The new Tsunami arrives

The next few months will be interesting. 
As The New York Times, the Guardian and Le Monde start publishing some of the information contained in the 2.5 million files detailing "the offshore bank accounts and shell companies of wealthy individuals and tax-averse companies", one can expect many well-known heads will roll.
The French have been the first in the news.
The South China Morning Post (SCMP) comments: "A few details already released raise questions about French President Francois Hollande's personal friend and campaign treasurer Jean-Jacques Augier; Maria Imelda Marcos Manotoc, governor of a Philippine province and daughter of late Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos; as well as Mongolian politicians and Spanish art tycoons."
According to The Guardian, which is working with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the leak could cause "a seismic shock worldwide to the booming offshore trade". 
The newspaper adds: "The leak, in terms of quantity, was 160 times bigger than the WikiLeaks' political data haul three years ago. The leak also included data on offshoots in Singapore, Hong Kong and the Cook Islands in the Pacific."

The SCMP affirms: "There is so much information that people in Hong Kong and USA will recognise some of the names if ICIJ reveals more stories. ...It will take weeks, even months, for ICIJ journalists to analyse the data. They will release their findings in batches."

I am impatiently waiting to see what Indian 'investigative' journalists will do. And what about their Chinese colleagues?

Leak of Data on Offshore Account Holders Likely to Spread Fear and Anger
April 4, 2013
The New York Times
By ANDREW HIGGINS
BRUSSELS — They are a large and diverse group that includes a Spanish heiress; the daughter of the former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos; and Denise Rich, the former wife of the disgraced trader Marc Rich, who was pardoned by President Bill Clinton. But, according to a trove of secret financial information released Thursday, all have money and share a desire to hide it.
And, it seems safe to say, they — and thousands of others in Europe and far beyond, in places like Mongolia — are suddenly very anxious after the leak of 2.5 million files detailing the offshore bank accounts and shell companies of wealthy individuals and tax-averse companies.
“There will be people all over the world today who are now scared witless,” said Richard Murphy, research director for Tax Justice Network, a British-based organization that has long campaigned to end the secrecy that surrounds assets held in offshore havens. The leaked files include the names of 4,000 Americans, celebrities as well as more mundane doctors and dentists.
It is not the first time leaks have dented a thick carapace of confidentiality that usually protects the identities of those who stash funds in the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein and other havens. Nor, in most cases, is keeping money in such places illegal.
But the enormous size of the data dump obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a Washington-based group that, along with affiliated news media organizations, announced its coup on Thursday, has punched a big hole in the secrecy that surrounds what the Tax Justice Network estimates are assets worth at least $21 trillion held in offshore havens. “This could be a game-changer,” said Mr. Murphy, the author of a book about offshore tax shelters. “Secrecy is the key product these places sell. Whether you are a criminal laundering money or just someone trying to evade or avoid taxes, secrecy is the one thing you want.” Once this is gone, he added, “it creates an enormous fear factor” and has a “massive deterrent effect.”
And lifting the curtain on the identities of those who keep their money offshore is likely to cause particular anger in austerity-blighted Europe, where governments have been telling people to tighten their belts but have mostly turned a blind eye to wealthier citizens who skirt taxes with help from so-called offshore financial centers.
The leaked records, mainly from the British Virgin Islands, the Cook Islands and Singapore, disclose proprietary information about more than 120,000 offshore companies and trusts and nearly 130,000 individuals and agents, including the wealthiest people in more than 170 countries. Not all of those named necessarily have secret bank accounts, and in some cases only conducted business through companies they control that are registered offshore.
The embarrassment caused by Thursday’s revelations has been particularly acute in France, where Socialist President François Hollande, who wants to impose a 75 percent tax on millionaires, has been struggling to contain a political firestorm touched off this week by a former budget minister’s admission — after months of denials — that he had secret foreign bank accounts.
The scandal looked set to widen on Thursday as senior members of the government were forced to confront allegations that Mr. Hollande and others may have been aware that the budget minister, Jérôme Cahuzac, who resigned on March 19, was lying but failed to act.
Adding to the president’s trouble, the name of a close friend and treasurer of his 2012 election campaign, Jean-Jacques Augier, appeared in connection with the files released Thursday by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Mr. Augier, according to the newspaper Le Monde, was identified as an investor in offshore businesses in the Cayman Islands, another well-known tax haven.
Mr. Augier, a friend of Mr. Hollande, denied to Le Monde and Agence France-Presse that he had done anything illegal or improper. He said he had invested in funds that invested in China, and that he had no personal bank account in the Cayman Islands or any direct personal investment there. He conceded only that “maybe I lacked a bit of caution.”
Others identified included Maria Imelda Marcos Manotoc, a provincial governor and eldest daughter of the former Philippine president; Olga Shuvalova, the wife of Russia’s deputy prime minister, Igor Shuvalov; Gunter Sachs, a German playboy and photographer who committed suicide in May 2011 at age 78; and Baroness Carmen Thyssen-Bornemisza, Spain’s wealthiest art collector and the widow of a Thyssen steel company billionaire. The president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, and his wife, Mehriban, were featured in the documents as having set up an offshore company in the British Virgin Islands, while their two daughters appeared in connection with three other offshore outfits.
The consortium did not specify how it got the information or where it came from. On its Web site, the group said “the leaked files provide facts and figures — cash transfers, incorporation dates, links between companies and individuals — that illustrate how offshore financial secrecy has spread aggressively around the globe, allowing the wealthy and the well connected to dodge taxes and fueling corruption and economic woes in rich and poor nations alike.”
In Germany, now gearing up for national elections in September and a country with both a strong sense of social justice and a long history of tax evaders sneaking funds into nearby Switzerland, politicians expressed concern, even outrage, over the disclosures. Of particular concern were indications that big banks in Germany and elsewhere are deeply involved in moving money beyond the reach of tax authorities.
“We should introduce tougher penalties for those financial institutions that are ideal for tax fraud or take part in it,” Peer Steinbrück, the Social Democratic Party’s candidate for chancellor, was quoted as saying in the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung.
The issue of tax avoidance has become a highly charged issue across much of Europe, particularly in richer northern countries that are increasingly fed up with demands for bailout funds from heavily indebted countries like Greece. A key demand of a recent bailout deal announced for Cyprus was that nation drastically shrink its role as a financial center and, many in Germany suspect, a haven for money laundering.
Robert Palmer, a policy adviser for Global Witness, a London research group that focuses on corruption, said the naming of offshore account holders could have powerful political reverberations across Europe because “it shows that if you are wealthy and well connected you play by different rules.”
He said the information released so far did not shed any new light on how offshore finance works but was still significant because it identified people who used hidden shelters.
“This is very unusual because it is so difficult to get any information out of these places,” he said. “It adds to the picture of how easy it is to move money around and will build up the anger of people who are being asked to make cuts but see that there are people out there who benefit hugely from the system.”
The disclosure of offshore financial information is also a potential embarrassment for Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, in that much of the data released so far related to the British Virgin Islands, a British-ruled territory in the Caribbean.
Mr. Cameron had earlier spoken about the importance of tax and financial transparency and pledged to make it a priority issue at a meeting of the leaders of the G8 group of advanced industrial nations in Northern Ireland in June.
The British Caribbean territory, however, is notoriously secretive and, Mr. Palmer said, one of the most egregious offenders in enabling wealthy people to hide their money to avoid taxes.
In a statement issued Thursday, Global Witness called on Mr. Cameron and fellow G8 leaders to “crack down on anonymous company ownership.”
Steven Erlanger contributed reporting from Paris, and Chris Cottrell from Berlin.

Tawang: a Chinese afterthought

Received by PN Menon of the External Affairs Ministry

I already mentioned on this blog that on January 9, 1959 (just 2 months before the uprising in Lhasa and the subsequent flight of the Dalai Lama), Subimal Dutt, the Indian Foreign Secretary sent a note to the Prime Minister saying: "The Chinese have not yet raised a dispute with us about Tawang, but I am not sure that they will not do so some time in future."
I also wrote that on March 31, 1959, when the Dalai Lama and his entourage entered India at Chuthangmu, in the Tawang sector, the Chinese government did not protest about the location of the border or even claim that Tawang was 'Southern Tibet' (the term used today by Beijing to define Tawang).
They knew perfectly well that the Tibetan leader had taken refuge on Indian territory. Strangely, Beijing is now insisting that Tawang district is part of the People's Republic of China. It is clearly an afterthought. 
If Beijing had really believed that Tawang area was part of the Chinese territory, the Chinese troops should have followed the Dalai Lama and his entourage into this area in 1959, isn't?
It appears that Beijing would today be satisfied to settle the border issue, would India agree to 'offer' them Tawang area.
But it is clearly an afterthought. 

