Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, Africa and South Asia, Volume XI, Part 2

611.9194/12–2454: Telegram

The Chargé in India (Kennedy) to the Department of State

confidential
niact

New Delhi, December 24, 1954—7 p.m.

863. I saw Jha this afternoon with Jain and Venkatachalam present. Economic Counselor accompanied me (Deptel 791).¹ In half-hour discussion, points included in reference telegram were presented and discussed fully.

1. It my general impression that statement with respect to our putting ourselves in position to meet Indian point of view by reduction of services to two flights each carrier, constituted substantial offer and was favorably received by Jha.

2. Jha first referred to Fifth Freedom problem and indicated this still important stumbling block since Indian position on it had been taken at Cabinet level. If other things are worked out, however, I am not of the view at this moment that it will prove a barrier, although it should be kept in mind that this will be factor in later consultations with respect to possible further reductions of frequencies or positions they will take on new services.

3. Jha raised question with respect to traffic stops and was informed it would require an amendment to the agreement to reduce PAA to one traffic stop in India. I indicated this would be something that could be considered at later time and should not interfere with reaching agreement on immediate problem. This, of course, is much less serious problem than one relating to Fifth Freedom.

4. One of serious questions bothering Jha is very broad language contained in Article 4. He continually refers to fact that even though disputes might be referred to arbitral tribunal or to ICAO, it would be very difficult for people who had to sit in judgment to reach reasonable conclusion from Indian point of view. He also makes reference to this in connection with consultations. It is obvious that Indians will wish some interpretive language on Article 4 in order provide clearer guide lines for future consultations. I urged that this not be thrown into existing problem but am not sure but what GOI will insist on something about this in an exchange of notes.

5. Jha continually referred to there being regular consultations, such as once yearly, and we urged that the present agreement made that possible since all that was necessary would be for GOI to request consultation at a regular period of time. I finally said I thought an interpretative point might be made by way of recognizing that there should be regular consultations once a year as long as it was also recognized that there could be interim consultations at the desire of either government.

6. With respect to the substitute for Article XI providing for advisory tribunal, Jha thought this was less undesirable than existing provision for reference to ICAO. He asked whether this applied to frequencies or would be in place of Article XI, and I replied that it my impression it would replace Article XI with respect to all disputes between the parties. Please confirm.

7. Jha indicated it going be very difficult to get Cabinet decision on all these points within time limit of termination notice, and wondered whether it would be possible to agree on a suspension of the execution of the termination notice for thirty days. I asked him if he making that proposal officially, to which he replied he could not do so as yet but that perhaps if he could [get] the agreement of his Minister, this would be a possibility. I said I would raise this question with the Department and thought this might be beneficial step in order to make things more certain. In connection with his concern about getting decision by January 14 on whether or not our proposal was acceptable, he mentioned Nehru’s absence from India and various plans of his own. I made it clear that our agreement to a suspension of termination notice would be based upon maintenance of the status quo for that period so that the two airlines would continue to fly three flights weekly. My impression is that he will still make every effort to work out solution by January 14, but on the other hand, I believe the fact that he raised this possibility is encouraging indication that he is now prepared to think in more favorable terms of a continuation of the agreement under proposal we have put forth. (Advise if thirty-day suspension termination notice acceptable.)

8. Jha indicated it would be necessary to have exchange of notes to cover all understandings we would reach as a part of withdrawal of termination notice. I would appreciate early telegraphing of text. I promised give Jha unsigned paper setting forth additional points contained Deptel 791 in order that he might have them with previous text which had been given him (Embtel 836).² Immediately following telegram will give texts.

Kennedy

1. Supra.
2. Dated Dec. 20, p. 1799.