the President of the United States tell you to doso. Remember rather your duty to your family,your friends, your country, the world you livein, and that future world which, if you sochoose, may be glorious, happy, and free.’??? ????????: ?????????? ????? ????????? ??????? ????? ? ???? ?? ????BERTRAND RUSSELL23rd October, 1962trafalgar square 625The two following letters concerned with the Sino-Indian Border dispute were not published inUnarmed Victory. I therefore publish them here.Peking, November 24, 1962The Earl RussellLondonMy dear LordI have received with honour your letters dated November 16 and 19, 1962and read with great pleasure your statement welcoming and supporting theChinese Government’s statement of November 21. I am deeply moved byyour good wishes and e?orts for a peaceful settlement of the Sino-Indianboundary question and your deep interest in world peace. I am sincerelygrateful to you for the profound friendship for the Chinese people and thecondemnation of ?? occupation of China’s territory Taiwan, which you haveexpressed in your letters.The Chinese Government issued a statement on October 24, 1962, puttingforward three proposals. Unfortunately, they were repeatedly rejected by theIndian Government. In order to reverse the daily aggravating Sino-Indianborder 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 orderto demonstrate its great sincerity for stopping the border con?ict and settlingthe Sino-Indian Boundary question peacefully, the Chinese Governmentissued a statement on November 21, 1962, declaring three measures includ-ing the unilateral observation of cease-?re and withdrawal along the entireborder by China on its own initiative. Now, I wish to tell you that as from00:00 hours on November 22 the Chinese frontier guards have ceased ?realong the entire Sino-Indian border. I believe that this accords with thedesires you expressed in your messages.You suggested in your letter of November 19: ‘All troops to vacate thisparticular 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 theChinese Government has declared in its statement of November 21 that,beginning from December 1, the Chinese frontier guards would withdraw topositions 20 kilometres behind the line of actual control which existedbetween China and India on November 7, 1959, and would then be far behindtheir positions prior to September 8, 1962. The Chinese Government hopesthat the Indian Government will respond positively to the Chinese Govern-ment’s November 21 statement and adopt corresponding measures. Once theIndian Government has done so, the Sino-Indian Border will become tranquiland a demilitarised zone 40 kilometres wide can be established between Chinaand India. It goes without saying that administration will continue to bethe autobiography of bertrand russell 626exercised by the administrative authorities of each side existing in the zone ontheir 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 Boundaryquestion through friendly negotiations. I hope that you will continue touse your distinguished in?uence to urge the Indian Government to respondpositively to the Chinese Government’s November 21 statement and adoptcorresponding measures. At the same time, the Chinese Government alsohopes that all friendly countries and peace-loving public ?gures will exerttheir in?uence to urge the Indian Government to return to the conferencetable. These e?orts will be great contributions to peace.Please accept my high regards.Chou En-LaiPrime Minister’s HouseNew DehliDecember 4, 1962CONFIDENTIALNo. 2155-PMH/62The Earl RussellPlas Penrhyn, PenrhyndeudraethMerioneth, EnglandDear Lord RussellI must ask for your forgiveness for the delay in answering your letter of the23rd November and your telegram which came subsequently. You can cer-tainly write to me whenever you so wish, and I shall always welcome yourviews and advice.I have given much thought to what you have written. I need not tell youthat I am much moved by your passion for peace and it ?nds an echo in myown 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 thenuclear powers. Also there is the danger of the military mentality spreadingin 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 noGovernment can stand if it does not pay some heed to it. The CommunistParty 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, andtheir organisation is gradually disappearing because of popular resentment.Apart from this, there are various other important considerations whichhave to be borne in mind in coming to a decision. If there is a sense oftrafalgar square 627national surrender and humiliation, this will have a very bad e?ect on thepeople of India and all our e?orts to build up the nation will su?er a veryserious setback. At present the popular upsurge all over India can be utilisedfor strengthening the unity and capacity for work of the nation, apart fromthe military aspect. There are obvious dangers about militarism and extremeforms of nationalism developing, but there are also possibilities of the peopleof our country thinking in a more constructive way and pro?ting by thedangers that threaten us.If we go wholly against the popular sentiment, which to a large extent Ishare, then the result will be just what you fear. Others will take charge anddrive 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 attackon India. The present day China, as you know, is probably the only countrywhich is not afraid even of a nuclear war. Mao Tse-tung has said repeatedlythat he does not mind losing a few million people as still several hundredmillions will survive in China. If they are to pro?t by this invasion, this willlead them to further attempts of the same kind. That will put an end to alltalks 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, strengthenour own people, quite apart from arms, etc., we must not surrender orsubmit to what we consider evil. That is a lesson I learned from Gandhiji.We have, however, not rejected the Chinese proposal, but have ourselvessuggested an alternative which is honourable for both parties. I still havehopes that China will agree to this. In any event we are not going to break thecease-?re and indulge in a military o?ensive.If these preliminaries are satisfactorily settled, we are prepared to adopt anypeaceful methods for the settlement of the frontier problem. These mighteven 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 countriesdoes 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 beforeus all the time. We do not want to do something which will endanger ourplanet. I do think, however, that there will be a greater danger of that kind ifwe surrender to the Chinese and they feel that the policy they have pursuedbrings them rich dividends.Yours sincerelyJawaharlal Nehruthe autobiography of bertrand russell 62817THE FOUNDATIONThe nuclear peril represented a danger which was likely to last as long asgovernments possessed nuclear weapons, and perhaps even longer if suchdestructive objects get into private hands. At ?rst I imagined that the task ofawakening people to the dangers should not be very di?cult. I shared thegeneral belief that the motive of self-preservation is a very powerful onewhich, when it comes into operation, generally overrides all others. I thoughtthat people would not like the prospect of being fried with their families andtheir neighbours and every living person that they had heard of. I thought itwould only be necessary to make the danger known and that, when this hadbeen done, men of all parties would unite to restore previous safety. I foundthat 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 havediscovered an important political fact that is often overlooked, as it had beenby me: people do not care so much for their own survival – or, indeed, that ofthe human race – as for the extermination of their enemies. The world inwhich we live is one in which there is constant risk of universal death. Themethods of putting an end to this risk are obvious to all, but they involve avery tiny chance that someone may play the traitor, and this is so galling thatalmost 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 madesu?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 withthose who thought like me, I tried various methods with varying degrees ofsuccess. I tried ?rst the method of reason: I compared the danger of nuclearweapons with the danger of the Black Death. Everybody said, ‘How true,’ anddid 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 triedthe popular appeal of marches of large numbers. Everybody said, ‘Thesemarchers are a nuisance’. Then I tried methods of civil disobedience, butthey, too, failed to succeed. All these methods continue to be used, andI support them all when possible, but none has proved more than partiallye?cacious. I am now engaged in a new attempt which consists of a mixedappeal to Governments and public. So long as I live, I shall continue thesearch and in all probability I shall leave the work to be continued by others.But whether mankind will think itself worth preserving remains a doubtfulquestion.For many years I had been interested in the persecuted minorities andthose 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 alreadytold. A little later, I became concerned with the plight of the Gypsies, beingespecially interested in the e?orts of Grattan Puxon to give them a ?t abidingplace with at least the necessary amenities, such as decent sanitation andopportunity to obtain at least a minimum of proper education.My scutcheon on the score of liberating prisoners, I confess, is not entirelyunsmirched. Many years ago a young German Jewish refugee came to measking for help. The Home O?ce had decreed that he was to be returned toGermany and, if he were returned, he would be executed. He seemed a sillyyoung man but harmless enough. I went with him to the Home O?ce andsaid, ‘Look, do you think that he is dangerous?’ ‘Well,’ they said, ‘no.’ Theyagreed not to dispatch him to his homeland but said that he must have a freshpassport. They started at once putting him through the questions to beanswered for this purpose. ‘Who was your father?’ ‘I do not know.’ ‘Who wasyour mother?’ ‘I do not know.’ ‘Where and when were you born?’ ‘I do notknow.’ The O?cials quailed. The only thing he was sure of was that he was aJew. Seeing my stubborn and grim, if by this time slightly pink, visage, theo?cials persisted and gave him his passport. The last thing I heard of him wasa message to the e?ect that to remain in England he knew that he had to payhis way and he had learnt that the surest means of obtaining money was toget 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 todate, he had failed in this scheme.Many years ago, too, a young Pole appealed to me for help againstimprisonment on the charge of writing obscene verse. I thought, ‘A poetgaoled! Never! This cannot be!’ And again I appealed to the Home O?ce. Ithen read some of his verse and found it so thoroughly disgusting that mysympathies were with the earlier verdict. But he was allowed to stay inEngland.Though both these cases are somewhat embarrassing to remember, I cannotthe autobiography of bertrand russell 630regret them. It seems to me nonsense to imprison people for silliness that isunlikely 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 obscenityby means of the law and the threat of imprisonment does more harm thangood. It merely adds an aura of delightful and enticing wickedness to whatmay be only foolish or may be evil. It does nothing to curtail it. I feel evenmore strongly in the matter of political prisoners and for similar reasons. Togaol a man merely for his political views, however tempting it may be, ismore likely to spread than to stop the dissemination of those views. It adds tothe sum of human misery and encourages violence, and that is all. In recentyears I have become, as I have said, more and more involved in work againstthe incarceration and the persecution of individuals and groups because oftheir political and religious opinions. I have received a continually increasingnumber of written appeals for help from individuals and organisationsall over the world and almost daily visits from representatives of the latter. Ihave been unable to travel to distant countries myself, so, in order to have asnearly as possible ?rsthand objective information, I have been obliged to sendrepresentatives 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 becausemost of them had been ‘Communists’. A number of their representativescame to see me, among them the Greek ??? who visited England in April andMay. A ‘Bertrand Russell Committee of 100’ had been formed in Greece andthey held a march, or tried to hold one, towards the end of April to which Isent a representative. Then came the murder of the ?? Lambrakis at Salonika,with, it was fairly clear, the connivance of the Authorities. This deeply shockedme, in common with other liberal-minded people. Again, at request, I sent myrepresentative to the funeral of Lambrakis in Athens. He returned with a verymoving story. By the time that the Greek Royal visit to Buckingham Palacetook place in July, feeling here had mounted to boiling point. I shared it. Ispoke 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’ssubjects, Cabinet Ministers gobbled, and the police planted bricks in thepockets of arrested demonstrators and charged them with carrying o?ensiveweapons. One of the most persistent and bravest of British demonstrators wasBetty Ambatielos whose Greek husband had been held a prisoner for manyyears. Two years later, he was freed and visited us in London, but others ofthe prisoners remained in gaol. Later he and, for a time, his wife werere-imprisoned and many more prisoners were thrown into concentrationcamps by the Greek Authorities. The contemplation of what their lives mustbe 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 thesituation 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 settlematters between Jews and Arabs concerning the question of the Palestinerefugees. Since then I have, often at request, sent other representatives toboth Israel and Egypt to discuss the separate and the joint problems ofthose countries. In turn, they have sent their emissaries to me. I was alsomuch concerned, and still am, with the plight of the Jews in the SovietUnion, and I have carried on a considerable and continuing correspondencewith 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 SecondWorld 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 onbehalf of whole groups. As such work developed, I found myself workingfor the release of political prisoners in over forty countries where they areheld, half forgotten, for deeds which were often praiseworthy. Manyprisoners in many lands have been freed, we are told, as a result of mycolleagues’ 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 freeingof Heinz Brandt. The abduction and imprisonment by the East Germansof Brandt, who had survived Hitler’s concentration camps, seemed to meso inhuman that I was obliged to return to the East German Governmentthe Carl von Ossietzky medal which it had awarded me. I was impressed bythe speed with which Brandt was soon released. And perhaps it was mywork for prisoners, in part at any rate, that won me the Tom Paine awardbestowed upon me by the American Emergency Civil Liberties Committeein January, 1963.1Through the last years, and especially recently, since I have been able to actin this work as part of an organisation, I have sent fact-?nding representativesto 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 andEgypt and the newer countries of both East and West Africa. And, of course,they have gone to countries of the Western Hemisphere, both north andsouth. These investigators have been generously welcomed by the Heads ofthe countries to which they journeyed and by many of the Governmento?cials and heads of organisations dealing with problems in which they areinterested. And, naturally, they have talked with members of the generalpublic. I have myself carried on prolonged correspondence with the variousHeads of State and o?cials, and have discussed in London a variety ofthe autobiography of bertrand russell 632international problems with them, particularly with those from EasternEurope and Asia and Africa. The gatherings for the Commonwealth Confer-ence, especially, made possible many of these meetings. Some of them wereentertaining and adorned with the proper trappings – ?ashing eyes, robes,scimitars, jewels and tall, ?erce attendants – as was my meeting with theSheikh of Bahrein in 1965, the memory of which I rejoice in. On specialsubjects, 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 andcorrespondence – written, telegraphed and telephoned – and of secretariesand co-workers was becoming more than my private funds could cover. Andthe weight of responsibility of being an entirely one-man show was heavy.Gradually the scheme took shape, hatched, again, I think, by the fertile mindof Ralph Schoenman, of forming some sort of organisation. This should benot just for this or that purpose. It should be for any purpose that wouldforward the struggle against war and the armaments race, and against theunrest and the injustices su?ered by oppressed individuals and peoples thatin very large part caused these. Such an organisation could grow to meet thewidely di?ering demands. It could, also, reorientate itself as circumstanceschanged. A good part of my time, therefore, in 1963, was taken up withdiscussing plans for the formation of such an organisation. Many of mycolleagues in these discussions had been working with me since the earlydays of the Committee of 100.My colleagues were inexperienced in organisation and I myself am not atall good at it, but at least we brought our aims into some sort of cohesiveprogression, and, where we erred, it was on the side of ?exibility whichwould permit of change and growth. We faced the fact that in the early daysof the organisation our work must be carried on much as it had been, withme bearing most of the public responsibility and holding the position of?nal arbitrator of it. We hoped to strengthen the organisation gradually. Wefelt that not only the day-to-day work for it, but the responsibility and theplanning should, in time, be borne by it as an entity. As I look back upon ourprogress, it seems to me that we achieved far more than we had dared to hopeto do in its ?rst three years.Many people have worked to build up the Foundation, but I wish to stressnot only my own but the Foundation’s debt to Ralph Schoenman. He hascarried on its work sometimes almost single-handed and many of its mostfertile ideas are owing to him. His ingenuity, moreover, and his almost super-human energy and courageous determination have been largely responsiblefor carrying them out. I should like to record, also, something of both theFoundation’s and my debt to another recent friend, Christopher Farley.the foundation 633Without his judgement and thoughtfulness we should be hard put to it tokeep 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 Ithought at ?rst that his occasional hesitation in pronouncing upon it wasowing 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 pursuesjustice or the compassion and patience with which this pursuit is tempered.I learned only gradually that his obvious knowledge of present-day men anda?airs is enriched by wide reading and a very considerable study of thepast. The tendency to dogmatism and claptrap and humbug which thiscombination might induce in a more super?cial mind is burnt away by hisintense perception of ironies and absurdity and the liveliness of his manyinterests. His observations are both sensitive and his own. All this makes hima helpful, interesting and delightful companion.During the spring and early summer of 1963 we sent out letters overmy name to a number of people who we thought might be willing to besponsors of the new Foundation. By the end of the summer nine of these hadagreed. With such backing, we felt ready to make our plans public, especiallyas there was reason to expect others to join us soon. And, in fact, soon afterthe establishment of the Foundation was announced, seven others did join.We knew our aims – chief of which was to form a really internationalorganisation – and the long-term means towards them that we must strive toachieve, and the outlines of work that we must carry on, work such as we hadbeen carrying on for some sime. We also recognised the fact that the attain-ment of our purposes necessitated vast sums of money. Rather against mywill my colleagues urged that the Foundation should bear my name. I knewthat this would prejudice against the Foundation many people who mightuphold our work itself. It would certainly prejudice well-established andrespectable organisations and, certainly, a great number of individuals inBritain, particularly those who were in a position to support us ?nancially.But my colleagues contended that, as I had been carrying on the work foryears, helped by them during the last few years, and my name was identi?edwith it in many parts of the world, to omit my name would mean a set-backfor the work. I was pleased by their determination, though still somewhatdubious of its wisdom. But in the end I agreed. When, however, we decidedto seek charitable status for our organisation, it became evident to my friendsas well as to myself that it would be impossible to obtain it in Great Britain forany organisation bearing my name.Finally, our solicitors suggested that we compromise by forming twoFoundations: The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation and the Atlantic PeaceFoundation, for the second of which we obtained charitable status. Thesetwo Foundations were to work, and do work, in co-operation, but the latter’sthe autobiography of bertrand russell 634objects are purely educational. Its purpose is to establish research in thevarious areas concerned in the study of war and peace and the creation ofopportunities for research and the publication of its results. As the CharityCommission 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 sixtyper 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 yearsof existence many thousands of pounds have been contributed to it, somefrom individuals, some from organisations, some from Governments. Nocontribution with strings tied to it is accepted. Particularly in the case ofGovernment contributions, it is made clear to the donors that the source ofthe money will not in any way prejudice the methods or results of itsexpenditure.Unfortunately, I fell very ill at the beginning of September when we haddecided to make our plans public, but by the end of the month, on September29, 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 preparedabout 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 forthe purpose on the outside. I had talked with him about our plans amongother 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 asSecretary-General of the United Nations. He o?ered, however, to write thecarefully worded but encouraging letter which we printed.Reading a list of our ambitious projects, the journalists asked whence weproposed 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 hadbeen unable to campaign for funds. Our answer could only be that we weredetermined 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