E-Paper
Panchsheel: The untold story
Contrary to popular belief, Panchsheel was not Jawaharlal Nehru?s but Zhou Enlai?s formulation. But Nehru was responsible for propagating the principles.
Myths are an integral part of Indian life. Panchsheel would seem to have become such a myth. The name ‘Panchsheel’, its origin and its contents, all speak of its mythical character. Indians are deluded by the ‘Sanskrit’ name. But in the classical language, the word ‘sheel’ doesn’t mean ‘principle’ but ‘character’. The term is taken from the Indonesian usage of the word — and Indonesians may have been influenced by Buddhist use of the word ‘sheel’.
Indians fancy ‘Panchsheel’ as Jawaharlal Nehru’s valuable contribution to the world, as it first received world attention when he and Zhou Enlai issued a joint statement in Delhi on June 18, 1954. Actually, these principles were not formulated by Nehru. The credit should go to Zhou. While receiving the Indian delegation to the Tibetan trade talks on Dec. 31, 1953 (and I am probably the only surviving member of that delegation), he enunciated them as "five principles governing China’s relations with foreign countries".
The Indian delegation was nominally led by Raghavan, the then Indian ambassador to China, but in reality by T.N. Kaul, then JS(EA) or Director General for Asian Affairs in Delhi. Kaul was impressed and conveyed his appreciation and the significance of these principles to Nehru, with whom he enjoyed a close rapport. Nehru agreed and Kaul took the initiative to mention them at the very outset of his draft text of agreement. That was in January 1954.
Surprisingly, the response from the Chinese foreign office was delayed and when it came, it was negative. Zhou wasn’t in China. Vice-Foreign Minister Chang Han-fu told the Indian side that China did not think the inclusion of the five principles as ‘necessary’. In effect, he was overruling his own foreign minister’s (and prime minister’s) formulation. Could he have done so without specific advice from someone above Zhou? Anyway, the talks dragged on for over three months. Zhou was away in Geneva for talks on India-China relations. Kaul, however, persisted in his efforts. When Zhou returned to Peking, he, with his native genius for compromise, found a via-media. He suggested that the five principles may not be included in the main text prominently, but could appear in the preamble.
India accepted the compromise. But two months later, when Zhou visited Delhi, Nehru and Kaul emphasised these principles in the joint statement issued on June 18, 1954. China’s hesitant formulation caught worldwide attention because of Indian sponsorship. Zhou propounded the principles but Kaul picked them up and Nehru propagated them. Nehru enjoyed high regard in the NAM and soon other Asian countries like Burma and Indonesia followed suit. The Chinese Communist Party’s reservation on Panchsheel was also underlined by the fact that it was then given out that these principles didn’t apply to Soviet bloc countries or capitalist countries of the West and were mainly meant for countries in Asia.
There was thus evidence of a gap in the highest level of the party hierarchy, which was then a closely-guarded secret. Today, a mass of material has become available which sheds new light on the situation. Zhou was the formal head of the government and the reasonable, efficient and affable face of China to the outside world. But actual power was wielded by only one person, Mao Zedong. Zhou tried to run a government of kindness and consideration, but Mao was a cunning and ruthless ruler wedded to power, who cared little for the world. It is now clear that Mao never liked or trusted Zhou — if anyone at all. He bore ill-will towards Zhou because of what happened at the Ningtu Conference in 1931, when Mao was expelled from the party by Zhou, who was then the secretary-general and his superior. Mao never forgot and never forgave. He lost no opportunity to undermine, humiliate and harass Zhou until his death. He even tried replace him three or four times.
If Zhou was a man of peace, Mao was a man of war. He only believed in class struggle and violent revolution. Mao wanted to promote communistic subversive elements in Asia and had even created a ministry for it. In Mao’s eyes, there was little room for peaceful coexistence. That is why despite Zhou’s proclamation of Panchsheel, Mao had no hesitation in planning and mounting an attack on India in 1962. Mao was a shrewd and exceptional leader, and the only one who counted in China. If anyone ever raised his voice and evoked Mao’s suspicion, he met a pitiable end. Nehru blamed Zhou for the 1962 attack as he had then no means of knowing inner party equations in China. If the five principles were Zhou’s lofty vision, India wanted them to soar high, little knowing that someone had already clipped its wings.
Nehru and Zhou were the two great sons of Asia, sincere and selfless, who strove hard to force close ties between India and China and usher in a better world order through Panchsheel. Their efforts, however, were undermined and undone by the machinations of self-seeking or vindictive colleagues and they died disenchanted men. But good beginnings never die. It is our duty to remember them, pay homage to them and continue their work. Long live the spirit of Nehru and Zhou.
The writer was the Chinese language expert to the Government of India
