23011948 Statement of Mr. M.C. Setalvad, Representative of India in the Security Council on Discussion of the India-Pakistan Question in Security Council meeting held on 23 January 1948.

23011948 Statement of Mr. M.C. Setalvad, Representative of India in the Security Council on Discussion of the India-Pakistan Question in Security Council meeting held on 23 January 1948.

The speech which was made on 16 and 17 January [228th and 229th meetings] by (the representative of Pakistan, extending over five hours, has, I am informed, established a time record in the annals of the Security Council and of the United Nations. I have and can have no quarrel with the length of his speech. The speech has, I think, also established a record for the calculated venom of its attack on India, for the irrelevance of much of its contents to the subject under debate, for the deliberate omission of relevant matters; and for its clever distortion of facts.

What I do deeply regret and deplore is that the represen­tative of a neighbouring State with which we wish to live on terms of peace and friendship should have permitted himself to lavish numerous grave accusations against my Government,, accusations many of which are not only untrue in fact, but some of which I feel the representative of Pakistan himself could not have believed to be true.

On behalf of my Government I must emphatically repudiate these charges. These false accusations have been made in the hope of obscuring the real issue on which the Government of Pakistan has no effective answer. The difficulties of the repre­sentative of Pakistan in meeting the case of my Government on the main issue can, however, furnish no excuse for a statement full of the most offensive allegations based, as I hope to point out, on a perverse and distorted presentation of facts.

It has been stated that my Government has been a party to a well-laid plan for the extermination of Muslims in India, and it has been suggested that the religion and culture of over 35 million Muslims within the Union of India are in danger. I am sure that some, at any rate, if not all, of the members of the Security Council are aware of the approximate number and distribution of the Muslim population in the Indian Union.

We have in India of today over 35 million Muslims distributed in varying proportions ail over the country. Their proportion in the southern provinces—Bombay, Madras and the Central Provinces—is smaller than in the Provinces of West Bengal and the United Provinces, and the districts around Delhi. Large masses of these 35 million Muslims, even-though small minorities, have lived and are living a normal and peaceful life, undisturbed and unmolested, all over these Pro­vinces of the Indian Union. Is not this single fact sufficient to prove that the allegation that the Government of the Indian Union is out to exterminate Muslims is a deliberate and gross distortion of the truth?

It is equally important to note that while there has been a large movement of population? between certain provinces of India and Pakistan, from West Punjab and the North West Frontier Province to East Punjab and in the opposite direction, there has been hardly any movement of Muslims from other parts of the Indian Union. These Muslims in other parts of the country, agriculturists and men in trade and business, continue to live peacefully and undisturbed in the Indian Union. Eminent Muslims occupy positions of honour and importance in the judiciary and other public services of India, and in its diplo­matic personnel abroad. The very important Indian Embassy at Washington is manned by a Muslim. A Muslim again has been appointed Ambassador to Egypt; another has been appointed Charge Affaires to Belgium. Our representative nearer home in Burma is also a Muslim. The Governor of one of the provinces in India is a Muslim. The Indian Cabinet includes two Muslim members.

In the face of all these glaring facts, I submit that the accu­sation against my Government of a planned extermination of Muslims, or of its having been guilty of assisting in such a plan, is preposterous and does not deserve serious notice. However, at the proper stage it will be my duty to deal in detail with the facts on which an attempt has been made to base the accusation.

This accusation comes from a Government which has failed woefully to discharge its responsibility to the minority in its territory. The representative of Pakistan has deliberately ignored happenings in Pakistan which, as I hope to point out in the proper context, are the real cause of most of the unfortunate happenings in the Indian Union. Before the partition of the country into two Dominions, the territory now-constituting West Punjab had a large Hindu and Sikh popu­lation. There was also a substantial non-Muslim population in the North West Frontier Province and Baluchistan. In effect, by reason of the atrocities perpetrated in West Punjab and other places, nearly the whole of the non-Muslim population, excepting persons forcibly converted to Islam and abducted women, have left these areas of West Pakistan. The position in Sind is that nearly one-third of the non-Muslim population has already come away, and a large number of non-Muslims are awaiting transport for the purpose of leaving Sind.

While a part of this migration of non-Muslims is even now taking place from West Pakistan, the movement of Muslims from India into West Pakistan has practically come to a stop. And (his situation is not confined to West Pakistan. There has recently been a continuous migration of non-Muslims from East Bengal into West Bengal while there is no such migration of Muslims from West Bengal into East Bengal. What I wish to direct attention to is the necessary inference, namely, that the overwhelming body of Muslims in the Indian Union are feeling quite secure in Indian territory and do not desire to move away from it. Even in Punjab, while in East Punjab about 150,000 to 200,000 Muslims still continue to stay in their homes, for example in the Gurgaon District, there are hardly any non-Muslims left in West Punjab, the North West Frontier Province or Baluchistan.

In view of these facts, could it be suggested that there is the slightest foundation for the accusation made against my Government that it has a desire, much less a plan, to exter­minate the Muslims? On the other hand, the definite and proclaimed policy of the Government of India, of Mahatma Gandhi and cf the All-India Congress Committee, is actively to discourage the migration of any more Muslims from India and to create the conditions for giving confidence to those Muslims who have migrated but who wish to return to their homes.

As recently as 6 January 1948, there was news from Karachi of a massacre of Sikhs and the most extensive looting of their property. I shall go into details at a later stage. On 12 January there was an attack on a non-Muslim refugee train coming from Bannu, in the North West Frontier Province, at the Gujarat Station situated in West Punjab. According to a dispatch by

Mr. Colin Reed to the London Daily Telegraph, 1,300 refugees were massacred, 150 were wounded and 400 are missing. The total number of refugees in the train was about 3,000 and, according to our information, the 400 missing passengers include 300 women who were kidnapped. A military escort of Indian Union troops accompanying the train was almost wholly destroyed. Tribesmen who have a concentration in Gujarat and local Muslims participated in the attack on the train. I ask the members of the Council to contrast the ­quality which now prevails in the territory of the Indian Union with the spirit of lawlessness, murder and massacre rampant even today in West Punjab and Sind, evidenced by the two occurrences which I have mentioned. If I were minded to follow the example of the representative of Pakistan, I would rely on these occurrences as evidence of a plan by the Pakistan Government to exterminate non-Muslims. I do nothing of the kind. I do not wish to emulate him in making fantastic and insupportable accusations.

The root cause of these massacres and killings, and of other brutal, unmentionable crimes, is to be found in the continual preaching of hatred of one community by Muslim leaders for a number of years. This reprehensible propaganda was essential to and inseparable from the ideology on which the Muslim league founded itself. The Muslim masses have been continually fed and nurtured on this doctrine of hatred, and their fanaticism has been excited by cries of Muslim religion and culture being endangered.

It was inevitable in these circumstances that mass disorder should break out. It began with an orgy of killing and detestable crime in Calcutta by the Muslims, and resulted in an equally violent retaliation by the Sikhs and non-Muslims in Calcutta. This was in August 1946. Since then this story has repeated itself in various parts of Bengal, Bihar, the Punjab and elsewhere, but it would be only right to say that in broad outline the fury and disorder was, to begin with, let loose by the Muslims. It would also be correct to say that in some cases the murder, looting, arson and other crimes committed byMuslims were acquiesced in, if not encouraged, by some Muslims in high authority.

These crimes led to an influx of large masses of the population from Muslim majority areas into non-Muslim areas. These refugees brought with them tales of the horror and woe they had suffered. The result was an excitement among the non Muslim population in the places in which the refugees had arrived. This excitement gave rise to a desire to exact retribution and to retaliate on the Muslim population in their midst. Thus arose from time to time the retribution and retaliation leading to crimes, equally heinous and obnoxious, against Muslims by non-Muslims in various parts of the territories I have mentioned.

These crimes in their turn led the Muslim population in the affected areas to go to Muslim majority areas, so that there was a stream of these Muslim refugees fleeing from East Punjab, Delhi and some other places towards West Punjab and Sind.. It has not been possible to estimate the very large number killed in these various happenings, so great and varied have. been these outrages in some parts of the country. Some estimates of the population which has migrated from either side of the border to the other side have been about 5 million. That is the true picture of these killings, of the refugees and of the transfer of population.

These events have been the result of mass incitement and mass frenzy. It is obvious that, with feelings of this nature pervading large masses of the population, it was inevitable that the forces of law and order should also be affected. These feelings naturally affected the minds of the police and military of either community, and it was found that these forces of law and order failed to do their duty to preserve it. However, notwithstanding this attitude and conduct of the forces of law and order, in our submission it is fantastic to attribute these events to a preconceived plan of destruction or of driving away parts of their populations by either Government. Yes, there was connivance and encouragement by some provincial governments of these happenings. Such connivance and encouragement can be demonstrated to exist in events at Calcutta, where the Muslim League Government was in power and also in Lahore, in West Punjab.

There has been a great deal said about genocide in the document submitted on behalf of Pakistan [document SJ646] and my friend on the other side has said something about it. I have already pointed out the fantastic nature and, indeed, the absurdity of a suggestion of this kind. Only a few days ago Mahatma Gandhi started a fast in order that harmony might b? restored between Hindus and Sikhs, on the one hand, and Muslims on the other, principally in Delhi and the area surrounding it. Aged and frail as he is, he risked his life for the purpose of bringing home to (he Hindus and Sikhs in the area mentioned the necessity of living in peace and brotherhood with Muslims. Happily, he succeeded and was able to obtain their assent to the seven points to which he wished them to agree. Can it be seriously suggested that the Government of India, which acknowledges the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, could ever plan or adopt as a policy, the extermination of the Muslims? I repeat that this theory of genocide, so fantastically put forward, is not worthy of serious consideration.

The true responsibility, as I have already stated, for these most unfortunate occurrences which led to the loss of so many Jives and such detestable crime, lies on the heads of those who, in order to further their policies, deliberately preached all over the country the doctrine of communal hatred—some of whom now occupy responsible positions in the Government of Pakistan.

In our view, the story of these happenings all over India, the events in East Punjab and the East Punjab States, and the detailed accounts of them to which the representative of Pakistan has referred, are totally irrelevant to the issue now existing between India and Pakistan in regard to Jammu and Kashmir. It has been alleged that these events form a back­ground to the situation and that this situation can only be understood in the light of the background which the represen­tative of Pakistan has tried to depict. That is again a suggestion which we cannot accept.

We submit that these events and the causes which led to-them are altogether beside the point. We say that they have been introduced into the answer filed on behalf of the Govern­ment of Pakistan and into the speech delivered by its represen­tative merely in order to confuse what we regard as a very clear issue. That issue, broadly speaking, is whether in reference (o the invasion of the State of Jammu and Kashmir by the Tribesmen and others, Pakistan has failed to discharge its obligations as a friendly neighbouring State to India in the manner which we have alleged. We submit that no light can be thrown on that issue by examining the various matters constituting the background which have been advertised to by the other side. Indeed, we feel that we should be confusing the issue and making its position more difficult if wj went into those matters. However, as these matters have been settled, it will be my duty to deal with them in detail. I assure the Council that my Government has nothing to conceal in these matters, and I hope to satisfy the Security Council in this respect in due course,

It is surprising that the representative of Pakistan, in his anxiety to find support for his allegations, should have been driven to rely on untrue and unauthenticated reports. The Security Council will remember how he referred to the murder by Dogra troops of Brigadier Khoda Bux, the only Muslim brigadier in the Kashmir Army. An Associated Press report, which is dated 31 October, revealed that Brigadier Khoda Bux, the garrison commander of Jammu, who was the only Muslim brigadier in the Kashmir Army, had been murdered by the Dogra troops in Jammu. I am sure that the Security Council will be very surprised to learn that not only has the gallant brigadier not been murdered, but also that he is at the moment occupying (he position of Chief of State of the Kashmir State forces.

I shall give the members of the Council another example of how (the representative of Pakistan has not hesitated to distort . facts. He stated the other day that India had sent a duplicate copy of its appeal to the Security Council (document Sj'628) to (he Pakistan Government by cable in a cipher to which the Government of India knew the Pakistan Government did not possess the key.

On 31 December 1947 the Government of India dispatched its complaint to the Security Council, the text of which was sent to the Government of Pakistan on the same day. On the same day, again, we repeated to Pakistan the text of our complaint. On 1 January 1948 we received a telegram from Pakistan reporting that our message was undecipherable. Thereupon we-dispatched to Pakistan a message repeating the text of our complaint to the Security Council. On 2 January 1948 w; again received a message from Pakistan that its Government could not work our messages in the automatic decoding machine called "Publix". Thereupon we sent, on 3 January, very detailed information in regard to the working of "Publix" messages. On 4 January we received a message from the Pakistan Government to the following affect—this message is dated 3 January from Karachi: "Please cancel our telegram No. 19 of date. We have deciphered telegram, Regret inconvenience."

These facts should have been known, I submit, to the representative of Pakistan. His inference that my Government sent a cable to the Pakistan Government, knowing that the Pakistan Government could not decipher such a cable, was-most unjustified.

This, in itself, is a matter of small moments, but I mentioned it. It is typical of many such inaccurate statements made on behalf of the Government of Pakistan. It has been put before the Council, in our submission, as a wholly distorted picture, which has been subtly supported by facts inaccurately stated.

The one issue, and the prime issue, before the Council is the issue relating to the invasion of Kashmir. Our contention is,, putting it again very broadly, that Pakistan has, as a neighbour­ing peaceful State, failed to discharge its duties inasmuch as it has permitted transit to these invaders through its territory; or,, to use the expression which has been used here, it has permitted warlike passage to these invaders through its territory. And we say further that Pakistan has rendered these invaders direct and indirect assistance. Putting it very briefly, that is the main issue before the Security Council.