The Dalai Lama soon after crossing the border

China only started claiming Tawang during the border talks held in 1960. At that time it was more a form of bargain to 'exchange' the Aksai Chin against the NEFA.
The Chinese side has recently claimed that the Dalai Lama was ready to return 'Tawang to China' in 1959. It is obviously not true.
On April 17, 1959, the Dalai Lama made a statement in front of the world press assembled in Tezpur, Assam. Speaking at the third person, he said:

It was due to the loyalty and affectionate support of his people that the Dalai Lama was able to find his way through a route which is quite arduous. The route which the Dalai Lama took involved the Kyichu and the Tsangpo rivers and making his way through Lhoka area, Yarlung Valley and Tsona Dzong before reaching the Indian Frontier at Kanzey Mane (Khemzimane) near Chuthangmu.

He clearly mentions that Chuthangmu/Khemzimane is the border where he was received by a detachment of the Assam Riffles.
The Dalai Lama added:

Ever since the Dalai Lama entered India at Kanzey Mane near Chuthangmu, he has experienced in full measure the respect and hospitality extended to him by the people of the Kameng Frontier Division of the North East Frontier Agency and the Dalai Lama would like to state how the Government of India's officers posted there had spared no efforts in making his stay and journey through this extremely well administered part of India as comfort-able as possible.

Accompanied by the Assam Rifles

There is no question of the Dalai Lama denying the legality of the McMahon Line and claiming Tawang as part of Tibet.
On April 3, 1959, the Prime Minister informed the Lok Sabha about the Dalai Lama's arrival in India and the decision of the Indian Government to grant  him asylum. Nehru explained:

The facts are that on April 1, that is, the day before yesterday morning, we received a message via Shillong dated March 31 evening that an emissary with a message from the Dalai Lama had arrived at our border check-post at Chutangmu in the North-East Frontier Agency. The emissary had arrived there on March 29 stating that the Dalai Lama requested us for political asylum and that he expected to reach the border on March 30, that is, soon after he himself had come. We received the message on April 1. The same evening a message was received by us again via Shillong dated April 1 which informed us that the Dalai Lama with a small party of eight had crossed into our territory on the evening of March 31.
Expecting that some such development might occur, we had instructed the various check-posts there what to do. So, when the Dalai Lama crossed over into our territory, he was received by our Assistant Political Officer of the Tawang Sub-Division, which is a part of the Kameng Frontier Division of the North-East Frontier Agency. A little later, the rest of his party, the entourage, came in. The total numbers who have come with him or after him is 80. From the evening of yesterday, we learn that this party in two groups is moving towards Tawang, which is the headquarters of that sub-division, and that he is expected to reach Tawang the day after tomorrow, Sunday, April 5, in the evening.

Received in Bomdila

If Tawang had been always part of China (or Tibet), why did the Chinese government remained mum.
Not only this, but on May 6, 1959, the Chinese Ambassador in India sent a longish note to the Foreign Secretary of India. Nowhere he mentioned Tawang. He wrote:

Since March 10, 1959 when the former Tibet Local Government and the Tibetan upper class reactionary clique unleashed armed rebellion, there have appeared deplorable abnormalities in the relations between China and India. This situation was caused by the Indian side, yet in his conversation on April 26, 1959 Mr. Dutt, Foreign Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs of India, shifted responsibility onto the Chinese side. This is what the Chinese Government absolutely cannot accept. The Tibet Region is an inalienable part of China's territory. The quelling of the rebellion in the Tibet Region by the Chinese Government and following that, the conducting by it of democratic reforms which the Tibetan people have longed for, are entirely China's internal affairs, in which no foreign country has any right to interfere under whatever pretext or in whatever form.
In Tibet, just as in other national minority areas in China, regional national autonomy shall be implemented as stipulated in the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. In this matter which is purely China's internal affairs, the Chinese Government has no obligation to give assurances to any foreign country, nor can it tolerate others under the pretext of a so-called different interpretation of autonomy, to obstruct the Chinese Government's exercise of its state sovereignty in the Tibet Region to-make Tibet semi-independent or even to turn it into a sphere of influence of a foreign country or buffer zone. The above-said is self-evident and undeniable. Nevertheless,  there appeared in India, before and after the outbreak of the rebellion in Tibet, large quantities of words and deeds slandering China and interfering in China's internal affairs. Responsible persons of many Indian political parties, including the National 'Congress, and not a few Indian publications openly called Tibet a 'country', slandered the Chinese Government's putting down the rebellion in Tibet as 'practising banditry and imperialism', demanded that the Tibet question be submitted to the United Nations and even proposed the holding of a tripartite conference of India, China and Tibet to settle the Tibet question which can only be handled by the Chinese Government. Most of the political parties in India went so far as to form organisations in support of the Tibetan rebels. Groups of ruffians were allowed to make provocations and disturbances in front of the Chinese Embassy and Consulates-General in India, and there even occurred the grave incident of insulting the head of state of China. These words and deeds were in the nature of serious interference in China's internal affairs and sabotage of, Sino-Indian friendship, and this cannot be altered by recourse to any pretext, whether 'freedom of speech' or any other 'freedoms', even less can the 'feeling of kinship derived from long-established religious and cultural contacts with the Tibetan people' be a pretext for these words and deeds It is obvious that the Chinese people likewise have a 'feeling of kinship derived from long-established religious and cultural contacts', towards the Indian people, but China has never used this as a pretext to interfere in India's internal affairs, and will never do so.
The Indian Government has recognised the Tibet region as a part of China's territory and has repeatedly dec1ared that it has no desire to interfere in China's internal affairs. This was worthy of welcome. Nevertheless, responsible members of the Indian Government, though they could not possibly be better acquainted with the situation in Tibet than the Chinese Government openly expressed doubts about documents published by China officially, refused to accept the Chinese Government's account of the facts, and asserted that the basis of the rebellion in Tibet 'must have been a strong feeling of nationalism' and that the upper strata reactionaries in Tibet were not solely responsible for the rebellion. They even charged that 'agreement between Tibet and China on the autonomous status of Tibet and the assurances given to India had not been kept' by the Chinese Government, and described the Chinese Government's putting down the rebellion in Tibet as 'armed intervention' and as 'oppressing and suppressing' the Tibetan people. The Indian Government announced that it had granted political asylum to the Dalai Lama in accordance with international practice and stated that the Dalai Lama was "not expected" to engage in any political activities in India.
This would not have caused any dispute. But on April 18 and 22, two statements advocating 'independence of Tibet' and directing wanton attacks on the Chinese Government were issued respectively in Tezpur and Mussoorie in the name of the Dalai Lama. What was particularly surprising, the so-called "statement of the Dalai Lama" of April 18 was not only distributed by an official of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs but also carried on official bulletins of Indian Embassies abroad. Such a line of action on the part of the Indian Government could hardly be considered conformable to well-known international practice. The Indian Government insisted that the Dalai Lama was entirely responsible for the two traitorous statements issued in his name. In that case, did not the impressive welcome extended to the Dalai Lama by the Indian Government and the talks Prime Minister Nehru himself held with him mean giving a welcome to a Chinese rebel and holding a meeting with him? All these statements and actions of the Indian Government, no matter what the subjective intentions might be, undoubtedly played an objective role of encouraging the Tibetan rebels. The facts themselves have completely overthrown the allegation that there is no Indian interference in China's internal affairs. The Chinese Government and people, having regard for the overall Sino-Indian friendship, for quite a longtime exercised utmost forbearance in the hope that the words and deeds occurring in India interfering in China's internal affairs and detrimental to Sino-Indian friendship would end. To the contrary, however, the words and deeds against China and interfering in China's internal affairs coming from the Indian side went from bad to worse and developed to an intolerable extent. Only then did the Chinese people give the reply that was due, in order to safe guard their state sovereignty and oppose outside interference, and also to uphold the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence and Sino-Indian friendship, The Chinese people's reply is in the nature of reasoning and is well grounded on fact. All those who have the opportunity of reading a full report of the opinions of the Chinese people will arrive at this conclusion. It is unjustifiable that the Indian Government should have tried in various ways to defend the words and deeds of the Indian side interfering in China's internal affairs and impairing Sino-Indian friendship, while making charges against the proper reply of the Chinese people. The Dalai Lama was abducted to India by the Tibetan rebels. A most strong proof of this is the three letters he wrote to General Tan Kuan-san, Acting Representative of the Central People's Government in Tibet, before he was abducted out of Lhasa. The so-called 'statement of the Dalai Lama', which is full of loopholes, instead of being capable of making one believe
In its relations with India, China has consistently adhered to the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence and worked for the development of friendly co-operation between the two countries. China has always held that everything must be done to safeguard the friendly relations between the two great Asian countries, China and India, from being impaired. In spite of the fact that the Indian side brought about this unpleasant argument between the two countries, and the Indian Government has failed to give a satisfactory reply on the Bombay incident of insulting the head of State of China, the Chinese side is willing to stop its rebuff as soon as the Indian side stops its words and deeds against China and interfering in China's internal affairs. Prime Minister Nehru has now expressed the wish to end this argument and called on Indian newspapers to exercise restraint and wisdom, this is worthy of welcome. It is the hope of the Chinese Government that the dark clouds overcasting Sino-Indian relations for a time will speedily, disperse and that, through the current trial, Sino-Indian friendship, which is of long standing and based on the Five Principles, will develop even better. On the whole, India is a friend of China, this has been so in the past thousand and more years, and we believe will certainly continue to be so in one thousand, ten thousand years to come. The enemy of the Chinese people lies in the East-the U.S. imperialists have many military bases in Taiwan, in South Korea, Japan and in the Philippines which are all directed against China. China's main attention and policy of struggle are directed to the east, to the west Pacific region, to the vicious and aggressive U.S. imperialism, and not to India or any other country in the southeast Asia and south Asia. Although the Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan have joined the SEATO which is designed to oppose China, we have not treated those three countries as our principal enemy; our principal enemy is U.S. imperialism. India has not taken part in the Southeast Asia Treaty; it is not an opponent, but a friend to our country".
China will not be so foolish as to antagonize the United States in the east and again to antagonize India in the West. The putting down of the rebellion and the carrying out of democratic reforms in Tibet will not in the least endanger India. You can wait and see. As the Chinese proverb goes 'the strength of a horse is borne out by the distance travelled, and the heart of a person is seen with the lapse of time.' You will ultimately see whether relations between the Tibet region of China and India are friendly or hostile by watching three, five, ten, twenty, a hundred …years. We cannot have two centres of attention, nor can we take friend for foe. This is our state policy. The quarrel between our two countries in the past few years, particularly in the last three months, is but an interlude in the course of thousands upon thousands of years of friendship between the two countries and does not warrant a big fuss on the part of the broad masses and the Government authorities of our countries. The principles, positions and distinctions between right and wrong as set forth in the foregoing paragraphs have to be set forth; otherwise the current difference between our countries cannot be resolved. But so far as the extent of the implication of those words is concerned, it is only temporary and local; that is to say, they refer only to a temporary difference between our two countries and concern solely the region of Tibet. Our Indian friends! What is your mind? Will you be agreeing to our thinking regarding the view that China can only concentrate its main attention eastward of China, but not south-westward of China, nor is it necessary for it to do so. Chairman Mao Tse-tung, the leader of our country, talked on many occasions with Mr. R.K. Nehru, former Indian Ambassador to China, who could well understand and appreciate it. We do not know whether the former Indian Ambassador conveyed this to the Indian authorities. Friends! It seems to us that you too cannot have two fronts. Is it not so? If it is, here then lies the meeting point of our two sides. Will you please think it over? Allow me to take this opportunity to extend my best regards to Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, the leader of India.

