793B.00/1–1050: Telegram
The Ambassador in India ( Henderson ) to the Secretary of State
44. Deptel 914, December 19.1 K. P. S. Menon, Foreign Secretary, commented as follows to Donovan2 on January 9 re GOI policy towards Tibet. India has no intention now of raising question political status of Tibet nor does it desire make issue this question. Basis of Indian policy will be as heretofore: Recognition of Chinese suzerainty provide Chinese recognize autonomy Tibet. India to give diplomatic support to Tibet to enable it to retain its autonomous status and Menon indicated that if Chinese give any indication of refusing recognize autonomy Tibet, India would raise question Tibet’s political status. However, he emphasized India wished to leave matter alone and would not initiate any conversations with Chinese re Tibet unless compelled do so by Chinese actions.
India has for some years supplied Tibet with small arms and ammunition for military use for which Tibet has paid India. India will continue to supply small arms including Bren guns and ammunition and Menon indicated that such supplies would in light of recent events “be expedited”. He said Tibet had asked GOI to send two officers to train Tibetan troops. GOI had declined this request but had told Tibet it could send officers to Gyangtse where Indian Army has for some years maintained small detachment troops. Tibetan officers could receive training there. GOI has received no request or indication Tibet wishes establish liaison office in India. I asked Menon what possible GOI reaction would be to such request and while his reply was not categorical he indicated GOI would not look with favor upon such request since it wished to maintain status quo diplomatically which had obtained since the joint India-British-Chinese treaty of 1914 re Tibet.3
[Page 273]GOI looks with disfavor on any attempt Tibet join UN because it raises issue of Tibet’s status and could not possibly succeed. While Tibet has not approached India re this matter Menon said Tibet had approached UK and had been discouraged.
Menon said UK High Commissioner had drafted note to Tibetan Government re question of Tibetan mission to England and Tibet’s request for general support from Britain re its claim for recognition as independent nation. Menon said draft note evaded issues raised and used phrase “British Government was giving consideration to questions raised in consultation with GOI”. Menon sent for UK High Commissioner and told him this was “neat way of passing the buck to India” and at Menon’s insistence the phrase “in consultation with GOI” was deleted from note. Menon then pointed out to High Commissioner that England still has responsibilities towards Tibet and that India had no intention of assuming all British responsibilities re Tibet.
Menon professed to know nothing of proposed Tibetan mission to US other than what we had told him.
To summarize GOI wishes maintain its present position re Tibet and has no present intention raising any questions re Tibet with Chinese Communist Government. According to Menon, a point which he emphasized several times, GOI wishes avoid “any provocative action” re Tibet. Nevertheless GOI will question diplomatically any action by Chinese which infringes on Tibetan autonomy. Menon emphasized any military ventures in Tibet were ruled out.4
Sent Department 44, pouched Karachi. Department pass London.
- Not printed. It related to United States consideration of the possibility of sending an official mission to Lhasa in the spring of 1950, a policy which Ambassador Henderson had advised against in December 1949 (893.00 Tibet/12–1549). For documentation relating to United States policy concerning Tibet in 1949, see Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. ix, pp. 1064 ff.↩
- Howard Donovan, Counselor of Embassy in New Delhi.↩
- The reference is to the Simla Conference of 1913–1914 between representatives of the United Kingdom, China, and Tibet, the results of which were not ratified by the Chinese Government; for references to the text of the Simla Convention of July 3, 1914, agreed to by the British and Tibetan representatives, see American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1959 (Department of State publication 7492; Washington, Government Printing Office, 1963), p. 1190, footnote 4, and Harold C. Hinton, Communist China in World Politics (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966), pp. 278 ff.↩
-
The Department of State transmitted the following reply in telegram 25, January 11, 6 p. m., to New Delhi:
↩“In light info contained Embtel 44, Jan 10, is Dept correct assuming GOI wld not willingly cooperate despatch US FSO Lhasa next Spring? Dept wld appreciate receiving Emb’s final recommendation re this trip.
“In this connection Dept pleased to note GOI will continue to supply arms to Tibet and endeavor maintain dipl status quo.” (793.00/1–1050)