the President of the United States tell you to do
so. Remember rather your duty to your family,
your friends, your country, the world you live
in, and that future world which, if you so
choose, may be glorious, happy, and free.’
??? ????????: ?????????? ????? ?????
???? ??????? ????? ? ???? ?? ????
BERTRAND RUSSELL
23rd October, 1962
trafalgar square 625The two following letters concerned with the Sino-Indian Border dispute were not published in
Unarmed Victory. I therefore publish them here.
Peking, November 24, 1962
The Earl Russell
London
My dear Lord
I have received with honour your letters dated November 16 and 19, 1962
and read with great pleasure your statement welcoming and supporting the
Chinese Government’s statement of November 21. I am deeply moved by
your good wishes and e?orts for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indian
boundary question and your deep interest in world peace. I am sincerely
grateful to you for the profound friendship for the Chinese people and the
condemnation of ?? occupation of China’s territory Taiwan, which you have
expressed in your letters.
The Chinese Government issued a statement on October 24, 1962, putting
forward three proposals. Unfortunately, they were repeatedly rejected by the
Indian Government. In order to reverse the daily aggravating Sino-Indian
border situation due to the Indian Government’s refusal to enter into negoti-
ations and its continued expansion of the armed border con?ict, and in order
to demonstrate its great sincerity for stopping the border con?ict and settling
the Sino-Indian Boundary question peacefully, the Chinese Government
issued a statement on November 21, 1962, declaring three measures includ-
ing the unilateral observation of cease-?re and withdrawal along the entire
border by China on its own initiative. Now, I wish to tell you that as from
00:00 hours on November 22 the Chinese frontier guards have ceased ?re
along the entire Sino-Indian border. I believe that this accords with the
desires you expressed in your messages.
You suggested in your letter of November 19: ‘All troops to vacate this
particular area – that which India has occupied since 1959 and until Septem-
ber 8, 1962, and felt by China to be her own.’ I believe you have noted that the
Chinese Government has declared in its statement of November 21 that,
beginning from December 1, the Chinese frontier guards would withdraw to
positions 20 kilometres behind the line of actual control which existed
between China and India on November 7, 1959, and would then be far behind
their positions prior to September 8, 1962. The Chinese Government hopes
that the Indian Government will respond positively to the Chinese Govern-
ment’s November 21 statement and adopt corresponding measures. Once the
Indian Government has done so, the Sino-Indian Border will become tranquil
and a demilitarised zone 40 kilometres wide can be established between China
and India. It goes without saying that administration will continue to be
the autobiography of bertrand russell 626exercised by the administrative authorities of each side existing in the zone on
their own side of the line of actual control between China and India.
The Chinese Government hopes that the Indian Government will be will-
ing to change its past attitude and sincerely settle the Sino-Indian Boundary
question through friendly negotiations. I hope that you will continue to
use your distinguished in?uence to urge the Indian Government to respond
positively to the Chinese Government’s November 21 statement and adopt
corresponding measures. At the same time, the Chinese Government also
hopes that all friendly countries and peace-loving public ?gures will exert
their in?uence to urge the Indian Government to return to the conference
table. These e?orts will be great contributions to peace.
Please accept my high regards.
Chou En-Lai
Prime Minister’s House
New Dehli
December 4, 1962
CONFIDENTIAL
No. 2155-PMH/62
The Earl Russell
Plas Penrhyn, Penrhyndeudraeth
Merioneth, England
Dear Lord Russell
I must ask for your forgiveness for the delay in answering your letter of the
23rd November and your telegram which came subsequently. You can cer-
tainly write to me whenever you so wish, and I shall always welcome your
views and advice.
I have given much thought to what you have written. I need not tell you
that I am much moved by your passion for peace and it ?nds an echo in my
own heart. Certainly we do not want this frontier war with China to con-
tinue, and even more certainly we do not want it to spread and involve the
nuclear powers. Also there is the danger of the military mentality spreading
in India and the power of the Army increasing.
But there are limits in a democratic society to what a Government can do.
There is such strong feeling in India over the invasion by China that no
Government can stand if it does not pay some heed to it. The Communist
Party of India has been compelled by circumstances to issue a strong con-
demnation of China. Even so, the Communists here are in a bad way, and
their organisation is gradually disappearing because of popular resentment.
