Speech made by Sir Mohommed ZafruUah Khan Pakistan on 17 January 1948

Speech made by Sir Mohommed ZafruUah Khan Pakistan on 17 January 1948

the stage when the Pakistan Government was trying to arrange a tripartite conference between representatives of the Dominion of India, the State of Kashmir, and Pakistan itself. I had explained that the conference could not be held on 29 October 1947 owing to the indisposition of the Prime Minister of India. It was postponed to November, but it could not be held then owing to some cause.

However, Lord Mountbatten, the Governor-General of India, came to Lahore to preside over the Joint Defence Council, and certain conversations took place with him. I was reading yesterday from the telegram sent by the Prime Minister of Pakistan to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, explain­ing the situation. I shall continue to read from this telegram in order to present some idea as to what happened between the Governor-General of Pakistan and the Governor-General of India on that occasion. The telegram goes on to say:

"The two Governor-General met at Lahore and had a long discussion on 1 November. The upshot of the discussion was that the Governor-General of Pakistan made the following proposals to the Governor-General of India for the accept­ance of the India Dominion:

"1. To put an immediate stop of fighting, the two Governors-General should be authorized and vested with full powers by both Dominion Governments to issue a proclamation forthwith, giving forty-eight hours* notice to the two opposing forces to cease fire. The Governor-General of Pakistan has no control over the forces of the Provisional Government of Kashmir or the tribesmen engaged in the fighting, but he will warn them in the clearest terms that if they do not obey the order to cease fire immediately, the forces of both Dominions will make war on them;

"2. Both the forces of India Dominion and the tribesmen to withdraw simultaneously and with the utmost expedition from Jammu and Kashmir State territory;

‘'3. With the sanction of the two Dominion Governments,

the two Governors-General to be given full powers to restore peace, undertake the administration of Jam ran and Kashmir State, and arrange for a plebiscite with­out delay under their joint control and supervision."

This was the proposal put forward on behalf of Pakistan. Lord Mountbatten was requested to place these proposals immediately before the Dominion of India and to get their acceptance of them. The Governor-General of Pakistan under­took to do likewise. The Governor-General 6f Pakistan is still awaiting a reply from the Governor-General of India.

The telegram proceeds as follows: "On the evening of 2 November 1947, a day after the return of Lord Mountbatten to Delhi, Pandit Nehru broadcast what he calls the decision of the India Government, and it is most unfortunate that he should have thought fit to do so in the manner and language that he has used. Leaving aside the highly provocative attacks on the Pakistan Government, the proposal he has put forward is full of most dangerous potentialities, and will not bring peace to Kashmir. As long as the forces of the Dominion of India are on Kashmir's soil, the struggle of the Kashmir people will go on. What the Indian Government called the restoration of law and order is no more than an attempt to oppress, kilt, terrorize and drive out the Muslim population of Jammu and Kashmir until, like East Punjab and the Indian States in East Punjab, the composition of the population is entirely changed.

"Pandit Nehru's broadcast indicates clearly that the India Government intends to complete their occupation of Jammu and Kashmir and get entire control over its territory, under the superficial, attractive slogan that ultimately the fate of Kashmir will be decided by the people of Kashmir. Pandit Nehru has even avoided the use of the word "plebiscite' and has spoken of a 'referendum*, which might mean anything. After the India Government has established complete mastery over the territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the holding of a plebiscite or referendum will be purely a force.

"In the meantime, feelings throughout West Pakistan and tribal territories are running very high and will soon get beyond all control. After the ghastly massacres in East Punjab, it is impossible to expect the people to patiently witness a tragedy on an equal scale in Jammu and Kashmir.

"Very little news of Jaromu is allowed to reach the outside world, but the situation there is extremely grave. According to our information, thousands of Muslims are being massacred every day. In Jammu City itself, 90,000 Muslims are bottled up and are in imminent peril. The problem is so inflammatory and dangerous that it requires an immediate solution. All this was fully impressed upon the Governor-General of India in the talk that the Governor-General of Pakistan had with him.

"The Pakistan Government is convinced that the only solution which will avoid further bloodshed, and bring peace to Jammu and Kashmir and get a free verdict of the people of the State and restore friendly relations between the two Domi­nions, is that proposed by the Governor-General-of Pakistan. Immediacy is essential. Everyday that passes counts and makes the situation more and more dangerously grave. I once more urge upon you to take immediate action without a moment's delay, or else the consequence will be beyond control and most disastrous, having much wider repercussions not only in this sub-continent, but throughout the world."

This was the fourth attempt to settle the matter by negotia­tion, and every one of these attempts was made on behalf of Pakistan. We had first offered to send a representative to discuss matters with the Kashmir Government, and actually sent him, but the Prime Minister of Kashmir declined to discuss the matter with him. The Prime Minister of Kashmir then asked for an impartial inquiry, and we at once agreed. We asked them to nominate their representative, and we hav# heard nothing further with regard to that. We then suggested that the Prime Minister of Kashmir should come to Karachi to discuss matters, so that a way might be found out of the situation by amicable means. This offer was not accepted.

1. then made this suggestion after the situation had deterio­rated a great deal by the unilateral action that the Dominion of India had taken without consultation with us —without any reference to us—in sending their troops into Kashmir. This was a suggestion which, if adopted, could easily have stopped any further bloodshed in Kashmir. Either the tribesmen who were coming in from outside would have taken the warning issued to them and stopped the fighting, or the two Dominions together would have fought them and excluded them from Kashmir and Jammu territory. But this again was turned down, and therefore, no solution along these lines became possible.

No direct reply was given, but the Prime Minister of India subsequently explained that he had dealt with the matter in his broadcast. In the subsequent telegram that he dispatched on 8 November 1947, he still adhered to the position that the Government of Pakistan should publicly undertake to do their utmost to compel the raiders to withdraw from Kashmir, and that the Government of India would repeat their declaration that they would withdraw their troops from Kashmir soil as soon as the raiders had withdrawn and law and order had been restored.

On 10 November 1947, the Prime Minister of Pakistan addressed another telegram to the Prime Minister of India, which was sent from Lahore and not from Karachi Lahore and Delhi are much closer to each other than Karachi and Delhi are. Between Lahore and Delhi there is a distance of only about 300 miles, and there is direct rail and air communication. Between Karachi and Delhi there is a distance of about 650 or 700 miles, and though there is direct air communication, there is no direct rail communication. One has to travel via Lahore. The telegram states:

"If I had been fit enough to travel, I should have come to Delhi, but unfortunately I am still confined to bed. I therefore invite you to come to Lahore at an early date convenient to you for a discussion of outstanding questions and hope that you will be able to accept this invitation."

In reply, there was a long telegram from the Prime Minister of India, but this point is dealt with in the following two paragraphs:

"Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah is at present the hean of the Kashmir Administration, and anything relating to Kashmir must necessarily have his approval and consent."

I should like to ask, at this point, if that is any way of settling a problem? Sheikh Mohammad Abdallah is the President of the National Conference in Kashmir, one of the two contending political parties, which takes a view on this matter of accession which the other party repudiates. He has been associated with the administration of Kashmir by the Maharajah, no doubt at the suggestion of the Prime Minister of India. When a suggestion is made that the two Prime Ministers should meet to find a solution of this problem, the Prime Minister says that Sheikh Mohammad  Abdullah, being at present the head of the Kashmir Administration—that is to say, the gentleman who is their own nominee for that purpose—anything relating to Kashmir must necessarily have his approval and consent. That prejudges the whole question of the plebiscite.

The telegram of the Prime Minister of India goes on to say: "I would be glad to meet you to discuss these other matters, but for the next few days I am completely tied up with an important meeting of the Congress Working Committee and) the All-India Congress Committee. The Constituent Assembly follows immediately after. Our meeting, I hope, would be help­ful, but it can only bear results when all raiders have been driven out of Kashmir and the Pakistan Government has declared its firm policy to the exclusion of these raiders film Kashmir."

Again I appeal to the Security Council. The two matters in controversy between tbe two Governments were how to deal with this situation, including the incursion of the tribesmen into Kashmir, and how the free plebiscite to enable the people of Kashmir to express their unfettered choice in the matter of accession is to be arranged. The Prime Minister of Pakistan makes this fifth attempt to come to some settlement, and invites the Prime Minister of India to Lahore so that together they may be able to find a way out.

The Prime Minister of India lays down two conditions. One condition is that in order to determine what shall be done.

