Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan in the Soviet Union: The Philosopher – Diplomat

"Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils no, nor the human race, as I believe and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day." 

 Plato, The Republic, 4th century B.C. 

Introduction 

Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888-1975) was an extraordinary philosopher, educator and statesman whose ideas and work had evolved in the socio-political milieu of colonial India. Dr Radhakrishnan (henceforth SR) believed that political subjugation interfered with the inner freedom of an individual. The outer cry for Swaraj was an expression of the need for this inner freedom. For him, progressive thinking and culture were required to include science and technology. His scholarly publications included Indian Philosophy, 2 vol. (1923–27), The Philosophy of the Upanishads (1924), An Idealist View of Life (1932), Eastern Religions and Western Thought (1939) and East and West: Some Reflections (1955). In his lectures and scholarship, he tried to interpret Indian thought for the Westerners. He was knighted in 1931 for his contribution as a philosopher but he abjured the title after independence.

He served as the President of India from 1962 to 1967. Despite wearing different hats, he held a strong affiliation with the academic world at all times during his lifetime. He worked as a Professor of Philosophy at Mysore (1918–21) and Calcutta (1921–31; 1937–41) universities and as Vice-Chancellor of Andhra University (1931–36). He was a Professor of Eastern religions and ethics at the University of Oxford in England (1936–52) and Vice-Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University (1939–48). He was appointed as Chancellor of the University of Delhi from 1953 to 1962.

In 1949 he was appointed as the Indian ambassador to the Soviet Union. On his return to India in 1952 he was elected vice president. In 1962, he was elected as President of India. SR was elected to the Constituent Assembly from the United Provinces on a Congress Party ticket. In the Assembly, he intervened in minority issues and objectives resolution debates. He led the Indian delegation to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO; 1946–52) and was elected chairman of UNESCO’s executive board (1948–49). 

Despite the various capacities in which he served, one fact remained–he was essentially a philosopher. His patriotism stood out both in his stress on the vitality of Indian thought and in his non-philosophical addresses. He underlined the wider aspects of his appointment: ‘You may rest assured that my own work will be direct to propagate philosophy and indirectly to convince all that India is not a subject to be administered but is a nation seeking its soul’ (S. Gopal, p145).

Text within the Context 

However, this paper engages with his life as a diplomat, particularly his only posting as the Indian Ambassador to Russia in 1949. This was a period when newly independent India had to deal with Stalin’s difficulty with trusting the transfer of power to India. SR was initially reluctant but Jawaharlal Nehru wanted him very much to take up the ambassadorship. He was promised six months in Cambridge every year. 

Here too, SR initiated a philosophical enquiry to understand Marxism and social revolution. He was reading ‘God that Failed’ on his way to Moscow. This 1949 book was written at the beginning of the Cold War. Contributors André Gide (France), Richard Wright (the United States), Ignazio Silone (Italy), Stephen Spender (England), Arthur Koestler (Germany), and Louis Fischer, an American foreign correspondent, all tell how their search for the upliftment of humanity led them to egalitarian values, and how they rejected it owing to revulsion and personal agony. Arthur Koestler was a Hungarian-born author and journalist. The editor of the book, Richard Crossman, worked as an editor of the New Statesman and Nation and was a Labor MP. The book was an outcome of his engagement/dissent and debate with Arthur Koestler. In 1931, Koestler joined the Communist Party of Germany, but he resigned in 1938 after becoming disillusioned with Stalinism. According to Grossman the purpose of the book was ‘to study the state of mind of the Communist convert, and the atmosphere of the period—from 1917 to 1939—when conversion was so common’. Silone and Wright were identified as victims of exploitation, the former with the peasants of Central Italy and the latter with the Negroes of the United States. Fischer and Koestler were well aware of the insecurity of their class in society. Gide and Spender belonged to privileged groups and were moved almost exclusively, as the others were moved partly, by pity and a sense of guilt. Koestler was son of a déclassé Hungarian Jew. He belonged to no disadvantaged group such as Silone, who had grown up amongst peasants and whose heart and soul belonged to the Italian peasants. The book philosophically argued that what communism offered the intellectuals could be described, in religious terms. Communism offered them redemption from sin, the fellowship of true believers, and an all-inclusive theology. Redemption from sin is a running theme of the book. Moreover, the feelings of guilt seem to derive from the intellectual’s awareness of the imbalance between his well-being and the exigencies of society.