In his note to the Foreign Secretary, the Chinese ambassador never said that Tawang was Chinese (or Tibetan) territory. It clearly shows that the new 'just give us Tawang' policy is not based on any historical facts, but on afterthoughts to get the occupation of the Aksai Chin formally acknowledged and legalized.

When the Dalai Lama arrived in India

A Guard of Honour by the Assam Rifles

The Dalai Lama’s flight in March/April 1959 has been well  described in detail in the Tibetan leader's two biographies. 
It is however worth mentioning the last moments of his incredible journey. 
After a few days rest at Lhuntse Dzong, near the Indian border, the Tibetan leader sent two of his officials to contact the Government of India and seek asylum for himself and his party. 
His message reads: “On the 29th March, 1959, the Dalai Lama sent two emissaries across the Indo-Tibetan border requesting Government of India's permission to enter India and seek asylum there. The Dalai Lama is extremely grateful to the people and Government of India for their spontaneous and generous welcome as welt as the asylum granted to him and his followers. India and Tibet have religious, cultural and trade links extending over a thousand years and for Tibetans, it [India] has always been the land of enlightenment, having given birth to Lord Buddha. The Dalai Lama is deeply touched by the kind greeting extended to him on his safe arrival in India by the Prime Minister Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, and his colleagues in the Government of India. The Dalai Lama has already sent reply to this message of greetings.”
Asylum was immediately granted. It was fifty-four years ago.
The Dalai Lama was received by the Assam Rifles at Chutangmu/Khenzimani in the Tawang sector of Arunachal Pradesh (the NEFA) on March 31, 1959; he was now a refugee in India.
As I mentioned earlier on this blog, at that time, the Chinese government was not yet claiming Tawang as their own; otherwise they would have said that the Dalai Lama and his party had entered 'Southern Tibet', the name that they give to the Tawang district now.
Four days after the Dalai Lama had crossed the border, the Indian Prime Minister gave a long press conference on the situation in Tibet and the Tibetan leader's escape. He also took questions on other subjects such as the Tibetan autonomy and the 1954 Panchsheel Agreement (related to 'trade and pilgrimage' in Tibet).
I shall come back on this issue in future postings, but I am posting today the transcript of the Prime Minister's press conference held on April 4, 1959 in New Delhi. 
It is probably the longest interaction with the press on the subject.

QUESTION: How did the news of the arrival of the Dalai Lama come to be announced from Peking before it was announced here?

PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. Of course, we could have announced it before and certainly a day before and possibly a day and half before; but among other reasons, one reason of our not announcing it then was security. We wanted to make adequate arrangements for security before was announced it.

QUESTION: This question is important because it seems there are spy activities on our borders, otherwise how could they know it when even our people did not know anything?

PRIME MINISTER: I cannot tell you because I do not know. I can guess if you like. I do not think any news could have got out of the border. I don’t think it is conceivable. I don’t say anything is impossible but it is very unlikely.

QUESTION: Did it leak out from Delhi?

PRIME MINISTER: That too seems very very unlikely. As a matter of fact, in Delhi for that brief period, a little before too, the secret was very well kept.

QUESTION: It remained secret from Indians but the Chinese Embassy got it and the Reuters also sent a telegram quoting diplomatic sources. Only we people did not know anything about it.

PRIME MINISTER: No diplomatic sources. I think these are vague guesses based on an intelligent anticipation of what might happen. I believe the Reuters first message was that he had gone to Bhutan. It was obvious that he was coming in this direction. Where he would get through, they were guessing.

QUESTION: The first communication about Dalai Lama was it made when the Chinese Ambassador met the Foreign Secretary or were there any earlier communications?

PRIME MINISTER: No. After the arrival of the Dalai Lama and his entry into India and our reception to him, our Foreign Secretary sent for the Chinese Ambassador to inform him of this.

QUESTION: Will the Dalai Lama function as Dalai Lama from India too, as spiritual leader of Tibet? What are the implications of this?

PRIME MINISTER: There is nothing in, shall I say, our regulations, rules, conventions about spirituality and how a person functions spiritually. That is not supposed to be a political post or designation. If people acknowledge him as a spiritual leader, they acknowledge him. There the matter ends. How can be function in Tibet when he is in India?

QUESTION: You will ask him not to associate himself with any political activities while on Indian soil?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, it is natural that any person in India cannot, is not expected, to function on the political plane in this way.

QUESTION: It is presumed when political asylum is given that the man is free to operate politically at least as far as other countries are concerned.

PRIME MINISTER: Don’t think that is the general assumption at all.

QUESTION: There are several instances in Europe. For example our own people went and got asylum, for example, Raja Mahendra Pratap gave his own case as an instance in Parliament. He was operating politically in all the countries where he was given asylum.

PRIME MINISTER: When?

QUESTION: He says all his life until India became free. He was a political person in all countries he went to.

PRIME MINISTER: It was the time of the First World War chiefly when he functioned abroad. I don't think he functioned much since then, after the First War ended.

QUESTION: You have said that political activity must be ruled out. Does it also mean that he will not be allowed to make a statement explaining the facts?

PRIME MINISTER: I cannot tell you exactly what the position might be. We shall have to consider it because, as you know, quite apart from political and other reasons, he is a person greatly revered in India and certainly among all Buddhists and even non-Buddhists in India and it is not our intention to put what might be called undesirable curbs on him but we shall have to discuss this matter with him and I am sure that he would not like to take any steps here which embarrass us and him.

QUESTION: Where is he likely to be kept? There is rumour that he will be kept in Ooty?

PRIME MINISTER: I cannot tell you finally yet. But two things I can tell you that he is not likely to stay anywhere near the frontier nor is he likely to go to Southern India.

QUESTION: Is there any correspondence with Mr. Chou En-lai on the subject of Tibet?

PRIME MINISTER: You mean recently.

QUESTION: Yes, within recent days.

PRIME MINISTER: No. We had no correspondence about Tibet at all. On one or two other matters some months ago we had correspondence - nothing to do with Tibet.

QUESTION: Will you tell us when and where you will meet the Dalai Lama?

