893.01/12–649
The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 7—4:31 a. m.]
1518. 1. During final talk with Bajpai today before his departure on 8th for New York, he touched briefly again on China. He said that GOI had not yet received indication of US reaction to India’s statement of position regarding Chinese recognition (Embtel 1489, December 2). He hoped that US would understand that in recognizing China, GOI was not undertaking to “flirt” with Chinese Communists or, for that matter, with Soviet or any other Communists. GOI fully recognized Communist danger and had no illusion regarding present tie-up between Communist China and Communist Russia. GOI, however, would be in embarrassing position if Burma and other Asian powers should recognize Communist China while India held back. Furthermore, if GOI should wait until after UK recognition it would be charged internally with following in UK’s footsteps rather than having foreign policy of its own.
[Page 216]2. Bajpai said that although GOI was continuing formally its present policy of neutrality between two power blocs, it was in practice making more and more decisions “based on merit” in harmony with Western policy, particularly US policy, rather than with Soviet policy. Illustration of GOI’s determination not to appease Chinese Communists was its decision to make representation regarding Ward regardless fact that Ward had been released (paragraph 3 Embtel 1489). In fact GOI had made representation whereas UK had failed to do so.
3. In response my query, he showed me copy of note handed to Chinese Communist government. This note recited facts relating to case of Ward and Stokes66 as received from US Government and closed with following statement: “The Government of India wishes to express their concern over the facts disclosed by the Government of the US, since they constitute a departure from diplomatic usage.”
- William N. Stokes, Vice Consul at Mukden.↩