One of the basic concepts of the Communists is that those who are not friends are enemies. The British Laborites have been known for their leftist tendencies. They have flirted with Communism and have been known to be soft toward both the Russian and Chinese Communists. But when Hugh Gaitskell, leader of the Labor Party, appealed to Khrushchev during the latter's visit to England to set free the Social Democrats imprisoned in Russia and in the satellite countries, Khrushchev turned on him with the fury of a Russian bear. So whoever gets along hand in glove with the Communists may properly be regarded as lost to the cause of the free world.
But how do we explain the fact that a neutralist like Nehru puts down Communists at home? This may be done for the dual purpose of make-believe and purging the Communist ranks. Nehru's stock as a neutralist would presumably rise if he could be said to be persecuting Communists inside his country. But it is precisely here that the free world should beware. Even if Nehru should be a Communist, and on the strength of what he has been doing he could very well have been one, one of the first things he would do would be to purge the Communist ranks in accordance with the line laid down by Moscow. The greatest persecutor of Communists is not Truman or Eisenhower who leads the world in the fight against Communism this side of the Iron Curtain but Stalin, who had so many lives of Communists on his conscience that the most feared Communist baiter of the Nazi days might well envy. it will not be at all surprising if the Kremlin would every so often hand to Nehru a list of the dissentient Communists in India it wanted to purge.
Neutralists had a field day during the Korean War when, in their eagerness to bring about peace, the Western chancelleries asked Nehru to intercede with the Communists for peace. From the wisdom of hindsight we now know that at the time when Malik put out the peace feeler in June, 1951, the Communist forces were in a very bad shape, and disaster was staring them in the lace. Malik's peace feeler should, therefore, rightly be regarded as in the nature of suing for peace. When the Communists sue for peace, in fact when anyone sues for peace, the protocol calls for no middleman. Direct negotiation is the rule. The use of Nehru as a middleman throughout the course of the negotiations was as pointless as it was harmful to the cause of the United Nations Command. For in his role as middleman, he parroted the Communist propaganda line to make the countries fighting Communist aggression in Korea look like aggressors and to accuse them of being engaged in germ warfare.
At this point the West should have discarded this unneutral middleman's services. But no, with or without the intention of doing so, the West conspired with Moscow to groom Nehru as a neutralist to betray the interests of the West. As if to reward his services, the United States is vying with Moscow to give India large-scale economic aid.
Nehru's successes inspired other opportunists. U Nu of Burma for little reason that we can see soon got on the neutralists' bandwagon. Now Nasser of Egypt wants to introduce the same thing into Africa. The tendency is growing and unless something is done to stop it, very soon the United States and a few of her staunch allies will find themselves surrounded by countries which in name are neutralist but in fact are Communist in their orientation. These countries will do everything in their power to embarrass the United States. Therefore, the United States should regard neutralism as no less deadly than Communism and should fight it accordingly.
The first thing we should do in the fight against neutralism is to refrain from doing anything that would increase the stature and prestige of the neutralists. It is a fine gesture to hand out largesse and bounty to all and sundry who apply for them. But to give aid to a man like Nehru will produce two undesirable effects. In the first place it will encourage people to stray away from the American orbit. At the present time international morality is so low that few nations would not like to stab Uncle Sam in the back if they can get away with it, for Russia is ever ready to hold out a bag of gold for anyone who is cowardly enough to do such a dastardly deed. Those who profess to be fighting against the Communists must take care to see that Nehru's neutralist ways are no longer rewarding, at least no longer so on this side of the Iron Curtain.
There are those who are afraid that if the United States should cut out her aid to India, Nehru will lead his people all the way to the fold of the Kremlin. The contrary is true. For if the United States should continue to extend aid to Nehru in competition with the Russians, he will be able to convince his countrymen that his line of action is right, that it pays to do what he has been doing. He would be holding all the trump cards against his political opponents at home. It will have the same effect in other neutralist countries of propping up anti-American regimes against opposition, for they can show to their people the huge benefits Nehru is reaping.
If the United States should withhold aid from Nehru, it will have two immediate effects. First, Nehru will lose value in the eyes of the Russians. For Nehru is only valuable to them when he commands the respect of the West. In due course the Russians will either withdraw their aid too or accompany it with onerous conditions, as they usually do. In either case, Nehru will lose influence at home and abroad.
India is one of those countries that are experimenting with the democratic form of government. It is a country made up of a bewildering group of heterogeneous peoples. The least setback Nehru suffers will adversely affect his political future. In view of the incompatibility of the different racial groups, one does not rule out the possibility of rebellion against his government should the political climate change for the worse. Only Nehru himself knows how precarious his position is. The withdrawal of economic aid mayor may not have a sobering effect on him, but it will be an unmistakable indication of America's displeasure of his actions and will kill his usefulness to his Russian masters in his role as a neutralist. At all events it is far better to have an American baiter without Uncle Sam's blessing than one that can boast to the world that he has kicked the old man in the back and gets rewarded for it.