PRIME MINISTER: I can't say that. I suppose I will meet him of course at some place sometime but we have not even given thought to that matter. We don't quite know when he will arrive. Of course there is no point in our rushing him. He had a hard journey, I suppose, and he comes slowly resting on the way.

QUESTION: When you spoke last in the Lok Sabha, you referred to letters from Dalai Lama and you said: "I should like to have a little greater confirmation about them, about what they are, in what circumstances they were written, whether they were written at all." I want to know have you any confirmation or any news about them and what was your bases that you doubted about their authenticity.

PRIME MINISTER: You see, the statement that the Dalai Lama was being compelled to do something, that the Dalai Lama in fact complaining of his own people, who revere him so much, seemed to me a very odd statement. Whoever else might be against the Dalai Lama, I should have thought that the great mass of the Tibetan people are not against him. They are devoted to him. Therefore I could not understand that. Is that all?

QUESTION: Do you think that China has observed Panchsheel scrupulously in regard to Tibet?

PRIME MINISTER: I don't think the question of Panchsheel directly arises in this connection. We may disapprove of what one country has done or not. There is hardly a country which you cannot criticise on the ground that the principles of Panchsheel have not been observed but in this particular matter I don't quite see how that particular thing arises.

QUESTION: The Japanese Ambassador has written an article in a Japanese paper which was circulated here in press comments in which he says that this Panchsheel agreement with China has been wearing out for some time and the uprising in Tibet shows that it has completely worn out.

PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen that article but the Panchsheel lays down certain principles of international relations. Those principles, if they are good principles, they remain good whatever any individual or country might do. People seem to think that the so-called Panchsheel is some temporary arrangement to meet a temporary set of circumstances. It is not. It is a basic approach to international affairs and life generally. It may have to be adapted because of changing circumstances. If we believe in Panchsheel, we follow it, even if no country in the wide world follows it. Of course, it cannot be easily followed in a one-sided way, but that is a different matter. But our attitude will be to follow it. Our attempt will be to follow it, if we believe in it, as we do. Now, what has happened in Tibet is related to the agreement between China and the authorities in Tibet, in 1950, I think. You will see that on both sides there, it is stated that that agreement has ended or broken up. There is no doubt about it and if both say so there is no doubt about it, and events also indicate that. Now, there is an important fact that it has broken down. That agreement was based on two factors-on the recognition of the sovereignty of China over Tibet and the autonomy of Tibet. These are two major factors. Well, that agreement has broken down; and it is not possible for me-because I don't want to speak irresponsibly and just refer to sentiments-it is not possible for me to give a precise account of what happened in Tibet. But it is well known that there have been conflicts and pulls there in various directions; and it is obvious that at present, since this uprising, there is no autonomy in Tibet. These are obvious facts whatever the background may be.

QUESTION: Do you think national autonomy is possible in a Communist State?

PRIME MINISTER: Surely, why not? I don't see any contradiction in that.

QUESTION: But it has never happened.

PRIME MINISTER: Well, you see, the difficulty is that we are gradually becoming conditioned, wrongly conditioned, by the cold war attitude in the world. If we have always to live with the cold war as our companion, well, many things, happen which normally should not happen. But if the cold war was not there, we would all become a little more normal.

QUESTION: It is reported that you are having correspondence with the Dalai Lama. Is it about his wishes?

PRIME MINISTER: No, I don't know, except that I got a message from him which he sent to me on his arrival, and I sent him a very brief message of greetings.

QUESTION: To what extent would the Dalai Lama's personal safety to be Government of India's responsibility?

PRIME MINISTER: One hundred percent.

QUESTION: You had said that since this conflict started, autonomy in Tibet has disappeared.

PRIME MINISTER: Tibet has disappeared?

QUESTION: The autonomy of Tibet has disappeared.

PRIME MINISTER: Well, yes.

QUESTION: From which period do you date this breaking up of the agreement?

PRIME MINISTER: You might say the date when it officially ended in this date, say ten days ago. That is the official date. For the rest, there have been troubles over Eastern Tibet and a little in Southern Tibet. That means that there were troubles there but constitutionally it did not end. Actually, it may function or not because of these troubles.

QUESTION: In regard to the question of autonomy which we speak of, we also speak of autonomy in the case of the Centre and the States, where the Centre is autonomous in respect of certain subjects and the States are autonomous in respect of certain subjects and the States are autonomous in respect of certain other subjects. In what respect was Tibet considered to be autonomous?

PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot spell that out, expect to tell my own interpretation of what Premier Chou En-lai said to me. I mentioned that in the Lok Sabha. He laid stress, first of all, that Tibet was and had always been, according to him, a part of the Chinese State, a part of the larger family of China. Then he said: "But Tibet is not a province of China. It is different from China proper. We recognize that and, therefore, we consider it to be an autonomous region of the Chinese State. The Chinese people are called the Han people. The Tibetans are not Hans. The Tibetans are Tibetans”. That is what he said. Therefore, if you compare it to India, here, first of all there is no question of any person or any part of India not being an Indian. He is an Indian whatever else he might be.
Secondly, the autonomy of an Indian State is laid down, the measure of it, in our Constitution. It is definitely a limited autonomy. There are lists of subjects where the States are autonomous and there are other lists where the Central Government's authority prevails. Normally speaking the Central Government cannot invade the autonomy of the States in India certainly the States cannot do so in regard to the Central Government, but, abnormally the Constitution provides that the Central Government can take charge of a State under special circumstances. So, the type of autonomy here is different, I thought, from the type of autonomy in the autonomous region of Tibet. Of course, there are many other factors also. From the social, religious and economic points of view, there is considerable different. I take it, between Tibet and many other parts of China proper. Tibet has been cut off from the world practically for ages. Economically speaking, it is very backward and this impact of vast changes which are taking place in China itself must produce tremendous reactions.

QUESTION: Sir, according to the Soviet Constitution an autonomous region is more backward constitutionally than the federating republic. Do you think the same provision is there in the Chinese Constitution, that is, like Inner Mongolia enjoying autonomous status like Tibet? What is the exact position? For example, in Russia, the Republics certainly have more powers such as a Foreign Minister, even a standing army and so on. Do you think that under the Chinese Constitution there is similar provision?

PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot answer this question precisely but I imagine that the various constituting units of the Soviet Union, including the autonomous regions, are all more or less wedded to a certain policy which might be called the Communist policy while Tibet was not and is not communist.  And the mere fact of the Dalai Lama being the religious head and till recently the political head under, broadly the Chinese umbrella, itself shows that it was very different.

QUESTION: Would you like to give a broad definition of the term "Suzerainty" as distinct from "sovereignty"?

PRIME MINISTER: No. I am afraid it requires a jurist to do that and probably two jurists might differ-except that "suzerainty" is obviously less than "sovereignty".

QUESTION: How far does this disappearance of the agreement over Tibet with China affect our agreement about Tibet?

PRIME MINISTER: The disappearance of that does not affect it-if you read it-but I do not know what the consequences of developments in Tibet might be. You see what was our agreement with China in regard to Tibet. Apart from our withdrawing certain small forces that we had there in old times, this agreement related to pilgrimage, to trade and trade routes, to certain passes over which these trade routes should pass. To that type of thing. And you know that thousands and thousands of pilgrimage go to Tibet from India. Apart from Buddhists, vast numbers of Hindus go there to Kailash and the Manasarowar Lake and we wanted to make arrangements for them. That is one part of the treaty. The other was something about trade. The third was about the routes to be followed, the passes to be traversed. Then there was something which was definitely mentioned in the treaty-not directly-but indirectly it was there, the close contact of the Buddhists in Ladakh, who used to go, for some kind of education and training in the Buddhist scripture, to Lhasa and other places, to the monasteries there. Hundreds of this people used to go and hundreds are supposed to be there who did not take the trouble to carry any normal papers and passports, etc. They carried on in the old way. Now, how far all these will be affected by these developments, I cannot say.

QUESTION: Perhaps you have answered the question. But how are we politically concerned or affected by the events in Tibet?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, we are obviously concerned and interested in what happens there, in what political developments take place there. We cannot ignore them is another matter, to be considered in regard to circumstances. But I should like to put that apart from the purely political considerations, there are other considerations which move people powerfully. We have had to desire, certainly ever since we became independent, to interfere in the slightest degree in Tibetan affairs. But we could not give up our interest, call it if you like sentimental interest, apart from politics, and you can observe for yourself the enormous feeling that has been aroused in India by these recent developments in Tibet and about the Dalai Lama and all those. It shows that deep sentimental attachment which has little to do with politics which goes back hundreds of years. You saw -I was not present that day-but some of you might have been present in the Lok Sabha three or four days ago when Members of every group, every party in the Lok Sabha, except the Communist Party, were vastly exercised over this question. It brought out rather, well very markedly and prominently how some matters are so deeply rooted in national sentiment that they override even party boundaries and they come up. They brought out also how the Communist Party in India has uprooted itself from those matters and feels quite differently-I am not talking about politics or economics-but just what is called national sentiment which has deep roots in a country. And we saw there that marked distinction of the people who however they differed among themselves, had that common bond of strong national tradition and sentiment, call it nationalism for brief, while the Communist Party had no kinship with that sentiment, it had not its roots there. It had its roots in different thinking and that document or statement that they issued exhibited that entirely different approach from the point of view of national sentiment. And the strong reactions of Members of Parliament and those others outside to what was due to that. It had not much to do with statement or no statement. It had nothing to do, to my thinking, with any parliamentary privilege, but it had to do basically with, that deep-rooted sentiment of the Indian people which was hurt by that statement. Therefore it reacted.

