Department of State
AIRGRAM
CONFIDENTIAL
A-100
TO : Department of State
INFO : ISLAMABAD, NEW DELHI. PESHAWAR
FROM : Amembassy
KABUL
DATE: AUG. 30, 1971
SUBJECT : CONVERSATION WITH RETIRED
MAJ.-GEN. JILANI, NAP (R)
REF : Kabul 4398
Retired Major-General Jilani. NAP (R) political leader from Peshawar, who is visiting Kabul during the Afghan Jeshyn,
had expressed a specific desire to call on the Ambassador over the past
weekend. Due partly to the Ambassador's extremely tight schedule during the
final days before his departure on leave but primarily because of the Embassy
view that to accord an official reception to Pakistani opposition politicians
in Kabul-particularly during the current delicate period-would be unwise, Jilani was seen instead by an Embassy officer at dinner on
August 23. We had also considered the fact of Jilani's
continuing contacts with Consul Velletri in
Peshawar, through which Embassy Islamabad is
able to keep adequately informed of his views.
Enclosed is a memorandum of conversation with Jilani, whose main theme was that the USG, in supporting
the present government of Pakistan, is pursuing a policy which will lead
to warfare and the rejection of the United States by the successor regimes.
Enclosure:
As stated
Lewis
Memorandum of Conversation
Kabul, Afghanistan
Participants :Retired
Maj.-Gen. Jilani NAP (R) Political Leader
Bertram F. Dunn.
First Secretary of Embassy
Date and Place : August
23, 1971-Residence of James Hawley III, Economic Officer, Embassy
Kabul.
During the evening Jilani did most of the talking in private conversation with
me, while the other guests-two Peshawar lawyers
whom Jilani had accompanied from Peshawar to
Kabul-chatted with the host. His points were clearly made and he stated the
hope that his comments would be considered by the Ambassador and the USG for
what they were-the views of a man who is a friend of democracy, the West, and
the U.S. in particular, who had lived through 24 years of Pakistan and had done
his duty including negotiating the first U.S. military assistance program in
1954 and fighting in Kashmir to defend the concept of Pakistan, but who now
sees the inevitable loss of East Bengal and recognizes that (Punjabi
establishment-dominated) Pakistan is finished "because its ideological
base is destroyed."
Jilani made the
following points:
1. West
Pakistan cannot possibly hold onto the East Wing; effective
opposition is growing and Pakistani Army casualties are mounting daily.
2. Punjabi elements in the Army and
civil establishment (70 per cent of the total) see their hold slipping on the
reins of government of the State of Pakistan (which really over the years
should have been called "Punjabistan"
because it has been controlled by Punjabis for their own-anti-Indian-political
and economic purposes and "the other states" within the West Wing
have never been accorded their due rights.
3. The Punjabi establishment, when
it loses the East Wing, will surely, seek to continue
to impose by force its domination of the NWFP, Baluchistan, and Sind. Pashtuns
and Baluchis will oppose this-with help from wherever
they can get it, including Afghanistan-because of a commonality of cultural,
economic, and political interests (the NAP being the main party in both areas);
and the Sindhis will join in because of their hate of
Punjabis. The resulting political and military warfare will lead to complete
chaos on the sub-continent.
4. Jilani
and others have heard recently, and fear, that the USG will, after East
Pakistan is gone, seek to perpetuate, perhaps with Iranian and
Turkish help, the "artificial" state of "Pakistan"
controlled by Punjabis. This will be fatal to Western and democratic interests
and to any hope for stability in the area and will "drive" the Pashtun-Baluch-Sindhi confederation into radical arms.
5. He understands, though
disapproves of, continued USG support to the GOP but fears that U.S. emotional
and historical ties to its old ally "Pakistan" and
the
present U.S.
administration's re-espousement (for whatever good
reason) of support to the GOP, will lead to blind and increased military and
economic support of oppressive dictatorship in the West Wing. This (the gist of
Jilani's plea runs) is not in U.S. interests: not
just because it is wrong, but because (in Jilani's
view) it will fail as a policy and will lead to war, insurrection and
instability, and a rejection of the U.S. and the West by the eventually
victorious successor regimes/states in the geographical area of what is now
West Pakistan. In spite of years of association, and indeed partly because of
the widespread but false impression among Americans of West Pakistan as a
unitary state-a concept deliberately fostered by the Punjabi (and other)
leaders of Pakistan from the beginning-there are very few U.S. officials who
recognize the really basic differences among the "four nations" of
the West Wing and the problems of complete Punjabi domination of the other
peoples. The pursuit of this false concept of Pakistan as a
unitary state will be as fatal to U.S. policy
interests in the West as it is now proving in East Bengal.
6. Jilani
believes that a new federation or confederation of the three states would be
viable and could possibly even confederate with Afghanistan. Punjab could then
go its own way, possibly as a landlocked state or, more probably, back into India in one form
or another.
7. Jilani
did not mention Bhutto or Mujib other than to say
that although the NAP (R) had disagreed with the Foreign Trade position in Mujib's Six Points, surely acceptance of those six points,
or whatever, would have been better than the situation that has resulted in East
Pakistan.
Source: The
American Papers (Secret and confidential India, Pakistan and Bangladesh Documents; page no – 647 - 649, The University Press.