501.BC Kashmir/12–1649: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
1440. Same group as reported in our 1433 of December 15,1 plus McNaughton2 had lengthy meeting today of which following are principal points.
McNaughton agrees that plebiscite objective should be strictly adhered to and no mention made of other solution such as partition unless by parties. Smith3 personally seems sympathetic toward Bajpai’s proposed partition–plebiscite solution but agrees it should not be brought up by McNaughton with parties now. McNaughton emphasized that Pakistan weakening on partition as reported by Frank Symonds4 shows promise for future compromise, but should be brought up only by Pakistan.
McNaughton seems willing to go as far into substance as circumstances warrant in talking with parties, but will concentrate at this stage on demilitarization, leaving out, on our advice, matter of ultimate objective, plebiscite, so far as possible. He does not have great hope of going much beyond possibly getting agreement in principle on demilitarization and northern area, but does not rule out entirely achievement of such results as might make unnecessary appointment of SC representative recommended in UNCIP’s report. In this case, lie thinks scope of plebiscite administrator’s activity could be moved somewhat back into terrain of mediator arbitrator.
Consensus was that Bajpai’s failure directly to mention Pakistan’s alleged lack of status in Kashmir was significant and showed conciliatory [Page 1761] attitude. Curson5 read telegram from Noel Baker6 saying that latter had discussed legality of accession with Bajpai in London, had advised Indians against raising it in view of strong argument Pakistan has against legality, and thought Bajpai “took the hint”. McNaughton here remarked that he felt that Indians desire to forget past and move on to solution and felt that this, in addition to Symonds’ report and Zafrullah’s as yet confidential reasonableness about Azad disbandment gave prospect of solution.
McNaughton wondered whether he might tell Indians about Pakistan concession on Azad’s and ask them to be equally reasonable on withdrawals and northern area. We cautioned him not to give Pakistan’s position away and he accepted the point. He felt, however, that after talking with General Delvoie regarding the northern area matter, he could convince Indians they had no valid point in that respect and should abandon their demand for garrisoning and administering area.
McNaughton felt that arbitration should not be mentioned at this stage since he understood from Canadian representative, New Delhi, that Nehru allergic to word. We dissented on ground that India should be shown full force of UNCIP report at outset.
It was agreed upon McNaughton’s suggestion that fact of our meetings should be held in utmost secrecy. He wanted US–UK advice and felt “board of strategy” thus formed would be most useful working anonymously.
Canadians are receiving this afternoon visit from Bajpai, Rau7 and Abdullah, and after general discussion decided to treat visit as purely courtesy call, reserving substantive talks for Bajpai and Ran alone.
Our impression, especially from remarks of Hopkins,8 is that in view of basic conflict of GOP and GOI objectives—overall plebiscite vs. plebiscite cum partition—Canadians may further on again bring up matter of compromise, including territorial adjustments on basis of prior agreement between parties, pattern of plebiscite results, or other variation of theme. Campbell9 of British also seemed interested in such compromise although Curson’s instructions from London are clear that until further notice UK wants overall plebiscite line held.
- Not printed; it reported that Canadian, United States, and British representatives had discussed various facets of the Kashmir dispute and had noted some possibility that agreement might be reached on the issues of Azad forces and Indian and Pakistani withdrawals. The consensus was that on these points the positions of the two parties were not irreconcilable. (501.BC Kashmir/12–1549)↩
- Gen. A. G. L. McNaughton, a member of the Canadian Delegation to the United Nations, who during December was President of the Security Council.↩
- Presumably A. C. Smith, a member of the Canadian Delegation to the United Nations.↩
- Frank Symonds, a reporter for The Times of India, New Delhi.↩
- B. R. Curson, of the Commonwealth Relations Office, an adviser to the British Delegation to the United Nations.↩
- Philip J. Noel-Baker, British Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.↩
- Sir Senegal Rama Ran, Permanent Representative of India at the United Nations.↩
- J. H. Hopkins of the Canadian Delegation to the United Nations.↩
- Gordon Thomas Calthrop Campbell, Second Secretary at the British Mission to the United Nations.↩