Before I pass on to the various other matters to which I have very briefly averted, I wish to make a further comment on the main issue. I submit that there is a clear presentation of facts which lead us inevitably to the inference that Pakistan has no answer to the charge which we have made against it, the charge in regard to the invasion of the province of Jammu and Kashmir. In the first place, the existence of a large body of tribesmen in Kashmir is not and cannot be denied. We have reports as recent as 11 January 1948 which put the figure at as many as 60,000 tribesmen.

I draw the attention of the Security Council to a dispatch by Douglas Brown published in the London Daily Telegraph. I shall read the following passage:

"The tribal leaders claimed that there were 60,000 Pathans always fighting in Kashmir, each man fighting for about a month at a time. They said they used all routes, but owing to Pakistan's lack of cooperation, found it best to cross the State of Swat. The casualties so far have been about 400 dead and 250 wounded."

That is the material part of the passage. I read it in order to make the following submission—that as many as 60,000 tribesmen are in Kashmir territory. What is more, not only are they there, but they are being constantly reinforced, so that the tribesmen who go there are there for about a month, and then are replaced by others who also get into Kashmir.

I wish to draw attention to what I may term the inescapable fact resulting from the geographical position of Kashmir vis-a-vis-Pakistan. Is it possible for those 60,000 tribesmen to be there and to be maintained as a fighting force, as they are, without the willing cooperation of Pakistan for the passage of these people to and fro through Pakistan? One has only to look at the map to see that it is inconceivable that these large hordes of tribesmen should be able to pass through Pakistan territory without—I shall put it in the mildest way—the co­operation of the Pakistan Government. If one looks at the map, one finds that they have had to travel at least 100 miles through Pakistan territory to get into Kashmir.

I put the following question to the members of the Council, as men representing responsible Governments and as men o affairs who understand these matters: Is it conceivable that these large forces or hordes of tribesmen could go through Pakistan territory in this manner, and be maintained in Kashmir, without the cooperation of the State of Pakistan? That is really a simple issue, and the only conclusion which one can draw about it is inescapable by reason of the geographical considerations to which I have already referred.

However, the matter does not merely rest there. We have recently received news of tribesmen who were actually on their way to Kashmir, or had come into West Punjab with the purpose of going to Kashmir, being found in Lahore, which is, as some of the members of the Council are certainly aware, the capital of the Province of West Punjab in Pakistan. I have a telegram from London which reproduces the information which the Lahore correspondent of The Times of London submitted under the heading "Armed tribesmen in Lahore: Dances on hotel lawn." This is a telegram which we have received, and it is dated 22 January 1948. I am not able to state to the Security Council the exact date it was published in The Times of London because it does not appear in the telegram. The telegram reads as follows:

"An armed band has reached Lahore, nearly 300 miles from the entrance to the Khyber Pass. It is quartered within 100 yards of the West Punjab Assembly in an old hotel originally requisitioned by the Provincial Government for refugee relief headquarters. The men of the Suleiman Khel and Shinwari tribes are behaving with their usual abandon and disregard for conventions. Tribal dances are now being held on the lawn of the hotel, and drum beats throb down the Mall.

"In spite of a recent local ordinance prohibiting the bearing of arms, every man is carrying a rifle, the firing of which appears to express his appreciation of the dances. So far, these 'joy-shots* have not reminded the police of their duty.

"Later today, they danced through the streets in a big farewell to some of their comrades who were leaving for Jammu. Before Queen Victoria's statue in Charing Cross, (hey paused, still dancing. They appeared to be in a happy mood, but, as the procession proceeded down the Mall, the tempo of the drums quickened and a fusillade of rifle shots stampeded some horses and a small camel caravan."

That is the situation in Lahore. The inference, we submit, is obvious. Not only in the distant borderland between the North West Frontier Province and the tribal areas the tribesmen trickle through in the very graphic manner in which my learned friend described them—"scampering down the hills like goats"—but they also come in well organized bands right through the capital of West Punjab. There, they are very hospitable. Police regulations are suspended. They are allowed to do what they like. And it is while living there that they bid farewell to their brethren, some of them going to fight in Jammu.

That is what the telegram says, but the matter does not rest there. Some United States newspapers actually carried photographs of tribesmen being organized in Pakistan territory. I shall not weary the members of the Council with a great number of photographs, but I do wish to mention one which appeared in Life magazine on 5 January 1948. On page 16 of that issue, Muslim tribesmen are pictured shouldering rifles and cartridge belts to board unofficial truck convoys for the Kashmir front. Therefore photographic evidence is actually at hand of these tribesmen being openly convoyed in what are called "unofficial" trucks through Pakistan territory. I submit that this is very strong evidence in support of the submission which we have made in our complaint to the Security Council.

What has been Pakistan's answer? Frankly, we have found it somewhat difficult to understand Pakistan's answer, because in our view it has been somewhat inconsistent. It has been said: "We have done everything short of war to prevent the tribesmen from coming through our territory." That is one answer. Additional answers have been given by my friend on the other side of the table: "We have a long boundary, and it is difficult to control the tribesmen. They come down in the wintertime to do their marketing and occupy themselves." It has also been said: "The tribesmen have been coming in that manner through the border all these years."

I wish to make the important observation that until 15 August, the United Kingdom was in charge of the frontier, and tribesmen did come down every year, some few of them for certain purposes. Was there ever such an influx of tribesmen when the United Kingdom was guarding the frontier, as we have witnessed on this occasion? Were these armed           men allowed to come down not only into West Punjab but also into-the neighbouring State of Jammu and Kashmir, as happened on this occasion? I understand that the practice was always that outposts were maintained and that when these tribesmen came, they were allowed to go into this territory, their arms being taken away for the time being for the purpose of preventing them from doing mischief in the territory. We understand that such military outposts as were located in the frontier territory or near it in northern Pakistan have been withdrawn. We know not for what reasons they have been withdrawn, but the explanation advanced is that the tribesmen are friendly. How­ever, we do not know the reason.

Is it too much to suggest, under the circumstances that have transpired, that this deliberate withdrawal of military outposts which existed through all these years has been resorted to for the purpose of conniving at the entry of these tribesmen into Pakistan territory so that they will be accorded a free and comfortable passage into Kashmir? As I have already stated, we do not know, but we do suggest this as the motive behind the withdrawal of outposts.

Pakistan's answer is that it has done everything short of war to prevent this warlike passage through its territory; but has the Security Council furnished any substantial or tangible evidence of any attempts by Pakistan to prevent the passage of these tribesmen? I submit most respectfully that no such evidence has been produced here. On the contrary, there is evidence to show that, far from discouraging or even, trying To prevent the transit of the tribesmen, incitement and encouragement is being afforded them.

Stories have recently appeared in the newspapers of the visits of the Prime Minister of Pakistan to these tribal areas, and it has been suggested that these visits were made with a view to prevailing upon the tribesmen to abstain from entering Pakistan territory and passing into Jammu and Kashmir terri­tory. What are the true facts in that connexion? Here again I draw attention to a comment made by the special representative of The Statesman a British-owned newspaper which is published at Delhi and Calcutta. The comment leads: "Strength of com­plaint by tribesmen of arrests in Pakistan of those persisting in their journey to Kashmir raises suspicion of propaganda. It is difficult to align these complaints with the presence of many hundred armed Pathans, which I saw myself on the Pakistan border of the District of Jammu, and the undoubted presence of at least several thousand tribesmen on the Azad front in Kashmir." In other words, what has been resorted to is not really for the purpose of preventing or persuading even the tribesmen to desist from what they are doing. There is, if the correspondent's view is correct, on the one hand, a show of persuasion; there is on the other hand, co-operation or connivance, at any rate, in the passage of these people through Pakistan territory.

We have also a report of statements made by the Prime Minister of Pakistan on his visit to Peshawar in a speech delivered on 15 January. This is what he is reported to have said in that speech: 'The Indian Government was determined to bring Kashmir into their food by sheer weight of arms, which Muslims would never tolerate. Their action contrasted most

unfavourably with Pakistan's restraint in not sending troops to Junagadh." He went on further to say that "the tribesmen would be treated in all respects as citizens of Pakistan."

Proceeding on the assumption, which I do, that this report is a correct one, here is the Prime Minister of Pakistan stating that these tribesmen are to be treated in all respects as citizens of Pakistan, Comment on a statement of that kind is needless. It would result in the necessary inference that these tribesmen, treated as Pakistan nationals, are allowed to go in thousands into the State of Jammu and Kashmir with a view to what they are doing there.

After what I have submitted to the Security Council, parti­cularly in regard to this part, I submit that the inference is irresistible that Pakistan is deliberately co-operating with these masses of tribesmen who have gone into Jammu and Kashmir.

In this connexion it has been mentioned by my delegation that there arc bases actually in Pakistan territory for the use of these tribesmen. In that connexion I shall draw attention to an -extract from a memorandum dated 12 December 1947 from Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Leeper, O.B.E., to the Chief Secretary of the North West Frontier Government. The extract from the memorandum reads: "There is, however, another factor which we are bound to take into consideration, and that is that recently we had in Parachinar''—that is a part of the North West Frontier Province—"almost permanently, lashkar 1 of well-armed men, mostly of Khans, on their way to Kashmir. The numbers sometimes fall to less than 1,000; on one day we reached the maximum of 5,000."

That statement in a letter by a responsible officer of the Government of the North West Frontier Province indicates and establishes the existence of a base which has in it tribesmen varying in number from 1,000 to 5,000 at a place called Parachinar. Could there be any clearer documentary evidence of the existence of these bases which we allege exist in the State of Pakistan for the use of these tribesmen?

Speaking very broadly again, if what I have placed before the Security Council is sufficient—and I say it is—to lead certainly to the inference that Pakistan is co-operating with the tribesmen, I submit that Pakistan clearly has committed a breach of its international obligations.

May I put the position in this way? 'Pakistan protests that it is anxious to discharge its international obligations, but that it is unable to keep these tribesmen from going into Jammu and Kashmir. That is, as I am sure the members of the Security Council are well aware, no answer. A State cannot say that it 's unable to restrain warlike passage through its territory to others, and permit an invasion of a neighbouring State. 1. Armed forces. But let us suppose for a moment —I do not admit it—that Pakistan was right in the view it has put forth. Surely, then, the remedy is very simple. Pakistan should openly state, "We are unable to keep the tribesmen away. Either assist us in keeping them away, or we shall have to adopt some other method of doing this." If Pakistan's contention is a true one, that, I submit, is the straight and direct answer which it should give. As we have already stated more than once, if that is the true situation, we are quite willing to cooperate with Pakistan to get rid of these tribes. It would raise no difficulty at all so far as our Government is concerned. But it will not do, I submit, for a friendly neighbouring Government to state, as Pakistan seems to, that it is unable to deal with the tribesmen, and at the same time permit nothing to be done to deal with those tribesmen.

That is the short position in regard to the broad issue. I submit that those who know affairs of state can really and clearly appreciate this position. Could any of the States tolerate a situation of this kind in its territory? Let us suppose that any one of the States represented on the Security Council was invaded by these large forces in this organized manner. Would it be an answer, I ask the members of the Security Council to consider—and I am not speaking from the legal point of view, but from the broad political point of view—for a neighbouring State to say, "We are not able to.prevent it, and we shall not let anyone else do it," That is the position which, with respect* I ask the Security Council to consider it deeply.

Leaving that point aside for the moment, I turn to a state­ment made more than once on behalf of the Government of Pakistan, namely, that this army which has entered the State of Jammu and Kashmir is what it calls an army of liberation. Before I take up that point, let us assume that it is an army of liberation, which in fact it is not. However, let us assume that it is. Would that be any answer on behalf of the Pakistan Government to the issue raised? With respect, I submit there is no answer.

1. that in a State there is a revolution or an insurrec­tion. Does that justify—and again I call upon the Security Council to consider this point—a neighbouring State in cooperation with the invaders from beyond its borders who are going into the State in which the revolt or insurrection is taking place?

Assuming that there is something to be liberated in Jammu and Kashmir, which of course we say is not true, [ submit that, even so, the attitude taken by the Government of Pakistan is not justified.

But, undoubtedly, the question for the consideration of the Security Council, in its large context, is: Is .this an army of liberation? I admit that it is an army; it is not a mere band of raiders. It is a trained, equipped army, equipped with mortar arms and by officers. It is an army, not of liberation, but an army which has dealt death and destruction to Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims alike, indulging in loot, arson, and -abduction of women. What this army has done in Jammu and Kashmir, is, I submit, a very powerful indication of the fact that it has not come there to help the people of Jammu and Kashmir in any fight which they may be conducting against those who ruled them. The army is there for the purpose of foot, and in what it has done it has not differentiated among Muslim, Hindu or Sikh. In this connexion, the Security Council will recollect that a very large percentage of the population of Jammu and Kashmir is Muslim. If you take the State, by and large, it is 78 per cent Muslim; the percentage is less in Jammu, In certain parts, proportion of Muslims to non-Muslims is much more.

There is plenty of evidence as to what this "army of libera­tion" did in the territory of Jammu and Kashmir, evidence supplied by outside observers who tell in graphic language what was done. I shall first call attention to a dispatch in the London Daily Express by one Mr. Sydney Smith. It is dated 10 November 1947. The heading reads: "Grim Story of Looting, Arson and Massacre; Ordeal of Seventy-five looked in Hospital Ward.'' The story reads: "Heart-rending details of the ordeal of seventy-five men, women and children in St. Joseph's Convent, Baramulla, as Frontier tribesmen burned and looted the neighbourhood, are given by Sydney Smith, ace reporter of the London Daily Express, who is covering the-fight in Kashmir."

I shall not burden the members of the Security Council with-giving the details of what they did in the Convent. These details have already been partly mentioned in the statement submitted on behalf of my Government, and I do not wish to repeat them. But the point is that this is what has been called "the Army of Liberation."

1. refer the members of the Security Council to The Statesman? the British-owned newspaper which I mentioned a little while-ago, dated 11 November 1947. This is what is stated by the special correspondent:

"Following the heels of the Indian troops which occupied Baramulla on Saturday,"—that is a place about thirty to forty miles away from Srinagar, in the Kashmir Valley—"I visited the ransacked town today. Entering it in company with Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was an experience. Twelve persons who met us at the entrance soon swelled into a crowd of one thousand. They were the remnants of a town of 14,000 which, fourteen days ago, was occupied by invaders. All others had fled to the top of the adjoining mountains.... The army yesterday marched into an almost deserted town. Its shops were open but empty. The tribesmen, it is no exag­geration to say, have stripped the town clean. Mohammed Abdullah, a rich cloth merchant" —that is thenameofa Muslim—"took me to his house. It stood on the main street and was Baramula's most imposing three-storied building. Every room was completely bare. Abdullah said:-They have robbed me of 45,000 rupees in cash, all my jewelry, utensils, clothes and carpets. They visited my house six times. Each time they took what they could, until there was nothing left to rob'....A Muslin labourer said:'There is no woman in the town whose earrings and bangles have not been stolen. They visited every house and looted it. They have robbed me of my quilts.* "

That is the army which, it is suggested, came into Kashmir and Jammu for the liberation of the Muslims of Kashmir.

I refer the members of the Security Council to a dispatch by Robert Trumbull to the New York Times, dated 10* November 1947. This is what it says:

"Baramuta, India, 10 November: The town had been stripped of its wealth and young women before the tribesmen fled in terror, at midnight Friday, before the advancing Indian Array. Surviving residents estimate that 3,000 of their fellow townsmen, including four Europeans and a retired British Army officer, known only as Colonel Dykes, and his preg­nant wife, were slain. When the raiders rushed into town on 26 October, witnesses said: 'One party of Masud tribesmen immediately scaled the walls of Saint Joseph's Franciscan Convent compound, and stormed the Convent Hospital and the little church. Four nuns and Colonel Dykes and his wife were shot immediately. The raiders' greed triumphed over their blood lust'. A former town official said: 'The raiders forced 350 local Hindus into a house, with the intention of burning it down. The group of 100 raiders is said to be holding another five, as hostages, on a high mountain, barely visible from the town'. Today, twenty-four hours after the Indian Army entered Baramulla, only 1,000 were left of a normal population of about 14,000."

The Chicago Daily Tribune of 3 November 1947, has this news: "Max Desfor, an Associated Press photographer, said today he saw more than twenty villages in flames while flying over a section of the Kashmir Valley extending within twenty miles of the capital. The villages, in an area ten miles long and ten miles wide, apparently had been set fire by the Muslim invaders who are scouring the Valley and moving in the direction of Srinagar."

We have a dispatch from the Times of India of 13 November which states:

"Baramulla, after thirteen days in the raiders' hands, resem­bled an orchard after the visitation of a swarm of locusts, reported the Times of India special representative in Baramulla.... The tribal raiders had sacked the town, looted and burned property, and killed inhabitants who came their way. Prisoners, captured from among the raiders, reported that 280 trucks, loaded with loot, had been sent across the frontier by the raiders. They stated that they had joined in response to appeals by Abdul Khayun Khan, Premier of the North West Frontier Province.'

Entering Baramulla, in a convoy headed by Major-General Kaivant, the correspondent found the road lined with cheering crowds of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus, men, women and children cheering and sobbing. Pausing there, may I state that that is far from their being a liberating army. It was the Indian Army, which reached them a few days later and succoured the inhabitants that were left, which was welcomed as a liberating army not only by the Sikhs and the Hindus, but by cheering crowds of Muslims.

The correspondent goes on to say: "Many of them rushed in and embraced us with tears trickling down their cheeks and told us of the days of horror they had spent in the town."

I would refer you also to People*s Age, a newspaper in which the Prime Minister of Pakistan seems to set some store. The issue I refer to is dated 30 November 1947. This is what it states under the heading of "The Hand of Pakistan":

"We enter Baramulla and the .first thing we see is the St. Joseph's Convent, the library, chapel and hospital of which speak of the vandalism of the invaders. Books had been systematically torn up, the icons of Jesus and Mary hacked away and everything had been looted, except a few heavy benches.

"Here some English nuns had been killed by the invaders because these women had dared to resist the tribesmen....

"One of the war prisoners admitted that there was wireless contact with the advance base of the invaders and Abdul Khayun Khan, the League Premier of the Frontier Province, and the Pir of Manki Sharif, who, with his band of faithful armed desperadoes, is fishing in the troubled waters of Pakistan. About a crore (i.e. 10 million) of rupees or more The worth of property looted from Baramulla town (a thriving trade centre) was carried openly into Pakistan territory in no less than 280 lorries. Corpses are still floating on the Jhelum, mute witnesses to the savagery of the so-called Mujaheeds. This prosperous trading town of Baramulla is now deserted, denuded. Only a thousand are there out of a total population of 14,000. About a thousand have been killed, and the rest have fled to the hills and...they are coming back in a trickle.``

Finally, on that fact, I would refer to statement of the Chief of the Poonch Muslim Guards who, horror-stricken with what fead been done at Baramula, resigned as the Chief of the National Guards of the Muslim League. This statement appears in a dispatch of the United Press of India, dated 12 December 1947 which reads as follows:

"Mohammad Akram Khan, Salar-i-Ala of the (Poonch) Muslim National Guards has resigned from the Muslim National Guards....Dissociating himself from these organi­zations, he says in a statement, 'I had imagined that my leaders of the Muslim Conference were fighting against autocracy, against oppression of all sorts and for an Azad Kashmir based on Islamic conceptions of justice and equality. But these four months and a half months have fully opened my eyes to reality. Today I am ashamed to own my connexions with these organizations.' He adds, 'I know these organizations and their patrons from Pakistan have brought misfortune to the peaceful, freedom-loving people of my homeland. Having seen with my own eyes the deva­station in Baramula, I know these traders in Islam are only petty thieves, cut-throats and ruffians.' Concluding, he says, "We know the brave fight which our freedom-loving people are putting up under the leadership of Sheikh Mohammad Abdulla and Pandit Nehru. Their hands we shall strengthen, for thus alone can we get the free India of our dreams. Thus alone shall we build the new Kashmir of peace and plenty.'"

This is a statement by a person who is the Chief of the National Muslim Guard in Poonch.

I think I have stated enough to show what it was my object to establish, that what came down from Pakistan into Jammu and Kashmir was not an army of liberation but an army bent on destruction. Therefore, the whole fabric, I submit, reared by the representative of Pakistan on the thesis that here you have an invasion, and we have to relieve the Muslim brothers in distress, is entirely without foundation.

A naive suggestion was made, not perhaps very definitely, that these atrocities which took place were the work of some Sikhs—at any rate that is what I understood the representative of Pakistan to say. Well, I have pointed out and submitted abundant evidence to show that it is not and cannot be attri­buted in any manner to the Sikhs, as those in charge of Pakistan must know. It is the work of the free-booters who are allowed to get into the territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

If, then, this invading force—as I have pointed out—has not for its object the liberation of the people of Kashmir, for what object has it been allowed to enter Kashmir and Jammu? The object of Pakistan, in letting these men through its own territory into Jammu and Kashmir, is clear. The object was—and that is our suggestion in submission of the complaint which we have made to this Council—to coerce Kashmir and Jammu into accession to Pakistan. That really has been the object of the attitude and the action of the State of Pakistan in regard to Kashmir.

The key to the whole position lies in a speech recently delivered by a prominent figure in Pakistan. I am referring to a gentleman called Firoz Khan Noon. In a recent speech which he made in the West Punjab Assembly, and which we have in a telegram of 15 January, he stated that "Pakistan without Kashmir was inconceivable," and that he could "not visualize a Pakistan in which Kashmir could ever be allowed to go under domination of the Indian people."

That is the key to the whole conduct and attitude of Pakistan in regard to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is and has been Pakistan's desire and policy, and it has adopted measures to implement it, to coerce this State, which is entitled to make i(s own free choice, into acceding to Pakistan. That alone explains the conduct of the Dominion of Pakistan in regard to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

I have dealt broadly with the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and I shall now proceed to deal with what has been called the background of these events by the representative of Pakistan. I have already stated that this background is really of no rele­vance to the issue which we are considering, but in the course of depicting what the representative of Pakistan called the background, he went into a variety of matters and made very serious allegations against the Government of my country. Therefore, it becomes my duty to deal with what I myself and my Government consider entirely irrelevant to the issue which the Security Council is called upon to consider.

The root causes of the situation which has arisen not only in the one Dominion but in both Dominions, consists of two ideologies which have been prevailing in India in recent years. When I say India, I take it as a whole, as it was before the partition.

One is the ideology of the Indian National Congress, which the representative of Pakistan has already in part described: The ideology of the Congress was founded upon the concept of a secular political State in which the individual, whatever his faith, was to be the citizen. That was the ideology of the Indian National Congress, an ideology which made for unity and harmony.

Contrasted with this, on the other hand, was the ideology of the Muslim League. The basis of that ideology was religion. The membership of that organization was confined to Muslims, and the ideal was a separate State to be erected in the Muslim majority areas of British India, a State to be dominated by those professing the Muslim faith. And it is this ideology which is reflected in Pakistan's attitude towards the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Putting it in extreme and lay language, the point of view taken is this: Here is a State with a population, we shall say, 78 to 80 per cent Muslim. Pakistan is a Muslim State. How could we possibly tolerate this population of nearly 78 or 80 percent not joining the Muslim State which is its neighbour, but thinking of joining another State in which the Muslims are comparatively a small minority?" That is the ideology which is the basis of the Muslim League. It is the ideology which impresses itself upon those in charge of the affairs of Pakistan and makes them, as it were, aim at the forcible accession of that "State to the Dominion of Pakistan.

In the United States publication Life of 5 January 1948, that ideology is set forth as follows:

"In the rugged hills near Pakistan's northern borders last week, turbaned Muslim tribesmen fought pitched battles with regular Indian Army troops. Across the few Muslim nation trains pounded over the rickety railroads collecting arms and volunteers for the tribal raids into the neighbour­ing State of Kashmir. The Muslim League newspaper Dawn referred to the raiders in Kashmir as the 'liberation army' and to New Delhi announcements as 'enemy communiques'.

"Yet in the Pakistan capital of Karachi, the country's creator-dictator Mohamed Ali Jinnah, calmly insisted that it was none of his doing. This seemed a strange claim when daily reports told of frequent Pakistan casualties and when Jinnah himself publicly denounced Kashmir's ruling prince for putting a predominately Muslim State under Hindu India's protection. But what it meant was simple enough. Jinnah still had no real national programme for Pakistan except the incitation of fanatic Muslim zeal. If this led some of his 70 million followers to rush off to war and the rest to rally through the cities crying 'Free Kashmir', the Qaid-e-Azam (Great Leader) could not help it. There had to be some outlet for whipped-up Muslim emotions, and occasio­nally army reviews and establishment of internal security guards was hardly enough. Yet Pakistan dared not risk and could not sustain a substantial military operation....The Kashmir fighting was only the natural outgrowth of Jinnah's bitter seven-year campaign to force the Muslims and the Hindus apart.

"Now that he had signally succeeded, Jinnah seemed to have little or no realization of the frightful economic consequ­ences his infant country faced. For the most part he remained in absolute seclusion, emerging only occasionally to denounce the villainous Hindus for all of Pakistan's many ills."

1. two ideologies which I have mentioned naturally led to a conflict in India as it was before its partition. The Muslims-were organized on the basis of religion. They were told that they were a separate nation, that their religion and culture were different, and that since they were in danger, they must organize for their protection. This was a propaganda of hatred against the other communities. The matter did not rest merely on a propaganda of hatred, but violence was openly preached. I have here an extract from a speech delivered by the same gentle­man I mentioned a short while ago, Mr. Firoz Khan Noon, as far back as 9 April 1946. He said: "I tell you this much. If we find that we have to fight Great Britain for placing us under one Central Government of Hindu Raj, then the havoc which the Muslims will play will put to shame what Khan Halaku did.'* Khan Halaku was a well-known raider and freebooter who killed many thousands of people. That was the violence preached by

responsible and prominent Muslims.

Mr. Suhrawardy, Muslim Leaguer and one time Premier of Bengal, stated, also in April 1946, "Muslim masses are straining at the leash and I wish the Qaid-e-Azam to test us. Muslims want to be the ruling class in this sub-continent." So, the Muslim masses having been incited—I think it is correct to describe them as "straining at the leash"—and that being the explosive situation, it was soon followed by the most violent disorder. Late in July 1946, the Muslim League resolved on what they called a "direct action programme." In the month of August 1946, in Calcutta, what was called "Direct Action Day'' was celebrated, and I think I am correct in saying that that was the first large mass disorder which overtook India. It resulted in arson, looting and pillage by Muslims on a large scale.

That was the beginning of the happenings in that city. It was followed two or three days later by equally violent retalia­tion on the part of the Hindus and Sikhs—the non-Muslims— and the mass of victims was very large. There was also an immense loss of property. This formed the subject of a judicial inquiry presided over by Sir Patrick Spence, the Chief Justice of India, and two other learned judges belonging to the Indian judiciary. The inquiry occupied several months but it could not be concluded before the partition, after which the com­mission of inquiry was dissolved. However, the facts disclosed at this inquiry clearly revealed that in the happenings that took place those in authority—the Muslim League Ministry of Bengal at that time—had encouraged if not connived at the events that had occurred on the opening day in Calcutta. These events, as I say, were encouraged and, as appeared from the evidence, were supported by various prominent members of the Muslim League.

The trouble in Calcutta was followed about a month later by a tragedy, also in Bengal, at a place called Noakhali. There the arson and killings were on a smaller scale than in Calcutta, but in a sense the nature of the crimes committed was more heinous and there was a mass of forcible conversion to the Muslim religion. That was how this mass disorder began in Calcutta and in Noakhali. It was followed by a brief and terrible retaliation in Bihar by Hindus who made up the majority of the population there. Killings took place there also on a very large scale.

It was during those disturbances in Bihar in October or November 1946, at a time when the Central Government in India had what it called a coalition or interim ministry consist­ing party of members of the Indian National Congress and partly of those representing the Muslim League, that some of the members of the Central Government flew down to Bihar. At the instance of Pandit Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, an airplane was used in order to control the mob, and Pandit Nehru himself, risking his life, faced the mobs of Hindus and endeavoured to control them.

The part played by Pandit Nehru in quelling these distur­bances is well known, and I shall not trouble the members of the Council with quotations from the Press in the United Kingdom which depicted that part. As to what followed in November and December 1946, the representative of Pakistan has already referred to the tragedy at Gujarat Station and I shall not go into the details which the Pakistan representative has already described. Soon afterward—I think it was in January 1947—there came the announcement by the United Kingdom Government of its intention to transfer its authority in India not later than June 1948. I am mentioning this fact, because soon afterwards arose a scramble for power in the Punjab which led ultimately to that peaceful Province being torn into factions and being handed over to the forces of loot and disorder. Soon after this announcement there arose a campaign by Muslim leaders in the Punjab to shake off the ministry which was then in power; this was attempted by various methods, one of them being what they called "direct action." Large masses of people were trained in a warlike manner and were called "Muslim National Guards." In fact, violence was clearly in the air in the area of Lahore and the surrounding places.

1. Security Council is aware of the fact that almost the whole of the Sikh population is concentrated in the Punjab. Most of the Sikhs have their homeland in the Province of the Punjab. The Security Council is also aware of the fact that soldiering is the main profession of the Sikh community. Most of the Sikhs are really martial, and they have furnished, in pro­portion to the numbers of their communities, the largest number of soldiers to the Indian Army. This attempt virtually to dominate the Punjab, where the Sikhs form so large a number, naturally gave rise to a feeling of great apprehension among the Sikhs. That is how the story of the events in the Punjab began, which events had not thus far affected that Province. As a result of the tension which had been created, there were extensive massacres in February and March 1947 at Rawalpindi, Peshawar, and other places. Sikhs and Hindus formed the majority of the subjects of these massacres. So great was the terror that large masses of Hindus and Sikhs were driven away from the Punjab. While travelling through the Punjab at that time, one could see masses of people at the railway stations who were trying to take trains away from the Punjab -people running away in most cases with that little property they owned .
2. it noted that at this time there was no persecution and no harassment of Muslims in East Punjab. The flow of refugees was completely from the west toward the east. Those Muslims 'in the east were at the moment entirely unaffected. Lahore itself, the capital city of the Punjab before the partition, which became effective on 15 August, presented a ghastly appearance. When I describe it, I speak from personal knowledge, because I was in Lahore during the month of July 1947 in regard to the proceedings of the Boundary Commission. Houses were burnt. It was unsafe for people to travel in the streets. It was necessary even for people appearing before this Boundary Commission, like myself, to be under constant guard. That was the situation in the capital city of West Punjab.

As I have already stated, it was under those circumstances that the Sikhs and the Hindus flew away or tried to fly away from iron, West Punjab. Perhaps it is necessary to mention at this stage the position of the Sikhs in West Punjab. Among the richest parts of West Punjab are certain districts such as Montgomery and Lyallpur Districts, to mention two. They are prosperous agricultural districts which have been built up by the industry and labour of the Sikh peasants.

The Sikh is mostly a peasant proprietor. He has, with the aw ol canal irrigation, built up very prosperous colonies in the» territories. The Sikh is attached to these lands which he and his fathers have developed from what was originally waste and sandy jungle.

With regard to the happenings in the West Punjab which I have already mentioned, the Sikh, under a reign of terror as 't were, was threatened with having to leave the homeland which he had built with so much labour and effort. It was under house circumstances that the announcement of Master Tara Singh came, an announcement to which the representative of Pakistan has called attention. It was an announcement during which Master Tara Singh was said to have brandished his sword and uttered words which the representative of Pakistan has already mentioned to the Security Council.

I am not here to give the impression that Master Tara Singh was justified in saying what he did. However, I have already mentioned to the Security Council the great provoca­tion under which the Sikh community laboured at that time. Thousands of them had to flee from West Punjab. It was under those circumstances, in that state of excitement, that Master Tara Singh was led to say what he did.

1. has been suggested that there was a preplanned conspiracy of the Sikhs, a conspiracy which has not been clearly outlined, but which, I gather, was a conspiracy to obtain a partition of the Punjab, and then to do away with the Muslims in East Punjab in order to make room for the Sikhs who would have to move away from West Punjab into East Punjab. The repre­sentative of Pakistan has referred to some documents which he stated were confidential, but which have become available. I do not know what those documents are. However, I do say this: The theory put forward of a conspiracy or a plan by the Sikhs seems, to my mind, to be entirely unbelievable. The conspiracy or the plan suggests that a large majority, or a very substantial number of the Sikhs who are in the West Punjab and own this valuable property and land, plan to migrate east­ward, leaving their land and property, with a view to exter­minate the Muslims in East Punjab and take hold of their property. I submit that is a suggestion which is very fantastic and cannot command acceptance. East Punjab, As those concerned with the country know, it is a crowded part of the Punjab. The population there is much more centralized, and the land bears a greater burden than in West Punjab. To suggest that Sikhs who own large farms in West Punjab should be parties to a plan to migrate to East Punjab and take hold of some little bits of land which may be available to them, or which will be made available to them there, is, I submit, not a suggestion which can reasonably be given credence by anyone acquainted with the situation in the Punjab and among the Sikhs.

I have already mentioned the masses of Hindus and Sikhs flying from West Punjab towards East Punjab which took place in the months beginning somewhere around February or March 1947 and continued until July and August 1947. These refugees going from West Punjab to East Punjab naturally took with them stories of the dreadful happenings that had taken place in West Punjab; in Rawalpindi, Peshawar and in Mianwali. These stories were taken by the refugees who had lost all of their belongings and whose families had been murdered and who otherwise were defeated, and they naturally excited great fear among members of their own communities in East Punjab, to which they had travelled. That is the cause of th* happenings which took place in East Punjab in August and September in 1947 to which the representative of Pakistan had called attention.

I began by stating that the picture which has been presented to the Council is a distorted picture. I have so described it because what has been done is to present to the Council what may be called the second chapter of the story, if I may use such an expression in regard to happenings so close at hand. The first chapter of it has been mentioned only in passing, but therein lies the real cause of what happened in West Punjab in August and September of 1947, the details of which have been so graphically given to the Council by the representative of Pakistan.

There was no organized policy, no premeditated plan. What happened in West Punjab and also in East Punjab States, to which the representative of Pakistan has called attention, was but the necessary consequence of the mass feeling which was generated by the happenings in West Punjab which came to the knowledge of those in East Punjab through refugees bringing ihe details of horror. That is the true picture.

What ensued was what one necessarily should have expected: mass killings, mass torture, and mass abduction of women by one side, repeated later by the other side. By and large, that is the true picture: a burst or several bursts, if I may use that expression, of mass frenzy on either side which no State and no forces of law and order could control, for the simple reason that it was based on divisions of religion and community. The feelings aroused the minds of the forces of law and order themselves, so that the police, and in some cases members of the military force, took sides. In that state of circumstances, the mass frenzy became difficult, if not impossible, to control.

These mass frenzies resulted in denuding the whole of the Western territory of Pakistan, consisting of West Punjab and the North West Frontier Province, of the whole of its Hindu and Sikh population, barring those forcibly converted or women abducted, and it resulted equally in a movement of Muslim population from East Punjab into West Punjab, although not to the extent or degree of that in the case of West Punjab.

Something has been said about the disorders that were encouraged or looked at or participated in by the forces of law and order. Any inference drawn from that fact that the Government was in some manner party or privy to these disorders, I refute for the reasons 1 have already stated.

On the western side of the Punjab, equally gruesome if not greater tragedies took place than those in East Punjab, some of them at the hands of the forces of law and order.

At the end of August 1947 a gruesome tragedy was enacted at a place called Sheikhupura in West Punjab, in which thou­sands of Sikhs and Hindus were butchered by a Baluchi regiment. The aftermath of this incident was witnessed by the Prime Minister of India in company with officers belonging to the Government of West Punjab.

The Prime Ministers of both India and Pakistan happened to be in Lahore at the moment this happened, in connexion with the examination of what has been called the refugee problem in India—people migrating from one side or the other. It was at that time, when they were in Lahore, that this news was received. Upon receiving it, the Prime Minister of India motored up to this place in Lahore, and there he witnessed hundreds of corpses lying in the streets and houses of Sheikhupura, murdered by Baluchi troops who were in charge of the town.

I have already stated that I do not lay any charge against the Government of Pakistan or the Government of West Punjab in regard to this happening, but what I do emphasize is me fact that while on occasions the police and troops were parties to the disorder, cannot support the inference which the representative of Pakistan wishes us to draw-that the Govern­ment was a party to the disorders or to the happenings.

Things became so difficult for the Hindus and Sikhs in West punjab that some of them, in the month of September 1947, rather than submit to heinous ill-treatment at the hand of Muslims, to the insults and crimes against their women and children, decided to consider mass suicide. These Sikhs and Hindus put their women and children to death rather than allow-them to be the victims of these ghastly tragedies. One such occurrence took place at a place called Jhang, in West Punjab nqu.nes were made in this connexion, and I call attention to a letter dated 12 October 1947, addressed by the Governor of the Punjab to the Prime Minister of India. This is what that letter states:

"Please refer to my semi-official letter, No. 188 GC of October regarding mass suicides by Hindus, in Jhang District, last month. I have now received a reply from-Governor, West Punjab, of which I enclose a copy for your information My telegram to the Governor, West Punjab, was based on information contained in an intercepted report by the Punjab Intelligence Bureau to the Pakistan Intelligence-Bureau. The reply confirms the information. Hindus and Sikhs would not themselves kill their women and children, without the most compelling reasons."

The wireless message stated:

"Reference your wireless message 187 GC of 1 October There were cases of killing of non-Muslim women and children by-non-Muslims themselves, in some villages of Jhang and Sherkot Tehsils, due to fear of attack by Muslims and also twelve cases of suicide by Hindu women in village Astana.

Referring to the People's Age, dated 5 October 1947, a dispatch from Lahore states:

''Beginning from 15 August, big attacks were made in Sialkot, Gujranwalla, where Muslim refugees from Amritsar rural areas came with their stories of atrocities, and this was used by the big landlords, the Muslim National Guards, the police and the military to send up West Punjab districts in flames.

'"In towns like Kamoke, Okara, Sheikhupura, the military units of the Boundary Force worked greater havoc than anywhere else. The Baluchi regiment is said to have butchered nearly 8,000 to 10,000 non-Muslims in Sheikhupura alone.

"In rural areas, big non-Muslim areas were singled out for attack. Where the armed National Guard gangs failed to subdue the villages, which was the case generally, the military came to reinforce them and the defending non-Muslims had to fly in panic. At many places the National Guards dressed themselves in military uniforms and led the attacks for the obvious purpose of scaring away the non-Muslims and looting their possessions.

"In West Punjab districts the same horrible story of mass butchery and loot, of parading non-Muslim women naked in the streets of Sialkot, of public raping, brutal killing of children and babies, of hold-ups of refugee trains and cara­vans and mass attacks, abduction of young non-Muslim women—the whole shameful tragedy acted with the same common features as in East Punjab.

"After Premier Liyaqat Ali's visit to the Punjab and the announcement that riots would be put down with a strong hand, everyone thought that Lyallpur would escape a big communal flare-up."

Then it goes on to state what happened in Lyallpur:

"A Muslim goonda1 threw a bomb in a mosque in order to11 Ruffian.

stir up trouble and provoke the Muslims into believing that the non-Muslims had done it. This goonda was caught red handed, but it is a shameful fact that these two League papers ran a campaign defending the goonda and asking why he had been arrested.

"On 4 September, when Mr. Hamid, the Muslim Deputy Commissioner, was addressing a meeting of citizens, appeal­ing to them to maintain peace and condemn killing and looting, the goonda bands created mischief. Three people in> the meeting itself were stabbed. The whole affair was well planned. This stabbing in the meeting was like a signal. Goondas ran wild in the city, many of them being members of the National Guard. The railway workers' colony was-attacked and more than sixty people were killed.

"There were over 500 killed, but papers like the Nawai Waqi still belch venom against the minorities and abuse all those who seek to restore peace and order.

"These attacks have smoked out the Sikh minority. The three lakhs1 of Sikhs in this district are now concentrated in big pockets and are on the move to cross the borders. They are carrying with them most of their movable property, including livestock.

"Lyallpur has been built on the labour of the Sikh peasant. He made these rich lands yield golden grain in abundance. His sweat and toil had gone into the soil there. When he was thus compelled to leave the land he loved, hatred filled his heart and in many Akali villages, he listened to the advice that he should scorch the earth before leaving it. Standing crops were burnt off, and even the drinking water of the wells in some villages was poisoned by the departing Sikhs. "Ghazanfarafi Khan, the Pakistan Minister, in a press-statement boasted that no refugee camp of non-Muslims had been attacked in West Punjab.

"He was only hiding from the outside world the wholesale massacre in the Sikh refugee camp in Jaranwala on 8 September. Here armed National Guards, assisted by the military, butchered 6,000 Sikh refugees and carried them away. nearly 1,000 women. 1. A lakh is 100,000,

"It will not do to hide the crimes committed on one's own side and concentrate only on the crimes of the other."

The following appears under the heading "League Leaders Participate in Loot":

"But this is even more difficult because many of the local district League leaders are themselves active participants in looting and killing. In the Jhang District, the feudal landlords, the same old pro-British toadies and even the League Members of the Legislative Assembly have joined in the: looting and killing expeditions.

"In Lahore itself, an important League Member of the Legislative Assembly is actually involved in the looting. A truckload of looted stuff was caught by police, and the truck belonged to this League Member of the Legislative Assembly. He was too influential a person in the League,, and the scandal was promptly hushed by the sins of the* master being visited upon a poor servant of his who was. charged as the man responsible for carrying away the loot.

"Throughout the West Punjab the big Muslim landlords, contractors and merchants, in collusion with the police and the military, have taken the lion's share in the loot. More than 60 per cent of ihe looted property is refuted to be in their possession. The police have shared in the loot every­where. This led to a very peculiar incident today in Gujarat-walla. Here the police announced by the beat of drums that wide searches would be conducted for looted property. This was intended to give time to those who had such looted property to remove it and hide it away. The National Guard bands that had shared with the police in the loot felt so furi­ous at this that they made a counter-announcement in the town in the form of posters, placed all over the town, that they would not allow their houses to be searched until the houses of the police officers were themselves first searched-The guilty officers dared not carry through the search. The whole idea of the search had to be abandoned."

That is the position in West Punjab as depicted by the representative paper People's Age- It bears out what I began by stating, that the problem that had to be faced here was the problem of the masses getting frenzied and fighting each other, the beast in the man getting the upper hand, aroused by the preaching of hatred and religious fanaticism. That is really what happened. If it happened in the East Punjab States, it happened in a greater and in a more virulent form than in West Punjab. The forces of Jaw and order did not function in East Punjab. To a greater degree did they not only fail to function, but they actually participated in the crimes and in the looting in West Punjab.

It is futile to attribute these happenings to any Governmental plan or to any Governmental participation.

The tragic difficulty in West Punjab has resulted in practi­cally wiping out the population of non-Muslims in that Province and in the North West Frontier Province. When I say wiping out, I do not mean all of them have been murdered; a large number of them have been murdered, and the rest have migrated.

There is one further fact which I should like to mention in regard to East Punjab before I leave that subject. The difficul­ties of the Government there were far greater than those in West Punjab in the latter half of August and in September because it must be remembered that, the Punjab having been divided into two Provinces, East Punjab had to form and organize an administration which did not exist before. It was during this process of organizing its governmental machinery that East Punjab was faced with the problem of having to deal with the outbreak of mass disorder.

The representative of Pakistan has referred to happenings in certain East Punjab States during the months of June and July, We submit that the Indian Government is in no way concerned with what happened in some States prior to their accession to it. The Indian Government has and could have no responsibility for events in June and July, that is before 15 August, the date when the division of the two Dominions came about, when the United Kingdom Government was still in authority.

Something was also said by the representative of Pakistan with regard to censorship imposed on the Press at the instance of the Indian Government, the suggestion being-and as far as I can see, it was only a suggestion-that, having planned the extermination of the Muslims, the Indian Government did not desire newspaper correspondents to publish the true facts. On behalf of my Government I reject that charge, and I submit that no material has been laid before the Security Council which can substantiate it. On the contrary, a number of cases will be found in which the Government of Pakistan deliberately prevented journals from stating the true facts concerning happenings in West Punjab. Actual orders were promulgated for that purpose.

In this connexion I refer the Security Council to an extract from the editorial comment of the Civil and Military Gazette, the British-owned daily of Lahore, dated 30 August 1947. The extract reads:

"On 25 August, in accordance with the order submitted for censorship" there is actually a censorship in progress "the following open letter was addressed to the Qaid-e Azam by Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan and Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot:

"Your Excellency and Gentlemen: Believing unreservedly in the sincerity of your assurances regarding the restoration of peace in the unhappy Province of West Punjab, and in your promises of protection to minorities, I bring the following to your notice as evidence of the manner in which your assurances are being negatived and your promises rendered abortive. I do this in the hope that the facts stated herein may bring about the punishment and elimination of those elements which are flouting your orders and frustrating your intentions.

'Passengers by the down Sindh Express who arrived in Lahore on Saturday evening had had experiences which they will never forget and of which they were with difficulty persuaded to speak. After the train had left Gujarat a small body of passengers armed with axes and knives repeatedly stopped it by pulling the communication cord, and visited each compartment in turn ferreting out those of another community and ruthlessly butchering them.

"'Sometimes these crimes were committed while the train was moving, sometimes in the presence of parties who rushed towards the line from the countryside whenever a. stop was made.

" 'Some passengers attempted to save themselves by crawling under the carriages, but these were pulled out and killed. Two leaped from the train and started to run across-the fields. The train was stopped, chase given, and the fugitives dispatched. The earlier victims were killed with hatchets, the later ones, more slowly, with knives. A woman and her three small children were among the last to die. Once the train stopped at a wayside station when no more victims remained for the sacrifice, and the murderers apologized to their co-religionists on the platform for the zeal which left them no one to kill.

" 'Fifteen deliberate, cold-blooded murders may seem little enough to turn you gentlemen from the tremendous task on which you are engaged—the creation of a State from a nation. But these fifteen shared the fate of many more. Few trains indeed came from Lahore from north or east without revealing similar atrocities.

" 'Lives could be saved, and the extension of the death-chain which their loss ensures is prevented by the adequate guarding of trains. When at one point, the train guard of the Sindh Express fired a volley of six shots, apparently over the head of a menacing mob, the miscreants turned tail and ran. Only a few small escorts, armed with no more than two Sten guns, could conceivably have saved those fifteen lives and thus prevented the exacerbation of a blood-feu4 which attained fantastic and terrible proportions. This seems a simple way in which your assurances can be honoured and your promises fulfilled. Will you adopt it?

"Assuring you of my keen interest in and high hopes for the future of Pakistan, I am. Yours respectfully, the Editor."

This is an open letter which is addressed by the editor to the Qaid-e-Azam, Mr. Liaqat AH Khan and Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Marndot. This editorial continues as follows:

"Later on, the same day, we were informed by telephone that, after consultation with the Premier of West Punjab, permission to publish this open letter had been withheld for reasons of policy ('criteria other than truth'). Quibbling may exonerate the Pakistan Government from the charge of issuing a misleading communique, since the censorship was imposed by the Governor of the Punjab and not by the Governor of Pakistan and issued from Lahore, not Karachi. But we are concerned with facts, not quibbles. And we leave it to our readers to judge whether our statement regarding censorship or the denial of the statement, contained in the communique, 'was utterly untrue and malicious. "

Here was an attempt to suppress the publication of an open.-letter by the editor of the Civil and Military Gazette which stated the facts.

The representative of Pakistan has referred to the destruc­tion of property and houses. He told the Security Council about this in a very graphic manner. He said, "I once had a home; I have none now." He was referring to the loss of his home. The impression which I received from this statement was that his home had been destroyed; but this is not a fact. His house is intact. This fact has been repeatedly inquired into, and, in fact, by General Naziruddin. A relative of the repre­sentative of Pakistan was taken by General Thimmaya, a member of the Indian armed forces, to this house, and the house, intact, was shown to him. If the meaning of the Pakistan representative's statement is not that his house was destroyed, but that he has no home in the sense that his house has been         looted, that meaning is also incorrect. We are

informed, on proper inquiry, that the furniture and belongings of that house—accepting a few things—were removed to Lahore under proper escort.

It may be said that some few belongings may have been looted, but the substantial part of the belongings in that home have been left under protection and have been taken to Lahore. That, according to me, is again the true picture of what happened, not that I or my Government do not feel distressed by any damage that may have been caused to my friend's property or to my friend's house. I submit that when we are dealing with mass disorder and mass destruction on the scale that I have already attempted to describe, the loss must inevit­ably fall, on the one side or the other, on persons who happen to have the misfortune of having their homes or their property situated in these disturbed areas.

My friend is not the only one who has suffered some loss. There are members of the Indian delegation who have also suffered losses on their side of the territory, losses similar or lesser or more in degree. We all regret what has happened. However, to make an attempt to build up a case from what has happened against a Government or a policy of a Government which alleges participation by the Government in these dis­orders is, I submit, unwarranted.

Something has been said by my friend about the place, Qadian, where he had his home, and of the large Muslim population. I think he mentioned about 13,000 and only 200 or 300 were left to guard a religious place there, according to him. That again is a matter of deep regret, but the loss to Qadian is literally nothing compared to the huge losses suffered by the Hindu and Sikh population in West Punjab. I mention the city of Lahore itself where property, trade and factories belonged largely to the Hindus and Sikhs. The whole of it really has been lost to this part of the population in the sense that it has been evacuated. The Hindu and Sikh population evacuated their homes and left for West Punjab. They do not now know what is happening. Many of the houses are occupied by other persons, many of them have been destroyed by fire, and the loss, estimated in terms of money, would amount to millions of dollars. The position, therefore, is that the loss which is occasioned by mass murder and mass destruction is unfortunately followed on both sides of the boundary line between the two Dominions. We attempted to collect the figures in [his respect. We have collected the figures in regard to one small town in West Punjab. This is the town called Sargodha. The estimated loss in this small town is 1,323 persons killed, 3,041 converted to the Muslim religion, 190 persons abducted, and property worth six crores of rupees, which equals roughly 20 million dollars, destroyed by looting and arson. Those are the figures relating to a small town like Sargodha in West Punjab.

The places which have suffered a similar fate in regard to the property of Hindu and Sikhs are Lahore, Rawalpindi, Sheikhupura, Sialkot, Multan and Peshawar. I am mentioning only the principal ones.

This again, as I began by saying, is totally irrelevant to the question which the Security Council is called upon to consider. As I have stated, a picture has been placed before the Security Council which is at most half of the real story, and the half which favours the view of his Government which the represen­tative of Pakistan has chosen to put before you. I have attempted, as briefly as I could, to put before the Security Council, in some measure, the other side of the picture.

Something was said by the representative of Pakistan about the happenings in Delhi, the capital of the Indian Union. Looting and killing took place in Delhi during the month of September 1947. But the question is, had the Government any participation in it or any hand in it? I submit that nothing has been placed before the Security Council to show that the Governmental machinery participated in this, or that the Government policy encouraged or connived in the happenings in Delhi.

In this connexon the Press, and I think the Press in the United Kingdom, carried many stories of attempts made by those in authority, the Prime Minister himself and others, to do their best to quell these disturbances, on more than one occasion at personal risk to themselves. That demonstrates what I have already stated: that what happened was the out­break of mass frenzy which, at the moment, could not be controlled by the forces of law and order.

The representative of Pakistan bitterly complained of college youths shouting Qaid-e Azam Murdabad1 which was offensive to the great leader of Pakistan. He had no compunc­tion in quoting the unabashed comment from a newspaper called The Truth in regard to Mahatma Gandhi. That quotation, attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, would be an advocacy of war. A suggestion of this character against the person who had recently undertaken a fast to prevent communal discord and communal disharmony is, I submit, entirely unjustified. lam not going to read to the members*what was actually said, but one has only to read what was said by Mahatma Gandhi on that occasion, and what he explained, to be convinced that in no sense did he advocate war. What he said was that the utmost attempts and efforts should be made to bring about peace and harmony, because if that were not done, the two States would drift into war. That is the statement made by Mahatma Gandhi, which he himself explained a few days later when comment was made on it. In view of that statement and its explanation, I submit the suggestion made has no substance.

The happenings in Delhi are comparable to the recent happenings in Karachi. Mass disorder broke out. The forces of law and order made attempts to control the disorders, and some of the Ministers took part and did their best to try to quell the disturbances. That is precisely what happened in Delhi also.

The latest telegram which we have received with regard to what happened at Karachi states:

"Twenty-five thousand non-Muslims have been evacuated as a result of what happened. Further, 50,000 remain in Karachi alone and they can be moved at the rate of 10,000 weekly. There are urgent requests for assistance from non-Muslims in the interior of Sind, where grave danger is

1. "Down with the Great Leader."apprehended at many places. The Government of Sindh, however, is obstructing movements of Hindus from the interior to Hyderabad or Karachi. The Premier has been threatening to stop the supply of foodstuffs to camps. The Second Magistrate has promulgated an order prohibiting departure of any Hindu for a fortnight. Permit system has been introduced and only those persons will be given permits who have cleared after their accounts, etcetera. Over 1,000 Hindus, travelling by train from Sukkur to Karachi, were forcibly detained at Nawabshah. The matter is being taken up by the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

"According to latest reports from Kapur at Peshawar, frontier authorities are also unhelpful. Governor of North West Frontier Province visiting Dera Ismail Khan to ascertain wishes of non-Muslims. He turned down a request from Kapur to be allowed to accompany him, on the grounds that he preferred to see things for himself. No arrange­ments have been made for evacuation of non-Muslims. People are suffering severely, being lodged in tents in bitter cold and snow and without adequate supplies of food. Local administration has merely called for a report of the particular agency in Kurram. Might well be considering the dispersal of non-Muslims from camps. "Nor is any attempt being made to evacuate non-Muslims from Am, Swat and other frontier provinces. Evacuation from Bannu was suspended after the Gujarat incident."

This is a telegram from Sri Prakash, the representative of the Government of India in Karachi, received a little while ago. The "Kapur" referred to above is the representative of the Government of India in the North West Frontier Province.

I already mentioned this morning the incident which happened in the train at the Gujarat railway station. I referred to a dispatch from Collin Reed in the London Daily Telegraph of 15 January J948 from New Delhi, which reads:

"According to detailed reports received here, 1,300 non-Muslim refugees have been killed, 400 are missing, 150 are in hospitals with gunshot, hatchet and knife wounds following the attack by Pathans on a train in West Punjab on Monday. So far, about 600 uninjured survivors are accounted for out of the 2,400 passengers and a military escort of 60.

"When the attack was first reported on Monday, it was stated that nearly 100 people had been killed. The train was evacuating the refugees from Bannu, in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, and reached Gujarat Station on Sunday night. Two soldiers of the escort were attempting to draw water from a pump when they were attacked by armed Pathans who seized their rifles."

