Page images

embodied an expression of opinion that the Prime Minister's statement is likely to be prejudicial to India's war effort.

You should report to the Department by telegraph concerning the significance of this resolution and various Indian reactions to the Churchill statement. This report should indicate whether such reactions are likely to result in a further deterioration in the India political situation prejudicial to India's contribution to the war.

As of course you realize one of the reasons for the establishment of the Office of the Commissioner at New Delhi was to enable the Department to receive timely and complete reports on just this type of thing.


740.0011 European War 1939/16961 : Telegram

The Commissioner in India (Wilson) to the Secretary of State

NEW DELHI, November 28, 1941–3 p. m.

[Received November 29—1:32 p. m.] 26. Reference Department's No. 16, November 25, 8 p. m. The resolution referred to was passed by the Council of State on November 18th by a vote of 10 to 6 with Government remaining neutral and the Government leader, Sir Akbar Hydari, stating that in any case the report of the debate would be transmitted to His Majesty's Government. One member who opposed the resolution declared that it was “the height of hypocrisy" to say that Mr. Churchill's statement would adversely affect India's war effort. The "considerable prominence” which the American press gave to the passage of this resolution has most certainly not been reflected by any section of the Indian press and editorial comment has been notably lacking.

Although as yet it is much too early to make a prophecy as to the ultimate success of the recent action whereby the Province of Orissa has formed a Ministry emphasizing its purpose to "contribute to the war effort", it would be more profitable to feature such an occurrence than to give prominence to a resolution considered in India as of little significance by journalists and public as well.

It is true the Atlantic Charter has been adversely commented on editorially by many sections of the press in India and that from time to time President Roosevelt's name has been drawn in (reference my despatch No. 10 of November 7th 27) but this appears to me to be inconsequential as Mr. Roosevelt's popularity and press in India are almost universally excellent from which it is reasonable to deduce that unfavorable criticism of the President is for the purpose of (1) keeping prominently before the world India's position and (2) to try to

[blocks in formation]

force from Mr. Roosevelt some sort of statement which might be construed as repudiation of the Prime Minister's statement of the inapplicability to India of the Atlantic Charter. I believe it would be a grave error to give any great weight or reply to such comment which after all is of infrequent occurrence (reference also in this connection my despatch No. 5 of October 30, and No. 207, Calcutta, May 22, 1941 28).

If an effort is made to confine under one heading that which is prejudicial to India's war effort it would be well not to lose sight of the fact that India does not consider herself as fighting in this war for India's interests as a nation and feels that she is being called upon to defend an Empire in which she is not received as an equal partner.

Despite the prominence given to it by the American press I regard the resolution of November 18 as just another resolution and without significance.

I shall regard as irrelevant the closing paragraph of the Department’s cable under reference but if I am at variance with the Department by doing this I shall appreciate a further elaboration of the Department's view by air mail.





The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador (Lothian)

WASHINGTON, April 10, 1940. EXCELLENCY: With reference to my note to you of October 10, 1939 30 transmitting a draft of a Treaty of Establishment, Commerce, Navigation, and Consular Rights between the United States of America and India, the Department has been giving further consideration to that draft and has decided to propose to revise and expand it in certain particulars.

In view of the fact that the draft submitted with the note of October 10, 1939 makes no provision for exemption from military service it would appear appropriate to propose an article on that subject in substantially the form of the fourth paragraph of Article I of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation between the United States and Siam signed November 13, 1937.31 A copy of that treaty is enclosed herewith. Should it be decided to include such an article, the following terms may prove acceptable:


» Neither printed.

Continued from Foreign Relations, 1939, vol. II, pp. 349–364. 80 Ibid., p. 352. * Department of State Treaty Series No. 940, or 53 Stat. (pt. 3) 1731.

[ocr errors]

"Nationals of either country shall be exempt in the territories of the other country from compulsory military service on land, on sea, or in the air, in the regular forces, or in the national guard, or in the militia; from all contributions in money or in kind, imposed in lieu of personal military service, and from all forced loans or military contributions. They shall not be subjected, in time of peace or in time of war, to military requisitions except as imposed upon nationals.”

Such an article might be appropriately inserted between Articles I and II of the present draft treaty.

Article V, paragraph 1, of the draft treaty reads as follows:

"1. Vessels of the United States of America shall enjoy in India and Indian vessels shall enjoy in the United States of America the same treatment as national vessels or vessels of the most favored third country.” It is believed that it would be desirable in the interest of precision and clarity to redraft the quoted article to read as follows:

"1. Vessels of the United States of America shall enjoy in India and Indian vessels shall enjoy in the United States of America the same treatment as national vessels. In no case shall vessels of either country be accorded treatment less favorable than the vessels of the most favored third country.”

