24011948 Text of the Speech of Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan, Representative of Pakistan in the Security Council Meeting held on 24 January 1948

24011948 Text of the Speech of Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan, Representative of Pakistan in the Security Council Meeting held on 24 January 1948

My learned friend who addressed the Security Council yester­day [232nd and 234th meetings] on behalf of India is a very eminent advocate; in my view, he is the most eminent advocate practising in India today. I have always esteemed him not only as a very able, but as a very fair-minded, advocate. He strove very hard yesterday to persuade me to modify my opinion of him with regard to his fair-mindedness. However, I concede that this is an exceptional occasion and, in spite of the very harsh adjectives that it pleased him to apply to my speech. I shall continue to entertain his opinion.

He started by charging me with certain mis-statements. The first one had to do with Brigadier Khuda Baksh of the Jammu Army. I stated that an Associated Press report had announced his assassination. We are very glad to hear that this report was erroneous. But I made no misstatement: that report had been made and we were not aware that it was erroneous. We are glad to learn that it was wrong.

The representative of India then charged me with having tried to create a wrong impression in the minds of the members of the Security Council with regard to what occurred with reference to my own home. I wish to make it clear that the reference to my own home was not by way of a specific com­plaint or grievance as to what had occurred. Where millions had lost their homes and all they possessed, and had gone through various stages and degrees of suffering and misery, it would have been out of place to mention the loss of one's own home. I mentioned it as an instance where one knew what had occurred, and yet the Government of India had chosen to deny altogether that anything had occurred. I mentioned this as an instance of the fact that this kind of happening had gone on and had altogether been denied, and I am afraid the same thing has happened over again. To try  the tell me that, except for a few articles that may have been removed, nothing has occurred, which is an attempt which is difficult to characterize.

What actually happened is that this house was looted by the military and by the Sikhs for five days between 27 September and 1 October. It was a large house with nine bedrooms, eleven bathrooms, six reception rooms, offices, garages, a bungalow for the manager, five acres of garden, an orchard, and so on; therefore, even the looting could not be completed within a very short time.

By the sheerest coincidence, last night a Delhi newspaper came to my attention, in which I noticed the second instalment of incidents that took place at Qadian, where my home was, and which, incidentally, is the headquarters of a religious movement having missions all over the world. This second instalment describes incidents No. 31 to No. 46 that occurred during this period.

I might mention that, at my request and that of other pro­minent members of this particular movement, the Government of India sent a detachment of troops to be stationed there to give us protection, and it also sent in additional police. I shall mention three or four of these incidents to show what, under this protection afforded to us, was happening at this place. One incident reads as follows: "On 22 September, the police and military searched houses of the head of the movement and of his brothers from 6 o'clock in the morning until 11 o'clock. Everything was ripped open; locks were broken, and the police and the military rushed into the women's apartments without notice. Nothing objectionable was discovered, but all arms, every one of which was licensed, were removed and taken away and have not yet been returned."

The rushing of police and military into the women's quarters is an outrage which can properly be appreciated only by those who are familiar with the ways of living of respectable families in the East.

Incident No. 34 reads as follows: "On 24 September, the police searched houses in the quarter called Darush Shukur, and though they found nothing objectionable, they took away ornaments, cash and other articles worth thousands of rupees.. and five young girls belonging to the refugees, who were subsequently returned,"Incident No. 35 reads as follows: "On 25 September, four Muslim refugees who were staying in a house called Ashiana Mubarik, in a quarter named Darul Anwar, were shot by the police and their women were taken away."

Incident No. 36 reads as follows: "On 27 September, 5,000 cattle, belonging to the refugees who were in a camp"—at this place Qadian—"were stolen by the Sikhs, with the help of the police, along with the cars and other vehicles which the refugees had engaged in order to make their trek."

Incident No. 37 reads as follows: "Zafrullah Khan's house, Baitul Zafar, in the Darul Anwar quarter, was' '—and the paper itself mentions it—"except for a few articles, looted by the military. This looting continued for five nights. Every night, military trucks came and rolled up the furniture and other articles, and took them away. The ponies and the cattle were also looted."

Incident No. 38 reads as follows; "On 29 September 1947, Moulvi Ahmed Khan Nasim, in charge of local missions, and Moulvi Abdul Aziz, in charge of intelligence, were arrested on the charge of robbery."

Incident No. 39 reads as follows: "On 29 September 1947, several other houses in the Darul Anwar quarter were looted, including the houses of Colonel Dr. Ataulla, Assistant Director General of Medical Services, Pakistan; Abul Hashim Khan, retired inspector of schools; and Abdul Rahim Dard, ex-missionary in charge of the mission in London."

Incident No. 40 reads as follows: "On 30 September 1947, the police issued an order to the local scavengers to stop cleaning and scavenging the houses of the Muslims, the result being that the privies could not be cleaned, which led to a very undesirable situation."

Incident No. 43 reads as follows: "On 2 October 1947, the police, under orders, stopped the grinding of corn in the mills at Qadian, belonging to the Muslims, with the result that the Muslims who were surrounded in Qadian, which included women and children and old people, were for many days compelled to eat boiled wheat, which led to many cases of disorder and disease."

Incident No. 44 reads as follows: "On 2 October 1947, the Talimul Islam College and the Fazle Umar Technical Institute buildings, their furniture, machinery and instruments were taken possession of by the police and faculties were expelled there from."

It is needless to multiply incidents, but this gives a sort of detailed picture of the kind of thing that was being done by the police and the military. It is all very well for the represen­tative of India to say it was a case of "mass frenzy,"—but this is no case of mass frenzy—and to continue saying that nothing has happened. The representative of India admitted that the Muslim population of a place where there was a total popula­tion of 15,000 of which 13,000 were Muslims, had now been reduced to 300. But he waves that aside by saying, "Well, that has happened in many places in West Punjab, too." That is a typical case of two wrongs not making a right.

The representative of India invited attention to the massacre of the Postal staff in Jammu, which had been alleged by us. He said, in effect, "The matter rests at this stage: we deny that it has happened." I was told that I had not cited the authority for my allegation that these massacres had taken place. I shall cite the authority, which is memorandum INV/R-5 7/2 dated 10 December 1947 from the Postmaster-General, Lahore, to the Director-General), Posts and Telegraphs, Pakistan, Karachi, under the heading "Massacre of Postal staff in Jammu." The memorandum says: "Reference your DO, number E69-5 Kashmir/47 and this office's endorsement, INV/R-57/2 dated 3 November 1947, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Sialkot Division, has now reported the information received by him."

That is the full title of the document from which I quoted. It is an official document made after an investigation and inquiry. That again is an illustration of the attitude adopted by the Government of India towards incidents of this kind. Details are given, but the reply is that the incidents have not occurred.

The representative of India went on to deal with the origin of communal clashes and riots. I shall not follow him into another detailed description of them again. The Security Council has heard enough of that, and when the Council goes on to the consideration of the complaint filed by the Pakistan Government [document S1646) it will hear more details about these matters. But a few comments on some aspects of the question are necessary.

The representative of India invited attention to what had happened in Calcutta. I was surprised to hear that the allega­tion is that the killing in Calcutta was started by the Muslims. The whole matter was the subject of a judicial inquiry; a commission was set up. The representative of India said that inquiry had been stopped after 15 August. But a postscript must be added to that. That inquiry was stopped by the West Bengal Government. The West Bengal Government is a Congress Government.