1. get rid of the so-called raiders from Kashmir, "You must first get rid of them before we will talk of how to get rid of them. 
2. second is that in order to decide how a free plebiscite shall be held in Kashmir, in order to ascertain and determine whether the view of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, that i, to say, of the National Conference, shall prevail, or whether the Muslim Conference has greater support. "You must first accept Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah as the , head of the administration, without whose consent and approval nothing can be done.            .

That in effect, was the reply. These are the two questions, to be determined, but they must first both be, decided in favour of the Dominion of India's view, before any conversation can

be held as to how they are to be dealt with

Thereafter, the Prime Minister of Pakistan sent a telegram to the Prime Minister of India on 16 November, stating that he Was issuing a Press statement, and enclosing the text °**™* which I shall read one or two extracts. The Prime Minister of Pakistan said in this Press statement:

"We have made repeated attempts to persuade the Kashmir Government to discuss these questions with us, but they were determined to join the Union of India against the will of the people of Kashmir by a coup d'etat. The Indian Government in direct and clear repudiation of the principal on which they had questioned the accession of Junagadh w Pakistan, and without any reference to or consultation with the Pakistan Dominion whose security is vitally affected oy events in Kashmir, occupied Kashmir by military force and have, since the very first day of their entry into Kashmir been engaged in putting down the Muslims there by force. Pakistan territory itself has been twice violated by Indian forces; bombs have been dropped in our territory in the vicinity of the Kohala Bridge and our police post at Garbi Habibullah in the District of Hazara has been mach.ne gunned by the Indian Air Force."

Then, after detailing what steps had already been taken by Pakistan to bring about an amicable settlement of these matters ~ the Prime Minister of Pakistan goes on to say: "There is not the slightest doubt that the whole plot of the accession of Kashmir to India was pre-planned. It cannot be justified on any constitutional or moral grounds. It is quite clear now that what the Indian Government is after the permanent occupation of Kashmir. They can maintain this occupation only by-liquidating the Muslim population of Jammu and Kashmir, who are now suffering military repression in its worst form, and who are struggling for their freedom, and, indeed, for their very existence, against heavy odds. The India Government's whole conduct is based on 'might is right' and on the belief that Pakistan is unable to fight them. If the Indian Govern­ment are allowed to follow their imperialist land-grabbing policy, this will have repercussions not only in Asia but through­out the world."

The telegram goes on to say: '"The fundamental principle of the Charter of the United Nations is to prevent might prevailing over rights. The whole dispute should, therefore, be brought before the bar of international opinion. We are ready to request the United Nations immediately to appoints its representative in the Jammu and Kashmir State in order to put a stop to righting and repression of Muslims in the State, to arrange the programme of withdrawal of outside forces, set up an impartial administration of the State until a plebiscite is held, and undertake the plebiscite under its direction and control for the purpose of ascertaining the free and unfettered will of the people of the State on the question of accession. We are prepared to accept a similar solution of the dispute regarding Manavadar and Junagadh."

The Prime Minister of Pakistan also, in his telegram to the Prime Minister of India of 19 November, pointed out:

"I notice that you are not prepared to have a discussion until those whom you call raiders are driven out of Kashmir, and also that anything relating to Kashmir must have the approval and consent of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. This is hardly a constructive approach to the Kashmir problem.

"In view of the stand you have taken, I see no other way to a peaceful settlement except a reference of the whole question to the United Nations. I sent you a copy of the Press statement I issued on 16 November, in which I have made this proposal. I hope you will agree that in the present circumstances this is the only fair and peaceful solution."

This was the sixth offer made by Pakistan.

In reply to this, the Prime Minister of India said in his telegram of 21 November:

"The specific suggestions regarding the reference to the United Nations in your Press statement are:

"1. The United Nations should immediately appoint representatives in Jammu and Kashmir in order to put a stop to fighting and repression of Muslims in the State.' "Since the United Nations have no forces at their disposal, we do not see how they can put a stop to fighting or to alleged repression of Muslims. This can only be done by an organized military force, and is being done by our troops. The fighting would also stop as soon as raiders were made to withdraw, and I have repeatedly asked for your cooperation in stopping transit and supplies to raiders through Pakistan territory.

'"2. To set up an impartial administration of the State'.

"It is not clear to me what the United Nations can do in present circumstances in Kashmir until peace and order have been established. We are convinced that Sheikh Abdullah's administration is based on the will of the people and is impartial. Only he who goes to Kashmir and sees things for himself can appreciate this. Moreover, we have . pledged that, so long as our forces are in Kashmir, protec­tion of all sections of the community will be their first and sacred duty. This duty will be discharged without fear or favour.

"3. To undertake a plebiscite under its direction and control for the purpose of ascertaining the free and unfetter­ed will of the people of the State on the question of accession.

"I have repeatedly stated that as soon as the raiders have been driven out of Kashmir or have withdrawn, and peace and order have been established, Kashmir should decide the question of accession by plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of the United Nations. It is very clear that no such reference to the people can be made when large bodies of raiders are despoiling the country and military operations against them are being carried on. By this declaration I stand."

He added, in the last paragraph of this telegram: "I did not suggest that the Pakistan Army was participating in the raid officially. We possess, however, incontrovertible evidence that members of the Pakistan Army, whether on leave or deserters, have joined the raiders, and that military equip­ment which can only have come from the Pakistan Army has been in the possession of the raiders."

For the reasons set forth in these paragraphs which I have read out—for whatever they are worth—that suggestion was not immediately taken up. On 22 December, however, a letter "was delivered to the Prime Minister of Pakistan which contain­ed the proposal to refer the matter to the Security Council in (he form which it has actually been referred.

In the meantime, the Prime Minister of Pakistan had addressed the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in a telegram dated 24 November, in which he had said:

"The oft-repeated promise of the India Government and Pandit Nehru that they are willing to have a plebiscite in Kashmir is intended to mislead the world. There is no dispute that a plebiscite must be held as early as possible, asserting the free will of the people of Kashmir. This is not the question in dispute; this is axiomatic. The real issue is how this is to be done.

"You say the question has become intractable. It has been made purposely so by the Indian Government. If the India Government is honestly and genuinely desirous of a fair and peaceful settlement of the Kashmir question, they should immediately agree that fighting must cease and not take shelter behind the slogan that the raiders must be driven

1. It is not the so-called raiders, but the people of Kashmir, who are fighting against heavy odds to end Dogra tyranny and to prevent Kashmir from falling into the hands of the Indian Dominion.

"The Azad Kashmir forces are almost wholly composed of the sons of the soil, and even foreign observers have testified that, wherever they have gone, they have been welcomed as forces of liberation. We are ready to exercise all our influence on the Azad Kashmir forces to stop fighting and to see that any tribesmen with them are not only stopped from fighting, but are made to leave Kashmir. These tribesmen, it should be remembered, are the kith and kin of those for whom they are fighting."

The telegram wsnt on to say: "The India Government's insistence upon the retention of their troops in Kashmir until they have restored Jaw and order to their own satisfaction can only mean that India troops will stay in the State until they have been crushed by military force al! opposition to their permanent occupation of Kashmir. The methods by which the maintenance of law and order is used to consolidate an alien rule are well known. The Muslim population of the State has been feeling the impact of these methods in full force. The true leaders of the Muslims and the politically conscious among them are, with their families, the special targets of this repression".

Practically all the leaders of the Muslim Conference are actually in gaol, and anybody who has made himself vocal on the matter of accession to Pakistan has been rounded up. My information is, although I have not been able to check it. that certain parts of Srinagar town, where there was a great feeling in favour of accession to Pakistan, were at one time cut off from the benefits of the ordinary municipal services.

The telegram of the Prime Minister of Pakistan then continued: "In spite of the protestations of the India Govern­ment, the number of Muslim refugees into Pakistan swells day by day and is now over 200,000. All these refugees bring with them horrible tales of most inhuman atrocities. I repeat that what the India Government is after is permanent occupation of Kashmir, and they know that they cannot achieve this object until they have changed the composition of the population by converting the Muslim majority into a minority. Behind their high-sounding phrases stands this hideous reality, the elimina­tion and demoralization of a whole population by violent means, and any proposal which fails to tackle this basic fact offers no real solution.

"The above analysis shows that, first, fighting must stop and all outside forces must withdraw; and, secondly, what is no less essential, that the Kashmir administration must be taken over by an impartial and independent authority immediately. Not until these conditions are fulfilled is there any hope of getting a free plebiscite, which, in our opinion, need not wait till the spring.