Apart from this, there are various other important considerations which
have to be borne in mind in coming to a decision. If there is a sense of
trafalgar square 627national surrender and humiliation, this will have a very bad e?ect on the
people of India and all our e?orts to build up the nation will su?er a very
serious setback. At present the popular upsurge all over India can be utilised
for strengthening the unity and capacity for work of the nation, apart from
the military aspect. There are obvious dangers about militarism and extreme
forms of nationalism developing, but there are also possibilities of the people
of our country thinking in a more constructive way and pro?ting by the
dangers that threaten us.
If we go wholly against the popular sentiment, which to a large extent I
share, then the result will be just what you fear. Others will take charge and
drive the country towards disaster.
The Chinese proposals, as they are, mean their gaining a dominating pos-
ition, specially in Ladakh, which they can utilise in future for a further attack
on India. The present day China, as you know, is probably the only country
which is not afraid even of a nuclear war. Mao Tse-tung has said repeatedly
that he does not mind losing a few million people as still several hundred
millions will survive in China. If they are to pro?t by this invasion, this will
lead them to further attempts of the same kind. That will put an end to all
talks of peace and will surely bring about a world nuclear war. I feel, there-
fore, that in order to avoid this catastrophe and, at the same time, strengthen
our own people, quite apart from arms, etc., we must not surrender or
submit to what we consider evil. That is a lesson I learned from Gandhiji.
We have, however, not rejected the Chinese proposal, but have ourselves
suggested an alternative which is honourable for both parties. I still have
hopes that China will agree to this. In any event we are not going to break the
cease-?re and indulge in a military o?ensive.
If these preliminaries are satisfactorily settled, we are prepared to adopt any
peaceful methods for the settlement of the frontier problem. These might
even include a reference to arbitration.
So far as we are concerned, we hope to adhere to the policy of non-
alignment although I confess that taking military help from other countries
does somewhat a?ect it. But in the circumstances we have no choice.
I can assure you that the wider issues that you have mentioned are before
us all the time. We do not want to do something which will endanger our
planet. I do think, however, that there will be a greater danger of that kind if
we surrender to the Chinese and they feel that the policy they have pursued
brings them rich dividends.
Yours sincerely
Jawaharlal Nehru
the autobiography of bertrand russell 62817
THE FOUNDATION
The nuclear peril represented a danger which was likely to last as long as
governments possessed nuclear weapons, and perhaps even longer if such
destructive objects get into private hands. At ?rst I imagined that the task of
awakening people to the dangers should not be very di?cult. I shared the
general belief that the motive of self-preservation is a very powerful one
which, when it comes into operation, generally overrides all others. I thought
that people would not like the prospect of being fried with their families and
their neighbours and every living person that they had heard of. I thought it
would only be necessary to make the danger known and that, when this had
been done, men of all parties would unite to restore previous safety. I found
that this was a mistake. There is a motive which is stronger than self-
preservation: it is the desire to get the better of the other fellow. I have
discovered an important political fact that is often overlooked, as it had been
by me: people do not care so much for their own survival – or, indeed, that of
the human race – as for the extermination of their enemies. The world in
which we live is one in which there is constant risk of universal death. The
methods of putting an end to this risk are obvious to all, but they involve a
very tiny chance that someone may play the traitor, and this is so galling that
almost everybody prefers running the risk of nuclear war to securing safety.
I thought, and I still think, that, if the risk of total destruction were made
su?ciently vivid, it would have the desired e?ect. But how was an individual,
or a collection of individuals, to bring about this vividness? In company with
those who thought like me, I tried various methods with varying degrees of
success. I tried ?rst the method of reason: I compared the danger of nuclear
weapons with the danger of the Black Death. Everybody said, ‘How true,’ and
did nothing. I tried alerting a particular group, but though this had a limitedsuccess, it had little e?ect on the general public or Governments. I next tried
the popular appeal of marches of large numbers. Everybody said, ‘These
marchers are a nuisance’. Then I tried methods of civil disobedience, but
they, too, failed to succeed. All these methods continue to be used, and
I support them all when possible, but none has proved more than partially
e?cacious. I am now engaged in a new attempt which consists of a mixed
appeal to Governments and public. So long as I live, I shall continue the
search and in all probability I shall leave the work to be continued by others.
But whether mankind will think itself worth preserving remains a doubtful
question.
For many years I had been interested in the persecuted minorities and
those people in many countries who, I thought, had been unjustly imprisoned.
I tried to help, for instance, the Naga and Sobell about whom I have already
told. A little later, I became concerned with the plight of the Gypsies, being
especially interested in the e?orts of Grattan Puxon to give them a ?t abiding
place with at least the necessary amenities, such as decent sanitation and
opportunity to obtain at least a minimum of proper education.
