690D.91/7–2454: Telegram
The Ambassador in Pakistan (Hildreth) to the Department of State
81. Eyes only Secretary Dulles. Under date April 3 I pouched you top secret eyes only certain correspondence between Prime Ministers GOP and GOI. Have just been given two more similar letters by Prime Minister New Delhi dated April 13 and Karachi reply July 14 which being pouched today.
New Delhi April 13 summarized following quotes:
“No person to my knowledge imagines Pakistan is or can be in danger invasion from north. If that is so purpose military aid can only be to assist in warlike operations outside Pakistan’s borders wherever they might be—it has always been not only my earnest wish but my fervent hope India and Pakistan as well as our neighbour countries in Asia would keep out of war approach and that in present state world tension they would not elect to be part war areas or groupings of powers. Both from point view international peace and practical common sense as well as ethically this appears be only reasonable course adopt. Pakistan by rejecting this course completely lines up with one of great power blocs—this position created as I have said [Page 1359] by Pakistan’s decision, makes great difference to whole position in Asia and affects India more especially—you have referred to question Kashmir, and asked me accept view US military aid to Pakistan has no relation this question. I must categorically decline accept this view—in present context these difficulties have greatly increased.”
Karachi July 14 reply summarized following quotes:
“Your attitude this matter (i.e., unilateral opening Bhakra Canal), your continued disinclination proceed with implementation our joint communiqué of last August and your stand as regards bearing US military aid will have on Kashmir issue despite all my assurances have led me wonder whether under circumstances any useful purpose can be served by further correspondence or negotiations between us. Nevertheless, issues that hang on our ability improve relations between India and Pakistan are so grave that I feel I must make one further effort help compose our differences—Pakistan has certainly not lined up with any of great power blocs or has become predetermined party or theatre or base or arsenal in present conflicts or in possible war between two rival power blocs. Assumptions to contrary are not warranted by agreement Pakistan has signed with USA or Turkey and I must express my astonishment and distress that you should continue make them despite all statements made by me, in public and private correspondence with you, disavowing them in clear, unmistakable terms—it seems to me extraordinary that steps taken by country to strengthen its defences should be considered steps not in direction peace, since weakness inevitably invites aggression, but in direction war. Surely what matters is not measures with which Pakistan and India seek strengthen their defences but their relations with each other. It is my conviction no greater contribution could be made to promotion peace in Asia than by elimination disputes that embitter relations between our two countries and prevent them from joining hands in friendly collaboration in promotion peaceful objectives—it is my understanding that during our conversations you too favoured this approach. You now take view Pakistan decision receive military aid from US has changed entire context in which Kashmir dispute is to be considered. In my opinion no such change has occurred: No such change can occur so long as India and Pakistan continues seek settle their differences by peaceful means—more particularly, if you should still feel disposed maintain despite my assurances, that US military aid has direct and material bearing on question demilitarisation in Kashmir (where, in my opinion, it has not) then solution Kashmir dispute would appear be completely ruled out. Your proposition would seem imply India would now wish retain even larger forces Kashmir during plebiscite than previously—a situation which we could not possibly agree to. To retain heavy forces Kashmir would be make nonsense all our pronouncements, yours and mine, that plebiscite must be free. This latter, I trust you will agree, is matter highest importance. Demilitarisation would be purposeless if it did not result securing freedom of vote—if therefore you consider that context Kashmir negotiations has changed in above sense then further negotiations between us unlikely prove fruitful. In that event I must infer that our efforts settle Kashmir dispute and place Indo-Pakistan relations on sane and friendly footing have unfortunately failed and so far as this dispute concerned we revert to position where it stood before you and I took it up for settlement.”