Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1672228
label
Face the Nation, 8/17/75 - Triloka Nath Kaul (Ambassador from India)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1672228
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Face the Nation, 8/17/75 - Triloka Nath Kaul (Ambassador from India)
citationUrl
collections
Ron Nessen Files (Ford Administration)
Ron Nessen's Sunday Interview Show Transcripts
subjects
India
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1672228
coverageEndDate
day
17
logicalDate
1975-08-17
month
8
year
1975
coverageStartDate
day
17
logicalDate
1975-08-17
month
8
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
af36ea78bf030c10
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 64, folder "Face the Nation, 8/17/75 -
Triloka Nath Kaul (Ambassador from India)" of the Ron Nessen Files at the Gerald
R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
TRANSCRIPT this transcript
CBS NEWS
2020 M Street, N. W.
All review) withwithout of and Inc.
Washington, D. C. 20036
FACE THE NATION
as broadcast over the
CBS Television Network
and the
CBS Radio Network
Sunday, August 17, 1975 -- 11:30 AM - 12:00 Noon, EDT
Origination: Washington, D. C.
GUEST: TRILOKI NATH KAUL
Ambassador of India
REPORTERS:
Marvin Kalb, CBS News
RECEIVED
Jerrold Schecter, Time
AUGI 1975
Bernard Kalb, CBS News
Producer: Mary O. Yates
Associate Producer: Joan Barone
EDITORS: All copyright and right to copyright in this transcript
and in the broadcast are owned by CBS. Newspapers and periodicals are
permitted to reprint up to 250 words of this transcript for the purpose
of reference, discussion or review. For permission to reprint more
than this, contact Director, CBS News Information Services, 524 W. 57th
Street, New York, N. Y. 10019 (212) 765-4321.
THIS IS RECYCLED PAPER
Digitized from Box 64 of the Ron Nessen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
1
MARVIN KALB: Mr. Ambassador, you have described what has been
happening in India as a revolution. Is it any longer proper or fair
to describe India as a democracy?
AMB. KAUL: Well, Mr. Kalb, revolutions need not necessarily be
undemocratic or violent. The--what's happened in India recently is a
revolution, because we are trying to give social and economic content
to our political democracy in order to make it meaningful for the
broad masses of our people, while it was only a political democracy
before; and a political democracy cannot be stable or viable unless it
has a social and economic content; in that sense, it is a revolution.
MARVIN KALB: Well, do you still feel it is a democracy?
AMB. KAUL: Democracy was defined, I believe, by Winston Churchill
as the worst form of government, but no better system has yet been in-
vented. I think democracy is government of the people, by the people,
for the people, and not democracy by an elite, for the elite or of the
elite. And what we are trying to do is make democracy by the people,
of the people and for the people instead of only the elite.
ANNOUNCER: From CBS News, Washington, a spontaneous and un-
rehearsed news interview on FACE THE NATION, with Triloki Nath Kaul,
Ambassador of India. Ambassador Kaul will be questioned by CBS News
Correspondent Bernard Kalb; Jerrold Schecter, Diplomatic Editor of
Time Magazine; and CBS News Diplomatic Correspondent Marvin Kalb.
MARVIN KALB: Mr. Ambassador, you have defined democracy in a way
that many Americans would find familiar, and yet, since June 26 in
India, if my facts are correct, there has been a state of emergency,
there has been rigid press censorship, constitutional rights to some
degree have been suspended, three thousand people have been arrested,
2
including many very prominent Indian politicians. Is that really
democracy, sir?
AMB. KAUL: Democracy functions within the framework of the con-
stitution of any democratic country. Even in your Constitution, in the
very Preamble, domestic tranquility is one of the objectives mentioned,
and under Section 8 and 9 of Article One, there is provision for tem-
porary suspension of some of the fundamental rights, like habeas cor-
pus. And what has been done in India has been done entirely within
the framework of her constitution. Our founding fathers had the wis-
dom and the foresight to foree such situations arising and provide for
meeting them. Therefore, whatever has happened in India has happened
under the constitution, Article 352, and if there's a threat to the
very existence of the state, to the very existence of democracy, then
certain actions are to be taken within the constitution and within the
law in order to protect the democratic constitution framework. There's
not a denial of denial of democracy; in fact, it was the minority po-
litical opposition parties who wanted to kill democracy through un-
constitutional methods--by inciting the armed forces, the police and
the civil administration to disobey government's orders. And what the
government has done--as any responsible government elected by the
people must is to protect democracy.
