RECORD OF A CONVERSATION
BETWEEN Cde. N. S. KHRUSHCHEV, CHAIRMAN OF THE USSR COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, AND S. RADHAKRISHNAN, PRESIDENT OF INDIA
18 September 1964*
* The record of the conversation was not distributed and was not reviewed by N. S. Khrushchev.
After an exchange of greetings N. S. Khrushchev asked Radhakrishnan how he liked the trip around the Soviet Union.
Radhakrishnan replied that he was deeply impressed by the hospitality and kindness of the Soviet people. The delegation had an opportunity to feel the marvelous attitude toward it in Leningrad, Yerevan, and Yalta.
N. S. Khrushchev noted that wherever the delegation of Radhakrishnan goes the Soviet people will greet it with joy.
Radhakrishnan expressed satisfaction that a joint communiqué was coordinated about his stay in the USSR. He noted that in his speech at a rally A. I. Mikoyan justly mentioned the situation in South Rhodesia and South Vietnam.
A. I. Mikoyan noted in this connection that the peoples need the support of the Soviet Union. If a particular country is not mentioned in the statements then its people might think that the Soviet Union has stopped attaching importance to them.
N. S. Khrushchev asked what impression the method of hydroponics demonstrated to him in Yerevan made on Radhakrishnan.
Radhakrishnan replied that he inspected with great interest the experimental farm where they told him about growing vegetables with the aid of this method. He charged Indian Ambassador T. N. Kaul with studying this method.
Radhakrishnan asked the cost of the nutrient solution employed in hydroponics.
N. S. Khrushchev replied that its cost is several kopecks per square meter. N. S. Khrushchev stressed, with the aid of hydroponics one can grow vegetables year-round, and get 25-30 kg of vegetables per square meter. UAR [United Arab Republic; Egypt] Prime Minister Ali Sabri is in Tajikistan right now where they are showing him cotton grown with the aid of hydroponics. Experiments in growing cotton with this method are being performed at the present time in Uzbekistan, and in Yerevan they are experimenting with rice.
Radhakrishnan jokingly notes that Yerevan is noted for two things: hydroponics and Armenian radio. He said further that he heard many Armenian radio jokes.
N. S. Khrushchev stressed that this is so. In Tsarist times, he continued, the government of Russia encouraged strife between peoples, in particular between Georgians and Armenians. Consequently there is an Armenian radio anecdote: they asked what is international collaboration the friendship of peoples? Answer; this when the Armenian people gather together with all the other peoples and together they beat the Georgians. However, in our time, said N. S. Khrushchev, no grounds remain for such hatred between peoples.
In the understanding of the Chinese friendship of peoples evidently it will mean the following: all the countries gather together and beat India. The Chinese were displeased that we did not join with them against India. They inquired: how can a socialist country not support another socialist country against a capitalist one, and called this treason. The Chinese asserted that they seized an Indian helicopter on their territory and this is proof of Indian aggression. Actually what kind of terrible weapon is a helicopter?, noted N. S. Khrushchev.
Radhakrishnan said that he fully agreed with what N. S. Khrushchev said, that not one Chinese was taken prisoner during the shooting of the Indo-Chinese border conflict, but on the contrary, Indian soldiers were taken prisoner. What kind of aggression is this?
N. S. Khrushchev recalled that in a conversation with the minister of education of Nepal Mao Zedong explained as follow why Chinese troops were later withdrawn to [their] initial positions: “We killed all the Indian troops and left because there was nothing left for us to do”. Such is their morals and logic, said N. S. Khrushchev. This is awful logic of a big person.
N. S. Khrushchev noted that he is speaking with Radhakrishnan in strict confidence. It is better we say all this to the Chinese directly, he noted, than through you. We talk to them about this constantly. In 1959 we told the Chinese that we were against their actions and do not understand them. We cannot join with the PRC on such a basis and beat India together.
A. I. Mikoyan noted that it was more correct for everyone to join together against imperialism.
N. S. Khrushchev Mao Zedong said that China should join together with the so-called “intermediate zone” to include Japan, France, and West Germany. We found out about this from the press, from a report of a conversation between Mao Zedong and a Japanese delegation. We inquired about whether the report of the Japanese press corresponded to reality. The Chinese stated to us in reply that they were neither confirming nor denying the statement of Mao Zedong cited.
Ambassador of India to the USSR T. N. Kaul who was present at the conversation noted that a PRC MFA representative later declared that if Mao Zedong had put it that way then it was correct.
N. S. Khrushchev said that obviously only when Mao Zedong dies will the Chinese people say what it was correct, but what [was] not. In our country also there was a similar prophet, and everyone said that his statements were the truth. The other day articles were published in our newspapers about the loyal Communists Vareikis and Somo, who fell victim to the cult of personality of Stalin. Stalin circulated a rumor Vareikis was a provocateur of the Tsarist policy and Vareikis was arrested. Vareikis was a Lithuanian, but worked in Podol’sk. In spite of the fact that he almost did not work in Lithuania he was accused of being a Lithuanian nationalist. At that time all old Bolsheviks were accused of ties with the Tsarist Okhrana. The same fate overtook Somo. He was a Latvian, a Politburo member, who dealt with collective farm construction. Many good and honest people died as a result of Stalin’s treachery, we have condemned him for it.
Then N. S. Khrushchev said: What is the dispute with the Chinese about now? It is first of all about the regime in the Party. Can the Party replace the leaders? The Chinese consider this possible in words, however in practice they do not want to agree with this.
