690D.91/10–952: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Bowles) to the Department of State1
1513. UKHC official tells us basis info recd from UK del New York Graham in agreement with proposal invite GOI and GOP make final effort reach agreement in direct talks and wld accept invitation from [Page 1294] SC to suggest criteria. Also that UK del believes Graham hopes parties may call on him to assist them in further talks and that he will be ready in any case to continue as UN rep until end of year.
FonSec R. K. Nehru told me yesterday GOI wld welcome Graham’s return. UKHC has same impression and states its info from Karachi indicates Paks approaching current SC consideration in moderate open-minded manner.
Foregoing indicates considerable realism on all sides, growing goodwill and, it seems to me, splendid opportunity for Graham return to subcontinent and finish task which he has so ably conducted.
Here in Delhi we fully appreciate difficulties which have beset Dept for five long years re Kashmir and realize many pressures to which Dept subjected in framing its policies and statements in SC. At risk of repeating myself, I strongly hope it will not be necessary for us take position in SC which is critical of either party or condemn them on moralistic or legalistic grounds. If discussion takes constructive line, as now seems indicated, new opportunity wld seem to arise to broaden scope Graham’s authority.
May I recall under SC resolution March 14, 1950,2 Sir Owen Dixon in addition his responsibilities for demilitarization was empowered make suggestions for solution Kashmir dispute. Pertinent para of resolution authorized Dixon “to place himself at disposal of govts of Ind and Pak and to place before those govts or SC any suggestions which, in his opinion, are likely to contribute to expeditious and enduring solution of dispute which has arisen between two govts in regard to state of Jammu and Kashmir”. Furthermore, Dixon was also authorized “to report to SC as he may consider necessary submitting his conclusion and any recommendations which he may desire to make”.
Altho SC resolution of March 30, 1951 does not repeat these paras it wld seem logical to believe that Graham, as successor to Sir Owen Dixon, wld inherit powers which latter held under previous SC resolutions including that of March 14, 1950. Even though Graham may be said now have similar authority, wld seem to me prefer a clear refs be made to it in SC debate or that it be restated in whatever res or views SC may express regarding Graham’s fourth report.
I strongly hope that Dept will concur my belief regarding utility this stage of broadening Graham’s authority to enable him, in addition to further demilitarization negots, also to explore additional channels for settling Kashmir question.
Dept’s comments will be appreciated.