SCHECTER: But Mr. Ambassador, hasn't Prime Minister Gandhi iden-
tified her own survival in office with the constitution rather than the
development of democracy in India? That's what the critics are
charging.
AMB. KAUL: Prime Minister Gandhi, as an individual, is not at all
involved in this. Prime Minister Gandhi, as the leader of the majority
3
political party, which in a democracy runs the government, is certainly
involved. But no Prime Minister would be fulfilling his or her duty
if she failed to be to respond to the positive call of her majority
party to stay in power. And this right of hers to constitutionally
and legally continue as Prime Minister has been upheld by the vacations
under the Supreme Court. Why should a Prime Minister be denied the
right that an ordinary citizen enjoys of appealing to the highest court
of the land?
BERNARD KALB: To rewrite the laws and to make the laws retro-
active--as I listen to your reply, Mr. Ambassador, I have the feeling
that we're off here on some sort of a semantic excursion-- a reluctance
on the part of India to recognize and to admit, as a matter of fact,
that there has been a severe dilution of the democratic practices that
India was terribly proud of for a quarter of a century, and that in
fact India has moved toward authoritarian rule. And I think the fun-
damental question now is not so much a defense of democracy in India,
but rather--are we now moving, irreversibly, toward an authoritarian
form of government, and have we in fact said farewell to the democracy
India once knew?
AMB. KAUL: Well, I can appreciate and understand the genuine
concern of other democracies about the future of democracy in India.
We welcome this genuine interest. But in order to understand a vast,
complex country like India, you should not jump to hasty conclusions.
Already the emergency has led to certain steps which have benefited
the common man. For instance, the prices of essential commodities have
fallen by ten to fifteen per cent. The rate of inflation, which in
July last year was thirty per cent, has come down below zero in July
4
this year. And land reforms are being implemented, minimum fair wages
for agricultural labor have been fixed, the bureaucratic red tape has
been cut and streamlined--the common man is very happy. After all,
what is democracy?
BERNARD KALB: But this has been done by fiat.
AMB. KAUL: I beg your pardon--not if you can call any measure or
amendment to legislation, approved by the parliament of the country--
that is not fiat. Mrs. Gandhi is not a dictator--
BERNARD KALB: The opposition never attended those sessions.
AMB. KAUL: Well, it is for the opposition-after all, who prevent-
ed the opposition from attending. It's because the opposition could
not win through the ballot box and tried to take this battle to the
streets that they were imprisoned. No one is above the law, whether
it's the opposition or the ruling party or any individual, or the
press or anyone.
SCHECTER: But wasn't this done before the opposition took to the
streets, Mr. Ambassador?
AMB. KAUL: I beg your pardon. That's where your facts are wrong,
if I may say so. It was on the twenty-fifth of June that five of the
opposition parties held a public meeting in Delhi--and I was there
then-and they called upon the police, the armed forces and the civil
administration to disobey government's orders. They announced a pro-
gram which was to have been launched on the following Sunday--that's
the twenty-ninth of June--to surround the houses of Congress leaders
and to physically coerce them to resign, to start a no-tax campaign
and disobediance movement.
Now no government, duly elected by the majority of the people,
5
and holding the majority in Parliament, could take such a threat
lightly. And let me tell you, if you've studied the recent history
of India, if government had not proclaimed an emergency--which was done
under the constitution--there would have been civil disorder, chaos,
and possibly religious strife of an order which was never seen before.
Would you have welcomed that?
MARVIN KALB: Mr. Ambassador, throughout the history of India,
there has been just what you've just described, and it's really been
a prescription for the unfolding of democracy in a very large country.
As a matter of fact, philosophically, ever since--I guess-Communist
China came into being, there has been the philosophical debate whether
you could have economic prosperity along with political freedom, and
India was always the example that was upheld--that it can happen. It
doesn't have to happen as it did in China. Now perhaps what we're
witnessing now is the beginning of confirmation of the fact that de-
mocracy cannot work in a country the size of India, and perhaps it is
over. Is that- is it not possible to admit that?
AMB. KAUL: I think that's an oversimplification of the situation.
No two countries are alike--neither China and India nor India and
America. But India and America have much more in common than India
and China. We have had an ancient tradition of democracy going back
about four thousand years, in our villagemen, tribes and local self-
government. That is why, in a country like India, where there are so
many languages and diverse cultures, democracy is the only form of
government that can work. But let me tell you one thing. In other
countries in our area--I won't name them--democracy could not function
because a minority with the backing of the armed forces was able to
6
overthrow a majority, duly elected party. That--it was to prevent
that happening that the emergency was proclaimed in India.