I tried also to follow the evidence that was being introduced before that commission, and on one point at least, the evidence left no doubt that the first day's killings were started by the Hindus, and that, of the people admitted to the hospital during the first day, the overwhelming majority were Muslims. This was particularly the case in one quarter in North Calcutta. A Hindu landlord there, being anxious to get rid of his Muslim tenants in small buts and cottages in order to clear the city so that he could build flats and offices on the site, deliberately started a campaign of killing them, and they were practically wiped out. The evidence revealed that there were a lot of narrow lanes in this quarter running into each other, that these people were butchered and that a large number of them were killed because they had no way out of that maze of lanes.

Calcutta was followed by Noakhali where, most deplorably, there was undoubtedly a killing of Hindus. The then Governor, Mr. Burrows, estimated that as many as 200 had been killed, and that many had been what has been described as "forcibly converted".

These incidents were followed by Bihar. At a very modest estimate, the number of killed was 30,000 Muslims. Entire villages were completely burned and destroyed, and the whole thing showed a deliberate plan to wipe out the Muslims in those areas.

In Garhmukteswar, on the occasion of the Holi Festival of Hindus on the banks of the Ganges, which I previously mentioned, large numbers of Muslims were killed, including Muslim officers who were on duty to help the Hindu festival-makers, to look after their health, and to make police arrangements.

But these were, after all, a part of the history of communal clashes and riots. Coming back to the nearer questions, the representative of India showed a certain amount of ingenuity in dealing with the situation. He said that I had complained that Muslims had been wiped out altogether in the States of Bharatpur and Alwar, during the killing which started there in the months of June and July of 1947; that this was done by the military forces of the Rulers, and that it was not a case of communal clashes and riots, these people having been killed and expelled under the orders of the Rulers by the military forces of the Rulers. The representative of India says, "the Government of India has no responsibility in that respect inasmuch as these States did not accede to the Indian Union until after the middle of August."

I have said that his reply is ingenious. In the first place, the killings and the expulsions went right on into September. In the second place, the accession was accepted by the Governor-General, and he could have made it a condition that they should put their houses in order. In the third place, the Indian States were not permitted and are not permitted to have foreign relations. Their foreign relations, even at that date, were carried on through the then Government of India, and since then have been carried on by the Government of India. Therefore, any responsibility in that respect with regard to what the remedy should b3 still lies with the Government of India.

But the representative of India said not one word—not one — with regard to the terrible killings in Kapurthala, for instance, which have reduced the Muslim majority population of that State to zero. The State of Kapurthala had acceded to the Government of India when these killings took place. And he said not one word with regard to Faridkot, Jind and Patiala, where the Muslim minority had been wiped out altogether at a time when these States were in accession to the Government of India.

We now come to East Punjab. The representative of India referred to the speech of the Sikh leader, Master Tara Singh, who, while standing on the steps of the Legislature in Lahore, drew his sword out of his scabbard, brandished it, and said: "The question whether Pakistan shall or shall not be established shall be decided between the Muslims and the Sikhs by the sword. We have been aware of this danger that has been threatening us. We have taken our measures. Our volunteers are ready." The representative of India said [232nd meeting] that this speech had taken place in the middle of all the trouble. I wish to inform the Security Council that this speech was made on 28 February. Up to then, there were no communal clashes. had occurred in East or West Punjab at all.

The representative of India accepted the date of 28 February, but he would not accept the latter part of my statement. However, this is a question of historical fact which can easily be ascertained. I said that this speech by Master Tara Singh was followed by similar speeches made by other Sikh leaders, among them Giani Kartar Singh, that evening or the following evening in Kapurthala House in Lahore. These speeches were in the same vein, threatening the Muslims with being driven across the Indus towards the northwest. These speeches were followed, on 2 March in Multan, by the speech of Nanak Singh, the local Sikh leader, who said that that year, the Sikhs and the Hindus desired to "play Holi." This, as I explained, is a Hindu festival which was due to occur within two or three days. It is a sort of carnival where people sprinkle each other with, among other things, red water. Nanak Singh said that they desired to "play Holi" this year not with red water but with red blood. These statements and the statements made at Multan and Rawalpindi were followed by riots in which Sikhs were killed. The representative of India has put the cart before the horse in saying that these speeches were the results of these riots. These speeches were made before these riots, and brought them on. It is an historical fact. However, what distinguishes the happenings in West Punjab from those in East Punjab is that in West Punjab these riots occurred in March and were speedily controlled. Then, there were stray incidents, and, later on, in the latter half of August and September, after the East Punjab killings, there were retaliations. However, they were, when their elements are studied, exhibitions of mass frenzy. In East Punjab, there was a regular organized campaign which was carried out thoroughly, sector by sector.

I have given the Security Council some indication with regard to Qadian itself. However, that was one of the least of the incidents that occurred in East Punjab. But even in East

Punjab, these incidents have not yet stopped. They continue. Ajmer is the scene of the latest incident. The representative of India drew attention to Ajmer. After stating what in his view had happened, he gave a curious reason as to why complete protection could not be given to the Muslims. He said: It was difficult to afford complete protection to the Muslims in Ajmer as there are two factions of Muslims among whom there is some dispute with regard to the management of this shrine.

The representative of India will forgive me when I say that I am utterly unable to follow this argument. On previous occasions, when I have had to appraise his arguments I have never had that difficulty. This is the first occasion. I see no connexion between failure to give protection and the excuse that is put forward that there is some dispute between two factions of Muslims with regard to the management of the shrine, and that, therefore, they cannot be protected completely from being killed by the Hindus.

Then, the representative of India said that there were recent events, one in West Punjab and one in Upper Sindh, which showed that similar things were occurring in West Punjab also. If it is meant that incidents unfortunately continue to occur, that has not been denied. If it is meant that in these riots in the predominantly Muslim areas, the non-Muslims are made victims, that has not been denied. AW this has been amply stated and deplored by me in my speech. However, when incidents are cited as rather wiping out other incidents, that is what I take issue with.

at Gujarat, large numbers of people were killed on a train. In this morning's New York Herald-Tribune there appears under the heading "The 'War' for Kashmir", a statement by Margaret Parton concerning different incidents. In the course of this statement, to which I shall also draw attention later in connection with Kashmir, she states that she went along with a party of other reporters to these areas. She says: "Just outside Gujarat a group of tribesmen and villagers stood beside four mutilated corpses. Since such sights are still common in this most uncommon country, we didn't stop there ^r. Much later we learned of that morning's Gujarat train massacre in which 174 non-Muslims and 30 tribesmen had been killed."

Again, this is most deplorable. The loss of a single life under circumstances of that kind is to be deplored. I do not seek to minimize incidents of that kind, but it does not help to exaggerate the numbers involved. On the other hand, compare that incident with the train incidents that occurred in Amritsar on 22 September. A train was carrying Muslim refugees under escort of the troops of the Government of India. It was attacked at Amritsar by a Sikh mob. The escort troops of the Govern­ment of India refused to fire upon the mob. The only person who did fire was the British officer in charge of the escort, and he was killed. It is not clear whether he was killed by the attackers of the train or by members of his own escort. This train contained 4,500 refugees. Over 3,000 were killed. Over 1,000 were seriously injured. When the train arrived at Lahore, a bare hour's journey from Amritsar, only 200 people came out of the train entirely uninjured. But it is not the numbers that matter so much, though the numbers are bad enough. It is the behaviour of the escort, an escort that was there to protect those unfortunates whom they were escorting. We have not yet heard how that escort has been dealt with by the military authorities responsible to the Government of India.