My scutcheon on the score of liberating prisoners, I confess, is not entirely
unsmirched. Many years ago a young German Jewish refugee came to me
asking for help. The Home O?ce had decreed that he was to be returned to
Germany and, if he were returned, he would be executed. He seemed a silly
young man but harmless enough. I went with him to the Home O?ce and
said, ‘Look, do you think that he is dangerous?’ ‘Well,’ they said, ‘no.’ They
agreed not to dispatch him to his homeland but said that he must have a fresh
passport. They started at once putting him through the questions to be
answered for this purpose. ‘Who was your father?’ ‘I do not know.’ ‘Who was
your mother?’ ‘I do not know.’ ‘Where and when were you born?’ ‘I do not
know.’ The O?cials quailed. The only thing he was sure of was that he was a
Jew. Seeing my stubborn and grim, if by this time slightly pink, visage, the
o?cials persisted and gave him his passport. The last thing I heard of him was
a message to the e?ect that to remain in England he knew that he had to pay
his way and he had learnt that the surest means of obtaining money was to
get an English girl pregnant. He could then apply for and receive a govern-
mental hand-out. I was only slightly reassured by the comment that, up to
date, he had failed in this scheme.
Many years ago, too, a young Pole appealed to me for help against
imprisonment on the charge of writing obscene verse. I thought, ‘A poet
gaoled! Never! This cannot be!’ And again I appealed to the Home O?ce. I
then read some of his verse and found it so thoroughly disgusting that my
sympathies were with the earlier verdict. But he was allowed to stay in
England.
Though both these cases are somewhat embarrassing to remember, I cannot
the autobiography of bertrand russell 630regret them. It seems to me nonsense to imprison people for silliness that is
unlikely to harm the general public. If it were carried to its logical conclu-
sion, there are few men who would be free. Moreover, to deal with obscenity
by means of the law and the threat of imprisonment does more harm than
good. It merely adds an aura of delightful and enticing wickedness to what
may be only foolish or may be evil. It does nothing to curtail it. I feel even
more strongly in the matter of political prisoners and for similar reasons. To
gaol a man merely for his political views, however tempting it may be, is
more likely to spread than to stop the dissemination of those views. It adds to
the sum of human misery and encourages violence, and that is all. In recent
years I have become, as I have said, more and more involved in work against
the incarceration and the persecution of individuals and groups because of
their political and religious opinions. I have received a continually increasing
number of written appeals for help from individuals and organisations
all over the world and almost daily visits from representatives of the latter. I
have been unable to travel to distant countries myself, so, in order to have as
nearly as possible ?rsthand objective information, I have been obliged to send
representatives to the various countries.
In 1963, my interests in the resistance ?ghters in Greece came to a head.
They had opposed the Nazis there but were still languishing in prison because
most of them had been ‘Communists’. A number of their representatives
came to see me, among them the Greek ??? who visited England in April and
May. A ‘Bertrand Russell Committee of 100’ had been formed in Greece and
they held a march, or tried to hold one, towards the end of April to which I
sent a representative. Then came the murder of the ?? Lambrakis at Salonika,
with, it was fairly clear, the connivance of the Authorities. This deeply shocked
me, in common with other liberal-minded people. Again, at request, I sent my
representative to the funeral of Lambrakis in Athens. He returned with a very
moving story. By the time that the Greek Royal visit to Buckingham Palace
took place in July, feeling here had mounted to boiling point. I shared it. I
spoke in Trafalgar Square against the visit and took part in a demonstration.
The press were shocked at such unseemly doings on the part of Her Majesty’s
subjects, Cabinet Ministers gobbled, and the police planted bricks in the
pockets of arrested demonstrators and charged them with carrying o?ensive
weapons. One of the most persistent and bravest of British demonstrators was
Betty Ambatielos whose Greek husband had been held a prisoner for many
years. Two years later, he was freed and visited us in London, but others of
the prisoners remained in gaol. Later he and, for a time, his wife were
re-imprisoned and many more prisoners were thrown into concentration
camps by the Greek Authorities. The contemplation of what their lives must
be in these camps, herded together in the blazing sunlight, without water,
without sanitation, with no care of any sort, is sickening.
