03021964 Text of the speech made by Mr. Bhutto (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 1087 held on 3 February 1964.
03021964 Text of the speech made by Mr. Bhutto (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 1087 held on 3 February 1964.
The Government of Pakistan has requested this meeting of the Security Council in order to draw attention to the serious deterioration in the relations between Pakistan and India and to the far-reaching and incalculable consequences of this situation if it is not improved. Considering that one-sixth of the human race is involved, we cannot continue in this way without, in the end, inviting an eruption which will be catastrophic to both.
When we requested this meeting, the Permanent. Representative of India is reported to have said at a press conference that "all that can come out"-presumably referring to this meeting-"is a little more mud-throwing". Whether this remark anticipated his Government's attitude, I do not know. But if it came from any other quarter, this remark would strike me as either flippant or extremely callous. No, the stakes are too high, the issues too vital, the number of people involved too great for us to seek through "mud-throwing" the resolution of a dispute that carries the seeds of a major international upheaval. It is our contention that justice and not "mud-throwing'' will ultimately resolve this issue, and we are here to place before you the justice of our complaint.
We have come to this distinguished body to obtain its assistance in an impartial examination of the existing situation and to urge upon it the incontestably vital necessity of remedying it-not exclusively in the interest of the people of Pakistan and India, but also in the larger interest of world peace, stability and prosperity.
The situation to which I refer was brought to the attention of the Security Council in my letter of 16 January 1964 [S/5517]. I am sure that the members of the Security Council have informed themselves of what has recently happened in Kashmir and in our two countries and the heavy toll these events have taken on human lives and property, the suffering they have caused, the bitterness they have engendered, the great scars of hate they have reopened. Accounts of the voting and the consequent uprooting and displacement of large populations bring an ugly and shameful reminder of those unbelievably tragic events which occurred in the two countries in 1947. Nearly seventeen years have passed since then. Is there to be no end to this madness?
For my part I must place on record my Government's deepest anguish at the occurrence of these recent tragic events, whether they happened in India or in Pakistan. In bringing these events to the attention of the Security Council, it is not my intention to present a charge sheet against anyone. No purpose would be served by that. Our endeavour should be to determine the root cause of these tides of violence and to see what it is that makes Pakistan and India such uneasy neighbours and so bedevils their relations. It is in this spirit that Pakistan comes once again before the Security Council to plead the cause of the people of Jammu and Kashmir at the bar of the world Organization.
The Government and people of Pakistan are totally committed to the liberation of their Kashmiri brethren. They will not tire; neither will they falter in the long and bitter struggle until the right of self-determination, as pledged to them in the resolutions of the Security Council and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, has been implemented.
It is our firm belief that in waging this peaceful struggle, we are striving to uphold the high purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations-to avert the danger to international peace in Asia and the world and to promote respect for human rights. At this moment, both stand in peril.
As set forth in my letter of 16 January, addressed to you, Mr. President, the reasons for my Government's request for an urgent meeting of the Security Council, briefly, are as follows. An extremely tense situation has arisen in Kashmir and throughout Pakistan, and relations between my country and India have become strained over the Government of India's policies toward the State of Jammu and Kashmir and more specifically its recently declared intention to "integrate" the State of Jammu and Kashmir with the Indian Union. India is doing this in open violation of its own pledges to the Security Council and in disregard of the rights of the people of the State. As a reaction to Indian policies, the long-suffering people have once again risen in what has been described by foreign observers as "open rebellion against the Bakshi Government and India itself".
This rebellion continues. Despite the intensification of measures of terror and repression by Indian occupation authorities in the State, the brave people of Kashmir are determined to continue their struggle against Indian rule until liberation is won.
A wall of steel separates Indian-occupied Kashmir from the outside world. India is trying desperately to conceal what is happening there under a massive blanket of censorship. But enough leaks through to show that India's colonial hold over Kashmir is disintegrating.
In my letter, I have quoted excerpts from the dispatches of impartial foreign correspondents to give some indication to the Security Council and the world of the upheaval that has taken place inside Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir during the last few weeks. It has paralysed the puppet Government of Shamsuddin and the Indian occupation authorities. These dispatches show that the massive demonstrations and the paralysing general strike in Kashmir are not only an expression of the resentment of a long-oppressed people against the out rage perpetrated in the Hazratbal shrine against their deepest religious sentiments; they are an expression also of their indignation against continued domination. As The Economist of London, in its issue of 4 January points out, "The theft of the holy relic was spark to tinder."
The "incredible drama of religious passions and political rebellion" of the people of Jammu and Kashmir against Indian rule as a foreign observer puts it-has not ended as the result In an eye of the proclamation of the alleged recovery of the holy relic and the intensification by India of repressive measures. witness account dated 19 January of the happenings of the past few weeks in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, the correspondent of The Evening Star (Washington), the only foreign reporter to visit the area during the recent uprising, stated as follows:
"For two weeks I was the only outside witness in Kashmir to an incredible drama of religious passions and political rebellion for the last eight days Srinagar was cut off from the outside world by landslides, snowstorms and tight press censorship. When I left Srinagar on Monday, the general strike that had paralysed Kashmir's economy was in its eighteenth day, though stores had opened for half days last week allowing a slight resumption of business.
"The successor Government of 'Premier' Shamsuddin, a long time Bakshi henchman, has virtually ceased to function. For three weeks no Government or ruling National Conference party official dared to appear before the public. Instead they remained indoors guarded by police with fixed bayonets.
"On 5 January the week of growing demonstrations was climaxed when 300,000 Muslims gathered in Srinagar's Red Square, where Mr. Nehru promised Kashmiris self determination fourteen years ago. On 7 January Indian army troops supported by rifle-carrying police occupied Srinagar's streets... As the troops patrolled Srinagar, government buildings were lit up and fireworks exploded in a bizarre travesty of public celebrations. The sullen and angry population listened to All-India Radio broadcasting patently false reports of widespread rejoicing and public speeches by government leaders.
"During the past fourteen days hundreds of Kashmiris have rushed up to me in Sri streets begging me to tell their story to the world. Their story is that they are desperately unhappy after decades of rule by Bakshi's iron fisted and corrupt police state. India is also blamed for installing and supporting a tyrannical regime which suppressed any dissent with police interrogation', secret informers and sadistic 'peace brigades"."
The correspondent then goes on to say:
"After two weeks it is impossible for an outsider, even one deeply sympathetic towards India, to believe that India can continue to hold Kashmir, much less fully integrate it into India without maintaining a police State, backed by army troops. India's fifteen-year attempt to win over Kashmir is ending in tragic failure. When humble peasants in Kashmir are asked 'Who is your leader and what do you want ?', the answer invariably is, Sheikh Abdullah and a plebiscite."
