In support of Austin we find jurists like Gray. On the other hand, there are some international jurists like. Hall, Westlake, Oppenheim and others who, because of their excessive zeal and anxiety to give international law a name and a shape, argue almost feverishly – somewhat childishly, if they are to be summarised – that is what they appear. Their contention is that it is very necessary to have international law and therefore we have international law. I might make it appear stupid by saying, “I think it is necessary for me to have a thousand pounds in my pocket; and if I think that I have a thousand pounds in my pocket, my place would be in the lunatic asylum”. Their wishes are father to their thought, and if wishes were horses beggars would ride; if there were to be an international law, peace would prevail. But that is unfortunately not the position. Mr. Brown, Jennings and others sit on the fence and take the middle course. They say that international law is neither a panacea nor a chimera. It is a thing in the process – it is growing, it is becoming. I subscribe to a certain extent to this view that if nations, and particularly if India were to lead the way, we may have some sort of international law in spite of all the chaos that we see today. Some efforts made so far I may refer to, within a couple of minutes (that I have got), in giving certain substance to the theories of the international jurists. The League of Nations, as you know, was an inglorious failure, unfortunately. Why? Because it was more or less a league of robbers. I met a friend of mine, who explained to me the reasons why the League of Nations failed so ingloriously. His father had told him: The headquarters of the League were situated in Switzerland at Geneva; salubrious climate, majestic Alps, sumptuous Swiss food, appetising women, exotic music and the hall for debate was something that gave sufficient exercise to the vocal organs – and the League came to nothing. It could not come to anything, because it was an institution meant to perpetuate a wrong that was perpetrated by the Treaty of Versailles. After the League, its successor is the United Nations. This also seems to be a weak, pusillanimous and impotent agency. But our Prime Minister has done a very wise, very diplomatic and morally also a very sound thing by lending his support to this weak agency. An agency which is meant for good things must be strengthened and I think the Article that we have in the directive is meant to be directed towards that particular end. India, as I said, has a spiritual heritage. The mission of India is the mission of peace. Right from Ram Tirth and Vivekananda down to Tagore and Gandhiji, if he has done anything, has very much strengthened it. Throughout history, it is not because we have been weak but because it has been in our blood that we have been carrying on this mission of peace. Non-violence is in the soil and in the heart of every Indian. It is not something new. Gandhiji, if he has done anything, has very much strengthened it. Throughout history it is not because we have been weak but because it has been in our blood that we have always been peaceful, never aggressive. Therefore, it is in keeping with our history, with our tradition, with our culture, that we are a nation of peace and we are going to see that peace prevails in the world.
