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

511.91/7–3151

Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. S. Shepard Jones of the Bureau of Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs

secret

[Washington,] July 31, 1951.

Participants:	S—Mr. William Pawley
	P—Mr. Edward W. Barrett1
	NEA—Mr. George C. McGhee
	SOA—Mr. Donald D. Kennedy2
	NEA/P—Mr. S. Shepard Jones3

Problem: Discussion of the USIE program in India.

Action required: Review of USIE India operations.

Action Assigned to: NEA/P.

Mr. Pawley referred to his recent mission to India⁴ and said that he had gained some over-all impressions of the effect of the USIE program there which he had thought would be of value to the officials concerned in the Department, although this had not, of course, had anything to do with the purpose of his trip to India.

He offered the following comments:

(1) American propaganda in India is not sufficiently subtle.

(2) We are trying to “sell” America rather than show American interest in Indian problems and Indian traditions, although this is being done to some extent.

(3) We should work more through indigenous channels.

Mr. Pawley said that Mr. Dutt,⁵ an old-time civil servant and now the ranking permanent official of the Indian Foreign Office, had told him, reluctantly and in confidence, that American salesmanship methods were not the way to win in India and that he did not think that expanding the USIE program would result in more friends for the United States in India. Dutt said more finesse and less sheer weight was needed, and he alleged that his views were shared by other Indian officials who were friends of the United States. It was Mr. Pawley’s impression that Dutt was most concerned with the Information program.

Mr. Pawley said he was convinced that skillful diplomacy and propaganda on our part could, given time, put India on our side in the cold war.

Mr. McGhee discussed the difficulty of doing business with Nehru and of Nehru’s dissent from our policies, especially with reference to the Far East and development of collective security. Mr. McGhee stated that it was understandable that Nehru would not welcome an expansion of American propaganda in India in view of the divergence of the policies of the two countries. He added that none the less America’s interests may well be served by a propaganda effort which was not entirely pleasing to Nehru himself. He stated that many Indian officials of high rank did not share Nehru’s foreign policy and this was a factor to be kept in mind. While Mr. Pawley agreed that Nehru was a difficult man to deal with, he felt that a more skillful approach was called for. He thought we could succeed with the Indian people, even if we could not succeed with Nehru; but, that given time, we could even succeed with him.

Mr. Barrett then read our objectives as defined in the USIE country paper. After hearing these objectives, Mr. Pawley agreed with them 100% but felt they were not being adequately implemented. Mr. Jones emphasized that our program in India has changed in recent months and that more subtlety had been introduced into it. He referred to improvement in recent issues of “The American Reporter” and of the decrease in straight Americana, with greater stress upon America’s interest in India and its willingness to be helpful. He defended use by USIE of stories on Washington and Lincoln in the celebration of July 4, emphasizing that we felt it important to draw appropriate attention to great American leaders who best represented the moral and spiritual qualities of the American people. This type of propaganda tended to meet the criticism that America was merely a commercialized, mechanistic civilization.

It was pointed out that the Department agreed as to the wisdom of undertaking certain types of information activities through indigenous organizations and individuals, particularly our anti-Soviet propaganda.

In response to Mr. Pawley’s comment that the India program appeared to be too large, especially the number of officers preparing press releases and other written propaganda, Mr. Jones referred to other phases of the program including the Exchange of Persons program, the Library and the Motion Picture program. Mr. Pawley endorsed the library and certain other phases of the program.

Mr. Pawley observed that in his opinion it might be better to move the USIE headquarters from Delhi to Bombay, where a large group of Americans would be less conspicuous, but Mr. Jones observed that there were limits to such a move inasmuch as the Ambassador would naturally wish to control USIE operations and that policy control could be more readily effected in Delhi. Mr. Jones referred to present plans for distributing our personnel in India so as to reach more people in privincial cities and also to avoid over-concentration of personnel in Delhi.

Mr. Barrett emphasized that for some time he had been concerned with improving the India operations, by obtaining additional top level personnel for the program, but that it had not been easy to locate high level leadership. Mr. Barrett emphasized that the Department was determined to improve the quality of USIE personnel in India.

1. Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs.
2. Acting Director of the Office of South Asian Affairs.
3. Officer in charge of public affairs staff, Bureau of Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs.
4. Mr. Pawley’s mission dealt with U.S. assistance programs and with acquisition of materials for use in the U.S. atomic energy program, documentation on which is scheduled for publication in volume i.
5. Subimal Dutt, Secretary, Indian Ministry of External Affairs.