603.4193/10–1551: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Gifford) to the Secretary of State
1831. Embtel 1729, Oct 9 and New Delhi’s 1221, Oct 3, both addressed Dept. EmbOffs in discussion at FonOff have been careful to avoid intimating in any way GOI has begun to pass to American Emb info re intervention on part of its mission in Peiping with CPG on behalf US nationals China. If Brit mission Peiping learns of opening of this channel of communication it may take stand that what GOI chooses to pass to US is affair of GOI and may therefore recommend to FonOff that its reports on future representations by GOI mission to CPG be withheld from us. If this were to eventuate, Dept would be deprived of the much fuller, more accurate and less biased reports of Brit rep. Bajpai believed inaccurate, for example, in stating that Indian Emb only mission in Peiping whose chief had made representations on behalf US nationals, as Panikkar himself source of info Indo Chargé had on own initiative spoken to CPG official on behalf Amers. Inference Lamb less assiduous than Panikkar in support of US interests seems unfair, as it is understood Lamb has so far been unable obtain appointment with CPG FonOff discuss American interests.
It is requested Emb be informed whether Dept and New Delhi are also withholding from UK fact GOI is now keeping us informed this subject.1
- Telegram 2128 to London, October 22, 1951, not printed, replied that the Department was under no obligation to inform the British of everything it received and had acted accordingly, although much information on the subject had been sent to the U.S. Embassy in London and, subject to the Embassy’s discretion, could be given to the British (603.4193/10–1551).↩