333. Letter From the Director of the Office of South Asian Affairs (Bartlett) to the Ambassador in India (Bunker)1
Dear Ellsworth: Ever since the Pakistan takeover. I have been meaning to write to you on a personal basis but have put it off for one reason or another. Your telegram 963 of October 272 encourages me, however, to carry through with my original intention.
When the takeover took place so soon after the Iraq and Burmese “incidents”, I was very dispirited. It seemed to me that the takeover meant that in one more country, and a country which was a good friend of the United States, the light of the democratic ideal had been [Page 680] snuffed out. What made it worse, in my personal opinion, was that because of the larger issue of national freedom versus Kremlin hegemony, we were not in any position to protest. Our belief in democracy as a way of life for mankind had to give way to the stark realities of our own immediate national security interests. Yet, I argued with myself that in the longer term battle for men’s minds we would be at a disadvantage if we could not offer with heartfelt conviction the democratic ideals which lay behind our Declaration of Independence and to a lesser extent our Constitution. “Faith in stability” is not an appeal to lift mens’ souls and to insure dedicated self-sacrifice if necessary. Under a strict interpretation of Pakistan’s national law, our USIS librarians could theoretically be imprisoned for long terms if they urged their Pakistan readers to take out a copy of our Declaration of Independence or the writings of Thomas Jefferson. (Indeed, for the moment at any rate, we probably will find it unwise to send lecturers to Pakistan who might extol what we consider to be the virtues of democratic government.) Actually, I felt so badly at the time that I almost sought an interview on a personal basis with George Allen, but decided eventually not to impose myself on him since I am sure he must have given this basic problem much anxious thought.
Since those early days after the takeover, the Department has at very high levels stressed in its own thinking that Mirza in his first proclamation promised to “devise a constitution more suitable to the genius of the Muslim people” and that similarly Ayub unequivocally announced that his and Mirza’s “ultimate aim was to restore democracy, but of the type people can understand and work.” (While in the course of dictating this letter, we received the announcement that Mirza had resigned, turning over all his powers to Ayub, so I guess quoting Mirza is no longer much to the point!) The Department also had been considering the content of the world “democracy” as distinct from that of “republic” and several of us have done some homework on the philosophies of Hamilton and Jefferson and the concept of dictatorship by the majority. Even Jefferson in his first inaugural address stated: “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” The conclusion has been that in the first instance our hope is that a government can be established which is essentially based on the consent of the governed. The form which it takes would appear to be of secondary importance and, of course, subject over the years to modification as has been the case in our own government. This still leaves us, however, as I see it personally, with the question of what basic ideology we propose to offer as a positive alternative to Communist totalitarianism.
[Page 681][Here follows a brief personal reference.]
With best wishes always,
Sincerely yours,
P.S. Please excuse inked corrections, but I wanted to get this in the mail tonight.4
- Source: Department of State, SOA Files: Lot 62 D 43, India 1958. Secret; Eyes Only; Official–Informal.↩
- In telegram 963, Bunker commented in part as follows: “I believe we must consider whether a public announcement by the US implying new aid to Mirza and Ayub, particularly military aid, so soon after they have abrogated all democratic institutions in Pakistan will not strengthen the hands of those in India who argue that democracy is not the best course for India to follow. I believe that it will. Moreover, such an announcement will certainly arouse serious doubts in India as to where the US really stands on the issue of democracy versus dictatorship. The consequences in the long run for the moral standing and reputation of the US in India, and indeed elsewhere, may be serious.” (Ibid., Central Files, 790D.5–MSP/10–2758)↩
- Printed from a copy that bears this typed signature.↩
- The postscript is handwritten. There are minor handwritten corrections in the source text.↩