The law of nations was not concocted by ‘bookworms’, ‘jurists’ or ‘professors’, but was created and elaborated by the deeds of statesmen, diplomats, generals, and admirals.1 This statement of the celebrated English jurist, Professor Holland, appears very much true, when attention is given to the achievements of the first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru. Being a world statesman, he projected India's constitutional vision of international order, which reflects in the doctrine of Panchsheel, as five principles of peace.
The aim of this paper is to study, in general, Nehru's contribution to the maintenance of peace, good neighbourliness and the idea of moral conduct in international relations. To keep this paper within limits, it is addressed to two objectives: First, a survey of the Constituent Assembly debates in order to provide an account of the thoughts of the framers of the Indian Constitution and to find out how far Nehru's ideas influenced the drafting of articles relating to India's international relations; and Second, an evaluation of the concept of Panchsheel that characterizes the development of International Law in Asia. It is also felt useful to take this opportunity to note Nehru's idea of peace and the Asian phase of his political thought. It will be concluded that Nehru's Panchsheel message reflected India's constitutional vision of world order, and it will be further submitted in respect of the doctrine that the contribution has, at least, at the normative level, strengthened the regime of the principles of International Law and peace. The paper is divided into four parts. The first part deals with Nehru's constitutional vision; the second discusses his idea of peace and the third analyses the doctrine. Finally, the fourth part is the conclusion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Thomas Erskine Holland, Letters to “The Times” Upon War and Neutrality (1881–1909) With Some Commentary. (London/New York/Bombay/Calcutta, 1909), at p. 81.
2.
PalRadhabinod, “International Law in a Changing World,” in International Law in a Changing World (New York, 1963), at pp. 92–93.
3.
Charter of the United Nations, Article 1 (1–4).
4.
Ibid., Article 2 (1–7).
5.
Constitution of the Republic of China, 1947, Article 141.
6.
Constitution of Japan, 1946, Article 9.
7.
Ibid., Article 8.
8.
The Mongolian Constitution, 1960, mentions in its Preamble that the foreign policy of the State will be “aimed at ensuring durable peace, friendship and cooperation between all peoples on the basis of the principles of peaceful co-existence, consolidating friendly relations, close cooperation and mutual assistance that has been established and is developing between the rations of the Socialist World, founded on the principle of proletariat internationalism.” Section 3 of the Philippines Constitution stales that war is renounced as an instrument of national policy and that the generally accepted principles of International Law arc adopted to be a part of the law of nations. See, Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee Secretariat, Constitutions of Asian Countries (Bombay, 1968).
9.
Constituent Assembly Debate (CAD) Office Report, Vol. VII, at p 606.
10.
RaoShiva B. (Ed.), The Framing of India's Constitution: Select Documents. Vol. II (Bombay, 1967). at pp. 33–34. Similar text also appeared in the Preamble to the Covenant of the League of Nations, 1919. See, American Journal of International Law (Official Documents) (1921), Vol. 15., p. 4.
11.
Ibid., pp. 142–143, 168 and 176; Shiva Rao, Supra n. 10, Vol. III, at pp. 14 and 529; Ibid, Vol. IV, at pp. 56–57; CAD, Vol. V, at p. 376.
12.
CAD, Vol. VII, at p. 604.
13.
Ibid., pp. 595, 597–601 and 605.
14.
Ibid., pp. 597 and 601–602.
15.
CAD, Vol. I, at pp. 59 and 63 (Emphasis added). M. Hidayatullah (Ed.), Constitutional Law of India, Vol. I (New Delhi, 1984), at p. 709.
16.
ParanjpeN. V., The Role of Directive Principles under the Indian Constitution (Allahabad, 1975), at p. 111.
17.
CAD, Vol. VII, at p. 602.
18.
BrecherMichael, Nehru: A Political Biography (London, 1959), at p. 109; V.K.R.V. Rao, The Nehru Legacy (Bombay, 1971), at p. 21; Girija K. Mookerjee, Nehru: The Humanist (Delhi, 1972), at p. 42.
19.
Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol. II (Delhi, 1972), at p. 363 (Hereinafter cited as Selected Works).
20.
Selected Works, Second Series, Vol. II (Delhi, 1984), at p. 409; Selected Works, Vol 15, (Delhi, 1982), at pp. 559–560; Dorothy Norman, Nehru: The First Sixty Years, Vol. I (Bombay, 1965), at p. 128.
