Recently, Mr. Nehru, in one of his more censorious moods, complained of the manner in which words lose their meaning in cold war terminology. Such a complaint might well have provoked the reply that Mr. Nehru is as much a sinner as sinned against, and that the varying descriptions of India's foreign policy display a degree of slipperiness equal with that of “free world,” “peace,” and “democracy” — the “masked words” he mentioned. Ironically, it was the cold war which engendered the connotations that have given neutralism its chameleon cloak. And while popular usage readily applies the term to India, Indian spokesmen provide implicit support for the firm contention of those who insist that neutralism is essentially “a subjective term.” No doubt Indian equivocation, which is far from unique, is easily explicable. For a language attuned to the compulsions and contingencies of political life is often unavoidably ambiguous; and the political “isms,” which so proliferate today, seem to act as semantic vortices, blurring and engrossing the meaning of words of more ancient lineage.
The Bridges of Ideas: Transnational Network of the Book Program for Eastern Europe, 1956-1990