Interesting read. The UN link does not work. I have always given Mao his due. If JN was full of himself, there is no word to describe Mao. Without a large dose of egotism , ruthlessness , intrigue, cunning and narcissism , he could not have survived the communist party rise, civil wars , wars with Japanese and hundred other impediments for which Nehru was wholly unsuited for. All this is not deny his undoubted originality, leadership , thinking and organizing abilities. While JN may be full of himself, Mao wholly escaped democratic reckoning and oversight , by design, unlike Nehru.

Tito was a towering figure in the 1950s and 1960s world politics , thorn in the side of both the US and USSR.

Colonizers usually leave only when colonialism is no longer productive for them. The British did not leave India out of the goodness of their hearts but because, after World War II, keeping the “jewel in the crown” became unsustainable. An additional factor was the moral pressure from the Indian nationalists, but if Britain had not been suffering so much post-war, they could have held out in India longer.

Colonialism is generally not about building the “capacity” of the colonized but rather about exploiting the resources for the benefit of the mother country. Why would anyone expect the British to have been any different?

Not only was ancient history falsified, the similar thing happened with this Bandung Conference. If you read Wiki you cannot see that Yugoslavia attended this Conference. There is neither mentioning about this nor was the Yugoslavian flag presented among participants. It says that it was Asian-African Conference, forgetting that also Cyprus’s Makarios also attended. When you do Google search ‘Bandung conference’, it shows links and photo from the Conference with Tito, Nehru, Nasser, Sukarno, Nkrumah. When you click the link you cannot see Yugoslavia at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandung_Conference

Yugoslavia was actually one of the leaders at Bandung and all subsequent conferences.
If you see other link, you can somehow find out that Tito was also present at this Conference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bandung_Conference_attendees

This Conference made a preparation for establishing the Non-Aligned Movement as a group of states that are not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc. It was established in 1961 in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. An initiative of Yugoslav president Josip Broz Tito and Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru led to the first Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries.

The purpose of the organisation has been enumerated as to ensure “the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries” in their “struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics,” by Fidel Castro in his Havana Declaration of 1979. The countries of the Non-Aligned Movement represent nearly two-thirds of the United Nations’ members and contain 55% of the world population. Membership is particularly concentrated in countries considered to be developing or part of the Third World, though the Non-Aligned Movement also has a number of developed nations.

The first 10 conferences of NAM were at: Belgrade, Cairo, Lusaka, Algiers, Colombo, Havana, New Delhi, Harare, Belgrade, Jakarta.

This version of history is incorrect.

It was actually Mao ze Dong who said first that China was ready to establish diplomatic relations with all countries which are willing to observe the principles of equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty. This principle was first declared in the common Program adopted by the First Session of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference on 29 September, 1949 as well as the Announcement of the Central Government of the People’s Republic of China made by Chairman Mao Zedong at the proclamation Ceremony Marking the Founding of the People’s Republic of China.

Next, their first formal codification in treaty form was in an agreement between China and India in 1954. They were enunciated in the preamble to the “Agreement (with exchange of notes) on trade and intercourse between Tibet Region of China and India”, which was signed at Peking on 28 April 1954. This agreement stated the five principles [The full text of this agreement (which entered into force on 3 June 1954) is in United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 299, 57-81. Available at http://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20299/v299.pdf%5D. This happened before JN started calling it Panch Sheel. This followed a series of intense negotiations (China agreed to negotiations between China and India on their relations in the Tibet Region which were held in Beijing from 31 December 1953 to 29 April 1954. Premier Zhou Enlai met with members of the Indian Government Delegation on 31 December 1953 where he put forward for the first time the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence).

JN was the external affairs minister throught his PM reign; he rolled this into bandung through the
the Ten Principles of International Peace and Cooperation enunciated in the Declaration issued by
the April 1955 Bandung Conference of 29 Afro-Asian countries. It was then rolled up by India, Yugoslavia and Sweden, and unanimously adopted on December 11, 1957, by the United
Nations General Assembly. In 1961, the Conference of Non-Aligned Nations in Belgrade accepted it.

However, the father of Panch Sheel was MaoZedong, not JN , instead of what has been drilled into the head of Indian high school student.

A truly hilarious (not ROFL, but a ha..ha) was Zhou en Lai later accused India of breaking the five principles of coexistence when the Himalayan skirmish started. This may not even be incorrect, because JN’s MEA was a wooly pie-in-the-sky affair; Krishna Menon, drugged heavily by this time, started the skirmish without even giving clear command. As always, JN was out of the loop in reality.

Couldn’t agree more.

To be honest, sir John was not battling the two sharpest tools in the shed. JN was full of himself, with an exaggerated sense of self, and KM was, I do not know, completely divorced from reality.

Within 7 years they would have their exaggerated self-esteem dashed to pieces, and Sukarno would smash the panchsheel in 10. Talk about vainglorious. I kind of prefer Rao and Singh to these fools, at least they were not full of themselves.

They are not brown skinned whites, they were closer to the African uncle presidents.

Agreed. But I am a Sir John Kotelawala fan!

I do not know why you are so centred around skin color and behavioral characteristics of Asian leaders. There is nothing I see intrinsically “White” in discussing relationships between nations. Exactly what do you expect brownskinned brown men be doing in this situations? Not that John Kotalewala or Nehru could have made a change to anything, but why call them white or Brown?