05021964 Text of the speech made by Mr. Chagla (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1088 held on 5 February 1964.

05021964 Text of the speech made by Mr. Chagla (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1088 held on 5 February 1964.

 

The Security Council is perhaps the most important organ of the United Nations. Every Member State has a right to approach it. But they must approach it with a due sense of responsibility, it is not intended as a platform for propaganda against any Member State. Nor is it obviously meant for creating tensions in a world where there are already more than enough difficulties and problems. I propose to satisfy you that there was no justification whatsoever for Pakistan to have taken up the time of this Council. Pakistan's application constitutes the culmination of the campaign of hatred that it has ceaselessly carried on against India. The basic principle of its international policy is opposition to India on every front and, as The Times of London recently observed, "The load-stone of every aspect of Pakistan's foreign policy is bad relations with India". Its approach to the Council is purely an agitational approach. Its desire is to use the forum of the Security Council to carry on its agitation against my Government and my country.

 

We sat at this Council table yesterday listening patiently to the statement of the Minister for External Affairs of Pakistan to find some reason for the convening of this meeting and into what its deliberations are likely to lead. I confess that after having heard the statement of the representative of Pakistan, my delegation and my Government continue to hold the view that there was no reason for convening the Security Council, because no new situation has arisen to aggravate the existing conditions in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan's application reads like a horror story. We are told that the Muslim majority in Kashmir is in great peril by India's attempt at so-called integration or annexation of Kashmir; that large Muslim crowds have been demonstrating against India and in favour of a plebiscite; that Kashmir is in "open rebellion"; that the Kashmiris are being crushed under the heel of India and that terrible things will happen there unless something is done immediately. I shall satisfy you that all this is a figment of a vivid imagination.

 

Pakistan has pretended to show a great solicitude for the Muslims living in India, and its Foreign Minister has stated that hundreds of thousands of Indian Muslims have been pushed out into East Pakistan. When Pakistan talks of the Muslim mino rity, it gives one the impression that we are dealing with a few thousands or a few hundred thousands of people in a large country tucked away in some far corner and surrounded by a large mass of Hindu population. Now let me inform the Council that the Muslims are not a minority in the ordinary sense of the term. They constitute 50 million of India's population. India is the third largest Muslim State in the world-the first being Indonesia and the second Pakistan. They are sons of the soil, they are Indian by race and they enjoy all the rights of citizenship. Every office is open to them, and in fact many of them hold the highest offices in the land. Our civilization is a synthesis of many diverse cultures and the Muslim contribution is one of the most significant. Ours is a secular State and an egalitarian society where everyone enjoys equal rights and equal opportunities and equal protection of the law. We have no official religion. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis and others have full-freedom of worship, and fundamental rights under the Constitution are guaranteed to every citizen. We have no first-class or second-class citizenship. Before the law everyone is equal.

 

Much of our differences with Pakistan are due to the fact that there is this basic difference between our policy and that of Pakistan. While we have based our State on secularism,

which means that there is no established church and everyone is entitled to profess and practice his religion without let or hindrance from the State. Pakistan is a theocratic State. When the leaders of the Muslim League demanded a partition of the country, the demand was based on the two-nation theory. Their contention was that Hindus and Muslims were separate nations, and were each entitled to have a homeland of their own. We recognize India and Pakistan as two nations, but we have repudiated the two-nation theory based on religion and it is abhorrent to us. If Hindus and Muslims constitute two-nations, then the inevitable result must follow that the 50 million Muslims in India are aliens in their own homes. We refuse to subscribe to the theory that religion can be the sole basis of nationality. We believe in a multiracial, multi communal and multi linguistic society, and according to us, peace and goodwill in this world depend upon the success of such a society. I am sure that this sentiment will strike a sympathetic chord in the hearts of many African countries which have recently achieved independence. Most of them have populations which practice different religions. The same is the case with many Middle East countries, and in the United States itself a brave attempt is being made to consolidate and integrate its different racial groups.

 

Is it not extraordinarily that while Pakistan is shouting itself hoarse as a self-appointed guardian of Indian Muslims, Muslim opinion in India has always strongly endorsed the policy of my Government? May I, with the President's permission, read three quotations from Muslim newspapers in India. They were written in Urdu, but I have the translations. The first is from the Siasat-e-Jadid, of Kanpur, dated 16 January, 1964, which states:

 

"The Pakistani authorities and journalists make an exhibition of great sympathy for the Indian Muslim minority and bewail their plight through speeches and writings, without ever realizing that it is for their verbal and written intemperance and provocations that the Muslims have to suffer. Indian Muslims... want to tell these foolish friends frankly that they should for God's sake leave them alone."

