09101957 Text of the speech made by Mr. Noon (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 796 held on 9 October 1957.
09101957 Text of the speech made by Mr. Noon (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 796 held on 9 October 1957.
I do not wish to try the patience of the Security Council with another long dissertation on the India Pakistan dispute in relation to Kashmir. Already, there has been much delay in commencing and continuing consideration of this question by the Security Council. This delay has certainly not been of our making.
The Council has now heard the reply of the Defence Minister of India to my statement of 24 September 1957 [791st meeting]. At this stage, I propose to say only this much to the Security Council: the long statement made by the Defence Minister of India covers familiar ground. It repeats at length arguments which have been heard before by the Council and which have been effectively answered by Pakistan at the Council table. It also contains a number of misstatements of facts, some of which are relevant to the issue before the Council, but most of which have no relevance to the issue at all. I can, if the Council so wishes, undertake a detailed examination of these misstatements, whether relevant or not, and endeavour to state the correct position. But in this matter I would like to place myself in the hands of the Security Council. If there are points which the Council wishes me to elaborate or clarify, I shall gladly do so. But I do not wish to take up the time of the Council with an endless series of relevant or irrelevant charges and counter-charges, which may or may not contribute to the solution of the issue before the Council namely, the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. I would like to say a few words in respect of one or two points only.
The Defence Minister of India has laid considerable stress on the issue of "aggression". As far as "aggression" is Concerned, any argument as to which party started the aggression and whether any party has consolidated aggression is hardly relevant at this stage and would certainly not be conducive to a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute, which is all that Pakistan desires. By raising the issue of aggression at this stage, does India seriously wish that Pakistan should again ventilate the question of India's aggression, not only in Kashmir, but also in Junagadh, Manavadar and Mangrol, to say nothing of Hyderabad? If this is India's desire, I can certainly take up the whole question-subject, of course, to the wishes of the Security Council.
The object of the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir was and remains the demilitarization of the State, to be followed by a plebiscite under United Nations auspices, which would secure to the people of the State the right to determine their own future. I hardly need to remind the Security Council that Pakistan has already accepted eleven proposals to secure this object, and India has rejected every such proposal. The twelfth proposal, made by Mr. Jarring, has also been accepted by us and rejected by India. I will not enter into an abstruse discussion as to whether Ambassador Jarring's proposal was technically an arbitration or a conciliation proposal; the point seems to me to be of little practical significance.
There has been no augmentation of military potential in the State of Jammu and Kashmir so far as Pakistan is concerned. And I think it is admitted by the Indian Defence Minister himself that there has been a reduction in the number of battalions posted in "Azad" Kashmir. The Pakistan General Staff has reported that the Pakistan regular forces and the "Azad '' Kashmir forces on our side of the cease fire line are far less in number than what they were on 1 January 1949. There has been no increase, also, in the number of Scouts in "Azad'' Kashmir. I cannot here reveal the exact figures, for security reasons, but they are known to the United Nations observer group, whose business it is to observe and report on such matters to the Security Council.
In regard to the Indian Defence Minister's contention that the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India is final and that Kashmir is an integral part of the Union of India, I would only refer to paragraph 1 of the resolution of 5 January 1949, which has been accepted by India and reads as follows:
"The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite." [S/1196, para, 15].
The Security Council may wish to ascertain from the Defence Minister of India whether or not he seeks to escape the international obligations to which his country stands committed under the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949.
The Government of Pakistan knows nothing of the bomb explosions and internal subversion in Kashmir other than what we hear from the Defence Minister of India, and has had nothing to do with them. If they have taken place, they are simply manifestations of the increasing restlessness of a subjugated people. Alternatively, they may well be designed to prepare a smoke-screen from behind which India is enabled to make further charges against Pakistan. I have no precise knowledge of the whereabouts or activities of ex-Major-General Akbar Khan. He was in any case convicted of conspiring to overthrow the Government of Pakistan, and my Government could hardly employ him for any purpose whatsoever.
The Indian Defence Minister has raised no issues which have not already been dealt with by this Council. Indeed, all that has said merely emphasizes the need for rapid action. Let us give the people of Kashmir the earliest possible opportunity to express their will, freely and without fear, as to whether they wish to join India or Pakistan. That is the simple issue before the Security Council. I need to say nothing more at this stage. I shall, however, be only too glad to furnish to the Security Council any further information that it may wish me to submit and to answer any question that it may wish to ask. The position at this moment is this: The Security Council has before it the views of Pakistan as well as of India. It is now for the Security Council to come to its own conclusion in the light of its previous discussions and resolutions and in the light of the views that have now been expressed before it.
I would wish to reserve the right to speak later, should it become necessary to do so.