Office of the Historian

65. Telegram From the Embassy in Pakistan to the Department of State1

Karachi, November 7, 1957—5 p.m.

1056. Reference: Deptel 1156.2 Believe there no truth in Indian allegations Pakistanis planning military action. No evidence in private conversation with GOP officials that Pakistanis contemplating resort to force and public statements new government on Kashmir issue and Indo-Pak relations notably mild.

Army Attaché3 on recent visit to Punjab and Azad Kashmir saw no signs troop dispositions indicating preparations for attack. Furthermore as recently as October 31 Army Attaché had long conversation with Pakistan military intelligence chief on Kashmir problem during which he detected absolutely no indications GOP planning such move. On contrary Pakistan army somewhat worried by substantial reinforcements they say India has recently sent to border.

General Ayub told Chief MAAG army section Rawalpindi November 4 that Pakistan intelligence has evidence Indians expect Pakistan attack Amritsar area early December. General Ayub stated flatly Pakistanis did not intend attack this December or any other. Thought Indian reinforcements might be intended provoke Pakistan attack.

Also stated Pakistan army pleased with disposition Indian troops and intended make small demonstrations in border areas by small commando actions to hold Indians in present positions. Believe GOP will see danger in this and veto any such action.

Kashmir already snowbound by earliest winter in 50 years. (New Delhi’s 1184).4

Comment: Suspect India pursuing usual delaying tactics re Kashmir.

Langley
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 690D.91/11–757. Secret; Priority; Limited Distribution. Repeated to New Delhi; passed to USUN.↩
  2. In telegram 1156, November 6, the Department informed the Embassy of recent Indian intelligence disclosures that Pakistan was planning a military action against India. The Department explained that it had no information which would lend support to the Indian allegations and requested the Embassy’s comments. (Ibid., 690D.91/11–257)↩
  3. Colonel Clarence E. Beck.↩
  4. Dated November 4, not printed. (Department of State, Central Files, 690D.91/11–457)↩