There were renewed disturbances on 25 and 26 January in Srinagar, Anantnag and Baramulla, all major towns of the State. Black flags were hoisted and a general strike was observed despite police threats to have shops looted if they were found closed. The Indian police employed baton and tear gas charges and, when these failed to quell the demonstrators, resorted to indiscriminate firing. A dispatch in the Baltimore Sun of 1 February reports that "estimates of the
numbers of dead in these firings have risen to about thirty".
The Indian authorities have prohibited even peaceful demonstrations and processions in major towns of the States. Arrests of Kashmir leaders continue, the latest being that of Maulana Mohammed Yasin, member of the People's Action Committee, Maulana Masoodi, its leader, has been ordered not to leave Srinagar. Kashmiri men and women crossing the seven bridges which connect the two parts of the city are required to do so with hands raised above their heads on the pretext that they may be carrying bombs to blow up the bridges.
According to the Indian Express of 1 February, complete "hartal"-that is general strike-was declared in Srinagar on 31 January when the leaders of the people publicly charged that "agents provocateurs" of the National Conference had, on Wednesday, attacked the inmates of a hospital, most of whom were victims of the week-end rioting. According to this dispatch, the general strike will be observed every Friday until the people's immediate demands are satisfied.
A dispatch in The Times of India of Delhi, of 28 January, is significant. It says:
"The orderliness and discipline witnessed during the days of the hartals, processions and meetings were remarkable. There was hardly any case of disobedience to the order of the People's Action Committee. In Srinagar, the Government appeared ineffective, and there was almost a parallel administration."
The dispatch goes on to say:
"Three battalions of the Rajasthan, Punjab and Central Reserve Police had to be rushed to Kashmir, and the Indian Army authorities were requested to help in taking up guard duties at strategic points."
According to a dispatch in The Sunday Star (Washington) of 19 January, India's Minister of Home Affairs "warned that future demonstrations would be put down with a heavy hand". This is to be read with a Reuters dispatch in The Washington Post of 5 January, according to which a mass meeting in Srinagar "passed a resolution charging that recent incidents were an attempt to incite Kashmir Muslims so that, if they protested, India would have another excuse to suppress the freedom movement".
The fear expressed by the people of Kashmir is now. confirmed by the news reported in the Baltimore Sun of 1 February, that "the Indian Army rushed reinforcements to riot torn Srinagar". The dispatch adds that "mobs shouting anti Government slogans, marched through Srinagar and drew fierce police reprisals". The Indian Army has also been called out to assist the police in suppressing the people.
This dispatch from Delhi mentions "private admission that additional military strength is needed to keep internal discipline in Kashmir''. The Minister of the Indian Government, Mr. Lal Bahadur Shastri, who visited Kashmir, as reported by The Hindustan Times, of Delhi of 31 January, "drove through almost desolate streets' '. A Hindu leader of Jammu, Mr. Premnath Dogra, is reported to have sent telegrams. to the President of India complaining of "mass suppression".
The background of these recent happenings in Kashmir is explained by The Christian Science Monitor of 22 January as follows:
"Since last year, tension in that part of the territory administered by India has grown with the hitherto quiescent Muslim majority apprehensive about moves to integrate Kashmir more closely with India."
The upheaval in the State has gathered further political momentum. The target of the mass movement is the regime of India's puppets and quislings and the whole National Conference, which is India's political prop in the State. The truth is that the people are no longer prepared to tolerate India's hold over the State which began when it marched into Kashmir in October 1947.
The situation in Kashmir is exemplified by the imprisonment of Sheikh Abdullah since August 1953. The Security Council will recall that when the Kashmir case was first brought before the Council, India justified the despotic Maharajah's accession on the ground that it had been supported by the "most popular" leader of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah. Sheikh Abdullah has been described by the Prime Minister of India, Pandit Nehru, as "the lion of Kashmir, beloved of the people in the remotest valleys of Kashmir '' around whose personality. "numerous legends and popular songs have grown". Mr. Nehru also paid tributes to Sheikh Abdullah's "strength and vision which have endeared him to Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in Kashmir". Mr. Nehru has called him "the biggest and most popular leader in Kashmir '' and "a brave man who has led his people through weal and woe".
It was this same leader who was arrested in 1953, at the behest of Mr. Nehru himself and who has since then, with one brief interval of three months, remained incarcerated. For five years from 1953 to 1958 he was held without charge and trial. In October 1958, he was brought before an Indian court for a mock trial, which is still going on.
The prosecution has filed a list of 322 witnesses, of which only 81 have been examined during the last five years. I repeat, out of a list of 322 witnesses, only 81 have been examined during the last five years. The end of the trial is nowhere in sight. The judicial farce, staged on trumped-up charges, must forever remain a block on the administration of justice in India. The occasion of Sheikh Abdullah's arrest in August 1953 provided the Indian military with the opportunity to resort to indiscriminate shooting of protesting Kashmiris Over a thousand men, women and children were mown down. In Sheikh Abdullah's own words, the people of Kashmir "were given a blood bath unparalleled in the annals of Kashmir's history".
The traumatic experience of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under Indian rule moved Sheikh Abdullah to write recently to the President of India from goal, calling upon him to revise Indian policy with regard to Jammu and Kashmir. May I be permitted to quote from this letter:
"During the last three centuries, though Kashmir witnessed long periods of misrule and lawlessness, never before has such a tragedy befallen the people and no one has ever had the audacity to touch the sacred relic, much less conceive the profane idea of its removal from the shrine. The present tragedy is the greatest ever blow in this Islamic centre known to history."
The Sheikh continues :
"It is our considered view that this sacrifice is not an isolated incident unconnected with the happenings in the recent past in Kashmir. Of late, Kashmir has been going through a process of dehumanization. Respect for moral and spiritual values is cast to the winds, without the slightest qualms of conscience. This process was actually, so to say, initiated in August 1953, when the unashamed murder of democracy was committed in Kashmir. Thereafter, flagrant disregard of moral values was publicly demonstrated with the sanction and backing of the rulers of Kashmir. Scant respect was shown to law and justice, and common man's life and honour were at the mercy of wanton hooliganism. No attempt was made to arrest the process of degradation. On the contrary, ``crores" "-that is millions" of rupees of the Indian Exchequer have largely been utilized to corrupt the people of Kashmir and almost kill their very soul, so as to 'drug them away' from any possible resistance against the onslaught of their basic human rights. "The press, sacrilege would tragically complete the process of disintegration of the political, moral and spiritual life of the people of Kashmir who could then be dealt with as dumb, driven cattle."
