701.4511/11–846
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Acting Secretary of State
Sir Girja paid me a courtesy call this morning in order to be presented by Mr. Woodward41 in the capacity of Chargé d’Affaires. He mentioned two matters in the course of our conversation which are worth recording.
First, I told him, in answer to his inquiry, that we had not yet selected anyone as Ambassador to India and that we were going about this carefully and might take some time because we attached great importance to the post. Sir Girja said that he would like to say to me in a purely personal way, not under instructions or officially, that he thought conditions in India made it possible for an American Ambassador, if he so desired and if he were well qualified, to exercise a peculiarly important influence at this time. He said that in his opinion any constitution which would come out of a constituent assembly in India would create a relationship between the Government of India and the Government of Great Britain more attenuant than that of such dominions as Canada, Australia and New Zealand and more in the nature of Eire. He thought, therefore, that there would be factors which would result in the Indian Government not leaning heavily upon Great Britain for advice or guidance. He felt also that while Nehru would not wish to be put in a position of choosing between close relationships with the Western Powers and with the Soviet Union nevertheless the facts were such that ultimately he must choose. In the light of these conditions an American Ambassador might exercise very considerable influence in the direction of friendly and helpful advice—in fact rather more so than might be possible in countries which we might consider more important and whose constitutional structure and foreign policies were more settled.
[Page 97]Sir Girja stated the reasons, which he had already mentioned to Mr. Henderson,42 why he thought the United States might wisely support India for membership in the Security Council.43 In this connection I said to Sir Girja that I recognized the very weighty reasons making for a conclusion that India should be a member and also the reasons leading to the conclusion that an Arab state, Syria, should be. As I understood our position it was that we were not opposing anyone, certainly not India, but that at the present time the balance, in our judgment, fell on the side of supporting Syria. Should it appear that the general view in the Assembly did not accord with our views but favored India we should certainly not interpose stubborn objection but would be willing to reconsider and very probably go along with such a view.