177. Telegram From the Embassy in India to the Department of State1
446. At 2000 hrs Delhi time today I called on ForMin Swaran Singh and Foreign Secy C.J. Jha and registered urgent plea for Indian restraint in dealing with Pakistan armored attack which was launched this morning north of Jammu.2 I made following points:
- 1.
- Paks were clearly guilty of training large number of guerrilla infiltrators and sending them across cease-fire line and deep into Kashmir Valley.
- 2.
- Although India’s action in seizing control of key infiltration points and breaking up supply lines on Pak side of cease-fire line may have been logical from purely military point of view it was serious political mistake. Paks already embarrassed by failure of their guerrilla effort were almost bound to react elsewhere and this they have now done.
- 3.
- India now faces historic decision which will affect her future and that of South Asia for generation to come. Counter thrust by India at some more favorable point either on cease-fire line or international boundary, will almost certainly touch off war that would soon be out of control. If on other hand India makes it clear that it has no desire to extend fighting and earnestly seeks peaceful solution, situation may still be brought under control.
Swaran Singh, while defending India’s thrust across cease-fire line as militarily necessary to stop infiltration, accepted my analysis, and asserted that India has no further moves in mind and is prepared to meet Pakistan more than half way.
However, supported by C.S. Jha, he strongly protested use by Paks of US Patton tanks, and asked what we would do to carry out our assurances that we would not permit US military equipment to be used against India unless India were clearly the aggressor. I replied I had fully informed my government and I was certain that situation would be carefully investigated.
Swaran Singh continued to press his point, asserting that only US was in position to restrain Pak Army which thanks to its American equipment had certain advantages over Indians particularly in tanks and planes.
I then switched conversation back to central point, i.e. that India had big decision to make; counter thrust in response to today’s action by Paks or reasonable posture that could save subcontinent from bitter conflict. Whatever arguments of tactical military necessity might be advanced, I was profoundly hopeful that political judgments would be overriding. Even if Paks refuse to negotiate and choose path toward war, India’s position at least would be clear and world-wide support would be assured in whatever might follow.
- Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL 32–1 INDIA–PAK. Secret; Immediate. Passed to the White House, DOD, and CIA.↩
- Four hours earlier, General Chadhury, Chief of the Indian Army Staff, had called in General Johnson, Chief of the U.S. Military Supply Mission in India, and informed him that Pakistan had launched an attack spearheaded by a regiment of MAP-supplied M-48 Patton tanks in the Chhamb area at the juncture of the cease-fire line in Kashmir and the international border between the two countries. Chadhury stated that India was not using any U.S.-supplied military equipment in the conflict. At the time of Chadhury’s report, Pakistani forces were about 3 miles across the cease-fire line. (Telegram 444 from New Delhi, September 1; ibid.) When Defense Minister Chavan reported the attack in the Indian Parliament at noon on the following day, he indicated that Pakistani forces had driven 5 miles across the cease-fire line. (Telegram 455 from New Delhi, September 2; ibid.)↩