357.AB/4–952: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Bowles) to the Department of State
3696. In line Deptel 2128, Apr 5 discussed with Bajpai possibility Graham’s desire hold further meetings on military quantum question with GOI and GOP reps in New York. Bajpai stated GOI rep already received request from Graham for interview and that of course he prepared cooperate every way. However, Bajpai went on state his view it impossible for any progress be made at such distance from subcontinent and through relatively low level reps of the two govts. He stated again in his opinion there only one practical approach to problem and that was discuss here on subcontinent if need be under broader terms ref question of partition of Kashmir based on either three zonal plebiscites or on plebiscites limited to valley.
Bajpai again stated his opinion this approach wld make all aspects of question far easier to solve and that it his opinion Graham agreed with this.
Bajpai further stated wld have much preferred Graham stay on in subcontinent to continue discussions along these lines on personal basis if impossible for him stretch his terms ref enable him cover this facet officially. He also repeated that only reason GOI not written strong memo to Graham recommending this approach was their belief that if Pak Govt felt this proposal came from India, opportunity for success wld be lessened. He said his conf view proposal shld come from some other source and that for strategic reasons GOI’s reaction in early stages might be rather cool but that both I and Graham had his assurances of cooperation on this line of attack.
[Page 1222]I asked Bajpai exactly how hard Graham had pushed question on quantum of troops and Bajpai stated Graham did not apply any particular pressure. His opinion reason for this lay in fact Graham did not want risk danger of deadlock this issue which might jeopardize opportunity agreement along broader lines, i.e., partition.
GOI in its conversations with me has been consistent this whole situation since Bajpai opened it up day before I left for Wash in January.
In my discussions with Graham I found him understanding of this and optimistic of what might be accomplished if he cld return here with broader terms ref. GOI certainly agree Graham’s return under broader terms and I assume from recent despatches Pak wld also agree. If this is case, it seems to us most important that this approach shld be explored and extremely unfortunate that Graham was not in position discuss it on recent visit and proposal by Graham for personal meeting of the two PriMins wld undoubtedly develop in due course but this shld not be part prior agreement since forced meeting at wrong time wld be fruitless.
Bajpai told me had been very concerned about statement reputed made by Nazimuddin to effect only solution might be war but that Zafrullah had specifically and categorically denied Nazimuddin had made this statement and GOI accepted denial in good faith.
Bajpai also went on say GOI’s promise to Graham to withdraw troops from valley and further from Pak frontier not affected by recent reports from Pak and they carrying out troop movements on schedule.
Narrowing complication in Kashmir situation from GOI point of view is belligerently independent attitude of Sheikh Abdullah who apparently wants Kashmir to be associated with Ind not as a state under the Ind constitution but as a sort of semi-independent unit. Latest incident was Abdullah’s vigorous statement that Ind constitution’s requirement of reasonable payment for property taken by govt could not be applied to Kashmir land reform. GOI refers to this only occasionally and in vague terms but it worries them.