21.
RaoK.V., “Peaceful Co-existence,” in: SinghHarnam (Ed.), Studies in World Order (Delhi, 1972), at p. 244.
22.
BaxiUpendra, “Some Remarks on Eurocentrism and the Law of Nations,” in AnandR. P. (Ed.), Asian States and the Development of International Law (Delhi, 1972), at p. 7.
23.
RajanM.S., India in World Affairs 1954–56. (New Delhi, 1964), at pp. 41–42.
24.
NehruJawaharlal, “India Today and Tomorrow,” in: NehruJawaharlalToynbeeArnoldAttleeEarl C.R., India and the World (New Delhi, 1962), at pp. 26 and 28; Sarvepalli Gopal (Ed.), Jawaharlal Nehru: An Anthology (Delhi, 1980), at pp. 392 and 418–424; C.D. Narasimhaiya (Ed.), Selections from Speeches by Jawaharlal Nehru (Madras, 1959), at p. 80.
25.
Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, “India's Foreign Affairs,”Foreign Affairs, 34, 1956 pp. 433; Sarvepalli Gopal, Supra, n. 24, at pp. 368–369.
26.
RanaA.P., “The Nature of India's Foreign Policy,”India Quarterly, Vol. 22, 1966, p. 121.
27.
AppadoraiA., The Domestic Roots of India's Foreign Policy 1947–1972 (Bombay, 1981), at pp. 25–57; M C. Chagla, “Fundamentals of Policy,” in Rafiq Zakaria (Ed.), A Study of Nehru (Bombay, 1960), at p. 229; K.V. Rao, Supra, n. 21, at pp. 243–244.
28.
SheeanVincent, Nehru: The Years of Power (New York, 1960), at pp. 127, and 145.
29.
PrasadBimla, The Origins of Indian Foreign Policy: The Indian National Congress and World Affairs, 1885–1947 (Calcutta, 1962), at p. 1; K. Satchidananda Murty, India's Foreign Policy (Calcutta, 1964), at pp. 18–19; Escott Reid, Envoy to Nehru (Delhi, 1981), at pp. 227–228.
30.
BrecherMichael, Supra, n. 18, at p. 564.
31.
Ibid., pp. 598–599.
32.
MisraK.P., “The Nature of Jawaharlal Nehru's Realism in Foreign Policy,” in RajanM. S. (Ed.), Studies in Politics: National and International (Prepared in Honour of Dr. A. Appadorai, Delhi 1971), at p. 506.
33.
BandyopadhyayaJ., The Making of India's Foreign Policy: Determinants, Processes and Personalities (Bombay, 1970), at p. 232.
34.
The main ideals underlying India's foreign policy were somewhat misunderstood by the Western countries upto 1956. See de RusettAlan, “On Understanding Indian Foreign Policy,” in MisraK. P. (Ed.), Studies in Indian Foreign Policy (Delhi, 1969), at pp. 107–124.
35.
PoplaiS. L. (Ed.), India 1947–50, Vol. II. External Affairs, (Bombay, 1959), at p. 51.
36.
Bandyopadhyaya, Supra, n. 33, at p. 67.
37.
Selected Works, Supra, n. 19, at pp. 289–290; A. Appadorai, Essays in Indian Politics and Foreign Policy (Delhi, 1971), at p. 156; Satyavrata Ramdas Patel, Foreign Policy of India: An Inquiry and Criticism (Bombay, 1960), at p. 32.
38.
Selected Works. Second Series, Supra, n. 20, at p. 506; J.S. Bright (Ed.), Before and After Independence: A Collection of the Most Important and Soul-stirring Speeches Delivered by Jawaharlal Nehru (New Delhi), at p. 424–429. In a speech in the Canadian Parliament, Ottawa, on 24 October 1949, Nehru mentioned that “the philosophy of Asia has been and is the philosophy of peace.” Sarvepalli Gopal, Supra, n. 24, at p. 369.
39.
ScalapinoRobert A., Asia and the Road Ahead; Issues for the Major Powers (Berkeley, 1975), at p. 112.
40.
Yearbook of the International Law Commission1957. Vol. 1, at p. 158.
41.
