Office of the Historian

240. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in India1

Washington, October 29, 1965, 3:26 p.m.

800. Personal for Ambassador from Secretary. You will be receiving telegram authorizing you to negotiate thirty-day extension of food shipments to India.2 I know this will be disappointing to you but I would like you to know that this decision has been made at the highest level and that limited extension is result solely of our grave misgivings regarding past performance and present plans of Government of India for increased food production. The decision to extend food shipments for only thirty days has nothing to do with Kashmir and is not to be construed in any way as political leverage to force India into a political settlement with Pakistan. It is based on evidence available to the highest authority that a longer term extension, or a new agreement on PL–480, should not be undertaken until such time as the USG has convincing evidence of the GOI’s determination to put its food house in order.3

Rusk
  1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, AID (US) 15 INDIA. Confidential; Nodis. Drafted by Handley, cleared by Hare, and approved and initialed by Rusk.↩
  2. Telegram Aidto 598 to New Delhi, October 29, authorized the Embassy to negotiate an amendment to the Title I P.L. 480 agreement of September 30 to provide for an additional 500,000 tons of wheat/wheat flour. (Ibid., AID (US) 15–8 INDIA)↩
  3. On November 5 Bowles cabled that he had done his utmost to persuade the Shastri government that U.S. reluctance to negotiate a long-term P.L. 480 agreement was not an effort to bring political pressure to bear on India, but that “knowledgeable Indians do not find this line of argument persuasive,” and “we ourselves are perplexed by it.” Bowles noted that since the appointment of Subramaniam as Food Minister in 1964, the Indian Government had been very responsive to the Embassy’s urgings that agriculture be given top priority among development goals. (Telegram 1201 from New Delhi; ibid.) In a short companion cable to Rusk urging him to read telegram 1201, Bowles stated that he understood the dilemma the Department faced, but “I badly need your guidance.” (Telegram 1202 from New Delhi, November 5; ibid., AID (US) 15 INDIA)↩