09101957  Text of the speech made by Krishna Menon (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 796 held on 9 October 1957.

09101957  Text of the speech made by Krishna Menon (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 796 held on 9 October 1957.

 

This morning, at the 795th meeting of the Security Council, I dealt with some aspects of the problem as it presents itself to us. A great deal remains to be said. I would like to reiterate the fact that the delegation of India reserves its position in regard to any mat.er that may arise as a result of observations of the members of the Council or of the representative of Pakistan in the near future. I crave the Council's indulgence for speaking longer on this subject. I will use my best endeavours to finish during this session. I am grateful for the patience with which the members of the Council have listened to me and the consideration they have shown.

 

This morning I left off while speaking about the refugees. This refugee problem is only partly a problem related to the question we are now discussing. It is a world problem and it is a problem for all of India. But it largely comes up here because the representative of Pakistan has thought fit to charge us with cruelty, with mass murder-which is stoically called genocide-and to attribute to us the very failing of administration and of anti-social actions which, as the facts with show really lie at their door.

 

In his statement at the 79.st meeting, Pakistan. representative described in detail the alleged sins of India in this matter and how the Muslims in India, 40 million of them, live in continual terror and fear of mass murder, extermination and all kinds of things. In order to give the same, I do not propose to quote it all. One of the passages is as follows:

 

"It is nothing short of an admission that the Muslims of India are hostages for Kashmir. This threat of genocide is political blackmail of the lowest order and discloses a mentality which makes one shudder. There are proportionately as many Hindus in Pakistan as there are Muslims in India. But we have now indulged in this type of blackmail by threatening that if Kashmir does not come to Pakistan the Hindu minority in Pakistan will be exterminated." [79 Ist meeting, para. 19.]

 

I have no desire at present to contest the figures given here, which, incidentally, are not quite correct. That does not matter very much. There is no genocide or any kind of mus der going on in India except the normal course of crime which takes place, I suppose, in Pakistan as in our part of the world.

 

We deeply regret this kind of extreme statement which has brought from distinguished Muslims in India, including members of the families of men who are members of the Pakistan delegation, very strong protests that this has been a calumny upon them and, what is more, makes them less than full citizens of India in the estimation of their co-religionists elsewhere. One of them, without arguing the case, of course, simply says, "You mind your business. We can take care of ourselves." I do not propose to say that. Genocide, so far as the United Nations is concerned, is pretty well defined in the Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This throwing around of words like "genocide", "self-determination" and various others extracted from their context merely makes a caricature of their purposes. It is not likely to contribute in any way to the fulfilment of the purposes of the Charter.

 

I come back now to the actual position in India-whether people of one religion or the other are safe and what are the conditions they live under-not merely to refute this argument, but because we are now faced with a social, national and international problem. First of all I shall deal with the limited issue of Kashmir.

 

The representative of Pakistan told us some time ago that half a million people-in round numbers-had gone from Kashmir into Pakistan. We have fairly accurate figures of egress from and ingress to our territory, except when the frontiers are violated in a clandestine manner. So far as we know, a number of people went out at the time of the invasion by Pakistan irregulars and regulars. There was a great deal of panic. A great many have returned. The present situation is that 450.000 Muslim refugees, refugees of the Islamic religion, have returned from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and have been rehabilitated by the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

It would be interesting to know how many authentic figures of that character can be produced by the other side. Non-Muslim refugees who returned from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir are 122,429. The total number of Kashmir Muslims who migrated to Pakistan at the beginning of the troubles was not 500,000, as has been said, but 208,818. These are the figures. We have considerable expenditures in connexion with these refugees, and when you spend money you are likely to keep the statistics properly. This is related to the other and larger problem; after the greatest mass migration in history from Pakistan India and from India to Pakistan upon the partition of the country (after agreement had been reached with the present Prime Minister of Pakistan representing one of the important parties in East Bengal), over 4 million people that is equal to the population of a large number of countries which are Members of this Organization 4 million people have migrated from East Pakistan, that is, East Bengal, into West Bengal. The monthly rate in 1955 was 20,000, while the monthly rate in 1956 was 26,500. This continuous migration of those who for religious reasons are persecuted and thrown out of Pakistan shows how intolerable the conditions of the minorities in Pakistan. We should be glad to receive from the Pakistan authorities details of any authenticated cases of religious persecution in our country, and they will be dealt with according to law.

 

The causes are political, economic and administrative. I will give some examples. There are official circulars, copies of which we receive, sent out to all firms asking them to employ Muslims, thus displacing Hindus on a large scale. There is the expulsion of Hindus from the cloth trade, which was one of their mainstays; 80 percent of that trade was in Hindu hands and the number of quota-holders has been reduced from 1,200 to eighty. In all our communities today trade is controlled and licences are required, and the Government has a hand in it.

 

There are official instructions to foreign oil companies I will not mention-resulting in the expulsion of Hindus from the oil trac There is the large-scale dismissal of Hindu officers from the estates which have been acquired by the State from the big landlords. There is a considerable increase in crimes, particularly in sexual crimes against Hindu women. There is persecution of the scheduled castes, formerly called untouchables-Hindus who are agricultural workers and who number about 5 million in East Pakistan. There is the introduction of a religious basis into education in Pakistan the Islamization of education. We are in favour of a secular education, with freedom of conscience and worship and freedom to learn whatever religion may be desired, but education should remain secular, especially for the minorities. There has been wholesale cancellation of firearms permits possessed by Hindus and the free supply of firearms to Muslims in East Pakistan. Numerous cases of assault, murder, missappropria. tion of property, dacoity-that is a peculiarly Indian word meaning armed robbery-are reported, coupled with an unsympathetic attitude on the part of local authorities, and fear of police reprisals has undermined the confidence of the minority in the administration. These matters are the subject of continual discussion between our officials and theirs, and we both know a great deal about them.

 

On this matter of the suppression of human rights it is as well to quote the present Prime Minister of Pakistan, who, until some time ago, was an Indian citizen. We would have been glad to have him, but we are happy Pakistan has him. The suppression of human rights, which the figures I have given discloses, has been commented on by the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Speaking in a debate in the Pakistan National Assembly in October 1956, Mr. Suhrawardy-he has then the Prime Minister-questioned a member's statement-the member was probably a Hindu or a liberal Muslim-about persecution, that the onus lay upon the Hindus to prove whether they were loyal or not. He said:

 

"You tell me today: what signs have they"-the Hindus -"shown of loyalty to Pakistan ? My answer is clear. What have you done for them to get their loyalty ? In what way have you shown them that you treat them in the same manner in which you have treated the Muslims ? How many posts, offices, jobs, positions of honour and positions of responsibility have you given them ?"

 

That is Mr. Suhrawardy.

 

Mr. Gibbon, an Anglo-Indian presumably, deputy speaker of the National Assembly and minority leader deplored recently in Karachi that politics in Pakistan in practice often meant "all for the party, nothing for the people; all for policy, nothing for principle; all for office, nothing for honour; all for power, nothing for progress". Probably a piece of rhetoric, but there is an element of truth in it.

 

I have given you the figures of the migration of Muslims from India to East Pakistan-not just now, but right through -at 1.5 million. The migration of Muslims from India to West Pakistan was 6.1 million. This was at the time of the troubles. From that mass migration, 1 million Muslims returned to India from East Pakistan. These statistics are published in India; all public affairs are like an open book and the figures have been published in newspapers and have been seen by visitors; 1 million Muslims have returned from East Pakistan into India. Similarly, 100,000 have returned from West Pakistan to India. That does not represent a country where genocide exists. It would be a very sad state of affairs if 1 million people were to come back to be slaughtered, but that is not what happened. They came back for more food, better sanitation, more shelter, more liberty and more self respect.

 

The excess of Hindu migration from Pakistan over Muslim migration from India is 2.2 million. I have read out these texts because it is a grave charge against a civilized country and we take it upon ourselves that we are one-it is very grave to be charged with genocide before this Council, and we should like to know what the rest of the members have to say. If there have been mass murders in India, that matter should have been brought here under the Genocide Conven tion, under the Charter, under the Declaration of Human Rights. A purely spurious charge of genocide was made against us in 1949, and the Security Council quite rightly put it on the shelf. Here are the facts.

 

If the Council will bear with me, I would like now to quote some of the observations of non-Indian people on this question. Practically all of these authorities are in no way biased in favour of India. One is the Manchester Guardian of the United Kingdom, which is highly critical of Indian policy every time, It said": "The East Bengal Hindu very rarely gets a job, they say, and firms have been pressed to replace Hindu clerks and dealers by Muslims. Refugees arriving in India do not come in a rush of panic, they wait for slow demoralization, gradual insecurity and economic distress to nudge them out".

 

Contrasting the situation on the Indian side, the Manchester Guardian states:

 

"West Bengal",-that is the past of Bengal which is India-"West Bengal alone has absorbed over 3 million Hindu refugees who live in communal harmony side by side with 6 million local Muslims. One might expect tension; but there is none. The people explain: "The Muslims have done us no harm, it is Pakistan which has done the harm."

 

This is a British paper which, as I said, is highly critical of us.

