Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, East Asia and the Pacific, Volume VI

793B.00/4–2450: Telegram

The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State

secret

New Delhi, April 24, 1950—10 a. m.

565. Deptel 380, April 19.

1. Tibetans were undoubtedly chagrined when US among others unable meet their requests for aid and joined in discouraging visits Tibetan missions to Washington, London, Delhi, et cetera. It should be recalled, however, from very outset of Communist threat to Tibet Government at Lhasa had also desired get in touch with Chinese Communists in effort reach understanding (Embdesp 1002, November 22, 1949¹ and Embtel 18, January 5, 1950).²

2. Tsepon Shakabpa was instructed contact Chinese Communists at some point outside China (Embdesp 683, Mar. 27)² but British unwilling permit him proceed Singapore or Hong Kong for this purpose. We doubt very much he would proceed Moscow in view his unwillingness (see reference despatch) risk going to China where he would be hostage of Communists.

3. Although sometime ago Indians preferred Shakabpa not come to Delhi lest it appear to Chinese Communists they were intriguing with Tibetans, we are now informed by officials of MEA they would have no objection if Shakabpa and his mission should come here from Calcutta primarily for purpose of talking with new Chinese Ambassador who is expected within next two weeks.

4. We understand Indian supply of arms to Tibet (Embtel 301, March 8) approximates sum total of Tibetan requests and represents as well maximum that could be transported to Lhasa this season and absorbed by untrained Tibetan Army. We believe it was largely result of British encouragement (final paragraph Deptel 380) that GOI decided supply these arms.

5. The concensus in Delhi among officials of those governments particularly interested Tibet is that Communists prefer seek infiltrate and subvert Tibet rather than attempt more expensive military conquest. If they attempt conquest opinions vary widely on Tibetan will to resist. In last several days both Bijaya, Nepalese Foreign Minister, and Jarring, Swedish Minister who has had extensive experience in central Asia, have spoken to us slightingly of Tibetans as fighters and have stressed pacifistic influence of Buddhism. Most observers believe, however, they would resist to best of their ability.

6. We think it likely Tibetan effort ascertain what they may expect from Moscow and Peiping will in end be made through Chinese and Russian representatives Delhi.

7. If and when Tsepon Shakabpa comes here we intend further impress upon him that our failure accede Tibetan request should not be misconstrued as disinterest or lack of sympathy. Should it become clear he will not come here we shall endeavor get discreetly in touch with him Calcutta or elsewhere for purpose having full discussion on situation facing Tibet and US attitude in relation thereto. There is no Tibetan representative Delhi at present.

8. Officials MEA tell us informally that in their opinion Tsepon Shakabpa will never venture go to Moscow anymore than he will dare put his foot on territory controlled by Chinese Communists. They say believe he is hoping to persuade Chinese Communists that if they will accord Tibet autonomy and not interfere in Tibet’s internal affairs Tibet will not associate itself with powers opposed to international Communism. These officials say that they now believe Chinese Communists will not endeavor to invade Tibet this year; that Chinese Communists have so many other difficult problems to solve they will not wish to take on a task this kind just now. When we suggested that strengthening Tibet’s ability to defend might be good way of continuing discourage invasion by Chinese Communists they agreed but took position that such strengthening should be extremely discreet and moderate in scope. Otherwise Chinese Communists might feel their prestige involved and decide that they could not afford permit any area China, including Tibet engage in activities of character defiant to Peiping. We shall have further discussions both with British and Indians and shall telegraph substance to Department.

Sent Department 565, repeated Calcutta 30, Department pass London.

Henderson

1. Not printed, but see telegram 1437, November 21, 1949, from New Delhi in Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. ix, p. 1080.
2. Not printed.
2. Not printed.