In a revelation that has reignited scrutiny of India’s foreign policy under former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey has shared a declassified letter penned by Nehru to the US President during the 1962 Sino-Indian War.
Posted on X, the letter, dated November 15, 1962, addressed to Pakistan’s military ruler Field Marshal Ayub Khan, reveals a desperate plea for US military aid amid China’s invasion, while emphasising India’s commitment to peace with Pakistan. The letter’s subsequent sharing by the US with Pakistan is now being cited as a critical factor that emboldened Pakistan to launch the 1965 war against a weakened India.
Nehru writes, “Whatever our differences may be, the disturbance to stability and peace in this sub-continent is a matter of common concern to both of us.” He assures Ayub that India’s military buildup would be solely directed at resisting China and emphasises a desire for peace with Pakistan: “The idea of any conflict with Pakistan is one which is repugnant to us, and we on our part will never initiate it.” Nehru further pledges that India’s “war potential” would not be used against Pakistan, expressing hope for “friendship and cooperation” between the two nations.
However, the US’s decision to share this letter with Ayub Khan, a key ally in its Cold War strategy, exposed India’s vulnerabilities. The letter’s candid admissions of India’s military and economic constraints, coupled with its assurances of non-aggression toward Pakistan, signalled to Khan that India was unlikely to prioritise readiness against Pakistan.
A Question of National Security
Sharing the letter on X, Dubey lambasted Nehru’s foreign policy, writing, “This is the second letter written by Iron Lady’s father Nehru ji to the American President during the China war. He kept pleading for help, Pakistan is a brother, a friend, a good neighbour, we will compromise with it, he wrote everything, but read the great foreign policy of the great Nehru ji carefully.”
He questioned whether the letter’s exposure to Pakistan, via the US, gave Pakistan the confidence to attack India in 1965, adding, “What can be said about the person who tells the country’s weaknesses to foreigners, especially Pakistan?”
यह आयरन लेडी के पिता जी नेहरु जी का चीन युद्ध के समय अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति को लिखा दूसरा पत्र है,मदद के लिए लगातार गिड़गिड़ाते रहे,पाकिस्तान भाई है,दोस्त है,अच्छा पड़ोसी है,हम उसके साथ समझौता कर लेंगे,सभी कुछ लिख दिया,लेकिन महान नेहरु जी की बेहतरीन विदेश नीति को गौर से पढ़िए,हू बहू… pic.twitter.com/U64660Xiaz
— Dr Nishikant Dubey (@nishikant_dubey) June 1, 2025
Dubey’s post has sparked a heated debate about Nehru, arguing that his openness with the US—a superpower aligned with Pakistan—amounted to a strategic blunder. The letter’s sharing with Ayub Khan is seen as a catastrophic misstep, as it revealed India’s weakened state and limited military capacity, undermining its position in the volatile subcontinent.
Nehru’s Foreign Policy: Idealism vs. Realpolitik
Nehru’s letter reflects his non-aligned foreign policy, rooted in ideals of peaceful coexistence and regional cooperation. His assurances to Pakistan, even during a national crisis, underscore his vision of a peaceful subcontinent.
However, this idealism clashed with the geopolitical realities of the time. The 1962 war had already exposed India’s military unpreparedness, and Nehru’s appeals for foreign aid, while necessary, painted India as vulnerable. By failing to anticipate how such correspondence could be weaponised by adversaries, Nehru’s diplomacy left India exposed to great-power politics.
Nehru’s public commitment to non-alignment and peace may have compromised India’s strategic posture. While not malicious, the letter’s openness, particularly in the Cold War context, where the U.S. was aligned with Pakistan, arguably compromised national security.
Dubey also drew parallels with earlier controversies surrounding Nehru’s alleged sharing of confidential information with British aristocrat Edwina Mountbatten, reigniting long-standing accusations of Nehru’s careless diplomacy.
“What would you call someone who tells foreigners—and through them, Pakistan—about India’s military weaknesses? Traitor or pacifist fool?” Dubey posted, rhetorically framing Nehru’s conduct as bordering on betrayal through negligence.
A Pattern of Diplomatic Missteps?
This is not the first time Dubey has highlighted perceived diplomatic failures by Congress leaders. In a previous post, he shared a 1987 letter from former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to US President Ronald Reagan, proposing the inclusion of American drug liaison agents in India-Pakistan talks on cross-border narcotics smuggling. Dubey argued that this move violated the 1972 Shimla Agreement’s principle of bilateralism, which excludes third-party mediation in India-Pakistan disputes.
The Question of Betrayal
The letter has reignited debates over Nehru’s legacy, with some labelling his actions as negligent, if not treasonous. Dubey’s post raises a provocative question: “What can be said about the person who tells the country’s weaknesses to foreigners, especially Pakistan?” While Nehru’s intent was to secure aid against an existential threat, the letter’s fallout, particularly its sharing with Pakistan, had devastating consequences.
Broader Implications for India’s Foreign Policy
The declassified letter underscores the perils of relying on external powers with their own agendas. The US’s decision to share Nehru’s letter with Pakistan highlights how confidential communications can be manipulated in great-power politics. The 1962 war and its aftermath, including the 1965 war, forced India to pivot toward greater self-reliance in defence and a more guarded foreign policy.
As India navigates contemporary challenges, including tensions with Pakistan and an assertive China, the lessons of 1962 remain relevant. Dubey’s revelations serve as a reminder of the costs of diplomatic missteps and the importance of safeguarding national interests in a complex geopolitical landscape.
The debate over Nehru’s legacy—whether as a visionary idealist or a naive leader—continues to shape India’s historical and political discourse.
Comments