BERNARD KALB: Let me interrupt you, if I may, Mr. Ambassador, to
move on to the specific question that you have just raised. Do you
believe there's a possibility of the Indian army abandoning its past
practice of non-political moves, moving this particular time - I'm
suggesting flatly the question of the possibility of a military coup
in India. Is that--?
AMB. KAUL: Certainly not. And I'm not saying this just for the
sake of propaganda. I have been in close touch with our armed forces
for the last forty years or so, and our army has a tradition of accept-
ing civilian supremacy and not aligning itself with any political
party. And this is also the tradition of our civil services.
SCHECTER: Do you think the army will accept the coup in Bangla-
desh, Mr. Ambassador?
AMB. KAUL: Which army?
SCHECTER: The Indian army - - the army that just fought a war
there?
AMB. KAUL: It's not for the Indian army to accept or not to
accept what's happened in another country. That is an internal affair
for the people of that country. But if it should lead to any reper-
cussions against us, then we'll have to consider that. But that will
be considered by the duly elected government of India, not by the army.
MARVIN KALB: Sir, is India disappointed at the turn of events
in Bangladesh?
AMB. KAUL: Well, we are sorry that their--
MARVIN KALB: In a diplomatic and political sense, sir.
7
AMB. KAUL: Well, we are sorry that a great man, who was the
father of Bangladesh, met a tragic death. But as I said, it's an
internal affair for the people of Bangladesh. We wish them well; we
hope conditions will stabilize and that they will prosper. You see,
the problem on the subcontinent--the various problems, whether between
India and Pakistan, or Pakistan and Bangladesh, or between India and
Bangladesh--can and will be solved only on a subcontinental basis, as
was agreed in the Simla Agreement and the Delhi Agreement. If there
is no outside interference, I'm positive that India, Pakistan and
Bangladesh can settle their problems bilaterally and neutrally.
MARVIN KALB: Mr. Ambassador, I've got to go back a moment to a
point you made. You were talking about the fear of a political minor-
ity operating with the military in order to upset constitutional
rights. When Bernie asked you the question, are you fearful of a
military coup in India, you said absolutely not, that the Indian army
would stick with political supremacy. What were you referring to be-
fore then, when you talked about some kind of alliance between a mili-
tary and a political minority as causing the very actions that we're
now discussing?
AMB. KAUL: No, I was not referring to any alliance between the
political minority and the military in India. I said in some other
countries in that region this has happened, and it was to prevent the
domination by a minority over the majority that we had to proclaim an
emergency. If--
MARVIN KALB: But could that happen without the Indian army?
AMB. KAUL: Well, it can or it cannot, but in India, any govern-
ment that is duly elected by the majority, if it fails in its duty to
8
prevent that happening, then it would not be a democratically elected
government trying to protect democracy. It was exactly to prevent such
a thing happening.
You were asking me hypothetical questions. I'll give you a hypo-
thetical answer. In the context of India, where people have enjoyed
democracy for centuries, where people are politically well organized
and politically very conscious, such a thing cannot happen.
(MORE)
9
BERNARD KALB: Mr. Ambassador, you used the word failure, and
I'd like to explore for a moment the motivations that were behind
Madame Gandhi's action that went beyond the political challenge to
her. Do you see the actions that she took in June, and the conse-
quent actions that have since taken place, as a kind of anguished
outcry, as it were, of the failure of India up to this point to meet
the extraordinary problems of human growth, population, lack of food,
and so forth? Is there in this action by Madame Gandhi a proclamation
of past failure and a search now, an experiment as it were, for some
sort of political, governmental structure designed to meet the over-
whelming needs of the Indian people?
AMB. KAUL: Well, this is again, if I may say so with due defer-
ence, Mr. Kalb, an oversimplification. Now look at the situation in
India for the past few years. It was because Mrs. Gandhi and her
party had the courage to split the Congress on an economic program
like nationalization of banks, land reforms, removal of the privileges
of the princes, etcetera, that the Congress split, so this program
could have succeeded, would have succeeded, if the minority opposition
political parties, ranging from the extreme right to the extreme left,
who have no common social economic program, opposed the ruling party
at every step. There were other factors too, the international eco-
nomic situation, the rise in oil prices, the war with Pakistan, ten
million refugees from Bangladesh, two successive, unprecedented
drought years that made it difficult for the government. But I will
say this, that this emergency will have effect, and has already had
the effect of giving a stimulus, acting as a catalytic agent to the
ruling party to fulfill the promises they made in the 1971 elections,
10
And also I hope the minority political opposition parties will learn
the lesson that they can operate in a democracy only within the law
and the constitution and not outside it.
