Asia Society presents; 14

A fuel source at a prison. This is a series of interviews with experts on Asian affairs designed to strengthen our understanding of Asian people and ideas. Your most on this transcribed series is the noted author on the ward winning broadcaster Ligue Graham. Here now is Mrs. Gregg because these days there are many people who are so-called experts on China old China hands I think they're called. But not many of them have been in China. And that is why I think it is particularly gratifying that our guest on this program is a man who really knows about Jina it has been the great part of the study so far and he's made two visits to that country. He comes from India and he is P. Dutt. Professor Dodd is head of the department of Chinese and Japanese Studies at Delhi University. And at the time this program was being taped in advance of its broadcast he was a member of the Indian delegation to the 23rd session. The U.N. General Assembly president has written a number of books about China

and he has expressed well something that we all are aware of the fact that there's a remorse there's a sorrow that China and India are not the friends they used to be. Now Professor Dutt what has changed the relationship between India and China was it that an invasion some time ago Indian Territory. Well it was the invasion which was the sort of final act of the drama the invasion symbolized the political confrontation that had been taking place since 1957. I think sometime in 1957 policies began changing perhaps in both the capitals but certainly in Peking. I think very few people realize that. India and China were set on opposite courses in foreign policy from 1957 on what India was trying to reduce the international tension and

to improve her relations with Washington and Moscow at the same time. She wanted to lower the international tensions and she wanted joint assistance not only for India but for other Asian countries of both the Soviet Union and the United States. On the other hand China was pursuing gradually a totally opposite course. China wanted to increase the international tension because I believe they thought their national interests would be by increasing the tension. They were looking at scams. That countries who were friendly to both Moscow and Washington and the set really didn't like assistance flowing from both of them. Eventually assisted they wouldn't they didn't like Moscow to us as the same country so they too were following just the opposite course in foreign policy and at the same time I believe I have every wrong but I I do believe that the Chinese wanted to discredit

the particular kind of development that was taking place in India. I. I would call it briefly narrow as you know they wanted to discredit net result. That is to say Nowruz them in the sense of a mixed economy in the sense of fair development within a democratic framework and at the same time friendly relations with both the big powers of the world. I think they wanted to discredit that and to show that there was only one party in Asia and that was the Chinese POS. And they were could be no democratic development. Of any nation country only development could be by following the Chinese path. I think these were some of the weighty reasons along with some others like this Sino-Soviet conflict and so on. But these were probably some of the really weighty reasons for the drift apart of India and China.

You say that you do embassies exist and you do have a bathroom we don't have about you. We only have Sharjah do I say that. So what would you call that a half broken diplomat as a as the situation of a cold peace. Yeah. Would you say that this reflects the view of the average Indian towards China. You know many of us in the West have always known that the two of the great civilizations of the world have come from India and China and that you have much in common in spite of this friction. So does the average Indian person feel this way about China. Well I'm glad you asked that because that gives me a lot of surety to philosophize again you know like an academician. I think at the back of everything there is the question of their just point of relations between the two biggest countries of Asia. And if it becomes more acute the problem becomes more

difficult because both proud ancient civilizations. China is an ancient civilization and very proud of it. Rather more isolated than India from the rest of the world and therefore there is this problem of communication with China. But certainly China is a proud ancient civilization and very nationalistic. India also is an ancient civilization and a proud civilization and nationalistic. And therefore there has been this problem of adjustment between the nationalisms of the two biggest countries of the world. Though I do feel not because I'm an Indian but as a social scientist and as an observer I do feel that perhaps India have made more honest effort to do Seoul than the Chinese did. You mean for a reporter for a start of an adjustment of relations I mean India is willing to accept wars and is willing to accept China as a major part a nation as a major country but not as the

dominant power in Asia. THE PRESIDENT You made the point that the tension in China would serve the national purpose and that perhaps is the reason why its kept alive. You mean to rally the people to Mao and his point of view. One has to keep the people on the alert and point out dangers from the outside is that the idea. I would say that is only part of it. The major idea is to show India's weakness before the rest of the Asian countries and the rest of the world and to make it very clear that there was only one power which mattered and that was the issue that was China and also that there was no other way of development. No no nowhere for that this mixed economy was a hoax. You could not develop a true friendship with Washington or Moscow and that the only power that you could choose was the Chinese path would you. If this is not too technical let's say too difficult to question. Would you

review the countries of Asia and tell me what is India's point of view toward them. I mean which countries are you friendly us with and which countries are you wary of. Well the only other country we are not friendly with is Pakistan and that is rooted in. The history of the last 20 years. India was as you know India was partitioned between two countries India and Pakistan and this is left a legacy of bitterness and tension which has persisted to this day. Do you think there's any way of overcoming that. It would be possible probably over the years if if both the countries decide first to start communicating with each other before trying to settle all important problems. If you forced Lord detentions and begin talking see and open the doors open the

doors of channels of communication open the windows sea and let the winds blow in and of the people you know if the people could communicate to each other more freely they could get together. Then I think gradually you would be able to. You would be able to resolve other problems was a very complex issue as you know. Yes the new way I don't know whether this is the correct analogy a little bit though it is like the Arabs in Israel. It's almost it is if it's impossible to have a discussion there is a lot of differences because India and Pakistan. If I may use the flash of. Flesh can love that. Yes not it is not true of all of Israel and the Arab countries. I mean here was one country which was partitioned into two countries and there was a very close relationship between the between the communities that lived in these in these parts of the country.

