22061962 Text of the speech made by Mr. Zafrulla Khan (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 1016 held on 22 June 1962,

22061962 Text of the speech made by Mr. Zafrulla Khan (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 1016 held on 22 June 1962,

If I have requested permission to speak at this late hour and at this late stage in the proceedings of the Security Council, it is for a very definite and precise purpose. I have no intention of starting or resuming a debate, but in view of certain statements which the Defence Minister of India has made statements which he had an absolute and perfect right to make but which, if I did not say anything with regard to them, might create the impression that Pakistan had either accepted them or acquiesced in them-I feel some comment from me is necessary. I assure you that my comment in each case will be quite brief. I will not take up everything that he has stated, but only certain outstanding matters.

He started by saying that there is no dispute between India and Pakistan. That is not in accord with the record. There has been a dispute between India and Pakistan over the question of accession. the States of Jammu and Kashmir to India or to Pakistan.

With regard to the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, certain matters have been referred to and they had also been referred to before-as having become inoperative for certain reasons. Some of the reasons that were adduced were also adduced before the Commission itself and the Commission took note of those matters for instance, the validity of the accession, the sovereignty of India, the alleged aggression by Pakistan and it was after they had taken everything into account that they proposed their resolutions, which were then accepted by both parties. Those matters were therefore covered by the resolutions. The substance of the resolutions which both parties accepted was apart from the procedure through which that substance was to be given effect, that the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be determined through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite. Why is it alleged today that the resolutions are no longer operative and that the plebiscite is no longer in order? I will comment briefly on some of the grounds.

Firstly, it was stated that India had never agreed to the plebiscite. This again is manifestly contrary to the record. There were statements that the question would be so decided, statements on behalf of the Government of India by the Prime Minister of India and other responsible authorities. There were assurances, there were pledges, there were Security Council solutions, there were the UNCIP resolutions that were referred to. It is too late now to contend that was never agreed to or accepted.

Secondly, it has been stated that the resolutions have become inoperative because Pakistan has not complied with its obligation to withdraw its troops completely from the "Azad" Kashmir territory and that that is why the further implementation of the resolutions was blocked. Now, the question of what was the obligation undertaken by Pakistan and when it was to come into operation is in dispute between the parties. On behalf of India it is stated that that obligation had to be carried out completely before any further implementation could take place. That is not the text of the resolution, that is not the explanation of the Commission: but I will not enter into that Assume that India may be right or that, on the other hand Pakistan may be right, that is a question in dispute. The determination of that question depends upon where the responsibility lies for the blocking or obstruction of the further implementation of the resolutions. That question needs determination.

Thirdly, it is said that inasmuch as a long time has elapsed since the resolutions were accepted, their implementation is. no longer feasible. There the important question that arises is: Who is responsible for the long time that has elapsed without implementation? That again is a question to be determined. If it is Pakistan that is responsible for the delay, it may be that Pakistan cannot today, thirteen and a half or fourteen years after the resolutions were accepted, after having blocked their implementation, request that they be carried out. ing that whatever determination takes place finds that it is India But assume which is responsible for blocking the implementation and for the long lapse of time, surely India could not then take advantage of its own default by saying that, since it has succeeded so long in blocking the implementation of the resolutions, it should no longer be called upon to implement them today. Fourthly, it is stated that certain changes have taken place and that therefore the resolutions cannot be implemented. That, again, will depend on what type of changes have taken place and on what the effect of those changes may be upon the obligations undertaken by the parties under the resolutions. Again, a question which must be determined.

Fifthly, it is said that the resolutions and the plebiscite cannot and indeed need not be carried out, because the people of Kashmir have already expressed their wishes three times, during elections, with regard to the accession. On this I will submit just three very brief comments.

First, not all the people of Kashmir have taken part even in the so-called expression of the wishes of the people. The people of Kashmir who were fighting in 1947 and 1948 have not expressed their wishes in this matter because they have relied on the assurances of the Security Council that the fighting should cease, because what they were fighting for would be assured to them by peaceful methods. They are waiting for those assurances of the Security Council to be carried out.

Secondly, when the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir was about to be set up and Pakistan brought the matter to the notice of the Security Council, solemn assurances were given on behalf of the Government of India-assurances which are on record-that although the proposed constituent assembly could not be physically stopped from passing a resolution on the matter of the accession, the Government of India assured the Security Council that if they proceeded to do so, that would not affect the matter before the Council, and the Council proceeded pass resolutions to that effect, not once but more than once, Consequently, an expression through the constituent assembly cannot decide the matter.

I would submit, therefore, that it is neither a safe nor a valid contention to hold that a unilateral pronouncement by one of the parties who have undertaken international obligations towards the Security Council and towards the other party to a dispute-or to a situation, whichever way it may be described-releases that party from its obligations. This, as I said, is not a safe method. Indeed it is a very dangerous principle, for if it were accepted it would block all peaceful settlement of international disputes.

In my original submission to the Security Council I pointed out, and I now repeat, that if India is anxious to be released from its obligations under the UNCIP resolutions on any of these grounds, on all of these grounds or on any other grounds which may or even which may not have already been mentioned by India, then there is one method of doing it. It has been stated by the Defence Minister of India that the Security Council is not a judicial body. But there is a judicial body available for the determination of justiciable questions and all these questions are either pure questions of law or mixed questions of fact and law. If India wants a release from its obligations on any of those grounds, it should propose as much to the Security Council and request an advisory opinion of the international Court on all these matters-the validity of the accession, the question of the sovereignty of India over the State of Jammu and Kashmir, questions which are in dispute and have not yet been determined. Therefore, it is begging these questions to say that India treats them as though they are determined in its own favour.

Taking all those matters-all the considerations that India has mentioned here and any others that it might be desirous of including for determination-into account, the real question in the case to day is: Having regard to the changes that have taken place, to the time that has elapsed and to the fact that the implementation of the resolutions has been halted, under all these circumstances, what are the obligations of the parties under the resolutions ? That would be a fair way of making a determination. Let the international Court determine these matters, if India wishes to request such a determination, and let the parties agree in advance that they will accept the determination of the International Court and carry out their obligations accordingly.

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I have no more speakers on my list, I think that at this stage of the debate there is no need to repeat discussions we have already heard and I do not think that this is the place in which the conversations which have been referred to should begin. In giving the floor to the representative of India, I shall ask him to be as brief as indeed I think it is his intention to be.