BERNARD KALB:
Do you believe India will ever go back to pre-
June?
AMB. KAUL: I hope not in the sense in which sometimes it is
said. We will have to be more disciplined, we will have to work
harder, and I'm glad that already there are harmonious relations be-
tween industry and labor. Productivity must increase; we must produce
more. We have the human resources, the natural resources, which must
be fully exploited. So in that sense we'll not go back, but if you
mean removal of the emergency, I'm confident that within the next few
months, if things go on improving as they are, we will return to
normalcy.
BERNARD KALB: The next two months, or few months?
AMB. KAUL: The next few months, I said.
BERNARD KALB: And if they don't?
AMB. KAUL: If they don't, if the opposition and other elements
do not cooperate, then the emergency may have to continue a little
longer. It's a judgment that has to be made by the government, and
the ruling party.
SCHECTER: Mr. Ambassador, but many Americans who have just been
through Watergate see many parallels between what's happening now in
India and our own problems with Watergate, and are suggesting that Mrs.
Gandhi is behaving in many ways the way former President Nixon did in
trying to maintain himself in office, she seems to be following the
same pattern, and she's even gone him some steps better by being able
11
to crack down on the press, as former President Nixon was not able to
do. Now, don't you see those parallels, as a student of history?
AMB. KAUL: It's really easy to draw parallels between different
situations and different countries. But to point out a few differences,
Mrs. Gandhi is not involved in any crime, in bugging, or breaking in.
Mrs. Gandhi is not acting on her own, but in accordance with the
wishes of the majority political party, which reaffirmed their faith
in her, which was not the case --
SCHECTER: But she was accused of an election violation.
AMB. KAUL: Well, if those same standards of elections are applied
to your country or to England, as the London Times said, it would be
difficult for any British Prime Minister or American President to be
elected. These were experiments in election law which we found were
too drastic, and that's why the election law has been amended. But
there is no parallel between Watergate and what's happened in India,
because Mrs. Gandhi has acted entirely within the framework of the
constitution at the behest of two-thirds of the members of parliament
who have ratified it, so it's not as if it was dictatorship by one
person or violation of any law. She has appealed to the highest court
of the land, and the amendment has been -- the constitution has been
amended before, it's been amended now. Any system of government,
democratic, or any ideology, in order to survive must have the resil-
ience and the dynamism to be adapted to developing different situa-
tions. Otherwise, it becomes static..
MARVIN KALB: Mr. Ambassador, it looks as though President Ford
will not be paying a visit to India, as he said. I believe it was
announced that he was going to pay a visit to India this fall, and --
12
AMB. KAUL: There was never any announcement about the timing.
MARVIN KALB: Well, it was said that it would be in connection
with his visit to China, I believe, and --
AMB. KAUL: It was never said officially. I'll tell you what the
official version is, and I have been assured by the U.S. government
that the visit is still on, but the timing was not settled, and the
timing will be settled according to mutual convenience. We would
welcome to have him there whenever it is convenient for him to come
there.
MARVIN KALB: In view of the word that everybody is getting,
though, sir, is that he is not going to go there this fall, because
he is unhappy with the state of political development, and this is
his way of saying it.
AMB. KAUL: We have checked it with the State Department, and we
have been told that there is no truth behind that. You had better ask
the State Department about it.
MARVIN KALB: No truth behind that?
AMB. KAUL: No truth behind the statement that he has -- he was
due to go there in the fall, and is not going there in the fall be-
cause of what's happened in India. We have been told that the visit
is still on, and the timing will be decided by mutual convenience.
MARVIN KALB: Mr. Ambassador, you've been in this business, I
believe, 35 - 38 years now?
AMB. KAUL: Yes.
MARVIN KALB: Do you believe the State Department when it tells
you that?
AMB. KAUL: Well, I had it from the Secretary of State himself.
13
I have no reason to doubt it, and he's a very. fine man, and I don't
think he would try to mislead me.
MARVIN KALB: I see.
SCHECTER: Mr. Ambassador, when are conditions going to improve
for the foreign press to operate in India, and what's happened to the
local Newsweek man who's had his phone cut off and had his apartment
taken away and had his accreditizations lifted?