The Sheikh concludes with the following appeal to the President of India :
"In this connexion I would draw your attention to the reported indiscriminate arrests recently affected in the valley as also to the use of force which has taken the toll of some valuable human lives. You can appreciate the depth of sorrow and anguish in the minds of Kashmiris, and if even expression of such anguish is gagged, it may lead to grave consequences. It is time that we realize that bullets and lathi' "-baton-" charges and indiscriminate arrests do not help in easing such situations. An early action in the direction of revising the Kashmir policy is equally important, to which I have made a reference earlier. It is the root cause of the evils, which has culminated in the present tragedy.``
That is a part of the letter written by Sheikh Abdullah recently from gaol to the President of India.
Despite India's policy-according to Sheikh Abdullah-of "dehumanization", the flame of freedom has continued to burn ever brighter in the hearts of the people of Jammu and Kashmir I recall the statement Sheikh Abdullah made in 1961 in the course of his farcical trial by an Indian court. I quote :
"It is a small matter as to what happens to me. But it is no small matter that the people of Jammu and Kashmir suffered poverty, humiliation and degradation. It has been no small matter what they have endured for more than a decade and what they are enduring now. In fact, the State has become a vast prison camp Hundreds of Kashmiris have suffered incarceration for years since 9 August 1953, under these lawless laws; many were shot by the army and the police; hundreds were mained and disabled for life; hundreds again were involved in fictitious criminal cases in order to silence their voices..
"These very events have demonstrated the justice of the demand for the immediate implementation of the pledge of the plebiscite given to the people of Kashmir by India, Pakistan and the United Nations."
He concluded with these memorable words:
"My voice may be stifled behind the prison walls but it will continue to echo and ring for all times to come. It can never conscience." be stopped. It is the voice of numan Sheikh Abdullah's voice is only an articulation of the
feelings in the hearts of the millions of Kashmiris who have again risen in a mighty protest against Indian occupation and domination.
Even Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, who helped to put him in prison and, under the protection of Indian bayonets, usurped the Government of the State, has been compelled to admit the failure of India's policy in Kashmir to crush the spirit of the people. According to the Press Trust of India, an Indian news agency, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed told reporters on his arrival in New Delhi from Srinagar on 17 January :
"There are three slogans being raised in Kashmir now; Firstly, an inquiry should be held into the events of 1953, which led to the arrest of Sheikh Abdullah; secondly, Sheikh Abdullah should be released; and thirdly, the demand for the plebiscite should be conceded."
When called to order by the Indian authorities for making such a damaging admission, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed obediently issued a "clarification" that "what he had exactly said was that some disgruntled elements, who were opposed to the regime had raised these slogans. The disgruntled elements, who were opposed to the regime", let it be noted, were, in the words of the correspondent of The Evening Star (Washington), "virtually the entire population of this Himalayan-rimmed capital of Srinagar" who "abandoned their homes to spend the daylight hours marching through the cobbled streets and demanding in enraged voices that their holy relic be returned to its shrine".
It is this surging mass of humanity which shouted demands "that Sheikh Abdullah, Kashmir's popular former Prime Minister, be released after a decade of imprisonment by India" The "disgruntled elements" are the people of Srinagar, who, according to the same correspondent, grimly sat for hours amidst falling sleet to express their bitter resentment against "India's recent moves to integrate Kashmir fully in the Indian Union".
These recent moves that precipitated a situation in which, in the words of The Economist, "The theft of the holy relic was spark to tinder", have been set forth in my letter of 16 January to you, Mr. President.
The sinister design of the Government of India to obliterate the special status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir was foreshadowed on 3 October 1963 by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, the then puppet "Prime Minister" of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. He announced that "a directive had been issued to bring Kashmir closer to the rest of India", and that, "as a first step", it had been decided to change the designations of "Sardar-i-Riyasat" to "Governor" and "Prime Minister" of the State to Chief Minister", to bring the State in line with the provinces of India. He added that the necessary "constitutional" formalities to give effect to this change would be carried out by the State's Legislative Assembly when it meets in March 1964.
The Government of Pakistan protested at once to the Security Council through its Permanent Representative. As stated in his letter of 9 October 1963 the proposed step involved yet another breach of India's commitment to the principles of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan's resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 in reply to that letter the Permanent Representative of India, in his communication of 12 November 1963 made the outrageous claim that Jammu and Kashmir is a constituent State of the Indian Union and therefore Indian territory.
Soon afterwards Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed was replaced by his own nominee, Mr. Shamsuddin, as the new puppet "Prime Minister" of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. One of the first acts of that hitherto obscure figure was to install in office, under orders from Delhi, a Cabinet in which as many as seven out of twelve Ministers and deputy Ministers belong to the minority community, even though the population of the State is overwhelmingly Muslim. Shamsuddin then proceeded to dismiss over 100 officers of the State Government, who were to be replaced by, as he put it, "persons with a more secular and nationalistic outlook". Thus, at one stroke, he purged the State administration of officers whose only shortcoming was that they were, perhaps, in some small measure psychologically and emotionally resistant to India's policies in respect of their home land.
Subsequently, on 27 November 1963, the Indian Minister of Home Affairs announced in Indian Parliament the following measures to "integrate" the State with India:
(1) An order of the President under Article 370 of the (Indian) Constitution was issued on 25 September 1963, integrating the State's legal and medical professions with those of India;
(2) A símilar proposal in respect of welfare of labour in the coal-mining industry was under consideration;
(3) Representatives of Jammu and Kashmir in the Lok Sabha would be chosen by direct election as in the Indian provinces. Effect will be given to this after the termination of the present emergency;
(4) The Sadr-i-Riyasat and the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir would be designated as Governor and Chief Minister respectively. Legislation to give effect to the proposal would be taken up during the next session of the State Legislature.
Mr. Nanda continued and I quote:
"(5) Article 370 of the Constitution occurs in Part XXI of the Constitution which deals with temporary and transitional procedures. Since this Article was incorporated in the Constitution many changes have been made which bring the State of Jammu and Kashmir in line with the rest of India. The State is fully integrated into the Union of India. Governments are of the opinion that they should not take any initiative now for the complete repeal of Article 370. This will, no doubt, be brought about by further changes in consultation with the Government and Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. This process has continued in the last few years and may be allowed to continue in the same way."
The Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, endorsed this statement the same day. He went on to explain that article 370 of the Indian Constitution would be subject to a process of "gradual erosion."