"I hope you now realize the actual position. If you will consider these basic facts, you will, I hope, support our proposal that the United Nations should immediately send out a commission to undertake the tasks outlined in paragraph 5 above. This commission should have under it an inter­national police force to maintain law and order. The composition of this force can be left to the decision of the United Nations commission. We, on our part, would be prepared to accept a force d["awn solely from the Commonwealth."

On 12 December, the Prime Minister of India telegraphed to the Prime Minister of Pakistan as follows;

"We have given further thought in the light of our discus­sion in Lahore to the question of inviting the United Nations to advise us in this matter. While we are prepared-to invite United Nations observers to come here and advise us as to the proposed plebiscite, it is not clear in what other capacity United Nations help can be sought.

"According to your own declaration to us, you are not party to the present struggle in Kashmir. We cannot deal with irregular invaders as a State. No government can deal with such raids which have brought death and destruction to Kashmir except by military means. We owe an obligation to the people of Kashmir to restore peaceful and normal conditions, and we pledge ourselves to this end. We would be glad to cooperate in an attempt to restore peace by settlement."

A curious point is raised here. We say "Let us refer the question to the United Nations.'' The answer is, "You are not a party". Therefore, who shall go as a party before the United Nations and who shall treat it as a party? India says to us: "You are not a party and the raiders are not a State. We cannot deal with them. Therefore, apart from sending observers from the United Nations, what can the United Nations be invited to do?" And all the time, a complaint is being made that Pakistan is not co-operating, that Pakistan should be called upon to do certain things when Pakistan itself suggests and invites the procedure that the United Nations be approached in order to find a way of settlement, of arranging a plebiscite, of impartial administration, and so on. Oh yes, but there is this difficulty "You are not a party to the dispute".

Before I go on to the reply sent by the Prime Minister of Pakistan to the Prime Minister of India in his telegram of 16 December, I should like to read further from the telegram which I was reading, the telegram sent by the Prime Minister of India. It continues as follows:

"I trust that you will appreciate the logic and the reasona­bleness of our position, and our earnest desire to find a solution that is honourable to all concerned. I hope to meet you when you visit Delhi on 22 December to attend the next meeting of the Joint Defence Council and to discuss this matter further with you.

"I confess, however, that I find myself unable to suggest anything beyond what I have offered already: namely, to ask the United Nations to send impartial observers to advise us regarding the plebiscite."

In his reply on 16 December, the Pakistan Prime Minister said the following:

"As you know, I am most desirous for a settlement of all matters in the dispute between India and Pakistan. So are my colleagues, and I agree with you that the main issue outstanding between the two dominions is Kashmir, and, as I pointed out before, Junagadh.

"During our discussions in Delhi and Lahore, I explained to you how vital a place Kashmir occupies in relation to Pakistan. The security of Pakistan is bound up with that of Kashmir, and the ties of religion, cultural affinity and economic interdependence bind the two together still closer. The security and well-being of the people of Kashmir are of the highest importance to the people of Pakistan. We are therefore vitally interested in peaceful and honourable conditions for the people of Kashmir so that, free from pressure, external or internal, they might, of their own free will, decide to which Dominion they wish to accede. The test of any course of action should therefore be whether it leads to the creation of conditions in which a really free plebiscite can be held.

"To my mind, the problem can only be solved by an act of statesmanship in the light of the basic realities of the situation, and not by legal disputations as to how Pakistan is a party to the dispute and how the United Nations can be brought in.

"I hope that when we meet on 22 December, we shall be able to discuss the matter in this spirit."

On 12 December, as I said, that message was handed over by the Prime Minister of India to the prime Minister of Pakistan. It said that the Government of Pakistan did a, b, c, d, e, and that the matter must be referred to the United Nations and to the Security Council. That finishes the history of the attempts made to settle the matter amicably. Every one of these attempts was made on the side of Pakistan. Yet today, the position is taken up on behalf of India that Pakistan has refused to cooperate in order to try to find a solution. Here are at least seven attempts which were made, each of which was turned down by India.

I now come to some of the specific allegations that have been made in the statement entered on behalf of India the day before yesterday [227th meeting} with regard .to-. Pakistan's complicity, as it described, in the situation in Kashmir. The representative of India starts with a statement that they were innocent even of all knowledge of what was going on in Kashmir until the eve of Kashmir's accession to India. He said: "India came into the picture of the present developments in Kashmir only on the eve of signing the instrument of accession. Since then"—that is, 22 October—"we have come to know of the pressure that had been exercised by Pakistan for obtaining the accession of the State."

He then goes on to set down incidents of what he thinks was pressure put upon Kashmir to accede to Pakistan, but he does try to make out a case of complete lack of knowledge even of what was happening in Kashmir. It was only on the eve of the accession that they came to know anything at all about these matters.

However, I would request the members of the Council to examine the verbatim record of the statement of the Indian representative. He stated:

"India was, of course, vitally interested in the decision that the State might take in regard to accession." Being vitally interested, they invite the Council to believe that though they were interested in the decision, they took no interest in what was happening. The paragraph continues as follows: "Kashmir, because of her geographical position, with her frontiers contiguous with those of countries like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China, is of vital import­ance to the security and international contacts of India.

Economically also, Kashmir is intimately associated with India. The caravan trade routes from Central Asia to India pass through Kashmir State."

Is it to be believed that the Government of India did not know what was going on or contemplated with regard to accession, that they did not try to influence it? I have some knowledge of the methods—tender, affectionate, persuasive— that the Dominion of India has employed in persuading the States to accede to India.

I am sure the representative of India will forgive me if, as a result of that knowledge and that experience, I refuse to believe as true the statement that the Government of India took no interest in and was not aware of, what was happening in Kashmir. "Nevertheless," the representative of India continued, "we have at no time put the slightest pressure on this State to accede to the Indian Dominion, because we realized that Kashmir was in a very difficult position.'' Indeed, the Government of India had been so anxious about these matters that in the case of Junagadh, which legally, consti­tutionally and legitimately acceded to Pakistan, they have carried out their obligations in respect to such accession in the most scrupulous manner. We shall come to the details of this matter when the Security Council reaches the second part of its agenda.

"While a standstill agreement 'with India was being negotiated," the representative of India continued, "we learned that pressure was being applied on Kashmir by the Pakistan authorities with a view to coercing it into acceding to Pakistan."

A few paragraphs after this statement appears the following: 'lSince then, we have come to know of the pressure which had been exercised by Pakistan for obtaining the accession of the State." I do not admit that any pressure was being exercised. I cannot give an explanation of that, but here the Indian Government alleges that while a standstill agreement was being negotiated, "we learned that pressure was being applied on Kashmir by the Pakistan authorities with a view to coercing it into acceding to Pakistan. At first we did not pay any serious

 attention to the reports we received. At that time all the energies of the Government of India were strained to the utmost in achieving the task of effecting a gigantic transfer of population on a vast scale. But the reports about the application of coercive pressure began to come with increasing frequency. In or about the month of September, the position became really serious." Yet the knowledge of all this contained in all the reports which were coming in contemporaneously was obtained by them after the accession.

With regard to this scrupulousness with which they observed the standstill agreements on either side, I will at this stage cite only one instance with respect to Kashmir. I will not complicate the matter by taking up Junagadh.

I explained yesterday to the Security Council what the standstill agreements mean. Kashmir had reached a standstill agreement with Pakistan with regard to her communications, supplies, and post office and telegraphic arrangements. This agreement became operative on 15 August. By this postal arrangement, the postal and telegraphic services in Kashmir were run by the Pakistan Government. Yet, on 9 September 1947, before any kind of trouble or dispute had arisen, the Postmaster General of Ambala in East Punjab—and there­fore within the Dominion of India—posted Risha Rejena, an officer of the Dominion of India, in charge of the Kashmir Postal Division. This fact would be unbelievable, if it were not true.

A division took place between the two Dominions on 15 August 1947. Between the two Dominions themselves and apart from Kashmir, the entire Kashmir Postal Administration is al­lotted to Pakistan. That is an arrangement which exists between the two Dominions. There is an arrangement between the Domi­nion of Pakistan and the State of Kashmir whereby the Kashmir postal telegraph services will be run by Pakistan. Yet on 9 September 1947, their postal authorities deliberately appointed one of their officers in charge of the Kashmir Postal Division, without any intimation to this effect being received by the Government of Pakistan from the Government of India. No explanation was given for this unwarranted interference with the operation of the standstill agreement. The Postmaster General of West Punjab reported this in his telegram of 17 September 1947 to the Pakistan Government. A protest was lodged with the Government of India by a telegram which stated "Foreign, New Delhi" in its heading. No reply to this telegram has been received. Yet, the Indian Government States that it did not take an interest in those affairs and has not intervened in any manner. What is this, if not an attempt to disrupt the operation of the standstill agreement between Kashmir and Pakistan?

