01021962 Text of the speech made by Mr. Jha (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 990 held on 1 February 1962.
01021962 Text of the speech made by Mr. Jha (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 990 held on 1 February 1962.
Allow me to thank you, Mr. President, and the members of the Council for giving me the opportunity to make a brief statement.
The representative of Pakistan, in his letters of 11 and 29 January 1962 [S/5058 and S/5068], alleged that efforts for direct negotiations had failed and there was a grave threat to the maintenance of peace in the Kashmir region. In the statement we have just heard he has elaborated and embellished the same theme I have already, on behalf of my Government, stated in my letter of 16 January 1962 [S/5060 and Corr. ] that these contentions of the Pakistan Government and their representative are completely unfounded, and that the Government of Pakistan is deliberately attempting to exploit the Council as a propaganda forum against the Government of India. Nothing the representative of Pakistan has said today alters that position. On the contrary, it furnishes confirmation of the attempt to build up an artificial and wholly false impression of Pakistan's being threatened by India.
I have asked to be allowed to appear before the Council not for the purpose of participating in a substantive discussion of the question of Kashmir or of making detailed refutation of the many charges and allegations which have just been made in the statement of the representative of Pakistan. The time for that will be at a later date when the Council is in a position to hear the representative of the Government of India, and we hope that the meeting will be held after the elections and after the formation of a new Government.
In our view, since the last meeting of the Security Council when this question was considered [808 th meeting] in 1957, no A new factor has emerged to merit the letter of 16 January that there is no basis for the allegations made and that there is no urgency whatsoever for the consideration of the Kashmir question by the Council. Now that India is on the eve of general elections of unprecedented magnitude in its history involving an electorate of nearly 210 million registered voters, the present time is hardly appropriate-for reasons which it is not necessary to elaborate-either for direct negotiations between the two Governments or for discussion of this question in the Security Council.
This question, as the Council is aware, has a history of fourteen years, and it was last considered by the Council in December 1957. At that time also Pakistan brought up the matter on the eve of the general election. It is obvious that, on grounds which appear to us to be specious, Pakistan has again tried to take advantage of the Indian Government's preoccupation with the election. We are deeply disappointed that the Council, in its wisdom, did not think fit not to have a meeting now as requested by us. The convenience of the Indian Government has not been consulted and, overriding our objections, the validity and force of which have been acknowledged to us by many members in conversation, the Council has thought fit to hold a meeting. As I have already stated, it is highly inconvenient for the Government of India to take substantive part at this time in the Council's discussion of the Kashmir question. I have, therefore, been instructed by my Government to request the Council to defer the discussion of the matter to some appropriate time after the Indian general election to enable the new Government to participate fully in the discussions.
While making this request I would like to take the opportunity to state briefly but categorically that there is no threat of use of force to Pakistan from India. We have repeatedly made it clear that we shall not attack Pakistan or use force against Pakistan. We have made it equally clear that if attacked we shall defend our I selves. That has always been our position, and that is our position today. Members of the Council are aware that on numerous occasions my Government has offered to enter into a simple, unconditional no-war declaration with Pakistan. The object of this was to create an atmosphere free from any apprehension, and thereby to facilitate the holding of any negotiations or discussions between ourselves for the settlement of this issue. That offer stands, and it was repeated yesterday in a public statement by the Prime Minister of India. The representative of Pakistan has also referred to the suggestion made by India for a no-war declaration, but he has said that Pakistan wanted first certain matters to be settled, and that in particular it wanted the processes for the settlement of the Kashmir question to be decided upon before it could enter into a no war declaration.
However, if Pakistan has a sense of fear or apprehension of an attack, of aggression by India or of whatever else it might be called, would it not be in Pakistan's own interest to accept our offer today and sign a declaration that these should be no war, leaving all our problems be settled by peaceful discussion?
That is the position that I would like to bring before the Council. But from the leaders of Pakistan and from the Pakistan Press comes a constant barrage of threats of using "other means'', including the use of force for the "liberation" of Kashmir, and appeals to religious fanaticism and "jehad", which means holy war.
I have here before me several volumes of reprints of such published statements. One of these is already on the records of the Council, and perhaps at suitable time my delegation will take the liberty of circulating these volumes to the members of the Council for their perusal. It is not my intention to burden the Council with these at the present moment. I shall only cite two instances.
On 7 October 1960, according to the newspaper Dawn of Karachi, the President of Pakistan declared: "The Pakistan army as a defender of the motherland could never afford to leave the Kashmir issue unsolved for an indefinite time", and as late as a few days ago, according to The New York Times of 21 January 1962, he announced his intention to use arms supplied them by the United States Mutual Security Act against any-one, irrespective of United States wishes, whom he considered a threat to Pakistan. And today the representative of Pakistan tells us that Pakistan is threatened by India..