The Government of Pakistan protested to the Government of India against these unlawful and outrageous measures. In a note handed to the Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan on 14 December 1963 the Government of Pakistan pointed out that the contemplated measures were deliberately aimed at destroying the basis of agreement on the State of Jammu and Kashmir as embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949; they also violated the resolutions of the Security Council of 30 March 1951 and 24 January 1957. The Government of Pakistan made it clear to the Government of India that in view of these resolutions whatever measures the Government of India had taken or might take, whether legislative or administrative could have no legal effect whatsoever since such measures contravened the pre-existing international legal obligations that India had accepted in respect of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Those obligations cannot be negated unilaterally by India through any device, however camouflaged. This protest note also made it clear that all Indian actions of this nature, already taken or contemplated, were illegal and ultra vires because of the provisions of the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, to which India is a party, that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir can be determined only by the people of Kashmir themselves through a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under United Nations auspices.
Furthermore, in a second letter addressed by the Pakistan Permanent Representative to the President of the Security Council on 3 January 1964 the attention of the Security Council was invited to the above-quoted statements of the Minister of Home Affairs and the Prime Minister of India. It was pointed out in the letter that the steps contemplated by the Government of India were patently designed to consolidate India's hold over the bulk of Jammu and Kashmir, to demoralize its people and to interpose further obstacles in the establishment of conditions for the exercise of their free choice in regard to their future, and that, therefore, they constituted a defiance of the Security Council and the principles of the United Nations Charter.
The Government of India, I regret to state, rejected the protest of the Government of Pakistan and termed it "an unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of India".
May I remind the representative of India that Pakistan has never admitted and will never recognize India's false claim to the territory of Jammu and Kashmir in disregard of the right of self- determination of the people of the State, as pledged to them in the resolutions of the Security Council and United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan.
It is perhaps necessary here to recapitulate, briefly, the I need not now recall the background against which the integration measures of the Government of India should be viewed. the story of the circumstances in which India procured the "accession" of the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir. The Security Council is familiar with that history. Suffice it to say that the genesis of the dispute is that India obtained the signature of the despotic Maharajah on an instrument of accession at a time when the people of Jammu and Kashmir had risen in rebellion against the Maharajah and ousted his authority from the State. But, apart from the fact that this accession lacked a legal sanction ab initio, how did the Government of India itself represent this accession to the Government of Pakistan or to the United Nations ?
According to their statements, the so-called accession was, first, conditional upon the results of a plebiscite among the people of Jammu and Kashmir to be held under international auspices, which would decide whether that State should accede to India or to Pakistan, and, second, it was limited only to the three subjects of defence, communications and foreign affairs. There are innumerable statements to this effect made by the representatives of India from time to time. I shall quote only three. Immediately after the so-called accession by the Maharajah, the Prime Minister of India, informing Pakistan of it, said in his telegram of 27 October 1947 addressed to the Prime Minister of Pakistan :
"I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view, which we have repeatedly made public, is that the question of accession in any territory or State must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people, and we adhere to this view."
The members of the Security Council will note the words: "Is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India". When the Government of India brough the question to the Security Council in 1948, the representative of India said:
"We desire only to see peace restored in Kashmir and to ensure that the people of Kashmir are left free to decide in an orderly and peaceful manner the future of their State. We have no further interest, and we have agreed that a plebiscite in Kashmir might take place under inter national auspices after peace and order have been established." [227th meeting.]
Members of the Security Council will note the words: "we have no further interest". Later, the representative of India reaffirmed his Government's position thus :
"The Indian Government was careful, even though they came from both, to stipulate that it was accepting the accession only on the condition that later, when peace had been restored, the expression of the popular will should be ascertained in a proper manner. It was on that condition, and that condition alone, that the Indian Government accepted accession..." [234th meeting.]
Members of the Security Council will note, again, the words: "It was on that condition and that condition alone, that the Indian Government accepted accession".
These statements show that India's intervention in Jammu and Kashmir, according to its own declaration, was not intended to make the accession final and that a plebiscite had to be held in Kashmir to decide its future. It might be pertinent to refer here to the summation made by the President of the Security Council at that time. He said:
"... the documents now at our disposal show agreement between the parties on the three following points:
"1. The question as to whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir will accede to India or to Pakistan shall be decided by a plebiscite :
"2. This plebiscite must be conducted under conditions which ensure complete impartiality;
"3. The plebiscite will therefore be held under the aegis of the United Nations.
"The terms in which the three ideas I have just mentioned are expressed and the consequences to be deduced from them may be matters for discussion, but I think I can say that the three ideas are not themselves disputed between the parties." [236th meeting.]
I believe that these references and it is only to avoid undue length that I do not add the many more which are on record are enough to indicate the position taken by the Government of India before the Security Council, according to which the principle that Jammu and Kashmir would decide its accession by a plebiscite was undisputed, as noted by the President of the Security Council. It was on the basis of this agreement between India and Pakistan, which transcended all other questions in dispute, that the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan were accepted by the parties. If they mean anything, they mean that Jammu and Kashmir cannot become part of either India or Pakistan except as a result of a plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.
In addition to affirming the provisional and conditional nature of the so-called accession, the representatives of India were at pains, at a meeting of the Security Council, to explain that Jammu and Kashmir retained its autonomy within the Indian Union and that, in fact, India had very limited jurisdiction over it. In fact, at one meeting, the representative of India conceded that the determination of the future of Kashmir was a matter over which neither India nor Pakistan had any jurisdiction and that this point was common ground between the two countries. Even later, in 1951, Sir Benegal Rau, then India's representative, explained to the Council that the scope of Kashmir's autonomy was limited only by a few matters having been taken over by the Government of the Indian Union.
This was the way in which India first represented its relationship to Jammu and Kashmir. It was supposed to be a relationship limited in scope and subject to a plebiscite. Then, in spite of these solemn declarations and agreements, on 27 October 1950 the so-called. "All-Jammu and Kashmir National Conference adopted a resolution to convene a constituent assembly for the State to determine its "future shape and affiliation". The significance of this manoeuvre was all too plain; it meant that India was arranging, through the coterie sponsored by it in Kashmir, to bypass the United Nations, and to have the so-called accession rubber-stamped by a compliant agency. Pakistan protested and brought the situation to the attention of the Security Council.
