795.00/10–650: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State
niact
[Received October 6—9:30 a. m.]
844. 1. In last paragraph Embtel 843, October 61 I stated that Bajpai started to tell me about proposed new move on part Nehru for purpose preventing hostilities Korea but was interrupted by his summons to Prime Minister.
2. Bajpai told me when he began discussing this topic that what he said was for my personal information and it was not to be conveyed to Washington. Nevertheless I must violate this injunction in this instance in view of what seems to me to be importance of scheme which Bajpai began to outline.
3. He said GOI disturbed and annoyed at resolution introduced by Rau into Political Committee of GA providing for subcommittee to sift out resolutions re Korea thus far submitted to political committee. Rau had had no instructions to present any kind of resolution and by his initiative he had made it appear for the moment that GOI was aligned with Soviet bloc in UN when GOI was anxious to be attached to no bloc.
4. Nehru believed that Far Eastern situation was so serious that he should not remain idle. He was therefore considering advisability of making suggestion (Bajpai did not say whether through GA or through diplomatic channels and I had no opportunity to ask him) that agreement be entered into with China by UN or great powers whereby (a) North Koreans lay down arms and cease hostilities; (b) all of Korea be occupied by UN forces other than those which had participated in fighting; (c) that with these forces in occupation and under supervision of carefully selected UN Commission plebiscite be held to determine future government of whole country.
5. Bajpai said he was sure US would not object withdrawing its troops in accordance with an agreement of this kind and permitting them to be replaced by troops of other countries including India.
6. I replied that US certainly would be happy to have no troops in Korea if it could be convinced that without such troops Korea would be secure from further aggression and Koreans could freely decide their future. I started to point out, however, that it would be illogical to accord precisely the same treatment to ROK as that accorded to North Korea when we were interrupted.
[Page 888]7. I am hoping that I shall be given a chance to discuss this matter further and to ask Bajpai to allow US to comment on the proposed scheme before it is circulated in order that its submission may not further becloud international atmosphere.
- Infra.↩