I only mention these facts and I leave it to the members of the Council to place them in juxtaposition in order to view this matter in the right perspective. I also do so to show that the complaint of threat by India to Pakistan is nothing but, if I may use the expression, a bogie. If we were disposed to come to the Security Council in connexion with such statements, I dare say that this august body would be perpetually in session, because these volumes are a testimony to what I am saying. I dare say that the representative of Pakistan can also find some statements which have been made in India. As a matter of fact the campaign against India of the character to which I have just referred that comes from Pakistan is so great that occasionally it is a fact that there are reactions in India and statements are made. But I would say that the scale is very much weighted on their side by statements against India and provocative utterances and incitements to "liberation", "jehad", and so forth.
The representative of Pakistan has picked out a few statements, notably one said to have been made by Mr. Sanjiva Reddy, the President of the Congress Party, some weeks ago at a flag-hoisting ceremony. But as a matter of fact, subsequently at the very same Congress session and after a thorough discussion of the Government's foreign policy, the Indian National Congress formally adopted a resolution which the representative of Pakistan has quoted and which I shall also quote.
"The Congress emphatically supports the Government in its policy in regard to our neighbouring States, Pakistan and China, who continue to be in illegal and forcible occupation of our territories. The Congress considers that consistent with India's basic policy and methods, the Government should seek all avenues of peaceful settlement and approve of the policy of the Government in all aggression".
You will find in this very quotation that India wants to seek all avenues of peaceful settlement. What more can a responsible political party say? After all, this is a declaration of a political party.
Grievance is made of the fact that we call the occupation of a part of Kashmir by Pakistan an aggression. It is true we say that, but we do not just say it today. We have been saying that for the last fourteen years. That was the case with which India came to the Security Council, namely that there had been aggression and an invasion of Kashmir. But the mere fact that we adhere to our point of view cannot be regarded. as aggressive or as a threat to Pakistan. I really fail to understand that argument
Is it not clear from what I have just read out from the resolution of the Indian National Congress, which is the largest political party of the country, that we are in favour of peaceful settlement of our disputes with Pakistan, including the question of Kashmir ?
In his letter of 29 January to the Security Council, the representative of Pakistan quotes a statement from the Tribune of India of 12 July 1961 said to have been made by the Defence Minister of India. In this statement itself the Defence Minister has clearly stated: "We do not want to settle down to a war situation. We still stand by the commitments we have entered into. But if aggression comes, we are determined to and we will meet it. For our sovereignty, dignity and honour are involved in Kashmir''.
I very respectfully submit that this is not a war-like statement. On the contrary it is, as the Council knows, a reaffirmation of something which we have stated again and again and which is our basic position, namely that there has been aggression against India in Kashmir and that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Also, we have stated in the Council time and again since 1948 that this aggression must be vacated, and when we say that we mean to say vacated by peaceful means. It is a reaffirmation of our intention to defend our position in Kashmir and to prevent any further aggression. Surely it is given to a responsible minister of government to state the determination of his government to defend the territory of his country and its rights. Such a statement, incidentally, one sees almost every day in the Press by members of Governments of many nations sitting round this very table in the Security Council.
Grievance is made of the statement of the Defence Minister of India on 20 January 1962 that India was prepared to negotiate with Pakistan any time on the Kashmir issue "but not on the basis of surrender of our sovereignty". Again this is quoted in the letter of 29 February from the representative of Pakistan to the Security Council. Now what is wrong with it? this statement? It is a plea for negotiations without surrender of sovereignty, to which none can really object.
In his letter of 29 January again, the representative of Pakistan alleges troop movements in India. He complains of "the continuous deployment and redeployment of Indian forces within easy striking distance of Pakistan borders". The Government of India officially described as baseless these persistent reports appearing in the Pakistan press about the concentration of Indian troops on the border of Pakistan. It so happens that traditionally a part of the Indian army has been stationed and garrisoned in north-west India for the Formal defence of the country. Undoubtedly there are seasonal and incidental movements of army groups including those for exercises and manoeuvres which have no policy significance. None of the troop movements within India that may have taken place in recent weeks had any relation to Pakistan.
This position, I might add, was explained by the Prime Minister to one of the Ministers of Pakistan who called on him in New Delhi in the early part of January. And I am sure that the representative of Pakistan will himself agree that such army movements, manoeuvres and exercises also take place on the Pakistan side close to our borders from time to time.
The representative of Pakistan has sought to impress the Council with the grave threat to Pakistan. In our view, no rational basis for any such apprehension exists, and I would like to place before you some statements from my Prime Minister which should leave no ground for apprehension.
Speaking in the Lok Sabha (the Lower House), on 16 August 1961, the Prime Minister said:
"We want Pakistan to cooperate with us, and we shall cooperate with them because that is a normal thing for two countries, any two adjoining neighbouring countries to do, more especially with a country like Pakistan which has been a part of us-I am saying even now; there are so many contacts, human contacts, apart from geography cultural and historical contacts, but somehow, all this is almost wasted."
He was referring to the negative approach of Pakistan. The Prime Minister, speaking in the Rajya Sabha (the Upper House), on 22 August 1961, stated:
"We are not going to take any military measures to push out the Pakistan Army or the controlling apparatus from that area."-This means the area occupation-" It is our right, and we are prepared to under Pakistan consider that when the time comes in a peaceful way." and I should like the Council to note this-"That is going pretty far, as the House will appreciate, when we say that we are not going to take any military steps in that area which is occupied by Pakistan."
