Advertisement

India’s Position in International Conflict

  • W. F. Van Eekelen

Abstract

In its directive principles the Indian constitution contains the provision that the state shall endeavour to promote international peace and security, maintain just and honourable relations between nations, foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized people with one another and encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration. Little has been done to carry out the final obligation. India did not accede to the revised General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, as she was not prepared to accept any rigid rules in regard to this matter. Similarly, no arbitration agreements were entered into because issues involving fundamental political interests were better left to settlement through negotiations.1 In general, India welcomed those methods of pacific settlement which did not involve an element of compulsion.

Keywords

Security Council International Conflict International Peace Security Council Resolution Armed Attack 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    India and the United Nations, p. 120–135. The Constitution of India, Art. 51.Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    Menon, V. P., The story of the integration of the Indian states, Chapter VI, Junadagh, Chapters XVII-XIX, Hyderabad.Google Scholar
  3. 1.
    UNCIP proposal of Aug. 30, 1949 and S.C. Resolution of 30th March, 1951, accepted by Pakistan.Google Scholar
  4. 1.
    Security Council Records, 5th Year Nos. 15, 16, 17, meetings of June 25, 27 and 30, 1950.Google Scholar
  5. 2.
    Poplai, S. L., and P. Talbot, India and America, p. 117.Google Scholar
  6. 3.
    Resolution 376 (V) of Oct. 7, 1950.Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    De Koreaanse oorlog en de Verenigde Naties, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, No. 26, p. 34.Google Scholar
  8. 1.
    Resolution 384 (V) of Dec. 14, 1950.Google Scholar
  9. 2.
    Draft resolution of Jan. 24, 1951, later amended to include that a cease-fire would be the first measure of the conference.Google Scholar
  10. 3.
    Resolution 498 (V) of Feb. 1, 1951.Google Scholar
  11. 4.
    See in particular the Indian proposals on the prisoners of war. G.A.O.R. 7th session, Annexes, Vol. I, Agenda item 16, p. 32–35.Google Scholar
  12. 5.
    India and the United Nations, p. 153.Google Scholar
  13. 1.
    Resolution 610 (VII) of Dec. 3, 1952.Google Scholar
  14. 1.
    Joint statement of Feb. 18, 1954.Google Scholar
  15. 1.
    Lok Sabha Official Records, Part II, Vol. 9, No. 3, Col. 260–267.Google Scholar
  16. 2.
    Moreover, the Indian case against a U.N. force to effect the demilitarisation of Kashmir had already been strenghtened by the Soviet veto, cast in October 1958 on the grounds that this task would exceed the powers granted by the Charter.Google Scholar
  17. 1.
    Harrison, S., India and the United States, p. 42 ; Sarbadhikari, P., India and the Great Powers, p. 37–39.Google Scholar
  18. 2.
    Krishna Menon in General Assembly on Nov. 9, 1956. See Wigbold, H. A., “Tien jaar India.” Int. Spectator, XII (1958) 291–336.Google Scholar
  19. 3.
    Nehru’s speechesEastern Europe, Publications Division, 1961; Sarbadhikari, P., op. cit., p. 91.Google Scholar
  20. 4.
    Meeting at Wardha, August 1946. Portuguese rule dated from 1510 when Affonso d’Albuquerque carried by storm a small coast town of Bijapur State, founded by horse-dealers from Bhatkal.Google Scholar
  21. 1.
    Resolution at Jaipur Session, December 18–19, 1948.Google Scholar
  22. 2.
    Statement of June 10, 1953.Google Scholar
  23. 3.
    Portuguese note of July 30, 1954; consular relations were restored on January 18, 1955 until the break of diplomatic relations by India on July 25 and of consular relations on August 18, 1955.Google Scholar
  24. 4.
    They should report on : a. the nature, nationality and activities of any groups entering or proposing to enter the other country’s territory against the will of the authorities; b. whether or not these groups were armed ; c. whether they received protection or help from the authorities and armed forces of the country in which they originated; d. any frontier incidents.Google Scholar
  25. 1.
    Portuguese notes of Aug. 8, 13, 22, 30, Sept. 6; Indian notes of Aug. 10, 19,24, Sept. 2 and 11, 1954.Google Scholar
  26. 2.
    During debate in the Lok Sabha on March 31, 1955.Google Scholar
  27. 3.
    Statement of May 24, 1955.Google Scholar
  28. 4.
    Announcement by Nehru in Lok Sabha on April 1, 1961.Google Scholar
  29. 5.
    Statement by Ministry of External Affairs, Dec. 5, 1961.Google Scholar
  30. 1.
    Lok Sabha, Dec. 7, 1961.Google Scholar
  31. 2.
    Rajya Sabha, Dec. 11, 1961.Google Scholar
  32. 3.
    Messages of Dec. 15, 1961.Google Scholar
  33. 4.
    The Times Dec. 20, The Guardian Dec. 26, 1961. The Indian allegations were contained in the letter dated Dec. 12, 1961 from the Permanent Representative of India to the President of the Security Council. Doc. S/5020.Google Scholar
  34. 1.
    Security Council debate of Dec. 19, 1961; Press Conference by Adlai Stevenson, Dec. 21, 1961.Google Scholar
  35. 2.
    Press conferences of Dec. 28, 1961.Google Scholar
  36. 3.
    Times of India, Dec. 26; The Hindu, Dec. 20; Rajagopalachari in Swarajya, Dec. 27, 1961.Google Scholar
  37. 1.
    Sarbadhikari, P., op. cit., p. 25.Google Scholar
  38. 2.
    See Bains, J. S., India’s International Disputes, p. 197, who rigidly adhered to the principle ex iniuria ius non oritur and refused to recognise continuous occupation as a valid title for a colonial power.Google Scholar
  39. 1.
    Press Conference in New Delhi. Times of India, Dec. 22, 1961.Google Scholar
  40. 2.
    Zinkin, Taya, “Indian foreign policy, an interpretation of attitudes,” p. 179.Google Scholar
  41. 3.
    Direct Indian intervention remained limited to convening a conference in New Delhi to support Indonesia, Jan. 20–23, 1949. Announcing that he had issued invitations on Jan. 2, Nehru declared “we have seen the most naked and unabashed aggression and use of armed might to suppress a people and a government.” Inspired by a joint rejection of colonialism this meeting of like-minded nations enhanced Indian leadership in Asia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. F. Van Eekelen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations