Author Archives: Ryan Burke

July 25, 1944: Pearson leak

Posted on by
Reply
  • On July 25, Drew Pearson, a popular political columnist for the Washington Post, published excerpts from a leaked copy of Phillips’ final report to Roosevelt on his mission, in his daily column, “Washington Merry-Go-Round.”

Kux, Estranged Democracies (1993)

  • “The story created a sensation in India and in Britain–although it cased little reaction in the United States” (36)
  • “The U.S. refusal to repudiate Phillips angered the British, boosting U.S. further in India” (36)
  • Phillips attempted to retire in August 1944, but Roosevelt did not accept his request in an attempt to not add to the hoopla (36)

Gould, Sikhs, Swamis, Students, and Spies (2006)

  • Gould frames his text around the Pearson leak and exposing Robert Crane as the leaker “Deep Throat”
  • marks the leak as a milestone in the relations between the US and India because, as according to Phillips, it “created a great commotion in England, a favorable impression here, and a burst of enthusiastic acclaim in India” (qtd. on 37)
  • the leak and aftermath cast a favorable glow on the US as being opposed to British imperialism for Indians, as well as strengthening the hand of the Indian-American lobbyists (38)
  • describes the leak as being “consummated in a David-and-Goliath propaganda war” between the British and the Indian lobbyists, who were committed to convincing “the American people that both colonialism and racism contradicted the principles upon which the American republic was erected, as well as the ideals fro which World War II was allegedly being fought” (39)

Aldrich, Intelligence and the War Against Japan (2000)

  • describes Pearson as “probably the most widely read political commentator in the United States” (148)
  • While the leak created “flap” in Washington, the uproar did not extend to India or Britain: most Indian nationalists had lost hope of any American intervention in favor of their independence, and Churchill believed the leak would keep Roosevelt from raising the question of Indian independence, calling Phillips “nothing more than ‘a well-meaning ass'” (149- assessment based on intelligence papers and a letter from Churchill to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden)
  • Focuses more material on British intelligence reaction to subsequent August 1944 leaks of telegrams between Eden and the Government of India, which Pearson also published (149-150)

Hess, America Encounters India (1971)

  • “the British response was immediate and definite”– wanted the U.S. gov’t to disavow Phillips’ report (143)
  • “virtually ignored in the American press” but received a significant amount of attention in India (144- cites major Indian newspapers)

Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (1952)

  • Phillips implies that he was about to facilitate discussions between the U.S. and Britain on the India issue at the time of publication, which in turn, dashed the possibility of revisiting the subject (413-414)
  • The publication of Phillips’ report: “created great commotion in England, a favorable impression here, and a burst of enthusiastic acclaim in India” (389).

White, A Rising Wind (1945)

  • Describes the leak as having “the highest significance” because it elucidated the arguments made by advocates of Indian independence (148)

August-September 1944: Pearson leak continued

Posted on by
Reply
  • In a follow-up to his July 25 column, Pearson wrote a second editorial on August 28 which labeled Phillips as a persona non grata based on messages between British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden and Sir Ronald Campbell, the British ambassador in Washington (Hess, 143-44).

Crane, Robert I. “U.S.-India Relations: The Early Phase, 1941-1945” Asian Affairs, vol. 15, no. 4 (Winter 1988/1989): 189-193.

  • Crane describes how he came to work at the India desk in the State Department and his involvement with multiple lobbying organizations including the National Committee for India’s Independence and the Indian League of America.
  • “The Phillips Report had come routinely across my desk in the Division of Cultural Relations.  Impressed an pleased by its contents, I subsequently showed it to two of my close Indian friends in Washington. Though I was not aware of it then, one of them copied the Report verbatim and later gave it to Drew Pearson, who published it.  The Report had a substantial impact on public opinion” (191).

Windmiller, Marshall. “A Tumultuous Time: OSS and Army Intelligence in India, 1942-1946” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Vol. 8, no. 1 (1995): 105-124.

  • “According to Crane, he showed the letter to two Indian friends, and one of them gave it to the columnist Drew Pearson.  It became a cause célèbre and caused a major diplomatic problem with Britain” (114).

Kux, Estranged Democracies (1993).

  • The second leak reported came from an Indian member of Agent-General Girja Bajpai’s staff (36).

Hess, America Encounters India (1971).

  • Pearson, in his memoir “Confessions of an S.O.B,” published in the November 3, 1956 issue of Saturday Evening Post, revealed that his informant was a State Department employee who felt that Phillips’ suggestions would generate more Indian support of the war (142).

Aldrich, Intelligence and the War Against Japan (2000).

  • Repeats Windmiller’s explanation of the leak, but goes on to identify Major Altaf Qadir, Third Secretary of the Indian Agent-General in Washington, an “ardent nationalist,” as the source behind the second leak to Pearson (149).
  • The British Security Co-ordination, headed by William Stephenson in New York, also identified Chaman Lal, an Indian journalist, as the person who gave the Phillips report to Pearson (149).