 

The Nai Duniya of 21 January states:

 

"Pakistani newspapers, leaders and radio played up the theft of the holy hair in a manner so as to excite the feelings of the majority. If the newspapers, the radio and the leaders of Pakistan had not behaved in this irresponsible manner, the mischief-mongers of Khulna and Jessore would never have dared to attack the life and property of Hindus."

 

These two places are in East Pakistan. The third quotation is from the Musalman of Madras, of 18 January, which says that:

 

"The trouble which started in Kashmir following the theft of the sacred hair should have remained localized but it is to be regretted that Pakistani citizens thoughtless ly created disturbances over it and subjected the innocent non-Muslim minority there to tyranny. This led to Hindu Muslim riots in Calcutta, and the innocent Mustim minority of Calcuttaa had to suffer."

 

One might ask oneself what does Pakistan seek to achieve by its anti-Indian crusade, its campaign of scurrilous abuse and hatred of India? Is it helping the Muslims of India, is exciting communal passions, fanning the flames of fanaticism and intolerance and is preaching "jihad"-holy war-helping the cause of Muslims in India? May I observe in passing that no war is holy and that every war is cruel, bloodthirsty and the cause of terrible suffering and distress. No, I do not think Pakistan is so unsophisticated as all that. It wants to see discord and turmoil in India, it wants India to be politically and economically weakened so that it can get an opportunity to continue further its present illegal occupation of a part of territory which by international law is as much a part of Indian territory as Bombay or Delhi is. It is already thereby playing the Chinese game of weakening India internally and undermining its defence against China. I wish to make it clear on behalf of my Government that nothing, and I repeat, nothing will induce any Government in India, whatever be its party affiliations, to sign the death warrant of the unity, integrity and solidarity of the country.

 

I said earlier that nothing has happened recently to justify Pakistan's approach to the Security Council. We are told in the letter addressed to the President of the Security Council dated 16 January 1964 [S/5517], that a grave situation had arisen in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and this was the direct consequence of the unlawful steps that the Government of India was continuing to take in order to destroy the special status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, that this was a part of India's design to annex Jammu and Kashmir to India and that the Government of India was deliberately set on defying the Security Council and on integrating Jammu and Kashmir with the Indian Union. This is not a new complaint. A similar complaint was made by Pakistan in June 1949 following a decision of the Constituent Assembly of India to reserve four seats for the representatives of Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian Parliament. The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan had then refused to take any action in the matter on the ground that it was difficult to oppose the measure of the Government of India on purely legal grounds. Similar complaints had been made by Pakistan every time some changes were made. In regard to the present complaint, it is relevant to point out that this had already been conveyed to the Security Council by the permanent representative of Pakistan in a letter dated 9 October 1963. India replied to this letter on 13 November 1963. The permanent representative of Pakistan addressed another letter on 5 January 1964 raising the same complaints. Nothing new has happened since then to justify the demand contained in the letter of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan of 16 January 1964 for an immediate meeting of the Security Council to consider the grave situation that has arisen in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

Let me deal, at some length, with this charge of Pakistan that we are trying to "annex" or "integrate" Kashmir into the Indian Union. It is beyond doubt that legally and constitutionally when the Ruler of Kashmir executed the Instrument of Accession to India and Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor-General of India, accepted the Instrument, the whole of Kashmir became an integral part of the Union of India. It is necessary to look at the political and constitutional position prevailing in the subcontinent of India on the eve of independence. There was British India over which the United Kingdom exercised complete sovereignty. There were also more than 560 princely States which were semi-independent and which were protected by the United Kingdom by a doctrine known as paramountcy. The meaning of this doctrine was that the King of England and Emperor of India was the paramount lord as far as these princes were concerned and, in return for the fealty pledged by them, the King-Emperor gave them protection.

