29051951 Text of the speech made by Mr. Bokhari {Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 548 held on 29 May 1951.
29051951 Text of the speech made by Mr. Bokhari {Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 548 held on 29 May 1951.
I am grateful to the President for giving me an opportunity to submit the views of the Government of Pakistan to the Security Council on this occasion. I have noted the wishes of the President with regard to the limitations of the present discussion, and I assure him that 1 shall respect them fully in my statement.
The two letters, dated 4 May 1951 and signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, and the other dated 8 May 1951 and signed by myself, both addressed to the President, which are for the Security Council's consideration, appear as documents S/2119 and S/2M5 respectively. In the first letter, the attention of the Security Council has been drawn to a proclamation issued by the Yuvaraja of Jammu and Kashmir for convening a constituent assembly in the State. The second letter brings to the notice of the members of the Security Council an extract from a speech delivered by the Prime Minister of Indian-occupied Kashmir which reveals that the purpose of the Maharaja's Government in convening the said constituent assembly is to decide the future shape and affiliation of Kashmir, defiantly declaring that no power can veto the decision of the proposed constituent assembly-
The contents of the Yuvaraja's proclamation and the utterance of Sheikh Abdullah, to which the attention of the Security Council has been drawn, have appeared in the Press, including the Indian Press. There has been no denial of the accuracy of these reports and no statement by the Indian authorities has appeared which should cast doubt upon them. It can therefore be safely assumed that the facts are as stated in our two letters to the President of the Security Council.
The subject of these two letters is by no means new to the Security Council. The attempt to convoke a constituent assembly in the India-held part of Kashmir and the grave threat to the prospects of a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute which lies in such an unwise, undemocratic and defiant manoeuvre have been thoroughly discussed by the Security Council. It is a thousand pity that the Security Council has to turn its attention again to this matter and that this time it has to do so because its appeals, warnings, requests—whatever one likes to call them—to the Government of India have been ignored.
- plan to convoke a constituent assembly was brought to the notice of the Security Council as early as 14 December 195O in a letter to the President of the Security Council from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan [Si 1942]. The representative of the United Kingdom, in his intervention on 21 February 1951 (532nd meetings), found it difficult to reconcile the action contemplated in the Kashmir National Conference resolution with the agreement "already enshrined" as he said "in the two Kashmir Commission resolutions'' which, he pointed out, provided for settlement of the future accession of the State by a fair and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. He added:
"••my Government has felt some anxiety lest the Kashmir State authorities should embark on some kind of independent action which would be a challenge, as we felt, to the authority of the Security Council and of the United Nations "
Ambassador Ernest Gross, speaking on the same day, was "impressed by the sober anxiety which Sir Gladwyn Jebb voiced on this matter" and in particular associated his Government with the statement of the representative of the United Kingdom that :
"••no reference to the wishes of the people of Kashmir regarding the future accession of the State made other than under the auspices and with the full consent of the United Nations can be regarded as constituting a settlement acceptable to this Council."
It was hoped that the representative of India would reassure the Council that the device of a constituent assembly to evade an international agreement and to deny the right of self-determination to the people of Kashmir would not be Proceeded with. He did indeed say that so far as his Government was concerned, the constituent assembly was not intended to Prejudice issues before the Security Council or to come in its way [533 meeting] But this so clearly contradicted the statements made by the Prime Minister of India and Sheikh Abdullah, from which excerpts were read before the Council {534th meeting], that the representative of India was constrained to modify his previous statement and to say that while the constituent assembly might, if it so desired, express an opinion on the question of accession, it could take no decision on it [536th meeting].
This was at best a very precarious stand. Far from being reassuring, it only served to increase the apprehension felt by Pakistan and by all those who regard the international agreement between India and Pakistan to hold a fart1 and impartial plebiscite under United Nations auspices as the only possible peaceful solution of the Kashmir dispute.
On 21 March, therefore, the representative of the United Kingdom expressed his concern in the following words [531th meeting]:
"I wish I could say to the Council that we feel satisfied from what the representative of India has said that the Government of Pakistan has no cause for disquiet in respect of the proposed constituent assembly. Indeed, if it had not been for a series of disturbing pronouncements by Sheikh Abdullah and by Ministers of the Government of India and of the Kashmir State Government^ the Council would probably have felt that what the representative of India has told the Council was a sufficient guarantee that nothing would be done by the r. constituent assembly which would in any way prejudice the settlement of the future accession of Kashmir in the manner to which the two Governments and this Council are committed.
"But when the Council is confronted with a statement by the Prime Minister of the Kashmir State Government that "without caring for the opposition of Pakistan, Britain and America, the proposed constituent assembly for the State will be set up on the due date to decide all big issues including accession', the view of the Government of India as stated by its representative, that 'while the constituent assembly may, if it so desires, express an opinion on this question it can take no decision on it' does not hold out any real promise that the Government of India will take all steps possible to prevent the Kashmir State Government from action which must inevitably prejudice the work of the United Nations in settling this dispute. I therefore wish to make a further earnest appeal to the representative of India to make it clear beyond all doubt that his Government will do everything in its power to prevent action which will damage the work of the Council of which he himself is so distinguished a member."
No such clear assurance was given by the representative of India. As regards his plea that in convoking a constituent assembly, the Maharaja's Government was operating within an autonomous sphere, the representative of the United States observed [537th meeting] :
"The matter of the final disposition of the Slate of Jammu and Kashmir is an international question, a matter which this Council has had within its purview for more than three years. It clearly falls within the field of external affairs and Sir Benegal Rau has told the Council that the external affairs of the Government of Kashmir are within the control of the Indian Government. The Security Council, therefore, should be entitled to assume that the Government of India will prevent the Government of Kashmir from taking action which would interfere with the responsibilities of this Council."
The representative of Turkey, observing that a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United nations was the only way to bring about a just solution to the question of Jammu and Kashmir, added [538ih meeting] :
Once we have accepted this principle, we must also admit that such measures as convening a constituent assembly which will not be representative of the whole territory, in order to decide the future of the State, would not be in harmony with this principle."
The representative of the Netherlands put the matter very tersely when he said [538th meeting] :
"The choice of affiliation to one nation or another is so fundamental in its nature and consequences that only the people themselves can and ought to make that choice. It stands to reason that such a choice should be freely made untrammelled by biased pressure from interested outside parties. No prearranged political organisation in part of the State concerned, set up under the auspices of authorities which have already made their choice, should interfere with this complete freedom of choice."
The representative of Ecuador said [539th meeting] :
"la present circumstances the constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be considered as representing the people as a whole or as free manifestation of the people's will and the decisions of such an assembly can neither change nor deprive of their effect the international undertakings entered into by India and Pakistan in respect of the plebiscite."
The representative of China also was very apprehensive and feared that "such a constituent assembly may adopt a resolution declaring the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India, or the assembly may incorporate in the constitution an article to that effect". Apart from this, he felt that "such a constituent assembly might prejudice the issue in another way". I quote from his remarks of 30 March 1951 [539th meeting] :
"In the first place, a constitution adopted before the plebiscite would have the tendency, or at least the appearance of having the tendency, of making a formal definitive relationship of Kashmir to India. In the second place, the constitutional provisions which the constituent assembly might adopt might dovetail the State political structure of Kashmir so closely with the State political structure of India as to signify definitive accession. Such tendencies or appearance may arouse suspicions and passions which may make the solution of the problem more difficult than it is now."
With the weight that attaches to all these views so clearly, so forcefully and so cogently expressed, the Security Council adopted a resolution on 30 March 1951 affirming, inter alia, in extremely moderate but unambiguous terms, that any action that the proposed constituent assembly might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. Paragraph 8 of the operative part of the resolution called upon the Governments of India and Pakistan "to take all possible measures to ensure the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations and to refrain from any action likely to prejudice a just and peaceful settlement".
Yet, within a few days of the adoption of this resolution, in fact on the very day on which the Security Council approved the appointment of Mr. Frank P. Graham as United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan [543rd meeting] the Maharaja's Government issued a proclamation which, to say the least, showed scant regard for the timely warnings given by the Pakistan representative and the grave anxiety expressed by members of the Security Council. The paraphrasing of that Proclamation as provided by Sheikh Abdulla [S/2145] leaves little doubt, if doubt there ever was, as to the real intent and purpose behind the proposed convocation of a constituent assembly in the India-held part of Kashmir.