After due deliberation, the Council adopted a resolution on 30 March 1951 whose preamble stated:
"Observing that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted the provisions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, and have reaffirmed their desire that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, conducted under the auspices of the United Nations,
"Observing that on 27 October 1950, the General Council of the 'All-Jammu and Kashmir National Conference' adopted a resolution recommending the convening of a constituent assembly for the purpose of determining the 'future shape and affiliation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir'; observing further from statements of responsible authorities that action is proposed to convince such a constituent assembly and that the area from which such a constituent assembly would be elected is only a part of the whole territory of Jammu and Kashmir. "Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in the Security Council resolutions of 21 April 1948, 3 June 1948 and 14 March 1950. and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1948, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed in the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.
"Affirming that the convening of a constituent assembly. recommended by the General Council of the 'All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference' and any action. that Assembly might attempt to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle.
During the debate preceding the adoption of this resolution, the Indian representative gave assurances to the Council that the proposed "constituent assembly" would not prejudice the issue before the Council or come in its way. This meant that the question of the accession was to be decided by a plebiscite and India was bound to that commitment. The representative of India said before the Security Council:
"Accordingly, provision was made in the Indian Constitution for a constitution assembly for setting the details of the Kashmir constitution. Will that assembly decide the question of accession ? My Government's view is that while the constituent assembly may, if it so desires, express an opinion on this question, it can take no decision on it.', [536th meeting, para. 23.]
"Some members of the Council appear to fear that in the process the Kashmir constituent assembly might express its opinion on the question of accession. The constituent assembly cannot be physically prevented from expressing its opinion on this question, if it so chooses. But this opinion will not bind my Government or prejudice the position of this Council." [538th meeting, para. 5.]
Despite these assurances, the Indian-sponsored authorities in Kashmir continued to declare that the assembly would decide the future affiliation of the State. When the Security Council met again on 29 May 1951, the President of the Council addressed a cablegram to the Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan which said:
"Members of the Security Council, at its 548th meeting. held on 29 May 1951, have heard with satisfaction the assurances of the representative of India that any constituent assembly that may be established in Srinagar is not intended to prejudice the issues before the Security Council, or to come in its way.
"On the other hand, the two communications to me as President of the Council from the representatives of Pakistan contain reports which, if they are correct, indicate that steps are being taken by the Yuvaraja of Jammu and Kashmir to convoke a constituent assembly, one function of which, according to Sheikh Abdulah, would be a decision on the future shape and affiliation of Kashmir,"
"It is the sense of the Security Council that these reports, if correct, would involve procedures which are in conflict with the commitments of the parties to determine the future accession of the State by a fair and impartial plebiscite conducted under United Nations auspices
"It seems appropriate to recall the request contained in the resolution of 30 March that the parties create and maintain an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of future negotiations and to refrain from any action likely to prejudice a just and peaceful settlement'. The Council trusts that the Government of India and Pakistan will do everything in their power to ensure that the authorities in Kashmir do not disregard the Council or act in a manner which would prejudice the determination of the future accession of the State in accordance with the procedures provided for in the resolutions of the Council and of the United Nations Commission for India and and Pakistan..." [548th meeting ; para. 89.]
Undeterred by the resolution of the Security Council and the admonition of its President, the so-called constituent assembly in Kashmir was convened through rigged elections as an instrument of India's design, first, to bypass the United Nations that is, to avoid the plebiscite-and second, to extend the terms of the so-called accession that is, to consolidate India's hold over Kashmir.
It was at this stage that Sheikh Abdulla proved to be an impediment in India's path and began to stress that the accession was provisional and, even as such, was limited to a restricted number of subjects. It became an urgent necessity for the Government of India to eliminate him as a factor in the equation. This was done by his arrest and imprisonment. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, who was installed in his place, undertook to facilitate the steps which were contemplated by the Government of India for tightening its hold over Jammu and Kashmir. By an order promulgated in 1954, as amended from time to time, the Government of India has sought to reduce, step by step, the status of Jammu and Kashmir to a province of the Indian Union. The integration of the State's services with the rest of India and the extension of the jurisdiction of the Comptroller and the Auditor General and of the Election Commissioner and the Supreme Court to the State were some of the steps in this process. Each of these measures could be made to appear as minor and innocuous in nature, but taken together they compel the functioning of Jammu and Kashmir as a unit of the Indian Union.
These measures, all taken in violation of international agreement in defiance of the Security Council's resolution which I have quoted, eventually led to the adoption, in November 1956, of a "constitution" by the "constituent assembly" in Kashmir. This "constitution" declared: "Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India ''. Pakistan again brought the matter to the Security Council's attention, and on 24 January 1957 the Council adopted another resolution. which states:
"The Security Council,
"Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions of 21 April 1948, 3 June 1948, 14 March 1950 and 30 March 1951, and the United Nations Commission for India Pakistan resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nation,
"Reaffirms the affirmation in its resolution of 30 March 1951 and declares that the convening of a constituent assembly as recommended by the General Council of the All-Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and any action that Assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, or acti parties concerned in support of any such action by the Assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle".
Again, undeterred by this resolution and despite Pakistan's repeated protests, the Government of India has continued to adopt measures usurping increasing power and authority over the State of Jammu and Kashmir, The taking over of responsibility for the administration of highways, telegraphs, telephones, income tax, broadcasting and customs, the subordination of the Audit accounts Department of the State to the Auditor-General of India, the abolition of the customs barriers and the permit system for entry into and out of the State, the subjection of its economic plans to the authority of the Indian Planning Commission, the imposition of the authority of the Supreme Court of India over Kashmir, and the arrogation by the President of India of powers to promulgate laws in Jammu and Kashmir by executive fiat all these, among other things, are links in the chain with which Jammu and Kashmir has been shackled. The latest measures show that India is determined to continue to flout the Security Council by reducing the State to the level of a mere administrative unit of India.
It is manifest that the people of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir would have none of this so-called "integration" with India. I have quoted sufficiently from foreign observers, from the moving letter of Sheikh Abdullah written from behind prison bars, and from the admission of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed himself, to show that the "incredible drama of religious passions has any kind of political association with India.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir demand self-determination. They demand a plebiscite. The indictment in Sheikh Abdullah's letter speaks for itself. He has stated that in his considered view the Hazratbal sacrilege :
is not an isolated incident unconnected with the happenings in the recent past in Kashmir..." - a past in which tens of millions of rupees of the Indian Exchequer -"have largely been utilized to corrupt the people of Kashmir and almost killed their soul so as to 'drug them away' from any possible resistance against the onslaught on their basic human rights."
Sheikh Abdullah has demanded a revision of India's policy in regard to Jammu and Kashmir, a policy which, according to him "is the root cause of all the evils which have culminated in the present tragedy".
