The Preamble and Article I of the Constitution go on to develop this initial postulate and declare in unequivocal terms that the denial of the democratic principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect of men could lead to conflicts and wars and that a peace based exclusively upon the political and economic arrangements of governments would not be a peace which could secure the unanimous lasting and sincere support of the peoples of the

world; and that "peace must therefore be founded, if it is not to fail, upon the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind".

That is to say, that the objective of UNESCO is to build international environment for peace through collaboration among nations through education, cultural exchange, development of science and technology, communication and related fields, with a view to furthering universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction of race, colour, sex, religion etc.

India, although not an independent country then, was "present at the creation" of both the United Nations and UNESCO.4 It was supposed to toe the policies and adhere to briefs given by its colonial master; yet, within those constraints, Indian delegation did make an impression at the two respective conferences.

At San Francisco Conference (April-June 1945), the Indian delegation was led by Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar. Referring to the international peace and security arrangements, Mudaliar observed that at a time when great emphasis was being laid on security and armed strength to prevent wars and aggression, "let us not forget for a moment, the vast emphasis that has to be laid on the causes that lead to war -- economic and social injustices". He said that it was social injustice and economic inequality that had always bred wars in the past and

4India, although a part of British Empire was made to join the two world wars as a "separate entity". Consequently India became a founding member of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations, and its specialized agencies.

argued that "adequate emphasis be laid on this aspect of the problem". 5He argued in favour of the proposed Economic and Social Council as a principle organ of the United Nations and that the Council should be given wider role in promoting economic development and in removal of hunger and poverty. He also underlined the dignity of the common man and that "fundamental human rights of all beings all over the world should be recognized, and men and women treated as equals in every sphere, so far as opportunities are concerned".6

At the London conference (1-16 November, 1945), which gave birth to UNESCO, India's delegate, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, while not disputing the basic theory of "minds of men", emphasised that all undemocratic forces of whatever form were detrimental to the growth of international cooperation and that the structure of the international society could be stable and peaceable if it had its roots in the moral and spiritual values of life. She underlined the need for restructuring the educational system in such a way as children and youth were no longer taught to think in terms only of the glory of their own country but taught to consider themselves as part of, and dedicated to the service of, the larger world community. She suggested that our educational system should make adequate provision for study of cultures, history and religion of various countries and for regular exchange visits of educationists all over the world.

As the, UNESCO programme unfolded, India supporting and promoting the ideals of world peace, did not wholly subscribe to the original thesis of "minds of men" as

5United Nations Conference on International Organisation (UNCIO), San Francisco, Vol.1, pp. 242-43.

6Ibid, p. 246.

suggested by the West. The idea of relationship between war and "minds of men" was initially used by the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee and was incorporated as the first sentence of UNESCO Constitution. The devastation caused by the second world war was still fresh and most of the participants in the London Conference felt that no other idea could possibly reflect adequately the sense of horror against German Nazism. The overwhelming opinion at the Conference was that the second world war was the result of the German ideology of racism and aggressive nationalism and therefore to maintain world peace the "minds of men" must be so corrected by means of education that people no longer believe in and act according to the tenets of Nazism and Fascism.

Some Western countries, particularly the United States, France and the United Kingdom, were of the view that the second world war was the consequence of Nazism, and that Germans had been ignorant of Western democratic way of life and that this ignorance contributed to the rise of aggressive nationalism in Germany, and that UNESCO should remove that ignorance and re-educate Germans. Thus the thesis of "minds of men", in its origin, to borrow a phrase from George Sabine, was both narrowly local and narrowly dated. It was this thesis which India was opposed to, from the very beginning, for one thing, it quietly ignored the fact the Nazism flourished because of the humiliations, deprivations imposed over the German people by the Treaty of Versailles.

At the second session of the General Conference, the Indian delegate (Saiyidain) argued that the role of UNESCO consisted in the creation of a world mind or a world culture and that UNESCO should stand for a new life, a new outlook, a new philosophy which would

inspire humanity. Why UNESCO should focus, he argued on "re-education of Germany", why not the entire world?

The basic objective of a peaceful world order could be achieved, in India's view, only if the plans of educational reconstruction were based upon a broad, forward looking approach to the question of international understanding and cooperation. Saiyidain argued that socio economic conditions which constituted the root causes of war should be eliminated -- conditions responsible for the social and economic injustices and unjust exploitation of nations and people. He also pleaded for revision of text books and re-orientation of the entire educational machinery which reflected distinct racial, political and religious bias and prejudices and that the formidable media of mass communication, the press, radio, the cinema and all other agencies should stop propagating dissemination of ideas reflecting religious and racial discrimination.7

In India's view, the real meaning of the "minds of men" thesis was that we should inculcate in the minds of men a respect for all cultures, removal of prejudices and inculcation of goodwill and respect for others. This would mean that no nation should have a right to dominate over other cultures or to have a sense of superiority about itself. S. Radhakrishnan pointed out that any effort to impose any particular way of life would amount to undue dominance , a kind of "cultural Fascism".8

7UNESCO, Records of the General Conference 1st session, Plenary, 5th mtg. 22 November 1946, pp.54-55.

