357.AB/1–1350: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)1
urgent
priority
9. For Austin. I saw Ind Amb and Bajpai Jan 9. Bajpai reiterated Ind view that Ind and Pak positions on Azad forces and northern areas irreconcilable and that McNaughton can do nothing further. He said that case shld be returned SC which shld hear both parties and decide next step. He thinks this shld be appointment mediator or mediators to go to subcontinent with broad terms reference solve whole problem. Terms reference shld be broad enough include Ind idea of partition with plebiscite in Vale which Bajpai again developed but said this new approach cld not be adopted quickly as public opinion subcontinent not prepared. He apparently envisages protracted period mediation which wld lead eventually to partition proposal. I said we wld give consideration his views.
Pls ask Bajpai call on you soonest and convey my views as fols:
- 1.
- After careful consideration I have concluded serious deterioration Indo-Pakistan relations requires earlier visible progress toward Kashmir settlement than he envisages. Most reassuring move for people of subcontinent and for world opinion wld be agreement on program for demilitarization Kashmir. SC appointment mediator without concomitant agreement demilitarization wld contribute little or nothing to removing fears or lessening tension.
- 2.
- I consider it essential that discussions with McNaughton be continued in NY until agreement reached. In my opinion proposals which McNaughton has put forward afford realistic approach to problem at this stage and practicable bases for further negot. According info available here, Ind reply these proposals contains nothing new and moves away from rather than toward settlement. From motives friendship and good will I urge reconsideration by GOI.
- 3.
- If McNaughton efforts fail owing Ind rejection, will be third consecutive time Ind has refused accept findings impartial UN agent. Pak however accepted UNCIP arbitration recommendation and we understand has accepted proposals McNaughton has put forward. In these circumstances if Ind shld terminate McNaughton’s efforts, we wld support in the SC his present proposals or such further proposals as he might put forward as a consequence of subsequent discussions with the parties and wld in light his recommendations support SC action necessary to overcome present deadlock.
FYI and for discussion McNaughton ur discretion, I see no reason why McNaughton cannot continue explore combination partition and plebiscite possibilities with parties. Altho US does not propose such a course we wld of course have no objection if agreed to by both parties. McNaughton is extending general good offices and is at liberty pursue any approach which appears to him offer hope of compromise and settlement.
- Repeated to New Delhi 34, Karachi 22, Colombo 21, and London 151.↩