Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, China and Japan, Volume XIV, Part 1

293.1111/8–252: Telegram

No. 45
The Ambassador in India (Bowles) to the Department of State¹

secret

New Delhi, August 2, 1952—6 p.m.

479. This morning Drumright saw Panikkar who just returned Delhi from South Ind, and discussed detenu question with him (Deptel 262 rptd London 608 Hong Kong 338).²

Panikkar said he unable give any definite figures re number Amers held on security charges, pointing out Commie authorities divide detenus into three categories and continuously carry on investigations with result status detenus constantly changing. Parenthetically, Panikkar appeared anything but well informed on Madame Pandit’s conversation with Chou En-lai. In Emb’s view no useful purpose wld be served by pursuing discrepancy further.

Raghavan has arrived Delhi and expects remain here until about end August. His ETA Peiping early Sept. Emb expects hold discussions with Raghavan before his departure and wld find it useful have soonest info requested Embdesp 171, July 16.³

In Panikkar’s opinion it futile make formal written representations to Commie authorities re detenus. Such success as he had experienced (he cited release of Italian intern Uncio) came as result personal conversations with Chou En-lai. Re Raghavan, Panikkar expressed personal view it wld be imposition to ask Raghavan to intercede until latter had four or five months to work up essential personal relationships. Panikkar seemed feel Kaul wld be of little use in this respect.

Panikkar expressed view there little prospect any blanket release Amers pending settlement Korean conflict. But he felt releases on gradual basis wld continue, especially Catholics, of whom Chinese want to be rid entirely.

Emb sees no objection UK making further representations for record along lines indicated London telegram 491 rptd Delhi 15,⁴ but doubts they will produce any results.

As indicated above Emb expects discuss detenus with Raghavan, but doubts advisability requesting his informal intercession until he indicates he in position to do so effectively. Emb seeking return Roosevelt letter which in safekeeping MEA and will transmit as requested.

Bowles

1. Repeated for information to London and Hong Kong.
2. Telegram 262 to New Delhi, July 28, asked if the Embassy had been able to clarify a discrepancy between Madame Pandit’s report concerning the U.S. nationals imprisoned in China and a statement by Panikkar which had been reported from Hong Kong. It also suggested that Indian Chargé Kaul might raise the issue with the Peking Government or that Raghavan might do so upon his arrival. (293.1111/7–752)
3. Not found in Department of State files.
4. Document 42.