80. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Pakistan1
639. At his request Pak Ambassador G. Ahmed saw Governor Harriman December 11 to express grave concern of GOP at announcement December 4 by GOI Minister Nanda of GOI intention to extend the constitutional provision of President’s rule to Kashmir.2 Points made by Ambassador Ahmed were: (1) by this action, even fiction of separateness of Kashmir is being destroyed; (2) this action, coming at a time when President Ayub had sought to be conciliatory and on heels of an Ayub-Shastri meeting, has special significance and indicates that India does not want peaceful settlement; (3) effect of this action on Kashmir itself might very well be explosive; (4) things are bound to become steadily more and more difficult; (5) GOP continues to believe that military aid to India is responsible for this stiffening Indian attitude; (6) because of India’s dependence on US aid, US has a whip hand and nothing will stop India in its move to integrate Kashmir unless US threatens to stop aid; (7) GOP will certainly protest to the UN, but Ambassador was uncertain what GOP might do beyond that; (8) purpose of Ambassador’s call was to ask US what GOP should do since earlier this year US chided Pakistan for taking issue to Security Council without prior consultation with US.
In reply Governor Harriman, noting his custom of always being quite frank with both Pakistan and India, stated: (1) we agree with GOP’s position on Indian actions to integrate Kashmir, and consider Pakistanis have right to be concerned; personally Governor was shocked; (2) we continue to regard Kashmir as disputed territory and do not recognize right of India to change its status unilaterally; (3) we registered our position December 10 with Indians and must await their response; (4) question of GOP going to Security Council is within [Page 173] competence of GOP to decide but we appreciate GOP informing us frankly of problem and they should feel free to discuss it with us; (5) reason for Indian action at this time is difficult to assess. We did not believe there was any relationship between military aid and Indian actions on Kashmir. Prime Minister Shastri had demonstrated a constructive attitude in past toward India-Pakistan problems and US still believes there is a reason to hope he will move in constructive direction. However, his illness and many problems have slowed momentum in establishing his position and pressures on him, particularly on Kashmir, by opposition and within Congress to exist; (6) US ability to bring pressure to bear upon India is limited by our confrontation with Chicom threat and activities in area and elsewhere around the world. (Adverse effect of Pak-Chicom relationship also noted.)
Ambassador Ahmed pressed hard on what US advice was to Pakistan and what US would do, stating that, if subcontinent is to be secured against external threats, it can only be done by arrangements between India and Pakistan. However, US actions contribute to deterioration of this relationship by not making military aid conditional on a Kashmir settlement. Governor stated he was not in position to offer any further comment on question raised by Ambassador but he would consult with his colleagues and keep in touch with Ambassador if there were anything further to say. He fully concurred that agreement between Pak and India essential for security of subcontinent and had so stated on numerous occasions.
- Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL 32–1 INDIA–PAK. Secret. Drafted by Laise on December 11, cleared by Kimball in IO and Handley, and approved and initialed by Harriman. Repeated to New Delhi, London, and USUN.↩
- Home Minister Nanda’s announcement concerning the application of President’s rule to Kashmir was made during a debate in the Lok Sabha on December 4 on an opposition motion calling for the deletion of Article 370 from the Indian Constitution, which would have had the effect of fully integrating Kashmir into the Indian Union. The motion was ultimately defeated. In the course of the debate, Nanda stated that the government had decided to apply to Kashmir the provisions of Articles 356 and 357 of the Constitution, which provided for President’s rule in the event of a breakdown of constitutional government, and enabled the central parliament to legislate for the state during President’s rule. (Airgram A–566 from New Delhi, December 9; ibid., POL 18 INDIA)↩