197. Telegram 97347 From the Department of State to the Embassy in India1 2
Subject:
- Indian Criticism of U.S.
Ref:
- State 94316 (Notal)
1. We continue to be seriously annoyed at the tone of public criticism of U.S. by senior Indians, of which April 22 statement by Congress Party President Barooah (New Delhi 5557) is latest example. We think line you took with “New York Times” was on target as way of making clear that this trend cannot continue without considerably damaging effects on our relations.
2. As further follow-up to your earlier talks with GOI leaders, we want you to stress to Chavan or in his absence appropriately senior GOI rep, in addition points made in our 94316, following: (a) re U.S. restraint and lack of Indian reciprocity, remind GOI that, unlike most of our allies and in face sharp congressional pressure, USG did not publicly criticize India over its nuclear explosion last May. Indeed, Secretary “welcomed” GOI policy statement that India intended not develop nuclear weapons when he visited Delhi; (b) in response to Indian charges such as Barooah’s that U.S. arms supplies to Pakistan creating tension in subcontinent, you should emphasize that intemperate Indian statements on this score can become self-fulfilling prophecy. In reality, the GOP has not yet requested any new arms from us and we intend to review each request carefully in light of our announced policy guidelines. On the other hand, we are aware that GOI and USSR are in process of concluding major rpt major new arms deal (Strictly FYI, Noforn: According to our intelligence, on order of U.S. 200–500 million dollars End FYI). It is hypocrisy for GOI to cry wolf under these circumstances.
3. You should also state that highest levels of USG want GOI clearly to understand that relations cannot be one-way street. Continued lack of restraint on public statements will inevitably trigger new downward spiral in Indo-U.S. relations. We would like to avoid this, but decision is up to Indians.
4. Finally, you should make clear that we are not rpt not saying we expect India to agree with us on all issues, anymore than we will agree on many issues with India. What we are saying is that public airing of disagreements and criticisms in so offensive a manner is incompatible with the kind of new mature relationship we thought our two governments had agreed we would pursue.
- Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy Files. Secret; Immediate; Exdis. It was drafted by Brown; cleared by Atherton; and approved by Kissinger. Kissinger refers to an article in The New York Times in which Saxbe publicly commented on the situation. (Bernard Weintraub, “Saxbe Says U.S. and India Grow Apart,” The New York Times, April 25, 1975, p. 4)↩
- The Department instructed Ambassador Saxbe to convey U.S. impatience with the current Indian high-level criticism of U.S. policy, to remind the Indian Government of U.S. restraint in commenting on the Indian nuclear test, and to point out the hypocrisy of their stance on U.S. arms policy in light of India’s arms agreements with the Soviet Union.↩