795.00/8–2450: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State
priority
[Received August 24—7:15 p. m.]
461. 1. At request Bajpai I saw him morning August 24. Referring to our conversation August 18 (Embtel 419, August 18) he said several telegrams had been received from Rau asking that he be permitted present resolution to SC calling for establishing committee to endeavor bring about cessation fighting Korea and to work out plan for future that country. In one telegram Rau had stated that sentiment among members SC as well as of American public appeared favorable. Probably Russia and US would abstain. Such abstention would have advantages because if either these powers should support resolution, other might become suspicious and oppose it. Rau failed indicate attitude UK. GOI, however, had been firm in insisting that no resolution be presented unless it could be ascertained in advance that all great powers would be favorable.
2. Bajpai asked if I had any information as to what US attitude toward plan was. When I replied in negative he said he did not wish complain, but it seemed to him US could be little more helpful in letting India know how it felt. Neither Madame Pandit nor Rau seemed know how US regarded proposed resolution and apparently American Ambassador Delhi also was uninformed. GOI was conscientiously trying find formula which might lead termination conflict or at least prevent spread hostilities. It could not carry burden alone. It did not expect too much from Soviet Union which was noted for its reticence, but it had hoped for certain degree cooperation from US. Rau had reported US delegation had been somewhat concerned lest attempt be made include Peiping in committee in case resolution should provide for members not belonging to UN. Rau had therefore been instructed abandon idea of including in committee nations not in UN.
3. I said I was confident only reason my Government had not made its views known was that it was not sufficiently acquainted with purpose committee to have any fixed views. I knew my Government desired keep even closer in touch with GOI in future than in past. It was difficult, however, for it to state its views re proposals which had not been clearly formulated.
4. Bajpai said Rau had inquired for more details re purposes committee and GOI had replied that purposes could be more clearly defined after it had become clear that great powers in principle were not disagreeable to setting up such committee. I again emphasized it must [Page 645] be difficult for my Government to indicate that it agreed in principle to setting up committee purposes of which were not clear to it. Undoubtedly informal talks, even if not reported were taking place between our delegation and his. My Government probably had not given me instructions to discuss matter here because conversations on matter like this at two places might lead to confusion.
5. Bajpai said he also hoped there could be closer consultation between our two Governments. Present situation was not wholly satisfactory. He and I were able to have certain amount useful talks, but GOI knew little about conversations which might have taken place between Rau and members US delegation and Madame Pandit seemed rarely to have conversations of any importance. In fact maintenance Madame Pandit in Washington seemed almost to be waste Government funds.