the foundation 631That same April, 1963, I sent a representative to Israel to look into the
situation of the Palestine Arab refugees. We wished to form some assess-
ment of what, if anything, might most e?ectively be urged to help to settle
matters between Jews and Arabs concerning the question of the Palestine
refugees. Since then I have, often at request, sent other representatives to
both Israel and Egypt to discuss the separate and the joint problems of
those countries. In turn, they have sent their emissaries to me. I was also
much concerned, and still am, with the plight of the Jews in the Soviet
Union, and I have carried on a considerable and continuing correspondence
with the Soviet Government in regard to it. In addition, a very large num-
ber of Jewish families in Eastern Europe have been separated by the Second
World War and wish to rejoin their relations abroad, usually in Israel. At
?rst I appealed for permission for them to emigrate individually, but later,
under the pressure of hundreds of requests, I began to make appeals on
behalf of whole groups. As such work developed, I found myself working
for the release of political prisoners in over forty countries where they are
held, half forgotten, for deeds which were often praiseworthy. Many
prisoners in many lands have been freed, we are told, as a result of my
colleagues’ and my work, but many remain in gaol and the work goes on.
Sometimes I have got into di?culty about this work and had to bear con-
siderable obloquy, as in the case of Sobell and, later, in regard to the freeing
of Heinz Brandt. The abduction and imprisonment by the East Germans
of Brandt, who had survived Hitler’s concentration camps, seemed to me
so inhuman that I was obliged to return to the East German Government
the Carl von Ossietzky medal which it had awarded me. I was impressed by
the speed with which Brandt was soon released. And perhaps it was my
work for prisoners, in part at any rate, that won me the Tom Paine award
bestowed upon me by the American Emergency Civil Liberties Committee
in January, 1963.
1
Through the last years, and especially recently, since I have been able to act
in this work as part of an organisation, I have sent fact-?nding representatives
to many parts of the world. They have gone to most European countries,
‘East’ and ‘West’, and to many eastern countries – Cambodia, China, Ceylon,
India, Indonesia, Japan, Vietnam. They have gone to Africa – Ethiopia and
Egypt and the newer countries of both East and West Africa. And, of course,
they have gone to countries of the Western Hemisphere, both north and
south. These investigators have been generously welcomed by the Heads of
the countries to which they journeyed and by many of the Government
o?cials and heads of organisations dealing with problems in which they are
interested. And, naturally, they have talked with members of the general
public. I have myself carried on prolonged correspondence with the various
Heads of State and o?cials, and have discussed in London a variety of
the autobiography of bertrand russell 632international problems with them, particularly with those from Eastern
Europe and Asia and Africa. The gatherings for the Commonwealth Confer-
ence, especially, made possible many of these meetings. Some of them were
entertaining and adorned with the proper trappings – ?ashing eyes, robes,
scimitars, jewels and tall, ?erce attendants – as was my meeting with the
Sheikh of Bahrein in 1965, the memory of which I rejoice in. On special
subjects, of course, I am in frequent touch with the Embassies in London.
All this work steadily mounted in demand. By 1963, it was rapidly becom-
ing more than one individual could carry on alone even with the extraordin-
arily able and willing help that I had. Moreover, the expenses of journeys and
correspondence – written, telegraphed and telephoned – and of secretaries
and co-workers was becoming more than my private funds could cover. And
the weight of responsibility of being an entirely one-man show was heavy.
Gradually the scheme took shape, hatched, again, I think, by the fertile mind
of Ralph Schoenman, of forming some sort of organisation. This should be
not just for this or that purpose. It should be for any purpose that would
forward the struggle against war and the armaments race, and against the
unrest and the injustices su?ered by oppressed individuals and peoples that
in very large part caused these. Such an organisation could grow to meet the
widely di?ering demands. It could, also, reorientate itself as circumstances
changed. A good part of my time, therefore, in 1963, was taken up with
discussing plans for the formation of such an organisation. Many of my
colleagues in these discussions had been working with me since the early
days of the Committee of 100.
My colleagues were inexperienced in organisation and I myself am not at
all good at it, but at least we brought our aims into some sort of cohesive
progression, and, where we erred, it was on the side of ?exibility which
would permit of change and growth. We faced the fact that in the early days
of the organisation our work must be carried on much as it had been, with
me bearing most of the public responsibility and holding the position of
?nal arbitrator of it. We hoped to strengthen the organisation gradually. We
felt that not only the day-to-day work for it, but the responsibility and the
planning should, in time, be borne by it as an entity. As I look back upon our
progress, it seems to me that we achieved far more than we had dared to hope
to do in its ?rst three years.