Gould, Sikhs, Swamis, Students, and Spies (2006)

  • Gould describes a chain from Crane to K.A.D. Naoroji, the Deputy Director of the Government of India Supply Mission (“an organization whose purpose was to expedite the flow of strategic supplies to India” 318), to K.C. Mahendra, an owner of a Bombay import-export company, to Obaidur Rahman, Press Officer at the Indian High Commission, who then gave the report to Pearson (373-374).
  • Gould seems to base this information off of interviews, though he does not include any visible citations.
Venkataramani, K.S. Roosevelt, Gandhi, Churchill: America and the Last Phase of India’s Freedom Struggle. New Delhi: Radiant Publishers, 1983.
  • In response to an indignant letter from Phillips’ wife, Roosevelt speculated that Welles might have been the source of the leak: “because of the friendship between Sumner Welles and Drew Pearson, the suspicion points to him” (qtd. on 212).
  • In a biography of William Stephenson, fellow operative H. Montgomery Hyde identified Chaman Lal as the person who gave the Report to Pearson (212).
  • In an interview with the author, however, Dr. Anup Singh (former editor of India Today and board-member of the National Committee for India’s Freedom) rejected Hyde’s account because while Lal claimed to have been the leaker, he had no role in the drama.  Instead, according to Singh, an sympathetic officer in the State Department gave the document to Obaidur Rahman who gave it to Singh who, in turn, gave the report to Pearson (213).

 

December 8, 1944-April 1945: Mme. Pandit’s U.S. Visit

Posted on by
Reply
  • Mme. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit arrives in New York just before Christmas, with the approval of the State Dept. on a flight coordinated by U.S. air force commander General Stratemeyer. Though Pandit visits her daughters in college, her trip’s real purpose is to raise support for Indian independence by making a cross-country lecture tour (Kux, 36-7)

Kux, Estranged Democracies (1993)

  • Kux describes Pandit’s visit as “well-publicized and successful” by giving “the Indian nationalist cause in the United States” a “substantial boost” (36-37)
  • Eleanor Roosevelt invited Pandit to lunch at the White House: “a further sign of U.S. desire to keep on good terms with Indian nationalists” (37)

Gould, Sikhs, Swamis, Students, and Spies (2006)

  • trip endorsed by Gandhi (379)
  • “Vijayalakshmi’s sharp intellect, enormous charm and striking appearance enabled her to be a highly effective spokesperson for a viewpoint with which the mainstream American diplomatic establishment still felt far from comfortable” thereby making her a valuable asset to the India Lobby (379)
  • describes lunch with Eleanor Roosevelt as an important media opportunity (380)

Hess, America Encounters India (1971)

  • “As the sister of Nehru and a leader in the National Congress for two decades, she was the only important nationalist figure permitted to visit the United States during the war” (151).
  • “her charm, keen mind, fist-hand experience, and sincerity made Mrs. Pandit the most effective voice of the nationalist cause heard in American during the war” (152)

June 26, 1945: U.N. Charter Signed in San Francisco

Posted on by
Reply
  • Conference began on April 25, 1945
  • India’s official delegates: Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar, Sir Firoz Khan Noon and V.T. Krishnamarchari
  • Walter White, along with W.E.B. duBois and Mary McLeod Buthune, served as a black advisor to the U.S. delegation

Gould, Sikhs, Swamis, Students, and Spies (2006)

  • Mme. Pandit “upstaged the official Indian delegation to the Conference” (383)

Hess, America Encounters India (1971)

  • “Although she attracted much favorable publicity to the nationalist cause, Mrs. Pandit’s attempt to bring the question of India before the San Francisco Conference was utterly futile. Neither the United States nor any other member was inclined to challenge the credentials of the Indian delegation” (153)

India Today

Posted on by
Reply

Courtesy of the University of Bucknell

 

Courtesy of the University of Bucknell

July 1944, courtesy of the University of Bucknell

 

August 9, 1944 appeal (part 1), courtesy of the University of Bucknell

Appeal (continued), courtesy of the University of Bucknell

J.J. Singh's proposed solution (part 1), courtesy of the University of Bucknell

Singh's solution (part 2), courtesy of the University of Bucknell

William Phillips (1878-1968)

Posted on by
Reply

Phillips, 1922, Courtesy of the Library of Congress

  • Career diplomat stationed in England, China, the Netherlands, Canada
  • Assistant Secretary of State, 1917
  • Ambassador to Italy, 1936-1941
  • Director of the OSS in London in 1942 until appointed Roosevelt’s personal representative to India on October 31, 1942 until FDR accepted his resignation on March 17, 1945

Online Reference Sources

William Phillips, American National Biography

Primary Sources

Ventures in Diplomacy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1952.

