MR. NEIIRU'S BEHAVIOUR over the lighting in Tibet has not
been edifying. His anxiety not to encour- age the Tibetans is understandable enough, since the result can hardly fail to be futile. But his reluctance to 'interfere' in the internal affairs of China seems pharisaical when contrasted with his lack of reluctance to 'interfere' in the internal affairs of other countries. (France, after all, claims with perfectly good legal. right that Algeria is an internal matter.) And his threat to Mr. George Patterson that unless he ,stopped sending 'exag- gerated' reports about Tibet to British papen; he would not be allowed to live on the Bengal-Tibet border was a nasty piece of blackmail. As the Spectator pointed out when it printed Mr. Patter- son's article last September, sonic of his figures probably were exaggerated, but his general esti- mate of the situation seems to have been more accurate than that of Mr. Nehru, who as recently as last week thought that it was 'a clash of minds rather than arms.' Worst of all is the Indian Prime Minister's refusal, so far, to allow Tibetan refugees to enter India. Mr. Nehru's initial reaction to Hungary, so very different from his attitude to Suez, was widely condemned and Indian public opinion forced him to modify it. Judging by the Indian press the same thing may happen over Tibet.
Previous page
