...Question: Now, Iran.

Nehru: Here again, naturally we are interested in a variety of ways. First of all, it is a neighbor country of ours and we have friendly relations with them and if anything happens there it is apt to lead to a breach of world peace and so we are greatly interested in a peaceful settlement. According to the accounts that have reached us and which have appeared in the press, apparently the basis of nationalization of the oil industry there has been accepted and it is more a question of how to bring it about, which presumably they are going to discuss. There are so many conflicts, international and national, in Iran that there is always the danger of something happening.

Q: Is there any alternative source of supply of oil if the supply from Iran is stopped?

Nehru: Well, I do not think there is any lack of oil in the world, even apart from the Iranian oil. We have of course no oil, we have to get it from the principal oil concerns of the world, so that one could get it elsewhere. But there is no reason why we should not continue to get it from Iran. I do not see why it should be assumed that the Iranian oil concern should not function with the same efficiency as now.

Q: What is your opinion about the legal position involved regarding the nationalization of the oil company under the background of the 1933 Agreement?

Nehru: First of all, such issues cannot be considered from a purely legal point of view, when they involved national interests, large numbers of human beings and the like. Secondly — I have not got the 1933 Agreement — but there is no doubt about it that all these agreements in the past with the Middle Asian countries and elsewhere cannot possibly be called equal agreements between equal parties. So you get sometimes a conflict between what might be called the strictly legal position and the facts of the situation. Normally the facts of the situation prevail.

Q: There is an important thing, i.e., the Treaty of 1933. What is your opinion about it?

Nehru: Certainly sympathetic.

Q: ...You said that such issues as the issue of the nationalization of the oil industry in Iran cannot be considered from a strictly legal point of view, as the Persian agreement or other similar agreements were not between equal parties and should not therefore be considered as legal... The small power can always say after ten years, we entered into this agreement under duress.”...

Nehru: “The 1933 Agreement between Iran and the oil company was a kind of unequal treaty. If this is so, no treaty between a great power and a small power would be considered equal and therefore binding.” Well, that is perfectly true, partly. It is not so much a question of a great power and a small power, but a great power and colonial regions. Switzerland may be a small power but nobody is likely to question any treaty with Switzerland as being unequal, or that Switzerland is being exploited or undue pressure is exercised in Switzerland or Norway or Sweden, etc. But when you deal with colonial territories or semi colonial territories as in Asia, that argument applies completely.

[The 1933 Agreement extended the term of the 1901 D’Arcy Concession from 1961 to 1993]

One of the things that successive Chinese governments have been trying to do for the last more than a generation has been to remove unequal treaties. The conclusion of an unequal treaty is bound to be attacked everywhere, because even judged from the facts — apart from the question of great power and small power — one can judge whether such a treaty was a treaty which two powers functioning equally agreed to. Apart from that, in the changing world, in a period of rapid transition, it is exceedingly difficult to hold on to something which was made under entirely different conditions, something which vitally affects a nation, affects a nation’s resources.

I have not got the treaty with me. But every country should be prepared to reconsider, re-examine all these treaties so as to bring them up-to-date.

Q: There are about 1,000 Indians in the oil-fields. If there is trouble or even war, how would they be protected? Will the British protect them?

Nehru: Well, if there is any disaster or any trouble or war they take the normal chances of what happens. Not that they are in any danger now; they are safe enough. If there is danger, we will certainly take the help of others to remove them or protect them without coming into conflict with anybody.

Q: Do you believe the Persian crisis should be settled by the United Nations?

A: I believe the Persian crisis should be settled by anybody, by any method, short of war. It is not important whether it is done by the United Nations, Mr. Harriman, or by direct negotiation between the Iranian Oil Company and Dr. Mossadegh of Iran. The main thing is to avoid war.