June 15, 1950
DEPARTMENT OF STATE Memorandum of Conversation
Subject: Government of India Request for Official U.S. Statement Clarifying its Policy with regard to Shipment of Arms to India and Pakistan
Participants: Her Excellency, Madame Vijayalakshmi Pandit, Ambassador of India The Honorable Dean Acheson - Secretary of State Mr. T. N. Kaul - First Secretary, Embassy of India Mr. Joseph S. Sparks - SOA
Copies to: S/S, NEA, SO_, MD, S/MDA, NEA/P, DRN, CIA, American Embassies: New Delhi, Karachi, London, Moscow
Madame Pandit apologized for requesting an appointment so soon after my return to Washington but explained that she was forced to do so by the deep concern of her Government over statements which had been made by the Pakistan Prime Minister. She said that following the agreement between the Indian and Pakistan Prime Ministers of April 8, 1950 it had been understood by the Government of India that Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan would refrain during his trip to the United States from making statements of a disturbing nature. He had, however, made such statements and their effect was to establish a barrier to the carrying out of the agreement. Madame Pandit said that her brother, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his Ministers had tried very hard to make the Indo-Pakistan agreement workable but that their task had been made almost impossible by Liaquat Ali Khan's speeches.
Maintaining that unimportant statements would have been overlooked by her Government, Madame Pandit said that it was impossible to overlook Liaquat Ali Khan's allegations that India had defaulted in its obligations to deliver Pakistan's equitable share of military equipment following partition. She charged that Liaquat's allegations had been linked by him with an appeal to the United States for arms and that the Pakistan Prime Minister had further blamed the high per cent of Pakistan's budget devoted to military expenditures on India's failure to deliver Pakistan's rightful share of military equipment.
In order to explain the actual situation in regard to military stores in the subcontinent, Madame Pandit related India's interpretation of their history. She said that at the time of partition all military supplies in the subcontinent were owned by the United Kingdom. It was agreed that India should reimburse the United Kingdom for these supplies and that Pakistan in turn should reimburse India for the share of supplies which it received. The Ambassador said that India had paid the United Kingdom and that 14.6 crores of rupees \(approximately 43.8 million dollars prior to devaluation of the rupee\) were owed to India by Pakistan. She alleged that Pakistan had accepted this obligation originally, had re-accepted it at a later date and then in the last analysis had refused to pay. According to the Ambassador, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan had referred to 160,000 tons of supplies. She said that he had not, however, referred to the 50 to 60,000\(?\) tons of supplies which Pakistan, under the agreement, was supposed to ship to India. Madame Pandit said that India had shipped all of the important items in the list and sixty per cent of the unimportant items to Pakistan, whereas Pakistan had shipped only ten per cent of the supplies to India which it owed. Although India did not customarily refer to these supplies in terms of tons, the partition had been carried out in such a way that each military unit transferred to Pakistan from India had carried its own equipment with it and it was estimated by India that 75 to 80,000 tons of supplies were actually shipped from India to Pakistan.
The Ambassador stated that she particularly regretted the timing of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan's charges in that the Indo-Pakistan agreement of April 8 had been working on a mutually satisfactory basis and the Indian Cabinet had hoped that within a matter of weeks it might be possible to tackle other matters between the two countries. As a result of Liaquat Ali Khan's speeches, however, she alleged that the position has again become tense between India and Pakistan and any attempts to resolve differences amicably have been made extremely difficult. In this connection the Ambassador referred to Sir Owen Dixon's\(?\) conversations with Prime Minister Nehru and Sir Girja Bajpai. She said that she had just been informed that a meeting was to be arranged between the Indian and Pakistan Prime Ministers when they had each returned to the subcontinent and she felt that such a meeting would not be productive in the present atmosphere.
One of the unfortunate aspects of the situation according to Madame Pandit was the fact that the position of the United States has not been clear. She said that there is a widespread belief in India that the United States, by its passive attitude, has indicated acceptance and support of the Pakistanis' claims and that a public statement from me on this subject would be helpful. It was her contention that the state of public opinion in India against the United States is one of the important barriers to an improvement in Indo-Pakistan relations.
I told Madame Pandit that I had personally missed hearing the Pakistan Prime Minister's addresses in that I had been out of the country at the time. I understood, however, that Ambassador Henderson had discussed this matter in detail with Sir Girja Bajpai and had explained to him that the United States has not in any way interfered or taken a part in the question of the division of military supplies between India and Pakistan. I was certain that we had not in any way been influenced by the statements of the Pakistan Prime Minister on this problem.
I took occasion to explain to Madame Pandit that in point of fact much greater amounts of arms have gone from the United States to India than to Pakistan. Mentioning our legal difficulties in being of assistance I told the Ambassador that we are currently seeking authority from Congress of a nature which we have not previously had. I explained, however, that Congress had not acted upon the pending legislation and that it was not possible to know, in view of the substantial opposition against it, whether or not it would be passed. In the meanwhile both India and Pakistan have made purchases exclusively on the commercial market and I pointed out again that India has done so much more successfully than Pakistan. I asked Madame Pandit how we could make this situation public, as she had suggested, without magnifying it.
Madame Pandit said that the Indian public believes that the Pakistan Prime Minister came to the United States with the definite mission of obtaining American military assistance and that he had succeeded.
I promised the Ambassador that we would give the matter careful thought and see if it was possible for us to say something publicly which would be helpful. Madame Pandit referred to articles which had appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post to the effect that Liaquat Ali Khan had talked to me about arms and that I had referred him favorably to Secretary Johnson. She said that these articles were particularly played up in the Indian press. Mr. Kaul said that another article stated that Pakistan was going to enter MAP.
The Ambassador remarked that she had been asked what India's position would be if Pakistan were to receive aid from the United States and that she had replied that India's foreign policy is not dependent upon the decisions made by the United States as to which countries it will extend aid. I said that I did not understand the source of articles of the nature described by the Ambassador and assured her once again that we would study the problem carefully and see if it were possible for me or someone else in the Government to make some sort of an official statement.
NEA:SOA:JSSparks:mkj June 16, 1950