A telegram received by us from New Delhi, dated 15 January, states:

"The Deputy High Commissioner has visited Gujranwala where some survivors of the Gujarat incident were collected. "He reports that a train which was coming from Bannu, arrived Gujarat about 10.00 p.m., and attack by Pathans from neighbouring villages began soon after 1.00 a.m. Escort, consisting of sixty soldiers of the Bittar Regiment, with Sikh commander, returned their fire until 8.30 a.m., when they ran out of ammunition and were themselves wiped out. The Deputy High Commissioner states there were 3,000 passengers; estimates casualties of 1,500 killed, 100 missing and 300 women kidnapped. Seven hundred survivors were taken to Gujranwala, and 400 more, reported by Pakistani authorities, to be in Gujarat. Value of property looted is estimated at 30 lakhs of rupees. No young women were found either in hospital or in camp, and it is believed that they were all kidnapped. Pakistan troops arrived on the scene at 9 a.m. Massacre continued, even in their presence, but they eventually stopped it by firing in air and by persuasion and threats. Police and magistrates took no action against attackers, and complicity of civil and railroad officials is strongly suspected. Wounded and other survivors felt insecure at Gujranwala and had no confidence in local Muslim surgeons. The Deputy High Commissioner obtained agreement from Pakistan authorities to transfer all survivors to Lahore. First batch of wounded was expected to arrive at Gangaram Hospital, 14 morning. Strong protest is being made to the Government of Pakistan."

This is the true position, and a Government which has in its territory happenings of the sort I have just described, and numerous others which I have previously mentioned, has the temerity to accuse the Government of India of genocide. I submit that no accusation could have been based on a more slender foundation than the one which has been submitted before the Security Council by the representative of Pakistan.

A word about Ajmer, which the representative of Pakistan referred to as one of the holy places in which the Muslim population is in danger, and which is situated in the Indian Union. Now the true facts in regard to that are—as I shall presently read from a telegram—that all steps have been taken to safeguard this holy place, and that whatever difficulties have arisen, have arisen by reason of some differences among the Muslims locally in Ajmer. I now quote a telegram dated 20 January 1948 which reads as follows:

"In Ajmer, trouble was started by Muslims who on 17 August attacked a Hindu religious procession, inflicting fourteen casualties. The situation was immediately brought under control and there was no disturbance until 5 December. Tension, however, continued because a number of Muslims from Ajmer and neighbouring States, who at the insistence of the local Muslim League had migrated to Pakistan, returned to Ajmer and, meanwhile, there had been a large influx of non-Muslim refugees from Sind.

"When trouble broke out in December, vigorous action was taken by police and military who repeatedly fired on rioters. Large collective fines were also imposed on aggressors.

"As a result of these measures, the situation was rapidly brought under control and there have been no incidents since 15 December. Casualties in December were: killed,14 Hindus, including 9 killed by police and military; Muslims, 41; wounded, Hindus, 23, Muslims, 64.

"The Prime Minister has visited Ajmer and has himself said that local authorities have taken vigorous action to stop rioting. Special measures were taken from the begin­ning for the protection of Dargah—that is the holy place— which was never attacked and has suffered no damage.

"It should, however, be mentioned that the problem of affording security to Muslims in Ajmer is complicated by the existence of dispute over the management of Dargah between rival parties of Muslims."

I have dealt broadly with what has been called the back­ground of the situation so far as it concerns India. I propose next lo go on to deal with what is the real background, namely, the background of happenings in Kashmir itself, I do not know whether that would be convenient to the President and the Security Council at this time. If there is a wish to adjourn, this would be a convenient point for (he adjournment.

(SCOR, 3rd Year, Mtg. No. 232, pp. 171-204)

The fact which must be remembered in connexion with all the events which I, or the representative of Pakistan, have narrated is that before partition India was entirely under one centralized Government. Certain ideas, by reason of that single Government, had been built up in the minds of the people of India for years and years. Only a few years before the actual partition, the idea of a severance and the partition of the country came. Of course, that idea was a shock to many of the people of the country. Partition was eventually affected by an agreement between the two political parties in the country. However, the feelings of the people had been exacerbated, and it is not surprising, therefore, in view of the background which I have just described, that there was a great upheaval. The events which I mentioned this morning and which the represen­tative of Pakistan described are really a part of this great upheaval. This upheaval is not unnatural, having due regard for the circumstances under which a country which had been under one unitary Government for a century that had to be partitioned.

If one takes these events into consideration, the upheaval will be understood and appreciated. It may also be stated that, with due regard to the problem involved in the transfer of large masses of the population from either side of the country, what has happened is not really a considerable disturbance, and the transfer has been carried out, on the whole, very satisfactorily. I am speaking not only with reference to my Government, but also with reference to the Pakistan Government.

Lord Mountbatcen, while making a reference in this connexion, is reported in an issue of the The Times of London, dated 15 November 1947, to have stated that events in India should be viewed in the proper perspective:

"He said that he would not try to belittle the troubles or the agonies of the people involved, but the numbers concerned in India's trouble spots could not possibly amount to more than 10 million or 12 million people of the subcontinent's total population of 400 million. Ninety-seven per cent of the people, in fact, were living in peace, doing their daily business in their newly found freedom.

"The massacres had been bad enough—it would be foolish to pretend otherwise—and the full numbers of those involved were now being computed. He hoped the figures would eventually be published and believed that they would be siot only far smaller than had been expected, but only a small fraction of some figures that had been quoted."

That is the picture of the whole country viewed in its proper perspective, notwithstanding subsequent events to which I have already made reference. When I say "the whole country", I mean the country that used to be, including the people now comprising the two Dominions.

I now propose to deal with the true perspective in regard to the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, which really is the question under debate in the Security Council. As members of the Council has already been informed. Kashmir is under the rulership of a Hindu Maharaja who was an absolute ruler except for the assistance which he received from an assembly,

1. was, I believe, a legislative assembly in part. Like many absolute rulers of Indian States, he has many antiquated laws. Some of them have been described by the representative of Pakistan: excessive punishment for the killing of cows, laws which enable certain persons to be pressed into service on certain occasions, etc. I only state that these laws are not peculiar to the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. These; laws, or similar laws, exist in other Indian States which are also similarly governed.           

A popular agitation started as far back as 19 J1 or 1932 in the Slate for freedom of the Press and popular legislative and other reforms. This agitation was led by Sheikh Mohammai Abdullah. Since those days in 1931-1932, Sheikh Abdullah has been the leader of what has been described as a "people's movement" in Jammu and Kashmir. The reforms which I mentioned came about as a result of that agitation. They were introduced in 1936 or thereabouts.

In 1938, the National Conference was founded, of which Sheikh Abdullah became the leader. That National Conference represented the national movement on behalf of the people of Kashmir. The National Conference has among its members not only large masses of Muslims but also Hindus and Sikhs who are inhabitants of Kashmir. Sheikh Abdullah, with his movement, the National Conference, was not only in favour of the political uplift of the State but also of social and educational improvement in the State. Naturally, he again came into conflict with the State. In all, Sheikh Abdullah has been sentenced to 10 gaol seven times, and has spent about four and one-half years in the goal of the Jammu and Kashmir State.

He started movements which were followed by Muslims,. Sikhs and Hindus. They, along with him, disobeyed certain unjust laws. These Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus were arrested and followed Sheikh Abdullah into goal.

In May 1946, Sheikh Abdullah put forward a demand which was called the "Quit Kashmir Demand." The meaning of this- the demand was that the Ruler should quit Kashmir and leave the administration of the State to the people who would govern it in a democratic fashion. As a result of his demand, Sheikh Abdullah was brought before the State courts, charged, I believe, with sedition, and sentenced to nine years of rigorous imprisonment. That was in May 1946.

There was and is another body in the State called the "Muslim Conference". That Conference represents, in brief, the ideology of the Muslim League. It was founded on the assumption that the State should be organized on the basis that the Muslims had asked for in the organization of a State in India. Membership of the Muslim Conference was restricted to Muslims.

Certain elections took place in January 1947. In view of the fact that the leader of the National Conference, Sheikh Abdullah, had been imprisoned, the National Conference and all its followers boycotted the elections that took place in Kashmir. So large was the following of Sheikh Abdullah that, even though the Muslim Conference contested the elections, out of an electorate of 600,000 people, only about 200,000 went to the polls to vote at all. I am mentioning those figures in order to show that the movement led by Sheikh Abdullah was and is a very popular movement.

1. is important and pertinent to know what the condition of Kashmir itself was when the neighbouring portions of West Punjab and East Punjab were in the disturbed condition that has already been described to the Security Council. The members of the Security Council will remember—the map shows it—that a large part of the boundary of Jammu and Kashmir is contiguous to West Punjab, and a very small part of its boundary is contiguous to East Punjab. All these disturbances which were going on in both Provinces led, as members of the Council have already been told, to the move­ment of large masses of refugees from one direction to the other. A number of these refugees went to the State of Jammu and Kashmir; they crossed its borders. These refugees were kept and cared for in the State, mostly through the activity of the National Conference, which I have mentioned. Though its The leader was in gaol, this Conference was active; and though there were serious disturbances in the neighbouring parts of East and West Punjab, so far as Kashmir was concerned, there was complete silence.

Kashmir became crowded with a large number of refugees, both Sikhs and Muslims; the Muslim refugees passed through parts of the State on their way from East Punjab to West Punjab. This resulted in the State becoming a sort of channel through which they passed. Even so, Kashmir remained quiet. This is very material, because the representative of Pakistan Has suggested that the Kashmir Muslims were threatened with extinction. That is the picture which it has been sought to-present to (he Council and which I say is a wholly untrue one. Kashmir had no disturbances at all when both East and West Punjab were in the flames of these communal passions and disturbances.

Some time in August 1947 attempts were made to infantile feelings in Kashmir. Certain familiar methods adopted in the North West Frontier Province and elsewhere were employed. Certain Muslim leaders were sent to various parts of Kashmir and shown around with a view to inflaming the Muslim feeling against the Sikh and the Hindu population of Kashmir. Certain Religious teachers were sent into Kashmir who preached against the communal doctrine of hatred and tried to inflame feelings against the other communities. These were the agents of the organization that believed in a State founded on religion.

The matter does not rest merely with these activities. In the early part of September 1947, raids were made from West Punjab Into the Jammu Province on which it borders. These raids were made by Muslims of West Punjab organized by-interested parties. As many as 95 villages on the Kashmir-Jammu side of that border were burned, and a large number of the Sikh and Hindu population were attacked, some of them being murdered and robbed. Even the State troops were attacked. That was what we term another attempt to inflame feelings in the Jammu and Kashmir State.

A third phase was the engineering—and I advisedly use the expression, as it was engineered by outsiders—of a revolt & the Poonch area, again fostered by the propaganda which I have mentioned. These were all activities, in the view of my delegation, designed to arouse disturbances in Kashmir, which was then still peaceful.

A further aspect, and perhaps an indication of the source from which these activities were flowing, was the attitude of the Pakistan Government towards Kashmir. This has already been described in the report submitted by my Government on the Jammu and Kashmir question [document SI628), and I do not wish to repeat anything that is stated in that report. An attempt was made by economic dislocation and by creating difficulties in the matter of supplies, we say, to coerce Kashmir and to put pressure upon Kashmir to accede to Pakistan. We say that these activities which I have mentioned, namely, the raids, the economic pressure and the propaganda, are all part of the same programme, the programme being an attempt to coerce Kashmir into accession to Pakistan. Also included in this is the revolt in Poonch, which I have mentioned. Poonch, it will be remembered, is contiguous to West Punjab, and the revolt was prompted and promoted by the Muslim leaders in the Punjab. Even so, right up to the end of September 1947, accepting these killings of Hindus and Sikhs which were committed by the Muslims in the raids I have mentioned, there, were no disturbances at all, and there is no reason for any suggestion that anything had been done by the Dogra Raja or by the Dogras otherwise to molest the Muslims.

At the end of September 1947 a situation was created by certain leaders in the State which compelled the Maharaja to release Sheikh Abdullah, notwithstanding his detention in prison for all these months, and that release came on 29 September 1947.

Soon after his release, Sheikh Abdullah defined his attitude as to what the position of the State should be. His attitude is and always has been that the wishes of the people should be ascertained as to whether they wish to accede to either Dominion, and, if so, to which one. That attitude was manifested by him soon after he was released. I shall read a statement from the People's Age, dated 26 October 1947. These are the words of Sheikh Abdullah:

"Kashmir to be a joint Raj of all communities. Our first demand is complete transfer of power to the people in Kashmir. Representatives of the people in a democratic Kashmir will then decide whether the State should join India or Pakistan.

'If the forty lakhs of people living in Jammu and Kashmir are by-passed and the State declares its accession to India or Pakistan, I shall raise the banner of revolt »od we face a struggle.

"Of course, we will naturally opt to go to that Dominion where our own demand for freedom receives recognition and support. We cannot desire to join those who say that the people must have no voice in the matter. We shall be cut to pieces before we allow an alliance between this State and people of this type,

"At least thirty lakhs of Muslims in Jam id u and Kashmir State are not going to sacrifice themselves for one Nawab of Bhopal or one Nizam of Hyderabad whose interests the Muslim League is trying to guard by the adoption of an anti-State's people policy.

"I assure the Hindus and the Sikhs that their life and honour will be safe and fully protected so long as I live.

'In this time of national crisis Kashmir must hold the beacon light. All around us we see the tragedy of a brother killing brother. At this time Kashmir must come forward and raise the banner of Hindu-Muslim unity.

'In Kashmir we want a people's government. We want a government which will give equal rights and equal oppor­tunities to all men, irrespective of caste or creed. The Kashmir Government will not be the government of any one community. It will be a joint government of the Hindus, the Sikhs and the Muslims. That is what I am fighting for."This speech was delivered at a meeting of 100,000 people at Hazaribagh on 5 October, Hazaribagh is a place in Kashmir.

