Speech made by Mr. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Representative of India, in the Security Council Meeting on Draft Resolution held on 20th January 1948
Speech made by Mr. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Representative of India, in the Security Council Meeting on Draft Resolution held on 20th January 1948
I wish to submit that whether or not we retain the words "on the Jammu and Kashmir question" in the heading of this draft: resolution, the resolution can relate only to the Jammu and Kashmir question. I thought that was clearly understood. The item on the agenda which we are now considering is headed "The Jammu and Kashmir question". In the course of the discussions we have had with the President of the Security Council during the last two days, we did consider the question of widening the scope of the functions of this commission. The representative of Pakistan was in favour of including matters which did not relate to the Jammu and Kashmir question. After a good deal of argument and discussion, it was decided that while the commission was being appointed primarily for the Jammu and Kashmir question, if, later on, the counter-complaint of Pakistan was brought on the agenda of the Security Council and, after discussion, it was decided that any matters in that complaint also required investigation, it would then be appropriate to refer such questions to the same commission. With a view to arriving at an agreed arrangement, we decided to insert clause D of this draft resolution.
Clause D says:
"D. The Commission shall perform the functions described in Clause C:
"1. In regard to the situation in the Jammu and Kashmir State set out in the letter of the representative of India addressed to the President of the Security Council, dated 1 January 1948, and in the letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the Secretary-General, dated 15 January 1948; and
"2. In regard to other situations set out in the letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan addressed to the Secretary-General, dated 15 January 1948, when the Security Council so directs."
Those matters can relate only to Jammu and Kashmir. We conceded that if, later on, the Security Council came to the conclusion that other matters in the counter-complaint—which is not yet on.agenda of the Security Council—had to be referred to a commission at all, we should have no objection to their being referred to this same commission.
Insofar as the draft resolution is concerned, the Security Council can pass this resolution only with regard to the item entered on the agenda. But I particularly wish to stress the fact that we attach the greatest importance to the urgency and the immediacy of dealing with the situation in Kashmir. Our first efforts should be directed toward the commission's taking such steps as may be necessary to resolve this particular dispute and to bring about the stoppage of fighting there. If in the course of such investigations, the Security Council should become seized of the other matter and should also come to the conclusion that any items connected with that matter require investigation, then the Security Council can certainly give a directive to this commission, and the commission can consider the matter.
Personally, I think the heading as entered in the draft resolution before us is correct, but as the President has ruled that those words "on the Jammu and Kashmir question" should be omitted from the heading, I have no objection. But
it makes no difference at all with regard to the substance of what we are really contending—this resolution can relate only to the item that is now on the agenda.
(SCOR, 3rd Year, Mtg. no. 230, pp. 131-132)
I do not wish to say anything which will in any sense direct from or mar the good feeling between the two parties which has resulted in this draft resolution. But, as some insistence has been placed on an aspect of this matter to which it is difficult for me to agree, speaking for India I wish to make my position perfectly clear.
The main contention is whether we are investing this commission today with jurisdiction to deal not only with matters connected with the Jammu and Kashmir situation, but also with matters outside that situation which have been brought to the notice of the Security Council by Pakistan. Those matters have been brought to the Security Council's attention in document II, which was attached to the letter of my friend, Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan, addressed to the Security Council [document SJ646], and which requested that document be placed before the Security Council.
It is true that document II has been received by the Security Council, but I do not think that document II has yet been placed before the Security Council for its consideration.
In the first place, we have yet to state our case on the matters referred to in document II. I may mention to the Security Council, for its information, that document II covers such wide ground that our case pertaining to those matters will take a little time to be presented to the Security Council.
In the second place, although document II was included amongst those which were sent as enclosures to the Pakistan Foreign Minister's letter, the spokesman for Pakistan before the Security Council confined himself to the Jammu and Kashmir issue in the two speeches that he delivered before this body [228th and 229th meetings}. We also have confined ourselves in our statement only to the Jammu and Kashmir issue. It is necessary that issues should be dealt with quickly and promptly and put out of the way as soon as possible.
In the third place, let me mention that on a very cursory reading of document II, which I have already referred to, I am in a position to state that several matters mentioned in that document are no longer disputes between India and Pakistan. There are other matters with which, by friendly negotiations between the two Dominions, we are already dealing with outside the Security Council.
In the fourth place, it seems to me that there is hardly any matter mentioned in document II which is likely to endanger international peace and security. Other opinions may be expressed on that particular point, but that will be one of the contentions which we may have to raise on that counter-complaint.
I mention these facts in order to show that the Security Council is not in a position today to state whether any of the matters referred to in document II could be made the subject of an inquiry by a commission, or whether it will be necessary for the Security Council to proceed with an inquiry into such matters.
We hope to be able to convince the Security Council that once we have dealt with the Kashmir question, there will probably not be anything of substance which will divide India and Pakistan to the extent of endangering international peace and security. From the facts, as we look upon them, it seems to me that it will not be right for us to say that this commission will necessarily deal with such matters which are not now before the Security Council. Whether such matters have to go to a commission at all will have to be decided later on.
However, we have conceded that, if the Security Council should reach a decision that any of those matters should be referred to a commission, this particular commission may deal with them. That is the agreement at which we have arrived. Therefore, it is not possible for us to agree to the position that we are now setting up a mere instrument of the Security Council for the purpose of dealing with whatever matters the Security Council may choose to refer to that commission. We first set up a commission for the purpose of dealing with the Jammu and Kashmir issue. We agree that, if the Security Council later comes to the conclusion that other matters should be referred to a commission, that commission may deal with those matters. That is the position on which India necessarily has to stand at this stage.
(SCOR, 3rd Year, Mtg. no. 230, pp. 135-136)