Further, the Director-General, Postal Telegraph, New Delhi, in his memorandum dated I September 1947 forwarded to the Director of Postal Services, General Post Office,

1. included a list showing the mail to be sent to the Dominion of India and the different towns            therein. This memorandum included stations in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as if these States formed a part of the Dominion of India. This statement indicated that all mail for the Kashmir State was to be consigned to the Dominion of India. I have copies of these documents. This one States in its heading: "Indian Postal Telegraph Department, No. D, 65-46/46, Office of the Director-General of Postal Telegraph, New Delhi, 25 September 1947. To the Director of Postal Services:            GPO, London E.C. 1." After setting out what arrangements are to be made and what instructions are being issued in the schedule, infor­mation relative to what bags are to be made up and for what places they are to obtain correspondence is laid down. This is with regard to letters and packets for Assam, West Bengal and for Kashmir. It is similarly relative to air miles for Delhi, for the Kashmir State and for such and such places.

Another directive from the Director-General of Postal Telegraph at New Delhi which is addressed to all foreign postal administrations and which bears the number D 98-2/47, dated 27 September 1947, has as its subject "Make up of airmail for the Dominions of India and Pakistan." It is signed by the Director. Included are several places in East Punjab and Kashmir.

They had already included Kashmir in their Dominion on 27 September, four weeks before there was any move, according to them, on the part of the Maharaja to accede to the Dominion of India.

Acts speak very much louder than mere professions of innocent intention, and innocent conduct. When Pakistan protested, no notice was taken of the protest. Yet, they were not aware of what was going on; they were completely indiffe­rent in respect to the difficulty in which Kashmir was placed.

Again, it is said by India: "We did not even think of accession or a military action until 24 December". Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, who had been convicted and sentenced— most unjustly, I am quite certain myself—on a charge of treason, and who had already been in jail for eighteen months or so, was suddenly released—and I am happy that was so— and proceeded to Delhi. For what purpose? What was he doing there? I am not suggesting he was doing anything unlawful, but I am suggesting that he was negotiating the terms of accession to the Government of India, on behalf of His Highness the Maharaja of Kashmir, against whom—according to the Maharaja of Kashmir, not according to me—he had been guilty of treason for which he languished in jail for eighteen months. He was already there even ahead of 22 October, the first date on which any incursion is alleged to have taken place from the North West Frontier Province into Kashmir. But it is said that pressure was being applied on behalf of Pakistan against Kashmir, to induce Kashmir to accede to Pakistan. The pressure is suggested as having been applied in the form of stoppage of supplies which should have gone on normally under the standstill agreement.

I already explained yesterday what the conditions were in East Punjab and West Punjab during that period. Practically no normal traffic was moving between the two territories. None could move. There was so much killing going on. The only traffic was that of refugees, and they sometimes, even when under military escort, were massacred. Therefore, it was not only Kashmir that was suffering from lack of supplies; West Punjab itself was suffering from lack of supplies. If under those conditions, difficulties were experienced in moving supplies, it was not a pressure being put upon Kashmir; it was due to the circumstances then existing. This was explained in the telegram of 20 October from the Governor-General of Pakistan to His Highness the Maharaja of Kashmir.

Then, railways in Western Pakistan were experiencing great difficulty in maintaining services—even behind their frontiers, where this question of refugees and killings and massacres was not acute—owing to lack of coal. Coal had to come from the Dominion of India. The Dominion of India was experiencing difficulties in the matter of supply of coal to Pakistan, and Pakistan, consequently, was experiencing difficulties in running its railways and other communications.

Then there was a third factor. The Dogra troops were killing Muslims inside the State of Kashmir, and Muslim lorry-drivers of vehicles that would normally have carried these supplies from Rawalpindi into Kashmir refused to move, even in respect of such supplies as were already available inside West Punjab, unless military escort was provided. It was repeatedly explained to the Kashmir authorities that the West Punjab Government, having regard to much more urgent calls upon them, was unable to supply military escort for these lorries. These and others were the reasons for the interruption of supplies, and not any kind of pressure that was being put upon the Kashmir Government to decide one way or the other.

The next grievance that is stated by the Indian representative is that the difficulties that were being experienced by the Kashmir Government, and which were placed before the Governor-General! of Pakistan in the telegram of the Prime Minister of Kashmir of 18 October, were not advertised to, or were not specifically dealt with by the Governor-General.

This matter is dealt with in the portion of the representative of India's address setting forth the telegram of the Kashmir Prime Minister. After he has quoted the telegram, his first sentence reads as follows: "The Governor-General of Pakistan, in his reply dated 20 October 1947, made no effort to answer the specific accusations." I have already read that telegram from the Governor-General of Pakistan to the Maharaja of Kashmir. I shall draw attention again to a part of that telegram and leave it to the Security Council to decide whether an attempt had or had not been made, in that telegram, to meet the specific allegations.

I shall read from the telegram of the Governor-General of Pakistan, dated 20 October 1947, to His Highness the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. Paragraph 3 reads as follows: "The allegation in the telegram under reply that the standstill agreement has not been observed is entirely wrong. The difficulties that have been felt by your administration have arisen as a result of the widespread disturbances in East Punjab and the disruption of communications caused thereby, particularly by the shortage of coal. These difficulties have been felt acutely by the West Punjab Government themselves. The difficulties with regard to banking facilities were caused by lack of staff in the various banks and cannot be laid at the door of the West Punjab Government, who have in fact tried their best to ensure protection to the banks. The failure of remittances from the Lahore Currency Officer has nothing to do with the Pakistan Government, since the Lahore Currency Officer is under the Reserve Bank of India. Your Government's complaints regarding Press reports and telegrams by private persons are also wide of the mark. Your Government does not realize the fact that there is no censorship in West Punjab. The complaint about local and provincial authorities is thus wholly unfounded."

These were the specific allegations; these are the replies. Maybe in dealing with the matter at this stage it might be contended, either on behalf of Kashmir or on behalf of the Dominion of India, that they were not satisfied with these replies or that they were not willing to accept them as satisfactorily. But surely, in a responsible document which practically amounts to a complaint charging a State with failing in its obligations, it was not proper to say that the Governor-General of Pakistan, in his reply dated 20 October 1947, "made no effort to answer the specific accusations"—and this is only one paragraph that I have read from that very long telegram.

Here was an answer to every one of the specific accusations made. But the impression sought to be created in it is clear. This long telegram from the Prime Minister of Kashmir is set out—quite properly; I am making no complaint on that score—detailing the grievances, and in one sentence the reply is disposed of by saying that no attempt was made to meet the specific accusations; whereas in none of the telegrams and replies from the Kashmir Government, several of which I read to the Security Council yesterday, was any attempt made, in spite of our repeated demands, to meet the charges made by us with regard to the massacre of the Muslim population of Kashmir by Dogra troops, with regard to the numerous* raids —as many as a hundred—of which I have particulars here, from Kashmir territory into West Punjab territory, and other similar matters which were repeatedly brought to the notice of the Kashmir Government.

It has unfortunately become a habit with the Government of India simply to deny whatever they find is inconvenient either to deal with or to answer. I cited an instance, from personal knowledge, of my own home yesterday. I have made no representation. The news came; I read it; I was story. I knew these incidents were happening on an extensive scale. It was no time to mourn over the loss of one individual home when so many people were suffering much more grievous misery at the time. But some of my friends, as I said, in the Indian delegation itself, came to express their sympathy to me. I expressed the same point of view to the Indian delegation, but apparently the leader sent a telegram to her brother the Prime Minister, and the astounding reply came back that inquiries had been made by the Government and nothing had happened at Qadian. When one receives that kind of reply, one knows how much faith to place in the denials and the declara­tions of a Government of that kind.

