Telegram
from the embassy in Pakistan to the Department of
State/1/
/1/
Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970-73, POL 23-9 PAK. Secret; Immediate. Repeated to
Calcutta,
Dacca,
London,
New
Delhi, USUN, and to the US Mission
Geneva.
Islamabad, May 14, 1971,
1045Z.
4655. Subj: Flow of Hindu Refugees to India. Ref: State 83656./2/
/2/ In telegram 83656 to Islamabad, May 13, the Department
expressed concern that a continuation of the massive flow of Hindu refugees
into India could generate pressure
on India to cut off the flow.
The upshot would be a serious escalation of the crisis. The Embassy was
instructed to assess whether the Government of Pakistan was encouraging the
Hindu migration and what its intentions were with regard to the Hindus in East Pakistan. (Ibid.,
REF PAK)
1. We
share Department's concern that continued massive outflow of East Pak refugees may have
serious consequences, both in terms of human suffering and increased danger of
Indo/Pak conflict. Action of sort mentioned by FonSec
Kaul para 5
New Delhi 7022/3/ for example
would almost certainly lead to war. As practical matter, only way to
"force" GOP to put aside area for Hindus would be for Indian army to
seize territory. Kaul's approach to US can only be read as a "threat" despite his denial.
/3/
Foreign Secretary Kaul called in Chargˇ
Stone on May 7 to discuss India's mounting concern over
the refugee problem and to ask for U.S. support when India raised the issue of East Pakistan in the United Nations. Kaul said that at least 1.8 million refugees had entered India, and India feared that the number
could mount as high as 8-10 million. In paragraph 5 of the telegram reporting
on the conversation, Stone stated that Kaul said that
if Pakistan did not create
conditions to encourage the return of the refugees, it should be forced to set
aside a portion of East Pakistan where refugees could be resettled. Kaul assured Stone that India was not threatening to take
territory for the refugees by force, but he stressed that Pakistan had to do
something soon to fulfill its "duty and obligation" to the refugees.
(Telegram 7022 from New Delhi, May 8; ibid.)
2. As to
GOP intentions re Hindus in East Pakistan, we think Kaul overstates position. We doubt that GOP has specific
plan of action to drive out Hindu minority from East Pakistan. Nonetheless, thinking
of West
Paks, especially Punjab is colored by an
emotional anti-Hindu bias. This has been buttressed in recent weeks by thrust
of GOP propaganda line about East Pak situation which has
stressed alleged role of Hindus (and Indians) in creating crisis. One aspect propaganda has been to play up supposedly
important behind-scenes role of Hindus in Awami
League.
3. While
we do not think army policy as such is to expel Hindus, army has clearly been
singling out Hindus for especially harsh treatment./4/ Coupled with official
anti-Hindu propaganda, army brutality has effect of
spurring Hindu exodus. Faced with choice of uncertain and possibly physically
unsafe future in East Pakistan, flight to India surely must be seen as
lesser evil by many Hindus.
/4/ The
Consulate General in Dacca reported on May 14 that
it had received numerous reports that the Pakistani army was systematically
searching out Hindus and killing them. (Telegram 1722 from Dacca; ibid.,
POL 23-9 PAK)
4. Even
though GOP may not be officially encouraging mass exodus, we doubt it sorry
Hindus are leaving. Pak military probably view Hindu departure as blessing
which reduces element [garble-they?] regard as untrustworthy and subversive. In
this regard we would not be surprised if GOP developed future policy that
removed those Hindus remaining in sensitive jobs such as teaching profession.
It frequently charged that Hindu teachers have actively propagandized Bengali
nationalism as way undermine belief of young in Pakistan. Another aspect of such
policy might be re-institution of separate Hindu-Muslim electorates as means
reducing importance of Hindu vote in any future balloting.
5. We
think M.M. Ahmad visit provides useful opportunity voice USG anxiety about
implications continued Hindu exodus and would welcome Department discussing
problem with him. We have already expressed our concern regarding the refugee
situation in general terms here and believe Department could underscore line we
have taken, i.e.: that it essential GOP stop the
shooting and begin the rebuilding in East. While public statement by GOP could
have beneficial effect, principal determinant of whether refugee flow is
stemmed will be actions of Pak army, not GOP's words.
6. One
aspect of problem, which not suitable for discussion with M.M. Ahmad but could
usefully be raised with GOI, is India's role in situation.
Continued Indian support to East Pakistan resistance threatens itself to
escalate Indo-Pak tensions and, together with Pak military action, tends
encourage further population migration as people seek leave areas where
fighting continues.
Farland