690D.91/6–151: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State
3452. Bajpai requested Steere call yesterday and made following statement re Kashmir. Bajpai explained he was acting on PriMin instructions that no one shld be left in doubt attitude GOI on questions constituent assembly and Doctor Graham’s visit.
GOI reps UN had made repeated statement on GOI attitude on question CA,1 yet various UN reps including US rep continued make statements showing failure recognize Ind position which GOI cld [Page 1769] not understand. Kashmir under Ind constitution had right to formulate own constitution and elect legislature. GOI had no right interfere; in fact, considered it right and proper that Kashmir shld proceed with these steps.
Steere asked whether Bajpai meant that GOI cld not restrain Kashmir authorities from convening assembly. Bajpai replied he was not constitutional lawyer and cld not assert positively GOI had no legal right restrain Kashmir officials, but that regardless of whether or not it had such rights CA was to be convened with full approval GOI.
CA also wld have right voice opinion (which GOI cld not forbid) on question accession. Such opinion was in no way binding upon GOI or UN and GOI therefore did not consider such action cld be regarded as prejudicial to res of issues by SC.
Steere asked whether his statement was based legalistic view or whether he meant that convening of CA wld not affect atmosphere and that passage of res on accession question wld not prejudice carrying out of plebiscite. Bajpai replied GOI opinion was “that convening of assembly and passage by it of accession res would not prejudice action by SC”. Bajpai said this with air finality implying that GOI insisted on this opinion in defiance views others.
Bajpai went on to say with some show of heat that it was completely unreasonable accuse Ind of prejudicial actions when Pak authorities and press were allowed engage in most violent agitation including open talk of “jehad” without criticism or reproof from any side. He then added US Govt might well consider public reproof or advice to Pak on this score; he has followed matter closely and had not once seen statement by US spokesman in UN or elsewhere showing any recognition excesses of Paks.
GOI attitude re visit of Graham was he shld be received with due courtesy as distinguished foreigner and rep of UN and that it wld be prepared talk with him; but GOI cld not receive him in capacity official engaged in implementation UN res against which GOI had voted.