U.S. SEVENTH FLEET MANEUVERS IN INDIAN OCEAN
By Kailas Chandra
BOMBAY «- A diplomat of a neutral nation whom I know has likened the proposed maneuvers of the United States Seventh Fleet in the Indian Ocean to "a guest invited home insisting on staying in the bedroom with your wife," This is a polite way of calling attention to an outrageous power play. ‘
Whatever may be the "official" reaction of New Delhi to the U.S. military strategy of "bridging the gap” in the Pentagon's global “defense” plan, there is no doubt that deploying an American nuclear task force in the Indian Ocean on a beat running from China to the coast of Africa ~~ with the acquiescence of the Indian Nehru government -- is viewed with grave concern by the people of India and the entire newly emerging Nnonaligned" world,
Prime Minister Nehru has sought to minimize the political significance of the U.S. move by suggesting that the naval maneuvers are projected in waters outside India's territorial lines "open to naval . vessels of any other country" and therefore the question of even a orotest" by India does not arise.
This attitude does not exactly strengthen the image of India as a “nonaligned" power, particularly coming in the wake of joint exercises involving the Indian, - U.S., British and Australian air forces and an "inspection tour” arranged for General Maxwell Taylor, chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff,
Nehru has taken a stance of complacency. “If the thing is obviously to our detriment," he said, "we protest; if it is not we do not," An excuse offered for this attitude is that the show of force involved in moves of the Seventh Fleet in the Indian Ocean acts as a "psychological" deterrent against China and boosts Indiats "defense morale." But this talk of "matching" the presence of Chinese troops in the Himalayas can- — not hide the naked fact that India has moved much closer to an open military alliance with American imperialism since October 1962.
New Delhi thus confirms Peking's charge that despite her posture of © nonalignment, India is fundamentally allied with the imperialist camp.
Replying to questions in parliament about the U.S. naval maneuvers, Nehru wriggled. "We had no information on the subject, and we had at no stage been consulted by the U.S.Government in the matter." When General Taylor called on Nehru December 17, it would appear that he men- . tioned Washington was "considering the advisability of some vessels of their Seventh Fleet cruising this area with the object of getting acquainted with the seas in this region, but no decision had been taken,"
Nehru tried to sooth the agitated legislators by assuring them that "so far as I know there is no question of any exercises anywhere for
taking our: permission. There is no question of their referring the matter to us. - "Nodded His Consent"
But the American newspapers seem to have drawn entirely different conclusions from the Nehru-Taylor meeting at New Delhi, claiming that Nehru "nodded his consent" to the "deployment of U.S. warships in the Indian Ocean."
Selig Harrison wrote in the Washington Post [December 19]: "The acquiescence of India in the naval move would imply acceptance of a correlation between U.S. global strategy and Indian defense planning. This would presumably improve the political climate for continued U.S. military assistance. But the presence of carrier-based aircraft in the projected naval force would reduce the necessity for large air forces in India and Pakistan."
New Delhi's decision to play down projected calls of the U.S. fleet at Indian ports is motivated, according to American commentators, by "Indiats continued need for air defense assistance from America. It is also suggested that Nehruts "gesture of goodwill" aims at persuading the U.S. to reconsider its decision not to supply the Indian Air Force with all-weather supersonic fighters, It -seems thatthe recent joint air exercises. demonstrated that the slow Hunters of the Indian Air Force. cannot. effectively intercept even the Canberras.
After his three-day visit and his inspection tours of areas pordering Tibet, General Taylor left India, stating his "satisfaction" that the Nehru’ regime was determined to "strike a balance between defense and preservation of the vital economic problems" facing the country. Before taking off for Pakistan, he told a new conference that he did not see any tendency on India's part to engage in a "runaway military program unrelated to the requirements of the country." Tied.in with Economic Crisis
The obvious question is whether or not the definite drift of India's foreign policy towards open political and military alignment with the West was decided on as a possible way out of the "critical phase" of the country's economic situation. A clue to this has been provided by no one less than Asoka Mehta, the newly appointed "Socialist" Deputy Chair~ . man of the Planning Commission. [Mehta was chairman of the Praja Socialist party of India and his acceptance. of the government post caused a major split in the organization, ] Addressing parliament!s Informal Consultative Committee for Planning December 20, Mehta argued that the "reluctance" of capitalists abroad to invest in India is due to their being "irked by Indiats restrictive policies and procedures.” He said that.India must make up her mind "whether she wants to go along with the World Bank and the suggestions made by private investors." Mehta warned that "If she chose to ignore. them, it is clear that she cannot _ count on the kind and scale of assistance - she had received in the past."
This is a clear enough indication from an "expert" on the Western attitude towards "India's endeavor to build a 'socialist! economy" --« meaning a capitalist economy relying on aid from both the West and East. "Thus," Mehta added, "we must be prepared to face difficulties the : Chinese are facing after their break with Russia," In this way, he indicated that Western imperialism has begun to stiffen its terms to the Indian bourgeoisie,
The entry of the Seventh Fleet into the Indian Ocean sharpens a crucial issue facing India. Can the country successfully resist the enormous pressure to become a mere appendage of the Western bloc?
Even the moderate Free Press Journal felt constrained to "deplore". the Prime Minister's equivocal statement, which has served the Pentagon's aim of drawing a "smokescreen over the whole affair,"
Referring to Nehruts position favoring the creation and extension of as many nuclear free zones on the globe as possible, the Journal pointed out [December 21] that “if this policy is now jettisoned and the introduction of a nuclear force in the Indian Ocean accepted without protest, the inevitable inference both here and abroad will be that a qualitative change in the Indian policy has occurred,"
The conservative Times of India [December 21] posed the same ques= tion in a somewhat different way: “Has the October-November 1962 crisis and the China problem caused such a sea-change in New Delhi's posture in world affairs? We are assured that it has not but the facts, such as’. they are, indicate otherwise." The Times suggests that "it is still not too late for Mr, Nehru to undertake the second thoughts for which he is so well known, .. "
The traditional left movement appears to have gone dead on the issue, The leadership of the Communist party of India issued a mild statement protesting New Delhits "failure" to condemn the move of the Seventh Fleet. A demonstration of some four hundred supporters of the Communist party was staged in front of the U.S.Embassy at New Delhi,
The Socialist party anc the Praja Socialist party seem to actually welcome the U.S, move in the name of strengthening India's defense against Chinese "aggression"!