As early as 21 February 1951, the representative of the d State of America in his statement said [532nd meeting]:
"It is our impression that the proclamation which ordered the carrying into effect of these steps implementing the 28 October Kashmir National Conference resolution was approved by the Government of India."
- impression was and is widespread. That view was and is held by many besides those who have taken part in the attempts to find a just and peaceful solution to the Kashmir dispute. So far as the Government of Pakistan is concerned, it is rot its impression but its conviction that the responsibility for the proposed step to convene a constituent assembly in the part of Kashmir which is under Indian military occupation rests on the Government of India. The various declarations made from time to time by Indian spokesmen as regards the purpose of the proposed constituent assemblies are, at best, contradictory and evasive. But there is not a single assurance to be found among them that the question of accession is regarded by the Indian authorities as strictly outside the purview of such a body. In fact, Indian spokesmen have emphatically asserted the contrary. The plea that the constituent assembly's main purpose is to frame a constitution for Kashmir has not, I believe, deceived anyone. If it is the intention of the Government of India to honour the international agreement to which, it is a party and to decide the future affiliation of Kashmir by a free and impartial plebiscite under United Nations auspices, will not common sense dictate that first things should come first, and the question of the constitution should be taken up only after the question of accession is settled ? To proceed with the constituent assembly at this stage, whatever its avowed purpose may be, is deliberately to ensure the appeals made to India by many members of the Security Council and the wishes of the Security Council which called upon both parties to ensure the condition and maintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations and to refrain from any action likely to prejudice a just and peaceful solution. I regret to say that India has so far hardly passed any test which could be regarded as crucial and which should prove beyond doubt that it respects the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir and is anxious to reach a peaceful solution of the Kashmir dispute-
The device of a so-called constituent assembly in India held Kashmir would, if persisted in, be a most happy augury for the future. That it is by no means innocuous as may be claimed is clear to neutral observers. For example, the correspondent of the New York Herald Tribune, reporting from Srinagar in the issue of 27 May, comments on the attitude of non-cooperation with the United Nations amongst Indian officials, and goes on to say :
"This attitude is also prevalent in Kashmir, where officials are determined that nothing Mr. Graham says can alter their intention to convoke a constituent assembly which, among other tasks, will be empowered (with the sanction of the Indian Government) to make the final decision for accession to India."
Can such a decision—or, for that matter, any decision arrived at by a mere show of voting in any part of Kashmir, so long as the Indian Army is in occupation in that part—be a free or democratic decision ? Said the same correspondent speak :
"Like all foreigners, he"—that is, Mr. Graham—"will discover that his comings and goings are shadowed by opera bouffe plainclotb.es policemen, who may seem humorous to Westerners, but not so funny to natives of Kashmir who happen to voice unpopular opinions."
This correspondent also observes :
"It is now obvious that India, in strong possession of the Valley of Kashmir, intends to hang on to it even if this policy should involve outright defiance of the United Nations or war with Pakistan."
I must therefore convey to the members of the Security Council the impatience and bitterness which the long delay over the settlement of the Kashmir question and the continued intransigeance of India have created in the minds of the people of Pakistan. The proposed constituent assembly is, in their view, an attempt on India's part to contrive yet another pseu-dolegalistic subterfuge to cover its occupation of Kashmir by force and against the will of the people.
For the sake of the prestige of the Security Council and of the United Nations, if for no other reason, the impression should not be allowed to grow that India can break its international pledges without world opinion pronouncing its verdict on the grave danger to international morality and international peace which such a breach would involve. The Government of Pakistan therefore sincerely hopes that the Security Council will take resolute action in the matter.
We are not convinced that there is need for framing a new constitution for Kashmir before the question of accession is impartially decided under United Nations auspices. We are not convinced that the proposed constituent assembly is not an attempt to confuse the issues, poison the atmosphere and obstruct a just and peaceful solution. And, finally, we are not convinced that the Government of India can be absolved of its full responsibility in this matter by any attempt on its part theoretically to separate the so-called autonomous sphere of the Maharaja's Government from India's own sphere of authority.