SR believed that a truly religious man could only be a peaceful revolutionary. There was no space for violence. Soviet authorities did not appreciate his affiliation with Oxford and the Chair he held there. During the War, he delivered the Kamala lectures where he had established clarity between sympathy for Marxism as an instrument for social revolution and unacceptability of the Marxist philosophy of life, its atheism, its disregard of the sacredness of personality and its naturalistic view of man. He often repeated his commitment to democratic values and belief in the freedom of the individuals. To him, there was a ‘knowledge solution’ which was a way of approaching the opponent’s position intellectually. 

SR discussed how great was the silence for a diplomat. He held up Benjamin Franklin's formula for a diplomat ‘sleepless tact, immovable calmness and a patience that no folly, no provocation, no blunders can shake’. Ironical as it may seem, in his speeches during his ambassadorship he clearly stated his apprehension about one-party rule and insistence on the party line. 

He was not particularly close to the British or American diplomats, which made him less suspicious in the eyes of Russians. Not a curious museum/theatre or ballet goer, SR was mostly found after office time - in bed, reading and writing. Moscow was suspicious of any ambassador who was not interested in museums or performances. He fulfilled his duty of attending diplomatic receptions and dinners but he was well known for retiring early in the evening. Despite the fact that Moscow was the hotbed of global-political discussion as the Blocs had been created by the, SR was able to lead a life of solitude which is what gave him contentment.

The successor of SR, Mr KPS Menon was after independence, India's first Foreign Secretary from 1948 to 1952, then Ambassador of India to the Soviet Union, Hungary and Poland from 1952 to 1961. He was the last foreigner to see Stalin in person in 1953. He reminisces about SR that he was the ‘most unconventional diplomat who ever served in Moscow’. He would receive his fellow Ambassadors in his bedroom. He spent most of his time in bed, reading writing and translating the Brahmopanishad. In a lighter vein, Menon recalls that after he succeeded him in Moscow he found on the back of the bed in the Embassy, the stain left by the hair oil on SR’s head. According to Menon, SR kept himself ‘above the dust and din of diplomacy and the drudgery of office work.’ He was privileged to have as his Minister-Counsellor, Yezdi Gundevia, who was known to be a very efficient Foreign Service Officer. His wife, Rokshi, who had accompanied him, looked after the social side of his diplomatic life.

Another highly significant development in the global balance of power and weaponisation took place the same year when SR arrived in Moscow. The Soviets had successfully yet secretively tested a nuclear bomb. On 9 September 1949, Director of Central Intelligence, Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter handed to President Harry Truman a report that “samples of air masses” collected in the Northern Pacific included evidence of “abnormal radioactive contamination.” This report was published later by the National Security Archive, but the intelligence community was not sure whether the contamination was evidence of a Soviet nuclear test or if it was a nuclear accident. By 21 September, Truman was advised that the Soviet Union had staged a nuclear test. On 23 September 1949, Truman announced that the Soviet Union had tested a nuclear device several weeks earlier. This was a huge development as the U.S. strategists and intelligence had expected this test to be completed at least five years later. The Soviets were alarmed by the announcement by the US and the capability to isolate and identify the signs of a nuclear blast.

As a reaction, the Soviets issued a counter-statement on 25 September, claiming they had not performed a weapons test. The U.S. had probably detected “blasting” caused by construction work. Soviet Union's entry into the nuclear club may have had a direct impact on encouraging Stalin to support Kim Il-sung's plan for a North Korean invasion of the South. 

In his first speech at Moscow, SR offered a peculiar course of action. He said that it would be worthwhile to hold a meeting of six heads of government, two from Asia; two from Europe and the rest from the United States and the Soviet Union. It was not important that any immediate political results could be derived but for him, it was important to remove the misunderstanding and prejudices. This public statement was Radhakrishnan’s own and had not been approved by the headquarters. 

However, there were matters which required special attention such as the status of democracy and freedom in the Soviet Union. It was claimed by the Indian ambassador that India was willing to learn from the Soviet Union in her search for progress.

Menon writes that the Russians were pleased with the appointment of a prestigious philosopher as India’s envoy. He was well-recognised as a nationalist. While SR was teaching at Calcutta University, Irwin who was the Viceroy, before recommending him for a Knighthood, asked the Governor of Bengal for his opinion. His reply was: ‘All the police reports are against him, but I like him.’ He had been knighted by the British Government for his eminence as a philosopher /scholar.

By 1949 relations between the Government of India and the Soviet Union were not too cordial. The main reason was, that the Soviet Union was directing the Indian Communist Party to rebellion and condemning the Government of India policies. 

Jawaharlal Nehru flagged his perception of the Russian misconceptions about India after independence. He reiterated that India wanted friendship and cooperation with Russia in many fields, but India was a land of sensitive people and would react strongly to be cursed at and run down. The whole basis of Russian policy appeared to be that no essential change had taken place in India, and it was presumed by the Russians that India after 1947 continued to be camp followers of the British. Nehru said that this was complete nonsense and that if a policy is based on nonsensical premises, it is apt to go wrong. India’s foreign policy under Nehru had a good understanding of the two leading groups of the times -the Russian bloc and the Anglo-American bloc. There was a need to be friendly to both and yet not join either. Both America and Russia were extraordinarily suspicious of each other as well as of other countries, which made India’s choices difficult, as India was suspected to be leaning towards the other. 

Mrs Vijayalakshmi Pandit as the first Indian Ambassador in Moscow was not able to build good communication and contacts or find an audience with Stalin. Stalin avoided her as he probably considered her aristocratic. SR stepped in to take charge of such a chaotic diplomatic situation between India and the Soviet Union. Nehru had cautioned ambassadors to move cautiously. India was too mindful of the reaction of the United States and Britain. 

The overall perception was that SR had successfully broken the ice with Stalin. There are ‘top secret’ telegrams detailing their meetings of 1950 and 1952 in Moscow, now archived in India and overseas.

Maharaja Krishna Rasgotra , in his memoir ‘A Life in Diplomacy’ published in 2016, notes that ‘Stalin had to be convinced of the genuineness of India's Independence, of the depth of India's concern over Cold War tensions and its desire for peace and Russia's friendship and cooperation. The usual diplomatic approach would be of no avail, and Radhakrishnan was just the man for the complex task.’ 

On 15th January 1950, Ambassador accompanied by Counsellor interviewed Generalissimo Stalin at Kremlin. Vyshinsky was present at the interview. Pavlov who was Head of the North Europe Division of the Soviet Foreign Office and former Counsellor in London acted as the interpreter. SR expressed the hope that good relations between the two countries would be strengthened and affirmed. India's anxiety to do everything possible to work for peace which was essential to enable her to build up the country and improve living standards. India's policy of neutrality was real and positive and in Colombo, Nehru had reaffirmed India's anxiety to avoid Cold War tactics and anti-Communist pacts. SR conveyed that India expected that the big powers would do their utmost to put an end to the Cold War and to place embargo on propaganda against each other. Expressed the hope that Generalissimo Stalin should take the lead in the larger interest of humanity. Stalin’replied that doing so did not depend on him alone. The ambassador replied that Stalin should take the initiative and thus help suffering humanity. Stalin said that two days ago he was informed that when Pandit Nehru was in London he wanted to return to India via Moscow but he was not sure Moscow would favour this trip. SR answered that he knew Pandit Nehru would be glad to visit Moscow if time and opportunity permitted. 

Stalin asked several questions regarding India's position in the Commonwealth and seemed anxious to know if she was more or less independent than, say, Canada. The ambassador explained the position, especially in light of India's forthcoming declaration as a Republic. Stalin asked if India was entitled to have her army without any restriction and also if there was a navy. He consented and approved when informed that was the case; the Commander-in-Chief was Indian and there was also an Indian Air Force. He enquired if relations with Pakistan were still bad and about the language they spoke there. He was told that relations were rather strained as Pakistan was of the view that wherever there were Muslims they must be with them. Of the languages of India he enquired, which was dominant and expressed satisfaction that Hindi was phonetic and not hieroglyphic. He enquired if the Government proposed to carry out agrarian reforms and added something had to be done as peasants were in very poor condition. The ambassador assured that landlordism was being abolished and essential land reforms were being carried out. India had a hard time solving all problems in these two years when she had to clear up remnants of feudalism and the devastating effects of partition. Stalin asked if Ceylon was a separate State and whether its separation was so necessary and laughed. The interview lasted for half an hour. The report mentioned that during the interview Stalin smoked cigarettes continuously and laughed occasionally; appeared in quite good health and was alert and attentive. The report ended with the note that there was a pleasant and relaxed atmosphere. 

The other meeting with Stalin just before departing from Moscow is even more significant. 

The record of this conversation is titled as of Ambassador Radhakrishnan's interview with Generalissimo Stalin on April 5, 1952. They discussed India's internal politics and stance on foreign policy. SR told Stalin of India's recent elections and emphasized that India shares the Soviet Union's stance against capitalism. Radhakrishnan also put forth the question of peaceful co-existence between capitalist and communist spheres, and the possibility for a neutral commission to replace the Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) and UN. 

SR expressed his gratefulness and thanks to the Generalissimo for receiving him at such short notice on the eve of his (Ambassador's) departure.SR went on to say that his stay of two and a half years in Moscow was most useful and he had every courtesy and assistance from the Foreign Minister and his Deputies. He recalled the prompt and ready assistance that the Foreign Office and the Soviet Government had rendered last year in the matter of the despatch of wheat to India. When the Ambassador stressed that he was grateful for the promptitude and readiness with which the Soviet Union had come to our aid in this, Stalin said: "There is nothing to be grateful about. We have only fulfilled our duty." The Ambassador remarked that many States did not have a proper conception of their duty, nor did they discharge it when they had.

The Ambassador then referred to the various Soviet delegations that had recently visited India and said that he felt that the Indian people got some idea of the Soviet achievements – what could be done by a people with determination and will.

Focusing on the Indian internal matters, SR said that the country (India) was indeed ‘passing through critical times. We had got rid of various forms of exploitation. We had rid ourselves of foreign domination and we had got rid of the princely rule. We hoped to tackle the problem of our landlords equally successfully’. "It would be good", said Stalin, "if you succeed in doing it."

The Ambassador then generally referred to recent elections in India and claimed that for the first time in history, 175 million people were enfranchised of whom 105 million had voted. But Stalin expressed doubt saying, "The women did not vote in your country". The Ambassador corrected the Generalissimo by pointing out that not only did women vote in the elections, but the women voters had, if anything, shown a more progressive spirit. SR pointed out that we had a lady Governor, a lady Cabinet Minister, and his own predecessor in Moscow, the Generalissimo would doubtless recall, had also been a lady. The elections he claimed had been free and fair. There was no official interference of any sort and many Ministers were defeated.

On the political and economic situation in India, SR said that India was as much against capitalist exploitation as Russia and it had a similar economic goal. "But we wish to adopt peaceful parliamentary methods to achieve our aims, because our whole history has taught us that enduring progress should be of a peaceful character."