 

This is a religious view. Bishop Pickett, formerly of the Methodist Church in India and Pakistan, in a letter dated 8 March 1957 to the Christian Century said this :

 

"Indian Muslims are happy in India. Many who went to Pakistan have returned and there is reason to believe that millions would like to do so."

 

Then we go further outside our Commonwealth; other connexions, and here is a Turkish authority, the very country that was supposed to be willing to lend assistance in the Indo Pakistan relations. Yeni Istanbul-a well-known paper in Istanbul says:

 

"Pakistan has to go a long way before becoming democratic in the Western sense of the word. Contrary to her neighbour-the secular Republic of India-Pakistan has still not freed itself from the vestiges of the theocratic system. A surprising aspect of the Pakistan Constitution is that the document which gives the theocratic foundation to the State is a brand new law, not even two years old." (It is not as though it is derived from some historical circumstance.) "Those people who thought that their political influence could last longer only by counting the mullahs and the mass of backward people were not reluctant in producing a Constitution which has been one of the most peculiar documents of modern times. These days the whole world is going towards secularism, liberty and freedom of religion; acceptance of such a Constitution compels one to look at the real structure of that State."

 

We are not here to criticize the Pakistan Constitution as a Constitution, but when the juxtaposition is suggested with a secular State that guarantees freedom of thought and not only permits it, but encourages it and is part of our life and there are charges of this character, it is necessary for us to state the position.

 

And now we go to an Australian source and you know. that the Australian view on this question has not been in any way a reflection of ours, to put it very mildly. Mr. B.V. Coventry, senior missionary of the Church of Christ, in India, speaking at Canterbury on 31 August 1957, said:

 

"One of the outstanding features of the Government of India since independence has been its attitude of tolerance".

 

I think it is useful to say this today because those who were not so well-intentioned towards us sometimes speak of other persecutions of Christian missionaries in India. There are today 25 per cent more foreign missionaries inside the country than there were before independence. It is true that when a missionary interferes in political affairs or tries to subvert the foundations of the State, he comes under the same laws as any other citizen. If he is a foreigner, he goes home. But apart from that, his work goes on, and we are happy to have him there, particularly in the field of social services.

 

Mr. Coventry goes on to say:

 

"In matters of religion there is complete liberty in India and it is written in the Indian Constitution that one has the right to practice and propagate one's faith and belief. This indeed is tolerance in a land where the major religion embraces 87 per cent of the population".

 

It is easy for majorities which have the power of the vote, the power of parliament, the power of the press and every. thing else to disregard minorities. We are only too familiar with that. We do not claim this as a particular virtue of ours. It is what we have inherited.

 

Mr. Coventry went on to say:

 

"The Government of India had given recognition to the contribution made by Christian missionaries to the development of India."

 

He quoted the award of the Florence Nightingale medal, India's highest nursing award to a Christian nurse.

 

Then we go on to an American source :the Atlantic Monthly. In September of this year it was written under the heading "The World Today".

 

"The position of 9 million Hindus in East Pakistan is shocking. They are almost entirely excluded from the army and the civil service. Last year 320,000 Hindus fled to India mainly to escape a food shortage and growing inflation, but also to escape constant police and official tyranny. The exodus currently averages about 10,000 a month."

 

I think that this would not be complete if we did not have what I may call an Islamic opinion. We had the good fortune and privilege of welcoming King Saud of Saudi Arabia to India. He was quite free to go everywhere. He is a leading Muslim, custodian of some of the holy places of Islam and he is highly respected in our part of the world. He visited many of our mosques, religious institutions of various kinds and he spoke before the President of India in this way:

 

"I was deeply impressed by your statement"-that does not mean much-"that your Government follows a policy of complete equality, justice and equity towards all Indians, irrespective of their creed. Indeed, the Constitution of your Republic guarantees the full rights of citizenship to all your people, irrespective of their religion."

 

It might have been regarded as a mere pleasantry if it stayed that way, but His Majesty went on to say:

 

"It has pleased me beyond measure to have had collaboration of the pursuit of this noble and enlightened policy of your Government from the leaders of the Muslim Community"-because when he comes to us he is not merely the King of Saudi Arabia; he is an Islamic leader, a custodian of holy places. "You will appreciate, Mr. President, my satisfaction at this happy feature of the national life of this country."

Two days ago, one of the leading Muslims of India, who with the rest of his family in the days gone by stood side by side with the rest of India in the national liberation of our country, the Nawab of Rampur, sent a telegram, which said:

 

"I am deeply pained to read Noon's false and malicious statement regarding Indian Muslims. We are all Indians first-if anything else, it is afterwards. There is no distinction of colour or creed in secular India. Noon sitting on a volcano should not indulge in baseless and cheap propaganda in regard to Indian Muslims, of whom he knows nothing. Request my views on behalf of the Muslims of India, especially of the Shiahs of India, be conveyed to the United Nations."

 

Now there is today, following Mr. Khan Noon's speech in the Security Council, a nation-wide agitation in the whole of India which we are finding difficult to handle because we do not want this matter to become a Maslim-Hindu business in our own country. But the Muslims of India are deeply hurt by the way they have been presented here. They are self respecting citizens of our country occupying the highest places in Government, in the diplomatic service, in the professions, in public life and in business without any distinction whatsoever.

 

We are told that there are others who are not of the Islamic religion, who support Pakistan's policy in India, who are deeply disturbed about the ways of the Government of India and the suppression of liberty. And two names are produced before you. Normally it is not usual to deal with one's own citizens in this way, but all sorts of things happen in India. People sit down and attack the Government all day, and they go on doing it. (I think that apart from the Government of India the only person who is receiving more attention is Mr. Cabot Lodge, not uncomplimentary). Everything that is possible is being said about it. In his statement at the 791st meeting, Mr. Khan Noon said :

 

"It is a well-known fact that a number of prominent Hindu leaders of Kashmir, like Pandit Prem Nath Bazaz"-who is in the pay of Pakistan-"are in favour of a decision through plebiscite, and are suffering much tribution at the hands of Mr. Nehru's Government for advocating the accession of the State-their homeland to Pakistan." [791st meeting, para. 201.

 

Then we were told about the Vice-President of the Kashmir Political Conference: it sounds like a big name, Mr. Noon said:

 

"It is also a fact that the Vice-President of the Kashmir Political Conference, which openly advocates accession to Pakistan and of which more than a dozen leaders are behind the bars without trial, is a Hindu Pandit of the Valley Mr. Lakhanpal-who is a prominent Hindu leader of India." [Ibid.]

 

I have done everything including seeking information. from India, but nobody there has heard of Lakhanpal. He is certainly not a prominent person.

 

Then we have a great deal in praise of Sheikh Abdullah. I am sure that Sheikh Abdullah will be pleased, because I am not going to read it out. I have here volumes about Mr. Abdullah being a quisling and stooge and what not. What is more, I quoted before this Council time after time his speeches in the Constituent Assembly. He has placed three choices before his people, and he has said there is only one choice that the Kashmiri people should make that of remaining in India. What is more, he has said that if it is a question of Muslim and Muslim, an Indian Muslim is as good any day at least as a Pakistan Muslim. Now that Sheikh Abdullah, for reasons which have nothing to do with what is said here, is in detention-and we hope it will come to an end he has suddenly become a hero. It is surprising that those who are willing to be antisocial toward a neighbouring Government come under favourable notice.

 

That deals with the question of refugees and genocide. I have said this because we still have responsibility-administrative, political, legal and other-for the part of Kashmir which we administer, but we have political and moral and legal responsibility for the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir. We suffer from the sin of permitting occupation. To that extent, we are guilty with regard to the people who are under occupation. But, having regard to the necessity of not creating eruptions, and moved by the same spirit that led us to order back an advancing army and arrange the cease-fire line, we think they have to suffer for some time, until the Security Council wakes up and does something about it.

 

The next set of factors with which I want to deal relates. to the new conditions that have arisen in Kashmir, the new factors, and I shall try as far as possible to keep strictly to new factors since February of this year in relation to Kashmir and Pakistan, since the last meeting of the Security Council.

 

First, I shall deal with those facts relating to part I, paragraph B of the resolution of 13 August 1948 [S/1100, para 75]-the augmentation of military potential. All I said this morning had relation to the augmentation of military potential from 13 August 1948 and the last meeting of the Security Council. But now we come-I am now separating these facts. -to the augmentations that have taken place in the last few months.

 

The strength of the Northern Scouts has been increased: they have become a more military formation than ever before. It was a small body of about 3,000 men, and it has grown 200 or 300 per cent in size.

 

There are the infantry battalions of the "Azad '' Kashmir forces. We thought they had been cut down to twenty, as from thirty, by streamlining. They have been armed with heavier weapons. Today they have 81-millimetre mortars; they have light infantry anti tank guns; they have other weapons which I am not at liberty to name. And they are well armed to fight against bunkers, against our armour, against pillboxes, against all the barricading we might do anywhere. These forces have been issued with Belgian-manufactured launchers and the anti-tank weapons that Pakistan previously obtained for its own forces. They have French rocket launchers and anti-tank guns and medium machine guns, all supplied to these troops. So if you have any idea that this is a kind of territorial army, any kind of parade army, that is a mistake.

