501.BC Kashmir/10–2048: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in the United Kingdom
1086. Please deliver following personal message to Bevin from Secretary (reference Gadel 234, October 18,1 repeated London 3992; also London’s 758, October 152):
“I am grateful for your message of the fifteenth which duly reached me before Nehru called. As you know, I left for Greece and Italy thereafter and have only just returned.
Nehru and I had a very long general talk during which he seemed primarily interested in having my views on the world situation and, most particularly, on Russian objectives. It was, as you anticipated, quite informal but even with the help which your message gave me I found him most sensitive on the subject of Kashmir. Although I touched on this matter only in passing and continued talking on other matters for some time, he found it difficult when his turn came to talk about Kashmir in a moderate way. The following from my notes of the conversation will give you the line he took:
Nehru remarked that as I had mentioned Kashmir, he wished to say that he felt he had a real grievance there. If he felt for a moment that legally, morally or practically, India did not have a just case, he would at once recede from his position. However, on none of these counts was there any merit in Pakistan’s case. India had accepted the Kashmir Commission’s resolution, whereas Pakistan had rejected it. Kashmir was Indian territory by virtue of its legal accession to the Indian union, it was a center of Indian culture in arts and crafts, contained much wealth that it owed to the capacity of Indian elements in its people who were far superior to the others. As a frontier province it was threatened by tribesmen who had laid waste many of its towns, aided by gangsters from Pakistan. No Indian government could have remained in power for a week had it not risen to the defense of Indian territory by flying in the few hundreds of troops which saved Srinagar. Unfortunately this local action had, bit by bit, led to greater complications and now he acknowledged it was a serious situation.
Nehru then launched into a recital of the contrast between the democratic and secular character of India, and the backward and theocratic nature of Pakistan. India wished to develop a country wherein all elements of the population could share, whereas in Pakistan the underlying idea was the advancement of the most bigoted group of Moslems. Nehru said that these people were unreasonable extremists, and had even had the effrontery to state that after conquering Kashmir they would march on New Delhi. As another illustration of their character, he spoke of a young Moslem doctor who was stoned to death in Lahore because he dared to defend his wife for having defied old fashioned custom. There was even a growing movement for the restoration of the old eighth century law of the Koran.
[Page 432]I did not comment on the foregoing. I rather suspect that Nehru felt he may have overdone it. At any rate he came back to Kashmir briefly just before we finished and in a more conciliatory vein as the following further quotation will indicate:
Late in the conversation, Nehru reverted to Kashmir in a much more moderate vein. He said that he was very conscious of this problem, was sincerely desirous of having it settled, and he hoped that some solution could be worked out. He also alluded to the Hyderabad incident briefly, saying that in India in recent weeks there had been a marked improvement in the internal situation. This was in large measure due to the settlement of the Hyderabad incident. This crisis and the restraint of both elements of the population at that time had removed a source of much anxiety and distrust.
There was one other reaction which you may find interesting. I took some care to outline our support of the UN and our hopes for its future, and was quite gratified at the response. Although Nehru made it clear that India had had disappointments in matters of interest to it, he did not labor the point. On the contrary, he said that India would support the UN despite its weaknesses since it was the only hope of the world, and therefore could not be abandoned. He also said that while it might sound trite, he completely agreed with me in condemning deceit and force in international affairs.
I hope the foregoing will be of some value to you and that with the congenial atmosphere which has been created in London you can bring the two men to talk together on this subject. There was nothing in my conversation with Nehru which suggested any better approach to him than your line of the great moral ascendancy and the impression of statesmanship which would result if he and Liaquat were able to settle this problem of such moment to Asia and the world. It would surprise me very much if our talk did not add to his appreciation of the Russian menace.”
Notes of conversation plus substance paragraph on UN sent Huddle Geneva.
Sent London as 1086, repeated Department as Delga 418.