Further accusations are made with regard to the specific matter of incursions into Kashmir itself, and it has been said that the Pakistan Government is guilty, on the evidence which has been instigated and which, it is said, is in the possession of the Government of India. For instance, the Indian statement says, "Captured vehicles have Pakistan number plates on them." That is to say, vehicles captured in Kashmir have Pakistan numbers on them. But what is there to show that those vehicles were not in Kashmir on legitimate business or had not proceeded, so far as Pakistan is concerned, into Kashmir on legitimate business and that they were not sub­sequently captured? There is no evidence that the Pakistan Government, as such, employed those private vehicles. The number plates merely mean that they were registered in Pakistan, not that the Government of Pakistan employed those vehicles for some nefarious purpose. But surely there is a wide gulf between a vehicle or several vehicles bearing Pakistan number plates being in Kashmir, where ordinarily they would be in large numbers in any case and the Pakistan Government being responsible for having employed them for some nefarious purpose against the Government of Kashmir.

Then the representative of India said that somebody observed that petrol was supplied at Pakistan pumps, without coupons or payment, to motor lorries carrying tribesmen. AH that is meant and that could be meant by "Pakistan pumps" is petrol pumps in Pakistan territory. There are no Government pumps maintained by the Pakistan Government, by the Indian Government or by any other Government. The distribution of petrol throughout India—and here I use the word in the larger sense in which it was employed before 15 August 1947—is arranged by the oil companies themselves under their own organization. There is no Government organization for the distribution of petrol. That is point number one.

When it is said, "without coupons," that in itself is an admis­sion that the Government was not authorizing the issue of this petrol. If the Government had authorized the issue of this petrol, it would have issued coupons for it. When it is said that petrol is being issued without coupons, that means that either the companies or the managers of the pumps were doing something illegal in the nature of black market activities, or, if the petrol was really issued without payment, they were doing something out of their sympathy for this movement. Even if the -allegation is taken at its worst—and one does not know whether the allegation is correct or incorrect in itself—they were doing something illegal in order to help this movement which was going on in Kashmir. How is the Government implicated when it is a matter of the issuance of petrol without coupons? If it were said that some Governmental department had issued coupons in order to procure petrol for these vehicles, there would be a measure of responsibility to be laid upon somebody.

Yesterday when I was making my submission I read reports from foreign correspondents in which they pointed out that in East Punjab and in Delhi itself there was a large movement of jeeps and other vehicles using petrol, taking Sikh killers about from one place to another, and they wondered who supplied the petrol and who supplied the arms. I am not talking now of Patiala State or Kapurthala State of Nabha State, where it might be said the State authorities were involved. I am talk­ing of East Punjab and of Delhi itself, the capital of India. Who supplied the petrol? If it was supplied in exchange for coupons, then it must have been the Government. If it was done without coupons, then apparently, under the very nose of the Government of India in the Indian capital itself, there are means of obtaining petrol in that way, let alone in far-away places near the frontier where there obviously cannot bs so much supervision and so much observance of incidents hap­pening as there can be in the capital.of the Indian Dominion itself. But so much play having been made of petrol having been supplied without coupons, I assume that in Delhi it was always supplied with coupons to enable these people to go about and kill Muslims. Those coupons must have been issued by the Government of India.

It is then said that these people have arms of various descriptions and that those arms could only have come from ihe Pakistan Government. In the first place, anyone who is familiar with conditions on the North-west frontier of India will certainly know that these independent tribes have always been in the habit of accumulating quite large stores of arms by all sorts of means, legitimate as well as illegitimate. As a matter of fact guns, rifles and so on are manufactured by them. Whether by raids, by illicit purchase, or by stealing, they always get them, and other arms also. As a matter of fact, it is the saying all along the frontier that no young tribesman can obtain a bride unless he has first obtained a first-class rifle and can prove himself to be an expert in its use. So far as the Pakistan Government is concerned, the Government of India itself is the witness of how many military stores it has so far, under the settlement, itself handed over to the Pakistan Govern­ment, from which the Pakistan Government, out of its surplus, could supply these stores for use by these people. As a matter of fact, one of the matters to which attention has been invited by the Pakistan Government in its representation to the Secu­rity Council is the failure of the Government of India to hand over to the Pakistan Government its due share of military stores. Pakistan is woefully short of its quota, much less could it supply anybody out of it.

It is then said that these people who originally were without greatcoats and uniforms now have them and other things. This is another bit of evidence used against the Pakistan Govern­ment—that it must have supplied these people with these articles. I shall presently be able to show that all of these people within the Kashmir territory itself, sixty thousand to seventy thousand in Poonch alone, who had been fighting in the forces of the United Nations, upon their demobilization were permitted to retain their uniforms and their badges. Therefore, that in itself is a good enough explanation. But equipment of that kind namely clothes and so on, after the end of a war such as the one through which the world has recently gone, and all sorts of military stores, arms and ammunition, are in certain areas of the world floating about loose, and a good deal of illicit traffic in them is going on. We may pretend innocence in these matters as much as we like, but we know what is happening in different parts of the world. These sup­plies are not difficult to obtain. Quite large quantities of this type of clothing and equipment have been legitimately disposed of and are being disposed of by the Disposal Department of the Government of India itself. Anybody can go and buy this type of equipment, including steel helmets. It is much more difficult today for an honest man to try to procure by honest purchase a decent overcoat to get a much better and much warmer army greatcoat. It is the same with regard to everything else.

In the first place these people may have those supplies legitimately because large numbers of them have been in the armed forces, and upon demobilization they were allowed to retain those articles. These people may have obtained those articles illegitimately. They allege that they have obtained these quite large quantities of material from the State troops them­selves, who deserted or ran away when the population rose against them. They may have obtained the material illicit or illegitimately, but to pretend that the Pakistan Government is supplying them when the Government of India knows that it has withheld from Pakistan its due share of military stores is to add insult to injury.

It is then said that camps for training in small arms and elementary tactics have been established on the Pakistan border to train, if you please, these independent tribesmen in elemen­tary matters of warfare. I would again invite the attention of the Representative of India to the fact, which he can ascertain from any British military officer who has served on the frontier, that the tribesmen stand in no need of training in the use of small arms and in military tactics. If that had not been so, one of the biggest headaches which had always confronted the British administration in India would not have arisen. These tribesmen have never stood in need of training in the use of arms. They manufacture arms, and they start playing with them as children.

It is necessary to ask anyone about this fact. Let any­one take a trip on the road from Peshawar to Kohat through tribal territory. The road was British but it now belongs to the North West Frontier Province. On both sides of the road dwell the independent tribesmen. I have been along that road twice and I was amused to find one ragged tribesman with a rifle slung over his shoulder, minding two donkeys that were graz­ing. I also saw two village minstrels proceeding from one village to another, possibly going to entertain at a wedding and earn a few pennies, each having a rifle slung over his shoulder.

No one in that area dares move about without having a rifle. And to talk about their being trained in the use of these weapons!

In the Indian statement it is then said that the methods employed by these people indicate that they are led by profes­sional soldiers. Of course there are, as I have said, as many as 70,000 professional soldiers in Poonch itself who have served during this past war. What greater experience do you want in any soldier? They are there and they are subjects of Kashmir; they are the people of the Maharaja. These are the people whom he tried to suppress and massacre by the use of his State troops which ran away, leaving their equipment, at first con­tact when these people rose. What more professional soldiers are wanted to lead these people? They are there; they are Kashmiris; they are subjects of Kashmir and they are inside the State.

It is then said that the Prime Minister of Pakistan had said that it was possible—the Prime Minister of Pakistan is not like the Government of India which denies everything and states that nothing could have happened—that men of Poonch, while on leave at home, riding that their kith and kin were being murdered, had taken part in these uprisings. The Govern­ment of India raised their hands in horror and stated that it seems extraordinary conduct for an army to allow its officers and men to go on leave and omit to take disciplinary action against them for participating during their leave in fighting against a neighbouring and friendly country- The very first protest to which I drew attention yesterday over the massacres in Kashmir from Pakistan was based on this.

We stated, "We are particularly perturbed because large numbers of officers and men of our army are drawn from these areas and they are becoming very disturbed. Will you kindly look into the matter and stop this kind of thing happening, otherwise we shall be faced with a very grave situation." If, when they go home on leave, these officers or men find that their people are being massacred or persecuted, and if some of them take a hand in whatever is going on, it is nevertheless not a case of allowing them to go on leave in order to take part in the fighting. Again, unless we know which of them have taken a specific part, what kind of action can we take against them? That is the situation, and whatever may be the technical aspect, what would any human being do under those circumstances? As I said yesterday, there is a big human question involved quite apart from technicalities and legalities.