 

Again, during this period, one platoon in each infantry battalion of the so-called "Azad" Kashmir forces has been trained in guerrilla warfare, which includes arson, subversion and assassination. The personnel of this platoon have been issued with noiseless pistols and daggers-we have some of them in addition to other weapons. In order to impart training to all "Azad '' Kashmir forces under simulated model conditions, four training schools-very much like the Commando schools in England during the war-have been established. I must say here that among the many good things that the British left in India was a good military intelligence. It is much better even than it was before.

 

We also have the report of a gunpowder factory in Kashmir. Pakistan has constructed, not through the occu West Pakistan Government but through central authority, strategic roads and bridges.

 

The Council will remember that the United Nations. The Commission for India and Pakistan, through its Chairman, had given undertakings in writing to the Government of India that no permanent changes, no consolidation, should take place not only of political authority, but of any kind. But here is a whole change of topography, of strategic layout and of everything else.

 

This is information from Indian sources. It is interesting to see that again an American correspondent who is generally regarded as a military expert, Mr. Hanson Baldwin, has given an estimate of the position. He says:

 

"The strength of Pakistan forces is about 200,000, plus para-military forces organized in seven or nine divisions, Pakistan has (this was in April last) about 125 aircraft. Pakistan's army is the second largest army among the countries of the Middle East..."

 

I shall deal with this question again when we come to the question of withdrawal of forces.

 

All these developments take place against the political background of the harangue coming from the Prime Minister of Pakistan. And this is what the Prime Minister told them on 26 February 1957, three or four days after the meeting of the Security Council, when the distinguished representative of Sweden was going to discover whether part I, paragraph E of the resolution of 13 August 1948 had been carried out or not:

 

"We have probably the finest army on this side of the continent. We have such brave people behind us that I can with confidence say that we can challenge any army in any part of the world. [A very blood-curdling speech]. We have confidence in ourselves [a good thing] and in our Creator, and it will make us conquer anything which stands in our way." (I heard speeches from 1939.) that kind prior

 

That deals with the military changes, of which I have given you some sample information. It is not possible to place before the Council every bit of every item that we have on so many pages.

 

Then we come to another aspect which is also a violation of the sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir, of the agreements between the Maharajah of Kashmir and the British Government, of the resolutions of the Security Council, and, more than all, of the rules of humanity. This refers to the construction of what is called the Mangla Dam. We are not against progress anywhere. We would like to see in Pakistan-it is not for us to say, and I mention this with great respect-the development of hydroelectric power of waterways and everything else, and, if we could be of assistance in any small way, we would be willing to provide that assistance. Therefore, we are not against progress of any kind. But to build works in places at the expense and the sacrifice of the people who live there brings in other considerations.

 

The Mangla Dam is a dam of considerable size, which is supposed to irrigate 3 million acres of land. I think, in Pakistan-not in Kashmir. It takes the water of the Jhelum into the Punjab. Both the river and the dam are in Kashmir, in occupied territory. Therefore it is under the sovereignty of India, it is in the territory of the Indian Union, where the aggressor has not only sat in occupation but has harnessed the water, changed the topography of the places and everything else. However, if all this were done without any harm to anybody, perhaps we might say. "When they go away, we will have data."

 

But what happened ? This advice, of course, came from the army. It was in the days of the invasion, and the Commander of the Pakistan Army told the Pakistan Government at that time:

 

"It would also give them the control of the Mangla headworks (that is, give control to the Indian Army) thus placing the irrigation in Jhelum and other districts at their mercy." [464th meeting, p. 28].

 

This was the counsel for the invasion of India. We have pulled our punches on this for quite a long time. The Upper Jhelum Canal irrigates the area of West Pakistan, not Kashmir. The Mangla headworks and the first nineteen miles of this canal lie in the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. For this purpose, land was given by the Kashmir State to the old British Government in the Punjab in 1904. That is why I say it is a violation of past pledges. Punjab was the home of great irrigation, and the Punjab Government was progressive in these matters. They negotiated with the Kashmir Government. It was given free of cost. But one condition is laid down in the deed-it is in quotation marks that it should always remain the property of the Darbar, that is, always remain part of the Jammu and Kashmir State, for irrigation works.

 

Not only by the illegal occupation but by the work now going on, the Government of Pakistan has prevented Jammu and Kashmir from enjoying the results of irrigation as such. Of course, all of that is small when it is placed side by side with the hardships of the people. In Pakistan-occupied Kashmir today, large numbers of protests are being made by previous heads of the "Azad" Kashmir authorities and other leading people there. I do not want to take the Council's time in reading them out; I think that the Council previously decided that, unless there were very special reasons for doing so, papers should not be circulated, but I certainly could circulate to members these protests that are being made. As a result of the construction of the dam, 122 villages and the town of Mirpur, which is one of the most important towns in this area, will be submerged; this is a total area of sixty-six square miles. We have submerged some areas in India-but they were ruins. not living towns-for the benefit of the people all around them. Sixty-six square miles of land will be submerged as a result of the construction of the dam. The whole of this plan and the allocation of money for it, and so forth, appear in the Pakistan figures. About 100,000 people will be deprived of their livelihood. According to reports in Pakistan newspapers, thousands of these people will have no alternative but to migrate to distant parts of West Pakistan for resettlement, thereby losing their state citizenship rights and their Indian citizenship rights.

 

The opposition to the construction of this dam is very widespread, and much literature is being circulated on this score. The ex-President of the so-called "Azad'' Kashmir Government, Colonel Syed Ali Ahmed Shah, and Abdul Khaliq Ansari, Convener of the Jammu and Kashmir Awami Conference, have issued a publication making it clear that a number of protest meetings have been held all over Pakistan occupied Kashmir against the Pakistan Government's decision to construct the dam. The publication gives the names of a number of leading citizens who are opposing this scheme. The publication also describes the activities of the Anti-Mangla Dam Front. The Front has issued its own publication on the consequences of the scheme. Five political parties in "Azad'' Kashmir have sent a joint appeal to the members of the Pakistan National Assembly, protesting against the construction of the dam and saying that it is surprising that the party in power is exhibiting more enthusiasm about constructing the Mangla Dam than about the restoring democratic rights of the people of Kashmir, though the Mangla Dam scheme will deprive 100,000 people of their citizenship rights.

 

This plan has not been prepared in Kashmir. It has nothing to do with the "Azad" Kashmir authorities. I know that the Pakistan Government has issued an answer-rather belatedly-in reply to our original complaint, stating that some agreement was made between the "Azad" Kashmir authorities and the Pakistan Government. But that makes it worse; that adds more trouble to this business. The "Azad" Kashmir authorities have no right to enter into any international agreements. They are only a local authority. The sovereignty lies in the Jammu and Kashmir Government, and to the extent that the Pakistan Government concludes an agreement with the "Azad" Kashmir authorities it violates the principles of the United Nations Charter and the resolutions of the Security Council; it disregards neighbourly relations with us; and it acts dishonestly.

 

The plan prepared for the construction of the dam in the District of Mirpur has unleashed a wave of restlessness and discontent in all corners of "Azad'' Kashmir. One of the publications says that the people raise their hands to Almighty God, entreating: "Oh, God, what an affliction is to fall on us, the oppressed and the helpless, as a result whereof we shall not only be rendered homeless and destitute, but our very name will be effaced from the surface of the earth.

 

There has been no consultation with the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. We still have diplomatic relations with Pakistan; the Commissioner and other persons are very good friends of ours. Since there are so many discussions going on, one would have expected-if some arrangements of this kind had to be made-that the sovereign authority, the Jammu and Kashmir Government, and the Government of India would be consulted on the matter.

 

One hundred and twenty-two villages are to be submerged under water, and 100,000 people out of 1 million are to be rendered homeless. What are these helpless persons to do? This in violation of the categorical assurances given to the Prime Minister of India by Mr. Lozano, the Chairman of the United Nations Commission, that Pakistan-the aggressor would not be allowed to consolidate its position in the territory it was unlawfully occupied. Pakistan, by carrying out this project, is now entrenching itself further in this area, quite against the assurances which were given to us and on the basis of which we agreed to the resolutions of the Commission for India and Pakistan. Pakistan is carrying out the projects, taking into account the fact that the lawful authorities of the Jammu and Kashmir State and the Government of India are not there to protect the helpless people.

 

Now, in answer to all that, the representative of Pakistan says, "India is in unlawful occupation of Kashmir territory". But where does that come from? From the resolutions of the Security Council ? From any agreements we made with the United Kingdom Government? From any practice of international law or of neighbourly relations ? No.

 

We have been asked: What about the tunnel which has been built under the Banihal Pass? How is that in principle? different from the Mangla Dam? I shall be glad to answer those questions. The Banihal tunnel is a great feat of engineering. It has been made possible by German engineers, who dug this tunnel through the mountain. We are not draining away the wealth of Kashmir through the pass. We are enabling the agriculturists of Kashmir to send their fruit and their wool, and so forth, to India and other places for trade. The tunnel provides an all-weather route. Although it is a great feat of engineering, the Banihal tunnel does not in any way violate anyone's sovereignty; it does not exploit the local peoples; it does not take away the riches of one place in order to provide them for another place, at the expense of the local inhabitants. In all those ways the Banihal tunnel is different.

 

I think that it would be wrong for me to draw comparisons. Who is to say what the Kashmir Government may do under its own State jurisdiction and what the Union Government may do on Union territory? The Banihal tunnel has not been built in the interest of any one part of India, but in the interest of all India, and particularly Jammu and Kashmir. There was no opposition to the building of the Banihal tunnel. No houses had to be removed, because the a tunnel was dug through the bowels of the mountain, where no one was living.

 

I have thought it necessary to provide the Security Council with this information in connexion with document S/3896 of 4 October 1957, which is Pakistan's reply-and a rather belated reply to our original complaint in this regard [S/3869].

 

I come now to the most important and sinister part of the developments that have taken place since the Council's last series of meetings on this subject. I state in all seriousness and solemnity that a new wave of aggression has begun against us. This is not merely the consolidation of the aggression of the past, but a war of the kind described by Mr. Dulles in one of his writings: it is war by sabotage, by murder and by incite ment of various kinds. The Pakistan Government is aiding, abetting, inspiring and supporting movements in order to create subversion inside India, in the hope that by fishing in troubled waters it may get something. I do not desire to go back any further than February 1957, but it is important that the Council should know that this is not just a sporadic act : it is a premeditated act, and, what is more, the personalities involved are important.

 

On 26 November 1955, there was held at Karachi what was called an All-Party Conference. It was convened by a former Prime Minister. Reports subsequently appearing in the Pakistan press from time to time brought out the important fact that the Conference was called to discuss and strengthen the home front and suggested the formation of the Kashmir Liberation Front with branches all over Pakistan. Now, how does the Pakistan Government promote a Kashmir Liberation Front when this matter is before the Security Council under Chapter VI of the Charter ? Either Pakistan abides by the Charter, or it does not.

 

Then, a high-level conference was held at Rawalpindi between May and July of 1956, attended by important people from Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir including no less important a person than the gentleman who afterwards became the Foreign Minister of Pakistan and today present Pakistan's case before the Security Council. According to our reports, it was decided at this conference that in order to further Pakistan aims, disorder should be created in Jammu and Kashmir. It was after this conference that Pakistan intelligence officers who were posted upon our border were called back to Rawalpindi and trained. All this soon developed into a war-cry. Pakistan leaders and newspapers at that time openly advocated the mobilizing of volunteers, and there were many volunteer movements-some of them proved abortiveness to cross the cease-fire line. A great attempt at infiltration was made. We have the greatest difficulty in dealing peacefully with these people because, while it is easy enough to push them back by force, as I said before, we do not want, on the one hand, to add to the difficulties that exist and, on the other, these people are Indian citizens. In fact, it has been disclosed by some of the leaders in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir that a day in November was being fixed for D-Day in Kashmir itself.

 

The Jammu and Kashmir "United Front '', so-called so that Pakistan can I Disown official responsibility, has had literature published on this question. I will pass over the whole of this movement of the dubious Mr. Tariq, otherwise Akbar Khan, who, of course, will be duly disowned by the Pakistan Government, who sits there as a maquis leader in reverse in order to foment trouble, but I will refer to the parts of it that are important.

 

A new offensive began in the middle of June 1957, and I would like the members of the Security Council, particularly those whose countries are in military alliance with Pakistan, to take these facts into account because there are codes of war and conflict. Bomb explosions started in the middle of June 1957. In June 1957 there were five such explosions, three in Jammu and two in Kashmir. In July there were four, and people were killed and injured. In August there were five explosions and four in September. On the first two days of October, after we came here, there were five explosions. We have been receiving information all the time. From 18 June to 2 October there were twenty-three explosions in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. These have resulted in damage to property and in persons being killed and injured, including our Army personnel who went to dismantle the bombs. There is little doubt that a deliberate attempt has been made to create communal trouble by the use of these explosive devices. What usually happens is that a bomb is placed in a mosque and the rumour is spread that it was placed there by Hindus or a booby trap is placed in a temple, and rumours are spread that it was by Moslems. It is an old, time-honored device.

 

We have gone into this matter objectively and scientifically. The Jammu and Kashmir Government, which is responsible for law and order, has arrested a number of persons who were engaged in this traffic. Some of them are Pakistan intelligence men and some of them are our citizens. They have been prosecuted by the State Government, and their trial began yesterday morning. Some of these accused made statements before the district magistrate; they have turned "King's evidence", as it was called in the days of the British. The trial will take place publicly according to the procedures of law, and the principal person is a young man of the kind who usually engages in this kind of crime, a neurotic. He had a love affair with a girl and wanted to marry her. The Pakistanis traded upon that, and when he went over, he was taken to Rawalpindi on the day of an important meeting. After the meeting he was introduced to some of the participants. He was called by Sajwad Khan, who is a Pakistan security officer, and taken to the Foreign Minister, who exhorted him to do the work that had been entrusted to him and who promised him all help. I make this statement with all sense of responsibility. Sajwad Khan, who is the main operator in this matter, told him that his business was to create unrest in the political parties in Kashmir and to create Hindu-Moslem difficulties. This man came back to India after his visit, still hoping to marry the girl, and he brought a lot of money with him. He crossed the cease-fire line from time to time. (That often happens because we cannot cover the whole of this territory with twenty-eight observers of the United Nations.) He obtained instructions and returned to Srinagar, where he communicated these instructions to others and carried out those instructions which were intended for him. In June 1957, a Pakistan messenger brought a message that it had been decided to use bombs on a large scale in Kashmir, and the accused confessed that the places to be bombed-and, after all, this was proved by the incidents included a cinema, a hotel, government offices, and important bridges. Three bridges were saved by members of the Indian Army, who detected the bombs in time and removed them. On 25 June, this messenger was accompanied by another man who brought two types of bombs, a "white brick" type and a special package containing explosive powder. These bombs are not amateur improvisations of any kind. They are booby trap bombs with a hand-grenade type of detonator inside. The bombs are tied up by rope, and if any person thinks there is something inside and unties the rope, then the lid comes up and the bomb explodes. That is now it is done. All this material has been collected by our Army and police and has been sent to our armaments inspectors, and carefully examined. We have the numbers, the makes and everything else concerned with them. With the help of two visitors from Pakistan, bombs. were planted under bridges, behind the Palladium Cinema and in a hotel. This person was arrested on 27 June. The police recovered from his house a bag containing explosive powder, together with fuses, time pencils and detonators. The time detonators used can only come from army stock; they cannot come from anywhere else. The police also seized a large number of letters which he had received from Sajwad Khan, and we have photostatic copies of these and of other evidence.

 

With regard to subversion, the Government of India has strenuously taken care not to allow this thing to become an Indian-Pakistan hatred campaign. It has carefully played the matter down, but, at the same time, it has made a very careful investigation. Examination of the stores used in the incidents that have occurred, the methods adopted and the necessary training involved in implementing the bomb technique make it apparent that Pakistan army authorities are actively supporting this sabotage, to put it very mildly. The stores used in the sabotage are all controlled stores, charges of army origin of a type which are issued on a strictly restricted basis, even to their own army units in Pakistan. The stores are not available in the open market. The techniques adopted in all known cases point clearly to instructions given by expert army engineers and officers. In their confessional statements, some of the arrested persons, including Pakistan agents, have disclosed that they are sent, equipped and trained by Pakistan security officers for the purpose of creating disorder, disturbance and communal trouble. In addition to these explosive devices, considerable sums of money are known to have come from Pakistan, as has published material for propaganda. We have intercepted some of the money.

 

But this campaign has not had much effect in Kashmir. There has been no panic in Kashmir. There has been individual loss of life, but the great catastrophe, as I said this morning, was the flood, which has been a kind of left-handed blessing in the sense that it has demonstrated that there is no background for this kind of thing in Kashmir. The people are extremely resentful, and the foreign press, of which there are many correspondents in Srinagar, have not failed to notice this.

 

The News Chronicle of London, again critical of the Government of India, sent the following report :

 

"An unofficial cloak and dagger movement has been launched inside Indian Kashmir by fire-eating General Akbar Khan, a veteran of the 1948-1949 Kashmir war days. Pakistan's bouncing little (five feet, three inches) Prime Minister Suhrawardy badly needs another success over Kashmir to counteract the internal distress and to bolster up his position. Mr. Suhrawardy's patience and. Perhaps his time is running out. Does his tacit encouragement of General Khan's subversive movement suggest that he intends to have Kashmir by fair means or foul?"

 

At the 795th meeting, I read out to you other statements expressing the idea : "We must have Kashmir or we die... We take it whatever happens." There is a similar quotation from the Manchester Guardian, whose correspondent lives there : "Mr. Suhrawardy may feel his own position requires him to make some dashing moves over Kashmir." We are not entirely taken by surprise in this because, first of all, this is not the first time it has been attempted. This is the same exercise as the one which started the invasion. The only difference was that the invasion, being a Pearl Harbor business, came in large waves of marauders in the beginning. In the period that followed, in 1950 and so on, the Security Council has often been invited to examine this question, but not in that very pointed way. But India communicated its concern to the Commission, as appears from the summary of a meeting held at New Delhi on 17 August 1948, in which the Prime Minister stated the following:

 

"The Prime Minister reiterated his fears of possible infiltration with or without the knowledge of the Government of Pakistan and mentioned the strategic points previously enumerated to the Commission which the Government of India considered that its forces must hold in order to ensure the security of Kashmir." [S/1100, annex 12, pp. 103 and 104).

 

Secondly, in its third interim report, the Commission stated that:

 

"India...believed that measures taken by Pakistan such as the construction of roads and the provision of arms and supplies to points like Skardu could, in the view of India, mean only that Pakistan did not wish to withdraw from the territory or, after withdrawal, intended that those who stayed behind could create turmoil."

 

Sir Benegal Rau, a distinguished member of the Security Council for some time and a judge at the International Court of Justice, speaking before the Security Council on 7 February 1950, stated as follows:

 

"Now, let us see what happened during this period in June and July 1948. I read in paragraph 7 of the same annex [which is paragraph 7 of the appendix to a letter from the Pakistan Minister for Kashmir Affairs to the Chairman of the Commission] that a contingent of 400 so-called volunteers from Chitral go and besiege Skardu, while the Skardu forces go and besiege Leh. All this happened under the auspices of the Pakistan High Command. These are not tribal incursions; they are incursions by so-called volunteers from one part of the State into another part-volunteers recruited and organized by Pakistan authorities. Unless this process is checked, it will go on as in the past and no part of the State will be safe from infiltration and attack. India cannot afford to take this risk." [463rd meeting, pp. 16 and 17].

 

That was seven years ago. As in the past, Pakistan will deny publicly all these allegations and will probably say that the proceedings of the tribunal were whatever they may like to say about them. But the clauses of the law in the Union of India are those that we have inherited from the British system. The rule of law prevailed at the time of independence, and since independence we have separated the magistrate from the executive. There is no control by the executive over the judicial magistrate today. (It is one of the demands that we made of the British Government forty years ago.) These independent magistrates are the people who are trying the accused.

 

Therefore, what is happening is not genocide by us, but the organization of the murder of our people by a neighbouring Government which ought to be friendly to us. It is difficult to understand how a civilized Government which claims the attention of the Security Council and which invokes the United Nations Charter, can use means of this kind, about which we have no doubt whatsoever, because we have the evidence. We have the records in this matter and we have the evidence of the people. I myself have seen the damage that has been done. There cannot be any slightest doubt. I have before me a whole list of these incidents and full particulars, but I shall not weary the Council with all of it. It may be that through all the tumult that has taken place in the world and all the horrors which we went through from 1935 until the termination of the Second World War, perhaps mankind has become accustomed to cruelty on the one hand and to lawlessness and subversion on the other. But we are a new nation and a comparatively weak country. We want to retain our independence and we want to remain in peace with our neighbours if we can.

 

On the other side, a few days after the previous series of meetings we had a statement of the Pakistan, Prime Minister, and a few months later we had all this undeclared war of subversion and violence and sabotage aimed at trying to destroy life and property and the results of the labours of our country. It is easy to cross the cease-fire line. It is miles and miles long, and 500 yards on either side cannot be patrolled by the military under the agreement. This allows for a great deal of freedom for infiltrators. We are faced with this difficulty and we want to deal with it as mercifully and as gently as possible. It would be wrong to turn out one refugee in the fear that he might be a criminal. We could probably stomach some of those and find them afterwards. That is the position.

 

I want to inform the Security Council, as the representative of the Government of India charged with this matter and as the Defence Minister of my country, that a new wave of aggression has come. On the one hand, I should remind the Security Council that the condoning of aggression, the finding of ways of just letting things slip by or of having no moral judgement on this matter because of our desire for tolerance and our desires to settle this matter peacefully, would be in error.

 

Secondly, subversion once begun knows no bounds. On 10 October 1947, the frontiers of Kashmir were pierced by the marauders of that time. Major General Scott reported to the Maharaja that the country had been invaded. During the next few days, as I told you at the previous meeting, some of the most gallant officers of the Kashmir State Army, including

Brigadier Rajendra Singh and his small band of 200 people, were cut to pieces. But they managed to hold back the invasion. The Indian army arrived by what a Canadian described as the most marvellous of operations, by air-lift into Kashmir, pushed back the marauders and finally turned the tide of the invasion a few weeks later, when the retreat. began and when we pressed our efforts in the Security Council for a cease-fire. That is the position.

 

In addition to the facts which I have given, I should like to place on record that the Government of India has, with all its sense of responsibility and with all the background in which it has treated this question, once again informed the Security Council that not only does aggression continue but that a new wave of aggression has begun. It is for the members of the Security Council, whatever their countries may be and whatever their political alliances and allegiances may be, to consider what attitude or action, collectively or individually, should be taken on their part.

 

The Government of India stands by the statements that it has made. What I have presented has been a close under statement of the facts. We are fairly sure that there will be no panic in Kashmir because the people are as content as they can be in our part of the world. There is work to do and, what is more, ten years is too short a time in which to forget the pillage, the plunder, the arson, the looting, the rape and the brigandage which took place when Baramula was sacked and burued and when the invaders were turned back by the Indian army. When I say the Indian army, the fighting Kashmir Militia should not be forgotten, men who in those days were fighting in rags.

 

Now I come to the proposals made by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan at the 79 1st meeting. If they had not been made before the Security Council, I think the correct treatment of these proposals would be to ignore them. But while that would be legitimate in regard to the originators of these proposals in the context in which they are made, it would hardly be courteous to the Council. What is more, we have no desire to run away from any of these things. We are quite sure about the morality, the legality, the political rights, our rights under the Charter and our obligations to the United Nations. What is more, I would like both the countries of the East and the West to remember the contribution that the removal of these difficulties will make to the stability of the area as a whole.

 

The first of these demands made by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan is:

 

"[It is, therefore, urged] that the Security Council now. proceed from the stage where it left the dispute on 23 December 1952 and take positive steps to bring about demilitarization so as to ensure that a plebiscite takes place in the State as envisaged in its earlier resolutions." (791st meeting, para 77.)

 

In other words, what it means is that Dr. Graham or his successor may take over where they left off. But it is forgotten that since then there have been direct negotiations between the two Prime Ministers and, totally contrary to what the Council was told by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan previously. These conversations were not terminated by us, but by the Prime Minister of Pakistan. We have always held the view that whatever the difficulties are, whatever may be the legal or ilegal basis, it is only by negotiation, by conciliation between the parties concerned that we will get anywhere, unless it is a juridical issue.

 

Mr. Khan Noon told the Council that Pandit Nehru broke off direct talks in 1953. But what actually happened, and this appears in the records, was that on 21 September 1954, Mr. Mohammed Ali, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, said in a letter to the Prime Minister of India :

 

"In the circumstances I am bound to conclude that there is no scope left for further direct negotiations between you and me for the settlement of this dispute. This case therefore must revert to the Security Council." To which my Prime Minister replied on 29 September 1954 as follows:

 

"So far as my Government is concerned, we are anxious. and eager to settle this problem once for all, and we can conceive of no method of settlement except that of a peaceful negotiation. I would again urge you to consider this matter dispassionately and to come to the conclusion, as I came long ago, that we can only settle our disputes between ourselves and by peaceful methods of negotiation, however long they might take. Peace is always better than conflict and the peaceful approach is always to be preferred to one based on military power."

 

It is for the Security Council, in the light of this exchange of correspondence, to make up its own mind as to what attitude was taken by each of the parties in this conference. I already mentioned this morning that while we have great respect for the personality of Dr. Graham and for his painstaking labours, our position in regard to the great many negotiations was that they were exploratory in character in the context of the time, when we still believed that Pakistan would implement part II. I of the first resolution and proceed to

 

The Commission itself has said that there is no simultaneity in these things. The first obligation lies on Pakistan. It has been put down in so many words, and if in any explanation we have tried anything else, that is generosity on our part. As far as we are concerned this is part of the history of the case.

 

The next demand deals with the fact that:

 

"...this dispute now clearly involves a threat to the peace, and falls under the provisions of Chapter VII, Articles 39 and 41 of the United Nations Charter." [791st meeting, para, 78.)

If I had the time, I would like to argue the law on this. But, first of all, this is not a dispute. When a country invades another, it is not a dispute; it is aggression; it is a crime which the Security Council must get rid of by one means or another. This means that what we invoked with you was conciliation. So we are the complainants in this matter, and the only contribution that Pakistan made at that time was a denial of our complaint so far as Kashmir is concerned. But now we are told to forget that there is a dispute. But in terms of the Charter, it is at no dispute: it is a situation created by the aggression of Pakistan and the latter's occupation of a part of the Union of India. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan says that it involves a threat to the peace and falls under the provisions of Chapter VII, Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter.

 

Who is threatening peace? Is it usual in this Council for the aggressor to come and say: I have committed and I am about to commit an aggression, and therefore stop me. That would be a clever act, and it might be a good thing to do it. But who is threatening peace ? Are we being told that if we do. anything, we are going to commit aggression ? The idea is to try to pin it on us. This cannot fall under the provisions of Chapter VII because the Kashmir situation is under Chapter VI, and we have asked for conciliation.