QUESTION: Are you aware of the dangers involved by the exploitation of this recent event in China by anti-Communist forces in India?

PRIME MINISTER: The situation is full of difficult aspects, naturally, and the worst of it is that it tends to bring in that atmosphere of cold war in India which we have tried to avoid. And when there is an atmosphere of cold war, parties to it do not consider matters dispassionately or in the cold light of reason but try to exploit the situation to the advantage of their thinking. There is that danger on every side, on both sides if you like, if you divide it, and that is , If I may introduce a slightly personal element, why when I spoke in the Lok Sabha two days ago rather deliberately, I suppressed myself in order to avoid adding to this heat of the cold war. I felt strongly enough about some matters but I felt that one must try to be a little dispassionate.

QUESTION: Don't you feel disillusioned or disappointed about the development in Tibet particularly in view of the Panch Sheel agreement, when the first time it was propounded, you and Mr. Chou En-lai, went into night-long vigil to draft that agreement.

PRIME MINISTER: I do not think you are factually correct Mr. Chou En-lai was not here when the draft agreement was made. He was in Peking, I was here.

QUESTION: After he came from the Geneva Conference?

PRIME MINISTER: There was no agreement; there was a brief press communiqué then. That had nothing to do with Tibet at all. I do not think there was any reference to it.

QUESTION: In view of the good relations between India and China, has China, at any time, written to you asking you to use your good offices, particularly in relation of Tibet and China, to the revolt among Khampas and others?

PRIME MINISTER: May I say that for a variety of reasons, historical, sentimental, practical and of the present day, I have thought and I think terms with each other even though they might differ greatly in regard to their policies internally and further that neither country has any business to interfere in the other country because such interference does not produce any desirable results even from the point of view of the persons who wants to interfere unless the result aimed at is just ill will and anger which is the essence of the cold war. The cold war does not convert the other party at all; it makes it more rigid. So that has been our basic policy, conditioned always of course by guarding, protecting the interests of India and the larger causes that we hold dear. Now, Tibet, culturally speaking, is an offshoot of India. That is to say of Buddhism not of India politically and we may be Hindus, we may be anything in India but Buddha is the greatest Indian that ever lived and we still in India are under the umbrella of this feeling for the Buddha. Tibet of course is far more so and there is this tremendous bond. We do not want Tibet to remain economically or socially backward. We want it to progress. Now, at any time during the last few years, last some years, has there been any correspondence, so far as I can remember, with Chinese Government of Premier Chou En-lai about Tibet with us but when Premier Chou En-lai was here last time we discussed many matters and among them Tibet. I have just told you a little while ago what he said about Tibet to me. As a matter of fact, he discussed this question at some length explaining the Chinese Government's attitude to Tibet and pointing out what they respected and wanted to respect the autonomy of Tibet, and that they had no desire to push communism in Tibet, for the major reason, he said , that Tibet was as far removed from communism as any country could be and that it could not be pushed and imposed in this way and it was for the people of Tibet themselves to grow up economically and
socially.

QUESTION: A Comparison was made in the Lok Sabha between the situation in Algeria and Tibet. It was said that in Algeria the French people are setting there. In the same way in Tibet also the Chinese are setting in vast numbers. What are your views?

PRIME MINISTER: The question essentially was about the Chinese settling in Tibet just as the French People had previously settled in Algeria. I do not know, first of all-one hears reports about large numbers of Chinese settling in Tibet; I have no information about it, about numbers, I cannot say. There is no comparison. If people settle in some other country and a country which is different, they bring with them some problems. That is true.

QUESTION: Do you propose to take any steps to persuade China to restore Tibet's autonomy?

PRIME MINISTER: There is no question of my taking steps to that end. First of all, the Chinese Government, so far as I know, has not denied the fact that Tibet should be autonomous. What they have laid stress on is that this has broken down, according to them, by the action of the other party; but they have not denied the fact that Tibet should be autonomous, and this business of giving advice to others does not always lead to right results.

QUESTION: There are reports that you have been in correspondence with the British Prime Minister recently regarding Tibet.

PRIME MINISTER: Those reports are not correct, except that frequently, not frequently but sometimes, I have messages from Mr.
Macmillan. I reply to those messages, but there has been no particular correspondence about Tibet.

QUESTION: Has the Chinese Government conveyed its reaction to you regarding your giving political asylum to the Dalai Lama?

PRIME MINISTER: No. But it is an acknowledged fact that any country has the right to give asylum if it chooses. I don't think that is denied anywhere.

QUESTION: Some people talk of the Naga trouble and Hyderabad when this question of the autonomy of Tibet comes. Will you please clarify the two positions?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, there is no comparison, of course. There is Hyderabad. I do not know what to say. The question does not arise at all in any shape or form, because the Nizam and some of his advisers there adopted a policy which was patently a policy against the Government of India, patently against his own people's wishes and all that. In regard to the Naga problem the position is different certainly from that of Hyderabad. The Naga area, you know, is a small area on our border, an area which has in the past some times given a lot of trouble and according to our policy, we give these tribal areas the fullest autonomy. There is no policy that we wish to impose upon them. This trouble started because they declared-some of them declared, an organisation-independence there. We did not start a shooting war because they declared independence. Some of them came to me and said, "we want to be independent”. Others said, "No. We want to have something else”. We did not punish them for saying that. It was only when they rather
brutally killed a number of our officers and men, when they started a violent campaign, that we took measures to meet this because they were just waylaying and killing important people-our own officers and men and important Nagas who were with us. We had to protect those people and put an end to this kind of reign of terror that the Naga National Council in the name of the Naga people was creating there. I think that any person who knows how we have functioned there will probably be amazed at the constant attempt on our part-an attempt which has largely succeeded, I won't say always kept in view noninterference in Naga customs and the rest, and we have always kept open the door to a considerable measure of autonomy for them which, by and large, a great majority of them have accepted in conventions and congresses and the rest.

QUESTION: You said earlier that it was very important for India and China to remain on friendly terms now and in the future and you said that this war our basic policy conditioned by the interest of India and larger causes we hold dear. Do you consider that Tibet is among these larger causes or have we now by our agreement with Tibet put ourselves beyond taking up this matter?

PRIME MINISTER: Tibet or a country does not become a cause. It is a country. A country or the developments in the country may affect a cause. Certainly, we are deeply interested in the autonomy of Tibet and Tibet being allowed to carry on in its own way.

QUESTION: You said in the Lok Sabha that the rights renounced by India in Tibet were a relic of British imperialism. By the same token, does not the McMahon Line become a relic of British imperialism? 

PRIME MINISTER: By the same token, you might go back a little when Asoka governed the whole of Central Asia and China governed at one time or other burma and Indo-China, and Tibet at one time governed a bit of China. You cannot go back on history like this. At what period do we draw a line? There is a difference between certain extraterritorial rights in a country. Obviously, there is no question if we had 150 soldiers in Gyanste, or whatever the number was, no country would tolerate that kind of thing. That continued because they were there from the British times on the plea, mind you, of lack of law and order there , to protect our consulate or whatever it was. That is a completely different thing from conditions in a part of the country-border if you like -which had continued for generations and somebody comes and tell us that ,"Oh! A hundred years ago this was different". There is no particular significance or meaning , unless that person wants to do mischief.  We have to accept certain things; we cannot historically trace back where the Indian frontier was. We accepted for a long time, for a hundred years or so, that the frontier is this and we have been in possession. we have functioned administratively and otherwise. There the matter ends so far as we are concerned, and as a matter of fact the McMahon Line was accepted by Tibet, and some parts of that McMahon agreement, by the then existing Chinese Government , were not settled, but this part was not objected to even then.

QUESTION: But, Sir, in view of the expansionist policy if communism and the policy of the CPI’s had been witnessed in the Lok Sabha recently, do you think that the security of Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim and even our country is threatened?

PRIME MINISTER: I do not think CPI's policy is expansionist. It is
submissive. It is not expansionist.

QUESTION: Sir, in the latest issue of the Communist Party organ, the weekly New Age, they say that the spy ring is not only there in Kalimpong but it operates also in Calcutta, Bhutan and Sikkim. And they have also alleged that there was collusion between some of our political officers and the spies, and they have named Shri Apa Pant in this connection. It has come in the latest issue of the New Age.

PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen that. If the CPI goes about naming our principal officers, the CPI shows, even more than I suspected, a certain lack of balance in mind and total absence of feeling a decency and nationality. What they are I do not know. They cease to be Indians if they talk in this way. May I say about this matter? Of course I said in the Lok Sabha about Kalimpong being a nest of spies. Well, I indicated that there was every variety and every shade and colour of spies there. Probably you could even balance the anti-Communist spies with the Communist spies there. In a great city like Calcutta no doubt you have all manner of people like that belonging to every shade and colour. To say that is one thing; for the matter of that in any great city in the world you will find these valiant representatives of the cold war. By the way, may I mention one thing, which is horrifying to me? And this was a statement which appeared some little time ago and our External Affairs Ministry contradicted it yesterday, a statement by Prince Peter of Greece, who stayed in Kalimpong for a number of years. He made a statement-he is supposed to be and described as an international authority on Tibetan affairs-he said that the Indian Government had given assistance to the Chinese invasion of Tibet for
fear that Tibet might fall under British or American influence. The Chinese armies were receiving supplies along the only road from the Indian border to Lhasa. He stated: "While I was still at Kalimpong I discovered for myself that truck convoys to Tibet, alleged by Indians to be loaded with rice, were full of military supplies!”. Now, a more fantastic and despicable lie I have never heard and I say that by my knowledge. A person like Prince Peter of Greece, who had the hospitability of India for several years, dares to say that shows the atmosphere of Kalimpong, what it was.  Even a person thinking even slightly, cannot say that in 1950 thousands of trucks-how do trucks go, where do they go?-any supplies to Tibet had then and now to go through the Nathula pass. Now there is a road. We have built it. They had to go over mules, a most terrible journey on mule-back. In 1954-55, because there was a famine in Tibet, we agreed to send some rice-about, I forget now, may be ten to twenty thousand maunds, less than a thousand tons-and it was a terrible job to send this. You just calculate how many mules caravans to carry this rice over the Nathula. And this was in 1954-55. This is physically impossible apart from the fact that it is inconceivable that we should send military supplies of all things to the Chinese authorities-by mules who had far more military supplies than we possessed, and then that we should do that is quite an extraordinary statement.

QUESTION: There has been a report in the press that the Chinese have in the last recent two or three weeks drawn our attention to what they said, or expressed the hope that the Indian Consul at Lhasa would take an objective view of the situation. What have you to say about that?

PRIME MINISTER: We take a very objective QUESTION: How did the news of the arrival of the Dalai Lama come to be announced from Peking before it was announced here?

PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. Of course, we could have announced it before and certainly a day before and possibly a day and half before; but among other reasons, one reason of our not announcing it then was security. We wanted to make adequate arrangements for security before was announced it.

QUESTION: This question is important because it seems there are spy activities on our borders, otherwise how could they know it when even our people did not know anything?

PRIME MINISTER: I cannot tell you because I do not know. I can guess if you like. I do not think any news could have got out of the border. I don’t think it is conceivable. I don’t say anything is impossible but it is very unlikely.

QUESTION: Did it leak out from Delhi?

PRIME MINISTER: That too seems very very unlikely. As a matter of fact, in Delhi for that brief period, a little before too, the secret was very
well kept.

QUESTION: It remained secret from Indians but the Chinese Embassy got it and the Reuters also sent a telegram quoting diplomatic sources. Only we people did not know anything about it.

PRIME MINISTER: No diplomatic sources. I think these are vague guesses based on an intelligent anticipation of what might happen. I believe the Reuters first message was that he had gone to Bhutan. It was obvious that he was coming in this direction. Where he would get through, they were guessing.

QUESTION: The first communication about Dalai Lama was it made when the Chinese Ambassador met the Foreign Secretary or were there any earlier communications?

PRIME MINISTER: No. After the arrival of the Dalai Lama and his entry into India and our reception to him, our Foreign Secretary sent for the Chinese Ambassador to inform him of this.

QUESTION: Will the Dalai Lama function as Dalai Lama from India too, as spiritual leader of Tibet? What are the implications of this?

PRIME MINISTER: There is nothing in, shall I say, our regulations, rules, conventions about spirituality and how a person functions spiritually. That is not supposed to be a political post or designation. If people acknowledge him as a spiritual leader, they acknowledge him. There the matter ends. How can be function in Tibet when he is in India?

QUESTION: You will ask him not to associate himself with any political
activities while on Indian soil?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, it is natural that any person in India cannot, is not expected, to function on the political plane in this way.

QUESTION: It is presumed when political asylum is given that the man is free to operate politically at least as far as other countries are concerned.

PRIME MINISTER: Don’t think that is the general assumption at all.

QUESTION: There are several instances in Europe. For example our own people went and got asylum, for example, Raja Mahendra Pratap gave his own case as an instance in Parliament. He was operating politically in all the countries where he was given asylum.

PRIME MINISTER: When?

QUESTION: He says all his life until India became free. He was a political person in all countries he went to.

PRIME MINISTER: It was the time of the First World War chiefly when he functioned abroad. I don't think he functioned much since then, after the First War ended.

QUESTION: You have said that political activity must be ruled out. Does it also mean that he will not be allowed to make a statement explaining the facts?

PRIME MINISTER: o; I cannot tell you exactly what the position might
be. We shall have to consider it because, as you know, quite apart from political and other reasons, he is a person greatly revered in India and certainly among all Buddhists and even non-Buddhists in India and it is not our intention to put what might be called undesirable curbs on him but we shall have to discuss this matter with him and I am sure that he would not like to take any steps here which embarrass us and him.

QUESTION: Where is he likely to be kept? There is rumour that he will be kept in Ooty?

PRIME MINISTER: I cannot tell you finally yet. But two things I can tell you-that he is not likely to stay anywhere near the frontier nor is he likely to go to Southern India.

QUESTION: Is there any correspondence with Mr. Chou En-lai on the subject of Tibet?

PRIME MINISTER: You mean recently.

QUESTION: Yes, within recent days.

PRIME MINISTER: No. We had no correspondence about Tibet at all. On one or two other matters some months ago we had correspondence-nothing to do with Tibet.

QUESTION: Will you tell us when and where you will meet the Dalai Lama?

PRIME MINISTER: I can't say that. I suppose I will meet him of course at some place sometime but we have not even given thought to that matter. We don't quite know when he will arrive. Of course there is no
point in our rushing him. He had a hard journey, I suppose, and he comes slowly resting on the way.

QUESTION: When you spoke last in the Lok Sabha, you referred to letters from Dalai Lama and you said: "I should like to have a little greater confirmation about them, about what they are, in what circumstances they were written, whether they were written at all." I want to know have you any confirmation or any news about them and what was your bases that you doubted about their authenticity.

PRIME MINISTER: You see, the statement that the Dalai Lama was being compelled to do something, that the Dalai Lama in fact complaining of his own people, who revere him so much, seemed to me a very odd statement. Whoever else might be against the Dalai Lama, I should have thought that the great mass of the Tibetan people are not against him. They are devoted to him. Therefore I could not understand that. Is that all?

QUESTION: Do you think that China has observed Panchsheel scrupulously in regard to Tibet?

PRIME MINISTER: I don't think the question of Panchsheel directly arises in this connection. We may disapprove of what one country has done or not. There is hardly a country which you cannot criticise on the ground that the principles of Panchsheel have not been observed but in this particular matter I don't quite see how that particular thing arises.

QUESTION: The Japanese Ambassador has written an article in a Japanese paper which was circulated here in press comments in which
he says that this Panchsheel agreement with China has been wearing out for some time and the uprising in Tibet shows that it has completely worn out.

PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen that article but the Panchsheel lays down certain principles of international relations. Those principles, if they are good principles, they remain good whatever any individual or country might do. People seem to think that the so-called Panchsheel is some temporary arrangement to meet a temporary set of circumstances. It is not. It is a basic approach to international affairs and life generally. It may have to be adapted because of changing circumstances. If we believe in Panchsheel, we follow it, even if no country in the wide world follows it. Of course, it cannot be easily followed in a one-sided way, but that is a different matter. But our attitude will be to follow it. Our attempt will be to follow it, if we believe in it, as we do. Now, what has happened in Tibet is related to the agreement between China and the authorities in Tibet, in 1950, I think. You will see that on both sides there, it is stated that that agreement has ended or broken up. There is no doubt about it and if both say so there is no doubt about it, and events also indicate that. Now, there is an important fact that it has broken down. That agreement was based on two factors-on the recognition of the sovereignty of China over Tibet and the autonomy of Tibet. These are two major factors. Well, that agreement has broken down; and it is not possible for me-because I don't want to speak irresponsibly and just refer to sentiments-it is not possible for me to give a precise account of what happened in Tibet. But it is well known that there have been conflicts and pulls there in various directions; and it is obvious that at present, since this uprising, there is no autonomy in
Tibet. These are obvious facts whatever the background may be.

