330/8–1850: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State
priority
[Received August 18—10:19 a. m.]
415. 1. I discussed with Bajpai Secretary General MEA August 17 substance message contained Deptel 248, August 16 [15].1
2. He listened to various points as outlined by me rather listlessly. When I asked if he would like to have notes made of them he replied in negative. If he had notes he would feel compelled to discuss them with Prime Minister and he did not believe matter was worth pursuing to that extent. He had in fact already telegraphed Rau asking him not to present this suggestion to UN in form of resolution. From outset GOI had not been enthusiastic of committee composed of nonpermanent members of SC. It doubted that such committee would have any influence or great capacity. August 16 Roberts UK acting High Commissioner had informed him his government had misgivings re Rau’s suggestions. GOI had no detailed knowledge of what Rau had in mind until it obtained from Roberts transcript of Rau’s speech. For instance, he had learned only from Roberts that Rau had suggested proposed committee should “hear any person they please”.
3. Bajpai added he was wondering whether, if committee were to be appointed, it should be limited to members SC. States which were not members SC might be able furnish statesmen more qualified to work out principles of peace than statesmen representing nonpermanent members SC. What contribution, for instance, could be expected of Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt and Yugoslavia.
4. I asked Bajpai what states in his opinion might be able provide capable statesmen. After some hesitation he said that as examples Canada might furnish Pearson and Netherlands Van Royen [Roijen]. When I asked if he thought Malik would agree to committee composed of such countries as Netherlands and Canada he admitted some doubt. Perhaps some statesmen could be found also from among countries behind iron curtain. I said such “statesmen” could be nothing more or less than spokesmen for Russia so that committee would in fact [Page 604] have in it representative of one of great powers. Bajpai acknowledged there would be problems connected with setting up of any kind committee but said efforts should not be halted merely because of difficulties.
5. Bajpai said for some time he had been wishing to make suggestion which he hoped would not be interpreted as lack of confidence in judgment of Rau. He had impression that America, British and other western colleagues of Rau in UN, in desire not to hurt Rau’s feelings or to appear obstructive, were not sufficiently frank with him. There seemed to Bajpai to be tendency when Rau made tentative suggestions for his western colleagues, instead of telling him frankly why in their opinion they were impracticable, to act as though they deserved consideration. Too often his colleagues treated his suggestions sympathetically and as worth submitting to their governments. Rau was simple, straightforward man inclined to believe that sympathetic attitude towards his suggestions indicated belief they were sound. He was, therefore, sometimes misled into pushing forward projects which should have been discouraged at their very initiation. It was difficult for GOI to order Rau not to go ahead with some of his ideas when in submitting them to Delhi he indicated they had been greeted with at least tentative sympathy by his western colleagues.
6. I told Bajpai I would pass his suggestions along. I was sure they would not be misunderstood. I wanted again to assure him of the high respect and esteem in which Rau was held by US delegation at Lake Success.