 

It is first of all for the Security Council to make up its mind on whether Pakistan aggression is to continue, not merely because of what has happened. I have detailed out to you, paragraph by paragraph, item by item, phrase by phrase, what is happening in Kashmir. What is more, I drew attention to the plight of those million people who are under the occupation of Pakistan. What happens to the prestige of the United Nations in parts of the world where it may well be believed that there is one law for one country and another law for another country? "This dispute now clearly involves a threat to peace." If any peace is going to be threatened, that threat will come from Pakistan, and it is entirely up to other Members of the United Nations to charge them with further aggression.

 

Whether the Government of India would desire to do so or not, I at present have no instructions. But the first thing we will do in a threat to the peace of our country is to try to defend the homes of our people. Let there be no mistake about this. I have said this repeatedly to you, and at this time it is my responsibility to reiterate that any aggression on Indian soil, from Cape Comorin to the Himalayas by whoever it takes place, is an aggression against the whole of India. We cannot have our homeland invaded once again. Therefore, this is a statement which I have to make to the Security Council in conformity with the Charter, in conformity with the self respect of the Indian nation. This is what you would expect me to say. We are not willing to condone, to promote, to permit or even to acquiesce in further crime.

 

Therefore, if Article 39 or Article 41 of the Charter to be invoked, there must be a complaint of aggression, and the aggressor party being still there, how can there be an aggression against them? The removal of an aggressor is not. aggression. I have not said anything about the removal of an aggressor; I have asked the aggressor to remove himself. I have told the Security Council, on behalf of my Government, that while our rights, legal, moral, political or international anything you like-are entirely wholesome and sound in regard to the 42,000 square miles of territory that have been occupied and annexed by our neighbour, we have at present no intention of settling this issue by force of arms, any more than we have in the remaining parts of the colonial territories in India. We have achieved our freedom in the past by other means and we hope that we shall be able to do so in this case also, and ultimately those who are under suppression will shake off suppression. Therefore, we have no desire, we have no intention and we have no plans of launching aggression upon anybody. But it is one thing to launch aggression; it is another thing when, with all the panoply of war-and we shall refer in a moment to the military strength of Pakistan-that is turned against us. Therefore, that is the position with regard to the two Articles of the Charter; the Pakistan suggestion, if I may say so, comes from a wrong reading of the Charter, or is probably a try-on, or whatever it is.

Then Mr. Khan Noon says:

 

"...I would urge that all troops, whether of India or Pakistan, should be withdrawn from the cease-fire line and a United Nations force be stationed on the cease-fire line to prevent any violation of the line." (791st meeting, para. 79.

 

First of all, there are no troops on the cease-fire line. There are twenty-eight observers who are permitted to go to the cease-fire line. No military personnel, unless they are doing it clandestinely, can be within five hundred yards of the cease-fire line. That is why there is so much crime there. They ought to put policemen there. Therefore, to say that these troops should be withdrawn from the cease-fire line is either to display ignorance of the facts as they are or to mislead the Council.

 

Secondly, the Foreign Minister urges the troops to be withdrawn presumably as part of the Governments' collective responsibility. He has authority over his own troops, and they could all have been withdrawn during the past ten years. So far as we are concerned, our troops are in the territory of the Union of India. The Indian Army, the Indian Air Force-the Navy does not come into this-are entitled to be stationed or deployed anywhere in consonance with the principles of the Charter on the territory of India. But there has been no accentuation of military strength in Kashmir or the building of any strategic or other establishments. We have no intention of doing so. We are still relying on the Security Council and the United Nations to vindicate the Charter, and we are pretty well committed to that.

 

This is the operative part of the third proposal: that a United Nations force should be stationed on the cease-fire line to prevent any violation of the line. I submit that the cease-fire line is in the sovereign territory of India. It is not a political boundary. It is a demarcation of convenience by us in order to stop bloodshed.

 

The Pakistan Government adds to its acts of aggression by inviting other countries to place their troops on the cease fire line, because it is not its country; it is ours. Nations forces which would go on the cease-fire line or into A United Pakistan-occupied Kashmir would be setting its foot on the sovereign territory of India. Neither the Government of India nor the public opinion of India nor any responsible person in India will ever subscribe to the sending of foreign troops to Indian soil. We have had enough of them. In no circumstances will we permit the occupation of our country by foreign troops.

 

What is required is not the occupation of the cease-fire line by a United Nations emergency force, the creation of which is sought for this special purpose, thereby solidifying this issue as though it was a dispute between two countries over a partitioned country, but the vacation of aggression, to which I shall come in a moment. This is our position with regard to a United Nations force.

 

There has been some criticism in the Pakistan press about a statement made by my Prime Minister that we would. regard the participation of any friendly nation in any such attempt or the offer-they cannot participate without our consent-of any nation to participate in this foreign occupation of our territory as an unfriendly action. We have been criticized for that, but we stand by that statement. We think it is an unfriendly action to send troops to friendly countries. Nobody is seriously violating the cease-fire line. There have been violations by either side such as cattle stealing or something of that kind. In this wild country, you cannot do anything about that. But there are other violations, big violations, like the Nekowal incident where Pakistan first admitted guilt, paid compensation and afterwards said that the payment was ex gratia; it was never reported to the Security Council.

 

So any idea that the Council knows about the violation either of the cease-fire line or the cease-fire action in the occupied area at the very moment of the violation is a great mistake. First of all, the machinery that these people have is not capable of taking account of violations. I will give you one example. The Pakistan Air Force, with its new Sabre jet planes, is repeatedly violating our air space. The planes fly at twenty to thirty thousand feet high in the clouded regions of Kashmir. All you can see is the jet stream and nothing else. We are not equipped to chase these planes, and we have no desire to engage in aerial combat. What is more, in a few seconds they may be in Pakistan territory, This hit-and-run business is not either a constitutional or a decent action. There have been many violations of our air space which we have reported to the United Nations observers. But the observers are in no position to record a violation because they cannot see the markings. There is no radar or other equipment. Therefore these violations, which have occurred so often, have to stop. I shall give as an authority the British Air Vice-Marshal who recently commanded the Pakistan Air Force..

 

The final proposal is an alternative to the first one. It is as follows:

 

"the Government of Pakistan would be prepared to remove immediately every Pakistan soldier on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line provided a United Nations force, strong enough to defend these areas and ensure their integrity, is stationed beforehand along the cease fire line; and provided that India reduces its own troops the level prescribed..." [791st meeting, para. 79].

 

First of all, no levels have been prescribed except contingent levels on certain conditions. But over and above that, we are not prepared, and I hope the Security Council is not prepared, to accept the position that one Government is giving or ers to another Government as to where its soldiers should be and what provisions should be imposed. Therefore, this alternative is really not an offer to withdraw troops at all.

 

That takes me to the final part of these proposals. I do not have copies of this map in my hand, but I hope some people will look at it. This is the frontier between Pakistan and India stretching along Kashmir. A great deal of play is made by some of our friends, who ought to know better, to this effect: If Pakistan withdraws its troops, what will India do? To what point or points does Pakistan withdraw its troops ? I will turn to the Pakistan Army in a moment. Pakistan could withdraw them to Peshawar, which is 105 miles away. That probably takes fifteen minutes in their jet planes today. Another place is at Lahore, the capital, which is seventy miles away. Sialkot is six miles from our frontier. Jhelum is four miles away. Rawalpindi, one of the main military concentrations, is thirty-one miles away. Murree, another military concentration, is fifteen miles away. Abbottabad, another military concentration, is sixteen miles away.

 

In undivided India, owing to the situation that existed on the north-West Frontier at that time-those were the days of the martial race and non-material race and what not-there were a large number of recruits to the British Indian Army from this part of India and a great many of the encampments of the Army were located in the north-western part. We are not suggesting for a moment that Pakistan has created all the encampments and cantonments in these places, but that is the natural centre, the stronghold, of the Pakistan Army.

 

If they should withdraw to Jhelum, which is four miles away, they could come back before you count to two. Therefore, such a withdrawal has little meaning to us. We shall have to explain to the Security Council as best we can what is meant by the withdrawal by Pakistan from Jammu and Kashmir. But I would like this to be made clear that the withdrawal of the foreign army from these areas right to their barracks does not mean anything. The farthest distance is 105 miles and the nearest is four miles. The majority of them are between fifteen and thirty miles. It is there that all the main military installations, the barracks, the establishments, down to the Air Force areas are situated.

 

I cannot leave this section of my submission to the Security Council without dealing briefly with the practical implications of the present situation. I entirely agree with respect with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan when he said either here or in the General Assembly. "What business is it of India how many troops we have or from where we get military aid?" Within limits, one agrees with that. But it is one of the things we have to take into account. It may be that one is not able to send a doctor to a neighbouring house where there is typhoid or Cholera. But still one must take account of the fact that the neighbour is sick and that the sickness might spread. Therefore, we have to look into the accentuated military strength of Pakistan.

 

When the British left India and the partition was arranged. Meents were made, a certain equilibrium and certain proportions were established. It was part of the general arrangements. But since then there have been considerable changes in regard to the Pakistan Army. In 1947 at the time of partition the Pakistan Army had forty-five infantry battalions. Today, in 1957, they have fifty-eight infantry battalions streamlined from sixty, which they had before. In 1958, they are supposed to have and I think they will have-sixty-seven infantry battalions. Evidently they have a considerably larger force than India has.

