India's ways have often been misunderstood in this country, as her neutralism too often appeared basically pro-Russian. Many times the fault has lain with the United States, which sought to comprehend international politics in terms only of "for" and "against." But with the last week Nehru's India has behaved in a manner as inconsistent by her own standards as it is unfriendly by ours, and her U.N. voting record on Hungary is a disappointment most of all to those who had esteemed Nehru highly.

Official India had remained silent on Russian aggression in Hungary until November 6, while speaking out angrily and at length against the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt. Then, addressing UNESCO, Nehru denounced both aggressions, saying "human dignity and freedom have been outraged. He subsequently repeated this position, and it seemed reasonable that his country would join in U.N. condemnation of Soviet outrages.

His avowed principles of neutralism and humanity dictated such a course, but on November 11th, V.K. Krishna Menon voted with the Soviet bloc in opposing demands for Russian withdrawal from Hungary. The West was stunned, then disappointed, then cynical. Nehru seemed to be playing the hypocrite's role, that of the Machiavelli in Gandhi's clothing.

Rationalization could be constructed from several angles. Perhaps Nehru feared to antagonize Russia, to lose her long-sought confidence and friendship. Perhaps Nehru was unwilling to repudiate his expressed faith in the Soviet "New Look" of liberalization. Perhaps, in the face of British and French aggression in Egypt, the Premier felt Russian intervention in Hungary was justified, that the Kremlin had the right to suppress the "anarchist" insurrection in an "allied" nation. Nehru himself had explained that there was "mutual killing," that the rebellion had passed the borders of sanity, and the Budapest government had lost all control of the situation.

But these facile anodynes are clearly inadequate to dismiss the tragedy of brutal slaughter, the blatant violation of every civilized principle of right and humanity that Soviet tanks are enacting in the streets of Budapest. Nehru the nationalist, the anti-colonialist, the champion of humanism has played a sorry card; there can be little doubt about that.

Having expressed its shock, the West would now do well to let its inflamed sensibilities cool off quietly. For a truly neutral India can be of much use to the world by showing the way to rational and peaceful easing of tensions, and incessant complaints about the errors cannot but force Nehru into a defensive position.

Nehru knows by now that the West disapproves, and voices within his own country challenge his see-no-Russian-evil attitude. Because he has sought to place himself in a position of world moral leadership, Nehru must, if given the chance, return to more tenable assessments of the Russians and their aggressions.