Referring to India’s foreign policy, SR pointed out that India was pursuing the same policy as the Soviet Union in several matters – China, Japan, Korea or, for that matter, the admission of other nations to the UN. He claimed "We are not with America and we are not with any power", he stressed, "We act according to our sense of right and do not yield to any political or economic pressure."

Stalin was at one time reported to have said that if Capitalism could adapt its production not to getting maximum profits, but to the systematic improvement of the masses of the people, then there would not be any crisis, but then that would not be Capitalism. In a reconfirming tone, Stalin said that it was difficult for a Capitalist to do without profits and it was a pity that the capitalists could not do without profits. If the Capitalists gave up profits, he said, they would be giving up themselves.

Furthering posing more difficult questions, SR - referring to the desirability of the peaceful co-existence of the two systems, asked Stalin if the Soviet Union would be prepared to "give up the Cominform", as it had at one stage given up the Comintern. Stalin responded by saying that this was of no importance whatsoever to the question of the co-existence of the two systems; the Cominform had not been created by the Soviet Union alone  there were other countries involved too. 

SR raised the question of and added that if the Soviet Union looked upon a UN Commission as necessarily pro-American, could they not agree to some sort of a neutral commission to see if conditions for free and fair elections existed in that country? The reply was that representatives of the four powers could appoint any commission they wished. The UNO had nothing to do with Germany and only the four occupying powers according to the POTSDAM declaration could do these things. The Ambassador posed a question about the possibility of a neutral commission investigating the allegations of the use of bacteriological weapons in Korea. Stalin said that he had not given thought to this. As far as they were concerned, he said, "To us, it has been proved that they (Americans) have attempted to try this out in Korea", and said that a body of international lawyers had seen the evidence of this.

Another issue regarding a Russian correspondent was raised by Stalin. He turned to Vyshinsky and asked what "this complaint" was. Vyshinsky explained that we had felt that Borzenko's articles were unfair and unnecessarily critical of the Government of India, Prime Minister Nehru had also complained to Novikov about this. SR immediately was heard and understood. Stalin ordered "That is all right, recall him," to Vyshinsky. "We will recall him", Stalin assured the Ambassador, ‘If you don't like him, you tell us frankly. We assure you that he will be recalled.’ SR expressed that he aimed to reconfirm good relations and friendship that we had built up here in Moscow should not be damaged by Soviet representatives in India saying things that offend our national dignity. SR spoke about Borzenko and the Moscow Radio. At that point, Stalin gave definite orders for Borzenko to be called back. This was an important win for India and personally SR. Stalin also reassured that "Both you and Mr. Nehru are persons whom we do not consider to be our enemies. This will continue to be our policy and you can count on our help… and ‘the United States and Britain look on Asian peoples as backward and look down upon them. We treat all Asians as equals. It is this which helps us to conduct a correct policy. 

SR agreed with the sentiments expressed by Stalin and added that Malaya, Indo-China, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Iran and South Africa were examples of a very different policy towards, what may be called, backward peoples. "Is this democracy?" he asked. Stalin smiled and said: "This is what they call democracy?"

Undoubtedly the conversation with Stalin was a turning point in the history of diplomacy of Indo-Soviet relations and for strengthening the vision of India’s balance and neutrality. KPS Menon in his reflection on this period recalls how SR used to spend half the year at Oxford and the other half in Moscow. But, Menon thought that the day was coming when it would no longer be possible to combine philosophy and diplomacy, Oxford and Moscow (he had written so in one of his letters to the Government of India). 

Another important watershed in the diplomatic history of India was the visit of Radhakrishnan to the United States in 1953 as the second President of India . During the toast at the dinner reception in honour of President Radhakrishnan, President Kennedy said that the USA has never gone as far as making a Professor the President of the United States.  