 

In the so-called "Azad '' Kashmir force, there are today twenty battalions. (The former thirty-two battalions were trimmed down to this number.) They are equipped not only with rifles and Bren guns, mortars, hand grenades and revolvers, but also with anti-tank weapons. I would not like to read the details of these weapons on account of their origin. There are medium machine guns, rocket launchers and everything else in "Azad" Kashmir where you are supposed to have local authorities running a panchayat. Our people have also noticed the presence of forty-millimeter anti-aircraft batteries in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

 

The additional equipment raises the position of the "Azad'' Kashmir Army to the level of regular Pakistan infantry units. Over and above the infantry units of Pakistan, their armour consisted in the past of six regiments, which are now ten regiments and are to be increased to thirteen regiments next year. These thirteen regiments comprise ten armoured regiments and three light-armored regiments. The ten armoured regiments are additional to three armoured brigades of the Pakistan Army, which are the Third Armoured Brigade, the Fourth Armoured Brigade and the 100th Independent Armoured Brigade. I do not want to bother you with these details.

 

Then we came to the artillery. It was suggested the last time in the Security Council that these soldiers, these men of "Azad" Kashmir, have light arms, something of that kind. But they have heavy artillery. The Pakistan Army at the time of partition had eight regiments of artillery, which became eighteen regiments. Now they number thirtytwo regiments, and next year they are supposed to number thirty-seven regiments.

 

That is the regular army of Pakistan, which unless the soldiers are on holiday, as they were in 1947, can be identified. as troops. But there are also irregulars; we have no irregulars. The irregulars of Pakistan are Pakistan National Guards, formerly forty battalions, or approximately 32,000 men, but now increased to fifty-seven battalions. Then there are the frontier forces, partly to deal with us and partly, I suppose, with the recalcitrant tribesmen. There are 21,000 of them. There has not been much change in the constitution of those frontier forces, largely because I suppose the Frankenstein they have created of 200,000 men may work both ways. But that is the size of their army. In addition to all this there has been considerable new equipment, which has come from various sources, such as recoilless rifles. Again I do not want to read the specifications. The "Azad" Kashmir battalions are not only reorganized in regard to their infantry divisions but also in regard to their armoured regiments There is no need in this discussion to go into questions of the Pakistan Navy.

 

I could give very much more information about this, especially in regard to the amount of strategic construction and the induction of personnel and the schedules which go with that, but I cannot do that without disclosing names of weapons.

 

The Air Force of Pakistan, which is a menace to the safety of India, formerly consisted of small attack planes. Today we understand that by October of this year it will have seven squadrons of Sabre jets which will probably increase to fourteen by March, and since just before I left India an even better version has appeared. Therefore the air strength of Pakistan is considerably higher than that of India. I have no objection to saying this; we are not competing with them. It is higher in transport command and in fighter and bomber strength. The Pakistan Air Force is infinitely superior to any. thing there is in that part of the world. That is not to say. that everyone who gets into a plane will be able to use it, but that is a different matter. Work under expert supervision is going on in Mauripur, which is the airport of Karachi, and at Sargodha and Peshawar airfields, and a new airfield has been built. constructed or reconditioned some seventy miles from Gilgit, where there is independent evidence that jet planes take off and land. I said this last time, but it was contradicted.

 

A Japanese journalist, Mr. Maruyama, who was a war correspondent on the Burma front in the Second World War, can be quoted. It was on the Burma front that he first met Major-General Kyani who was in charge of Gilgit. Major General Kyani is a very dangerous gentleman; he left the Indian Army and joined what was called the Indian National Army; now he has found other adventures in Gilgit. Mr. Maruyama said that he learned from Major General Kyani that the airstrip at Gilgit was not well developed, but some jet planes were seen there during his four-day visit. Mr. Maruyama's impression was that there is an airport not more than seventy miles from Gilgit where jet planes land and take off. No foreigner is ever seen at Gilgit but Major General Kyani told the correspondent that a team of expert military engineers had visited it last month. They are trying to build a road from the Hazara district to Gilgit in the Frontier Province. The local population of Gilgit, he added. was hostile to Pakistan mainly because of the food shortage.

 

I would tell my distinguished colleague the representative of the United Kingdom that if those British journalists who have been to Gilgit, including the British Broadcasting Corporation correspondents, would tell the honest truth, he would hear a great deal about the conditions of living in Gilgit. The Gilgit Scouts, about 10,000 strong, are poorly paid and ill-clad; the three battalions now stationed in Gilgit will soon be strengthened by another two battalions. Pakistan feels that in the event of war Gilgit is the weakest spot. The correspondent was not allowed to visit the border areas of Pakistan and Kashmir. I have read that out, because that is independent evidence from a Japanese journalist who was a war correspondent.

 

I have made references to violations of airspace It is quite right for the United Nations observers to tell us that we have reported a violation but have not told them the number of the planes or given their markings and that they might be anybody's planes. But they could not be ours, and I do not suppose that any country in the world would want to violate our sovereignty. To suppose that would not be right in regard to other people. But here is first-hand evidence and it comes from no less a person than th: retiring Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Air Force. He happens to be a friend of mine. He says:

 

"On the transport side, Pakistan Air Force squadrons have been operating for several years with a degree of regularity and freedom from accident which compares favourably with those of other military and commercial transport services. This is all the more creditable in view of the fact that a considerable portion of Pakistan Air Force transport flying involves regular penetration of mountain ranges containing some of the highest mountains in the world."

 

You can look and see where that is; nowhere in the world are there more difficult flying conditions than those, and we can subscribe to that, but there is direct evidence of the violation of the air space of Southern Jammu and Kashmir on the frontiers of India, China and Russia.

 

I have therefore answered the four demands made by the Pakistan representative, and there is nothing new in them. All of them are violations of the Charter and the fourth is more. than a violation of the Charter. It attempts to tell us where to put our troops.

 

What is our position in this matter? It is that there is a situation and we would like that situation to be settled, today, tomorrow or a hundred years hence. We do not want a conflict of any kind, but if we are attacked, meek and mild as we are, even a worm may turn. We have no intention of submitting ourselves to aggression and we should like the military allies of Pakistan to know that if we are hurt by the latter they will bear a degree of responsibility, especially in view of the statements I have read out in regard to participation in the South-East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and other agreements, since these statements indicate the political view of Pakistan as expressed by its responsible statesmen.

 

Our position, therefore, is that while we will not at any time submit to a surrender of sovereignty of any of this territory, we shall still place reliance on conciliatory counsel and the public opinion that emanates from this body to show that aggression is wrong, that Pakistan has no business whatsoever on the territory of Jammu and Kashmir, which is a part of the Union of India. If Pakistan or anybody else has any question about the legality of the accession or the political integrity relating to it, they should settle it some other way. But whatever that may be, so far as we are concerned Jammu and Kashmir is as much part of India as Bombay or Bhopal or West Bengal or any other part. At the same time. I want to state clearly, though it does not clearly relate to this matter quite so much except by implication, that neither public opinion in India nor responsible people nor the Government have any desire whatsoever to bring about any changes which can always be put out as propaganda against us, any changes in regard to the partition.

 

Pakistan is a State that was created as part of the price we had to pay for independence and a peaceful transfer of power. We wish them prosperity. We do not want any of their territory; we will not give any of ours to them. Therefore, we say that while we shall be peaceful and listen to any counsel of conciliation, we cannot be expected to swallow this aggression and sit down under it.

 

If the Security Council did not take serious notice of what I have said just now, would not the Security Council bear some responsibility, if what has been happening in the last three or four months were to develop into a much larger scale affair and if there should be disturbances in that part of the world which, apart from everything else, would take away the energies of our people from the peaceful revolution of the countryside ? Our people starved yesterday as they did before. We are anxious that where one ear of corn grew yesterday there should be two today. We are anxious that our industries should grow. We are anxious that there should be relations with Pakistan of a rather different character. We are anxious as far as we can and as far as necessary for us to shoulder the burdens that must come to every sovereign State in regard to its international obligations. We therefore propose to do nothing that will aggravate any situation, but equally we should not be expected to take any further kicks.

 

We therefore request the Security Council to demand the vacation of the aggression by the regular and irregular troops of Pakistan. The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan has laid down that Pakistani troops are not only regular but irregular as well. I do not want to go into all of it again, but the Commission itself has pointed out that at the time when the resolution of 13 August 1948 was passed there was no evidence and knowledge that there were Pakistan troops not in their areas. But as far as "Azad" Kashmir was concerned, that pattern was never communicated, and it went on to say that a material change had taken place. If that had been known, the position would have been different.

 

Sir Owen Dixon's dictum has been brushed aside on this matter, if I may so, with scant courtesy to the Australians because it was said that Sir Owen said this in order to please the Indians. But Sir Owen Dixon's general approach to us may not have been as friendly as we would have wished; but he did say this; that when the Pakistan troops crossed the frontier they committed a breach of international law; that is saying they committed aggression.

