Office of the Historian

330/11–3050: Telegram

The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State

secret
New Delhi, November 30, 1950—3 p. m.

1350. Occasion taken to show Bajpai Depintel November 27, 1 a. m.1 re USGA advice from Eau on GOI attitude toward Tibet question since information was not consistent with our understanding GOI attitude.

Bajpai expressed astonishment at information attributed GOI FonOff and read to Steere last instructions on Tibet MEA sent to Rau. These clearly indicated that GOI favored postponement decision on inclusion Tibet GA agenda because of belief discussion at this time could only exacerbate feelings and perhaps jeopardize efforts for agreement on more important issues. Cable indicated GOI had only “a faint hope” of Tibet question being resolved by negotiations.

Bajpai said GOI understood that Lhasa authorities are not negotiating or endeavoring to negotiate with Chinese authorities but that latter are endevoring to negotiate with local Tibetans in areas under Chinese control.

Presumably Rau free wheeling on basis his own interpretation final paragraph second Peiping note2 which MEA (at least Bajpai) has not taken as indicative of change Peiping attitude re Tibet. Bajpai openly suspicious and cynical re Peiping.

Henderson
  1. Not printed. It conveyed the information contained in the second sentence of the third paragraph of Department telegram 794, November 28, to New Delhi, supra. (700.00(S)/11–2750)↩

  2. The paragraph under reference reads as follows:

    “The Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China welcomes the renewed declaration of the Indian Government that it has no political or territorial ambitions in China’s Tibet and that it does not seek any new privileged position. As long as our two sides adhere strictly to the principle of mutual respect for territory, sovereignty, equality, and mutual benefit, we are convinced that the friendship between China and India should be developed in a normal way, and that problems relating to Sino-Indian diplomatic, commercial, and cultural relations with respect to Tibet may be solved properly and to our mutual benefit through normal diplomatic channels.” (Documents on International Affairs, 1949–1950, p. 556)

    ↩