791.00/7–550: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State
niact
[Received July 5—3:34 p. m.]
22. 1. Bajpai, SYG MEA, has informed me today by telephone that GOI had received one telegram from Mme. Pandit and another from B. N. Rau reporting that New York Times has leading article to effect that I persuaded GOI take decision in favor resolution of SC and that one reason for India acceptance resolutions was US announcement that it would send aid to Indochina.1 Bajpai pointed out such stories were harmful to our common cause since they strengthen Communist propaganda that GOI had become tool of USA. They could also cause GOI embarrassment internally.
2. He said instructions were being issued to Pandit and Rau authorizing them deny truth story and to point out that my visit Nehru on day GOI decision was coincidence since I had obtained appointment prior any knowledge second SC resolution. Instructions also were to effect that GOI decision was based on logic of events and was not made as result influence any foreign power.
3. Bajpai said this is second time during recent months that NYT had given credit to American Ambassadors in SOA for decisions taken by SOA Governments. He recalled that Sulzberger in an article sent from Karachi about two months ago had indicated that Indian-Pakistan pact had been brought about as result efforts on part American Ambassadors to Pakistan and India.2 This story had caused much [Page 305] embarrassment and harm. Latest story could be even more harmful.
4. I told Bajpai that I realized harm that story this kind could do to all of us; that I was deeply distressed that article appeared in so authoritative a newspaper as NYT ; and that I was sure my government realized GOI decisions were based on merits and logic of events. I said that I was somewhat at loss as to what should be done; that I hoped some way could be found for my government to put matter in its proper perspective; but that denials in situations this kind sometimes did more harm than good. Bajpai replied that he had no suggestions to make but that tendency American press give US credit for everything that was done anywhere was exasperating for governments dealing with US.
5. Bajpai was deeply irritated and I am sure Nehru is furious. Publication such story will seriously injure my relations at least temporarily with Nehru at most unfortunate time. He will be annoyed both with US Government and with me even though he may realize neither was responsible for publication. Appearance this story will, of course, also be effective ammunition for those groups in India and elsewhere in Asia who are already charging that GOI has fallen under domination “Anglo-American imperialism.”
6. I do not know whether Department can find some way of denying NYT story without giving it undue emphasis. I do not believe however we can remain silent in face of storm which is sure to rise in India. Perhaps Department can create occasion make statement along following lines:
Reports that US Government had attempted in Washington, Lake Success or New Delhi to exert pressure on India in matter of SC resolutions on Korea of June 26 and 27 are without foundation. US Government was of opinion that what had happened in Korea was so clear that events should be much more convincing than anything which it or any of its representatives could say.
It was entirely accidental that American Ambassador to India visited PM on June 29, the date GOI made decision to support resolution of June 27. Ambassador had requested appointment before he had any knowledge of this resolution in order explain considerations which had prompted US Government to take certain actions re Korea. Representative of India in SC had already supported SC resolution of June 26 [25]. It should therefore be clear that no representations from US were required to prevail upon GOI to support resolution of June 27 which was natural corollary to that of preceding day. US Government had no reason to believe that GOI decision re resolution of June 27 was influenced by Ambassador and PM. Its understanding is that decision was taken after Cabinet meeting had carefully reviewed all pertinent facts.
7. I would appreciate it if Department would inform me if it would have any objection to my issuance of statement similar to that outlined [Page 306] in paragraph 6 in response to inquiries certain to be received from press.
- Reference is to an article by Arthur Krock in the New York Times, July 4, 1950.↩
- Cyrus L. Sulzberger had been in Pakistan in early April 1950; for further information on this reference, see Cyrus L. Sulzberger, A Long Row of Candles: Memoirs and Diaries [1934–1954] (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1969), p. 541.↩