Office of the Historian

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

Washington, November 5, 1965, 7:21 p.m.

841. We note that on same day Security Council has adopted new resolution2 strengthening appeal for effective ceasefire and strongly supporting SYG proposals for arranging withdrawals, Shastri (according Reuters) told Parliament ceasefire agreement “cannot stand in way of our troops regaining territories treacherously occupied by Pakistan after ceasefire came into effect.” Shastri also quoted as saying “our taking remedial measures cannot be considered violation of ceasefire agreement.” Other tickers report All India Radio and PTI as saying Pakistan troops “massing” on Rajasthan border. All this suggests Karachi’s concern that Indians contemplating action along Rajasthan border may be well justified.

We believe GOI should be made aware in no uncertain terms our view that Shastri’s position if accurately reported by Reuters, clearly inconsistent with SC resolution and Indian actions of type Shastri seems to contemplate would demonstrate India not now interested in reestablishment of peaceful conditions in which economic development of subcontinent can move forward. This would have inevitable effect upon current USG policy review regarding subcontinent. Indian failure respond to SYG proposal to send Sarmento to arrange withdrawal plans another indication that Indians not meeting their obligation to re-establish peace on subcontinent.

We count on you to get across these ideas soonest at place where it will do most good.3

Rusk
  1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL 27 INDIA–PAK. Confidential; Priority. Drafted by Schneider, cleared by Buffum, and approved by Handley. Repeated to Karachi, London, and USUN.↩
  2. On November 5 the Security Council adopted Resolution 215, which reaffirmed the September 20 resolution, requested the two parties to the conflict to observe fully the cease-fire, and demanded that representatives of India, Pakistan, and the Secretary-General meet to work out plans for withdrawal. (UN doc. S/RES/215)↩
  3. Bowles reported on November 7 that he had instructed a member of his staff to discuss Shastri’s speech with L.K. Jha, using telegram 841 as a basis for his approach. Jha expressed surprise at the U.S. reaction to the speech, which he said was meant for domestic consumption and did not signal expanded hostilities. He stated that immediately after the cease-fire Pakistan had occupied a number of military posts in Indian territory in Rajasthan, and Shastri’s speech was merely a “retrospective review” of Indian efforts to regain the territory. Jha said that India fully accepted the November 5 Security Council resolution. (Telegram 1207; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL 27 INDIA–PAK)↩