24011948 Text of the Speech of Mr. Noel Baker, Representative of the United Kingdom in the Security Council Meeting held on 24 January 1948
24011948 Text of the Speech of Mr. Noel Baker, Representative of the United Kingdom in the Security Council Meeting held on 24 January 1948
We have heard statements from the two parties in this case. Much has been inscribed in the record of the Security Council which, if history itself could be rewritten, both parties would desire to expunge. Having heard the parties, I want, with equal understanding, with equal friendship, and, if they will allow me to say so, with equal love for both, as a member of the Security Council, sharing our collective responsibility to mankind, to ask the question: What ought the Security Council now to do? I hope we shall fasten our attention on the constructive parts of what our colleagues from India and Pakistan have said.
I am not suggesting that we can brush aside the rest of their statements, or that in seeking a solution we can neglect the causes from which the present conflict came. On the contrary, we must make provision concerning those causes in all that we propose. But we must try to put what we have heard in its true perspective, and then to see whether it is worth going on, and what hope we have that a full and fair settlement can now be made.
It is my profound conviction that both Governments really want to reach a settlement, and that, therefore, a fair adjustment can be made. The representative of Pakistan last week and again today, and the representative of India when he opened the matter and again yesterday, gave us their accounts of how the communal troubles happened over the last two years. I do not intend to discuss the tragic features to which they drew attention. To my mind the process of causation is still wrapped in mystery. No doubt these troubles came out of history, and I hope they will soon disappear into history again. The interest of everyone is to forget the past and to concentrate on the future.
I do not minimize the terrible events that have occurred, the loss of life or the suffering of the refugees. Nevertheless, it is true, and is no accident, that 95 per cent of the Sub-Continent was unaffected, and that, even where disorders took place, there were great and successful efforts by both Governments to get them under control. Communal passions had been inflamed in Punjab and in Delhi, and mob violence broke loose, mob violence with unlimited ammunition and automatic weapons. At moments it appeared that the whole fabric of government might break down and the rule of law collapse. The events in Delhi were only the most dangerous example of what happened elsewhere, but the two Governments brought things under control and, in so doing, their leaders displayed great physical and moral courage. Day after day in Delhi Pandit Nehru risked his life to stop the troubles and to save the Muslims. The Prime Ministers of India and of Pakistan went out together. They conducted joint campaigns and made joint appeals, and I think that both Governments showed great statesmanship and resolution of no ordinary kind. In the end they succeeded in getting their armies, and then their police, to do their duty. They punished those who attacked the trains and convoys, they re-established discipline and law, and restored the convoys and camps to reasonable order. By far the most important, they began to exercise the satanic passions aroused by fear, and to revive the spirit so truly characteristic of India and Pakistan: the spirit of human charity, mutual help and the protection of the sufferers on either side.
I remember with what infinite relief, sitting in my office in London, I received the first telegrams which told us that the spirit of charity had begun once more to revive. The two Governments did this by co-operation. They resolved to stop the killings, and they were determined to prevent their troubles leading to war. They found that the troubles had caused a mass movement of refugees. As the representative of Pakistan has said today, 10 million people displaced from their homes constitute a vast mass of human suffering. I know the kind of difficulties it creates: I worked for Nansen "after the last war in the exchange of population between Greece and Turkey, and helped to resettle 2 million refugees, I followed their movement, their settlement, and the results over many years. The problems are innumerable and infinitely complex. They have not been solved in India and Pakistan, but I say, knowing something about it, that those in charge—and the leader of the Indian delegation is the Minister responsible for that work—have already achieved quite remarkable results.
I am referring to the protection of the crops and the resettlement of the refugees in productive rank. It is only a beginning, but it is a good beginning. In 95 per cent of the Sub-Continent, troubles did not occur at points of danger where grave incidents had happened before. By wise statesmanship and vigorous action, they were held in check. At the time of the greatest crisis, when the wave of communal strife was sweeping forward, the two Governments worked together until, after grave disasters, they brought the madness under control. Therefore, that was a great achievement.
It is not the only one. They have reached agreement on other problems which were caused by partition, such as the financial settlement. This does not concern only the division of the cash balances. There are many other matters of great complexity, and of vital economic importance to both countries on which the interests of the two Governments might seem to be diametrically opposed and for which an arbitral tribunal had been set up. As to the division of military stores, there were difficulties which were caused partly by transport. I was a member of our Ministry of Transport during the war, and I know the difficulties involved in the transport of military stores. According to the last messages which I received, those difficulties had been overcome.
Therefore, I think that, if we view these events in their true perspective, we must admit that although both Governments, like human beings, made mistakes, and some people on both sides preached dangerous ideas, the evidence discloses that it was not the Governments which were to blame. The two Governments faced more disagreements than any other two new Governments had ever faced before in trying to establish their States and administrations- The evidence further discloses that after long weeks, when difficulties threatened to overwhelm these two Governments, they mastered those problems and came very close to full agreement and co-operation on every question.
About six weeks ago I reported to my cabinet colleagues that the situation had improved enormously, that Kashmir was the chief outstanding issue, and that, in the spirit of the situation as it then existed, I had reason to believe that the Governments wanted to settle and would settle their problems. I still believe that they can. That is the first lesson which I have learned from the history of the last few months.
The second lesson, which is the reverse of what I have said, is that, in spite of their efforts to work together, the Kashmir business brought these Governments very close to war. Three weeks ago, when this appeal was made, both Governments thought that at any moment war might begin. As long as the present fighting in Kashmir continues, then, as the Indian representative stated yesterday afternoon, there is a danger that the area of conflict will be enlarged and that almost by "accident", to use his word, the parties may drift into war.
The third lesson to be learned from the last few months is that, if war happens, it may be the most terrible conflict in the history of mankind. I ask the parties and the Security Council to consider what this conflict would mean to the armies, the officers and the men who participate in it. Six months ago there was a single Army with a century of comradeship-in-arms behind it. In this last war, its men had a superb record of achievements in every theatre and in every battle against the Nazis. At their farewell gatherings, when the Army was being divided, they wept over the separation.
What would such a conflict mean to the peoples there? It would mean that communal strife would begin again. There are almost 40 million Muslims in India, and many non-Muslims on the other side. There would be no armies to help check the troubles. They would be locked in battle at the front. The tribesmen might come down not in tens, but in hundreds of thousands. They might be a mortal danger to both Governments. The imagination is baffled at what might happen. A sub-continental war would be an unbelievable disaster for the new Asia on which such hopes of progress are now pinned. It would be a disaster no less grave for all of us. It would retard our post-war reconstruction. For the United Nations, it would be a bitter defeat.
I ask the delegations for what reason would this war be fought? What is really at stake today in Jammu and Kashmir? What is it that the two Governments care about? What are they seeking to promote? It is not territorial aggrandizement; it is not the addition of population; it is not new sources of wealth for exploitation; it is not the false glory of victory by arras; it is not the old pernicious mirage of national prestige. Those are all discredited nineteenth century imperialistic ideas. The stake in Kashmir, what both Governments want, is the happiness, the peace and the prosperity of their people— Muslim and non-Muslim alike. They want their people to be five, to worship and to be governed as they desire. How could that purpose justify a war? How could war promote that purpose?
Kashmir has a population of 4 million. They are now suffering the anguish and destruction which fighting always brings. If the conflict spreads and continues, it will take a generation for them to recover. Kashmir has a population of 4 million. From our office in the Empire State Building we look out over the homes of over twice that number. Four million is a lot of people, but they are 1 percent of the population of the Sub-Continent. They will need a generation to recover if war occurs. What about the other 99 percent of the population? They will suffer the ruin I have described.
I have here with me to act as advisors to two great military men, Lord Ismay, who was on Mr. Churchill's staff during the war, and General Schoones, who commanded in Burma in our desperate campaign. They tell me that in their view, after studying military history, wars very rarely produce the results for which they were begun. In this case war would destroy the purpose of the Governments altogether.
The alternative to war is agreement in the Security Council. Both parties have told us they want peace with justice. Both have told us they want the will of the people of Kashmir to prevail. The representative of India stated this yesterday, and the representative of Pakistan stated it today. Our task is to formulate a plan by which that can be done. Let us press forward with that work.
As from today, let the President of the Security Council confer with the parties, and let them be a drafting committee of the Security Council. Let them go forward from the preliminary agreements which the President recorded in his report the other pay. Let them bring us a plan in outline, if it may be, by Monday next. It is only by agreement that the Governments-can avert common dangers which threaten them both. It is to their overwhelming material interest to agree. To the peoples of India and Pakistan, with their age-old cultures, their philosophy and their spiritual power, it is much more than a material interest that is at stake.
A distinguished leader in their struggle for independence-said a year or two ago: "We in the Sub-Continent have to live-together. Let us he in brotherhood and peace. If we do not-so live, nature will make us suffer, and after great sufferings we-will have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that those whom God united nobody can separate. Any Hindu who offends a Muslim, is doing injustice to his own community and country, and any Muslim who offends a Hindu is destroying his religion and the freedom of his country."
That great prophet, Mahatma Gandhi, who has just rendered-such supreme service not only to India and Pakistan but also,. 1 think, to all mankind, built the independence movement on the principle of non-violence against the British. I refuse to, believe that the free Governments of India and Pakistan cannot apply that principle to their own relations. I am convinced that the statesmanship which brought this matter to the Security Council will bring the Security Council to success.
- doubt, to reach agreement, both sides must make concessions, but in the Security Council parties make concessions not to each other but to mankind. In the Security Council all of us have one overwhelming interest: that truth and justice shall prevail.
(SCOR, 3rd Year, Mtg. No. 235, pp. 256-260)