 At the invitation of President Kennedy, SR paid a State visit to the United States from the second to the eleventh of June 1953. During his stay in Washington, both Presidents met and along with members of the United States Government, including members of Congress. In their discussions, both Presidents reaffirmed that relations between the United States and India, the world's two largest democracies, were based on a large measure of agreement on basic values and objectives. The Presidents of the United States and India agreed that the striking advance in science and technology has put enormous power in the hands of men which can be used either for the benefit of humanity or for its destruction. It is, therefore, necessary for all concerned to see that international cooperation in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations was held up; that peace is maintained and that the enormous power which science and technology have given is used for the betterment of humanity. Both Presidents expressed the hope that the governments and citizens of the world will commit themselves to economic and social betterment, particularly those in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

The President of India spoke of the determination of the Government and the people of India to preserve India's territorial integrity and of their efforts to improve the living standards of the people within the framework of a liberal parliamentary democracy. President Kennedy reiterated the deep interest of the Government and the people of the United States in these endeavours and reassured President Radhakrishnan that India could count on the sympathy and assistance of the United States in its development and defense. They agreed that the two countries share a mutual defensive concern to thwart the designs of Chinese aggression against the subcontinent. Both Presidents recognized the vital importance of safeguarding the freedom, independence and territorial integrity of India for peace and stability not only in Asia but in the world as well. President Kennedy conveyed the admiration of the American people for the great accomplishments already achieved and for the spirit of sacrifice and dedication displayed by the people of India.

SR expressed the gratitude of his nation for the generous assistance provided by the United States to the Indian people in support of their development and defense. The two Presidents reaffirmed the dedication of their people to the cause of peace and freedom in the world. They are confident that their two countries will continue to cooperate in the future, as in the past, in the attainment of these common objectives. President Kennedy and President Radhakrishnan were highly satisfied with the meetings and agreed that it has contributed to a closer understanding between their two countries and peoples.

To sum up the international scenario under Nehru and SR – the foreign policy of newly independent India had a name—it was called Non-alignment—which meant, as he had outlined in the radio address, ‘keep away from power groups aligned against one another’, and defining its practical agenda for the immediate future. India was able to develop its threefold programme of Liberation of Colonies, One World United for Peace and Cooperation, and Opposition to Racism, and General and Complete Disarmament, a ban on Nuclear Tests and the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, which was an extension of the Gandhian commitment to non-violence. The resources for defense of the new nation of India were to be invested in but the proliferation of weaponisation leading to the arms race was to be resisted. Devastation from Wars had made negotiations and treaties a must in the post-War world.

Indo-Russian ties strengthened after Nikita Khrushchev and Nicholai Bulganin visited India in 1955. By then, Radhakrishnan was Vice President of India and took over as President subsequently. The foundation was laid for the unique balance and foreign policy through efficiency in diplomacy during the initial years when SR was India’s ambassador in Moscow.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, it is important to revisit some perceptions of SR as a statesman and diplomat. A highly distinguished diplomat himself, K Natwar Singh writes that when he joined the Indian Foreign Service in 1953, S. Gopal, Dr Radhakrishnan’s son, was director of the Historical Division of the Ministry and as a part of their training, he as a probationer had to spend a week in various divisions of the Ministry including Historical Division. With a high sense of humour, he pulled Natwar’s leg about going to the “other place”, i.e., Cambridge. Gopal was himself Oxford-educated. Before leaving for Peking, which was his first posting, he asked Gopal, “What books should I read on China?” Not many books on China were available in Delhi. He suggested Edgar Snow’s 1936 book called Red Star Over China. None of the bookshops in Delhi had the book. But Natwar bought it in Hong Kong on his way to Peking in July 1956. Snow was the first Westerner to meet Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese Communist leaders in 1936, Snow wrote the first authorized account of Mao’s life. The book tells the history of the famous Long March and the men and women who were responsible for the Chinese Revolution.

He recalls that one of the highs of his stay in China was Vice President Dr Radhakrishnan’s visit to China in September 1957, when Gopal had come along. Chairman Mao Tse Tung received him in the courtyard of his house, which was situated in Chungnanhai, the most exclusive part of Peking that was well guarded and secluded with only the members of the Political Bureau who resided there. Philosophers bear a reputation for lacking in humour. Natwar tells us about this unforgettable and unbelievable moment when after shaking hands with Chairman Mao, Radhakrishnan did the unthinkable. He patted on Mao’s left cheek. Mao was taken aback as no one had taken such a liberty. Natwar and the Indian delegation were embarrassed. SR as Vice President announced that “Mr Chairman, don’t be alarmed, I did the same thing to Stalin and the Pope.” This statement perhaps brought relief to everyone. 

In another instance when the King of Greece came to India on a state visit. President while welcoming him commented that “Your Majesty. You are the first King of Greece to come to India on invitation. Alexander the Great came uninvited.”

One cannot more than agree with S. Gopal, that it is the intellectual confidence of Radhakrishnan, that astonishes. One can also conclude that philosophy was for him an intellectual tool with which one could construe and de-construe society, religion, nation and the globe.    

Picture courtesy : https://www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-dr-s-radhakrishnan-played-stellar-role-in-helping-nehru-shape-non-alignment-policy-3232657/

Picture Courtesy: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:President_John_F._Kennedy_with_President_of_India,_Dr._Sarvepalli_Radhakrishnan_(1).jpg

References

1. Maharaja Krishna Rasgotra joined the Indian Foreign Service in 1949. In his career, held several important posts in Indian diplomatic missions abroad and in the Ministry of External Affairs. From 1958 to 1962, he was India’s representative on the United Nations’ Trusteeship Council, the Fourth Committee and the De-colonization Committee of the UN General Assembly.

2. Record of the Conversation of J.V. Stalin and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, January 15th, 1950.

3. The rank of Generalissimos was established by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet on 26 June 1945, and awarded to Stalin (who had held the rank of Marshal since 1943) on 27 June by the same body "for especially outstanding services to the Motherland in leading all the armed forces of the state during the war".

4. He was a Soviet politician, jurist and diplomat who was a state prosecutor of Joseph Stalin's Moscow Trials and Nuremberg trials. He was the Soviet Foreign Minister from 1949 to 1953. He served as Deputy Foreign Minister under Vyacheslav Molotov. He also headed the Institute of State and Law in the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union.

5. Record of the Conversation of I.V. Stalin and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, April 5, 1952, Wilson Center Digital Archive, N.M.M.L., J.N. (S.4) Vol. No. 123 Pt. II, 294-297. Available on Revolutionary Democracy website on 11 December 2010. https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/119265

6. John F. Kennedy, Joint Statement Following Discussions with President Radhakrishnan of India. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/236566

7. 3rd June 1963 Audio archive, White House  https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkwha-188-003

8. K Natwar Singh, My memories of Gopal and Radhakrishnan, April 25, 2020 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/memories-gopal-radhakrishnan#google_vignette

9. Article by KPS Menon on diplomatic journey of SR 1976 (https://india.mid.ru/en/history/memoires_/k_p_s_menon_on_dr_radhakrishnan_as_diplomat_1976/

10. K Natwar Singh, My memories of Gopal and Radhakrishnan, April 25, 2020 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/memories-gopal-radhakrishnan#google_vignette

11. John F. Kennedy, Joint Statement Following Discussions with President Radhakrishnan of India. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/236566

12. A Philosopher's Journey: President Radhakrishnan of the Republic of India Visits the United States, 3 June 1963 (short documentary) 

13. https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/usg-01-q

14. Record of the Conversation of I.V. Stalin and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, April 5, 1952, Wilson Center Digital Archive, N.M.M.L., J.N. (S.4) Vol. No. 123 Pt. II, 294-297. Available on Revolutionary Democracy website on 11 December 2010. https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/119265

15. Maharaja krishna Rasgotra : A Life in Diplomacy (Penguin Books LTD , Delhi, 2016)

16. S Gopal, Radhakrishnan: A Biography (Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1989)