501.BC/9–2748: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Delegation at the United Nations General Assembly, at Paris
Gadel 67. Jessup’s remarks Hyderabad case Sep 201 were excellent presentation US views that time. In light recent developments, including reported discharge Hyd delegation, reported claim by Nizam that he had been virtual prisoner of small Muslim clique for past eight months, and in light Delhi’s 865 which casts strong doubt on possibility GOI will follow US suggestion re UN participation plebiscite, Dept inclined conclude US should now assume somewhat passive role, pending reports two govts.
When matter again comes before SC, Dept feels US action should be predicated on nature info presented by GOI Rep and Hyd Rep or govt and on attitude other members SC. We still believe that even limited UN participation plebiscite or election constituent assembly Hyd would (1) improve Indian prestige UN; (2) neatly tie up loose ends of case as it now stands and (3) avoid impression UN closing eyes to use of force.
However, we wish avoid taking rigid position re Hyd question which would not contribute to realistic solution but probably adversely affect Indo-US relations. We therefore inclined feel SC should not insist on UN participation plebiscite in absence GOI request or acquiescence. If this not forthcoming, then best course action SC might be decision stating that consideration of problem is adjourned, but that matter remains on list matters of which SC seized and that SC may resume consideration in future at request any member. Such action might stand until Hyd constitutionally a part of Indian Union (and despite GOI fears to contrary might actually help GOI to resist Indian extremists who favor dismemberment Hyd. See Delhi’s 873). However, we do not believe US should actively oppose dropping item from agenda if such step appears general will of SC.
- When the Indian Representative stated that he considered the Hyderabad case closed because of recent developments, Jessup pointed out that the use of force did not alter legal rights and that all member states of the United Nations would be watching Hyderabad with the hope and expectation that India would now act there in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. For text of his statements, see SC, 3rd yr., No. 111, pp. 4–5.↩