8UNESCO, Records of the General Conference, 2nd session, Plenary, 4th mtg, 8 November 1947, p. 60.

India's view of world peace is well reflected in the vision of leaders of modern India such as Rabindra Nath Tagore, Mahatma Gandhi, Abdul Kalam Azad, S. Radhakrishnan, Jawaharlal Nehru. While ceaselessly working, for India's national independence, they envisioned universal brotherhood and world citizenship. Nehru, on the international plane, groped for one world of his vision. He supported nationalism but emphasised that "it must not be allowed to become aggressive and come in the way of international development". 9He was conscious of what a strong cementing link nationalism is in welding the conflicting groups in a country into an irresistible force when it is fighting for its freedom. He spoke of how "nationalism built the nations of Europe during the 19th century and made them powerful today. But he was also conscious that beyond a certain stage, nationalism was a narrowing creed and could pose a danger to others if carried beyond the country's borders. He argued:

Every intelligent person can see that if you have a narrow national policy it may enthuse the multitude for the moment... but it is bad for the nation and it is bad internationally because you lose sight of the ultimate good and thereby endanger your own good. Therefore, we propose to look after India's interests in the context of world co- operation and world peace, in so far as world peace can be preserved.10 He believed in nationalism, which embraces internationalism and universal brotherhood. To quote him:

Nationalism, of course, is a curious phenomenon which at a certain stage in a country's history gives life, growth, strength and unity but, at the same time, it has a tendency to limit one, because one thinks of one's country as something different from the rest of the world. The perspective changes and one is continuously thinking of one's own struggles and virtues and failings to

9Inaugural Address at the Asian Relations Conference, New Delhi, March 23, 1947, cited in Jawaharlal Nehru India's Foreign Policy, Selected Speeches, 1946-61 (New Delhi: Publication Division, G.O.I., 1961), pp.252-53.

10Constituent Assembly of India, December 4, 1947, ibid, p.28.

the exclusion of other thoughts, The result is that the same nationalism which is the symbol of growth for a people, becomes a symbol of the cessation of that growth in the mind. Nationalism, when it becomes successful, sometimes goes on spreading in an aggressive way and becomes a danger internationally. Whatever line of thought you follow, you arrive at the conclusion that some kind of balance must be found.*11

Nehru's vision of world. peace can well be appreciated not only by quoting what he said and citing instances of what he attempted to do but also by recalling the pervasive international environment that had engulfed the world at a time when United Nations and UNESCO had hardly become operational.

It is common knowledge how the chief allied powers who were mainly responsible for framing the UN Charter, as also UNESCO Constitution, soon fell apart. The sharp conflict that ensued between the so-called "East and West" posited not only the most serious threat to world peace by also too frightful possibility of actually extinguishing the human race. Inevitably, the ideals enshrined in the UN system including UNESCO were quietly forgotten.

At that point of time, Nehru alone among leaders of various governments refused to align his country and himself on one side or the other. No leader of any other government, at that point of time envisioned, what was needed for world peace.

In his very first broadcast on September 7, 1946 to the nation as Vice President of the Interim Government, he spoke of India's basic foreign policy objectives:

The pursuit of peace, not through alignment with any major power or group of powers but through an independent approach to each controversial or

11*Ibid, pp.252-51

disputed issue, the liberation of subject peoples, the maintenance of freedom, both national and individual, the elimination of racial discrimination, and the elimination of poverty, disease and ignorance which afflict the greater part of the world's population.

The first principle of his policy, pursuit of peace, without aligning India to any group of powers became known as the policy of non-alignment. Nehru explained that:

the primary objective is to oppose lining up for war purposes, to military alliances and the like we keep away from such an approach because such alignments in the past have led to world wars and which may again lead to disasters of an even vaster scale.12

He elaborated the point by recalling:

In the past one great consolation was that things happened only in the particular quarter of the world. If there was a collapse in one part of the world, the other part carried on. Now, the whole world hangs together in life and death so that if this civilization fades away or collapses, it will take practically the whole world down with it. No part of it will be left to survive as it could in olden times. In this atomic age the question of world peace has also become a test of human survival.

Nehru believed the world was "moving inevitably towards closer cooperation and the building up of a world commonwealth" and, he pledged that "it is for this one world that free India will work -- a world in which there is the free cooperation of free peoples, and no class or group exploits another".

He believed that by keeping away from military alliance. India, as other Afro-Asian countries, who had opted for the policy of non- alignment, could strengthen those forces which would in turn strengthen the cause of peace. Not by speeches alone but by positive action India, under Nehru's leadership, played a crucial role in obtaining armistice in Korea, in