Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XXV, South Asia

198. Telegram From the Embassy in Pakistan to the Department of State¹

Karachi, September 9, 1965, 1245Z.

428. Subject: Kashmir. Deptel 290.² I met for 45 minutes today with FonMin Bhutto to present US response GOP request for invocation defense agreement. I paraphrased reftel and later sent FonMin minute. I added US concerting all our resources behind Security Council and SecGen. We cannot say what next step would be if current initiative should not work. We do not even want to envisage possibility of it not working, and assume FonMin would agree on this. Bhutto replied if UN were only means of securing justice and meeting armed aggression, there would be no need for bilateral alliances.

If only reason for bilateral agreement with US were to refer to UN then Pakistan might as well not have that agreement. US/Pak agreement is special arrangement and obligation US with respect Pakistan. To refer GOP now to UN is to say US not willing fulfill its obligations. Situation all the more complicated than heretofore since UN has done nothing effective over 18 years re Kashmir. This was Indian intention and if [it?] is base your reply, we might as well [have?] listened to Indians. Fear GOP must make special note of that. US/Pak bilateral agreement not dependent upon UN blessing. If that, however, US approach, must say it causes disappointment GOP. I pointed out I had not said current UN approach the full extent our reaction. It first step and hopefully enough lay basis for settlement acceptable GOP but obviously must get cease fire and withdrawal forces both sides. We have said that “depends upon responses both sides.” We recognize our responsibility to go beyond first step if that does not work. If you cooperate in good faith and clarity, US has responsibility. Bhutto said time is of essence. We cannot go by stages when fate of nation hangs in balance. India has violated pledges and promises to people of Kashmir and violated UN resolution. India has embarked on aggression, in East Pakistan by economic aggression, expelling Muslims, infiltrating Jammu. India has perhaps over-reacted. India has committed aggression against Kashmir. Pakistan cannot commit aggression there, they are our own people. India reoccupied Kargil posts August 30, and on August 24 undertook Poonch offensive. GOP had to react but only did so in disputed territory. At every stage India has escalated; by crossing CFL, by launching Uri-Poonch offensive. But nobody, even our allies, came to us and acknowledged those actions as provocative. As self-respecting people we had react. India then determined to react anew and invade Pak territory. I asked about GOP position of implementation cease fire and withdrawal as first step. Bhutto replied this happened in past with very same language, cease fire, UN resolution and promises to bring full weight to bear. Now people have made sacrifices and India has committed aggression. With all that should we repeat mistakes of past and accept cease fire? What is different element to assure India would take different position? Eighteen years ago it was easier accept cease fire, now it much more complicated. We want cease fire but are not going to permit surrender our vital interest. India has no vital interest in Kashmir. Pakistan has vital moral, ethnic, religious interest. Am afraid matter not being looked at objectively. Cease fire must form part of final Kashmir settlement along lines: a) India and Pakistan vacate territory, b) UN administration of law and order for period approximately six months, c) plebiscite within precisely stipulated time. Without that there can be no solution. I said India not able to agree to that now and Bhutto responded, “Then let them destroy Pakistan!” I observed FonMin must be aware there new sense of urgency concerning Kashmir problem compared that past 18 years. Not possible now treat issue passively. Impossible with new situation fail seek acceptable solution. Bhutto said, “People of Kashmir alone must decide, and no solution is complete without people of Kashmir expressing right of self determination. This is battle of survival for Pakistan. We must be either degraded as nation or prevail. We prepared fight to finish. Pakistan is small country but morality is on our side and Pak people united. You cannot destroy a people and their spirit by one battle in Lahore.” I interjected that force no ultimate answer. Bhutto retorted, “What has happened over past 18 years?”

I pointed out to FonMin his position amounted to saying GOP not willing abandon use of force even if other side withdrew. He replied Pakistan has been invaded. I asked if invader withdraws, would that not be better than throwing him out? Bhutto replied, “Yes, if he also withdrew from Jammu and Kashmir.” I said it new position that Jammu and Kashmir part of Pakistan. Bhutto said no, it goes back at least a year. I asked does not plebiscite come first, and Bhutto responded with, “Why has there not been a plebiscite last 18 years?” I said Amb Bowles making urgent representation New Delhi today, and I hoped India would agree to cease fire and withdraw, albeit, I did not expect that would include Jammu and Kashmir. I pointed out that all our persuasiveness has been brought to bear beyond any other thought possible before. Bhutto observed US position India of special character but with Pakistan US has special moral and contractual obligations. Commented surely US can do more than direct GOP to UN.