What is India's response ? Has the recent up-heaval in Kashmir made it pause and reflect ? Is the Government of India prepared to pay heed to the anguished protest of the people of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir against the denial of their inalienable rights? There is no indication of any change of heart on India's part. It is determined to continue with its plans for the forcible annexation of the State. The Indian Home Minister's statement in the Indian Parliament on 27 November 1963 remains unrestricted.
Indian newspapers are full of inspired reports that the panacea, the sovereign remedy for all the ills of Kashmir, is to complete the process of annexation at one stroke. To this end, India's agents in Kashmir have been summoned to Delhi to take counsel with the legal sophists of the Government of India. Officers of the Indian Government are being planted in key administrative and police posts in the State. The Indian bureaucracy is being superimposed on the Shamsuddin Government. These insidious measures, designed to tighten India's own grip on Kashmir, are presented to the world as steps to "strengthen" and "clean" the State administration.
This is a grave situation that I have to bring to the attention of the Security Council. Pakistan is directly concerned and involved in the fate of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan is pledged to ensure that the people of Jammu and Kashmir exercise their right of self-determination as spelled out in the resolutions of the Security Council and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. The Security Council has twice adopted resolutions reaffirming that the final disposition of the State of Jammu Kashmir will be made only in accordance with the will of the people exercised through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.
Consequently, the Government of Pakistan is honour bound, in duty and good faith, to request the Security Council to call upon India to cease and desist from any action contrary to that decision, to which India itself is a party. That decision must be urgently implemented. The situation inside Kashmir and in the India-Pakistan subcontinent demands it.
As stated in my letter of 16 January, India's iniquitous policies in Jammu and Kashmir have led to upheavals in that State. The present rebellion has further aggravated relations between Pakistan and India, and led to communal riots in the two countries. To the deep regret of my Government, the tension over the Hazratbal and Kashmir outrages and the subsequent regime of repression in indian-occupied Kashmir found expression in some regrettable incidents on 3 January against the Hindu authority in the Khulna and Jessore districts of East Pakistan. The disorder was promptly suppressed and normal life restored in the two districts.
Exaggerated reports of these incidents in East Pakistan were published in the Indian Press. Indian political leaders made inflammatory statements from the platform of the annual session of the ruling Congress Party of India at Bhubaneswar. Within hours of those speeches, the existence of the Muslim minority in the city of Calcutta and in a number of other districts of the Indian State of West Bengal, was placed in dire jeopardy. Widespread acts of killing, arson and destruction of property took place. A large number of innocent men, women and children have been done to death. Over 75,000 rendered homeless and shelterless in Calcutta alone. More than 60,000 terror-stricken Muslim refugees have fled into East Pakistan for sanctuary.
Confronted with this human tragedy, the President of Pakistan made an appeal on 13 January to the people of Pakistan to maintain calm, emphasizing the supreme need for preserving communal peace despite the anxiety and provocation that the tragic events in West Bengal had caused them. The President of Pakistan also sent an urgent appeal to the President of India to take immediate and effective steps to restore order and peace in Calcutta and other areas of West Bengal, such as would create a sense of security in the minds of the Muslim minority and enable the Muslim refugees to return to their homes. He emphasized that this was in the larger interests of both India and Pakistan. He observed that he could not help feeling that :
"In thus taking the law into their own hands, with a view to driving the Muslims out of West Bengal into East Pakistan, certain elements in the majority community in West Bengal may have been encouraged by the policy that the Government of India has been following over the last two years, despite our protests and appeals, to drive. out Indian Muslims living in the districts bordering East Pakistan".
Nearly 100,000 Indian Muslims had thus been pushed out into East Pakistan by the end of last December, prior to the latest communal disorders and disturbances. Since then, as stated earlier, over 50,000 more refugees have fled into East Pakistan as a result of these disturbances.
The Indian President's reply to this appeal was unhelpful. In a message to the President of Pakistan on 16 January [S/5522, annex I], he sought to put the entire blame for the killings and destruction in Calcutta and West Bengal on the Khulna incidents. in East Pakistan. He went on to accuse the Pakistani leaders and the Pakistani Press of doing "everything to rouse communal passions to an uncontrollable pitch".
Refraining from engaging in a controversy over facts, the President of Pakistan replied:
"It would, I think, be most unfortunate that you and I should get involved in an exchange of recriminations. This would deflect attention from our real purpose.
"This purpose is that the lives and property of a minority community must be fully protected, that communal peace must be maintained and that the minority community must not be looked upon as a hostage. By blaming and Thus implicitly condoning communal killings and destruction in one country on similar instances in the other, we might unwittingly lend encouragement precisely to these evil forces which it is the Government's duty to curb," [S/5692, annex II.]
The President of Pakistan went on to say:
"What is really needed is that whatever steps are necessary should be most urgently taken to restore law and order and mete out deterrent punishment to the criminals. who have been responsible for killing innocent men, women and children.
"We are faced with a grave human problem. It will not be solved by shutting our eyes to it, as for example, Mr. Nanda's statement that on 14 January absolute communal harmony prevailed in Calcutta. Nor can we solve this problem by blaming others for creating it. Let leaders in each country look into their own hearts and resolve to put their own house in order." [Ibid]
In his message the Indian President made a suggestion that the President of Pakistan should join with him in an appeal to the peoples of the two countries to maintain communal peace and harmony. In reply, President Ayub Khan pointed out:
"As you know, I have already issued an appeal to my people. I took the earliest opportunity to do this. I do not see how a second appeal by me would have any greater effect. What is required is that stern measures be taken against those miscreants who are responsible for recent incidents"-in Dacca and Narayanganj, that is in Pakistan-"and to prevent trouble from spreading. This is what the Government of East Pakistan is doing with the full backing and support of my Government".
In order to restore communal peace and harmony in East Pakistan, we had to resort to firing on our own people.
This reply rose above the level of controversy. It was filled with human concern and compassion for the sudden and tragic fate that had overtaken tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children for no fault other than that they belonged to a minority community. It is a matter of the deepest regret to my Government that the contagion of rioting in Calcutta and other parts of West Bengal spread subsequently to Dacca and Narayanganj and certain other districts in East Pakistan. However, the East Pakistan authorities, with the full support of the Government of Pakistan, took stern and deterrent measures to suppress the disorders and the situation has, I have the satisfaction to say, returned to normal.
Nevertheless, the communal situation in the affected areas of both countries remains tense and needs continued vigilance. It is the paramount duty of any civilized government to protect the basic human rights of all its citizens regardless of their faith and belief. The reason why I have referred to the recent communal riots in India and Pakistan is not to engage in an apportionment of praise or blame. It is axiomatic that the safety of all their peoples, regardless of faith or persuasion, is the responsibility of the Government concerned.