 

We therefore demand the full vacation of this aggression by the troops of the Pakistan army, regular and irregular, those who are directly called the Pakistan army and those that are the subsidiary forces under them. That means that there should be, as the Commission promised us and as it wrote down, the total disbanding and disarming of the "Azad" Kashmir army, the evacuation of the northern territory and the restoration of it to the Jammu and Kashmir Government, as stated in the Commission's report. There should be the taking away of war material and the dismantling of all establishments. India should have some assurances-I would like to use this mild word, but I could have said guarantees-that our neighbour will not permit the passage of hostile elements across its territory. In the normal course of the practice of international decency, the Union of India must have some assurance from its neighbour, with whom we desire to remain friendly, that across its territory no hostile elements will pass into our country. It is the duty of every independent nation to see that no troops or hostile forces cross its own country. No other country permits it.

 

Equipment has been introduced in the Pakistan-occupied area, as I said, since we signed the cease-fire resolution of 13 August 1948. It ought to be removed. We do not say it ought to be destroyed, which I suppose is the right thing to say. But it ought to be removed. It is not Pakistan property. It is a danger to us, but still we are prepared to go so far. tary installations other than those existing before 13 August All mile must be dismantled. The northern areas should be fully vacated, as envisaged by the Commission's report in the earlier period, and the administration restored to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, according to the Commission's own views. The war that has now been unleashed again of subversion, bomb outrages, sabotage, infiltration and murder should cease. Unless there is some indication that this will happen in view of all the evidence which stares us in the face and which will come out in the law courts, even if we want to be submissive, our public opinion will not stand for it. We will not stand for the spoliation of our country once again. The war of subversion must therefore cease. Any assistance, financial or otherwise-and I gave you evidence of all this-by Pakistan to infiltrators, saboteurs, stool pigeons and agents of various kinds should cease immediately. There should be the restoration of relations between friendly countries.

 

We would request, as we cannot demand, assurances directly to the Government of India by those countries which are military allies of Pakistan, that any military assistance given to Pakistan will not be utilized in or against the territory of India The United States, so far as we are concerned, has given us this assurance and we have accepted it, irrespective of the risks of consequences that may arise, because guns that fire in only one direction have never been made. But it is only right that the military allies of Pakistan should tell it that whatever the nature of those alliances they are not part of its aggression projects. With regard to the airfields, they come under the same category as the military establishment that exists over there.

 

In the discussions with Mr. Lozano in regard to the protection of India, the Commission conceded to the Government of India that it might protect and garrison the points on its frontiers in case of any infiltration or threat to the security of the area. In view of the subversion that has been going on then it is necessary that checkposts and sensitive points should be guarded. India would therefore be entitled and would like to assume its responsibility of protecting the frontiers of the Union.

 

The time has come for us to move the necessary garrisons into these checkposts so that our frontier, our international frontier, not only with Pakistan, but with the rest of the world, may be properly guarded. After all, we have check posts in over 3,000 miles of our frontiers, with China and ourselves, with Burma and ourselves and everywhere on our frontier. But over and above all this, there must be, in our submission, if aggression is to be vacated, full compliance with part I, paragraph E of the resolution of 13 August 1948. There is the incitement on the one hand, threats on the other and statements of the kind from the Pakistan Prime Minister which I read out just now, the general hatred campaign that goes on against us. The remedy in regard to this cannot be found in the statement made by Mr. Khan Noon (791st meeting, para. 13) that the Pakistan Government was only asked to make an appeal. It is the responsibility of a sovereign Government to see that in the conditions that exist, this kind of Jehad, holy war, psychological warfare, which in Pakistan cannot be carried out without the permission of the Government or without its aid-should cease.

 

It was not my intention to detail this in this way, but so many members of the Security Council had asked me to spell out what we mean by vacating an aggression. The vacating of aggression is a simple phrase. The Union of India is sovereign territory, as is the territory of all your countries. I would ask which of your representatives would permit the occupation of your territory, especially when that occupation has come about, if I may say so, as the result of a conciliatory approach on our part by withdrawing an advancing army and drawing a cease-fire line in order that a peaceful settlement might be reached. Therefore, Pakistan has to take itself off in this way, and proceed to the liquidation of its annexation, "de-annex" these territories-because what the Commission has said is that there is no "Azad'' Government in the Commission's scheme there can only be local authorities, to whose aid for the maintenance of law and order it is the duty of the Government of India and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to go. The whole of this resolution is cast on the basis of the sovereignty of that Government. There is only one State-the State of Jammu and Kashmir-and not two of them, and therefore we cannot jump this ditch in two leaps. The only way, therefore, is total vacating of the aggression.

 

We have promised that, under conditions of a fair dis position of this matter, we would go out of our way to establish friendly relations with Pakistan and to seek to settle all outstanding problems in the same spirit. But we are not prepared to offer any proposal which in the slightest infringes a hair's-breadth of our territory, because that is our national sovereignty, which it is our duty to safeguard and to pass on to succeeding generations.

 

This is the request of India, and it is a request that can be made to the Security Council with greater force because. Since the last series of meetings, the Pakistan Government has aided and abetted aggression, sabotage and violence, has carried on these campaigns in this way, has aggravated the situation, accentuated the strength of her army and done everything it can to make relations very difficult. What is more, it has fanned the flames of hatred and made this issue one which may very well become a communal issue-not in our country, because our people, whether Catholics or Protestants, Moslems or Hindus, Buddhists or Sikhs, are loyal citizens of our country. India is one part of the world, no less than any other-I will not put it any higher, but no less than any other where there is freedom of thought and worship and, what is more, as you have heard from these independent sources a degree of tolerance never reached anywhere else in such a short time.

 

I therefore submit that I have answered as best I can the allegations made by Pakistan. I once again express my regret that my distinguished colleague, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, who about ten years ago was a compatriot of ours he was born on Indian soil and certainly has large numbers of friends there should have spoken of the Government of India as a dishonest Government, as acting mala fide or trying to get around things in some way. We are sad about that, but not on our own account, because I feel sure that tha: kind of observation about a Government of the character of the Government of India, even though it is mudslinging, is not the kind of mud that will stick to us. But we would hate to see the hands of our friends remaining soiled for a long time.

 

Therefore, while I have no desire even to tender advice, I submit that, if this debate is going to go on, I will have to obtain instructions from the Government of India as to the extent to which I am to sit here in the face of statements which are entirely unparliamentary. In relation to myself, I will make no protest, but, in relation to my country, its honour and dignity, I would be doing less than my duty if I did not ask you, Mr. President, as a French citizen above everything else, to exercise such functions as you may have to see that motives are not questioned or that things are not done which one would not expect to see done to a sovereign State which has come here of its own free will and out of respect for the Charter and faith in the United Nations.

 

Finally, we ask you: what are we to tell our people, after all these years of patience, when we have tried every possible method and, what is more, even delayed the development of the part of the territory over which we still have control in order that things may be done all together for several years. Are we to deprive those populations that are under suppression both of political freedom and economic development ? Are we to tell the large populations of India, out of which 193 million are politically functioning as voters in our country, with a free expression of opinion, that the Security Council has been stultified in its action in regard to a matter of aggression? The issue is that simple. No one has ever argued that Jammu and Kashmir is Pakistan territory. There is no part of the world today which is a no man's land, which is not under somebody's sovereignty. That is why we are going to the moon. There is not any no-man's-land. Under any system of international law, once there is possession in this way, there can be a change only by two methods: either by war or by agreement. was tried and, to a obtain extent, the marauders succeeded, War trading largely upon our desire for peace and conciliation. There are many in India who regret the day that we did not press our case before the United Nations to a total vacating of aggression long ago. But we still have faith, and without faith one cannot move at all-and it is that faith that we come here for meeting after meeting. It is also in that faith that, even at the risk of trying your patience, one reads out the various documents and tries to place before the Security Council what is not a case about Kashmir but, so far as India is concerned, is a case of the invasion of the Indian Union, the security of its territory, the dignity and honour of its people, and the liberation of a million people who are today under suppression,

 

So far as the United Nations is concerned, the issue is whether aggression against the law of the Charter, aggression against resolutions passed by the Security Council, aggression as proved by the facts of the case, is to subsist and only to be the subject of periodic references by the aggressor, as though the poor victim is the defendant. This is a strange set of circumstances. I confess that our ordinary simple folk do not understand this. We come here with a complaint of invasion, and we are told to do this and do that and do the other whereas the simple problem is the vacating of aggression for the purpose of creating better relations between the two countries and solving large numbers of economic, political, social and other problems, so that peace in that part of the world may not be unduly disturbed by the friction that may exist between the two of us. The common ties that exist between these two countries are not common ties only by association, but common ties arising from the fact that they spring from a common source-the same people, with the same heritage, until only recently the same country. So far as we are con cerned, we have never insisted upon a discrimination arising from race, religion, caste or creed, We have no intention what soever of transgressing, politically or militarily or way the sovereignty of the State of Pakistan. Even in matters. any other which we have considered somewhat spurious, we have very often entered into discussions and sought settlements by negotiation .

 

I rest at this stage for such intervention as may become necessary if there are further observations on this matter which call for elucidation on the part of the Government of India.

 

The Government of India is deeply grateful to Mr. Jarring for his very considerable kindness toward us, and we were very happy to receive him. Even if he is no longer President of the Security Council and never wants to hear about Kashmir again, we shall be willing to welcome him or welcome anyone else. our sovereignty. But please do not ask us to surrender.