891.49/5–851
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of South Asian Affairs (Mathews)
Subject: Proposed Statement of Prime Minister Nehru with respect to Indian Food Aid Legislation before the Congress
| Participants: | Mr. M. K. Kirpalani—Minister, Embassy of India |
| Mr. E. G. Mathews—Director, Office of South Asian Affairs |
Mr. Kirpalani reported that according to the latest word received from New Delhi the Prime Minister planned to restrict his initial statement in Parliament to the general thesis that the bills for food aid to India before the Congress did not contain political strings and that they were not discriminatory as against India. The Prime Minister felt that he must include in his statement a reference to monazite sands and related materials in the sense that India would not export materials to any destination for the manufacture of atomic weapons.
Mr. Kirpalani went on to say that it was inevitable that the Prime Minister would be pressed by further Parliamentary questions and would undoubtedly find it necessary to express a preference as between the House and Senate bills. He would in this case favor the House bill.
Mr. Mathews pointed out that the Government of India must make its own decision as to whether it preferred aid from the United States [Page 2160] on a grant or a loan basis. He was not sure, however, whether this was really the issue in the Prime Minister’s apparent preference for the House bill over the Senate bill. He assumed that the Prime Minister’s preference might be based on the fact that the House bill contained no conditions, whereas the Senate bill contained several conditions. It might well be therefore that the Prime Minister would wish to express his preference in terms of the absence or existence of conditions. Mr. Mathews also pointed out that there was a certain delicacy in the situation arising from the fact that the Prime Minister would be commenting on differences existing between the two Houses of the Congress of the United States, which was in a large measure an internal political matter. In view of this, the Prime Minister might wish to preface any comment he would make as to a preference between the two bills with a remark in the sense that there was some difficulty in commenting upon legislation pending before the legislative body of another country.
With respect to the Prime Minister’s intended remarks about prohibiting exports of materials to be used in the manufacture of atomic weapons, Mr. Mathews stressed the fact that monazite sands contained no material of a fissionable nature which was used in the manufacture of atomic weapons. The United States interest in obtaining monazite sands was not so much for their content of fissionable thorium as for the rare earths contained in the sands. These rare earths had many industrial, scientific and defense uses. In view of these facts, the Prime Minister might wish to avoid any specific reference to monazite sands in his comments on prohibiting exports of materials used in the production of atomic weapons.
Mr. Kirpalani said that he would convey the substance of this conversation to his Ambassador and after discussion with her, dispatch an urgent telegram to New Delhi. He inquired whether the Department still desired an early general statement by the Prime Minister, pointing out, however, that the Prime Minister could not make his statement before May 10. Mr. Mathews said that he believed it would be helpful if the Prime Minister could make his statement, as it would remove the uncertainty still prevailing in the Congress as to the Indian Government’s intentions.