We know what has already happened in the States in East Punjab—every Muslim wiped out or expelled. We know what has happened in East Punjab itself, the territory of the Domi­nion of India—five million Muslims driven across the border and about one million killed, so that apart from a few thousand, there is none of the six million left in that area. Then something of that kind starts in kashmir. How is what is happening in Kashmir different from what happened in Kapurthala, an Indian State with a non-Muslim rular and a majority of Muslim population the whole of which has been got rid of, having been massacred or expelled? That kind of thing begins and it is expected that men who are only just on the other side of the border—serving in the army it is true—should, when they come home on leave, observe complete impartiality and neutrality. They are expected to say, "My brother may have been killed, my father may have been killed, my wife may have been raped and ray children butchered, but I am a member of the Pakistan forces and must not retaliate." That kind of thing might be expected of angels, but it cannot be expected of human beings. I will say that a man would be a despicable coward if, under those circumstances, he did nothing to help.

Further on in the Indian statement, the grievance states that Press propaganda goes on against Kashmir and the Dominion of India in the Pakistan newspapers. In the first place, the Press is free, and in the second place no secret is made of the fact that sympathy of the Muslims in this struggle would be on one side. Thirdly, if what the Press in a country says makes the Government of that country guilty, then what about the Press cuttings I quoted yesterday? What about the Hindu Mahasabhd's suggesting that the mere faci that a man says, "I am a Muslim" should be made a crime in the Dominion of India? Is the representative of India willing

to accept responsibility for that on behalf of his Government. Would it be fair to charge the Government of India with the responsibility for someone having published that? How then, is it fair to charge the Pakistan Government with responsibility for what the Press might say?

In these circumstances, and against the back-ground of, horrors to only some of which I drew attention yesterday, it is true that some of the provincial ministers have given expression to utterances from which it would have been wise to refrain. Nevertheless, one hopes that even when they become ministers they do not cease to be human beings. As I have said, to expect, when all this kind of thing is going on, that because he is a minister a Muslim should not give expression even to his sympathy or to his wishes, is to expect either what would be more than human or what would be Jess than human.

Constitutional questions, legalities and obligations of States apart, any person who failed either to feel or to express sympathy with the victims of the kind of thing I described yesterday—irrespective of whether the victims were Muslims or non-Muslims—and who failed to utter the strongest condem­nation of the aggression that is and has been going on, whether Muslims or non-Muslims were the aggressors, would be less than human and would not deserve to be called a man.

It is complained in the address of the representative of India that no effort has been made by Pakistan to stop these independent tribesmen from coming in. By this time the Security Council was aware that 22 October 1947 was the crucial date in that respect. This is a telegram from the North West Frontier Government to the Pakistan Government at Karachi on this date:

"Large number Muslim refugees have entered Hazara District bringing harrowing stories of atrocities committed by Kashmir forces. Precautionary measures have been taken along the border to stop tribesmen.. and local inhabitants from entering Kashmir. About 100 arrests have been made of persons trying to cross the border. Leading gangs have been bound under security to keep the peace and prevent their followers from seeking retaliation. The influx of refugees has created a very tense atmosphere. Some retaliatory incursions are probable as many stretches of the border are remote from normal communications and inaccessible to control. Addressed to Frontier Pakistan, repeated to Foreign Karachi."

Again, a person has to be familiar with the terrain to know that over these hundreds of miles of frontier there are only two or three roads for traffic, but that whenever they please the tribesmen can storm over the hills, most of which are inaccessi­ble to any kind of vehicular traffic and cannot be, negotiated except by people climbing like goats into the neighbouring districts of the North West Frontier Province or of Kashmir State.

Alex Campbell, a Daily Mail reporter, in a dispatch published in that paper on 17 November 1947, wrote:

"Five thousand tribesmen who arrived in Abbottabad yesterday were refused entry into Kashmir by the Pakistan authorities. We crossed the Jhelum natural boundary between Pakistan and Kashmir by the suspension bridge into Poonch, once a sovereign State but now only a district of Kashmir. The boast of the Poonchis, ninety-five per cent Muslim, it that with a population of five hundred thousand they have supplied more soldiers and won more medals that any other part of India. Eighty thousand of them served abroad with the Indian Army. The old major at Pattan who insisted"—a point to which I will return later when I have finished reading this report—"on my taking off my shoes and massaging myself because I was stiff after riding, said, 'During two wars we served you faithfully. There has never been a case of a Poonchi soldier breaking his oath to the King Emperor. You repay us now by abandoning us now that we can no longer serve you. Not only that, but Mountbatten, sends his planes and soldiers to kill us because, tired of being slaves, we have risen against our oppressors.* Everywhere I went during the five days I spent with the troops at Kotli and Poonch, where bloody battles were in progress, I heard the same thing time and again. It is never the Indian Army; it is always Mountbatten's planes, soldiers or artillery that they are fighting. It was useless telling them that what Mountbatten did was not necessarily by the British. To them he is an Englishman, a relation of the King for whom they fought faithfully. He accepted the accession of Kashmir against the wishes of the people and sent his troops to subjugate them, so it must have been done on orders from the King."

The representative of India then stated further that the Prime Minister of Kashmir has categorically challenged the correctness of the allegations made against him. What does he deny? The first allegation is that we offered to send and did send a representative of the Foreign Office to discuss matters with him: their grievances over supplies, our grievances over the raiding that was taking place. He declined to discuss the matter with our representative. Has he denied this?

I have been told, though I do not have the means of confirming this, that the Prime Minister does make a denial. What he denies is that he refused to see our representative; but he does not deny that he refused to discuss matters with him.

The present Prime Minister of Kashmir is a well-known friend of mine. We practised together at the Lahore bar. He subsequently became a judge of the Lahore Higher Court. I have known him for long years and I have known him as an extremely subtle lawyer. He denies that he refused to see this officer. He does not deny that he refused to discuss the matters with him. Our allegation is that he may have received him technically, but he told him that he was not prepared to discuss these matters with him.

What does he deny? Again, our allegation is that he asked for an impartial inquiry. He told us that unless we gave heed to his demand for an impartial inquiry he would call outside assistance. We agreed to the imprtial inquiry. He did not proceed with it.

What does he deny? Does he deny that he made a demand for an impartial inquiry? Does he deny that we accepted his demand? Does he deny that he has refused to proceed with it? What does he deny?

The third allegation we make is that these two efforts having failed, we invited him to come down to Karachi to discuss matters so that we might find an amicable way out of the situation. He did not come. What does he deny? Does he deny-that we asked him, or does he assert that he came? What are the allegations that we make against him which he denies, which he categorically denies?

Then we are assured, "Our only interest is to see peace restored in Kashmir." Yes, but what kind of peace? So far as the Muslims are concerned, your interest, no doubt, is to restore the kind of peace you have restored in East Punjab. Your object, no doubt, is to restore the kind of peace that you have restored in Delhi. Your object, no doubt, is to restore in this Indian State the kind of peace that prevails in other Indian States, in East Punjab and the neighbouring area, which are in accession with you.

However, to the Muslim that is the peace of the grave; that is the peace of annihilation; that is the peace of banishment. Are you surprised that your definition of peace should not be acceptable to the Muslims? I have no interest in the kind of peace that you restore.

Then great play is made over the Maharaja now becoming a constitutional ruler. What he will become we shall see; what he has been we know. It would be common sense, it would be wise to judge a situation on the basis of what we know rather than on the basis of what is merely held out as a prospect.

Then, the Indian statement says that they desire that peace be restored. We do not differ over the objective as stated. We desire that peace be restored; we have repeatedly said that fighting must stop at once and that means must be taken to stop it. However, we differ over the definition of what you call peace and what we call peace, what you call order and what we call order, what to you is law and what to us is law.

They then say in the last part of their statement—and when the representative of Indian read it, I thought perhaps it was an invitation that they and we should join in this matter to bring about peace—"To my friends from Pakistan, I would, therefore address this question: You have welcomed this reference to the Security Council. Are we jointly so bankrupt of faith in the need for peace, in human decency and dignity that we cannot, even at this late stage, agree upon your taking the action which it is so obviously your duty to take and your calling us to cooperate with you in implementing it, should you consider our assistance necessary?"

It is of a piece with the reply given by the Prime Minister of India to the Prime Minister of Pakistan when he invited him, on one of these occasions, to meet and discuss matters together. He said,'"Yes, there should be a discussion of the matters in dispute—that is to say, how the incursion of tribesmen into Kashmir is to be stopped and how a plebiscite is to be arranged. You want me to discuss these matters, but these matters can only be discussed when you have stopped the incursion of tribesmen into Kashmir and got rid of them from Kashmir, and when you accept the administration of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah; that is to say, when you accept the administration of the man who says 'We must accede to India.' Then we shall discuss how the plebiscite is to take place."