When we announced [inserted by hand: in our conditions] that the dictatorship of the proletariat had exhausted itself the Chinese began to accuse us of betraying Marxism. But what is the dictatorship of the proletariat in our modern conditions when there are no capitalists, and no landowners or oppressors? They no longer exist. A new generation has arrived. Whose dictatorship of the proletariat should it be and against whom should it be directed? In our opinion, the dictatorship of the proletariat is directed against the exploiters in the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. After the conclusion of the transitional period democratic institutions should enter the arena which are consistent with the homogeneous nature of society and equal opportunities for all. Therefore the dictatorship of the proletariat has exhausted itself.
In China it’s not a dictatorship of the proletariat that exists but the dictatorship of Mao Zedong. The Chinese will curse me if I say anything against Mao Zedong. Socialism has triumphed in our country and the people have accepted this system and have adopted Marxism-Leninism. If we rely on a dictatorship and not on the people, then this is the same as saying that socialism is unattractive to the people, that they are forcing them to socialism [inserted above by hand: communism] with a stick, but the regimes in socialist countries are maintained by force. This contains the accusations which our enemies offer against us, but Mao Zedong confirms these accusations.
After the 20th CPSU Congress we endured the difficulties of 1956; they were especially felt in Hungary. Kadar and [Kaloi] in Hungary were sitting in prison because Rakosi considered them enemies of socialism. Rakosi is gone now and Kadar is in the leadership, but no one doubts that there is socialism in Hungary. This shows that socialism had the ears of the Hungarians.
In Poland Gomulka, Spychalski, and others also were in prison as enemies of socialism. Now they are in the leadership. Those who kept people in prison who were truly devoted to Marxism-Leninism were defeated.
I think that if a Party congress were gathered in the Soviet Union and declared that Khrushchev had grown old and he could be pushed out, then the Party has the complete right to do this. Neither the Party nor the cause of socialism would suffer from this. However, it needs to be recognized not only in words, the conditions ought to be offered for the Party to have the opportunity to replace people in its leadership with whom it is dissatisfied.
Before his death Stalin said to A. I. Mikoyan and others: “When I die, you will all then perish. The imperialists will strangle all of you like chickens”. Eleven years have already passed since Stalin died, but imperialism has not strangled us. On the contrary, we can strangle imperialism ourselves if the imperialists begin a war against us, especially as we have the necessary means for this. Stalin thought that socialism would exist as long as he lived, and when he died [that would be] the end of socialism. This was a lack of faith in the people. We say “No” to this theory. The teaching of Marxism-Leninism is a great teaching, it has been adopted by the workers, and the Soviet Union is an obvious field for the employment of the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism. The theory is good, but without practice it is ineffective. The combination of these two factors can exert a powerful influence upon the minds of people.
In the past Russia was a great country, the gendarme of Europe, however with a weak economy. Right now we are second in the world and without doubt will win first place We are already close to this goal, and in some kinds of production we have already passed the United States.
A. I. Mikoyan noted that 10 years ago the volume of our industrial production was 33% of US industry, but now it is 65%.
N. S. Khrushchev said further that the system and philosophy will win which will be able to create the best conditions for the development of productive forces. Victory will be won firstly in the material sphere, in the field of production. We believe in our victory. At the present time we are occupied with drawing up a five-year plan. Possibly we will draw up a plan for 15 years and divide it into two parts of seven years each. The lengthening of the timeframes of the plan is explained by the need to cover the production cycle, which has a lengthy nature. But on the whole one can say that the total is not changing from a change of the places of the terms.
Radhakrishnan thanked N. S. Khrushchev for the conversation and asked when N. S. Khrushchev and A. I. Mikoyan would come to India.
T. N. Kaul wanted February 1965 when the 10th anniversary of the Indo-Soviet economic cooperation will be noted, and this would be a convenient occasion.
N. S. Khrushchev noted that he can easily say that he and A. I. Mikoyan will come to India; however, when is a difficult question. As regards February 1965, there are 365 days in a year and all days are convenient, all days are in favor of socialism. We do not recognize unlucky days, even the 13th. In particular, on 13 August, for example, we established the border in Berlin, it stands to this day and is not falling.
N. S. Khrushchev jokingly noted that in suggesting February the Indian ambassador evidently does not want us to fly to India soon. Why put [the visit] off to February? We could even go in December!
Radhakrishnan said that he has gained great satisfaction from the visit to the Soviet Union. He saw many things that were useful to himself and to India. We still have a long path, he said, however, the first steps have already been made.
N. S. Khrushchev said that these steps are easier for India because there are already many socialist countries in the world, and other countries might themselves examine what is suitable for them and what is not. Our country has gone forward armed only with theory, but without practical experience. There are different ways of development: there is the Soviet way, there is the Chinese way. [If you] don’t like the Soviet way N. S. Khrushchev noted jokingly, follow the Chinese way. It’s a voluntary matter.
Radhakrishnan said for such countries as India it is actually easier to develop in the current conditions.
The conversation lasted 40 minutes.
Present from the Indian side were: Lakshmi N. Menon, Minister of State in the MFA of India; S. Gopal, chief of a department of the MFA of India; S. Datt, secretary to the President; T. N. Kaul, Ambassador of India in the USSR. D. [Rajvade], military secretary of the President; and [Chiba], adjutant of the President.
[Present] from the Soviet side: A. I. Mikoyan, Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet; V. V. Kuznetsov and S. G Lapin, Deputy USSR Ministers of Foreign Affairs; I. A. Benediktov, Soviet Ambassador in India; and V. I. Likhachev, Chief of the South Asia Department of the USSR MFA.
Recorded by:
Yu. Vinogradov [signature]
A. Vavilov [signature]