For instance I'm sure you won't be able to distinguish between me and a Pakistani. Yes but I think the point and I think a Pakistani will be able to do either I would be able to do either I'll have to ask are you from and you're from Pakistan. Yeah well that's why it would seem as if it should be easier to resolve your problem. And yet there seems to be almost as might my analogy consisted of this fact that there seems to be as much bitterness whether it's between Arab and Israeli or between Pakistani and Indian over territory and those bitternesses offer different order than written Israel and the Arab countries because I think the bitterness that prevails there is not the bitterness that has existed between people who were very close to each other. See here the people have been very close to each other one country was divided into two. Now a social scientist again. Some theories about it. I feel that. It always happens that in any part of the world when there is a major country and then there's an

intermediate country in the middle there's a problem of adjustment. And in the case of Pakistan there's not merely a question of her adjustment to a major country on our front that is India where and with whom we've had very close relations before. But there's also the problem that Pakistan is divided into two parts the eastern and the western and the two have no common frontiers. Yes that are so loud and well miles of Indian territory in between. And therefore there is this problem of identity. You have to find your identity and in order to find your identity. The enmity against a common enemy plays a very important role and I would say perhaps that may be one reason why India and Pakistan are unable to come closer because. Because this question this problem of identity of the two parts finding finding a common identity has not yet been decided.

You of course you have the religious difference which is a profound one. You know I think that that you haven't I probably understood this situation. Quite as I will I would like to explain it. For instance this is not merely a question of religious difference because there are fifty million Muslims in India living in India and therefore it's not a question of just religion although it is true that the two states are functioning on different theoretical basis. India is functioning on the basis of what we call a secular state. That is to say religion is a private affair of an individual and all individuals are equal before the law and therefore the state and all have equal opportunities. Now Pakistan subscribes to the theory of being of being an Islamic state but is it the official religion is Islam. But. I want to I wanted to say was that religion is not the issue because 50 million people are practicing the

same religion professing the same religion as they were jollity of Pakistanis do in India and there are many millions of other people who profess other faiths as not just a question of yes but the religion did play a role in the partition religion. Their role in this sense that there is an appeal to religion for supporting this particular party of that particular party but so far as India is concerned we reject the view that religion should be the basis of society. Yes I would quite agree with you that is the most civilized tolerant point of view. Before we go back to China professor one more question. Are there many or any non Moslem people living in Pakistan. There are but not as many as live in India. I see there are there are a number of Hindus and Christians living in the eastern part of Pakistan. There are those living in the western part of Pakistan.

Well that is one of your continuing problems and I certainly hope you can resolve it. China perhaps is a more formidable problem maybe not as acute at the moment and I think there are wiser men in your country who will have to work on that solution but from your point of view Professor dot you have been in India twice as we pointed out once for six weeks in 1952 was part of our cultural China cultural delegation and then another time in China from 56 to fifty eight. Would you just comment on both your visits. What differences you might have seen between the two visits. Well lived in 52 was a very early period of of the Chinese Communist regime and this was a period of rehabilitation. I lived where I was trying to. 56 was was a period of forced the hand of laws and then the big leap in the people's commune. This was a period when the

Chinese were trying to decide what is the what is the particular method of a strategy of economic development that they are going to pursue. Well it is difficult to sum up a few words but. I would say that the changes or the manifestations that we notice now in China and the Cultural Revolution perhaps had roots in 1957 58 and we can we can certainly link the present developments to what happened in 58. How did you happen to spend two years there. You know actually it was three years I was on economic assignment I was on there an exchange of Scholars program with China and I was at Peking University.

Did you have a chance to travel much throughout. Yes I did. I did travel a great deal of the country in Sichuan. Southern China went around and also I went to Manchuria and other places so this was big before the friction began to mount between China and India so you probably have a well received. Yes very well received. The not only the government but the people who are also very friendly. Did you hear anything unfriendly about India at the time. Not at that time no. It came later and after a few a few months after I left. What is the attitude would you say about the Asian countries towards China is it want to see is it want to. I think you have. I believe if we be connect to say that all countries are somewhat apprehensive as to what the motives and objectives of this great giant

is. Are far they're all trying to study all the wearer's changes that take place in Peking and they're all hoping that they will us stay out of harm's way. But anyway that is putting it rather likely but I think all Asian countries are interested in knowing what the Chinese foreign policy objectives are and how they're going to develop. Rather certain countries in Asia who are closer to a more friendly with China than others. Oh yes each one well-off we had longed for and yes more friendly North Korea was more friendly and both not as friendly as one would imagine. I mean I think they're also somewhat apprehensive. One gets the impression that they appreciate whatever help they got from China. But on the other hand they don't want to be smothered by the Hell yes they do want and dominated by

China. They were. They appreciate the help as you said. And there they would like to have friendly relations with China and they would not like to do anything which would unnecessarily alienate Peking. But at the same time they would not like to be dominated by Peking and they wouldn't want to follow whatever picking order and those other any noncommunist countries who are already rich and homebody friendly relations which all have normal relations with China. Yes. To come about me I have focused on is very very friendly relations with China in fact getting both economic and military assistance from China. I see because speaking of Cambodia Pakistan is one of the few noncommunist countries which is getting military assistance from China. Yes you are going out Hanks and airplanes would appear to be an obvious

power play. Yes yes yes. But returning to Cambodia it was only recently that the leader of Cambodia said that he too was apprehensive about China and that the United States made him he wasn't crazy about the United States but he felt happy to see us there and in Asia. Yes I think there's no doubt that Cambodia. Is apprehensive it is not that Prince doesn't know what the problems are what the danger is. But I think he is trying to see if we can possibly stay on friendly relations with Peking because the country is too small to stand up to the pressure of a big country like China and therefore is hoping that a policy of friendship would enable him to keep the pressures down to the minimum. Would you say prefers the doubt that that is something which is not always well understood in the West. The necessity for this smaller Asian countries to try to be friendly to all

sides because of their geographical location and because the economic need and that often they are misunderstood because they are not they don't always speak is in the forthright manner which we might want and yes I would say that it is not because firstly a country like the United States is the greatest power in the world and therefore it is definitely yes. Therefore it is not easy to understand what what it is to be a Cambodian or a Laotian or a leper and so on. Even an Indian. And secondly I think what we do not adequately grasp is the fact that. More than anything else it is the economic stability and health of these countries that which will bring about political stability in this in this region that these countries will not go under as a result of our foreign invasion and that they will survive Szell would

not succeed unless there was acute economic and political instability and the greatest and the most effective method of promoting political stability is to is to make them more economically stable and developed. And once you have a process of economic development then it will be much easier to meet the challenges they have because in the you know all these countries are nationalistic and nationalism is the biggest asset that you have in Asia. It can go to extremes at times but subtly It is the biggest asset and the nationalism of each single country of Asia style Burma Slauson will be able to withstand the Chinese challenge. I can appreciate nationalism as many people can but still isn't nationalism in the long run the enemy of world peace. No I wouldn't say that it depends. The nationalism of these small countries is

not the enemy of world peace. The nationalism of the big powers are the very big countries can sometimes become an enemy of world peace but not of a small country in a smaller country it is strengthening in the larger carry laws in the larger context this strengthens world peace because the smaller countries refuse to come to be sucked into the objects of influence of the bigger powers. And that way it plays a more positive role. A final question professor. Do you feel satisfied with the progress economically especially the progress in Asia that you've observed or do you feel that a great deal is left to be done no I'm not satisfied. I'm quite anxious about it. Although this year in the last year there have been much better than previous years. But. But then the previously for yes but I'm not at all satisfied. I think your country can do much more to help this process. How about your own country. We are trying to do

and we hope we will continue to try to do whatever is possible with us. Yes no I meant the progress in your own country. Well I'm not satisfied that I don't know what we are. We have made more progress this year than last year and we did the last two years for that and we are again life live on the upswing. But it is a long process a long process with us adult by the time this program is here and you will be back at Delhi University where all your students I'm sure have been missing you because our guest on this program Professor V.P. Dutt is the head of the department of Chinese and Japanese Studies at Delhi University in India for quite a while he has been a delegate to the Indian a member of the Indian delegation to the 23rd session of the UN General Assembly. He is an authority on China as you can hear and he has been most welcome at this microphone. This is Lee Graham saying goodbye and asking you to remember that although East is East and West is West we do think the time has come for the twain to meet.

That concludes tonight's edition of the Asia Society presents with league Graham. This series comes to you through the cooperation of the Asia Society. If you would like to comment on tonight's program or would like further information about the society and how you can participate in its many interesting activities please write to Mrs. Graham at WNYC New York City 100 0 7 and make a note to join us again next week at this time for another edition of the Asia Society presents. This program was distributed by the national educational radio network.