NehruJawaharlal, The Discovery of India. Fourth Edition (London, 1956), at pp. 555 and 561; Jawaharlal Nehru's Speeches, Vol. If, August 1949-February 1953 (Delhi, 1954), at p. 395; Jawaharlal Nehru's Speeches, Vol. III, March 1953-August 1957 (Delhi, 1958), at p. 289; George McTurnan Kahin, The Asian-African Conference—Bandung, Indonesia, April 1955 (New York 1956), at pp. 73–75; Jagat S. Bright, India on the March: Statements and Selected Quotations from the Writings of Jawaharlal Nehru (Lahore, 1946), at p. 87. Similar ideas were also expressed by Nehru in his inaugural speech delivered at the Asian Conference in New Delhi on 23 March 1947. See Jawaharlal Nehru, Independence and After: A Collection of the More Important Speeches of Jawaharlal Nehru from September 1946 to May 1949 (Delhi, 1949), at pp. 295–301; C.D. Narasimhaiyah, The Human Idiom: Three Lectures on Jawaharlal Nehru (Bombay, 1967), at p. 61; Sarvepalli Gopal, Supra, n. 24, at p. 393; Michael Brecher, Supra, n. 18, at p. 593; V.B. Karnik, “Jawaharlal Nehru—Foreign Policy,” in A.B. Shah (Ed.), Jawaharlal Nehru: A Critical Tribute (Bombay, 1965), at pp. 100–101; S.L. Poplai (Ed.), The Temper of Peace—Select Documents 1954–55 (New Delhi, 1955), at p. 29.
42.
Gamal Abdel Nasser, “When Two Worlds Meet,” in ZakariaRafiq, Supra, n. 27, at p. 84.
43.
Selected Works, Vol. VIII (Delhi, 1976), at p. 746.
44.
BurkeS.M., Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani Foreign Policies (Minneapolis, 1974), at p. 80; Ross N. Berkes and Mohinder S. Bedi, The Diplomacy of India, Indian Foreign Policy in the United Nations (Stanford, 1958), at p. 36.
45.
BrierlyJ.L., The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace. Sixth edition by Sir Humphrey Waldock (Oxford, 1963), at p. 43.
46.
TeiyaWang, “The Third World and International Law,” in MacdonaldR.J.St. JohnstonDouglas M. (Ed.), The Structure and Process of International Law: Essays in Legal Philosophy, Doctrine and Theory (The Hague, 1983), at pp. 960 and 962.
47.
NehruJawaharlal, Recent Essays and Writings on the Future of India, Communalism and Other Subjects (Allahabad, 1934), at pp. 14–17; Jawaharlal Nehru, The Unity of India: Collected Writings 1937–1940 (London, 1941), at p. 336; Dorothy Norman, Supra, n. 20, Vol. II, at p. 213.
48.
SyatauwJ.J.G., “The Relationship Between the Newness of States and their Practices of International Law,” in AnandR. P., Supra, n. 22, at p. 12.
49.
MendeTibor, Conversations with Mr. Nehru (London, 1956), at p. 81; S.M. Burke, Supra, n. 44, at p. 80.
50.
McWhinneyEdward, “Peaceful Coexistence” and Soviet-Western International Law (Liden, 1964), at p. 34.
51.
AppadoraiA.AroraV.K., India in World Affairs 1957–58 (New Delhi, 1975), at pp. 6–8.
52.
United Nations Treaty Series, 1958, 299, No. 4307, pp. 57–81; Lok Sabha Secretariat, Foreign Policy of India—Texts of Documents 1947–58 (New Delhi, 1958), at pp. 87–93; H.E. Richardson, Tibet and its History (London, 1962), at pp. 278–285.
53.
V.K. Krishna Menon appears to be very critical of it. He had stated that it was “not well drafted. It was not as though it was a prepared formula. It emerged out of the conversations—that is all there was to it. … It was rather like a communique. It was not a revelation. It was not a creed or part of formulation of our policy. … It shows only that both countries required it. All this does not detract from the value of its content and minimise the impact it made on us and other countries. Those who ridicule it do so because it does not fit in with expansionism and imperialism.” See BrecherMichael, India and World Politics—Krishna Menon's View of the World (London, 1968), at pp. 142–143.
54.
Nehru's Speeches, Supra, n. 41, Vol. III, at pp. 262–263; Frank Moraes, Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography (New York, 1958), at pp. 451–452.
