01031951 Text of the Speech made by Sir Benegal N. Rau (India) in the Security Council Meeting No. 533 held on 1 March 1951
01031951 Text of the Speech made by Sir Benegal N. Rau (India) in the Security Council Meeting No. 533 held on 1 March 1951
This case has been before the Security Council so often and so long that I shall not weary representatives by repeating in detail the facts or the arguments upon which India relies. They are fully set out in the two speeches which I made in this Council last year [463rd and 466th meetings]; but for the information of the new members of the Council, I shall mention briefly the most salient facts,
On 20 October 1947 the State-by which I mean the State of Jammu and Kashmir-was invaded by hostile elements, in contravention of international law, as mentioned by Sir Oves Dixon in paragraph 21 of his report to which I invite the attention of representatives. Those invaders consisted of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals entering the State through or from Pakistan territory.
On 26 October 1947, the Ruler executed an instrument of accession to India in order to save the State from the invader The accession was supported by Sheikh Abdullah, the head of the Jammu and Kashmir Conference, a predominantly Moslem, though non-communal, political organization which had long been fighting for democracy in Kashmir.
On 27 October 1947, Lord Mountbatten, then Governor General of India, accepted the instrument. The execution of the instrument by the Ruler, coupled with its acceptance by the Governor-General, completed the legal requirements of accession. Lord Mountbatten, however, wrote to the Ruler expressing the Government of India's wish that when law and order had been restored and the soil of the State cleared of the invader, the question of accession should be settled by a reference to the people. Thus India voluntarily imposed upon itself the obligation, when normal conditions were restored, to give the people the right to decide whether they would remain in India or not.
On 1 January 1948 India brought the present case before the Security Council complaining that Pakistan was assisting the invaders [S/1100, annex 28]. Pakistan emphatically denied the allegation, but as it appears presently, the complaint-and more than the complaint-has been proved to be true. I hope this fact will be borne in mind-that in the present case India is the complainant and that the complaint has been proved to be true, not only as originally laid out but in an aggravated form. On 8 May 1948 units of the regular Pakistan forces moved into the territory of the State in contravention of international law. Again I invite the attention of representatives to paragraph
21 of Sir Owen Dixon's report. One of the grounds for this military operation was a recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan that an easy victory for the Indian Army was almost certain to arouse the anger of the invading tribesmen against Pakistan "for its failure to render them more direct assistance" [464th meeting]
Thus Pakistan, not content with assisting the invader, itself became an invader and its army is still occupying a large part of the soil of Kashmir, thus committing a continuing breach of international law. Pakistan has not only occupied large areas of Kashmir in this way, but has also built up subversive local forces and authorities in those areas.
I should like at this stage to try to remove some of the misconceptions and prejudices that appear to have gathered around this subject. The Kashmir question is not a Hindu Moslem question as so often represented or misrepresented. It is said, "India is a Hindu State; Pakistan is a Moslem State; Kashmir is predominantly Moslem and therefore belongs to Pakistan; India is trying to retain it by force." That is how the argument is presented to those who are far away from the facts. Let me repeat some of those facts. Even after the separation. of Pakistan, India still has a Moslem population of some 40 million-the third largest of any State in the world. I believe Indonesia comes first, with something like 70 million Moslems; Pakistan next, with about 66 million, well over half in East Pakistan, which is about 1,000 miles from Kashmir; and India comes third, with about 40 million. I have taken those figures from The Population of India and Pakistan by Kingsley Davis, a Princeton University publication of 1951. Apart from mere numbers, it is important to remember that India is a secular state, with a "Bill of Rights" providing for equality before the law, freedom for discrimination, freedom of religion and various other rights enforceable by direct recourse to the Supreme Court. Every reasonable safeguard which could be devised for the protection of racial or religious minorities has been embodied in the Indian Constitution now in force. The present governmental structure in India is significant. The Prime Minister of India is a Hindu; the deputy leader, who is also Education Minister, is a Moslem; so too is the Minister of Communications; the Defence Minister is a Sikb; the Health Minister is a Christian, and the members of the Security Council may be interested to learn she is a woman; the Law Minister and the Minister of Labour are members of the scheduled castes. The nine governors of the States in India include a Moslem, a Christian and a Parsee; the elected Speaker of the largest State Legislature in India is a Moslem; our Ambassadors include two Moslems; the Supreme Court of India includes a Moslem judge and a Christian judge; the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court is a Moslem; our fighting forces include Moslems-one of them a general.
