rounds of the London Conference, New Delhi played a signifi cant role in
the adoption of Resolution 118 by the UN Security Council, which de-
manded “free and open transit through the Canal without discrimina-
tion, overt or covert, both po liti cal and technical aspects.”^81
However, once the confl ict began on October 29, 1956, with the Israeli
off ensive, India was swift and unequivocal in declaring its indignation
over the “fl agrant violation of the United Nations Charter and... all the
principles laid down by the Bandung Conference.”^82 Having endorsed
Israel’s exclusion from that Afro- Asian meeting, Nehru now demanded
Israel’s adherence to the spirit of Bandung!
Nehru’s position hardened further following the entry of Britain and
France in the war, and he sent a blunt message to Prime Minister Anthony
Eden of Britain. Depicting it as “a clear aggression and a violation of the
United Nations Charter,” he argued that for many countries of Asia and
beyond, “this is a reversion to a previous and unfortunate period of his-
tory when decisions were imposed by force of arms by Western Powers on
Asian countries. We had thought that these methods were out- of- date and
would not possibly be used in the modern age.”^83 In a similar tone, he told
his citizens that, though they were well into the twentieth century, “we are
going back to the predatory methods of the eigh teenth and nineteenth
centuries. But there is a diff erence now. There are self- respecting, in de-
pen dent nations in Asia and Africa which are not going to tolerate this
kind of incursion by colonial Powers.”^84 In short, Nehru was categorical in
his condemnation of the aggression against Egypt, a fellow member of the
Afro- Asian bloc.
This unequivocal stand over the Suez crisis unfortunately boomer-
anged on Nehru when he abandoned his opposition to external aggression
against Hungary.^85 Far from condemning the Soviet invasion, he seemed
to justify the developments in eastern Eu rope. Accused of adopting double
standards, he was strongly criticized both within and outside his country.^86
After a long deliberation on November 5, 1956, Nehru expressed his public
sympathy for the people of Hungary. By then, Menon had depicted the de-
velopments in Hungary as the “domestic aff airs” of a sovereign country.^87
Not prepared to abandon his partisanship, on November 20, Nehru told
the Lok Sabha that many countries felt “relief that it happened in Hungary
so that attention might be diverted from Egypt to Hungary.”^88 As Escott
Reid, the Canadian high commissioner in India during this turbulent
period reminds us, the converse was also equally true.^89
nehru and the era of deterioration, 1947–1964 197