QUESTION: Do you think national autonomy is possible in a Communist State?

PRIME MINISTER: Surely, why not? I don't see any contradiction in that.

QUESTION: But it has never happened.

PRIME MINISTER: Well, you see, the difficulty is that we are gradually becoming conditioned, wrongly conditioned, by the cold war attitude in the world. If we have always to live with the cold war as our companion, well, many things, happen which normally should not happen. But if the cold war was not there, we would all become a little more normal.

QUESTION: It is reported that you are having correspondence with the Dalai Lama. Is it about his wishes?

PRIME MINISTER: No, I don't know, except that I got a message from him which he sent to me on his arrival, and I sent him a very brief message of greetings.

QUESTION: To what extent would the Dalai Lama's personal safety to be Government of India's responsibility?

PRIME MINISTER: One hundred percent.

QUESTION: You had said that since this conflict started, autonomy in Tibet has disappeared.

PRIME MINISTER: Tibet has disappeared?

QUESTION: The autonomy of Tibet has disappeared.

PRIME MINISTER: Well, yes.

QUESTION: From which period do you date this breaking up of the agreement?

PRIME MINISTER: You might say the date when it officially ended in this date, say ten days ago. That is the official date. For the rest, there have been troubles over Eastern Tibet and a little in Southern Tibet. That means that there were troubles there but constitutionally it did not end. Actually, it may function or not because of these troubles.

QUESTION: In regard to the question of autonomy which we speak of, we also speak of autonomy in the case of the Centre and the States, where the Centre is autonomous in respect of certain subjects and the States are autonomous in respect of certain subjects and the States are autonomous in respect of certain other subjects. In what respect was Tibet considered to be autonomous?

PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot spell that out, expect to tell my own interpretation of what Premier Chou En-lai said to me. I mentioned that in the Lok Sabha. He laid stress, first of all, that Tibet was and had always been, according to him, a part of the Chinese State, a part of the larger family of China. Then he said: "But Tibet is not a province of China. It is different from China proper. We recognize that and, therefore, we consider it to be an autonomous region of the Chinese State. The Chinese people are called the Han people. The Tibetans are
not Hans. The Tibetans are Tibetans”. That is what he said. Therefore, if you compare it to India, here, first of all there is no question of any person or any part of India not being an Indian. He is an Indian whatever else he might be.
Secondly, the autonomy of an Indian State is laid down, the measure of it, in our Constitution. It is definitely a limited autonomy. There are lists of subjects where the States are autonomous and there are other lists where the Central Government's authority prevails. Normally speaking the Central Government cannot invade the autonomy of the States in India certainly the States cannot do so in regard to the Central Government, but, abnormally the Constitution provides that the Central Government can take charge of a State under special circumstances. So, the type of autonomy here is different, I thought, from the type of autonomy in the autonomous region of Tibet. Of course, there are many other factors also. From the social, religious and economic points of view, there is considerable different. I take it, between Tibet and many other parts of China proper. Tibet has been cut off from the world practically for ages. Economically speaking, it is very backward and this impact of vast changes which are taking place in China itself must produce tremendous reactions.

QUESTION: Sir, according to the Soviet Constitution an autonomous region is more backward constitutionally than the federating republic. Do you think the same provision is there in the Chinese Constitution, that is, like Inner Mongolia enjoying autonomous status like Tibet? What is the exact position? For example, in Russia, the Republics certainly have more powers such as a Foreign Minister, even a standing army and so on. Do you think that under the Chinese Constitution there is similar provision?

PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot answer this question precisely but I imagine that the various constituting units of the Soviet Union, including the autonomous regions, are all more or less wedded to a certain policy which might be called the Communist policy while Tibet was not and is not communist.  And the mere fact of the Dalai Lama being the religious head and till recently the political head under, broadly the Chinese umbrella, itself shows that it was very different.

QUESTION: Would you like to give a broad definition of the term "Suzerainty" as distinct from "sovereignty"?

PRIME MINISTER: No. I am afraid it requires a jurist to do that and probably two jurists might differ-except that "suzerainty" is obviously less than "sovereignty".

QUESTION: How far does this disappearance of the agreement over Tibet with China affect our agreement about Tibet?

PRIME MINISTER: The disappearance of that does not affect it-if you read it-but I do not know what the consequences of developments in Tibet might be. You see what was our agreement with China in regard to Tibet. Apart from our withdrawing certain small forces that we had there in old times, this agreement related to pilgrimage, to trade and trade routes, to certain passes over which these trade routes should pass. To that type of thing. And you know that thousands and thousands of pilgrimage go to Tibet from India. Apart from Buddhists, vast numbers of Hindus go there to Kailash and the Manasarowar Lake and we wanted to make arrangements for them. That is one part of the treaty. The
other was something about trade. The third was about the routes to be followed, the passes to be traversed. Then there was something which was definitely mentioned in the treaty-not directly-but indirectly it was there, the close contact of the Buddhists in Ladakh, who used to go, for some kind of education and training in the Buddhist scripture, to Lhasa and other places, to the monasteries there. Hundreds of this people used to go and hundreds are supposed to be there who did not take the trouble to carry any normal papers and passports, etc. They carried on in the old way. Now, how far all these will be affected by these developments, I cannot say.

QUESTION: Perhaps you have answered the question. But how are we politically concerned or affected by the events in Tibet?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, we are obviously concerned and interested in what happens there, in what political developments take place there. We cannot ignore them is another matter, to be considered in regard to circumstances. But I should like to put that apart from the purely political considerations, there are other considerations which move people powerfully. We have had to desire, certainly ever since we became independent, to interfere in the slightest degree in Tibetan affairs. But we could not give up our interest, call it if you like sentimental interest, apart from politics, and you can observe for yourself the enormous feeling that has been aroused in India by these recent developments in Tibet and about the Dalai Lama and all those. It shows that deep sentimental attachment which has little to do with politics which goes back hundreds of years. You saw -I was not present that day-but some of you might have been present in the Lok Sabha three or four days ago when Members of every group, every party in the Lok Sabha, except the Communist Party, were vastly exercised over this question. It brought out rather, well very markedly and prominently how some matters are so deeply rooted in national sentiment that they override even party boundaries and they come up. They brought out also how the Communist Party in India has uprooted itself from those matters and feels quite differently-I am not talking about politics or economics-but just what is called national sentiment which has deep roots in a country. And we saw there that marked distinction of the people who however they differed among themselves, had that common bond of strong national tradition and sentiment, call it nationalism for brief, while the Communist Party had no kinship with that sentiment, it had not its roots there. It had its roots in different thinking and that document or statement that they issued exhibited that entirely different approach from the point of view of national sentiment. And the strong reactions of Members of Parliament and those others outside to what was due to that. It had not much to do with statement or no statement. It had nothing to do, to my thinking, with any parliamentary privilege, but it had to do basically with, that deep-rooted sentiment of the Indian people which was hurt by that statement. Therefore it reacted.

QUESTION: Are you aware of the dangers involved by the exploitation of this recent event in China by anti-Communist forces in India?

PRIME MINISTER: The situation is full of difficult aspects, naturally, and the worst of it is that it tends to bring in that atmosphere of cold war in India which we have tried to avoid. And when there is an atmosphere of cold war, parties to it do not consider matters dispassionately or in the cold light of reason but try to exploit the
situation to the advantage of their thinking. There is that danger on every side, on both sides if you like, if you divide it, and that is , If I may introduce a slightly personal element, why when I spoke in the Lok Sabha two days ago rather deliberately, I suppressed myself in order to avoid adding to this heat of the cold war. I felt strongly enough about some matters but I felt that one must try to be a little dispassionate.

QUESTION: Don't you feel disillusioned or disappointed about the development in Tibet particularly in view of the Panch Sheel agreement, when the first time it was propounded, you and Mr. Chou En-lai, went into night-long vigil to draft that agreement.

PRIME MINISTER: I do not think you are factually correct Mr. Chou En-lai was not here when the draft agreement was made. He was in Peking, I was here.

QUESTION: After he came from the Geneva Conference?

PRIME MINISTER: There was no agreement; there was a brief press communiqué then. That had nothing to do with Tibet at all. I do not think there was any reference to it.

QUESTION: In view of the good relations between India and China, has China, at any time, written to you asking you to use your good offices, particularly in relation of Tibet and China, to the revolt among Khampas and others?

