Coll 29/104 'Appointment of an Indian to the Tehran Legation (First Secretary or Trade Commissioner)' [‎76r] (151/243)

^'ckt
SLu. ‘vy^C
Uu^ cu Zc -.
l.
W£A£ L
°5 f^yjoJ.
DEPARTMENT C r ^
A ^
^ © . a '-'\ S' ^-4 *A~—' t ■“•
h (A —{, S> Ir^)^. I ~£v'«~x. a. f*~
Sir L. Y/akely . ^ h U , *—
^ */ C; k Qjlu^jl S ^ -Sv ^
The Foreign Office letter of August 3'tst does not make out a
very strong case against the Government of India* s proposal that
an Indian should be appointed First Secretary in the Tehran
Legation, The last sentence of the third paragraph reads at first
sight as though the Foreign Office imagined that the Government of
India were proposing that their nominee would supersede the
existing First Secretary, But this can be neither, the Government
of India* s intention nor, indeed, the Foreign Office interpretation,
if only because the other post to which the latter refer is that
of Additiona l Counbflloro 7/hat the Foreign Office apparently
are objecting to is any increase in the number of the Government of
India* s nominees in the higher diplomatic posts in the Legation,
* K Lny^by tL, f tel
k-vC le.
lccs/~u^HJL *’'** ^
^ OkJ^A
|k ( <v ^«- U<v«/~
fc- &CL*~t_
ArA
On the question whether the proposal is ”likely in any way
to satisfy the future India”, the Government of India should be in
a better position to judge than the Foreign Office,
~-4
• /j/hcj In spite of the weakness of the Foreign Office reply, it
does not seem wise to attempt to press the proposal upon them
in the face of what is evidently a strong feeling against it on
their part.* Moreover, although the Government of India* s telegram
of July 8 th deprecated the appointment of a purely commercial
representative when trade is so rigorously restricted by war time
controls, they may on reconsideration accept the Foreign Office
counter r proposal to consult Sir R. Bullard with regard to the
appointment of an Indian commercial secretary. They may feel
that such an appointment would be the thin end of the wedge, and
that they would be able gradually to enlarge the scope of the
post in the direction of more specific representation of India.
(There would presumably be no objection to the Indian commercial
secretary handling from the outset the Indian community in Tehran,
since,in regard to earlier proposals. Sir R. Bullard himself
referred to the importance of this task).
7/e do not know why the Foreign Office have replied to
our official letter in this somewhat unusual form; but we feel
that the manner of their reply may make it more appropriate to
consult the Government of India through the pyivatg and personal
channel rather than officially. If you agree, we will submit a