Papers, Harvard University

  • Hess does not believe the Phillips papers add much substantial information (189)

Reminiscences of William Phillips: oral history, 1951, Columbia University.

 

 

 

Louis Fischer (1896-1970)

Posted on by
Reply

 

  • Foreign relations journalist (reported from Soviet Union for 14 years) who worked to promote Indian independence cause in the U.S.
  • Met extensively with Gandhi and later published a biography, The Life of Mahatma Gandhi (1950), which the Oscar-winning movie is based on

Primary Sources

The Great Challenge. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946.

  • Includes account of Fischer’s, May 1942 trip to India and his meetings with Nehru and Gandhi
  • “No one imagines that independence will solve all of the problems of India. It will create problems. Freedom merely opens the door to the solution of the problems” (135).

The Life of Mahatma Gandhi. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1950.

  • Ch. 38 “My Week with Gandhi”
  • Gandhi gave Fischer a letter to deliver to Roosevelt. Gandhi later asked if Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms: “include the freedom to be free?” (376)

Walter White (1893-1955)

Posted on by
Reply

Image Courtesy of the New Georgia Encyclopedia

  • Executive secretary of the NAACP from 1931-1955
  • Advocate of Indian Independence
  • Member of U.S. delegation to UN Conference in San Francisco, 1945

Online Reference Source:

Walter White, American National Biography

Biographies

Janken, Kenneth Robert. White: The Biography of Walter White, Mr. NAACP. New York: The New Press, 2003.

  • “Before World War II the NAACP had exhibited only limited interest in the international dimensions of race.” (278)

Primary Sources

  • Papers located in the James Welldon Johnson Collection at Yale University
  • A Rising Wind. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Dorian and Company, Inc., 1945

White’s account of his information-gathering trip on the conditions of African-American soldiers in England, North Africa, the Middle East and Italy from January to March 1944.

  • At a London dinner party, White notes that none of the dinner guests made a connection between, “the American attitude toward Negroes whose skins were black or brown and the British attitude towards Indians whose skins were brown” (31).
  • “World War II has given to the Negro a sense of kinship with other colored–and also oppressed–peoples of the world” (144)
  • “If already planned race riots and lynchings of returning Negro soldiers “to teach them their place” are consummated, if Negro war workers are first fired, if India remains enslaved… World War III will be in the making before the last gun is fired in World War II” (154).
  • “Can the United States, Britain, and other ‘white’ nations any longer afford, in enlightened self-interest, racial superiority?” (154)
  • “The United States, Great Britain, France, and other Allied nations must choose without delay one of two courses–to revolutionize their racial concepts and practices, to abolish imperialism and grant full equality to all of its people, or else prepare for World War III” (154)
  • A Man Called White, The Autobiography of Walter White. New York: Viking Press, 1948.
  • Papers of the NAACP, Library of Congress

September 28, 2011

Posted on by
Reply

This past week I’ve focused on reorganizing the blog to reflect a possible chronology and the key actors for my project.

Currently my timeline posts range in date from August 14, 1941 and the signing of the Atlantic Charter to August 15, 1947 and Indian independence. Some of these dates are purely contextual, while on other posts I have begun brief historigraphies by including key scholars interpretations of these events. I’m currently working on incorporating Gary Hess’ analyses and I’m also planning to add the work of the Indian scholars M.S. Venkataramani and B.K. Shrivastava to broaden the historiography. Right now I think 1941 will be a good starting point of my project, but I’m still unsure of when I want to end my analysis–currently I’m leaning towards the end of Mme. Pandit’s U.S. visit in 1945 which would also coincide with the end of WWII.

I’ve changed one my “biography” sub-categories from “diplomats” to “foreign actors” because I was looking for a way to incorporate British actors as well as Indians, like Gandhi, who never went to the United States.

I’m currently struggling at finding journalists and lobbyists with enough primary source evidence to make them feasible to profile. For example, I’m currently looking into the journalist Louis Fischer, who gets mentioned in most of my secondary reading, but doesn’t seem to have left a collection of papers. Because of accessibility, my “state” category is becoming a bit top heavy as many of these actors have published accounts.

My big news this week is that I’m currently in possession of the 1940-1954 issues of India Today. I’ve looked through the issues published during the war period and have become familiar with the monthly periodical’s basic format. India Today is essentially a newsletter, distributed by the India League of America, that seeks to inform Americans on major India issues by publishing pieces written by prominent Indians, Indian experts, or supports of India. In addition, it includes a “suggested reading” section, an “as we see it” editorial, as well as a documentation of the League’s recent activities. Many of my potential key actors are either discussed in India Today or write pieces for the publication. To be honest I’m not sure what to do with this wealth of evidence.