Then there is a great appeal in the end: Are we jointly so bankrupt that we cannot sit together and persuade you to do what we are asking you to do? Then, if in the process of doing it you have any difficulty, we are prepared to help.

The final paragraph deals with Mr. Gandhi's part. It is the desire of all of us that Mr. Gandhi, who is held in such great esteem, both inside India and Pakistan and throughout the world should undergo not one unnecessary moment either of pain or of suffering or of risk, temporary or permanent, to his health or life. In that desire we are together. But surely, if Mr. Gandhi has chosen to bring about communal amity and harmony through the means of a fast, that cannot be used as pressure upon Pakistan to do that which Pakistan finds it against its conscience to do.

I am sure Mr. Gandhi would himself be the first to say that no man should be put in that position. Since the fast was started, one has received information that the Government of India has decided that it would no longer withhold Pakistan's share of the cash balances which they were unjustly, unfairly, and illegally holding back. These words are mine, not theirs. We are glad that at least that cause of the difference between the two Dominions is now likely to be removed and we welcome that gesture.

They have also apparently announced—as on reads in the newspapers—that they are prepared to hold a plebiscite in Junagadh. I do not know what that means. Junagadh is a State that acceded to Pakistan; it is a State, the territory of which has been forcibly, unlawfully occupied by Indian forces. The only gesture they can make with regard to fungidb is to get out of Junagadh, and to restore the lawful ruler to the State. Thereafter, they can demand, if they so choose, that a plebiscite be held in Junagadh, to ascertain the free and unfettered will of the people of Junagadh on the matter of accession. If they do that, they will not find Pakistan unresponsive.

I should like to discuss one last matter, though it is not in the sequence I have been following, as I refrained from discus­sing it in order to give it special attention. A British officer was quoted as saying that he had observed certain concentrations of Pakistan troops and personnel along the roads outside Jammu; that is, outside Jammu on the road that leads to Sialkot. Jammu and Sialkot are only twenty-eight miles apart and the boundary runs somewhere between.

Sialkot is one of the big cantonments in Pakistan. It is not surprising that there may have been Pakistan troops in Sialkot. It would have been very surprising if there had not been because it is one of the places where troops are concentrated normally.

But with regard to the whole of this business of Pakistan taking a hand, or its military personnel taking a hand, in this affair, I would draw attention to the various communiques issued by General Sir Frank Messervey, Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan forces, a British officer held in highest esteem. On 30 October he issued the following communique:

"Rumous have been circulated that troops of the Pakistan Army are being employed within the borders of Kashmir. These rumours are entirely untrue. No Pakistan troops have been used in Kashmir."

 

Next, in November, it was stated that there is absolutely no truth in the allegations made by the Government of India that serving Pakistan Army officers are directing operations in Kashmir against State forces.

And on 15 November: "Pandit Nehru is reported to have stated in a public speech in Delhi on 6 November that the invading armies in Kashmir had modern weapons and were directed by officers of the Pakistan Army. The Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army categorically states that no weapon* have been supplied to the tribesmen from the Army, nor has any serving Army officer played any part in the planning or direction of tribal operations in Kashmir."

And on 3 January: "The attention of the Army authorities has been drawn to a report published in a certain daily news­paper alleging that two battalions of the Pakistan Army have deserted and are fighting in Kashmir. This report is absolutely baseless and malicious."

"No units of the Pakistan Army have deserted," states a communique published by Army headquarters. "Numerous reports insinuating Pakistan Army's complicity in Kashmir fighting have appeared in the Indian Press for some time despite categorical denials from Pakistan Army headquarters. It is well known that thousands of soldiers have been released from the Indian Army and large numbers of them belong to Jammu and Kashmir areas. These soldiers on release were provided with one suit of army uniform with their regimental badge on them. If any such persons have been seen, captured or killed, they are not and cannot be called Pakistan soldiers. The only Pakistan soldiers who are permitted to go to Kashmir are serving soldiers on their normal annual leave. These true soldiers are not being permitted to carry their arms with them."

This is true so far as the Pakistan Army is concerned.

One matter to which attention is drawn in the Indian state­ment is that the tribesmen, when they captured Baramulla, committed certain atrocities, including atrocities against the

1. of the local convent there. I have no knowledge and my Government has no knowledge with regard to what has actually been happening inside the Kashmir State, except so far as reports have appeared or communications have been directly addressed to my Government. But in that connexion, it has been alleged that some of the atrocities that are now being attributed to the tribesmen—and we have no knowledge with regard to whether that is true or false—were committed by the Sikh bands which were operating in that area also. I am unable to assert whether that is true or false.         *

However, here is something which is interesting in that connexion. This is a letter addressed by Mary Philippa, Mother Superior for all the Sisters of Saint Joseph's Hospital, Baramulla, Kashmir, to Begum Shahnawaz and her daughter Miss M. Shahnawaz on 1 January 1948. I have the original letter here. The Mother Superior says:

" We cannot let this season of greetings pass without sending you a very affectionate remembrance from us all with our prayers and every best wish for a very happy New Year and God's blessings on all your undertakings. We will never forget how you two brave girls, of the Pakistan Voluntary Service risked your lives to save us from Baramulla when the bombing and machine-gunning from the air made our situa­tion there dangerous and impossible."

The bombing and machine-gunning must have been done by the Indian Army. It has, so far, not yet been alleged that the tribesmen have any aircraft at their disposal.

The letter from the Mother Superior goes on to say: "Be sure we shall never forget you and we want to come to see you again. We have been so busy making clothes for ourselves and working at war refugee camps."

The letter is written from Rawalpindi; it goes on to say: "We hope to go back to Baramulla soon. Otherwise, I think we shall all join the Azad Kashmir forces. Please accept a very tiny present we have made for you as a sign of our gratitude and remembrance of you both. Yours affectioni-tely, Mary Philippa."

In the letter that the Maharaja wrote to Lord Mountbatten, offering his accession—and that letter evidently was drafted by Mr. V.P. Menon of the States Department of the Government of India, who was then in Kashmir, obviously advising the Maharaja on what steps to take in regard to his accession—the following is stated: "The people of my State, both Muslims and non-Muslims, generally have taken no part' at all in these troubles."

Apparently, the case that it is sought to make out here is that all this trouble comes from the tribesmen, that it is out­siders who have made an incursion into the State and disturbed the peace of that beautiful and happy valley. That is an entirely untrue picture of the whole situation. The correct picture is that the Maharaja, for purposes of his own, let his troops loose upon his people in certain areas, particularly in Poonch; that he let the bands of Sikh and Rashtriya Sewak Sangh volunteers create havoc in certain parts of the Jammu Province of his State; and that against these barbarities the people of the State rose in revolt.

It is admitted that the whole of Oilgit—in some respects the crucial portion of Kashmir, inasmuch as its border joins the border of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the North­west—has thrown off the Maharaja's authority. It is not alleged that any tribesmen have gone into Gilgit. Then who ha* brought about this change in Gilgit? Obviously the people of Gilgit, the subjects of the Maharaja—they are one hundred percent Muslims, but they are his subjects nevertheless. Yet, the Maharaja pretends that none of his people have taken part in these doings, that it is only these "outsiders' ' who are creating the trouble.

Consider the trouble in Kashmir itself. All the Muslims of the Jammu Province, all the Muslims of Poonch, such Muslims of the Valley itself as have any choice in the matter—because, as I have said, the leaders are in gaal and others are being per­secuted—are all behind this movement.

If this is denied, why does not Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah make an effort to persuade the Maharaja, if he has no autho-nty-I understand he is now virtually the Prime Minister-to release his colleagues or opposite numbers, whichever way he regards them, of the Muslim Conference? Why are they keeping my goal, unless it is for the purpose that the movement for accession to Pakistan should be crushed by all means at the disposal of the Maharaja and those who are advising him?

1. have here a statement from a neutral observer. This state­ment is from New Delhi, 12 January, by Robert Trumbell special correspondent to the New York Times. It reads as follows: "The Indian Government consistently refers to the Azad forces as raiders, implying that they are mostly Muslim, tribesmen from Pakistan's North-west      frontier and native Pakistan. Actually, according to reliable private informants, tribesmen bent solely on loot but with a strong strain of Muslim fanaticism in their nature comprise only about thirty per cent of the Azad Army. About five per cent are Pakistanis,, and the remaining sixty-five per cent are native Kashmiris in revolt against the Hindu Government of the princely State."

