What I expected was an objective assessment of whatever we have placed before this hon. House. When I said that there is no need for having any witch-hunt, when I used that word witch-hunt’ I had this in mind. Because once you try to fix responsibility on A, B, C, D or whoever they are, the nature of the enquiry will get changed and an objective enquiry becomes impossible. Calling names does not help self-criticism and really speaking whatever information we had been able to collect in that statement we would never have been able to collect if we had started with the idea of fixing responsibility on persons. Human nature being what it is, one must understand what the result would have been. But what is more important ? As to who is responsible, I am not going into that matter but what is more necessary, what is more essential for this country is to find out what the mistakes were, what the deficiencies were and what the lessons the country could learn, because we are not at the end of the trouble, we are in the midst of the trouble. We are in the process of defending our country. Our trouble with our neighbour is not yet over. We have to prepare ourselves and prepare for long time. Perhaps this defence preparedness and the consciousness of defence preparedness for this country has come to stay and stay permanently, if I may say so. If that is to be done, then certainly we have to look at this whole problem in an objective manner. Therefore whether ‘ A ‘ General was wrong or whether ‘A’ General was wrong or whether ‘A politician was wrong is not the problem. As I said, there was something militarily wrong and that has to be corrected. And I can tell with all seriousness with my hand on my heart- if that phrase would satisfy my hon. friend, Mr. Patel - that I have tried to share with this hon. House and the country as much about it, as I can, consistent with public interest. I can say that without any fear of contradiction.

What we have to do and what really matters, it is how we look at the NEFA Enquiry Report. Unfortunately I have got a feeling and I can say that from my own personal experience, I am not criticising anybody. Before coming here I was the Chief Minister of a big State and even though I came to take up the responsibility, here, I found I knew very little about the problems of defence of the country. There is very meagre awareness about the defence problems of the country among the public. They have some romantic ideas about the defence of the country or there is some wishful thinking about it. Now, we have said that we did not have any slant of China launching an offensive against us and that really speaking is the main reason for this. But what is wrong with it ? Do hon. Members suggest that immediately after independence our country ought to have started taking up military postures against all the neighbours around India ? Is that the idea ? Mahatma Gandhi, I think, even before winning independence or even before starting the struggle for independence, before he became the General of India, had made one very important statement in the All India Congress Committee that India’s foreign policy should he evolved on the basis of friendship with our neighbours. That was the right approach. I do not think basically that approach was wrong. And the foreign policy based on that approach was certainly correct. In this particular instance one neighbour proved to be treacherous.

I have tried to think what are the reasons for our reverses, despite our own mistakes and despite our own deficiencies, whatever they were and according to me there were three reasons for this. One was the natural advantage of China. They have got overwhelming superiority in number because for the last thirty years they have done nothing else but to build up their army. Their whole revolutionary concept is based on military preparedness. Their civil war was carried on with the idea of military preparedness. That was one reason. Secondly, they have got the natural advantage of terrain from which to operate against India. Thirdly, every aggressor, particularly an aggressor who is a military dictator has initiative which a democratic country has not. We have seen it at least in the last two World Wars. Moreover, in the case of many countries we have seen before that democracies will always have a disadvantage. We saw the mighty empire in the eastern part of Asia, the British Empire, what types of reverses they had to face. Even in the case of another military Power, Russia, in the Second World War, we found what initial reverses they had to face. These are the three main reasons.