Again, reference is made to Karachi, where another very deplorable incident took place. Some Sikhs from Upper Sind arrived there, contrary to the arrangements made between the Sind Government and the High Commissioner for India, and without even giving notice to the latter, who was aware that, in the conditions which prevail just now, the sight of a Sikh to Muslim refugees who had suffered at the hands of Sikhs in East Punjab would be very provocative. The Sikhs arrived, hired hackney carriages, and proceeded through the streets of Karachi to their camp. This caused a great deal of excitement and led to a most regrettable incident in which between sixty and eighty persons were killed and several houses looted. Once more the military, as soon as they arrived on the scene, secured complete control of the situation. A curfew was clamped upon the town, ministers and others personally helped to put down the rioting, and within two hours order was restored and has since been fully maintained.

In this connexon I should like to draw the attention of the Security Council to a statement issued by leading non-Muslims of Karachi concerning the attitude of the Government in regard to this matter. After setting out details of the incident -and the looting which took place, they say:

"Though in deep distress, we consider it our duty to place on record our sens; of gratitude to all those men and women—Sindis and non-Sindis—who helped to put down the disturbances and, at the time of need, gave protection and shelter to those affected in the looting. In this connexon we cannot but mention three persons who did the greatest service in promptly restoring order in the city: Mr. A. M. Khuro, the Prime Minister of Sindh, who worked day and .night and showed determination and courage; Major-general Akbar Khan, G.O.C. Sind area, and Mr. Kazem Raza, Additional Inspector-General of Police, Karachi City. We are also grateful to the rank and file of the military and Muslim National Guards, Karachi, who have done their duty and acquitted themselves very honourably. Lastly, we have no words for giving sufficient thanks to Sindi Muslims, including our Makrani and Baluchi brothers who, like our good neighbor’s, without any hesitation gave every possible assistance to the distressed. We are also grateful to the Pakistan Government ministers and the Sindh Government ministers for their real sympathy and. extreme help."

They had already explained that the occurrence was due to the refugees in Karachi, and that the people of Karachi them­selves took no part in it.

That is the kind of picture on which we have based our allegations with regard to what has gone on and what is still going on in certain areas of the Indian Dominion. It was said that there were large areas where people are at peace. I have not denied that; in fact, I have admitted it. I have defined my charge to East Punjab, to the State bordering it, and to certain areas in Rajputana, but the evil has been spreading, and it can be checked only if appropriate action is taken.

Compare the conditions in Karachi with what has been going on in Delhi ever since the beginning of September and continues even today. It was sought to argue that Mahatma Gandhi was doing everything in his power to bring about peaceful conditions. That is admitted, and we are indebted to Mr Gandhi. for all the efforts he is making. He even announced, a fast unto death in order to bring about a reconciliation between the communities, and we give him full credit for it., i hat which he has achieved as the result of his fast is very laudable and much to be grateful for, yet it indicates exactly what the conditions are in Delhi. What he has secured by his last is the agreement of the Government of India and the Muslims and non-Muslims that the following seven things shall be done .

1. That the annual Muslim ceremony at the Mehrauli--Shrine near Delhi be permitted-"be permitted" meaning that it was not so far being permitted. Mahatma Gandhi had to undergo a fast to secure that tor the Muslims.

2. That non-Muslims vacate mosques, which means that mosques are occupied by non-Muslims, either as places, of residence, refuge or whatever it might be The A mosque is the equivalent of a church, chapel or cathe­dral for Muslims, according to its size.

3. That the Muslims of Delhi be assured of their safety.

4.That Muslims who have migrated from Delhi be made welcome to return—which is one of the things we are seeking to secure for both sides.

5. That Muslims be assured of safe travel on trains.

6. That there be no social boycott of Muslims.

7. That the Muslims in Delhi receive freedom to choose localities in which to live, instead of being forced into certain neighbourhoods; in other words, instead of being forced into ghettos.

Those are the conditions to which Mr. Gandhi had to undertake his fast, and that is an eloquent commentary on the conditions which still exist in Delhi, the capital of India. The representative of India has argued that these are demons­trations of mass-frenzy, and that the root cause is the philosophy of hatred that has been preached by the Muslim League.

That is too vast a subject to go into, and the roots lie buried very deep in history, but I will put this question: Why did it become necessary for the Muslim League to advocate the partition of India and to persist in that demand? And why was the Muslim League able to obtain the overwhelming support of the Muslims in India for that demand? In a word, it was because the Hindu exclusiveness and caste system resulted in discrimination against the Muslims in every walk of life.

After all, as I tried to explain to the Security Council in the course of my first speech [228th meeting], the Muslims were taking a great risk in asking for partition. In seven out of the -eleven Provinces of India they were in a minority, and had a -majority in only four. They were taking the great risk that as many as 35 million or 40 million Muslims would be left in India, but they did this for two purposes: first, in order to secure rea­sonable conditions of equality at least for their majority; and, secondly, in order to secure some kind of a balance. For these-reasons they insisted on partition.

It has been said that this represents an ideology based upon religion. In the first place, I personally see nothing wrong if an ideology is based on religion, so long as it imposes no disabilities upon and entails no discrimination against other people. But the definition is not correct. This is not an ideology based on religion. Discrimination against the Muslims in India was being practised on the basis of religion, and in order to bring about an amelioration of those conditions, the proposal was that provinces in which the Muslims were in a majority should be allowed to form one State, and that provinces where non-Muslims formed the majority should be allowed to form another State.

If one is based on religion, then the other is based on religion. But it is not based on religion because the Muslims-never demanded, did not ask for, and did not support, any demand for the exchanges of population, so as to make one State entirely Muslim, and the other entirely non-Muslim. That might have smelled of being based upon religion. However, they said that the provinces, as they are, with a majority of Muslims should be allowed to form one State, and that those with a majority of non-Muslims should form another State, with mutual protection and safeguards for minorities. There is nothing non-secular based upon religion in this matter, except that the division throughout India has been religious. The Muslims formed a permanent minority in India, and if India had formed one Government, they would have been in the position of a permanent minority with no amelioration of their condition.

The division goes so far that, from the name of every person in India, provided one has the full name before him and is. familiar with conditions, one can determine whether that person is a Muslim, a Sikh, a Hindu, a Christian, etc.

The Muslims, as I said, were in a permanent minority time and again. After the elective principle was introduced in local self-government in provincial legislatures, and later on in the central legislature, we found that, in mixed constituencies where there was a majority of non-Muslim electors, there was no chance of a Muslim being elected at all, unless in his politics he had identified himself with the Congress. I shall cite only one instance, which is striking. Under our University Act of—I forget the particular year, 1902 or 1904—the University of the Punjab, a Muslim-majority Province, had the right of electing eight members of the Senate through registered gradua­tes. The Senate was formed differently, by nominations, but eight members of the Senate were to be elected from regis­tered graduates. Among the registered graduates, there was a majority of non-Muslims. On no single occasion, with one exception, when a Congress Muslim was elected, was a single Muslim, out of these eight members of the Senate, ever elected. That is the type of thing which took place. The Muslims, in desperation, had to ask for a separation whereby in certain provinces in which they were in a majority they would have equal conditions; and in other provinces in which the non-Muslims had a majority, they could rule. It was an attempt first to save at least three-fifths of the Muslims from this kind of discrimination; and secondly, to bring about some sort of balance. There was no ideology based upon religion in this case.

The representative of India has argued, in relation to our allegation of planned genocide, that it would have been foolish of the Sikhs to have planned to draw out of West Punjab, where they have rich, canal-irrigated lands, into East Punjab; that there was no reason why they should have made such a plan. In the first place, the plan embraced those two rich dis­tricts which the representative of India mentioned: Montgomery and Lyallpur. However, he went on to say that the colonization there had been brought about by the Sikhs. That is not a wholly correct statement. The majority of the popula­tion were Muslims; the majority of the colonists were Muslims; the greater part of the agricultural area was owned by Muslims. However, there was no doubt about a strong Sikh element also being present in those districts.

