Advertisement

Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence

  • W. F. Van Eekelen

Abstract

The Sino-Indian treaty of 1954 stated in its preamble that the two governments being desirous of promoting trade and cultural intercourse between the Tibet region of China and India, and of facilitating pilgrimage and travel by the peoples of China and India based their agreement on the following principles:
  1. 1.

    Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

     
  2. 2.

    Mutual non-aggression.

     
  3. 3.

    Mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.

     
  4. 4.

    Equality and mutual benefit.

     
  5. 5.

    Peaceful co-existence.

     

Keywords

Internal Affair Mutual Respect Mutual Benefit Territorial Integrity Peaceful Coexistence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lok Sabha Debates, Vol. V, No. 70, col. 7496 ff.Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    As reported in The Hindu, May 19, 1954.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Speech at Calcutta, Nov. 30, 1955. Panchsheel, Publications Division, New Delhi, p. 13.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    Speech at banquet for the Indonesian Premier, Sept. 23, 1954.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    Sen, Chanakya, Tibet Disappears, p. 127–128.Google Scholar
  6. 1.
    June 20, 1954.Google Scholar
  7. 2.
    Panchsheel, op. cit., p. 40.Google Scholar
  8. 3.
    The Hindu, Madras, April 16, 1955. Fisher and Bondurant, Indian views of Sino-Indian relations, p. 17. The Indonesian Pantjasila was less concerned with international relations and consisted of belief in God, humanitarianism, nationalism, democracy and social justice. The Buddhist “sheels” imposed the duty to avoid destruction of life, theft, unchastity, lying and the use of intoxicating liquor. In this study we shall use the term Panchsheel to denote the Indian principles rather than Panchshila or Pancha Shila, mainly to avoid confusion with the Indonesian or Buddhist concepts.Google Scholar
  9. 1.
    See Bozemann, Adda B., “India’s foreign policy today: reflections upon its sources,” World Politics, Vol. X, No. 2, p. 265–6.Google Scholar
  10. 2.
    The first principle in Art. 2, par. 1 and par. 4; the second in Art. 2, par. 4 and Art. 1, par. 1 ; the third in Art. 2, par. 7 ; the fourth in Art. 2, par. 1 and peaceful coexistence in Art. 1, par. 1 and par. 3.Google Scholar
  11. 3.
    Rajan, M. S., “Indian Foreign Policy in action,” India Quarterly, XVI (1960) 203–236.Google Scholar
  12. 4.
    The Hindu, April 15, 1956.Google Scholar
  13. 5.
    Fifield, R. H., “The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence,” A.J.I.L., 52 (1958) 504–510.Google Scholar
  14. 1.
    Karunakaran, K. P., India in World Affairs, p. 67–68. The words “mutual benefit” occurred in Patel’s presidential address to the 45th session of the Congress party : independence did not exclude the possibility of equal partnership for mutual benefit, dissolvable at the will of either party. Bimla Prasad, op. cit., p. 100.Google Scholar
  15. 2.
    Point 14 of the 17-point agreement of May 23, 1951, The Question of Tibet and the Rule of Law, p. 141.Google Scholar
  16. 3.
    Keeton, G. W., China, the Far East and the Future, p. 283.Google Scholar
  17. 1.
    Ibidem, p. 288.Google Scholar
  18. 2.
    Zinkin, Taya, “Indian foreign policy: an interpretation of attitudes”, World Politics, VII (1955) 203–4.Google Scholar
  19. 3.
    Poplai and Talbot, India and America, p. 132.Google Scholar
  20. 1.
    The Economist, May 17, 1956; Daily Telegraph, Dec. 24, 1954; Sharma, S. R., India’s foreign policy, p. 126.Google Scholar
  21. 2.
    New York Times, Feb. 15, 1956, “Krutshev mentions coexistence principles.”Google Scholar
  22. 3.
    Krylov, Prof. Serge B., “Les notions principales du droit des gens.” Académie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours, 1947, p. 407.Google Scholar
  23. 4.
    New York Times, Feb. 11, 1954.Google Scholar
  24. 5.
    Note of Nov. 16, 1933. Thayer, Ph. W. (ed.), Nationalism and Progress in Free Asia, p. 314.Google Scholar
  25. 6.
    “On Peaceful Coexistence,” Foreign Affairs, 38 (1959) 1–18.Google Scholar
  26. 7.
    Durdenewski, W. N. and Lasarew, M. L., Für den Frieden zwischen den Volkeren. Die fünf Prinzipien der friedlichen Koexistenz, p. 24.Google Scholar
  27. 1.
    Ibidem, p. 38, 44, 48.Google Scholar
  28. 2.
    Ibidem, p. 50, 54.Google Scholar
  29. 1.
    Ibidem, p. 66. Mikojan before 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U.Google Scholar
  30. 2.
    Times of India, March 4, 1955.Google Scholar
  31. 3.
    Ambassador Sherman Cooper, Sept. 27, 1955. Panchsheel, op. cit., p. 8.Google Scholar
  32. 4.
    Oct. 22, 1955. Panchsheel, Its Meaning and History, p. 25.Google Scholar
  33. 5.
    Helsinki, Aug. 29, 1955. Ibidem, p. 23.Google Scholar
  34. 1.
    Sir Roger Makins in Foreign Affairs, 33 (1954) 1–16; he preferred “modus vivendi”, as it more closely expressed the idea of a balance resting on peace through strength.Google Scholar
  35. 2.
    Statement of April 16, 1957 signed by Jawaharlal Nehru and Oswaldo Sainte Marie. Panchsheel, op. cit., p. 35.Google Scholar
  36. 1.
    Declaration of the Heads of State or Government of non-aligned countries. Belgrade, Sept. 6, 1961.Google Scholar
  37. 2.
    Chacko, C. J., “Peaceful coexistence as a doctrine of current international affairs,” I.Y.I.A., p. 35.Google Scholar
  38. 3.
    Conference of Heads of State or Government of non-aligned countries, p. 111, 113.Google Scholar
  39. 1.
    “De Bandoung à Belgrade,” Etudes Méditerranénnes, No. 10 (1961) 44–78.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. F. Van Eekelen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations