690D.91/9–2452: Telegram
The Ambassador in India (Bowles) to the Department of State1
1291. Visited Kashmir first time for badly needed week’s rest. Just before leaving for Delhi Sunday Mrs. Bowles and I, two our children, invited informal family luncheon by Sheikh Abdullah and his family. After luncheon Sheikh Abdullah talked with me for hour and half going over Kashmir sitn great detail. During this conversation he made fol points:
- 1.
His opinion there no doubt but that India wld win pleb in valley by large majority. He bases conviction on land reform, debt reforms, strengthening public school systems, erection village grain banks, new irrigation work and fact that altho Kashmir very poor average cultivation better off than any time during last several years plus bitterness created by raiders in 1947. He stated under land reform land ownership had increased from 10,000 to 800,000 in last three years and over 80 percent loan rural debt wiped out some by negots and some by decisions panels which have now covered all Kashmir not occupied by Pak.
Any individual short-term judgment must necessarily be superficial. However, it my guess people dependent upon tourist trade Srinagar wld vote for Pak despite fact tourist trade increased this year 50 percent but that Abdullah right saying sizable majority village people wld vote to establish permanent relationship with India.
- 2.
- Abdullah made clear he totally committed to India and his convictions on subj go very deep. He stated Jinnah had done profound disservice to subcontinent by creating conditions which made partition inevitable. He stated altho he devout Muslim he believed no one religion shld form basis any govt as now in Pakistan.
- 3.
- However, he implied several occasions criticism of not only Pak but India in handling negots at UN. He stated Kashmir had become pawn in struggle between India and Pak and views and rights Kashmiri people being disregarded.
- 4.
- I asked him if he saw any solution present impasse. He stated emphatically his opinion it up to US and [to?] move into sitn and negotiate directly with Pak and India. He stated felt past negots demonstrated there cld be no solution long as discussions limited to quantum forces. He stated whole subject must be opened up and every considerable solution examined. When I asked him suggest kind solutions might [Page 1287] be possible he put at top list old proposal partition, Azad–Kashmir going to Pak, Jammu to India with pleb in valley. He added there several variations.
Said he wld also like see some consideration setting up Kashmir as semi-autonomous state for ten-year period with free access both Pak and India and guaranteed by UN. I asked him if he thought India wld agree such proposal and he stated did not know but felt time had come try everything. Added he welcomed direct discussion between Azad–Kashmiri and his own govt on chance some formula might develop which they cld in turn propose to India and Pak.
Sheikh Abdullah’s proposals with exception partition with pleb in valley all sounded more emotional than rational. He disturbed over fact Kashmir continues remain suspended mid-air that he cannot get capital into country or do something he believes needs doing.
It my present opinion direct negots on part UK and US with GOP and GOI wld be fruitless. However, I may have some specific suggestions after discussions I will hold this week with Ayyangar, PriMin and others.1
- Not printed.↩
The Department replied on Sept. 26 as follows:
“Appreciate ur report interesting comments Abdullah urtel 1291. In ur discussions with GOI officials believe you might refer our distress over failure recent Geneva discussions and reports that Ind Reps offered no suggestions whatsoever. We wld be interested in knowing views those officials with whom you will be talking re nature and probable Ind position in SC consideration Graham report. Hope you will avoid giving impression US is thinking along line other than full support SC consideration as next step. Starting pt will be Graham report.” (Telegram 927 to New Delhi, Sept. 26; 690D.91/9–2452)
↩