I, myself, stated in my opening remarks that the Sikh is an excellent peasant and farmer. Undoubtedly the Sikh contributed very largely to the colonization of those two areas. But the representative of India, himself, when appearing before the Boundary Commission, argued that although these two districts were overwhelmingly Muslim in their population, they should be allotted to East Punjab, because there was a strong element of Sikh peasants in those districts. Fortunately, that argument was not accepted, but that was part of the plan—not his plan, but part of the Sikh plan to claim those areas. The plan was that, in whatever area they obtained in East Punjab, they would try to set up a Sikh domination. I am sure that even the representative of India is not unaware of the conception, to which I shall later refer, of Sikhistan, the land of the Sikhs, or Khalsastan, the land of the Khalsa, Khalsa being another name for the Sikh group. Perhaps this plan was that in combination with the East Punjab States—Kapurthala, Faridkot, etcetera— which are Sikh States, and particularly under the hegemony of Sardar Patel, they should set up a Sikh State in all those areas. The plan was to drive out the Muslims from those areas, and to pull out the Sikhs from West Punjab, and put them there. They sought to put this plan into effect by means of this planned genocide.

Here is a note which states that this was a plan, and that this plan was known by the authorities beyond any doubt. This note contains a record of certain incidents which were recorded by the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Early in July 1947 a meet­ing was held in the Viceroy's house to discuss the measures necessary to combat the Sikh plans for creating widespread disturbances in the Punjab. The meeting was attended by Lord Mountbatten and others. At this meeting a British officer of the Punjab C.I.D. (Criminal Investigation Division) gave a detailed account of how the Sikhs were making elaborate preparations for creating widespread disorders in the Punjab. The evidence on this point was plentiful and reliable, and there could be no doubt as to the extent of the preparations being made by Sikh leaders, including the Rulers of some of the Sikh States. Lord Mountbatten stated categorically that he would use all the forces at his command to crush the disturbances. As an immediate precautionary measure, it was agreed to by all present—but reluctantly by Sardar Patel—that prominent Sikh leaders, including Master Tara Singh, the gentleman of the naked sword, should be arrested. The question was also dis­cussed in the Partition Council in about the middle of July, and Lord Mountbatten again undertook to use all the forces at his disposal—aircraft, tanks, guns, etcetera—to crush any such movement. He stated that he had warned the Maharaja of Patiala and other Sikh leaders in the clearest terms. No arrests were made, however. A little later Lord Mountbatten stated that he had decided not to arrest the Sikh leaders immediately, but to arrest them a week before the announcement of the Boundary Commission's award. Later, he changed his ground again and said he would strike at them simultaneously with the announcement of the Boundary Commission's award, which he stated would be made on 11 August 1947 at the latest.

The award of the Boundary Commission was not announced until after 15 August, when Lord Mountbatten had become constitutional Governor-General, and had therefore lost all the powers he had as Viceroy. Then, on 10 July, in the Partition Council—and I am reading from the minutes of the meeting of that Council—Lord Mountbatten himself stated:

"His Excellency reiterated that he had made abundantly clear to His Highness, the Maharaja of Patiala, and all other Sikh leaders with whom he had interviews, the conse­quences of any attempt to offer active resistance. No responsible Government will tolerate, for a moment, such action which would be met by the immediate employment of the regular armed forces of India. In view of the superiority in airplanes, tanks, artillery, etcetera, that the armed forces enjoy, such action would inevitably result in very severe losses being inflicted on those who would be armed only with rifles and automatic weapons. He affirmed his hope, therefore, that the Sikh leaders would be able to restrain their followers."

They were not able to restrain their followers.

It is surprising that the representative of India should have dismissed all of this yesterday by quoting a statement made by Lord Mountbatten in London that this kind of thing need not be exaggerated because, after all, the number involved was only 12 million, which is but 3 percent of the total population of India. I understand that 12 million is just about equal to the total population of the Dominion of Canada. There is no use in dismissing these matters by using percentages. The misery of a few human beings ought to excite sympathy, and if there is any remedy to be adopted, it should excite eagerness to adopt that remedy. To say that 12 million people are involved, but that they are only 3 percent of the population and therefore do not matter, betrays a callousness of view which I would be reluctant to associate with Lord Mountbatten.

1. we asked for is that there should be an investigation,, and punishment of those guilty.      

 

With regard to the States, we allege that both in the Bharatpur and Alwar States and also in the East Punjab States their Rulers, their military forces and their Governments were all responsible.

With regard to the Government of India, we have not said and we do not say that the Government of India, as such, directed or carried out genocide. But we do say that genocide was carried out in large areas, that is to say, that there was an attempt to wipe out one group by another organized group; that the attempt has been successful; and that in the attempt the police and the military of the Government of India have helped actively.

What do we ask? We ask that, in addition to punishment, there should be restoration of homes and property to these 10 million people more or less, under conditions of security to be brought about under international observation; and that where there are cases for compensation, it should be made.

It has been said that similar things have occurred on the other side. If they have occurred we do not want to limit the inquiry only to one side. If similar things have occurred on the other side, we should welcome an inquiry and we should welcome the punishment of the guilty. We should welcome, in any case—whether those things have happened as a result of genocide or not—a combined joint effort under international supervision to restore people on both sides to their homes and to their properties, and arrangements to be made for compen­sation. I believe this is a fair enough request.

I now come to the matter of Kashmir proper. The represen­tative of India, at the very beginning, made a complaint that some of their allegations had not been specifically dealt with by me in my speech. In order to satisfy his legalistic requirement* I now state that those allegations that have not been specifically dealt with by me, or may not be dealt with before the end of our discussions, are denied by my delegation.

With regard to bases, the representative of India cited one-instance, and drew attention to the report of a military officer to the Chief Secretary to the Government of the North West Frontier Province, which stated that when he was in Parachinar he had observed or had information that in Parachinar people had collected together in order to go and fight in Kashmir. If members of the Security Council will be pleased to look at their maps, they will see that Parachinar is up at the end of the Kurram Valley. It is inside, and far inside, the tribal area outside the North West Frontier Province. It was alleged that it was in the North West Frontier Province. It is almost on the border of Afghanistan. It is tribal territory; it is the home of the tribes. It cannot be said that Pakistan has established a base there. If someone has seen people collecting there with the object of going to fight in Kashmir, they are collecting in or about their homes, [in this regard, that is the only instance cited.

It was then said that somehow the Pakistan Government was guilty of some breach of international obligation by abandoning the United Kingdom's forward policy with regard to these tribes and withdrawing its military posts from these tribal areas. That is a permanent policy that has been adopted and announced by the Pakistan Government, namely, that it wants to make friends with the tribes, that it does not want to continue to distrust them. The forward policy was appropriate to the British who, however benign they were in their later stages—or otherwise, as some people have continued to allege to the end—were an alien Government. Their forward policy meant that in order to subdue the frontier, or to keep it in order, they must continue to penetrate through these very difficult areas among these very fierce and turbulent people. Pakistan has announced the abandonment of that policy and has withdrawn its military posts. One of the obligations that that policy involved was a huge financial outlay. It also involv­ed large military occupations. That financial outlay was a burden even to the whole of India combined. It might have become an insupportable burden to Pakistan. But however that may be, Pakistan's policy is not a forward policy. Even among British statesmen and people who were conversant with the frontier, there always was a difference concerning whether the forward policy should be continued or whether a policy should be adopted of trying to bring about some sort of an understanding and cooperation with the tribes so that they might themselves be left to maintain their own security. There has always been this controversy. In any case, Pakistan has adopted the latter policy, and there is nothing wrong in that.