Many people have worked to build up the Foundation, but I wish to stress
not only my own but the Foundation’s debt to Ralph Schoenman. He has
carried on its work sometimes almost single-handed and many of its most
fertile ideas are owing to him. His ingenuity, moreover, and his almost super-
human energy and courageous determination have been largely responsible
for carrying them out. I should like to record, also, something of both the
Foundation’s and my debt to another recent friend, Christopher Farley.
the foundation 633Without his judgement and thoughtfulness we should be hard put to it to
keep on as even a keel as we manage to keep. But he is reticent and unassum-
ing and too often remains in the background. He takes a point quickly, and I
thought at ?rst that his occasional hesitation in pronouncing upon it was
owing to timidity. I now know that it is owing to his extreme scrupulousness.
It was some time before I realised the depth of feeling with which he pursues
justice or the compassion and patience with which this pursuit is tempered.
I learned only gradually that his obvious knowledge of present-day men and
a?airs is enriched by wide reading and a very considerable study of the
past. The tendency to dogmatism and claptrap and humbug which this
combination might induce in a more super?cial mind is burnt away by his
intense perception of ironies and absurdity and the liveliness of his many
interests. His observations are both sensitive and his own. All this makes him
a helpful, interesting and delightful companion.
During the spring and early summer of 1963 we sent out letters over
my name to a number of people who we thought might be willing to be
sponsors of the new Foundation. By the end of the summer nine of these had
agreed. With such backing, we felt ready to make our plans public, especially
as there was reason to expect others to join us soon. And, in fact, soon after
the establishment of the Foundation was announced, seven others did join.
We knew our aims – chief of which was to form a really international
organisation – and the long-term means towards them that we must strive to
achieve, and the outlines of work that we must carry on, work such as we had
been carrying on for some sime. We also recognised the fact that the attain-
ment of our purposes necessitated vast sums of money. Rather against my
will my colleagues urged that the Foundation should bear my name. I knew
that this would prejudice against the Foundation many people who might
uphold our work itself. It would certainly prejudice well-established and
respectable organisations and, certainly, a great number of individuals in
Britain, particularly those who were in a position to support us ?nancially.
But my colleagues contended that, as I had been carrying on the work for
years, helped by them during the last few years, and my name was identi?ed
with it in many parts of the world, to omit my name would mean a set-back
for the work. I was pleased by their determination, though still somewhat
dubious of its wisdom. But in the end I agreed. When, however, we decided
to seek charitable status for our organisation, it became evident to my friends
as well as to myself that it would be impossible to obtain it in Great Britain for
any organisation bearing my name.
Finally, our solicitors suggested that we compromise by forming two
Foundations: The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation and the Atlantic Peace
Foundation, for the second of which we obtained charitable status. These
two Foundations were to work, and do work, in co-operation, but the latter’s
the autobiography of bertrand russell 634objects are purely educational. Its purpose is to establish research in the
various areas concerned in the study of war and peace and the creation of
opportunities for research and the publication of its results. As the Charity
Commission registered this Foundation as a charity, income tax at the stan-
dard rate is recoverable on any subscription given under a seven-year covenant,
which, in turn, means that such subscriptions are increased by about sixty
per cent.
The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation was to deal with the more immedi-
ately political and controversial side of the work, and contributions to it,
whether large or small, are given as ordinary gifts. During its ?rst three years
of existence many thousands of pounds have been contributed to it, some
from individuals, some from organisations, some from Governments. No
contribution with strings tied to it is accepted. Particularly in the case of
Government contributions, it is made clear to the donors that the source of
the money will not in any way prejudice the methods or results of its
expenditure.
Unfortunately, I fell very ill at the beginning of September when we had
decided to make our plans public, but by the end of the month, on September
29, 1963, we were able to release them. After I had made a vehement state-
ment, we gave the press men the lea?et that my colleagues had prepared
about each Foundation. That concerning the Bertrand Russell Peace Founda-
tion gave a list of the then sponsors, and a letter that U Thant had written for
the purpose on the outside. I had talked with him about our plans among
other things and written to him about them. He had been warmly sympa-
thetic, but explained that he could not be a sponsor because of his position as
Secretary-General of the United Nations. He o?ered, however, to write the
carefully worded but encouraging letter which we printed.
Reading a list of our ambitious projects, the journalists asked whence we
proposed to obtain the funds. It was a pertinent question and not unexpected.
Since we had not wished to divulge our plans till September 29th, we had
been unable to campaign for funds. Our answer could only be that we were
determined to raise the necessary funds and were sure that we could, in time,
do so – a reply naturally received with acid scepticism.
Looking back upon the occasion, I cannot say that I blame the assembled