AMB. KAUL: Now you must realize that neither the press nor
anybody is above the law. There is an emergency law prevailing in
India, and please do not compare the Indian press with the American
press. The Indian press mainly was owned by a few big business
houses or industrialists, not like your press where you have a
different system. Its circulation was hardly two to four million in
all, while here it is 200 to 400 million. Here you have a system of
moderators who at least balance reporting on one extreme or the other.
So the comparison is not valid. Now since we had to enforce and
impose certain restrictions on the press, because they were high-
lighting and publicizing incitements to revolt and character assassi-
nation, we could not apply different laws to the foreign press. After
all, everyone has to obey the law of the land. And I'm glad that 30-
odd foreign correspondents agreed to acknowledge the guidelines that
were laid down, and said that they would take full responsibility for
the dispatches. Some of the foreign correspondents violated the
guidelines. We took a lenient view in some cases, but where there
were gross violations, we had to ask them either to leave or to sus-
pend some of the facilities they enjoyed because of their accredi-
tation.
14
SCHECTER: That's sheer intimidation, sir, with all due respect.
AMB. KAUL: I think it's the other way around. Any foreign
correspondent who is not willing to obey the law of the land but tries
to intimidate that country's policies of what's happening there, is
trying to intimidate that country.
SCHECTER: But there is no dispute about what a free press means.
AMB. KAUL: A free press is subject to the laws of the land.
You can perhaps afford the luxury of having a press because your
social and economic order has had two centuries to stabilize itself.
We have had 28 years of independence, and there are differences be-
tween your press and our press. Even in your case, I know wherever
the security of the state is involved, or foreign relations are in-
volved, you at least take the trouble of checking with the State
Department or the Pentagon. You may not agree with them, but you
give both sides to the picture. In our country, I know of instances
both Indian correspondents, foreign correspondents, who send reports
based on rumors without even bothering to check on them. That's not
fair. My idea of professional journalistic etiquette is that while
views are free, facts are sacred. But these people were treating
their facts as free and their views as sacred. That's not fair.
BERNARD KALF: Well, sir, this panel here consists of three
reporters, all of whom have served as foreign correspondents, and in
defense of foreign correspondents, I am impelled to suggest that we
do check, we do make the checks that you are suggesting we do not.
And having said that, I'd like to just go on to another question.
AMB. KAUL: Well, some didn't.
BERNARD KALB: As the Ambassador from India, are you deeply
15
angered by the fact that the United States has not responded publicly
to what is happening in India?
AMB. KAUL: Why should I be disappointed?
BERNARD KALB: Well, because I raise it -- I raised that question
in the context of your approval of what has happened in India, and
therefore wouldn't you hope as the ambassador that there would be
some expressions of approval?
AMB. KAUL: It is an entirely internal affair of India. We
neither want approval nor disapproval from any foreign government.
BERNARD KAUL: You're disappointed there's been no comment from--
AMB. KAUL: I--in fact; I appreciate the responsible restraint
that has been exercized, both by the U.S. administration, as well as
by the majority of leaders of the Senate and the House. We appreciate
that, and they realize that it is an internal affair of India, and
Indians know best how to solve their problems.
SCHECTER: But the thrust of your argument is that conditions
are going to continue pretty much the way they are in India. Is that
right, Mr. Ambassador?
AMB. KAUL: For a few months, yes. And we have to until normalcy
is restored and the opposition gives up its unconstitutional methods.
SCHECTER: Normalcy as defined by Mrs. Gandhi?
AMB. KAUL: No, normalcy as defined by the situation, by the
opposition being willing to abide by the constitutional and legal
framework. That is what is normalcy. Mrs. Gandhi is not just alone.
She has two-thirds of the parliament behind her, and I think it is an
insult to any parliament --
SCHECTER: The rest are in jail.
16
AMB. KAUL: Not the rest. About a dozen leaders are in jail,
not because they are in the opposition, but because they violated the
law.
MARVIN KALB: What's the arrest figure, sir? We only have about
20 seconds.
AMB. KAUL: I said about -- no -- about 12 leaders of the oppo-
sition party, but 85 per cent of those arrested, the figure that you
quoted, are black-marketers --
terribly
MARVIN KALB: I'm/sorry, sir, our time is up. Thank you, gentle-
men, thank you very much for being here on Face the Nation.
ANNOUNCER: Today on FACE THE NATION, Triloki Nath Kaul,
Ambassador of India, was interviewed by CBS News Correspondent Bernard
Kalb, Gerald Schecter, Diplomatic Editor of Time Magazine, and CBS
News Diplomatic Correspondent Marvin Kalb. Next week, Arthur Burns,
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Hoard, will FACE THE NATION.