845.00/12–2649: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Henderson) to the Secretary of State
1605. At Nehru’s request I called on him this afternoon. He greeted me courteously and although polite and restrained betrayed considerable feeling. He pointed out how his Christmas had been spoiled by message from Bajpai outlining McNaughton’s proposals re Kashmir [Page 1767] He regretted Government of India had been compelled to instruct Bajpai turn them down. This decision made after long discussions among GOI leaders, including representatives from Kashmir Government. During conversation he read aloud text instructions to Bajpai and expounded to considerable extent on them. Among objections to proposals were:
- 1.
- They placed India and Pakistan on same footing in, Kashmir, something which previous resolutions and decisions of UN bodies had not done. For instance they balanced withdrawal Pakistan troops with Indian troops and partial disbandment Azad forces with that of Kashmir State forces and militia.
- 2.
- Government of India had always contended that after withdrawal Pakistan forces who were in Kashmir illegally and total disbandment of Azad forces which had no standing whatsoever, it would withdraw Indian forces leaving enough only to protect population. Government of India could not agree to use of remnant of Azad forces acting as police in so-called Azad territory. It could not thus recognize legal position of any Azad forces whatsoever. After withdrawal Pakistan and Azad forces from Azad territory Government of India wanted local police force set up. This force might include members of former Azad forces but no contingents or units. Suggestion that Kashmir state forces and militia should also disband strikes entirely novel note. These forces had been in existence long before Government of India troops entered Kashmir and had not materially increased in size. There were only about 9000 state forces and 6000 militia. Neither contingent was prepared to carry on warfare. They had not been trained or disciplined for this purpose. Their job was merely that maintaining local law and order. There could be no excuse for disbanding old organizations like them.
- 3.
- Government of India was also surprised at proposal relating to northern territories. It had requested withdrawal all Pakistan forces and setting up civilian administration of area by Government of India. It had not, however, insisted on installing civilian administration in whole territory but had indicated it would be satisfied if given control certain key points from which it could prevent infiltration of hostile parties into rest of Kashmir. Proposal suggested withdrawal of Pakistan forces and control territory by Gilgi and Balti scouts. These scouts were without argument units of Pakistan Army so proposals were really self-contradictory. Government of India could not agree to any proposals which did not provide for withdrawal of all Pakistan forces and forces subordinate to Pakistan from all of Kashmir. It could never recognize that such forces had any right in a country they had entered by aggression.
- 4.
- He could not understand paragraph in proposals suggesting that mediator in addition to interpreting agreement entered into as a result of these negotiations might also concern himself with other matters. This paragraph seemed ambiguous. He thought it would be unfortunate for a mediator to be appointed unless he clearly had right to consider broad question of future Kashmir.
Prime Minister said he was all the more disappointed at character proposals since had thought that Washington, Ottawa and London [Page 1768] had been given Government of India views during his recent visits. They therefore must have known that suggestions this character could not be acceptable to Government of India.
He said he was giving his views also to British High Commissioner who entered anteroom as I left.