31011952 Text of the speech made by Mr. Setahad {India) in the Security Council meeting No. 572 held on 31 January 1952.
31011952 Text of the speech made by Mr. Setahad {India) in the Security Council meeting No. 572 held on 31 January 1952.
It is nearly four years since I had the privilege of addressing this Council on the question of Jammu and Kashmir. I have since been a stranger to its deliberations on this question and I trust that I shall receive at the hands of the Council the indulgence due to me in the circumstances.
I am happy to state that the debate yesterday has been marked on the whole by brevity and the avoidance of the spirit or temper of controversy. In the observations I make I hope also to be brief and to avoid contentious ground.
The representative of the United States said yesterday in the course of his remarks : "The issue is to find an agreed"— and I emphasize the word agreed—"not an imposed solution for the three questions " If I may so, this is true not only of the three questions arising out of Mr. Graham's report to which he referred but to the dispute as a whole. It is only by agreement between the parties that a solution at once satisfactory and lasting can be reached.
The three questions to which the representative of the United States, and also other speakers, referred are the following: first the fixation of a definite period for demilitarization; secondly, the scope of demilitarization and the quantum of forces that will remain at the end of the period of demilitarization; and thirdly, the day for the formal induction into office of the Plebiscite Administrator. I shall deal with each one of these in the course of my remarks, but before I do so should like to deal with one or two points raised by certain members.
The first of these relates to the tentative plan of demilitarization of the state of Jammu and Kashmir which has been released in document S/2485, dated 21 January i952. Apart from detailed proposals for demilitarization, this plan reproduces the twelve points communicated by Mr. Graham to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan on 7 September 1951 [S/2375, annex 2]. To remove misunderstanding. I should like to make it clear that what was communicated to our military advisers in writing of this plan is set out in full in the. relevant quotation in paragraph 3 of the reply from the representative of India, dated 14 December !951, which constitutes annex 6 to Mr. Graham's second report [S/2485] In addition, on 12 December, in the course of an informal conversation, our military advisers were also informed orally by General Devers of the strength of the forces that should be retained on each side of the cease-fire line after the end of the period of demilitarization suggested, namely 15 July 1952. The document as a whole, reproduced in annex 3 to document S/2485, was not at any time shown either to our representative or to our military advisers. I have thought it necessary to say this in order to remove any possible impression that, His reply of 14 December 1951, to which I have already referred, our representative had kept back anything of the Ian clearly a stage in the process of demilitarization which had been discussed between our military advisers on the one hand and General Devers on the other. Honest differences of recollection between the Military Adviser of the United Nations Representative and our military advisers are, of course, possible.
Several speakers mentioned the time that has passed since the Kashmir dispute first came before the Security Council and the urgency of finding a solution. 1 should like to make it clear that India is as anxious as any member of this Council that an early, equitable and peaceful solution be found. India was the first to declare that the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should freely decide their own future. This resolve of the Indian Government has been repeatedly affirmed by our Prime Minister and other spokesmen. As recently as in his letter of 11 September 1951 to Mr. Graham, the Prime Minister of India said [SJ2375 annex 3] :
"As regards paragraph 4" of Mr. Graham's letter of 7 September 1951 "the Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible."
India has also repeatedly before this Council, the United Nations, Commi;sion for India and Pakistan and the two United Nations representatives, Sir Owen Dixon and Mr. Graham, its readiness to carry out its obligations under the UNClP resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, in strict accord with the assurances given that agreement on implementation of these resolutions has not yet been reached, I can assure the Council that this has not been due to any desire on the part of India to gain time.
I shall now deal with the three questions emerging from Mr. Graham's second report to which different speakers have referred and which I have quoted from the speech of the representative of the United States. The first and third of these, namely a definite period for demilitarization and the date for the formal induction into office of the Plebiscite Administrator, could, I think, be settled without difficulty, provided that agreement were reached on the scope of demilitarization and the quantum of forces that would remain at the end of the period of demilitarization, and that the programme agreed upon for this purpose were satisfactorily implemented.
The question of phasing should be easy to adjust, provided that agreement is reached on the quantum and character of forces to be retained on each side of the cease-fire line. In the reply of our representative dated 14 December 1951 [S/2448, annex 6], our views on this subject have been made clear, and it does not seem necessary for me to recapitulate them. It will be observed from this document that we have agreed to reduce our forces, by the end of the period proposed for demilitarization, to 21,000. It has not been appreciated, I think, that not only does this figure include State forces but represents. less than one sixth of the regular forces on the Indian side of the cease-fire line on 1 January 1949. It is also worth emphasizing that this force will have no supporting arms such as armour or artillery. This figure has been calculated with strict regard to the needs of the security of the State. The State Militia, which numbers only 6,000, is of the nature of a police force, needed for the maintenance of law and order, not a military reserve in any sense. For the other side of the cease-fire line we have agreed to a civil armed force of 4,000 because we feel that this should be adequate for the maintenance of law and order in the Azad Kashmir area. We cannot conceive of any other risk against which regular armed forces should be retained in Azad Kashmir.
I have already declared that India is anxious to settle the Kashmir dispute quickly and peacefully. This is so not only because India is anxious that the people of Jammu and Kashmir should have an opportunity, without further delay, to determine freely their own future, but also because we most earnestly desire to prepare the way for our firm and lasting friendship with our neighbour, Pakistan. It is no less to our interest than to the interest of Pakistan, indeed to the interest of the world, that these two countries which have so much in common should live side by side in complete amity, each fully sovereign but both fully and whole-heartedly co-operating in the pursuit of the common tasks of peace and progress. This is no language of convention but the free expression of a deep and sincere sentiment. It seems to be the sense of the Council that negotiations should be continued under the auspices of the United Nations Representative to find a settlement of the differences that still divide India and Pakistan over certain parts of Mr. Graham's plan. India has no objection to this course, and would cooperate in finding a settlement in the spirit that I have just described.
Sir Mohammad ZAFRULLA KHAN (Pakistan) : May 1, without impertinence, be permitted to say that Mr. Setalvad has more than fully carried out the assurance that he was pleased to give to the Council at the beginning of his address, that he would be brief and would keep out any matters of controversy. He was fully entitled to, and of course he has on some points, put forward his own point of view with regard to the matters that still need to be resolved. It will be fully appreciated by the Council that obviously those are the points to be resolved on which Pakistan has its own view, which it has already submitted both to the Council and to the United Nations Representative. I will not enter into any controversy upon those points. Those are exactly the points which will have to be dealt with by Mr. Graham in his further effort.