The Indian case in regard to Kashmir is always presented with a great deal of rhetoric about the secular nature of the Indian State. The reality is that the denial of the right of self determination to the people of Jammu and Kashmir is embittering the relations between India and Pakistan, a direct result of which is the poisoning of relations between Hindus and Muslims in the two countries. The denial of this basic right to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the persistence of communal tension and unrest are part of the same deep-seated malady the refusal by the Indian leadership to break with the unhappy past of this subcontinent, to accept the reality of Pakistan's existence and to live with it in friendship.
We have always pleaded with our neighbour that we must finally settle the dispute over Kashmir if our peoples are to enjoy the blessings and benefits of peace. One now hears it said from the Indian side that this feeling of conflict between the two countries is due to something mysterious in the minds and hearts of our people, some primordial animus which can never be eradicated. Such statements are either counsels of despair or pretexts for evading a settlement of the major problem that has plagued the two countries since independence. When the Kashmir dispute was first brought before the Council, the representative of India said:
"We hope to be able to convince the Security Council that once we have dealt with the Kashmir question, there will probably not be anything of substance which will divide India and Pakistan..". [230th meeting.]
We entirely agree. Bvt what has happened, in fact, is that the Kashmir dispute has been allowed to fester for sixteen years. The theft from Hazratbal was a spark to the power barrel. To quote from a dispatch to The Observer of London of 26 January :
"It is not really surprising that the theft of the sacred hair of the Prophet Mohammed in a Srinagar mosque should have started the chain reaction that ended in the bloodbath of Calcutta".
The dispute has poisoned Pakistan-India relations, heightened tension between them to a grave pitch, and poses a serious threat to peace and security in south-east Asia. What is developing is a situation pregnant with manifold dangers which can be averted only if a just and honourable solution is urgently found. Thus alone can Pakistan-India relations be established on a good-neighbour basis and a climate created in both countries wherein the minorities may live in peace and security.
When the Kashmir issue last came up before the Security Council in 1962, the stand of the Government of India was that the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir, could not be implemented because Pakistan, according to India, had not carried out its part of the obligations under those resolutions.
Pakistan's Permanent Representative then proposed to the Council [11008th meeting] that Pakistan would be agreeable to any method that may be suggested: (a) to determine the obligations of the parties under these resolutions; (b) to deter mine what was holding up progress on their implementation ; (c) to determine whether either of the parties was in default with regard to the fulfilment of its obligations; and (d) what was needed to be done by either side to move the matter forward towards implementation. The Permanent Representative of Pakistan further declared that if a determination of these questions disclosed that Pakistan was in default in any of these respects, the default would be rectified through the speediest method at the earliest possible moment, so that the way may be opened towards full implementation of the resolutions. This was an undertaking that he submitted to the Security Council on behalf of the Government of Pakistan.
India refuses to submit its differences with Pakistan in regard to these matters either to mediation or to arbitration, limited merely to such questions of fact. In other words, India arrogates to itself the role of both the accuser and the judge. India's contention has been that the so-called accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India is final and complete.. In the Indian view, therefore, there is nothing that remains to be done in regard to Kashmir. Clearly this is not a view which. Pakistan can or will ever accept. It is not a view that the Security Council can accept. Above all, this Indian attitude rules out any prospect of a settlement of this inflammable issue through peaceful means.
Indian spokesmen have claimed that since three elections have taken place to the Legislative Assembly in Kashmir, which has supported "the State's accession" to India, it is no longer necessary to hold a plebiscite to determine whether the people of Jammu and Kashmir wish their State to accede to India or to Pakistan.
Quite apart from the fact that elections to a legislature can never be the equivalent of a plebiscite on the specific issue of an accession, these elections were held to a so-called constituent assembly in its successor assemblies in Indian-occupied Kashmir. I have already referred to the assurance given by India, the solemn statements made before the Security Council and in correspondence between the Governments of India and Pakistan, that this assembly would not decide the question of accession or come in the way of the Security Council. Even if these elections had been fair and free, therefore, they were not on India's own admission, capable of bringing about a resolution of the problem regarding the disposition of Jammu and Kashmir.
But the facts of the situation are that these elections were farcical, entirely farcical. In 1951, all of the 45 nominees of the National Conference - which is the clique in Kashmir sponsored by the Indian Government for the 45 constituencies in the Vale of Kashmir and Ladakh were declared to have been returned unopposed; and no polling took place on the date fixed for the ballot. In 1957, only 8 out of the 45 seats for the Vale of Kashmir and Ladakh were contested and in these the opposition was a token opposition. The Economist of London, on 6 April 1957, described this as a "solemn farce". The New York Times of 8 March 1957 commented:
"This is not an 'election' in any sense of the word. The term election means a choice. The Kashmiris have had none.
"What happened is no credit to India, no reflection of sentiment among the Kashmiris and no contribution to a solution of this thorny problem."
In 1962. The Times of London of 5 February reported that "the field is just left clear for political supporters of India." Even a pro-Indian group, the Democratic National Conference, as reported in The Statesman of Delhi on 23 March 1962, said that "the whole election is false" The Guardian reported on 16 February 1962 that these elections would "once again provide no test of the popular will." It added that the opposition was being eliminated by the permit and licence raj-meaning that those who opposed the governing party get no industrial licence or import permit-and there is peace brigade to deal with recalcitrant. The Organizer of New Delhi on 12 March 1962 described these elections as a "sordid scandal". The Hindustan Times of Delhi commented editorially, on 12 February 1962, that it was extraordinary that in 32 out of 42 constituencies, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed had left no work for the Election Commissioner, and asked: "Is it that the policies of his Government are so universally accepted that we might as well replace in his domain the process of election by the process of acclamation?"
This, in brief, gives us a glimpse of the so-called elections in Kashmir which are alleged to have accorded popular consent to the annexation of the State by India. It is small surprise that an article in The Hindustan Times of Delhi of 8 Junary 1964 should have described the Indian-sponsored regime in Kashmir as "sustained by electoral fraud" and "so thoroughly exposed as being without popular allegiance". It is pertinent to quote here the view expressed by The Guardian of 21 December 1963.
"It is widely assumed-even by many Indians- that in a plebiscite more Kashmiris would opt for Pakistan than for India; that is one reason why Mr. Nehru long ago withdrew his agreement to a plebiscite, and why elections in Kashmir, unlike those in the undisturbed parts of India, hardly have even the crudest appearance of being free and democratic".