 

When the Indian Independence Act of 1947 was passed by the British Parliament, British power was transferred to the people of India, as far as British India was concerned, and Britain also put an end to paramountcy, leaving it to the princes to arrive at such arrangements as they thought proper with the Government of India and Pakistan. But the present Government of India was the successor Government to the Government of the United Kingdom. Pakistan was a new State which came into existence. It was also provided that it was open to every princely State to accede either to India or to Pakistan. The law did not provide that the Instrument of Accession could be conditional. Once the accession was accepted either by the Governor-General of India or of Pakistan, the particular princely State became an integral part of one or the other of the two Dominions. It is significant to note that there was no provision for consulting the people of the princely State concerned. Nor was there any provision that the accession had to be ratified by ascertaining the wishes of the people of the acceding State. Leaving aside for a moment the question of Jammu and Kashmir, several princely States under this law acceded to India or Pakistan. It has never been suggested either by India or Pakistan that these accessions are, in any way, incomplete or require some action to be taken before they become conclusive. It is only in the case of Jammu and Kashmir that Pakistan has shown such laudable zeal in the sacred cause of democracy and self-determination.

 

It has also to be remembered that the partition of India. was confined to British India and that in drawing the lines of the frontier, questions of Muslim majority provinces were taken into consideration only with regard to British India. There was no question whatsoever with regard to the religious complexion of the population of the princely States. The question whether one princely State should accede to India or Pakistan was left to the determination of the Ruler of the State. Pakistan has often put forward a proposition that the State of Jammu and Kashmir, by reason of its large Muslim majority and of the fact that Pakistan came into existence as a Muslim State, should naturally form part of Pakistan. This is a wholly erroneous view of the legal and constitutional position.

 

The British Government had made it quite clear that the partition was only of British India and that this principle did not apply to those States, such as Kashmir and several hundred others, which were ruled by Indian princes. I quote from the British Government's announcement of 3 June 1947, which said:

 

"His Majesty's Government wishes to make it clear that the decisions announced above"-about partition "relate only to British India and that their policy towards Indian States contained in the Cabinet Mission Memorandum of 12th May, 1946 remains unchanged."

 

The Cabinet Mission's memorandum reads, inter alia, as follows:

 

"...His Majesty's Government will cease to exercise the power of paramountcy. This means that the rights of the of the States which flow from their relationship to The Crown will no longer exist and that all the rights surrendered by the States to the paramount power will return to the States. Political arrangements between the States on the one side and the British Crown and British India on the other will thus be brought to an end. The void will have to be filled either by the States entering into a federal relationship with the successor Government or Governments in British India, or failing this, entering into particular political arrangements with it or them.``

 

Provision for accession was made in the Government of India Act of 1935 as adapted under the Indian Independence Act, 1947:

 

"An Indian State shall be deemed to have acceded to the Dominion if the Governor-General has signified his acceptance of an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof..."

 

These were Acts of the British Parliament which created the Dominions of India and Pakistan. None of the provisions of these Acts can be questioned, at least by India, Pakistan or the United Kingdom which were parties to this agreement.

 

It was entirely for the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir to decide taking all factors into consideration-the factor of contiguity, the factor of communications, the factor of economic. ties and others-whether it would be beneficial for the State to be part of one Dominion or the other. The question of religion did not come into play at all. As a matter of historical fact, although the communal question assumed a large and unfortunate proportion in British India and was the platform on which the Muslim League based its policy, the people of the princely States, particularly Kashmir, although they suffered from many other disabilities and infirmities, did not suffer the disastrous consequences of religious hatred or intolerance,

 

Therefore, there is no substance in the suggestion that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir was not complete absolute because the people of that State had not been consulted nor been given opportunity to express their choice. It is clear that international law does not require that a treaty concluded by the ruler of a State, and with the mutual consent of the contracting parties, a treaty which is otherwise valid and binding, should be referred to the will of the people before it takes effect. There is no doubt, and I do not think that Pakistan can dispute it, that the Government of the Maharaja of Kashmir was recognized by Pakistan. It was with this Government that Pakistan concluded a "standstill agreement" by the exchange of telegrams on 12 and 16 August 1947. At that time the Government of Pakistan had not questioned whether the Government of the Maharaja was capable of expressing the will of the people, nor had it doubted the validity of the agreement. It is thus clear that international law does not require that the party to an agreement should look behind a recognized Government with whom it contracts to see that the agreement has been arrived at by prior consultation with the people. In fact, as I shall mention later, the accession was also supported by the largest political party in Kashmir.

