772.00/4–2552: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Bowles) to the Department of State
3928. Bajpai presented me following aide-mémoire on subject Tunisia:
“Recently Security Council decided against placing Tunisian dispute even on its agenda. Purpose of nations which sought that Council take cognisance of dispute was not to condemn France, but to urge that dispute be settled by friendly negotiation between France and Tunisia in calm friendly atmosphere. UN is only forum where, if disputes are not to be settled by violence, they can be freely discussed and way prepared for friendly solution of problems which, if unresolved must lead to conflict. When opportunity for discussion of dispute, even though earnestly sought by large group member nations as in the case of Tunisian issue, is denied on technical or procedural grounds because feelings or interests of one particular country are, in its view, likely be hurt or adversely affected, solidarity of UN as an organization is imperiled by effect of such denial on those nations whose sense justice and fair play is offended by denial.
“Tunisia is latest example of tendency that threatens become habit. Issues tend be discussed or dropped according to convenience or interest of one or more of major powers. This reminiscent of history of League of Nations and pointer to rock on which UN may founder if that history is allowed repeat itself.
“If UN is to survive and achieve its aims, not only must fear and mistrust that divide major powers be allayed and ultimately eliminated, but sense of confidence must be created among all member nations, irrespective of measure of their military and economic powers, that their voice or voices raised individually or collectively, in cause of progress, justice and peace, will be heard and heeded. World passing through period transition in which new and unprecedented forces astir. Subject peoples are awakening to new sense life and destiny; their aspirations cannot long be held in check or denied by procedural manipulations or devices designed serve some narrow or shortsighted interest. Every member of UN has duty not only to itself, but an even [Page 733] higher duty to corporate well-being and strength of UN. That duty calls for sacrifices from all and for greater sacrifices from great powers because they have more to give. In no spirit of hostility to them, but from sense loyalty to UN, it is duty of one and all of us do whatever we can ensure UN, through all its organs, discharges its high duty to mankind with vision understanding and even-handed justice. My government desires me make this appeal to representatives of all like-minded nations and to offer their unstinted cooperation in any measure or measures that can be devised to achieve this vital purpose.”
Having read above to me Bajpai spoke with emotion on subject: colonialism Asia and Africa. Stated he felt US grossly underestimated depth feeling on subject and that to some extent this explained by fact that nations such as India, although resenting compromises which they believe we have made, are hesitant embarrass US in view world situation.
Bajpai said GOI did not expect colonial countries act in enlightened way on this subject and when they did GOI is amazed and pleased. He stated, however, that educated people in Asia and Africa had been brought up look on US as courageous exponent of minorities and right of any people decide its own destiny. Quoted both Lincoln, Jefferson.
Bajpai, however, abruptly brushed my explanation aside saying we more and more obsessed with need for short-range compromise and more and more oblivious to long-range forces which in end would determine course of world.
Bajpai closed subject by saying with considerable feeling that we took for granted Asian leadership such as his, Nehru’s and others educated in West, that probably we were right in counting on them because whether or not they liked it, these individuals emotionally tied to West and too late in life to change; but that if we continued undermine ability their leaders work with West by actions such as Tunisia result would ultimately be disaster for everyone concerned.
Bajpai was intensely emotional and closest I have seen him to being bitter. It my guess based on inferences that several in Cabinet wanted India take much tougher public stand; that he had recommended relatively sober non-public aide-mémoire to avoid increasing world bitterness, that he had been criticized by some of his colleagues and that he had been finally backed up by Nehru.
I believe Department should not underestimate bitter feeling this whole subject here in India. Every question touching on racial or colonial minorities in Africa or elsewhere is given dominant newspaper emphasis. Mrs. Roosevelt’s comments that she was in disagreement personally over Tunisian decision given major headlines.
Extremely important for us capture moral leadership which we formerly held and which we are now in danger of losing.
In my opinion we must not delay much longer in working out some [Page 734] kind long-range proposal to UN calling for liquidation colonial possessions as such over period years on orderly basis with due respect to rights of all concerned. I discussed this in Washington in January and am keenly aware of intense practical problems involved. But am even more aware of extreme danger we face in letting events which are beyond our control in Africa and elsewhere shape our policies on a question which is of first importance to two-third’s of the people in the world.1
Telegram 2448 to New Delhi, May 6, informed the Embassy that a member of the Indian Delegation to the United Nations had circulated a letter identical to the aide-mémoire quoted in telegram 3928 to members of the Asian-Arab group and some Latin American delegates.
The telegram then instructed the Embassy to reply to the aide-mémoire. The reply was the same as numbered paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of telegram 411 to USUN, Apr. 30, p. 738. The final paragraph suggested the Embassy orally add the following: “Decision to abstain April 14 shld not be interpreted as evidence that US any less dedicated to principle dependent peoples entitled decide own destiny. Decision was most difficult one and no doubt similar to problems Bajpai has faced in deciding questions in face of conflicting Indian interests. This was issue which necessitated balancing of principles and policies which together with practical realities of situation were not all compatible one with the other.” (772.00/4–2552)
Telegram 2448 was repeated to Karachi, and the Mission at the United Nations was instructed to give the substance to Bokhari. Telegram 423 to USUN, May 7, stated it would be undesirable for the United States to convey its thinking to the Government of India and not to the Pakistanis, in view of the competition between the two for the leadership of the Asian-African group. (772.00/5–752)
For documentation on the U.S. attitude regarding dependent areas question at the United Nations, see vol. iii, pp. 1427 ff.
↩