525. Telegram From the Ambassador to India (Bowles) to President Johnson1
850. 1. I hesitate to introduce any more controversial problems at a moment when your plate is already full. However, I feel impelled in good faith to express to you directly my deep personal concern over what the press states is a pending agreement to encourage the Turks to sell Patton tanks to Pakistan under US license.
2. Although we have reviewed the background on numerous occasions it may be useful briefly to consider the chain of events which brought us to present difficulties:
- A.
- Since John Foster Dulles made his so-called “alliance” with Pakistan in 1954 we have provided Pakistan with nearly $800 million in military equipment, most of it on a grant basis. The very nature of this aid indicates that Pakistan never intended it for use in the mountains against the Chinese or Soviet forces but rather on the Punjabi plains against India.
- B.
- Between 1954 and 1965 two American Presidents and several Ambassadors (including myself) assured the Indians that we “would never allow this US equipment to be used against India.”
- C.
- In 1963–64 following the Chinese war, after providing limited assistance to India, we rejected its request to help modernize its defense establishment at a rate of about $75 million annually because of fear of upsetting our relationship with Pakistan. In return for this assistance the Indians had been prepared: (1) to agree not to buy lethal weapons from the Communist nations, (2) to negotiate a military force level agreement with Pakistan, and (3) to work with us on a political basis to establish greater stability in Asia and Southeast Asia.
- D.
- Only in August 1964 when it became clear that we were not prepared to give India this assistance, did India turn to the Soviet Union as its major source of military equipment.
3. As the Indo-Pak crisis developed in early August 1965 the Paks sent some 6,000 armed guerrillas into Kashmir on the mistaken assumption that they would receive the support of the Kashmir people. When this effort failed the Paks sent an armored brigade to cut off India’s vulnerable supply lines into Kashmir. After this column had penetrated some 12 miles into Indian territory and to relieve the pressure the Indians moved into the Pakistan Punjab. Whatever the fault of India in raising the tension which led to this three-week war, the 3,000 or so Indians who lost their lives were killed by American weapons, which we had repeatedly and officially assured the Indians would never be used against them.
4. Since then I and my associates have felt strongly that we should refuse to give lethal equipment either to Pakistan or India. I have taken this position in recognition of the complexity of our relationship with Pakistan and in spite of the threat to the integrity of the Indian nation by a Chinese movement across north Burma through Nefa or through the Chumbi Valley between Bhutan and Sikkim.
5. It is my conviction that the only realistic way to move the Chinese and Soviet military influence out of the subcontinent is not to provide lethal equipment to the two governments, but to help both to become as self-sufficient as possible in regard to their defense requirements. This will not be accomplished overnight.
6. India’s present tank strength is 1,282 and Pakistan’s is 965; a ratio of only 4 to 3 in India’s favor. This is considered by the Indians a bare minimum considering the two-pronged threat they face. If under these circumstances we provide new tanks to Pakistan we will further escalate and fuel a subcontinental arms race and the Indians will surely increase their inventory to maintain this ratio. At this critical point this will have a profoundly adverse effect on the relationship of India and [Page 1042] Pakistan and our relationship with democratic India, which has a major potential role to play in Asia.
7. I am keenly aware of the pressures Pakistan is bringing to bear, and I also share the irritation we often feel when India fails to take constructive positions on international issues. Nevertheless, I must call to your attention the enormous investment we have made in India in the last 15 years, the increasing dynamism which is becoming apparent in the Indian economy and the solid basis for hope that India within a few years may become a major force for stability in Asia.
8. Therefore, I recommend with all the earnestness at my command that no lethal military assistance be given either Pakistan or India under present circumstances.
9. After dictating this cable, I had a difficult talk with Foreign Secretary who is deeply concerned about the sale of tanks. This discussion is reported in New Delhi 22700.2
- Source: Johnson Library, National Security File, Country File, India, Exchanges with Bowles. Secret. [text not declassified]↩
- Dated November 19. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967–69, DEF 12 PAK) On November 25 Rusk sent a personal cable to Bowles in which he stated that the message Bowles sent had been carefully reviewed but the decision was to assist Pakistan to buy tanks from a third country. (Ibid., DEF 12 CHEROKEE)↩