55.
BurkeS.M., Supra, n. 44, at p. 146.
56.
RajanM.S., Supra, n. 23, at pp. 51–52.
57.
George McTurnan Kahin, Supra, n. 41, at pp. 1–11. A. Appadorai, Supra, n. 37, at p. 178.
58.
FifieldRussell H., “The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence,”A J.I.L. (1958) 52, 506; S M. Burke, Supra n. 44, at p. 151. The following were the ten principles:“ I. Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations; 2. Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations; 3. Recognition of the equality of all races and of the equality of all nations large and small; 4. Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs of another country; 5. Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself singly or collectively, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations; 6. (a) Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defence to serve the particular interest of any of the big powers, 6. (b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries; 7. Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country; 8. Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties' own choice, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations; 9, Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation; 10. Respect for justice and international obligations.” For the text of the Final Communique of the Asian African Conference, see George McTuhan Kahin, Supra, n. 41, at pp. 76–85; D.N. Sharma, Afro-Asian Group in the U.N. (Allahabad, 1969), at p. 364.
59.
Lok Sabha Debates, Nineth Session, 1955, Vol. IV, Part II, No. 53, Col. 6970; Nehru's Speeches, Supra, n. 41, Vol. III at p. 298.
60.
Lok Sabha Debates., Ibid., Col. 6973; Nehru's Speeches, Ibid., pp. 297 and 301; Ram Sharma, India's Foreign Policy: The British Interpretation 1947–57 (Gwalior, 1961), at p. 125; Shashi Bhushan, “Vision of Peace: Starting Point of Stabilization of Peace,” in P. Gopinath Menon (Ed.), Peace and Security in Asia (Bombay, 1974), at p. 63.
61.
Quoted in FifieldRussel H., Supra, n 58, at p. 505.
62.
BrecherMichael, Supra, n. 53.
63.
RajanM.S., Supra, n. 23, at p. 52.
64.
FifieldRussel H., Supra, n. 58, at p. 505; Frank Moraes, Supra, n. 54, at p. 442.
65.
McWhinneyEdward, “The ‘New’ Countries and the ‘New’ International Law: The United Nations Special Conference on Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States,”A.J.I.L1966, 60, 2.
66.
SyatauwJ.J.G., Some Newly Established Asian States and the Development of International Law (The Hague, 1961), at p. 217.
67.
Lok Sabha Debates Tenth Session, 1955, Vol VII, Part II, Col. 14198; Nehru's Speeches, Supra, n. 41, Vol. III, at pp. 306; K.T. Narasimha Char, The Quintessence of Nehru (London, 1961), at p. 81.
68.
KaranjiaR.K., The Mind of Mr. Nehru (London, 1960), at p. xv.
69.
RadhakrishnanS, Occasional Speeches and Writings: First Series, October 1952-January 1956 (Delhi, 1956), at pp. 160–162; C.J. Chacko, “Peaceful Coexistence as a Doctrine of Current International Affairs,” Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 1955, 4, pp. 39–40.
70.
RajanM.S., Supra, n. 23, at p. 53.
71.
BurkeN.M'Supra, n. 44, at p. 145; A.P. Rana, Supra, n. 26, at pp. 101–102.
72.
RanaA.P., Ibid., p. 126.
73.
AppadoraiA., Essays in Politics and International Relations (Bombay, 1969), at p. 49; A. Appadorai, “The Foreign Policy of India,” in Joseph E. Black and Kenneth W. Thompson (Ed.), Foreign Policies in a World of Change (New York, 1963), at p. 490; A. Appadorai,“ On Understanding Indian Foreign Policy,” in K.P. Misra, Supra, n. 34, at pp. 132–133.
74.
SinghNagendra, “India and International Law,” in AnandR. P., Supra, n. 22, at p. 40. Panchsheel had entered the vocabulary of the United Nations when the General Assembly had considered the Declaration Concerning the Peaceful Co-existence of States on the Initiative of the Soviet Union in 1957. But General Assembly Resolution 1236 (XII), originally sponsored by India, Sweden and Yugoslavia, did not mention the term Panchsheel. See R.J. Vincent, Non-intervention and International Order (Princeton, 1974), at p. 238.
75.
United Nations, General Assembly Official Records, Twenty-Fifth Session Resolutions, Supplement No. 28.(A/8028), at pp. 121–124.
