689.90D/10–2351: Telegram
The Ambassador in Afghanistan (Merrell) to the Secretary of State
204. I saw FonMin this morning and conveyed to him substance of para 2 Depcirtel 377 Oct 20. He said that he had been shocked to learn of assassination of Liaquat, for whom he had great admiration, and had been much upset by Pak radio charge that GOA was involved. He emphasized that return of consul from Peshawar on day of assassination was mere coincidence; that leaving his family there he had come to Kabul for purpose of discussing matter mentioned in Oct 18 communiqué on orders issued by FonMin 10 days previously and that he wld return shortly.
“Alleged 1944 insurrection” was one of series of tribal outbreaks which have plagued country from time immemorial.
It seems established that Seyed Akbar was one of minor leaders of this rebellion, which was led by his elder brother. Some of rebels, including Seyed Akbar, held out until Jan 1947, when they fled to Brit India and were given asylum. However at least one brother has since returned to Afghan and is mental case in Kabul. FonMin who has no idea of who instigated murder nor of motive and says similar assassination cld occur here any day, knows that elder brother of assassin recently visited Afghan republican group in Karachi.
During Brit rule it was custom of GOI to grant asylum to unsuccessful Afghan rebels and to afford them small pensions. Thus grandfather present King lived in exile in United Provinces of India and his sons, including present PriMin, were born and brought up there.
Records UK Emb here indicate Seyed Akbar did receive regular pension from the GOI, which probably was continued by GOP.
PriMin, in conversation with my Brit colleague1 on Oct 20 (it had been arranged sometime before murder) expressed considerable apprehension over effects Liaquat murder. Brit Amb remarked that if some were disposed to depict GOA instigator this was but natural result of exacerbated relations between two countries for which GOA must [Page 1996] bear its share of blame. Shah Mahmoud stated emphatically that GOA had nothing whatever to do with assassination. We are inclined to believe such is the case, while not overruling possibility that certain Afghan elements may have had a hand in affair.
On the face of it assassination Liaquat wld hardly seem to further Afghan interests and on contrary seems calculated to harm them. However, as we have commented before, Afghans do not always act from what we wld consider rational motives.
We think it highly improbable that Commies were behind assassination and have seen no suggestion to that effect. While assassination might, by further worsening Pak-Af relations, generally be to advantage USSR, on basis facts available to us we wld dismiss Sov implication as unlikely. FonMin, who says he is not very familiar with Commie activities in Pak, also feels they were not involved.2
Dept pass Karachi sent Dept 24 rptd info Karachi 31, pouched New Delhi unnumbered, Moscow unnumbered, London unnumbered.
- The British Ambassador in Afghanistan was Alfred John Gardener.↩
- Telegram 429 from Karachi, October 23, not printed, reported that, in accordance with the request of the Pakistani Government, the Pakistani press had since October 16 refrained from referring to the Afghan connections of the assassin. The Government had not released to the public the information that the assassin was in contact with the Afghan Consul at Peshawar. The telegram further reported that the Pakistani Government had no information indicating any Communist connection with the assassination. (689.90D/10–2351)↩