So much for India. And as to Kashmir-I am speaking of the lawful government of Kashmir-there is a cabinet of seven the Prime Minister, Sheikh Abdullah, is a Moslem and four of his colleagues are Moslems; thus three-fourths of the cabinet is Moslem. It is this cabinet-predominantly Moslem-that is administering Kashmir affairs today. It represents an organization, namely, the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, also predominantly Moslem, which has been fighting for democracy and freedom for decades, and this organization desires that Kashmir should remain in India. For this desire, it has given cogent and impressive reasons. I am quoting from a declaration made by a convention of the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference in October 1948:
"During the long and glorious struggle for our freedom, our people have gained the experience that the real problem facing them is the plight of the people, irrespective of caste, creed and colour, and that the solution to this problem does not lie in dividing the people on a religious basis but by equitable distribution of national wealth. Pakistan, with its basis of the two-nation theory and its insistence on the perpetuation of religious distinctions, does not and cannot accommodate a programme and an outlook which is the very negation of its basis and conception of social justice. The convention strongly hopes that the Indian Government and the people of India will lend the people of Kashmir all material, moral and political support in completing this task and in achieving the goal of economic and political freedom.``
Reference has been made in the course of Sir Owen Dixon's report and in some of the speeches in this Council to India's rejection of this or that proposal, and an impression might have been created that India has been intransigent. On analysis, this so-called intransigence will be found to be no more than an insistence on pledges already given to India, particularly on questions relating to the security of Kashmir. The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan's resolutions of August 1948 and January 1949 [S/1100, S/1196], agreed to by all parties, contain adequate provision for a free and impartial plebiscite under United Nations auspices, and the Government of India cannot make any further concessions. The Government of India merely reflects Indian public opinion. And on this question of Kashmir, Indian public opinion cannot forget the fundamental facts, namely, that India voluntarily offered a plebiscite under United Nations auspices, that in spite of this, Pakistan chose to invade the State and occupy nearly half of it by force in violation of international law, as Sir Owen Dixon himself has found; that to allow this occupation or its fruits to continue is wrong enough; and that to grant Pakistan any further concessions would be to aggravate the wrong and therefore would be completely unjustifiable.
The Council may better appreciate the position if I were to cite a rough parallel. The island of Cyprus, once under Turkish suzerainty, is now British territory. Nearly 80 percent of the population is Greek; it is said that they desire union with Greece. So far, the United Kingdom Government has not agreed to any plebiscite; but suppose it should be so generous as to agree to a plebiscite under United Nations auspices. Having got this concession, suppose-if I may make so unlikely and unfair a supposition-Greece were to move an army into Cyprus and occupy half the island for several years and then say, "The plebiscite must be held with half the island under Greek local authorities; the British security forces must be removed; even the British administration must be supplanted." Does anyone doubt how the United Kingdom would view such an attitude?
The question now before the Council concerns the next step. The United Kingdom and the United States of America have jointly sponsored a draft resolution [S/2017] embodying their proposals as to what should be done next. In order to help the Council to consider this question, I shall try, very briefly, to describe the situation which exists in Kashmir at present.
The Kashmir case has now been before the Security Council for more than three years. No solution has yet been found, because the root-cause of the trouble, namely, the unlawful occupation of nearly half the State and the creation of subversive forces and authorities therein by Pakistan, has been allowed to continue. When I speak of Pakistan's unlawful occupation, I am expressing not only the view of my government, but also the view which the United Nations representative, Sir Owen Dixon, was prepared to adopt. Let me quote his own words:
"Without going into the causes or reasons why it happened, which presumably formed part of the history of the sub continent, I was prepared to adopt the view that when the frontier of the State of Jammu and Kashmir was crossed on, I believe, 20 October 1947, by hostile elements, it was contrary to international law, and that when in May 1948, as I believe, units of the regular Pakistan forces moved into the territory of the State, that too was inconsistent with international law" [S/1791, para, 21].