PRIME MINISTER: May I say that for a variety of reasons, historical, sentimental, practical and of the present day, I have thought and I
think terms with each other even though they might differ greatly in regard to their policies internally and further that neither country has any business to interfere in the other country because such interference does not produce any desirable results even from the point of view of the persons who wants to interfere unless the result aimed at is just ill will and anger which is the essence of the cold war. The cold war does not convert the other party at all; it makes it more rigid. So that has been our basic policy, conditioned always of course by guarding, protecting the interests of India and the larger causes that we hold dear. Now, Tibet, culturally speaking, is an offshoot of India. That is to say of Buddhism not of India politically and we may be Hindus, we may be anything in India but Buddha is the greatest Indian that ever lived and we still in India are under the umbrella of this feeling for the Buddha. Tibet of course is far more so and there is this tremendous bond. We do not want Tibet to remain economically or socially backward. We want it to progress. Now, at any time during the last few years, last some years, has there been any correspondence, so far as I can remember, with Chinese Government of Premier Chou En-lai about Tibet with us but when Premier Chou En-lai was here last time we discussed many matters and among them Tibet. I have just told you a little while ago what he said about Tibet to me. As a matter of fact, he discussed this question at some length explaining the Chinese Government's attitude to Tibet and pointing out what they respected and wanted to respect the autonomy of Tibet, and that they had no desire to push communism in Tibet, for the major reason, he said , that Tibet was as far removed from communism as any country could be and that it could not be pushed and imposed in this way and it was for the people of Tibet themselves to grow up economically and
socially.

QUESTION: A Comparison was made in the Lok Sabha between the situation in Algeria and Tibet. It was said that in Algeria the French people are setting there. In the same way in Tibet also the Chinese are setting in vast numbers. What are your views?

PRIME MINISTER: The question essentially was about the Chinese settling in Tibet just as the French People had previously settled in Algeria. I do not know, first of all-one hears reports about large numbers of Chinese settling in Tibet; I have no information about it, about numbers, I cannot say. There is no comparison. If people settle in some other country and a country which is different, they bring with them some problems. That is true.

QUESTION: Do you propose to take any steps to persuade China to restore Tibet's autonomy?

PRIME MINISTER: There is no question of my taking steps to that end. First of all, the Chinese Government, so far as I know, has not denied the fact that Tibet should be autonomous. What they have laid stress on is that this has broken down, according to them, by the action of the other party; but they have not denied the fact that Tibet should be autonomous, and this business of giving advice to others does not always lead to right results.

QUESTION: There are reports that you have been in correspondence with the British Prime Minister recently regarding Tibet.

PRIME MINISTER: Those reports are not correct, except that frequently, not frequently but sometimes, I have messages from Mr. Macmillan. I reply to those messages, but there has been no particular correspondence about Tibet.

QUESTION: Has the Chinese Government conveyed its reaction to you regarding your giving political asylum to the Dalai Lama?

PRIME MINISTER: No. But it is an acknowledged fact that any country has the right to give asylum if it chooses. I don't think that is denied anywhere.

QUESTION: Some people talk of the Naga trouble and Hyderabad when this question of the autonomy of Tibet comes. Will you please clarify the two positions?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, there is no comparison, of course. There is Hyderabad. I do not know what to say. The question does not arise at all in any shape or form, because the Nizam and some of his advisers there adopted a policy which was patently a policy against the Government of India, patently against his own people's wishes and all that. In regard to the Naga problem the position is different certainly from that of Hyderabad. The Naga area, you know, is a small area on our border, an area which has in the past some times given a lot of trouble and according to our policy, we give these tribal areas the fullest autonomy. There is no policy that we wish to impose upon them. This trouble started because they declared-some of them declared, an organisation-independence there. We did not start a shooting war because they declared independence. Some of them came to me and said, "we want to be independent”. Others said, "No. We want to have something else”. We did not punish them for saying that. It was only when they rather brutally killed a number of our officers and men, when they started a violent campaign, that we took measures to meet this because they were just waylaying and killing important people-our own officers and men and important Nagas who were with us. We had to protect those people and put an end to this kind of reign of terror that the Naga National Council in the name of the Naga people was creating there. I think that any person who knows how we have functioned there will probably be amazed at the constant attempt on our part-an attempt which has largely succeeded, I won't say always kept in view noninterference in Naga customs and the rest, and we have always kept open the door to a considerable measure of autonomy for them which, by and large, a great majority of them have accepted in conventions and congresses and the rest.

QUESTION: You said earlier that it was very important for India and China to remain on friendly terms now and in the future and you said that this war our basic policy conditioned by the interest of India and larger causes we hold dear. Do you consider that Tibet is among these larger causes or have we now by our agreement with Tibet put ourselves beyond taking up this matter?

PRIME MINISTER: Tibet or a country does not become a cause. It is a country. A country or the developments in the country may affect a cause. Certainly, we are deeply interested in the autonomy of Tibet and Tibet being allowed to carry on in its own way.

QUESTION: You said in the Lok Sabha that the rights renounced by India in Tibet were a relic of British imperialism. By the same token, does not the McMahon Line become a relic of British imperialism?

PRIME MINISTER: By the same token, you might go back a little when Asoka governed the whole of Central Asia and China governed at one time or other burma and Indo-China, and Tibet at one time governed a bit of China. You cannot go back on history like this. At what period do we draw a line? There is a difference between certain extraterritorial rights in a country. Obviously, there is no question if we had 150 soldiers in Gyanste, or whatever the number was, no country would tolerate that kind of thing. That continued because they were there from the British times on the plea, mind you, of lack of law and order there , to protect our consulate or whatever it was. That is a completely different thing from conditions in a part of the country-border if you like -which had continued for generations and somebody comes and tell us that ,"Oh! A hundred years ago this was different". There is no particular significance or meaning , unless that person wants to do mischief.  We have to accept certain things; we cannot historically trace back where the Indian frontier was. We accepted for a long time, for a hundred years or so, that the frontier is this and we have been in possession. we have functioned administratively and otherwise. There the matter ends so far as we are concerned, and as a matter of fact the McMahon Line was accepted by Tibet, and some parts of that McMahon agreement, by the then existing Chinese Government , were not settled, but this part was not objected to even then.

QUESTION: But, Sir, in view of the expansionist policy if communism and the policy of the CPI’s had been witnessed in the Lok Sabha recently, do you think that the security of Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim and even our country is threatened?

PRIME MINISTER: I do not think CPI's policy is expansionist. It is submissive. It is not expansionist.

QUESTION: Sir, in the latest issue of the Communist Party organ, the weekly New Age, they say that the spy ring is not only there in Kalimpong but it operates also in Calcutta, Bhutan and Sikkim. And they have also alleged that there was collusion between some of our political officers and the spies, and they have named Shri Apa Pant in this connection. It has come in the latest issue of the New Age.

PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen that. If the CPI goes about naming our principal officers, the CPI shows, even more than I suspected, a certain lack of balance in mind and total absence of feeling a decency and nationality. What they are I do not know. They cease to be Indians if they talk in this way. May I say about this matter? Of course I said in the Lok Sabha about Kalimpong being a nest of spies. Well, I indicated that there was every variety and every shade and colour of spies there. Probably you could even balance the anti-Communist spies with the Communist spies there. In a great city like Calcutta no doubt you have all manner of people like that belonging to every shade and colour. To say that is one thing; for the matter of that in any great city in the world you will find these valiant representatives of the cold war. By the way, may I mention one thing, which is horrifying to me? And this was a statement which appeared some little time ago and our External Affairs Ministry contradicted it yesterday, a statement by Prince Peter of Greece, who stayed in Kalimpong for a number of years. He made a statement-he is supposed to be and described as an international authority on Tibetan affairs-he said that the Indian Government had given assistance to the Chinese invasion of Tibet for fear that Tibet might fall under British or American influence. The Chinese armies were receiving supplies along the only road from the Indian border to Lhasa. He stated: "While I was still at Kalimpong I discovered for myself that truck convoys to Tibet, alleged by Indians to be loaded with rice, were full of military supplies!”. Now, a more fantastic and despicable lie I have never heard and I say that by my knowledge. A person like Prince Peter of Greece, who had the hospitability of India for several years, dares to say that shows the atmosphere of Kalimpong, what it was.  Even a person thinking even slightly, cannot say that in 1950 thousands of trucks-how do trucks go, where do they go?-any supplies to Tibet had then and now to go through the Nathula pass. Now there is a road. We have built it. They had to go over mules, a most terrible journey on mule-back. In 1954-55, because there was a famine in Tibet, we agreed to send some rice-about, I forget now, may be ten to twenty thousand maunds, less than a thousand tons-and it was a terrible job to send this. You just calculate how many mules caravans to carry this rice over the Nathula. And this was in 1954-55. This is physically impossible apart from the fact that it is inconceivable that we should send military supplies of all things to the Chinese authorities - by mules who had far more military supplies than we possessed, and then that we should do that is quite an extraordinary statement.

QUESTION: There has been a report in the press that the Chinese have in the last recent two or three weeks drawn our attention to what they said, or expressed the hope that the Indian Consul at Lhasa would take an objective view of the situation. What have you to say about that?

PRIME MINISTER: We take a very objective