New Delhi | India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and and its first ambassador to China KM Panikkar shared one thing. Both are still criticised for their policies and they can't defend themselves as they are dead, says former NSA Shivshankar Menon.
Speaking at the India International Centre on Monday during the launch of historian Narayani Basu's biography of Panikkar "A Man for All Seasons", Menon argued that Panikkar's reputation suffered largely because history judged him with the benefit of hindsight, while he -- and the government -- were navigating uncharted waters with limited information at the time.
"Nehru gets blamed for 1962, but nobody asks, 'What is everybody else doing?' 'Why wasn't anybody else doing their job?' Because it's much easier - the man is dead, he can't defend himself, so they blame him. Then nobody else has to reform or change or do anything.
"I think the same applies to Panikkar and China policy. It's convenient to have a scapegoat, and scapegoats are useful to societies, especially to bureaucracies," said Menon, who himself served as ambassador to China from 2000-03.
Panikkar was appointed ambassador to China in April 1948. The Communists took over in the country the year later. His role in dealing with China's new government became highly controversial, with accusations that he misled Nehru about the Chinese military campaign into Tibet.
China invaded Tibet in 1950. The Chinese People's Liberation Army entered Tibet in October 1950, leading to the eventual incorporation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China.
"One of the reasons why Panikkar's reputation on China policy suffered is because we already knew how the story ended. The trouble was, he didn't know where it was going - frankly, none of them did," Menon said in his defence of Pannikar.
Giving a glimpse into the period when Panikkar served as ambassador to China, Menon described it as marked by chaos and uncertainty, with no officials for Panikkar to engage with since the new Communist regime had not yet been recognized by India.
He highlighted that cables from that era reveal "complete confusion both in Delhi and on the ground", made worse by Panikkar's lack of diplomatic experience and limited sources of intelligence.
"He wasn't a professional diplomat, so he wasn't cynical about people," Menon explained, noting how Panikkar had to rely on Chinese officials for information during China's move into Tibet -- with no alternative channels for verification.
Menon cited Basu's book to highlight how directives to Indian diplomats about Tibet shifted nearly every week, emphasizing that the government's stance on the issue was constantly evolving.
Despite this, Menon argued that Pannikar right from the beginning foresaw the challenge posed by revived Chinese nationalism.
"Some of his early dispatches from China, just before the Communist takeover, were quite prescient," Menon added, lamenting that Delhi did not heed these warnings.
Describing Panikkar as someone "difficult to pigeonhole", Menon credited him with being the first to highlight the "maritime dimension" of how India views and engages with the world.
"In fact, the 'Look East' and 'Act East' policy is the logical end of where he (Panikkar) started us off," he added.
"A man for All Seasons", published by Westland, draws on Panikkar's body of work, as well as on archival material from India to England, from France to China, and from Israel to the UN to present a "vivid, irresistibly engaging portrait of this most enigmatic of India's founding fathers".