This explosive issue will not be resolved by India claiming it to be a domestic affair. It will not be resolved by putting forward disingenuous arguments in support of a fictitious Indian claim to the State's territory. It will certainly not be resolved by shutting our eyes to its existence. On the other hand, the situation could conceivably grow worse, as indeed it has been growing worse over the years and in the last few weeks.
During the last Security Council meeting on this issue in 1962, the majority view, as expressed in the statements of the Council's members and in the draft resolution submitted, was that India and Pakistan should enter into bilateral negotiations to find a just and honourable settlement of this dispute.
In November 1962, through the good offices of the United States and the United Kingdom, the President of Pakistan and the Indian Prime Minister agreed to undertake bilateral talks to seek a solution to the Kashmir problem. I had the honour to represent the Government of Pakistan in those negotiations. They started in the last week of December 1962 and continued till May 1963. They ended in complete failure. The negotiations failed because of India's intransigent stand against any just and honourable settlement of the dispute and its refusal to move from its rigid position.
The Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, which throughout the course of bilateral negotiations strove to encourage and assist both parties to reach an agreement, then offered their good offices in another form. They proposed that the two countries agree to the appointment of a mutually acceptable mediator to assist them in arriving at an early settlement of this dispute. While Pakistan was still engaged in seeking certain clarifications from the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom on the mediation proposal, the Prime Minister of India effectively sabotaged it by a statement in the Indian Parliament on 13 August 1963.
This was followed on 3 October, as I have stated by the announcement of India's plans to proceed with the integration of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, first by the Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed Government and later by India's spokesmen, with the disastrous consequences that are taking place in Jammu and Kashmir at present. I would appeal to the members of the Security Council to undertake steps which would carry this dispute towards a speedy and peaceful solution.
The situation that I have described to the Security Council demonstrates beyond all doubt that the passage of time will not-and I repeat, will not-help to reconcile the people of Jammu and Kashmir to Indian occupation and domination. It must be borne in mind that unarmed as they are, muffled as their voices are by the barrier flung between them and their kith and kin in "azad" Kashmir and Pakistan, unrepresented as they are, consigned tragically to oblivion as they are, they are persisting in the eternal struggle of the oppressed peoples for freedom. Their struggle is heroic. All the more so because, in terms of brute force, the odds against them are exceptionally heavy. India has one soldier in Kashmir for every ten men. I wonder how in human justice, by all the considerations that govern the morality of nations, Pakistan can be expected to remain a spectator if the people of Kashmir continue to be suppressed by force.
Though sixteen years have passed without the agreement regarding Kashmir being carried out, there has never been any time when there has been any acquiescence on the part of Pakistan or the people of Kashmir in India's occupation of the major part of Kashmir. There has never been any time when we have abated or abandoned our rightful claim. There has never been any time when a search was not pending for a peaceful solution of the problem consistent with the basic principle agreed between the parties. And there has never been a time when the strain of the dispute in the entire India Pakistan situation has shown any sign of being eased or when the tensions that it has caused have relaxed.
I venture to submit here that if the doctrine of the passage of time resulting in an advantage to one party in an international dispute is upheld, then it would be just as well if we consider the Charter of the United Nations to have been abrogated. Certainly, no one must then demand the end of any colonial regime because there is no colonial regime which has not behind it the sanction of time much longer than that commanded by the Indian occupation of Kashmir. If the Security Council was exercised over Kashmir in 1948, why should it not be exercised over it in 1964? If it be said that the circumstances have changed, they have changed only in this respect that in 1948 the people of Kashmir were engaged in armed fighting against India in Kashmir, and in 1964 they have only recently risen in rebellion again. If this change is supposed to operate to the disadvantage of those who laid down their arms on the pledge given by the United Nations that their rights would be peacefully secured, is it not a virtual inducement to them to resume hostilities? Assuming that it is not the purpose of the Security Council or of any member to proffer such an inducement, how can the passage of time be considered as a ground for the continuance of India's possession of the greater part of Kashmir?
If this question is realistically faced, I am confident that the members of the Security Council will conceive of the issues. involved here are the issues as the rights of the smaller States against their domineering neighbours and of the sanctity of international agreements. There is no conceivable situation where the passage of time will not operate to the advantage of the party that is stronger in physical force, though it may be weaker in human right and natural justice. The world has witnessed two global wars in this century which were fought ostensibly for the preservation of the rights of smaller States. If a precedent is now established in Kashmir which allows the rights and the claims of a smaller State to be overborne by a stronger party, aided by the passage of time, and an international agreement to be disregarded, then the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of all other statements, like those issued recently by Chairman Khrushchev of the USSR and President Johnson of the United States, regarding the renunciation of force in the settlement of territorial disputes, lose their meaning. I have come before the Council earnestly to urge, in the name of my Government and, above all, in the name of humanity, that the Security Council take appropriate action to ensure that the Kashmir dispute moves rapidly towards an honourable and just solution in the interest of the well-being of the people of the India-Pakistan subcontinent and in the interest of peace in Asia. The people of Kashmir have unmistakably risen in open rebellion and, unless we refuse to hear their voice, we can no longer doubt that they are unreconciled to Indian occupation and domination, any passage of time notwithstanding. I am confident that the Council will consider it urgent to ensure that India refrain from aggravating the situation by proceeding with any measures to annex the State in violation of the international agreement and of the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to decide their future for themselves.
I said at the outset that one sixth of the human race is involved. To these people, most of whom live in deep and measureless poverty, the alleviation of their condition presents a challenge, the enormity of which has, perhaps, no precedent in human history. Both our countries are confronted with urgent and compelling problems. How utterly wrong and wasteful it is that we should dissipate our national energies and engage in conflict with one another..
We, the peoples of Pakistan and India, sought and won our freedom in order to fashion our lives with dignity and self respect, free from privation and fear, to remove the sufferings that our peoples have endured since human memory can recall. After seventeen years where do we find ourselves? We find our horizons darkened by the clouds of conflict and hate we find ourselves facing the dark prospect of a fearful and dreadful storm. Is it not a most dreadful prospect? Is it not a most lamentable situation? But it lies with us, with this distinguished body and with Pakistan and India, to change this course of events. It is within our power to find the means to live in peace provided there is a will to live in peace. Freedom can be delayed by oppression, but it cannot ultimately be denied. The course of history is relentlessly so set. And so I say that the people of Kashmir will one day be free. Whether this freedom will come through violence or upheaval, or whether it will come through peaceful means and civilized conduct, depends largely on the decisions this body makes and the respect we show for its decisions.