The actual events which took place in regard to accession appear in a dispatch dated 10 December 1947, which shows that the Government of Pakistan, or people in Pakistan, were actually approached by Sheikh Abdullah or his emissaries to ascertain whether the Government of Pakistan was willing to allow the people of Kashmir to make their choice, and that if this were so, they were quite agreeable to that being done.

In that connexion I should like to refer to the dispatch which appeared on 10 December 1947, and which set forth a statement by Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq, Acting Head of Administration of the Jammu and Kashmir State, given in an interview. Recalling past attempts to settle the Kashmir problem by peaceful means, in the relevant portion Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq said the following:

"Before the invasion, the National Conference"—the movement which Sheikh Abdullah represents-—"deputed me to approach the Pakistan Government at the highest . level to recognize democratic rights of the Kashmir people for self-determination and abide by the sovereign will of a free people on the question of free association with either of the Dominions. I met Pakistan's Prime Minister and other Ministers, but it was of no use. We see finally put into operation a programmed of first enslaving and then securing 'yes' in their favour from an enslaved people."

Asked, in the interview what the immediate problems facing the Kashmir Administration were today, Mohammad Sadiq said: "Certainly not referendum but immediate relief to our people. In fact, we are carrying on with atomic speed the two fold task of rehabilitation of unfortunate victims of Pakistan aggression and procurement of food and cloth.

"Pakistan propagandists who pretend to show so much concern for their Muslim brethren in Kashmir against Dogra oppression have tried their best to starve them by blockade of ail exports and imports for the past five months."

That displays the attitude of the movement represented by Sheikh Abdullah, which is admittedly the correct attitude, namely, the decision as to whether Kashmir should accede should be left to the decision of the people of Kashmir. But that attitude, as it appears in the account of the interview which I have read, was not an attitude which the Government of Pakistan was content to accept. The scheme was to coerce Kashmir, if possible, into accepting Pakistan and acceding to Pakistan. The position therefore was that Pakistan would bring great pressure to bear and augment the coercion which it wished to apply, according to our view, by inviting the tribes and men and affording them passage through its territory, to which I have already referred.

Thus came the invasion of Kashmir on 22 October 1947. It commenced with an attack at a place called Muzaffarabad in Kashmir. What is most important to remember is the fact that, until that raid commenced on 22 October 1947—that is, the raid by the tribesmen—there had been no killing by the Dogras.. A point which has been repeatedly mentioned to the members of the Council is that Muslims were killed by the Dogras, and that it was because of the killing of the Muslims that the tribes men, their brethren, returned from the frontier. That is a totally untrue picture. We have no facts which would show that any Muslims were killed in the Kashmir State by Sikhs or Hindus or even the Maharaja or his Dogras before 22 October, which is the date of the penetration and raid in Kashmir territory by the tribesmen. That central and important fact, I submit, cuts at the root of what the Government of Pakistan has tried to put before the Security Council. If there was no killing by the Dogras before that date of invasion, there can be no question of the invaders rushing to the aid of their distressed brethren in Kashmir.

A statement by Sheikh Abdullah was published in Dawn, a paper run by the Muslim League and which is its principle organ, as to his views on accession:

"Sheikh Abdullah, who left for Srinagar today, in a state­ment said that Kashmir was in dire peril and the first duty of every Kashmiri was to defend his motherland against the intruders. He said that the invasion of Kashmir was meant to coerce and compel the people of Kashmir to act in a particular way, namely, to accede to Pakistan. Every Kashmiri, he said, resented this compulsion of his will. 'Our beloved and beautiful homeland of Kashmir is in dire peril,' he continued. 'In this extremity it is the duty of every Kashmiri, whether Muslim or Hindu or Sikh, to defend it to the utmost. Those who are responsible for its defence have failed us and the responsibility, therefore, falls on the people of Kashmir.'

1. Abdullah stated further, 'The Kashmir National Conference has stood for responsible government in the Starter under the aegis of His Highness the Maharaja. Even the question of accession to India or Pakistan or any settlement about the future must, we have stated, follow these vital constitutional changes within the State. Many of the influential members of the National Conference were of the opinion that accession to the Indian Union would be advan­tageous to the State both for political and economic reasons. Economically, Kashmir depends for its market much more on India than on Pakistan. When I came out of prison four weeks ago, I wanted some time to consider the situation and consult my colleagues. During my incarceration vital changes had taken place in India and a new situation had arisen. Much had happened that had brought disaster and misery to millions of people. It became necessary for us,, therefore, to take stock of the situation most carefully and decide in a way that would be advantageous to Kashmir and in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people of Kashmir.

" 'I advised my people that the question of accession should therefore not be decided immediately, and that the first step should be a constitutional change on the basis of responsible government. After that, the future relations of Kashmir with India and Pakistan might be determined. But events have moved fast. Soon after my release I heard of preparations along the western borders of Kashmir for some kind of invasion or raid. Armed people infiltrated into the State territory and in many places there were armed conflicts.

"I appeal to all lovers of freedom in India or Pakistan to stand by the people of Kashmir in such an hour of trial and to denounce the raiders who have come to bring sorrow and disaster to our country'."

That is the true setting of the accession of Kashmir to the Indian Union. I should have mentioned to the members of (he Council the events which followed the raid on Muzaffarabad on 22 October. The raiders, inflicting the misery and suffering which I have already described this morning, #came up to Baramulla and beyond, within a few miles of the summer capital of the State, Srinagar. It was then, under those circumstances of dire peril to the State, that Sheikh Abdullah and his party wanted time to consider the future course of action to be taken in Kashmir. The people of Kashmir were faced with forcible possession, which was really the coercion of the State into joining with Pakistan or accession to Pakistan; their only other choice was to defend their State against the invaders by the aid of some outside assistance.

It was then and under those circumstances that the State made its decision—and when I say the "State", I mean not only the Maharaja but also the popular leader, Sheikh Abdullah, to accede to the Indian Union to save itself from dire peril.

Indeed, it was this step which they took which saved the State and its capital from being overrun, looted and pillaged. Otherwise it would have met with the same fate as Baramulla met with a few days before the 26th.

That is the course of the material events with which the Security Council is concerned in the complaints and reports which it is investigating. It has been said that the accession was a fraudulent accession. It has been said that this accession was procured by violence. It is easy to use expressions. How­ever strong one chooses to make them, it is very easy to use expressions. But has there been any evidence placed before the Security Council to suggest anything fraudulent? It is a very serious charge to make, and, in the circumstances in which it is made, I think it is hardly short of an insult to the intelligence of the Security Council to be asked to infer fraudulent accession. I ask the Security Council to brush aside for a moment what I have been saying. I ask the Security Council to consider what the representative of Pakistan has stated. Even in the statements made by the representative of Pakistan, there is no indication of any fraud in the matter of the accession. Taking the statements made by the representative of Pakistan to be correct, there still can be no question of any fraud, much less of any violence which procured accession.

There is no evidence of any kind that, prior to the accession, Indian troops or the Indian Government had anything to do with Kashmir, or coerced Kashmir, or exhibited any violence, or took any violent steps against Kashmir. That, I say again, is a totally unfounded allegation based on no material whatsoever. Yes, it is true, in a sense, that the accession of Kashmir to the Indian Union was procured by violence; not, however, by the violence of the Indian Union, but by the violence encouraged and conceived by the Pakistan Government. It is that Government which encouraged these raids, which encouraged the insurgents in the State, which allowed passage to the raiders, which allowed the creation of the violence, the pillaging and the looting in the State; and it is that violence, which Pakistan encouraged and cooperated in, that drove Kashmir, which wanted time to consider its position, into accession with the Indian Union.

In that sense, no doubt, it is true that the violence of Pakistan procured the accession of Kashmir to the Indian Union. But I make bold to say that the conduct of my Government has been entirely above board in this matter. It was not until the Ruler of Kashmir and the popular leader of Kashmir approached the Indian Government for assistance in the extremity which I have described, that the Indian Government stated—and I submit, rightly stated—that it could not interfere in the matter of Kashmir unless the State was a part of Indian territory, which could come about only if Kashmir acceded to the Indian Union. On that understanding, in the peril in which it found itself, Kashmir offered to accede to the Indian Union— not only the Ruler, but also the popular leader. The Indian Government was careful, even though the request came from both, to stipulate that it was accepting the accession only on the condition that later, when peace had been restored, the expression of the popular will should be ascertained in a proper manner. It was on that condition, and that condition alone, that the Indian Government accepted accession. That condition may be seen from the correspondence which has already been read to the Security Council, and which forms part of the documents filed with the Security Council. Could one, then, for a moment, entertain the suggestion that there was any underhand dealing, any fraud, anything improper, in the accession of the Kashmir State to the Indian Union?

As the members of the Security Council already know, on 26 October, the accession having taken place, Indian troops went into Kashmir, the first troops being landed from  the air on 27 October 1947, and went into action, drove the raiders a little back, right up to Uri, and then a little beyond that. But the position is this: what the raiders had done in various parts of Kashmir territory, which I have already partly des­cribed this morning, created a feeling of bitterness and revenge among various Hindus and Sikhs in the State. That feeling of revenge was fostered by the fact that these were Muslim invaders who had come from the north, and who had pillaged and looted their homes, and murdered them and their women. It was that feeling which resulted in the first killing in the Kashmir State by Hindus and Sikhs, which occurred on 4 November 1947, about a week after the raid. That is the only killing, of any moment, which occurred at all in Kashmir.

Is it not, then, preposterous to suggest that this killing, which took place after the raid, was, as the representative of Pakistan would have it, the cause of the raids which took place in Kashmir? This killing took place under the following circumstances. A convoy of Muslims, which was guarded by State troops, was attaked at Jammu by Hindu and Dogra raiders, and it was in this attack that a large number of Muslim lives were lost. But it should be made clear that this convoy was in the charge of State troops; there were no Indian Union troops at all guarding the that convoy, and the Indian Union had no responsibility for the safety of that convoy.

On 6 November 1947, two days later, another Muslim the convoy passed, and it was guarded by the troops of the Indian Union. Again, there was an attack on that convoy, which was passing through Jammu. That attack was repelled by the Indian troops who inflicted a large number of casualties on the Hindu and Sikh attackers.

In that connexion, I shall read from a telegram, dated 26 December 1947, from the Prime Minister of India to the Prime Minister of Pakistan. The relevant portion is as follows:

"I have already expressed my regret to you for the attacks on the convoys in the Jammu area that took place on 4 and 6 November. The Indian Army had nothing to do with these. On the contrary, it took the most vigorous action against attackers, killing 150, seriously injuring 200, and arresting 500. Ever since, they have fully controlled the situation and nothing of the kind you mention has happened. Your telegram, therefore, has absolutely no relation to facts or to anything that has occurred since the Indian Union troops have been functioning in Jammu. Muslim life is perfectly safe in Jammu."

The Security Council will notice that, with the exception of this one event that took place on 4 November 1947, which I have already described, there has been no excess of any kind against the Muslims since the Indian troops entered Kashmir, and nothing can be charged against the Indian Union or the conduct of their troops in their occupation of Kashmir for the purpose which I have already mentioned. In fact, it is the presence of the Indian troops which has been instrumental, in a great measure, in preventing occurrences of this kind against the Muslims in the Kashmir territory.

On the contrary, events have occurred which have shown that large masses of the Hindu and Sikh population in Kashmir have been attacked and annihilated, partly with the assistance of raiders from the Province of West Punjab. On 18 November 1947 there occurred a massacre by raiders at a place called Rajouri, which is in the Kashmir State near the borders of West Punjab. The city had a population of 12,000 Hindus and Sikhs, and the entire population was annihilated. I now wish to refer to an account of that incident which appeared in the Hindustan Times dated 18 November 1947 and was sent from Srinagar. It reads as follows:

"Rajauri has fallen into the hands of Muslim raiders from Pakistan supported by about 500 armed Muslim military deserters of the Kashmir State Forces....The entire popu­lation of about 12,000 Hindus and Sikhs has been annihilated."

This was followed on 25 November 1947 by an attack against Mirpur, which is in Kashmir territory, by Pathan raiders from West Punjab. Out of a total of 13,000 non-Muslims, 2,000 were destroyed.

A telegram dated 2 December 1947 from the Prime Minister of India to the Prime Minister of Pakistan reads as follows:

"I have received information that Mirpur town has been completely destroyed, and out of 13,000 non-Muslims, only 2,000 have reached within fifteen miles of Jhelum. The fate of these refugees, as well as of about 3,000 from the rest of Mirpur area, is not known, but there are reports that large numbers of abducted Hindu women have been brought into Jhelum districts by Pathans. The Pathans are causing panic among non-Muslim refugee pockets in that district and, firing indiscriminately, they shot dead a Mabratta soldier the other day."

In addition to the two massacres I have mentioned, there is a town named Bhimber, also in Kashmir territory, which was sacked and destroyed. So the picture we have is as follows: excepting the one event of 4 November 1947, which I have already mentioned, where a Muslim convoy was attacked, there has been no molesting nor any killings of Muslims, whereas the raiders have, in Kashmir territory itself, and apart from the attack on the north which I described this morning, looted and massacred Hindus and Sikhs in the towns which I have already mentioned.

Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah whom I have mentioned, in these difficult circumstances still worked for restoring peace and harmony in the Kashmir State. Here is what he said, as was reported in the Hindustan Times on 24 November 1947 and which was dispatched from Jammu on that date:

"I have always believed in the theory that Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs are one. We are all Hindustanis and Hindustan is the land of us all. I do not say so to please anybody. I have unflinching faith in this truth. I have regarded the partition of the country as poisonous for all. Some Muslims used to abuse me for my views, but I never felt disheartened. The slogans of Zindabad1 do not please me nor do the slogans of Murdabad2 displease me. I regard those Muslims as traitors who want to establish Islamic rule in this State. But those Hindus who want to have Hindu rule here are likewise enemies of the Ruler and the State.

