NEW DELHI.—India's discontent with American foreign policy runs deep—even as Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi confers with President Nixon in Washington—moreover, this discontent is focused on what Indians regard as genuine provocation by the U.S.
If any one problem is at the root of cool relations with Washington it is this country's conviction that the United States still is continuing to provide arms aid to Pakistan in the form of spare parts.
"It takes away none of the onus if the spare parts are paid for instead of given free," grumbled an Indian source here. "Spare parts still can be made into a machine or weapon."
A classic example cited here is that if a fighter aircraft is grounded because it needs a new engine, and that engine can be purchased as a spare part, the aircraft then becomes an operational weapon once more.
That, in Indian opinion, is still arms aid. And when it goes to Pakistan, it rankles.

CONFIRMATION QUOTED

"Officials may deny that lethal-end items [officialese for weapons] are being delivered to Pakistan," the source declared. "But even American friends tell us the spare parts get through the pipeline."
The Indian feeling is that the Nixon administration is on one side in this matter, but that the American Congress and public are on the other. In short, they feel that the people support the Bangla Desh independence case rather than the Pakistan Government's case.
To this extent, it is argued here that the Nixon administration has succeeded in isolating itself from the people, as one informant put it.
It matters not, according to Indian logic, that this country is receiving Soviet military goods—and indeed was doing so even before the recent Soviet-Indian treaty—in the form of Soviet planes, helicopters, tanks, and guns.
"The Soviets are anxious to reduce the tension with Pakistan, this correspondent was told. "We, likewise, hope to see the tension reduced."

PAST AID "NOT FORGOTTEN"

Indians, nonetheless, say they are not ungrateful or forgetful of past American aid to this country. It totals $10 billion for the postwar era, they realize. m
"We remember Public Law 480 aid, economic aid, arms aid, and refugee aid—all that," an Indian informant declared. "In the past, Indian-American relations always have been cordial."
"Is war with Pakistan inevitable?" One asks. "No," was the reply, not if Pakistan leaders can find a solution to their Bangla Desh [East Pakistan] problems—including return of 10 million refugees.
War need not ensue, it was made plain, if the situation is handled with imagination and generosity. But the firm Indian condition is that the refugees must be allowed to return under conditions of honor and security.
The elections in East Pakistan last December, which were held under the aegis of the Pakistan military government, freely elected its representatives, overwhelmingly from Awami League candidates. Thus the feeling here is that the government for the refugees, when they return to East Pakistan, must be composed of representatives already elected—even though Awami League winners have since been banned by Pakistan.

DECEMBER ELECTION SCORED

India feels strongly that the outcome of the December elections was an abortion of democracy in East Pakistan. For the United States, then, to supply even spare parts to that country, exacerbates Indians who operate a reasonably free democratic process here.
"What would be the Indian objective in a war with Pakistan? All of East Pakistan? West Pakistan as well? Or obliteration of Pakistan as a nation?"
The answer one hears here is that India is not expansionist. It would prefer to get along peaceably with Pakistan. It has no intention of annexing Pakistan territory, despite some earlier claims that cities such as Lahore and Sialkot, if captured, could not be returned.
The return of captured areas, it is pointed out, will depend on the kind of settlement achieved after the fighting ended.
"With or without conflict, is Pakistan likely to retain its East Wing?" Indians believe the answer is negative.

"GEOGRAPHY AGAINST IT"

"Geography is against it," one said. "In Vietnam, the same class of people from north and south are fighting. In Pakistan, East and West have little in common except religion. And religion is not a basis for nationality.
"They are different in culture and race; in food, dress, and language," he added.
Although India and Pakistan each complain that the other side is shelling their territory or making incursions, neither admits publicly that it does the same—even in response to provocation.
But it can be taken as correct by and large, that the shelling is indeed mutual. In East Pakistan, the aggressor sometimes is the Mukti Bahini guerrilla fighters, who fire short-range mortar rounds into Pakistan villages from nearby Pakistan territory.

ESCALATION SWIFT

Then the escalation commences. The Pakistan Army, in response, may open up and shell Indian positions across the frontier, believing the shells came from there. And Indians, consequently, may respond in kind.
India supports and encourages the Mukti Bahini anyhow—and all concerned may prefer some shelling as an antidote to the monotony of frontier sitting.
Meanwhile, if President Nixon wishes to placate Mrs. Gandhi, there are at least three moves he can make.
He can order suspension of the sale of spare parts to Pakistan, although Islamabad will be unhappy at that.
He can use his influence to obtain quick restoration of the $250 million for refugees in India, killed with the foreign aid bill.
And he can take any other measures available to improve the atmosphere of suspicion of American motives held in New Delhi.