76.
UN, General Assembly Official Records, Seventeenth Session, Resolutions, Supplement No. 17 (A/5217), at pp. 66–67. The seven principles are namely: “(a) The principle that states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations; (b) The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered; (c) The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any state, in accordance with the Charter; (d) The duty of States to cooperate with one another in accordance with the Charter; (e) The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples; (f) The principle of sovereign equality of states; (g) The principle that States shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter.”.
77.
FriedmannWolfgang, The Changing Structure of International Law (New York, 1964), at p. 322; Henry Clarke Warren, Buddhism in Translations: Passages Selected From the Buddhist Sacred Books and Translated From the Original Pali into English (Cambridge: Mass, 1953), at p. 397. However, there are some scholars who do not find any difficulty in equating some of the (Buddhist) ten precepts of priesthood to the five principles of Panchsheel. For example, “abstinence from injury to life” is equated with“ non-aggression”;“ abstinence from theft” equated with“ respect for territorial integrity”; “self-restraint” equated with“ non-interference in the affairs of other countries,” and“ abstinence from falsehood” and “sincere cooperative brotherhood” equaled with peaceful coexistence, See, K. Satchidananda Murty and A.C. Bouquet, Studies in the Problems of Peace (Bombay, 1960), at p. 116.
78.
BozemanAdda B., “India's Foreign Policy Today: Reflections Upon its Sources,” in MisraK. P., Supra, n 34, at pp. 41–42.
79.
HowardDavid (Ed.), My Land and My People: The Autobiography of His Holiness the Dalai Lama (London, 1962), at pp. 69–72 and 228–231; Girilal Jain, Panchsheel and After—A Reappraisal of Sino-Indian Relations in the Context of the Tibetan Insurrection (Bombay, 1960), at p.2; Tsepon W.D Shakabpa, Tibet—A Political History (New Haven, 1967), at pp. 299, and 323, The Legal Enquiry Committee on Tibet, constituted by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), presented its report in 1960 that Tibet was “a defacto independant State when the Agreement on Peaceful Measures in Tibet was signed in 1951. … Tibet demonstrated from 1913 to 1950 the conditions of statehood as generally accepted under International Law.” International Commission of Jurists, Tibet and the Chinese People's Republic. Indian Edition (Delhi, 1966), at pp. 5, and 139–165.
80.
BrigJ.P. Dalvi, Himalayan Blunder (The Curtain Raiser to the Sino-Indian War of 1962) (Bombay, 1969), at pp. 6–11. Bharatiya Jana Sangh and Praja Socialist Party opposed Nehru's policy of appeasement of, and surrender to, China's sovereignty over Tibet. See Balraj Madhok, “India's Foreign Policy—The Jana Sangh View,” India Quarterly, Vol. 23, Nos. 4&5, 1967, 4–5; Surendra Mohan,“ India's Foreign Policy—The PSP View,” Ibid, 9.
81.
Taufiq Ahmad Nizami (Ed.), Asia in Perspective (Selected Works of Prof. Richard L. Walker) (New Delhi, 1974), at p. 8.
82.
AppadoraiA., Supra, n. 27, at p. 229; A. Appadorai and V.K. Arora, Supra, n. 51, at p. 294.
83.
Lok Sabha Debates Seventh Session, 1954, Vol. VII, Part II, Col. 3687; Lok Sabha Debates, Supra, n. 59. Col. 6972–6973; Nehru's Speeches, Supra, n. 41, Vol. III, at p. 300; Sarvepalli Gopal, Jawaharlal Nehru—A Biography. Vol. II, 1947–1956 (Delhi, 1979). at p. 239; George McTurnan Kahin, Supra, n. 41, at p. 71; Girilal Jain, Supra, n. 79, at p. 131. It is also true, at the same time, that India's role in world affairs was conceived “in terms of a preacher of moral principles and to rely more on the declaration of such principles than on the skilful practice of diplomacy and military preparedness, vital national interests.” See Bimla Prasad, Supra, n. 29, at p. 277.
84.
NehruJawaharlal, India's Foreign Policy, Selected Speeches, September 1946-April 1961 (New Delhi, 1961), at pp. 104–105; Charles H. Heimsath and Surjit Man Singh, A Diplomatic History of Modern India (Bombay, 1971), at p. 193.