The representative of India complained that one of the results of that policy is that the tribesmen are able to move about more freely with their arms. That is so, but the policy was not adopted for the purpose of allowing the tribesmen to go and fight in Kashmir. The whole policy was not adopted with reference to an incident which had not yet occurred. This policy was decided upon on 8 October, and the other side states that the very first raid, according to them, occurred on 22 October. However, those are the facts with regard to the forward policy.

The representative of India quoted from an article by Douglas Brown, correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, to the following effect: "The tribal leaders claim 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." The State of Swat, if again the members of the Security Council will turn to their maps, is almost on the border of Kashmir itself and is contiguous with the whole of the rest of the tribal area. That is one answer to the a Iterations of the representative of India that nothing was being done by the Pakistan Government to stop these tribes, namely, the complaint of the tribes themselves that, owing to the lack of cooperation of the Pakistan Government, they found it best to cross the frontier from Swat into Kashmir.

I shall now draw attention, with regard to all these matters, to a report of 19 January from Lahore, by Margaret Parton, special correspondent of the New York Herald Tribune, publish­ed in this morning's issue of that newspaper. The article reads as follows:

"If Pakistan is giving direct assistance to Azad (Free) fight­ing forces in Kashmir, evidence is not on the surface to be seen by prying foreigners. Below the surface is a mass of rumours, contradictions and paradoxes which, during a just completed week along the border of Pakistan and Kashmir, have alternately baffled and amused groups of press corres­pondents who followed Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan, on his tour of the frontier. During the entire 600 mile trip we saw no raiders' bases, no training centres, no stocks of arms and ammunition and no Pakistan soldiers slipping off to the Kashmir front. Even those reliable neutral observers—British officers and civilians—denied the existence of any of the material aid which India charges Pakistan is giving the fighters in Kashmir.

"There were instead incongruities and sights which verged on the melodramatic. There were strange characters who emerged at twilight with fantastic stories of intrigue, and even stranger ones who appeared at midnight to contradict the stories of the first group. Both sides appeared to be lying—but together they created an atmosphere of mingled mystery and tension which, it appears, only an equitable decision by the United Nations can relax."

This correspondent, Margaret Parton, then goes on to give different facets of the picture, saying there were tribesmen moving about, and describing other happenings, but saying nothing about the organizations, the State help and the bases and training that the other side has alleged were involved. That should be a good enough answer to the arguments on that point by the representative of India. That is at least evidence of a state of affairs which existed after both he and I left India and Pakistan respectively.

Another factor from which the representative of India wanted to draw a conclusion was the statement in which he admitted that 60,000 or 70,000 Punches were ex-soldiers but said that officers must have been imported for them. When one says "ex-soldiers'', one does not mean only foot soldiers or cavalrymen. These 60,000 to 70,000 people fought on the side of the United Nations during the war. Many of them obviously would be officers. There is really nothing much to that point.

But it was asked how, when one denies that there were train­ing centres for the tribes and when one asserts the tribes requir­ed no training in the use of arms, does one account for the fact that the people who are fighting in Kashmir can handle mortars; how is it they can handle 3,17 howitzers, a type of weapon that we have no knowledge is being used in Kashmir; how is it that they can use hand-grenades, wireless sets, etcetera, unless they have been trained? But the representative of India forgets that, according to neutral observers—I quoted a report in the New York Times, from its special correspondent—as many as 65 per cent of the people who are fighting in Kashmir, which is a modest estimate, are themselves the people of Kashmir. Among them are the Pooches and ex-soldiers and ex-officers. It is not necessary to give an account of how such tribesmen as there are, if any, have received their training in the use of these military weapons and apparatus, if any particular training is necessary for people of that kind.

It is amusing in this connexon to refer to just one sentence of a paragraph in The Times of London of 13 January which was read by the representative of India, with the exception of that one particular sentence in the middle of it. I do not attri­bute the fact that this sentence was not read to any ulterior purpose. It was not, perhaps, pertinent to the context he was citing. It reads: "According to a reliable estimate, the Azad forces consist of about 60 percent Poonchis  that is 60 percent of the people of Poonch who were trained ex-soldiers— "...35 per cent Pathan tribesmen, and possibly 5 per cent Punjabi Muslims." What was sought to be made out in the whole of the address by the representative of India was that all this fighting in Kashmir is being done by the tribesmen, which is not at all a correct picture, even according to the account upon which the representative of India relies.

1. contention is answered by a naive suggestion by the representative of India himself. In one part of his case he said that if the Pakistan Government could not completely stop the infiltration of tribesmen through Pakistan into Kashmir, then the Government of India was prepared to stop them for the Pakistan Government to help it fulfill its international obligation. We shall come to the nature of the inter­national obligation later. But how is it that, if the Government of India finds it so difficult to expel the tribesmen from Kashmir, where there are only a few thousand of them, it is so anxious and so ready, willing and eager to undertake a full-scale war with the tribesmen on the frontier in the hope that there it will be able to subdue the frontier tribesmen altogether? What is the explanation for that? It cannot control a few thousand tribesmen in Kashmir, and it makes a first-class international complaint in that regard; but it is prepared to take over at the frontier the whole of the tribal area. I have not been able to find an explanation for that. The truth of the matter is that, although the tribesmen do furnish a certain amount of stiffening, possibly, to the Azad and Kashmir forces, the main party which is being fought against in Kashmir is the people of Kashmir. If the people were not behind this movement, if the people were all with Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, as was alleged yesterday, then how is it that these areas—Gilgit, the vicinity of Muzaffarabad, Uri, Mirpur and Riasi, all around the Valley itself right up to Jammu—are in the possession of the Azad Kashmir forces? The people are with them. It is said that the-people do not want these excursionists from outside, egged on by Pakistan in order to force an accession upon Kashmir. Yet this situation has gone on for months at a time and, of the inhabited portions of the Kashmir State, more than half are in the possession of the Azad Kashmir forces.

The real picture is that it is a movement of the people in Kashmir to get rid of Dogra tyranny brought about by the massacres to which I shall presently come, the existence of which has been altogether and categorically denied by the representative of India before 22 October when the first raid took place. This movement is spreading. No doubt, there is sympathy among the tribesmen, and I have not denied the fact that there is sympathy all through Pakistan with the struggle. But the spearhead of the movement, the people upon whom the brunt of it has fallen and who are mainly fighting, are the people of Kashmir themselves. If that were not so, the move­ment would have collapsed within three days. How is it continuing?

 

With regard to the position of the National Conference and Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, it is said he is the beloved leader of the Kashmiris, whose feet they all desire to kiss, who brought about this accession in cooperation with the Maharaja. As the Security Council is aware, there are two political associations in Kashmir: the National Conference, the President of which is Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, and the Muslim Conference. The National Conference came into existence, I am informed, about 1930. The Muslim Conference had already been in existence. As a matter of fact I am told that Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah's own election as a member of the Assembly in the 1935 elections was secured on the Muslim Conference ticket. The present position is that the leaders of the Muslim Con­ference are in gaol, some of them put there by the Maharaja, the others put there since under the directions of Sheikh Mohamrnad Abdullah, or at least since Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah became head of the Emergency Administration, of which the Prime Minister is Mr. Mahajan.