 

I shall briefly deal with the subsequent events and developments in Jammu and Kashmir and see whether these have, in any way, affected the legal and constitutional position. I hope to satisfy the Council that they have not, in the slightest degree. Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of India when the Instrument of Accession was signed and accepted, and from that day till today it continues to occupy the same position vis-a-vis the Indian Union, and no question can possibly arise of annexing Kashmir or further integrating it into the Indian Union. You cannot make more complete what is already complete.

 

The distinguished Foreign Minister of Pakistan has said nothing new on the legal aspect of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India. He has repeated the same mixture of misstatements, omissions of material facts and the refusal to face up to the clear provisions of the Indian Independence Act. I do not wish to enter into the details of our case, which is well known to the Security Council. It was last set out at length in 1962. I shall content myself with drawing attention to salient points.

 

Unlike most of the rulers who had acceded to India or Pakistan before 15 August 1947, the Ruler of Kashmir did not make up his mind. Pending a decision on accession, he asked for a standstill agreement both with India and with Pakistan in regard to communications, supplies and post and telegraph arrangements which had always been interlinked with British India. Pakistan concluded the standstill agreement, but before a standstill agreement with India could be concluded, tribal raids started. Despite the standstill agreement, Pakistan cut off communications and stopped the supplies of essential commodities, thereby putting undue pressure on Kashmir. When this pressure failed, armed invasion by nationals of Pakistan and tribal raiders followed. The Ruler's appeals to Pakistan were of no avail. The raiders caused havoc in different parts of Kashmir. The Kashmir State troops were incapable of offering effective resistance to such a large body of raiders. Events moved with great rapidity and the threat to the Valley of Kashmir became grave. Unable to prevent the raiders from committing large-scale killings, loot and arson, the Ruler requested of the Government of India that the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be allowed to accede to the Indian Dominion.

 

An appeal for help was also simultaneously received by the Government of India from the National Conference, which was the largest popular organization in Kashmir and which had fought for the peoples' rights and agitated for freedom of Kashmir from the rule of the Maharaja. The Conference also supported the request for the State's accession to India. May I draw the attention of the Council to what was stated by Sheikh Abdullah, who was then the leader of the National Conference, and about whom we have heard such laudatory remarks by the distinguished Foreign Minister of Pakistan? This is what he said: "When the raiders were fast approaching Srinagar, we could think of only one way to save the State from total annihilation-by asking for help from a friendly neighbour. The representatives of the National Conference, therefore, flew to Delhi to seek help from the Government of India. But the absence of any constitutional ties between our State and India made it impossible for her to render any effective assistance in meeting the aggressor... But now, since the people's representatives themselves sought an alliance, the Government of India showed readiness to accept it. Legally, the Instrument of Accession had to be signed by the Ruler of the State. This the Maharaja did."

 

A Sheikh Abdullah has come to judgement. I hope Pakistan will accept that judgement, both as to the consultation with the people of Kashmir and as to the fact that India did not put any pressure on Kashmir to accede to it.

 

As I have already stated, the Governor-General, Lord Mountbatten, accepted the Instrument of Accession. In answer to a letter of the Prime Minister of India, dated 22 December 1947, requesting Pakistan not to give aid or assistance to the raiders and not to prolong the struggle, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, on 30 December 1947, replied :

 

"As regards the charges of aid and assistance to the invaders by the Pakistan Government, we emphatically repudiate them. On the contrary, the Pakistan Government has continued to do all in their power to discourage the tribal movements by all means short of war." On 1 January 1948, we approached the Security Council and, in our letter of that date, we stated:

 

"Such a situation now exists between India and Pakistan owing to the aid which invaders, consisting of nationals of Pakistan and tribesmen from the territory immediately adjoining Pakistan on the north-west, are drawing from Pakistan for operations against Jammu and Kashmir... The Government of India requested the Security Council to call upon Pakistan to put an end immediately to the giving of such an assistance which is an act of aggression against India."

 

It is an extremely significant fact, which is often overlooked because so much time has passed since that event, that we were the complainants before the Security Council, and that we complained of aggression by Pakistan. On 15 January 1948, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan again emphatically denied that the Pakistan Government was giving aid and assistance to the invaders or had committed any act of aggression against India. On the contrary, the Foreign Minister stated, his Government had continued to do all in its power to discourage the tribal movement by all means short of war. He stated that the allegations made by the Indian Government that the Pakistan Government was affording aid and assistance to the tribal forces, or that these forces had bases in Pakistan territory or were being trained by the Pakistan Army, were utterly unconfirmed. Pakistan never contended that India had no right to be in Kashmir.