What can be clearer than this statement ? At a press conference in New Delhi on 28 December 1961 the Prime Minister, among other things, said: "We have always agreed to talk with Pakistan on this subject as on every other subject. We have never refused."
Again, at the annual session of the All-India Congress on 6 January 1962 the Prime Minister stated that India wanted friendship with Pakistan. He said :
"There are many things in common between the two. India and Pakistan for thousands of years have remained one. Our language, our food, our dress are the same. We are almost one nation. Pakistan was formed by partition. It was done by the agreement of India. We do not know that this should be changed."
There are many more statements of this nature right through the years and up to the present time-up to the last few days as a matter of fact. These are statements by the Head of the Government which Pakistan wishes to make out is threatening the territory of Pakistan.
In his letter of 29 January 1962, the representative quoted from The Times of London of 25 January 1962-and the representative has repeated this here-in which the Prime Minister of India is reported to have said that India "had to keep an army on the Punjab frontier because it did not trust the intentions of Pakistan".
I have not seen any authoritative report but let us assume that is a correct version of what the Prime Minister said. Let us look at the facts. After the events of 1947 and 1948, when Pakistan-aided tribesmen and Pakistan forces invaded Kashmir, and in the context of the statement and the cries for "jehad" raised in Pakistan, can India be blamed for taking precautions ? But this does not affect our determination to seek settlement of our outstanding problems with Pakistan peacefully and through negotiations and to live in friendship with it and indeed with all our neighbours. India has always made it clear, and I repeat now, that patient discussions and negotiations and the continuing search for a possibility of accommodation are the only accepted ways of reaching an amicable settlement. As recorded in The New York Times this morning the Prime Minister has stated only yesterday: "We have clearly said that whether they [the leaders of Pakistan] agree with us or not on any point, we will not start a war against Pakistan."
It is a continuing policy of India to settle its disputes with Pakistan by negotiation and through peaceful means. The Prime Minister of India has sent an invitation to President Ayub Khan for a visit to Delhi to talk over the differences between the two Governments. We hope that this invitation will be accepted and that nothing will be said or done, either inside the Council or in Pakistan, to spoil the atmosphere of the talks after the general elections.
I have deliberately made various quotations from our Prime Minister because I would like to show that there is no desire in India, and I repeat there is no desire in the Government of India, to settle our difference with Pakistan by any but peaceful means and by negotiations. It is the earnest desire of the people of India and I think I may say without fear of contradiction that it is the desire of the people of Pakistan that we should live amicably, because we are neighbouring Countries. History and geography have made us not only neighbours, but close neighbours bound together by ties of ancient history and culture. That is our hope, that is our wish, and that is the desire of the Indian people.
Having said this, I go back to where I started from and I would urge that the Security Council should defer its consideration of this matter until a convenient time in the future which is agreeable to Pakistan and to India after the Indian general elections and the formation of the new Government, with a view to giving the new Government of India an opportunity after the general elections to participate fully in the discussions in the Security Council and make its submissions to this Council.
The PRESIDENT: I have no further speakers on my list, and if there are none I will presume to make comments as President of the Council. some
Members of the Security Council have heard statements by the representatives of Pakistan and India concerning this question and if I interpret their remarks correctly I believe both Governments have indicated their desire to deal with the differences on the Kashmir issue in a peaceful manner and without the employment of force. Next, members of the Council will also have taken note, I believe, of the statement by the representative of India that it would be more convenient for his Government to explain its views on this. question more fully after the conclusion of the elections now under way in India.
In the light of these assurances of peaceful intentions which the Council has heard, and of the comments to which I have referred, I understand that members of the Council feel that any further consideration to be given to the question by the Council should be deferred, possibly until sometime after. In March, and then resumed after consultation with the members. of the Council and the parties. Meanwhile the Security Council will continue to be seized of this issue.
In conclusion, therefore, I take it that the members of the Council would urge the parties to refrain from any use or threat of the use of force in connexion with this problem, and I take it that it is also the consensus that nothing should be done or said by either of the parties or by others to aggravate the situation or increase existing tensions. As President of the Security Council, I urge those directly concerned, as well as members of the Council and of the United Nations, to co-operate in these endeavours. If there is no objection, I would conclude with the suggestion that in the light of this consensus of views the Council should adjourn its deliberations on the basis I have stated.
Mr. ZORIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I have but one remark to make in connexion with the President's statement, with which my delegation is in agreement.
As everyone knows, the USSR felt that the urgent convening of the Security Council on this item at the present time was unnecessary and uncalled for, and objected to the meeting being held. Since, however, the President has convened the Security Council at the insistence of certain powers, the USSR delegation believes that the best we can do now is to postpone further action, as the President proposes, particularly in view of the Statement just made by the Indian representative.
That is all I had to say in signifying agreement with the President's view.