It was stated yesterday—as a matter of fact. It was set out in one of these pamphlets that have been distributed on the invasion of Kashmir—that Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah's popularity may be judged from this: that during the last elec­tions, which were boycotted by the National Conference because Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was in gaol, out of 607,419 vokis, only 200,000, as slated by the representative of India, and only 182,800, as stated in this pamphlet, went to the polls.

fn the first place, the elections were held in January of last year, and in January conditions over the greater part of Kashmir were very much worse than the conditions that the members of the Security Council have seen here; and add to it that it is a high, hilly country and difficult to move about in. Therefore, in the very nature of things, very few people could have gone to the polls in Kashmir itself. In Jammu it would have been different. Actually, in two constituencies with regard to which I have been able to gather facts, more than 10,000 polled their votes in one constituency, and more than 6,000 in another. Out of twenty-one Muslim members, fourteen elected were Muslim Conference people, though I understand even their leaders were in gaol, and in the remaining seven constituencies independents were elected. But it so happened that, on technical grounds, the nomination papers of all the Muslim Conference candidates were rejected. That is the situation at this stage in so far as the position with regard to the National Conference and Sheikh Abdullah is concerned, though I shall have to revert to it again when I come to the question of accession.

It has been asked: "Why this trouble in Kashmir? It is then said: "This trouble in Kashmir is due to the fact that the Muslim League, having advocated an ideology based upon religion and a State based upon religion, cannot tolerate a situation in which a State wherein a majority of the people are Muslims should accede to India, and it insists that, whether by coercion or other means, fair or foul, the State should go to Pakistan though the people want to accede to India."

When Junagadh, a State in Kathiawar, acceded to Pakistan —and be it remembered that Junagadh had a majority of non-Muslims in its population, although the Ruler was Muslim— the Government of India protested to the Government of Pakistan that it should not have accepted this accession, and one of the chief grounds for this protest was that the majority of the people of Junagadh were Hindus. Therefore, Pakistan should not have accepted the accession. Who was basing his claim on the ideology of a majority of the religious community being on one side or the other?

It was then said, "Look how innocent we are in this matter. Here is a report by our chiefs of staff, saying that nobody took into consideration the question of military movement into Kashmir earlier than 24 October, two days after the first raid had taken place," That is not denied; that is so. We accept the statement. We have not said that the military movement had been planned ail through. We have said intrigues had been going on with regard to the accession. I shall cite some facts with regard to it.

Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was convicted of sedition sometime in 1946, or it possibly may have been 1945—1 forget the date cited by the representative of India—and sentenced to nine years' rigorous imprisonment. He was in gaol. I have already said that I make no implication against Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. Knowing the conditions in Kashmir, I know that he was sentenced on account of his patriotic feelings. There was no sedition about it at all. We are very glad that he was released. I believe he was released on 26 September, although the date does not matter. Nevertheless, he was certainly released in September. Why? Because the Maharaja wanted to use him as an emissary between himself and the Prime Minister of India, whose close friend and associate he had been, in order to bring about or settle the terms of acces­sion. No other reason has been given, and we say that that was the reason.

1. closeness of the friendship and the political relationship between Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, may be judged from the fact that when Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was being tried for sedition—or whatever the charge was—Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who had then already been nominated a member of the Government of India, and who has never practiced as a lawyer though he is a qualified lawyer, rushed up to Kashmir because he wanted to defend Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah— which is a very laudable sentiment. However, under the circumstances, it was a somewhat emotional gesture, having regard to the responsibility which Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru already had undertaken. He was expelled by the Maharaja and left the State. That incident shows how close an interest Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru has always taken in Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah.

It is difficult to believe that nothing was going on. Some days after Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah's release, he proceeded to Delhi and was obviously in touch with the Government of India. I shall come to some of his statements later, but on 25 October The Times of London, among other things, had this to say

"But the Union of India has been taking a lively interest in the subject"—the subject of accession—"and indications are that the Hindu Maharaja of Kashmir, Sir Hari Singh, has lately been much influenced by representations made by Mr. Gandhi, who visited Kashmir three months ago, and by other Congress leaders."

That is one assertion. However, it was said on the other side that Pakistan had taken up a very wanton attitude with regard to this matter; that before 22 October no molestation of Muslims had taken place in the State; that Pakistan engineered this raid into Kashmir in order to coerce the State into acces­sion to Pakistan. That is a very grave charge and a very important one, apart from its gravity. On our side, we have stated that the whole of this uprising in Kashmir, with which the Muslims of the surrounding States and countries are in sympathy, and such assistance as the tribesmen are giving it, is due to the massacres, molestations and the persecutions of the Muslims that had already started in the State. On the other side, it is said: "No, it is wanton aggression against the State of Kashmir in order to coerce it into accession to Pakistan." Therefore, so far as the facts are concerned, this is the crucial and the central matter to which attention must be paid.

In the first place, as a matter of argument, it was said that the whole case is built upon a flimsy foundation. Why should the Maharaja have wanted to massacre his Muslim population, ill-treat them or persecute them? Could it be conceived that he could get rid of 3 million Muslims of his State and replace them with other inhabitants? The idea is so absurd, it is said,that it has merely to be mentioned to be rejected. In the first place, I would again, at the risk of wearying the Council, draw attention to the fact that in another Hindu State, something of that kind had already happened. It was not so fantastic or absurd as to be dismissed in that very State. Kapurthala had a majority of Muslims, and today there is not one Muslim left in the State, What is there fantastic about such an idea today? Last year, at this time, if anybody had mentioned the idea to me, I would have characterized it in the same terms in which the representative of India characterized it yesterday. However, today there are instances and examples which might be followed.

But take a larger example. The Sikhs have succeeded in East Punjab in getting rid of 6 million Muslims. The represen­tative of India said; "No, 150,000 Muslims are still in East Punjab." Well, all right; 150,000 Muslims are still in East Punjab. They have still succeeded in getting rid of 6 millions minus J 50,000 Muslims. In the State of Kashmir, if a million Muslims could be got rid of and replaced by Sikhs and Hindus the trick would be done. What is so fantastic about this idea? But let us get to the facts. After all, this is an argument and counter-argument. What are the facts? Are the facts as stated by the representative of India? Are the facts as stated by-myself?

This is what the representative of India said yesterday [234th meeting]:

"That feeling of revenge was fostered by the fact that these-were Muslim invaders"—that is to say, after the invasion of 25 October 1947, the feeling of revenge was fostered among the Hindus and Sikhs in the State—"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?"

I submit to the Security Council that this is a crucial matter.

With regard to raids on West Punjab from the Jammu and Kashmir State, I have already drawn the attention of the Secu­rity Council to that matter in detail in my previous speech 228th meeting], I shall not repeat the facts here, but instead, shall concentrate on this issue.

But with regard to the raids in West Punjab, I might add that they still continue. Our latest telegram is dated 22 January and was sent from Karachi by the Minister of Information to <the Embassy in the United States. It states:

" 'A heavily armed mob, nearly 500 strong, crossed the border in Pakistan and launched a strong attack on the village of Dandot, according to a report from Sialkot received on Monday, 19 January 1948,* says a press note issued by the West Punjab Government. 'Besides twenty persons killed, about 100 head of cattle were found burned to death.' 'Jammu State troops were reported to have launched another attack on the border village in the Sialkot District,' says a press note issued by the West Punjab Government on 20 January. 'They killed two persons and set fire to a number of houses in Pakistan territory,* adds the press note."

Of course, the representative of India might say, as he said yesterday, "We are not responsible for it. It is the Jammu State troops who are responsible with regard to the massacre of the convoy on 4 November." He said, "True, we were in occupa­tion of the State, but this massacre was carried out by the troops of the Maharaja, and we had no responsibility for it."

