Plain Talk
By Mursi Saad El-Din
Like most Egyptians, I got to know India through stories about Gandhi and his philosophy of peaceful resistance, and was fascinated by his efforts to create tolerant and friendly relations between the Muslims and the Hindus.
Then, during the late 1940s and early '50s, I got the opportunity to learn, first hand, about Indian culture. I became acquainted with Indian classical dance as performed by Ram Gopal on London theatres, as well as the ravishing sitar playing by the famous Ravi Shankar. Furthermore, my membership of the English centre of PEN gave me access to a number of Indian writers living in London. Through them, I was introduced to Indian classics and Indian literature in English.
I came to know works by Tagore, Dutt, RK Narayan, and Mulk Raj Anand, among others. But it was only Mulk whom I had the pleasure of knowing at close quarters. This takes me back to the history of the Afro-Asian Writers' Movement.
Following he first Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Conference, in Cairo in 1959 -- this, incidentally, the brainchild of Nehru -- there came the first conference of Afro-Asian Writers, which was held in Tashkent in 1958. Earlier that year, a preparatory meeting was held in Moscow, was chaired by Youssef El-Seba'i, with Mulk Raj Anand, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, the leading Pakistani poet, Anatoli Safranov, the Soviet writer and editor, and myself. Then came the Tashkent conference and the formation of the Permanent Bureau of Afro-Asian Writers. Mulk was India's representative, and I was the representative of Egypt. That was the beginning of a close friendship with Mulk who became, in a way, my mentor in all that pertains to Indian arts and culture.
I will not linger on the movement of Afro-Asian Writers or my friendship with Mulk, who, incidentally, was only one among several Indian writers to participate in the movement and its many conferences. Instead, I want to concentrate on the role of people like Mulk, cultural mediators who explain their countries to others. And here Nehru is exemplary. It is really Nehru's books which gave me an idea not only of how the mind of a great man works, but also how one leader can influence his country's political and social orientation.
I cherish my copies of what I like to call "the Nehru trilogy," namely Glimpses of World History, The Discovery of India and An Autobiography, together with his Letters from a Father to his Daughter. I find in these books what may be called, a touch sentimentally perhaps, the wisdom of India. The books give me much insight into the mind of a great leader whose political acumen was matched by literary talent.
Naturally, this is not the place to discuss the thought of Nehru -- varied and visionary as it is. Rather, I shall focus on his position on the Arab nations and the question of Palestine. Emphasising Palestine's universal spiritual significance and its religious associations for Jews, Christians and Muslims, Nehru asserts that the core of the problem lies in the "British policy which has created a special minority problem here." He goes on to underscore the way in which the then Jewish minority sided with the British and opposed freedom for Palestine for fear that it would mean Arab rule.
Nehru believed that the problems faced by the Palestinians were not to be viewed in isolation, given that they were part of an international phenomenon which had been generated by conflicting interests of "democracy and fascism." In 1936 he openly declared that "the Arab struggle against British imperialism in Palestine" is as much part of the great world conflict "as India's struggle for freedom."
Later, when the state of Israel was established, he remarked that whereas the Arabs were probably stronger, "the fact... that American and Russian prestige are involved in maintaining the new state of Israel" indicates that it will not be easy to for the Arabs to win.
Israel tried to put pressure on Nehru to start diplomatic relations between the two countries, but he refused. Ben Gurion commented that he could not "understand how Mr. Nehru" squares his behaviour towards Israel with Gandhi "philosophy of universal friendship." The reason for this incomprehension, perhaps, stems from a misreading of Gandhi. Zionism was contrary to Gandhi's rejection of any state based on any one religion.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/781/cu3.htm