The same is confirmed in an article that has appeared in the middle page of The Times of 13 January.

Even with regard to these five percent Pakistanis, there is. this further thing to be remembered. .As I have explained to the Council, there are as many as five million refugees from East Punjab in West Punjab today, homeless wanderers, burning with shame and indignation, and with a sense of humiliation over the treatment which they and theirs were subjected to in East Punjab. At the moment, they are without occupation. Any of them who might have gone over into Kashmir to fight there, like the Sikhs who have gone over to kill the Muslims there, cannot in fairness be described as Pakistanis. If we are to proceed in this matter on the basis of inter­national and constitutional law, they are nationals of the Indian Dominion. They were expelled from their homes, but never­theless they are nationals of India. If they go over into Kashmir, the mere fact that they were compelled to leave their homes and to go into Pakistan, and from Pakistan to go to Kashmir, not make them Pakistani nationals. That is the picture; that is the position.

What is happening in Kashmir is a continuation of the process which has reached its culmination in the State of East Punjab and cannot be divorced from it. It would be no answer to say that a good deal of that kind of thing has happened in West Punjab also. I mentioned to the Council yesterday that it has. It is most regrettable, but it has. It is as deplorable that it has happened in West Punjab as it is that it has happened in East Punjab. However, when you. are trying to appreciate a picture, you have got to take the picture against its background, and judge human reactions against that background.

The question is: How is this situation to be met? It can be met only in one way. When the people of Kashmir—when I say the people of Kashmir I mean the Muslims of Kashmir, because the Hindus, the non-Muslims, are, at the moment, is no danger of being persecuted—are convinced that there is no further need for apprehension of their being dealt with in the manner in which their co-religionists have been dealt with in the other States—Kapurthala, Faridkot, Jind, Nabha, Patiala, Bharatpur, Alwar and Gwalior—-and when there is no further pressure upon them of any kind, they will be in a position to express their desire as to the accession to India or Pakistan.

If, under those circumstances, they are invited to express and make their free choice and if their choice in India, then they have made their free choice and can accede to their choice. If their choice is Pakistan, India should reconcile itself to the fact that their choice is Pakistan and they should be allowed to accede to Pakistan. That is the only anxiety which the Pakistan Government and the people of Pakistan have. It is claimed that India is going into the State merely to restore peace, law and order. It would surely be reasonable to expect that if this were the object of this incursion of the Indian Army into Kashmir, they would first have rid Kashmir of the Sikh bands who had carried out massacres and looting on such a large scale in the Province of Jammu of the Kashmir State.

Has the Government of India accomplished anything in that direction? Have they cleared these bands out of Kashmir State? They are as great a menace to the peace and well-being of the people of Kashmir as the tribesmen who have infiltrated from the independent areas. These people are in areas over which the Indian Army has complete control. Has the Govern­ment of India accomplished anything in that direction? No. The only instance of peace that Pakistani nationals inside Jammu have discovered is that the Government of India has drawn the attention of the Security Council to the standstill agreement and the working of the postal department inside Kashmir. After the Indian troops had entered Kashmir, the majority of the employees of the Pakistan Government in the postal service who were performing their legitimate duties inside the State of Kashmir were murdered.

The Government of Pakistan made a protest. The only reply which we received to that protest was the usual one. Even though the facts contained in that reply were untrue, the reply was nevertheless received. Dated 26 November, it States: "From Foreign Lahore; to Foreign, New Delhi; Repeated to Pakistan, From Foreign, Karachi: Following from Prime Minister Pakistan to Prime Minister India, under standstill agreement postal agreements are made by Pakistan Postal Telegraph Department. The report has been received that the whole postal staff of Jammu and some other staffs and their families have been massacred. You will agree that this is most deplorable. It is essential that your Government should take adequate measures for protection of our staff working in such areas in the States as are under your control. I shall be glad to know the arrangements made."

The reply comes from "Foreign, New Delhi, from the Prime Minister of India to the Prime Minister of Pakistan: Your telegram dated 26 November, postal staff in Jammu. A report received by you that Muslim staff employed in Jammu Canton­ment and other Pakistan staff and their families have been killed, is not repeat not correct. They are safe and adequate precautions have been taken by the Kashmir Government.'* This is of a piece with their other denials.

Here is the report subsequently received with regard to what happened: "The Superintendent of Postal Offices, South Division, has new reported that the information received by him so far shows that the officials detailed below have either been killed or seriously wounded and their families were mas­sacred by the Dogra military and Sewak Sangh party. One, Mr. Mohammed Shariff, B.A., Official Supervisor, Jammu Tawi, was killed along with his family. Two, Mr. Mian Khan, Clerk, Sialkot, Head Officer, was seriously wounded, and his family members killed. A telegram, copy enclosed, has also been received from evacuees from State territory. It is request­ed that the question be kindly taken up by the Pakistan Government with the Indian Dominion. Three, Mr. Ismatullab, Sub-Postmaster, Udhampur. The post office and his private quarters were looted and he was killed. Mr. Jamatullah, Sub-Postmaster, Mr. Hashmat Ali, Clerk, and Mr. Ghulam Mohd, Cleric—all these officials and their families were massacred in the post office premises. Seven, Mr. Mohd Asghar, Sub-Postmaster, Riasi —he and his family members were murdered and the post office burned. Eight, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Sabir, Sub-Postmaster, Ramnagar: 'Mr. Nazir Hussain, Sub-Postmaster, Batote; Mr. Ghulam Ahmad, Sub-Postmaster, Bhadorwak; Mr. Abdul Ghani. Sub-Postmaster, Kishtwar—all these officials and their families are missing and nothing definite is known about them."

But there is the Indian Government's assurance that nothing has happened. They are perfectly safe: adequate precautions have been taken. This is the kind of peace that these troops have brought to Kashmir and are proposing to bring.

What is to be done? All these details of the efforts made by Pakistan show what the attitude of the Pakistan Government has been. Every effort, every offer, every proposal toward that direction has come from us. We still adhere to all those propo­sals. All that we want to ensure is this: Everyone who has gone into Kashmir should go out: Sikh bands, Rashtriya Sewak Sangh volunteers, other people who have gone in, tribesmen. and any other people who may have gone in from the Muslim side, and men from Pakistan, Muslims who are Indian nationals

and who were refugees in Pakistan—everybody. They must get out, including Indian troops. Merely because they are troops of the Indian Government, from the point of view of reassur­ance to the people of Kashmir, makes no difference. Well, indeed, it does make a difference.

It makes this difference: that in East Punjab, in many parts, the Muslims were able to organize themselves and withstand the attacks of the infuriated Sikh mobs or gangs. But they were unable to withstand the attacks of the police and the Army of the Indian Dominion, and they therefore had to leave their villages and get out. Our fear is—and we are convinced that fear is justified—that under the aegis of the Indian Art there will be enacted in Kashmir that which has been enacted in so many other places, including Delhi. There is no reason why that should not be enacted in that remote valley, when it has been enacted under their very noses in Delhi itself.

Therefore, by whatever means may be necessary, the condi­tion to be brought about is this: whether by joint administration under the two Governors-General, by joint occupation of predominantly Muslim areas by Muslim troops from Pakistan and predominantly non-Muslim areas in Kashmir by Indian troops, by joint occupation in each place, by inviting Common­wealth forces, non-Indian forces altogether; or whether through the United Nations—Kashmir must "be cleared. Fighting must stop. Kashmir must be cleared of everybody. Normal adminis­tration must be restored. There should be no kind of pressure, either from the Muslim Conference being in power and holding .the administration or the National Conference being in power and holding the reins of administration. No kind of pressure should be brought upon the people. The people should then be invited to express the way in which they want to go, and whatever they decide, they should be welcome to do.it.

I am conscious of the fact that I have taken a great deal — perhaps a great deal too much—of the Security Council's time on this matter, but as the members now realize—and I have no doubt you have realized —this is a grave matter in which the Jives of millions of human beings are concerned, apart from all the other repercussions that might ensue. The responsibility on

We should not give up and allow the problem  the Security Council's shoulders, on the shoulders of the Dominion of India, and on the shoulders of the Dominion of Pakistan, is great and grave. If I have taken the time of this body during the course of a long afternoon and a forenoon in trying to give the members my view of the picture, I am sure I shall be forgiven if, on occasion, I have been boring or have appeared to go into details that did not seem important to the members. I assure them that I have done so out of a spirit of helpfulness so that all the factors in the situation may be realized.

(SCOR, 3rd Year, Mtg. No. 229, pp. 90-120)