Now I come to the allegation that no incidents of Muslim oppression took place before 22 October 1947; that this was a wanton invasion by the tribesmen to force Kashmir into acces­sion to Pakistan; and that all that took place vis-a-vis the Muslims occurred later as a result of a spirit of revenge fostered by this raid. In the first place, I would draw the attention of the Security Council to the considerable portion of my first speech dealing with this matter. Again, I shall not repeat, as I have set out the various details of the persecutions and the raids that have taken place. But I might draw the attention of the Security Council to the statement of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah himself, made in Delhi on 21 October 1947, before any raid had taken place. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah said that the present troubles in Poonch, a feudatory of Kashmir, were caused by the unwise policy adopted by the State. The people of Poonch who suffered under their local Ruler and again under the Maharaja of Kashmir the overlord of the Poonch Ruler, had started a people's movement for the redress of their grievances. It was not communal. The State of Kashmir sent in its troops and there was panic in Poonch. But most of the adult population of Poonch, he explained, were ex-service­men in the Indian Army, with close connexions with the people in Jhelum and Rawalpindi. They evacuated their women and children, crossed the frontier, and returned with arms supplied to them by willing people. The present position was that the Kashmir State forces were compelled to withdraw in certain areas.

Why were these people in Poonch under the compulsion of taking their women and children out of the State, placing them in West Punjab, borrowing arms and ammunition and going back and fighting the State troops before any raid had taken place? This is from the mouth of Sheikh Mohammad Abbullah himself."

I would further draw the attention of the Security Council in this connexion to a statement made by the same special correspondent of the Daily Telegraph of London, Douglas Brown, who stated in the issue of 12 January 1948: "It was, however, undoubtedly, tales of horrible cruelties against their coreligionists in Jammu, coupled with heartening news of the insurrection"—that is to say, the insurrection of the Pooches and so—"which first set them on their course of invasion." I wish to repeat, "tales of horrible difficulties against their co-religionists in Jammu, coupled with heartening news of the insurrection." The insurrection had already taken place and it was based on the cruelties that had already taken place. Further on, the correspondent says, "The situation is compli­cated by many factors. One of the factors is this: "Yet another element in the invasion is provided by Sikh refugees from the West Punjab who have seized Muslim lands in Jammu." That is exactly what we have alleged was happening and was bound to happen.

The report goes on: "They originated the massacres there last October, to clear for themselves new Sikh territory to compensate for their losses in Pakistan and to provide part of the nucleus of a future Sikhistan." In other words, they wanted to convert Kashmir into a land of the Sikhs. It could not be so converted unless the Muslim majority were reduced to a minority by killings, by looting, by expulsion and by an influx of Sikhs.

The report continues: "These newcomers have no real love for Sir Han Singh and his Dogra favourites, though hitherto they have been working in uneasy alliance with them. They look to the powerful Maharaja of Patiala as their patron, and at present are taking full advantage of the presence of his State troops in the Province."

That would make it quite clear how the trouble started. But there is specific evidence. On 20 September 1947—as early as that—the following telegram was received by the Governor-General of Pakistan from the Muslim Conference, Kashmir: "Atrocious military oppression in Poonch. Public being looted and shot at random. Kindly intervene." But the representative of India says that nothing was happening. And these are troops that are mentioned here.

Here is another telegram from the Muslims of Bagh Mallat, Poonch State, to the Governor-General of Pakistan, dated 29 September 1947: "Fire opened by the Kashmir Government since the 9th and 10[h of Bhadon." That would put it, I suppose, shortly after the middle of September. "Our Muslim public loss estimated at 500 lives. Kindly intervene immediately." My learned friend continues to say that nothing had happened and that nobody had been touched, least of all by the State troops. And this was in September.

Here is a report from the Deputy Commissioner of the 'Rawalpindi District to the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, dated 8 October 1947:

"On my way back from Srinagar on 8 October 1947, I came across a large number of women and children crossing over from the Poonch side. They related stories of inhuman treatment and terrible atrocities on the part of the Dogra troops operating in the Poonch area. I was informed that ten or eleven villages had been burned, women had been raped, and Muslim houses had been looted by the Dogra Army. At the Kohala Bridge, I persuaded the officer in charge of the State troops to arrange for these refugees on the Kashmir side, as I felt that it was primarily the responsi­bility of the Kashmir State to look after its own nationals, especially when their miseries were due to the action of the State troops.

*'On proceeding to Murree, I came across, near the village of Dewal about seven miles from Kohala, about 600 women and children who had crossed the river from Kashmir territory. They also related the same tale of woe. It would have been inhuman to ask them to return to their own country. Accordingly, I arranged to set up a temporary refugee camp at the village of Phagwari, which is a some­what more central place than Dewal. I expect that the stream of refugees may become stronger every day." That was on 8 October, a fortnight before the first raid took place.

I have before me one of our intelligence reports, marked "Top Secret." However, it constitutes evidence, and therefore I shall read portions of it. It is dated 12 October, and reads as follows:

"Muslims of Kashmir and Poonch, who form 80 to 90 per cent of the entire population, are keen that the State should accede to Pakistan, but the attitude of the State authorities afforded indications to the contrary. On 15 August, Pakistan Day was celebrated in Srinagar. The State authorities tried to interfere with it. On 26 August, the celebrations were arranged in Tehsil Bagh, Poonch State, resulting in a major clash between the authorities and the people, with heavy casualties to both (roughly estimated, 200 on the civilian side and 50 on the military side).'

Further on, the report states:

"It was decided to oppose the State's drift towards the Indian Union at all costs. The activities of Dogra troops, who had deliberately indulged in looting, arson and harass­ment of Muslims, made the situation intolerable, and the meeting resolved to resist the criminal activities of the authorities by means of direct action. This action com­menced on 2 October 1947."

That is when the movement started in Poonch. The report goes on to say:

"Poonch-Pakistan border was the first to be affected. The populace raided a police station at Dhirkot on 2 October. The police ran away, and the raiders captured 500 muzzle-loading guns, a few shotguns, 8 rifles and 10,000 rupees."

The report goes on: "On the night between 2 and 3 October, the civilians attacked the military post at Churiala. About 40 military men were killed, with very few casualties on the civilian side. Action still continues, and the troops are practically besieged."

The report then goes on to give details of the clashes on different days up to 6 October. Further on, the report states: "On the 4th, the troops attacked Khuntar Rehala with a force of about 200. They burned about 50 houses. They were engaged by the rebels. Fifty of them were killed and 70 wounded. One Bren gun was seized. Civilian casualties are not known."

Further on, the report states: "The troops retreating from Khuntar Rehala set fire to a number of Muslim houses at Pachhot. This resulted in irregular action on a sector of about ten miles, affecting"—and then several villages were mentioned.

Now this indicates what was happening at that time. At a later stage this report says:

Another significant feature during these operations was that the troops were invariably accompanied by civilian non-Muslims who were either armed with firearms or swords and spears. The civilians were used for purposes of arson and for indiscriminate slaughter of Muslim women and children, while the troops engaged civilian armed gangs."

Was this intelligence report being manufactured on 10 or 11 October in order to make out a case that there should be a raid on 22 October, and these happenings alleged as reasons for it? Was the report of the Deputy Commissioner similarly drawn from his imagination? Was Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah's statement of what was happening in Poonch manufactured in order to damage the Indian case?

Then we sent a wire. As I have already set this out, I shall not go into it in extenso. But the Foreign Minister sent a wire to the Prime Minister of Kashmir on 12 October, ten days before the raid. It reads as follows:

"Men of (he Pakistan Army who have recently returned from leave at their homes in Poonch, report that armed bands, which include troops, are attacking Muslim villages in that State.

Their stones are confirmed by the large number of villages that can be seen burning from Murree Hill. The Pakistan Government is vitally interested in the maintenance of peace on its borders and the welfare of Muslims in adjoining territories, and, on these grounds alone, would be justified in asking for assurance that steps be taken to restore order in Poonch."