 

This categorical denial by Pakistan of being behind the tribal raid is the most important and significant aspect of the whole Kashmir issue. It is significant that, at that stage, Pakistan never tried to justify its presence in Kashmir or to claim any right to be there. Pakistan was obviously quite aware of the fact that its presence in Kashmir was contrary to international law and was fully conscious of the illegality of its action. That is why Pakistan could not admit its presence in Kashmir and that is why there was a total and straight denial of its presence. Incidentally, the facts just stated by me clearly show that the plea now put forward that Pakistan went to Kashmir in support of a liberation movement is clearly an afterthought designed to create a false moral justification for its invasion of Kashmir. Subsequent admissions by Pakistan, to which I shall presently refer, have made clear that this was not merely an equivocation but a deliberate falsehood.

 

In its reply to the Government of India's complaint dated 1 January 1948, Pakistan, on 15 January, cast doubts on the legality of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India by suggesting that the accession has been obtained by fraud and violence. It is clear that in law, if fraud and violence was not established as vitiating it, the accession was perfectly legal and binding. On the question of fraud and violence, it may be stated that Lord Mountbatten had told the Maharaja of Kashmir, on behalf of the Government, that he might accede to Pakistan if he wished, and it would not be taken as an unfriendly act It is also an admitted fact that not a single Indian soldier was sent to Kashmir to fight against the raiders before the accession. If any violence was used at all against the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Maharaja, it was by Pakistan. If the Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir was forced to accede to India, it was not because violence was used by India but because it was used by Pakistan and therefore, strangely enough, the fraud and violence which Pakistan was complaining of was fraud and violence used not by India, but by itself, and it does not require a very deep knowledge of law to understand that a party cannot challenge or vitiate the legality of a contract by pleading its own unlawful acts.

 

The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has stated that India obtained the signature of the Ruler on the Instrument of Accession at a time when the people of Jammu and Kashmir had risen in rebellion against the Ruler and had ousted his authority from the State. This is a complete and utter distortion of facts. It was the tribal raiders and Pakistan nationals, aided and abetted by the Pakistan Government, who carried fire and sword into Kashmir, whose fate is now of such great concern to Pakistan, and compelled the Ruler to turn to India in the hour of extreme peril. Let us once again turn to Sheikh Abdullah, whose testimony is of great importance because it is the testimony of a witness who is speaking about contemporary events:

 

"When for the first time the people of Srinagar saw the income planes from India and the tanks of the Indian Army passing through the streets here, their disappointment and anguish was turned into joy and happiness. The people here, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, heaved a sigh of relief, knowing that their honor and dignity could now be safeguarded. We must not forget that time."

 

The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has also spoken of a despotic Maharaja having signed the Instrument of Accession. Are all the rulers of States who have acceded to Pakistan paragons of democratic virtue ?

 

When the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan visited Karachi in July 1948, Pakistan could no longer keep us the story that it had a blameless record as far as the invasion by the raiders was concerned, and Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan informed the Commission that three regular Pakistani Brigades had been fighting in Kashmir territory, since May 1948.

 

It is in this context that the commission's resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 which we accepted- and these are the only two resolutions, apart from the resolution of 17 January 1948, to which we have agreed-have to be understood and appreciated. The very foundation of these resolutions was that the presence of Pakistan in parts of Jammu and Kashmir was illegal, and that it must withdraw its troops and vacate the aggression against India. This is clear from the wording of paragraph 1 of part II, section A, of the resolution of 13 August:

 

"As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State,"

 

It was only on Pakistan's complying with this essential condition that the possibility of holding a plebiscite in Kashmir plebiscite so could arise. It is clear that the Security Council could not possibly have suggested to India the holding of as long as a gross illegality perpetrated by Pakistan and a deliberate violation of international law remained unrectified. The Security Council could not possibly countenance a naked aggression by one country against another.