So long as the root-cause of the trouble continues, there can be no solution to the problem. Meanwhile, the Government of this State has to be carried on in accordance with law, if there is to be no anarchy or chaos. The present legal position is that Kashmir-by which I mean the State of Jammu and Kashmir-is a unit of the Indian Federation, subject to federal jurisdiction in respect of the broad categories of defence, external affairs and communications, but completely autonomous in almost all other matters. In the autonomous sphere, the State is entitled to frame its own constitution and for this purpose, to convene a constituent assembly of its own people. The main purpose of the constituent assembly would be to provide a proper elected legislature for the State to which the executive could be made responsible, as in the British parliamentary system of government. So far as the Government of India is concerned, the constituent assembly is not intended to prejudice the issues before the Security Council, or to come in its way.
Pending the framing of a new constitution for the State by its own constituent assembly, the government is necessarily carried on under the existing Constitution as a provisional arrangement. Yuvaraj is the constitutional head of the State, acting upon the advice of a Council of Ministers. As already mentioned, the Prime Minister is Sheikh Abdullah, a Moslem, and there are six other Ministers, of whom four are Moslems and two Hindus. There is a High Court for the State, consisting of a Chief Justice and two other judges, the Chief Justice and one of the judges being members of the English bar. There is not yet an elected legislature in Kashmir. The constituent assembly already mentioned is intended mainly to address this deficiency.
The provisional or interim government mentioned above has been functioning in Kashmir from the beginning of March 1948. During those three years, it has done a good deal of useful work notwithstanding the unsettled conditions created by the tribal and Pakistan invasions. One of its most important reforms has been the abolition of absentee landlordism. Briefly, landlords owning more than about twenty acres of agricultural land have to surrender the excess to the actual tiller of the soil in return for compensation to be paid to the landlord by the government. The tiller becomes the full owner of the land transferred to him. The result of this reform has been radically to change the outlook of the peasant, to substantially increase his income from the land, and to encourage him to adopt improved methods of cultivation, thereby raising his standard of living. It should be noted that the peasantry forms 97 per cent of the population. The reform is being affected gradually and without any violent transition. It is in line with similar reforms now in progress in India.
Moreover, in the two years 1948 to 1950, nearly 30,000 acres of waste land were allotted to landless peasants. Efforts are in progress to make available a further area of about 20,000 acres in the Kashmir Valley. As a result of these measures, an increase of about 10,000 tons in the annual production of food grains in the State is anticipated.
An Irrigation Department has been set up, and several old and new canals have been either restored or constructed, much of the new land being brought under cultivation.
In the educational sphere, the Jammu and Kashmir University was established in 1948 and has been functioning successfully ever since. Two new colleges have been opened in the interior of the State to serve rural and backward areas, and a special college for girls has been started in Srinagar, which is the summer capital of the State. Infant schools, based on an Indianized form of the Montessori system, have been reorganized at sixty different places.
Several crores of rupees have already been spent by the State, in addition to 42 lakhs of rupees-about $800,000 given by the Government of India, on the relief and rehabilitation of refugees.
To relieve agriculturists and other workers from the burden of chronic indebtedness, Debt Conciliation Boards have been set up to scale down debts and to wipe them out where one and one-half times the principal has already been paid.
A large State Transport Department has been created, owning a fleet of about 500 vehicles, thus removing the danger of shortage of essential commodities which lack of transport at one time threatened. Considerable progress has been made in promoting public health, industries, co-operatives, rationing through co-operative societies, and so on.
I have thought it desirable to give this picture of general conditions based on one of the latest reports of the Kashmir Government in order to show that, in spite of the difficulties created by the tribal and Pakistan invasions, the present regime in Kashmir has been functioning with credit during the last three years. My intention also is to emphasize the human aspect of the problem. The people of Kashmir are not mere chattels to be disposed of according to a rigid formula; their future must be decided in their own interests and in accordance with their own desires. The population of the State is gradually settling down to some measure of peace and order. Any neutral visitor to Kashmir-and there are many such during the tourist season-can satisfy himself as to the facts of the situation. Let me now turn to Sir Owen Dixon's recommendations in the final paragraphs of his report:
"The whole question has now been thoroughly discussed by the parties with the Security Council, the Commission and myself, and the possible methods of settlement have been exhaustively investigated. It is perhaps best that the initiative should now pass back to the parties. At all events I am not myself prepared to recommend any further course of action on the part of the Security Council for the purpose of assisting the parties to settle between them how the State of Jammu and Kashmir is to be disposed of...I recommend that the Security Council should press the parties to reduce the military strength holding the cease-fire line to the normal protection of a peace-time frontier" (S/1791, paras. 104 and 107).
In connexion with the last recommendation, I may mention that India has already reduced its forces by 20 to 25 per cent, without waiting for any corresponding reduction by Pakistan, May I point out that under the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan adopted in August 1948 and January 1949, which both parties accepted, it was for Pakistan to begin to withdraw its army first and only thereafter was India to begin to reduce its own forces. Nevertheless, as I have said, India has begun the process without waiting for Pakistan, and India is prepared to continue the process if Pakistan, on its part, will withdraw its army from the State.
When, as I have tried to show, the State is gradually settling down to some kind of ordered life, the Security Council might do worse than to follow Sir Owen Dixon's advice and let the initiative now pass back to the parties. Within the last few days, the Governments of India and Pakistan have signed a trade agreement in spite of great difficulties; left to themselves, they may be expected in due course to come to agreement in other matters also. The representative of the United States has in his speech [532nd meeting] emphasized his Government's firm belief that "there can be no real and lasting settlement of the Kashmir dispute which is not acceptable to both parties. In this connexion, members of the Security Council will be " interested in a Press report dated 20 February from Karachi, to the effect that Sardar Ibrahim Khan, former head of the so-called Azad Kashmir Government, has expressed the view that all Indo-Pakistan disputes, including Kashmir, could be settled by India and Pakistan between themselves by mutual discussion.
Nevertheless, departing from these recommendations of Sir Owen Dixon, the United Kingdom and United States of America have placed before us the draft resolution contained in document S/2017, dated 21 February 1951. It is not necessary for me to deal with that draft resolution in any great detail. The preamble refers to a proposal to convene a constituent assembly for Kashmir. I have already explained the purpose of the constituent assembly-namely, to frame a constitution for Kashmir and, in particular, to provide an elected legislature to which the executive could be made responsible. It is not meant to come in the way of the Security Council.
For the rest, my government is wholly unable to accept the draft resolution, because in many respects it runs counter to decisions previously taken by the United Nations Commission with the agreement of the parties. Let me mention one instance, I have already given the Security Council a brief account of the situation created by the invasion of the State, first by tribesmen and then by Pakistan. In spite of that situation and in the hope of securing a peaceful settlement, India agreed, upon certain assurances, to two resolutions of the Commission-one of August 1948 and the other of January 1949. Pakistan also agreed to them ultimately. I shall now show how the present draft resolution departs materially from the provisions of those resolutions.
Under the resolution of August 1948, Pakistan was to withdraw its troops completely from the State and India was to withdraw the bulk of its forces-not all its forces, but the bulk of its forces-a small portion being left in the State to ensure its security. To remove any suspicion that even this small portion might interfere with the freedom of the plebiscite, the following provision was made in the resolution of January 1949: "...the Plebiscite Administrator will determine, in consultation with the Government of India, the final disposal of Indian and State armed forces, such disposal to be with due regard to the security of the State and the freedom of the plebiscite."
India was and is prepared to take, in consultation with the Plebiscite Administrator, all measures that may be necessary to prevent the presence of any such forces from interfering with the freedom of the plebiscite. This could be done in a number of ways-for example, stationing the forces in localities outside centres of civilian population and confining them to barracks during the plebiscite.
Thus, these two resolutions made provision not merely for the withdrawal or reduction of armed forces but also for the freedom of the plebiscite consistently with the requirements of security. Members of the Council will please remember that these resolutions were agreed to by all the parties. Nevertheless, Sir Owen Dixon was somehow led to make proposals for demilitarization which seriously departed from the above agreed scheme. At one point, he asked for the withdrawal of the forces of the regular Indian Army, despite the above resolutions. never contemplated its complete withdrawal. At another point, be suggested various purposes for which Pakistan troops might be retained in the State, although the above resolutions clearly provided for their complete withdrawal. One of these purposes was said to be to ensure the fulfilment of the obligation of Pakistan not to permit tribesmen or other raiders to enter the Kashmir Valley. Considering that the Pakistan Army moved into the State in order to give "more direct assistance" to the tribesmen, members of the Council can easily imagine how the alleged purpose was likely to be fulfilled.