I asked FonMin about GOP position concerning visit UN SecGen. Bhutto said GOP did not object to welcoming him so he might see for himself. He expressed facetious hope Article 19 question sufficiently resolved to permit UN pay SecGen air fare. Noting that question and other UN problems, Bhutto said please take such indications (of weakness) into account before putting all US might behind UN. Said valuable time has been lost with possibly far-reaching consequences. Stressed bilateral obligations not superseded by UN.

I acknowledged US bilateral responsibilities go beyond appeal to UN if that should not work. However, as our treaties usually indicate, we seek work within UN if possible. Bhutto said late Secretary Dulles had promised immediate US action event Indian aggression. Said Under Secretary Ball became irritated when Bhutto pointed out US would not intervene promptly enough. Cited late President Kennedy’s saying US would break relations with India in event aggression. Amb Harriman had asserted US simply would not permit Indian attack. Bhutto commented now GOP fears being realized.

I pointed out to FonMin US using its might right now, and I was not saying if present efforts do not work that we will not try other ways. I said that if GOP could only cooperate, likelihood was more serious effort than ever before seek acceptable solution. Bhutto retorted that people of Kashmir most concerned, suffering as they do from genocide, expulsion and violation from India. I observed India must be brought to accept any agreement of her own free will. To be [garble—viable?] all three parties must be willing to accept, i.e., Pakistan, India, and Kashmir.

Bhutto responded, “We not bartering over piece of territory but are concerned with fate five million people. If they want Indian, okay. If they wish to be part of Pakistan, that’s fine. If they wish something else, that’s all right too. Whatever they want.”

I told FonMin US hoped GOP can see way clear accept UN initiative as outlined by me if Indians accept. Said such acceptance would buy time. Valuable time in which to work toward agreement. Observed that in unfortunate case India should not accept, GOP would be in strong diplomatic position and thus could not lose either way. Bhutto said GOP had tried UN and been humiliated, been treated there as naive and stupid, subjected to cynical discussion and told to be realistic. Said he had told UN representatives sub-continent could take fire in absence settlement, but they said that impossible. Bhutto claimed GOP had tried very hard obtain peaceful settlement. GOP had accepted all 14 proposals made, as well as UN resolution, Commonwealth initiative, GOP had refrained from taking advantage in Sino-Indian crisis, listened to intermediaries, participated in discussions in Geneva, FonMin maintained GOP had always taken initiatives in seeking peaceful solution. Reiterated it necessary study totality of problem.

I suggested GOP receptivity possible visit SecGen signified to me that GOP not prepared abandon peaceful solution and is keeping mind open. Bhutto replied, “Open mind, yes! But a positive cease fire, cease fire which means settlement, plebiscite.” Bhutto pointed to Pak locale on crossroads of Asia, asking how can Paks as Oriental people prevent visit their country SecGen who also Asian. Said GOP of course has no objection but if SecGen thinks he not going to address self to heart of matter but simply put forth Indian position, his visit can serve no useful purpose. I observed SecGen certainly not going present GOI position, and I reiterated necessity both sides stop shooting and seek agreement. Bhutto replied that matter of formality. Said cease fire without larger agreement not possible.

I asked FonMin if any further intelligence available concerning Indian movements last few hours.

He replied no, he then referred Peenion Vielt, calling him old friend of Pakistan, and saying such visit would also be welcome but in same way and manner as the UN SecGen. Reiterated that to be meaningful any discussion must [be] addressed to main problem. Said this matter for US more than any other country.

McConaughy

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL 27 INDIA–PAK. Secret; Immediate. Received at 8:41 p.m., and passed to the White House, DOD, and CIA at 9 p.m. Repeated to London, New Delhi, and CINCMEAFSA for POLAD.
2. Document 188.