The Press WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1966. Mr Shastri’s Legacy

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30956, 12 January 1966, Page 10

The Press WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1966. Mr Shastri’s Legacy

The 18 difficult and strenuous months of Mr Shastri’s leadership of India will not have the importance in history already claimed by Mr Nehru’s long crusade for independence and his 16 years as Prime Minister. Had Mr Shastri’s term been longer, the mixture of strength and gentleness in his character, 'nd his ability to temper a sense of urgency in attacking India’s difficulties with his deftness in reconciling opponents and compromising over differences would have earned him greater fame. The political leader of India, the world’s biggest and hungriest democracy, must battle with many problems—a lethargic economy, a shortage of friends abroad, jealousy between the states and the federal Government at home, the threat of China, precarious relations with Pakistan, and, above all, a tired land which reluctantly yields an inadequate living to nearly 500 million people. In all these respects the death of Mr Shastri is more untimely than the death of Mr Nehru.

Nature and international affairs have conspired to make this a crucial time for India. The unsettling business of choosing a new Prime Minister cannot help. Elections are also due this year. These are bound to excite bitterness and may challenge the unity of Congress, the Government party which Mr Shastri did much to strengthen. Mr Shastri’s legacy includes one asset that must be carefully nourished and increased by his successor. This is the agreement with Pakistan for peaceful negotiations on the future of Kashmir. The brief span of Mr Shastri’s rule saw some of the worst results, but also the most hopeful development in a disagreement that has divided India and Pakistan for 18 years. The Tashkent talks have left unresolved the original and most difficult problem of who shall rule Kashmir, but the atmosphere between the two Governments has been cleared. If the agreement means little more than this it is perhaps the most that could have been achieved at this stage. Mr Shastri’s death so soon after leaving the conference table may invest the agreement, for Hindus and Moslems alike, with an aura of sanctity. E certainly prompts, among all who would like to see the dispute settled, sympathy and added concern for its fulfilment.

One effect of the agreement may be to soften the militaristic feelings of many Indians and prepare the way for a change in India’s defence policy. One likely contender for the office of Prime Minister, Mr T. T. Krishnamachari, the Minister of Finance, said, during last year’s Kashmir fighting, that defence must have priority in economic planning. Now that Pakistan is crippled militarily and the full effects of drought are hitting India’s industry and food supply the mood may already be changing. Correct assessments of this mood and of how much foreign aid India would receive in the event of a war—even a minor war—with China are vital matters for India’s new Prime Minister. The wrong decision might permit the federation to fall apart as it might have done had Mr Shastri not held firm against Pakistan.

The agreement with Pakistan, especially because of Russia’s patronage at Tashkent, should encourage the flow of Western economic aid, which has already resumed, to ease the effects of the food shortage. Mr Shastri emphasised in his policies the need to revive a neglected principle of Ghandi: to tackle economic problems by starting with the peasantry and working upwards with them. Mr Shastri saw that Indian democracy depended more on bringing some immediate relief to India’s poor than on grandiose schemes. India’s armed forces have been vastly increased in recent years: but, in the long run, internal stability and improved welfare will irovide better defence than more arms. Mr Shastri’s last achievement was a characteristic step towards reducing dependence on force.