By Raju Mansukhani

In the war-torn year of 1965, when Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri launched ‘3 Schemes for Defence’ and an all-out campaign for self-sufficiency, the stress was on production and austerity for a better future. In newspapers, dated October 20, 1965, the PM’s announcement of a 15-year Gold Bond Scheme and two National Defence Loans were front page headlines.

Shastri declared: “We must take time by the forelock and try unitedly to push the country forward towards self-reliance and growth. Let us join the crusade and success will not elude us.” (Indian Express, New Delhi edition, dated October 20, 1965). The Prime Minister spoke of the new confidence and new vision, but warned, “We are still in the midst of the emergency and we may have to live with it for quite a time. We must take a long-term view of things. Let us therefore give a practical shape to the keen desire of the people to be self-reliant.” 

Shastri’s main theme centred on the urgency of practising austerity, Indian Express stated. He gave a new slogan to the people – produce more and consume less. He called for the mobilisation of the people’s resources in the effort to safeguard the nation’s integrity and to pursue the defence-oriented development projects on hand.

 Austerity is a building block of the Gandhian tradition which distinguished Shastri’s life, personality and character. Now he made it a national programme, touching the hearts of every Indian for whom Mahatma Gandhi was a living legacy, two decades after his assassination.

Also Read: 1965 – The Indo-Pak war discourse

In a lucid definition of the concept of self-reliance which he described as India’s need of the hour, Prime Minister Shastri said: “Self-reliance does not mean that we have everything we need. No country is self-sufficient in all respects. Self-reliance is an attitude of mind. A poor man can be self-reliant, while a wealthy person may be dependent on others. Self-reliance means making do with what we have and cutting out what we do not or cannot have.” For the benefit of their readers, Indian Express New Delhi edition, carried a box item of this quote to drive home its significance. 

Prime Minister Shastri’s focus on peace remained steadfast. Here was a Prime Minister, reared in Gandhian value systems, facing the challenges of war and being questioned about the A-bomb. “There has been no rethinking on the question of making the bomb,” the Prime Minister said, reaffirming India’s nuclear policy. India would not go in for the manufacture of the atom bomb, he said.

From the United Nations it was reported that “Pakistan has lately been intensifying its nuclear programme.” In Indian Express(New Delhi edition, dated October 30, 1965) TV Parasuram wrote, “The Pakistani game, it is believed, is to put international pressure on India not to go in for atomic weapons while she tries to catch up on nuclear technology with a view to producing nuclear weapons. It is believed Pakistan still hopes to get Communist Chinese assistance and this is one factor why Pakistan is still doing all it please Communist China despite the difficulties this has created in its relations with the United States.”

“The Pakistani obsession about India was fully reflected in the Political Committee (on October 29) when the Pakistani delegate, Mr Agha Shahi, interfering directly in India’s internal affairs, questioned India’s need for a chemical separation plant…The Indian delegate, Mr Trivedi, retorted that India had a chemical separation plant because atomic energy was important for development purposes, particularly for large countries.”

 The outrage, against Pakistan’s violations of the cease-fire agreement of September 23, 1965, was nation-wide,widely covered in the media. During the days when Prime Minister Shastri was launching the self-reliance and austerity programmes, Pakistani attacks in the Poonch sector were being beaten back. “Three Pakistani soldiers were killed and one wounded in the Poonch sector of Kashmir when Indian forces were compelled to fire back to hold an aggressive move by the enemy,” reported Indian Express. “In several other areas – Keran, Tithwal, Tangdhar and Mendhar – Indian posts were again subjected to mortar and machine-gun fire. In each case the fire was returned. Complaints were also lodged with UN observers.” 

 Not just in the hallowed halls of diplomacy but anger and affront were visible at the street-level as well. Port and dock workers of Bombay, began off-loading 500,000 pounds worth of Pakistan-bound cargo from Lloyd Triestino’s Adige, which had docked at the harbour. The freighter had arrived with 4000 tonnes of cargo for Pakistan. SR Kulkarni, president of the All India Port and Dock Workers’ Federation, warned owners of the vessel that any move by its captain to prevent offloading of the Pakistani cargo would mean an indefinite detention of the ship in the harbour. He described the Federation’s decision as the dockers’ answer to Pakistani piracy tactics of seizing India-bound cargo at Karachi.

 Pakistan continued its strategy of accusing India of waging war. The Statesman (New Delhi edition, dated September 2, 1965) reported Pakistan President Ayub Khan declaring “Pakistan was under threat of a war in Kashmir which is being forced on us by India. He warned India that Pakistan cannot and should not allow persistent violations of the cease-fire by Indian forces to go unchallenged. He accused India of using force in defiance of international agreement and said this had been demonstrated by her ‘fresh incursions’ in the Poonch-Uri sector. He described the situation in Kashmir as an ‘open revolt’ by people against Indian oppression and said New Delhi’s move to dismiss ‘the popular uprising’ as work of infiltrators is a pathetic attempt at deluding the world.”

In the September 2 edition, The Statesman also reported on The New York Post editorial, with the headline: Pak tactics on Kashmir – “Critics of USA proved right”.

 The US daily commented that Pakistan’s current policies on Kashmir had proved that the critics of the US foreign policy of ‘militarization’ in Asia were right. Its editorial entitled ‘Sequel in Pakistan’, said “Not long ago a joint session of the US Congress was cheering a speech by President Ayub Khan in which he declared that the ‘only people in Asia who will stand by you are the people of Pakistan’. ‘Iron in his backbone and brains in his head’ was the comment of the Speaker of the House. Liberals such as Chester Bowles and Professor Kenneth Galbraith were criticized for allegedly wanting to ‘coddle neutralist India and neglect our military ally Pakistan’.

But the true question, raised by the New York Post editorial, ‘was whether Pakistan in the final analysis would use our tanks, planes and hardware against the Communists or against India. In the last year or so, President Ayub has given the answer. Kashmir is plainly more important to him than resistance to Communist thrust’.

 ‘When as an ally of the West he could not compel India to disgorge Kashmir he turned to the East. In March, he spent a week being wined and dined in Peking. In April, he went on a goodwill visit to Russia. In the last few weeks (of August) his guerillas have begun to infiltrate into Kashmir. Thoughtful men for long protested (against the militarisation of our foreign policy in Asia). They have been proven right. Development aid is imperative of the times. But military aid, it should now be clear, can be self-defeating’. 

Fifty-seven years after the 1965 Indo-Pak War, the outrage continues to rankle our polity, diplomacy and defence establishments. 

The author is a researcher-writer specializing in history and heritage issues, a former deputy curator of Pradhanmantri Sanghralaya.

Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited