I have listened attentively and with respect to many of the speeches made here, and sometimes I have felt as if I was being buffeted by the icy winds of the cold war. Coming from a warm country, I have shivered occasionally at these cold blasts.

Speaking here in this assembly chamber, an old memory comes back to me. In the fateful summer of 1938. 1 was a visitor at a meeting of the League of Nations in Geneva. Hitler was advancing then and holding out threats of war. There was mobilization in many parts of Europe, and the tramp of armed men was being heard. Even so, the League of Nations appeared to be unconcerned and discussed all manner of subjects, except the most vital subject of the day. The war had not started then. A year later it descended upon the world with all its thunder and destructive fury. After many years of carnage, the war ended, and a new age - the atomic age - was ushered in by the terrible experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Fresh from these horrors, the minds of men turned to thoughts of peace and there was a passionate desire to put an end to war itself. The United Nations took birth on a note of high idealism embodied in the noble wording of the Charter. But there was also a realization of the state of the postwar world as it was. Therefore, provision was made in the structure of the organization to balance certain conflicting urges. There were permanent members of the Security Council and there was provision for unanimity amongst the great powers. All this was not very logical. But it represented certain realities of the world as it was, and because of this, we accepted them.

During these past fifteen years, the United Nations has often been criticized for its structure and for some of its activities. These criticisms have had some Justification behind them. But, looking at the broad picture, I think we can definitely say that the United Nations has amply justified its existence and repeatedly prevented the recurrent crises from developing into war. It has played a great role, and it is a little difficult now to think of this troubled world without the U.N. If it had defects, they lay in the world situation Itself which inevitably it mirrored. If there had been no United Nations today, our first task would be to create something of that kind. I should like, therefore, to pay my tribute to the work of the United Nations as a whole, even though I might criticize some aspect of it from time to time.

In the context of things as they are today, the great nations, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, hold the key to war and peace. Their is a great responsibility. But every country, big or small, is concerned in this matter of peace and war, and, therefore, every country must shoulder its responsibility and work to this end. In order to deal with these big Issues effectively, we have to take big and impersonal views. It is only the United Nations as a whole that can ultimately solve these problems. Therefore, while all efforts towards disarmament must be welcomed, the United Nations should be closely associated with such efforts.

The question of disarmament has been considered at various levels. There is the question of general disarmament, and of the ending of test explosions of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. So far as test explosions are concerned, considerable progress has been made in the discussions of the committee which has been meeting in Geneva. Indeed, it would appear that an agreement has been reached on many basic issues and only a little more effort is needed to complete this agreement. I suggest that a final agreement on this subject should be reached as early as possible. This is not, strictly speaking, disarmament. but undoubtedly any such agreement will bring a large measure of relief to the world. Disarmament must include the prohibition of the manufacture, storage and use of weapons of mass destruction, as well as the progressive limitation of conventional weapons.

It is admitted that disarmament should take place in such ,stages as to maintain broadly the balance of armed power. It is only on this basis that success can be achieved and this pervading sense of fear countered. It must also be clearly understood that disarmament and a machinery for control must go together, and neither of these can be taken up singly.

A proposal has been made that the question of disarmament should be referred to a committee of experts. In fact, experts have been considering this matter during the past years, and we have had the advantage of their views. A reference to a committee of experts should not lead to a postponement of the major issue. Any such delay may well be disastrous. Possibly, while the major issues are being considered by the United Nations Commission or other committees, a reference of any special aspect might be made to the experts. What is important is that the United Nations, at the present juncture, should ensure that there is adequate machinery for promoting disarmament and that this machinery should function continuously.

The fear of surprise attacks or accidental happenings leading to dangerous developments is undoubtedly present in the existing situation. The best way to deal with this fear is to reduce the national tension and create an atmosphere which will make it very difficult for any surprise attack to take place. In addition, such other steps as may be considered necessary for prevention of surprise attacks should be taken. If there is an agreement on the stoppage of nuclear tests and use of carriers, immediately danger from surprise attacks will be greatly lessened.

In the preamble of the constitution of UNESCO it is stated that war begins in the minds of men. That is essentially true; and ultimately it is necessary to bring about the change in our minds and to remove fears and apprehensions, hatreds and suspicions. Disarmament is a part of this process, for it will create an atmosphere of cooperation. But it is only a step towards our objective, a part of the larger efforts to rid the world of war and the causes of war. 

In the present context, however, disarmament assumes a very special importance for us, overriding all other issues. For many years past, there have been talks on disarmament and some progress has undoubtedly been made in so far as the plans and proposals are concerned. Still we find that the race of armaments continues, as also the efforts to invent ever more powerful engines of destruction. If even a small part of these efforts was directed to the search for peace, probably the problem of disarmament would have been solved by this time.

Apart from the moral imperative of peace, every practical consideration leads us to that conclusion. For, as everyone knows, the choice today in this nuclear age is one of utter annihilation and destruction of civilization or of some way to have peaceful coexistence between nations. There is no middle way. If war Is an abomination and an ultimate crime which has to be avoided, we must fashion our minds and policies accordingly. There may be risks, but the greatest risk is to allow the present dangerous drift to continue. In order to achieve peace we have to develop a climate of peace and tolerance and to avoid speech and action which tend to increase fear and hatred.

It may not be possible to reach full disarmament in one step, though every step should be conditioned to that end. Much ground has already been covered in the discussions on disarmament. But the sands of time run out, and we dare not play about with this issue or delay its consideration. This, indeed, is the main duty of the United Nations today and if it fails in this, the United Nations falls in its main purpose.

We live in an age of great revolutionary changes brought about by the advance of science and technology. Therein lies the hope for the world and also the danger of sudden death. Because of these advances, the time we have for controlling the forces of destruction is strictly limited. If within the next three or four years, effective disarmament is not agreed to and implemented, then all the goodwill in the world will not be able to stop the drift to certain disaster.

I do believe that the vast majority of the people in every country wants us to labour for peace and to succeed. Whether we are big or small, we have to face big issues vital to the future of humanity. Everything else is of lesser importance than this major question. I am absolutely convinced that we shall never settle this question by war or by a mental approach which envisages war and prepares for it.

I am equally convinced that if we aim at right ends, right means must be employed. Good will not emerge out of evil methods. That was the lesson which our great leader Gandhi taught us, and though we in India have failed in many ways in following his advice, something of his message still clings to our minds and hearts. In ages long past a great son of India, the Buddha, said that the only real victory was one in which all were equally victorious and there was defeat for no one. In the world today that is the only practical victory. Any other way will lead to disaster.

It is, therefore, this real victory of peace in which all are winners that I would like this great Assembly to keep before its mind and to endeavour to achieve.