Lesson from the Past: When the US Showed India Its Place

The US argued that according to the San Francisco Treaty’s wording, only governments whose judges participated in the Tokyo Trials AND who signed the treaty could vote on releasing war criminals. Since India opposed the treaty on principle—objecting to American military bases in Asia—India refused to sign it. America exploited this technicality despite India having already consented to releasing the prisoners, making the exclusion purely symbolic rather than practically necessary. The specious legal reasoning demonstrates how international law can be weaponized for political purposes—India’s principled stance became the mechanism for its humiliation. This mirrors contemporary debates about rules-based international orders where powerful nations selectively enforce rules against weaker ones.

American and British lawyers argued that because British India was represented on the Tokyo Tribunal and Pakistan was a successor state to British India following 1947 partition, Pakistan inherited the right to vote. This reasoning was ‘specious’—superficially plausible but fundamentally flawed—since Pakistan hadn’t participated in the trials, prosecuted any war criminals, or existed as an independent nation during most of the trial period. The argument’s transparent weakness suggests its purpose wasn’t legal coherence but political messaging: demonstrating America could empower India’s rival while simultaneously excluding India. Sengupta notes this was ‘like waving the reddest flag before the Indian bull’—deliberately inflammatory rather than legally necessary.

The sports metaphors serve multiple rhetorical functions: making complex foreign policy accessible through familiar language, subtly critiquing American hypocrisy by using their own sporting culture against them, and highlighting arbitrary rule enforcement. Terms like ‘curveball,’ ‘dollies,’ and ‘ready to play ball’ create informal tone while the climactic baseball metaphor—’the batter is out whenever the US thinks he is out’—encapsulates his argument about arbitrary American power. Unlike baseball’s clear three-strikes rule, American foreign policy changes rules mid-game based on strategic interests rather than consistent principles. The metaphors also appeal to both Indian readers (cricket references) and American ones (baseball), demonstrating cross-cultural communication while critiquing power imbalances.

Readlite provides curated articles with comprehensive analysis including summaries, key points, vocabulary building, and practice questions across 9 different RC question types. Our Ultimate Reading Course offers 365 articles with 2,400+ questions to systematically improve your reading comprehension skills.

This article is rated Intermediate because it requires following a historical parallel across seven decades while tracking geopolitical strategy shifts and legal technicalities. Readers must understand the Tokyo Trials context, Cold War realignment, treaty interpretation disputes, and partition’s successor-state complications while recognizing how Sengupta uses one historical episode to critique contemporary policy. The piece assumes familiarity with US-India relations basics and partition history while introducing specifics about Radhabinod Pal and the San Francisco Treaty. Intermediate readers should grasp Sengupta’s methodological argument: that personality-based explanations for foreign policy obscure institutional patterns, requiring historical knowledge to recognize recurring American behaviors toward emerging India across different administrations and contexts.

While Sengupta doesn’t explicitly prescribe policy responses, his analysis implies India should: (1) Stop attributing American actions to individual presidential psychology, recognizing structural patterns instead; (2) Expect periodic demonstrations of American dominance regardless of bilateral relationship investments; (3) Avoid being ‘caught off-guard’ by understanding historical precedents for such behavior; (4) Not assume cooperation will prevent humiliation—India consented in 1953 yet was still excluded. The phrase ‘should learn its lessons’ suggests Indian policymakers need realist frameworks recognizing power hierarchies rather than liberal assumptions about rules-based orders or friendship. The article serves as warning against complacency: two decades of careful relationship-building can be ‘trampled over’ when American strategic interests demand demonstrating dominance over emerging rivals.

The Ultimate Reading Course covers 9 RC question types: Multiple Choice, True/False, Multi-Statement T/F, Text Highlight, Fill in the Blanks, Matching, Sequencing, Error Spotting, and Short Answer. This comprehensive coverage prepares you for any reading comprehension format you might encounter.