Paragraph 1, Article X, of the present draft reads as follows: "1. Each country will receive from the other country, consular officers in those of its ports, places and cities, where it may be convenient and which are open to consular representatives of any third country.”

It is suggested that the word "or" be substituted for the word "and" appearing at the end of line 3 of this paragraph. This Government attaches considerable importance to the right to establish a consular office at Delhi in order to facilitate the conduct of problems of mutual interest. It is hoped that your Government may be in a position to aid in preparing the way for the establishment of such an office.

It would seem to be advisable to include an article relating to the acquisition of land and buildings for governmental purposes which customarily appears in treaties of friendship, commerce and consular rights and consular conventions of the United States. The provision would be in the following terms:

“1. The Government of the United States of America and the Government of India, respectively, shall have the right to acquire and own land and buildings required for diplomatic or consular premises in the territory of the other country and also to erect buildings in such territory for the purposes stated subject to local building regulations.

“2. Lands and buildings situated in the territory of the United States of America or India, respectively, of which the Government of the other country is the legal or equitable owner and which are used exclusively for governmental purposes by that owner, shall be exempt from taxation of every kind, National, State, Provincial and Municipal, other than assessments levied for services or local public improvements by which the premises are benefited.” If the provisions of the foregoing article are found acceptable, the article may well be inserted between Articles X and XI of the present draft treaty.

Finally, I have the honor to propose provisions relating to the inviolability of archives and related matters. These provisions, also, are standard in the treaties of the United States now in force with a number of countries. It is suggested that a new article, to be included after Article XI of the present draft might read as follows:

"Article_ “The quarters where consular business is conducted and the archives of the consulates shall at all times be inviolable, and under no pretext shall any authorities of any character within the country make any examination or seizure of papers or other property deposited with the archives. When consular officers are engaged in business within the territory of the country where they are exercising their duties, the files and documents of the consulate shall be kept in a place entirely separate from the one where private or business papers are kept. Consular offices shall not be used as places of asylum. No consular officers shall be required to produce official archives in court or testify as to their contents.”

The insertion of the three foregoing articles, if agreed upon, will require the renumbering of the articles of the draft except Article I. While my Government desires to proceed to the conclusion of the treaty with India as soon as may be practicable, it is of the opinion that the time required for the negotiation of the three additional articles would not materially delay the successful conclusion of the negotiations. Accept [etc.]

For the Secretary of State:


711.452/40 Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs

(Murray) to the Assistant Secretary of State (Acheson)

[WASHINGTON,] April 3, 1941. MR. ACHESON: On March 30, 1941, Sir Firoz Khan, High Commissioner of the Government of India in London, accompanied by Mr. W. H. Mather of his office and Sir Nevile Butler of the British Embassy in Washington, called at the Division of Near Eastern Affairs to discuss matters relating to the draft of a proposed “Treaty of Establishment, Commerce, Navigation and Consular Rights Between the United States of America and India.”

The reasons for the desirability of such a treaty with India and the history of the preparation of the draft may be summarized briefly as follows: Following reports from the Consulate General at Calcutta regarding mounting resentment in India at restrictions imposed by our immigration laws against the entry of Indian business men into the United States, it was decided to negotiate a treaty with India in order that Indian nationals, like those of most other Oriental countries, would be accorded “treaty merchant” status under Section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act of 1924.32 It was considered desirable also to have a new treaty of commerce and navigation to replace the obsolete provisions relating to India in the American-British Convention of Commerce and Navigation of July 3, 1815.33 Accordingly, when the British Ambassador subsequently took up the question of restrictions upon the entry of Indian business men, the Department proposed the negotiation of a treaty of establishment and commerce. The British Embassy stated that the Government of India was agreeable to the proposal and suggested that the Department prepare a draft of such a treaty, which was duly submitted to the Embassy on October 10, 1939.34

The purpose of the visit of Sir Firoz Khan, who arrived in the United States a little over a week ago, is to submit the proposals of

a the Government of India for changes in the draft. Although most of these proposals present only minor problems for which it is believed solutions can be found, two issues have been raised which concern matters relating to the general foreign policy of the Government. These issues and the matters to which they relate are discussed briefly as follows:

1. Mineral Resources Article

It has been proposed that Article VIII (copy attached 35) consist only of the first sentence thereof and that the second and third sentences be deleted. Such a deletion would result in our acquiescence in the continued enjoyment by British oil companies of exploratory and extractive privileges in Indientot accorded to American firms by virtue of legislation existing in India since 1885 forbidding corporations controlled by foreign interests to engage in the extraction of petroleum. A similar situation prevailing in Great Britain was al

* 43 Stat. 155. * Hunter Miller (ed.), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 2, p. 595.

For the draft, see Foreign Relations, 1939, vol. II, p. 354. * Ibid., p. 360.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »