Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, Asia and the Pacific, Volume VI, Part 2

891.03/5–451: Telegram

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

secret
priority

New Delhi, May 4, 1951—3 p. m.

3082. 1. Discussed contents Deptel 1808, May 2¹ Bajpai yesterday evening. He said no message from Indian Emb Washington on subject as yet received. He considered it preferable await such message before conveying substance our conversation Nehru.

2. Speaking unofficially Bajpai said he confident Nehru wld not and for that matter politically cld not make any public statement incorporating three numbered suggestions in second para Deptel.² Bajpai did not know whether House bill preferable to Senate bill but felt certain in no circumstances cld GOI make public statement outlined suggestion numbered 1.

3. Bajpai said he unaware GOI had ever acquiesced in terms original House bill and inquired re time and place. I suggested statement made by Mme. Pandit to McGhee April 18 might have been taken mean GOI dropping objections to provisions original House bill. Bajpai said he sorry if misunderstanding had taken place this regard. Instructions to Mme. Pandit were not intended mean other than GOI wld not press for changes in bill at late date. They did not necessarily mean terms House bill acceptable to GOI. He still did not know whether provisions Senate bill which were similar to those original House bill wld be acceptable.

4. During conversation in somewhat personal vein which followed I told Bajpai that reading between lines of Dept’s instruction I gained impression members Senate Comite who had spent much time and effort to obtain aid for India must be surprised and possibly hurt that their efforts shld have been rewarded by statements made in Indian press and by Indian leaders intimating they trying attach political strings. I supposed some these Senators who had worked hard and conscientiously on behalf of Indian aid were taking position that unless some kind of statement cld be issued which wld make it clear that PriMin was not referring to their efforts in some his recent statements it wld be impossible for them to take further effective steps on India’s behalf. Bajpai replied he quite understood feelings these Senators but cld not see how PriMin cld issue statement of kind desired without making himself look foolish. I said if India preferred loan to loan-grant under conditions stipulated original House bill it shld have made that fact clear last Feb so that three months valuable time wld not have been lost. Bajpai agreed matter had been mishandled. It had not come into hands MEA until several weeks ago.

5. I again pointed out that any decision GOI against accepting grant on conditions contained in Senate bill might well have effect on econ aid program for Asia which Dept had been considering for over year. If India shld turn down food grain grant because it objected to conditions which were contained in practically all grant aid legislation question wld arise whether India desired being included in general aid program for Asia. Bajpai said he thought GOI realized connection between food grain grant and general program econ aid but in view attitude shown at what appeared to be majority members Congress towards grant aid for India many Indian leaders had lost hope obtaining any econ assistance from US in foreseeable future except under conditions which they cld not accept. He did not share this view.

6. I talked briefly again this morning with Bajpai. He said no word yet from Indian Emb Wash and he still thought it preferable not take up matter with PriMin until after receipt Mme Pandit tel. He said in utmost confidence he and Deshmukh Min finance were doing utmost persuade PriMin take what they consider wise decision but found themselves facing other advisers who were playing on emotions. I suggested he inform Nehru that if latter wld like see me I wld be glad talk with him. Bajpai said if after talking with Nehru he shld be of opinion discussion between Nehru and me wld be helpful he wld try arrange.

Henderson

1. Telegram 1808 to the Embassy in India, May 2, summarized the conversation of May 2 and added the following comment:

   “Ind Emb cabling GOI today urging prompt action. You shld give strong support Emb recommendation impressing on GOI official seriousness situation on Hill and depth Cong concern over Ind intentions re US food aid. You might remind GOI that after exchange of views with Dept GOI acquiesced to terms of original House bill, conditions in which were essentially same as those of Senate bill. On strength GOI statement Dept informed Senate Fon Relations Comite that conditions Senate bill acceptable GOI.” (891.03/5–251)

2. See the fourth paragraph of the memorandum of conversation, May 2, supra.