I may perhaps point out at this stage that the obligation of Pakistan under the resolution of August 1948 was to secure the withdrawal of tribesmen from the entire State, and not merely to prevent their entry into the Kashmir Valley. The draft resolution before the Security Council instructs the new United Nations representative to effect demilitarization on the basis of Sir Owen Dixon's proposals with such modifications as the new representative may deem advisable. As I have already pointed out, these proposals go back on the agreed resolutions of August 1948 and January 1949-the changes being all in favour of the Pakistan Army which had entered the State in contravention of international law and against the Indian Army which had lawfully entered the State to repel invasion. My Government is wholly unable to accept these proposals as a basis, nor can it agree to vest a new representative with the power of decision in such a vital matter.
I shall not discuss the details of the new draft resolution any further. It picks out certain parts of previous resolutions, leaving out other parts to which we have throughout attached the greatest importance and which were specifically accepted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. We are not prepared to go back on all that has been done by the United Nations Commission, and subsequently, with our agreement.
We are wholly unable to accept any entry of foreign troops in the State or in any other part of India. In view of the provision made by the resolutions of August 1948 and January 1949, there is no occasion for the use of foreign troops or of special local levies recruited by any outside agency. Nor, in view of the detailed provisions contained in the resolution of January 1949 to ensure a fair and impartial plebiscite, can we accept any supersession of the lawful government of the State or any interference with its normal functions.
Let me read out some of the detailed provisions in the contained resolution of January 1949:
"The Plebiscite Administrator shall derive from the State of Jammu and Kashmir the powers he considers necessary for organizing and conducting the plebiscite and for ensuring the freedom and impartiality of the plebiscite.
"...the Plebiscite Administrator will determine, in consultation with the Government of India, the final disposal of Indian and State armed forces, such disposal to be with due regard to the security of the State and the freedom of the plebiscite.
"All civil and military authorities within the State and the principal political elements of the State will be required to cooperate with the Plebiscite Administrator in the preparation for and the holding of the plebiscite.
"All authorities within the State of Jammu and Kashmir will undertake to ensure, in collaboration with the Plebiscite Administrator, that:
"(a) There is no threat, coercion or intimidation, bribery or other undue influence on the voters in the plebiscite;
"(b) No restrictions are placed on legitimate political activity throughout the State. All subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste or party, shall be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan. There shall be freedom of the Press, speech and assembly and freedom of travel in the State, including freedom of lawful entry and exit;
"(c) All political prisoners are released;
Discussion of the India-Pakistan Question 329
"(d) Minorities in all parts of the State are accorded adequate protection; and
"(c) There is no victimization."
These are some of the detailed provisions contained in the resolution of January 1949, provisions which were accepted by both parties.
It was clearly stated on behalf of the United Nations Commission that the Plebiscite Administrator could be expected to act reasonably and that the Commission did not intend that he should usurp the functions of the State in the field of normal administration and of law and order. The sovereignty of the entire State must necessarily vest in the lawful government of the State and because of this, it was stipulated that the Plebiscite Administrator should be formally appointed by the State Government. All this was recognized by the United Nations Commission.
There is a tendency in certain quarters to assume that this is just a dispute between India and Pakistan, and that the views of the lawful government of Kashmir need not be considered. This is a mistaken assumption. As I have already said, the authority of the Government of India over the Government of Kashmir is limited to certain subjects; outside that sphere, it can only advise and cannot impose any decision.
While the draft resolution before us refers to the proposal for the convening of a Constituent Assembly, it makes no mention of the persistent and ever-mounting propaganda in Pakistan threatening war and urging a jihad, or holy war. Both India and Pakistan are mildly exhorted in the draft resolution to take all possible measures to ensure the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations. Surely the sponsors of the draft resolution will agree that the constant incitement to war based on an appeal to bigotry and religious passion is bound to vitiate the atmosphere for negotiation.
While my government stands by all its commitments, it insists that all the commitments made to India contained in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan and the connected assurances must also be honoured. The present draft resolution unsettles what has already been settled, and, if passed, would amount to a repudiation by the Security Council of the United Nations Commission's decisions previously made with the agreement of the parties, and of the Commission's assurances given to India.
This is all I have to say at the present stage, but I shall, of course, reserve the right to speak again in case any fresh points arise.