To the Editor: The social catastrophe which has occurred in East Pakistan is well documented. It is now reported that almost eight million refugees fled from bitter repression to find some freedom and security in India. But they were poor to begin with and are now in an economically desperate situation in the refugee camps.

Private and public philanthropy are certainly warranted. Yet the scale of human suffering is so vast that philanthropy is simply. not ‐an adequate: basis for a program which will meet the needs of the refugees. The annual costs of providing food shelter and the absolute minimum of amenities could easily total as much, as one‐half billion dollars a year.

The Indian nation as borne with generosity the overwhelming part of the burden of caring for the refugees But India is itself one of the poorest nations in the world. It has only a limited surplus over its own consumption needs which it can possibly divert. The requirements for supporting the East Pakistan refugees could easily absorb as much as 20 per cent of its annual saving. There can be no, doubt that this would greatly retard India's own development and the improvement of the conditions of life of its own people.

So far the U.S. has granted $70million in refugee relief. This cannot salve our conscience when hundreds of millions are needed. The U.S. House of Representatives has taken the first step toward the formation of a U.S. policy which recognizes the exigencies of the situation. It has written into the, foreign aid bill a suspension of economic assistance to Pakistan as long as the repression in East Pakistan continues. The next logical step is the diversion of the earmarked funds to India for refugee relief. The ‘funds would make a great contribution to helping the refugees and to sustaining Indian economic development. The diversion would make credible the U.S. desire to encourage a political accommodation in East Pakistan.

For dealers in realpolitik the diversion of funds should recommend itself as a means of maintaining dwindling U.S. prestige and influence in India in the wake of the recent Indian-Soviet treaty. of mutual consultation. Diverting the funds would not re quire additional expenditures because it would only switch already budgeted funds. If there is concern over the effect on Pakistan‐U.S. relations of such “aid‐switching” the impact can be reduced by channeling the funds through the Aid‐Pakistan Consortium.

There is now a convergence of moral imperatives and political objectives which can be satisfied by switching of aid funds to India. For both moral and political reasons U.S. policy should not delay in taking this new direction.

RICHARD S. ECKAUS
Professor of Economics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Mass., Aug. 13, 1971