It is then pointed out "that a good many of our military-personnel are drawn from that area, and they are being disturbed."

 

Here is a telegram from Sialkot, dated 20 October, from the President of the District Muslim Conference, Jammu. He must obviously have gone to Sialkot. Sialkot is twenty-eight miles from the other side. The telegram is addressed to Sardar Abdul Rabnishtar, one of the Ministers in Karachi. It is obviously a copy sent to his house^. The telegram reads as follows

"Dogra military reinforced by numberless Indian Army plain-clothes, Sikh jathas1, local and from abroad. Hindus and Rajputs, armed with modern weapons, launched a whole­sale massacre of Muslims of Ranbir Singh Pura, Akhnoor, Samba and Jammu Tehsils of Jammu District. Several thousand Muslims already ruthlessly butchered. Hundreds of women were abducted. AH moveable property looted and hundreds of Muslim villages burnt to ashes. Hostile forces, continuing killing suburban Muslims and burning Muslim villages from all sides, now converging on Jammu City and only one mile distant from it. Village Raipur, within the Jammu Cantonment area, burnt. Muslims in City already a hopeless minority and altogether unarmed. Fifteen thousand Muslims of Jammu City including women, children and cream of Muslim intelligentsia surrounded from all sides, helpless and in immediate danger of being ruthlessly killed. Muslim military disarmed and Brigadier Khoda Bux, Jammu Canton­ment, relieved by Hindu Brigadier. If immediate help is not made, all will b; butchered. Persistent bigger tragedy than East Punjab. Pray for immediately without losing a second, or if nothing else is possible, kindly arrange evacua­tion of Jammu Muslims through Pakistan armies. Most urgent."

This was followed by another telegram of the same descrip­tion, which need not be read. Here is a telegram from the City Muslim Conference, Jammu, which again was sent from Sialkot, to the G->vernor-G:n3raI at Karachi, 22 October, the last day on which the raid started at the other end. The telegram reads as follows:

"Previous telegrams unheeded. Ten thousand Muslim refugees gathered Rosin factory Miransahib. All butchered by the Dogra military, after assurance from the Kashmir Premier for safety. Within fifteen miles radius of Jammu City, all Muslims, including women, children, officials, killed. Number of killed over 40,000. Organized killing continues.

1. Armed bands-

Attacks on Jammu City Muslims started. Over 350 mosques burned. Bonfires Holy Korans made. Muslim officials and officers being hunted and killed."

This was the picture seen from 20 September to 22 October, •and I was astounded when the representative of India said yesterday—no doubt on the basis of information supplied; he would not know the facts himself—that no killing of Muslims had taken place before the 2nd—as a matter of fact before the 4th. He said that 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 in Kashmir. Is it not then preposterous to suggest," he said, "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?"

I leave it to the Security Council to decide whether these killings were the cause or the consequences of the raid.

I now come to my last observations. That is the situation, but the situation must be remedied. That is what the Security Council is concerned with. I have had to take up the time of the Security Council to give it the picture as it is.

On the one side, it was said to be an aggressive raid on the territory of Kashmir to coerce that State to join Pakistan; that it carried everything before it; that there was looting, arson and so on; that Indian troops were there legitimately. Kashmir being a part of India's territory—which we do not for one moment accept; and the Indian Government says, "We ask the Security Council to direct the Pakistan Government to stop the infiltration of the tribes into Kashmir through Pakistan territory." That is to say, a state of affairs should be brought about in which the Indian Army should be able to put down and to crush this movement in Kashmir, which it does not admit, but which is admitted throughout the accounts of all neutrals, and even in the statement of Sheikh Abdullah himself, so that the Indian Government can have the whole of the Kashmir State within the hollow of its hands.

On the other side, the picture is of a movement for libera­tion and freedom started by the people of Kashmir itself in sheer desperation against the tyranny and persecution which they had for so long suffered, and which had culminated in all these horrors and iniquities to which I have drawn attention. No doubt these people have the sympathy of the Muslims of West Pakistan, of the Muslims of the North West Frontier Province, of the Muslims of the tribal areas, and are able to help them get through. There is an account from the tribes themselves that they mostly have to take their route through the State of Swat. But however they get through, the question is how to resolve this situation. The question is not how to enable the Indian Army to take possession of the whole of Kashmir and to do what it likes there, but how to-resolve the situation.

Briefly, the situation can only be resolved along the follow­ing lines, whatever the details may be. Considering that it is mainly the population of Kashmir that is fighting, it must be completely assured, and effective guarantees must be given, that Muslims will not be persecuted and oppressed and that the people of the State shall decide their own constitution and the shape of their Government.

Assurances must be given and fulfilled that Indian troops and outsiders shall withdraw; this assurance must be given in order that law and order may be restored. If that assurance is given, it would go a very long way towards bringing about a cessation of the conditions that prevail today. All outsiders, that is to say, the Sikhs and Hindus who are coming from outside, the Muslims who may not be fighting but who come from outside for any sincere purpose, shali withdraw, and all those w! o have been compelled to leave the State of Kashmir and who are citizens of Kashmir shall be permitted to return. In order to enable a free choice to be made by the people of Kashmir in the matter of accession, that is, whether they will accede to Pakistan or whether they will accede to India, a neutral and impartial administration shall be set up. Assurance must be given to that effect.

Here is Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the beloved leader of the people of Kashmir. I have analyzed that position to some extent. He is at the head of the Kashmir administration; it is impartial; it is neutral. I shall draw attention only to two statements of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in this connexon.

In the Hindustan Times of Delhi of 12 November 1947, he is reported as saying: "There may not be a referendum at all after this disaster at Baramulla, Uri, Pattan and Muzaffarabad

and other places. After what has happened in these places, the people of Kashmir may not bother about a referendum."

Obviously Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah's position reflected only those people of Kashmir who were with him. But what about the people of Kashmir who were fighting at these very

places, and were still fighting under the Azad Kashmir Government?       

Even more extreme is the statement in the Hindustan Times of New Delhi of 27 December 1947 from its correspondent at Indore, the capital of one of the Indian States in Central India. This statement is dated 25 December. It reads as follows: "Speaking at a mass Praja Mandal rally, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah declared that Kashmir has finally resolved to remain with India, ruled by the Kashmir Jewel, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Pakistan can conquer Kashmir only after each and every Kashmiri has dedicated his life to fighting with Pakistan."

That is what Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah has put forward as a head of a "neutral" organization, which has suggested that, under his auspices, a plebiscite might be held. This plebis­cite can be observed, if you like, by international observers. All that the international observers could accomplish would be to see that, at the polling places, nobody was clubbed or otherwise coerced. How could these observers ensure that the adminis­tration has not already accomplished its purpose, by all sorts of means which are familiar in many parts of the world, that certain people, when they go to the polls, shall vote only one way? When the head of the Administration has announced that so long as a single Kashmiri is active, Kashmir shall accede to India and to nobody else, that statement at least applies to him; so long as he is alive, Kashmir shall accede to India.

Therefore, under a neutral administration or under United Nations observation, whatever is preferred, a plebiscite ought to be held as to whether Kashmir shall accede to India or Pakistan. It is only insurance and guarantees along these lines that would make it possible to stop the fighting.

I have given the Security Council the reasons, the pictures and the roots of this situation. It is the evil that is there today which has to be cleaned out, and I have suggested the only way of cleaning it out. In any such scheme, Pakistan will fully cooperate to whatever extent it is called upon to do so. I will be eager to do so. We consider it an honour to do so in order to bring peace and order to that part of the world.

The system of consecutive interpretation was suggested at this

1. (SCOR, 3rd Year, Mtg. No. 235, pp. 228-255)