"If I regard the Muslim National Guards dangerous for the independence of India, nothing can prevent me from saving that the Rashtryia Sangh3 h also equally dangerous. So long as I am alive I shall not tolerate any communal organization. I want to see His Highness the Maharaja as the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, and not of the Jammu Province alone."

That is the attitude Sheikh Abdullah has taken and main­tained, even after the troubles which Kashmir went through in October and November and which I have described.

On 29 October 1947, this is what The Statesman, the British-owned newspaper in New Delhi and Calcutta, said in an article written by the special correspondent in New Delhi:

"Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah is now head of the Interim Government of the State. He has been invited to fill this position by the Maharaja of Kashmir against whose personal rule he agitated for sixteen years, six years of which were

 

1.Long live. . .

2.Cursed be. . .

3.A Hindu military organization.

spent in gaol. Modern political history of Jammu and Kashmir is synonymous with the life story of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. From 1931 onwards, he more than anyone else, reflected the hopes and aspirations of the State. He is the hero, as well as the author, of the political drama which has been enacted on the political stage of the State ever since he made his inaugural appearance on it...-The Sheikh's rise to power is based on unflinching faith in his own mission, personal integrity, and ever-readiness to suffer for his views. He has never used personal influence for personal ends. The Sheikh associates himself with the life of the lowliest. So great is the admiration of his followers in the Kashmir Valley that I have seen people*kiss his footprints."

That is the person who has, apart from the Ruler, invited the Indian Union to accept the accession of the Kashmir State; .and the Indian Union, acting on the request of both the Maharaja and this popular leader, has accepted the accession on the condition which I have already mentioned. That is the whole story of the accession, and I submit, as I have already stated, that there is nothing improper or incorrect with reference to the accession.

The argument and the thesis which the representative of Pakistan has submitted is based on the theory the Maharaja wished to exterminate the Muslims. It is difficult to ask the Security Council to accept a theory that the Maharaja—assuming that he is a powerful Raja, which he is not—could ever think of exterminating 80 percent of his population. That is what the Security Council is asked to believe. That is a theory which does violence to ordinary canons of inference, construction and belief. It is impossible to imagine that any plans could have been made by the Maharaja for the extermination of 80 percent of his subjects, or that he could have nurtured them or carried them through at all.

If, as has been suggested, the Maharaja was out to exter­minate his Muslim subjects, would he have, as he has done, put Sheikh Abdullah, a Muslim and a popular leader, in charge of the Administration? We have it that after the Sheikh's release and after the accession, he was the head of the interim adminis­tration. Is the Maharaja to carry out his policy of exterminating Muslim subjects with the assistance of this popular leader Sheikh Abdullah, himself a Muslim? That is the exaggerated and extraordinarily fanciful position upon which the Security Council is asked to base its consideration, and from which it is asked to proceed.

That completes the background with regard to Kashmir itself.

The representative of Pakistan referred to the alleged killing of the staff of the postal employees in the Jammu and Kashmir State, suggesting, apparently, that it was something the responsi­bility for which rested with the Government of the Indian Union. As to the killing of the staff, so far as the Indian Union is concerned, we have denied the fact of these persons having been killed at all, and that was stated in a telegram, to which attention has already been called by the representative of Pakistan. The matter rests there. The representative of Pakistan read a report, of which he did not mention the source, which set forth various facts as to these alleged murders. There is no authentication of that report. We are not told who is the author of this report, or how the alleged information has been obtained and from what source. In the circumstances, there is no reason why the denial of the Indian Government, based on inquiries made by it, should not be accepted.

Much has been said by the representative of Pakistan as to the conduct of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the corres­pondence which it carried on with the Government of Pakistan and its alleged failure to come and sit down to negotiate with Pakistan in regard to economic difficulties which the State of Jammu and Kashmir was experiencing. I am not concerned here with defending the conduct of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, but I wish to point out that the invitation which was extended to the Prime Minister of the State to go to Karachi and interview the Government of Pakistan, was by a telegram dated 20 October 1947, which telegram reached Kashmir on 22 October 1947. Those dates are very eloquent. It will be remembered that on 22 October, the day this telegram reached Kashmir, the raiders had already entered Kashmir territory and the area of Muzaffarabad had been sacked. To suggest seriously that Kashmir should go and negotiate with Pakistan in regard to its economic difficulties when Kashmir had already been invaded cannot for a moment be accepted.

It reminds one of many historical instances. It is like Mr. Benes or Mr. Schuschnigg being invited by the Nazis to negotiate when attacks on their territory had already been planned or had been carried out. And to expect the Prime Minister of Kashmir to go to Karachi for discussions when his territory was being looted and the houses of the inhabitants, were being burned, is altogether insupportable. It is ^technique which can be summarized, if one wants an expression, as the Pearl Harbor technique.

In regard to the accession, if I may go back for a moment, I wish to draw attention to a document which clearly shows that there was no question of the accession of Kashmir to the Indian Union being pre-planned. But that, it will be remem­bered, was the allegation made: that this was what India had been secretly planning and organizing. That is answered by a document signed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army, General R.M.M. Lockhart; the Air Marshal Command­ing the Royal Indian Air Force, T.W. Elmhurst and the Rear Admiral of the Royal Indian Navy, J.T.S. Hall. This statement by the Chiefs of Staff says:

"It has been alleged that plans were made for sending Indian forces to Kashmir at some date before 22 October, on which day the raid on that State from the direction of Abbottabad began.

"1. The following is a true time-table of events, as regards decisions taken, plans made, orders given, and move­ment started in this matter:

"2. On 24 October the Commander-in-Chief, Indian Army, received information that tribesmen had seized Muzaffarabad. This was the first indication of the raid.

"3. Prior to this date, no plans of any sort for sending Indian forces into Kashmir had been formulated or even considered. On the morning of 25 October, we were directed to examine and prepare plans for sending troops to Kashmir by air and road, in case this should be necessary to stop the tribal incursions. This was the first direction which we received on this subject. No steps had been taken, prior to the meeting, to examine or prepare such plans.

*'4. On the afternoon of 25 October we sent one staff officer of the Indian Army and one of the Royal Indian Air Force by air to Srinagar. There they saw officers of the Kashmir State Forces. This was the first contact between officers of our Headquarters and Officers of the Kashmir State Forces on the subject of sending Indian troops to Kashmir.

"'5. On the afternoon of 25 October we also issued orders to an infantry battalion to prepare itself to be flown, at short notice, to Srinagar, in the event of the Govern­ment of India deciding to accept the accession of Kashmir and to send help.

"6. On the morning of 26 October the staff officers mentioned in paragraph 4 above, returned from Srinagar and reported on their meetings with officers of the Kashmir State Forces.

"7. On the afternoon of 26 October we finalized our plans for the dispatch by air of troops to Kashmir.

""8. At first light on the morning of 27 October, with Kashmir's Instrument of Accession signed, the move­ment by air of Indian forces to Kashmir began. No plans were made for sending these forces, nor were such plans even considered before 25 October, three days after the tribal incursions began."

That, I submit, completely negates any theory of pre-plan­ning or conspiracy such as has been suggested by the other side. All that happened was that after Kashmir had been invaded on -22 October, and the Indian Union Government having been approached, the matter of accession was deliberated on 24 and 25 October. A decision as to accession was taken on 2& October, and troops were flown to Srinagar on the morning of the 27th. That is the chronology of events in regard to the dispatch of troops.

It has been suggested and, indeed, it has been a ground of complaint, that the Government of Pakistan was not informed of the intended dispatch of troops. My answer is that there was no need nor obligation to inform the Government of Pakistan, of this dispatch of troops to the Kashmir State, The accession had made it a part of the Indian Union. The territory of Kashmir was in dire peril, the capital being threatened with looting and destruction, and I submit that in that emergency there was no question of informing Pakistan or of taking any prior steps in consultation with Pakistan concerning the dis­patch of troops. Indeed, the Indian Union would have failed in its duty to the State which had acceded to it had it waited to consult Pakistan, because the result of such consultation would surely have been delay which would have ended in the sacking of Srinagar, just as Baramulla had been sacked a few days before. There was no time to be lost and the troops were sent by air, as I have already stated.

It has been said that repeated attempts were made to arrive at some settlement of this matter with the Indian Union, but that the attitude adopted by the Indian Union was a refusal to negotiate such a settlement. That is unfounded, as can be seen by anyone reading the correspondence which forms part of the documents which have been placed before the Security Council. I do not intend to read all that correspondence since it has already been read in part, but it brings out clearly the fact that the Indian Union repeatedly asked for the cooperation of Pakistan in driving out these raiders. We asked Pakistan to make a public declaration disapproving the conduct of the raiders in the hope and the belief that such a declaration by that Government would act as a deterrent to the raiders. No such declaration was made and no co-operation was forth­coming. Far from there being a refusal to negotiate on our side, it has been the attitude of Pakistan which has effectively prevented any effort to stop the infiltration of the raiders and, eventually, the invasion by them.

In our report to the Security Council we made numerous specific allegations showing Pakistan's aid, direct and indirect, to the raiders. Many of these allegations have remained undenied. It will be recalled that we alleged the use of military hospitals for the benefit of the raiders, and that has not been denied. We also referred to statements to the effect that the Prime Minister of the North West Frontier Province was the chief organizer of this rebel force of raiders. No denial has. been forthcoming on that point, and, on the contrary, sugges­tions have been made by the representative of Pakistan that, after all, the Government of Pakistan could take responsibility only for official actions and would not be affected if some of its officials, however important, took part in these movements on their own initiative as private citizens. My submission is that that is an absolutely untenable position.

Again, we referred in our statement to a dispatch showing admissions made by regular officers of the Pakistan Army as to-the true position. Neither has that been denied. Reference has been made to documents recovered from members of the 16th. Punjab Regiment of the Pakistan Army, and no reply has been given to this. It will be remembered that we mentioned docu­ments, pay-books and driving licenses belonging to Pakistan nationals found with raiders who were killed or captured. in this case the answer has been, "Well, the Pakistan Government cannot be responsible for the conduct of its nationals and. citizens. If, out of sympathy for the alleged movement of the people of Kashmir, they wish to rush into Kashmir, the Government of Pakistan cannot prevent them from so doing.'"'

At another point we referred to large training camps at Sialkot where raiders are trained and issued arms, ammunition and uniforms before going to the front. This was based on the statement of a prisoner. Save for a vague and general denial, there has been no answer to that charge, and nothing has been said in reply to observations made by foreign correspondents— one of them being Alan Moorehead of the London Observer— which actually asserted that recruiting for Kashmir was going on in Pakistan. According to us, vehicles belonging to the raiders are being repaired in Pakistan repair shops, and that again is a charge which remains unanswered.

In view of this position it is perfectly clear that the charge of direct and indirect assistance which we have put forward against Pakistan is, in broad outline, substantiated. It has been suggested that the officers who command these raiders, and who conduct them in a regular military fashion unlike that of the tribesmen, are to be found among 65,000 soldiers who inhabit Poonch. I submit that is a totally unfounded sugges­tion. It is true that there is a large number of ex-soldiers in Poonch, but how can they possibly include sufficient officers to man this large force of raiders which I described?*! submit that the large body of officers necessary to lead this military formation could not be drawn from the ex-soldiers in Poonch, as has been suggested.

It has been said that frontier tribesmen need no training and that, taught from birth to carry rifles, they learn to shoot when they are children. That is true; it is not disputed; but shooting with rifles is quite different from fighting in an armed force. They are not trained for an armed force. They are not trained to throw grenades, fire mortars, handle 3.7 howitzers, man wireless sets, place mines in bridges, blow up roads, etcetera. It is idle to suggest that the tribesmen, having learned to handle rifles, have had sufficient military training to be parties to the warfare which we say is taking place in Jammu and Kashmir at the moment. That is our position in regard to the fighting in Jammu and Kashmir.

The most recent estimate of what is really happening is to be found in an issue of The Times of London dated 13 January 1948.. in the material portion of which a correspondent states: ''That Pakistan is unofficially involved in aiding the raiders is certain. Your correspondent has first-hand evidence that arms, ammunition and supplies are being made available to the Azad Kashmir forces. A few Pakistani officers are also helping to direct their operations.... And however much the Pakistan Government may disavow intervention, moral and material support is certainly forthcoming.``I submit that this statement truly depicts the position of Pakistan in regard to Kashmir as it has existed ever since the raids commenced, and as it exists today. That is the situation which I ask the Security Council to remedy at as early a date as possible by the adoption of all possible measures for this purpose. I believe that we have placed before the Security Council such preponderant factual and circumstantial evidence as to justify our request to the Security Council to give to the Government of Pakistan the directives for which we ask. As the Council knows, we request the Security Council to deny to the invaders access to and use of Pakistan's territory, to deny to them military and other supplies, and all types of aid, to pre­vent the Pakistan Government personnel, military and civil, from participating in the invasion of the State, and to call upon all Pakistan nationals to desist from taking any part in the fighting in Kashmir and Jammu Provinces.

I have already summarized our entire position. I do not wish to repeat anything which I have said. All that I stated is fresh in the minds of the members of the Council. We stress the urgency and immediacy of the situation, because it is diffi­cult to forecast how a military situation may develop and tend to widen the area of conflict.

My Government has repeatedly assured the Security Council, and I give the assurance once again, that it desires a peaceful solution to the Jammu and Kashmir situation.

(SCOR, 3rd Year, Mtg. No. 234, pp. 208-226)

Note: The above statement was corrected by Mr. Setalvad as under:

I wish to make a correction as to a date which I gave to the Security Council which the representative of Pakistan has pointed out to me to be incorrect. I stated to the Security Council that the announcement of Master Tara Singh was made some time in April 1947. The representative of Pakistan has pointed out that the correct date is February 1947, and I accept the correction.

(SCOR, 3rd Year, Mtg. No, 234, p. 208)