423. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Pakistan1

153467. For Ambassador. Ref: Rawalpindi’s 3349,2 New Delhi’s 12963.3

1.
We are troubled at what appears to have been abrupt cold shoulder by GOP to Indian initiative picking up Ayub’s public call for reduced arms expenditures and renewed effort lower Indo/Pak tensions. Paks can be skeptical of Indian motives if they like and can hold rigidly to insistence that “political” talks and arms limitation discussions must proceed simultaneously. However, we and other friends of Pakistan can hardly be expected to have much sympathy for policy that has effect of precluding any and all movement toward what we consider vital objectives (i.e., arms limitation and reduced defense spending).
2.
We believe you should now seek opportunity convey our position to Ayub directly. You should say that USG regrets apparently negative attitude conveyed by Yusuf on an Indian proposal that rests on commendable public initiative on Ayub’s part. You may say that we can appreciate GOP’s determination not to be taken in by a “gambit”. We also recognize Pakistan’s problem in wanting to be able to point to some movement on Kashmir.
3.
Pakistan cannot expect its friends however to go along with position that in effect rejects possibility movement almost anywhere [Page 822] unless something done simultaneously on Kashmir. Such position applied to issue as vital to Pak security as arms buildup strikes us as particularly unfortunate and counter-productive Paks own interest. Moreover, we find GOP position hardly one likely contribute to any flexibility in future Indian Government, whether Chagla stays on or not. USG hopes strongly that last word has not been said on Indian proposal by either party.
4.
We do not believe you should link GOP response directly to policy problems in South Asian security field still pending with us here. But we hope you can find way discreetly to remind Ayub that what we can do for Pakistan (and India) is not unrelated to impression created official Washington of degree to which both countries genuinely interested in limiting arms race, irrespective but without prejudice to progress on other bilateral issues.4
5.
For New Delhi: You authorized take appropriate opportunity convey to MEA our encouragement at Indian initiative and our hope GOI will persevere in effort but you should not inform Indians our exchange on subject with GOP.
Rusk
  1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967–69, POL INDIA/PAK. Secret; Priority; Limdis. Drafted by Coon and Laingen on March 10, cleared by Spain, and approved by Handley. Also sent to New Delhi and repeated to London, Moscow, and CINCMEAFSA.
  2. In telegram 3349 from Rawalpindi, March 10, the Embassy reported that Foreign Secretary Yusuf had discussed a letter received by Foreign Minister Pirzada from Indian Foreign Minister Chagla. Chagla’s letter, a copy of which was conveyed to the Department on March 15 by the Indian Embassy, was written in response to the opening offered by Ayub in a speech on January 28 at the Pakistan Institute of International Affairs in which he spoke of the need to divert the resources being used by India and Pakistan for the production of arms to the production of food and the necessities of life. Chagla expressed agreement with the sentiments expressed by Ayub and, on behalf of his government, suggested a meeting to discuss the question. Yusuf noted that his government had responded that it was prepared to discuss arms limitations, but only in the context of related political problems, in particular Kashmir. (Ibid.) The text of Chagla’s March 2 letter was transmitted to New Delhi in telegram 156560, March 16. (Ibid.)
  3. Telegram 12963 from New Delhi, March 9, summarized a discussion on March 8 between Bowles and C.S. Jha. Jha reviewed India’s efforts to initiate discussions with Pakistan following Tashkent to improve on the spirit of the agreement. He read to Bowles the letter written by Chagla to Pirzada on March 2. Bowles commented to the Department that the Indian Government seemed to be making a genuine effort to resolve its differences with Pakistan. (Ibid.)
  4. Locke reported on March 15 that he discussed the Chagla letter with Ayub and made the points suggested in telegram 153467. Ayub indicated that he was unaware of Chagla’s letter and said he would discuss it with Yusuf. He ruled out as politically impossible arms limitation talks with India that did not involve discussion of the Kashmir question. He did not rule out the possibility of secret talks however. (Telegram 3428 from Rawalpindi; ibid.)