 

It is often forgotten that, when Pakistan approaches the Security Council, it does so as an aggressor which has not vacated its aggression. My submission to you is that Pakistan has been guilty of gross contempt of this august body, and it has no right to be heard till it comes with a clean hand. has not only washed its hands and not only tries to justify its aggression but seeks to challenge the legal validity of an accession which has been accepted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan and on the basis of which Pakistan's presence in Kashmir has been held to be illegal and contrary to international law. Memories are so short that I am sometimes surprised that Pakistan should be permitted to reverse the roles of itself and India before the Security Council. It comes here in the innocent garb of an aggrieved party making charges against us as if we were the aggressors. Throughout this Kashmir controversy, which in all conscience has been sufficiently long and protracted, Pakistan has continued to be an aggressor. Even today, it is guilty of continuing aggression and, in my submission, it has no locus standi whatsoever to make any complaint with regard to what India is doing in an integral part of its country.

 

It has been said that, notwithstanding the accession, assurances were given by several eminent Indian authorities that the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir would be consulted with regard to that State's forming part of India. Those assurances which the Foreign Minister of Pakistan in his speech were given were always in the context of the action of Pakistan's aggression and withdrawal of Pakistan from Kashmir as a condition precedent. The letter of Lord Mountbatten, the Governor-General of India, dated 27 October 1947-a separate communication to the Ruler not forming part of the Instrument of Accession itself says :

 

It is my Government's wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people."

 

I emphasize the words "as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader". Even today, sixteen years later, the soil of Kashmir is not purged of the invaders who continue unlawfully to hold two fifths of the State. Every time the authorities in India, the Prime Minister or someone else, talked of ascertaining the wishes of the people such remarks were always in the context of our demand for Pakistan's withdrawal from Kashmir.

 

A plebiscite is only a machinery for ascertaining the wishes of a people. There is nothing sacrosanct about it. There are other methods which are equally efficient. The British Government has, in the last twenty years, transferred power to a large number of its colonies, but it has never thought of ascertaining the wishes of these colonies by holding a plebiscite. In India itself no plebiscite was held to determine either whether the people of the subcontinent of India wanted freedom or whether the majority of Muslims living in the country wanted partition. The United Kingdom come to the conclusion that independence should be given and the country should be partitioned because it was satisfied that the Indian National Con gress on the one hand and the Muslim League on the other represented the people on these two issues. In Jammu and Kashmir the National Conference as a party represented the overwhelming majority of the people of that State, and, as I have already pointed out, it fully supported the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India.

 

We accepted the two resolutions of the Security Council namely, those of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949. Under these, a series of steps were contemplated to follow one after the other. The resolution concerning a plebiscite, namely, that of 5 January 1949, was subsidiary and supplementary to and an elaboration of part III of the resolution of 13 August 1949, if and when that part was reached. It was like an architect's design and a blueprint, and the resolution of 5 January 1949 could spring to life only if the resolution of 13 August 1948 was fully implemented.

 

The possibility of a plebiscite was envisaged because at that time no elections had been held in Kashmir. Subsequent to that, Kashmir has had three general elections with universal adult franchise, and at all these three elections a party has been returned to power which firmly and emphatically supports Kashmir's integration with India. The last election, in 1962, was held under the Indian electoral law and supervised by the Indian Election Commission. We ourselves have held three general elections. Even our worst enemies have not suggested that these elections were rigged or that they were not secret and free. It was the ballot box that determined which member should be elected, and the elections were so free that in one general election, in one State, a party was returned to power which was opposed to the Indian National Congress, the majority party in India. Therefore if it was necessary to ascertain the wishes of the people of Kashmir, they have been ascertained not once, not twice, but on three occasions. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has made a great deal of capital from the questions he has used from various papers about the nature of elections in Kashmir. May I quote from one of the papers he has chosen to quote. This is from The Guardian:

 

"The Jammu elections are a great and quiet victory for the National Conference. a genuine

 

"Elections in Kashmir are over. In Jammu the National Conference was given a tough fight by the Hindu Praja Parishad, and all but five of the seats were contested. After strenuous canvassing and election fever, equalled only in India's most advanced parts, the National Conference won two-thirds of the seats..." The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has referred to thirty two candidates being returned unopposed in the 1962 elections but he has chosen not to mention the thirty-nine other seats which were hotly contested.

 

Pakistan's perpetual harping on plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir is not due to its faith in democratic principles. I should have thought that democracy, like charity, begins at home, and before Pakistan preaches to us how we should ascertain the wishes of the people of a part of our country, we should first make at least a beginning in establishing democratic instructions at home. I need hardly say that since its existence it has never sufficiently trusted its own people to permit them to participate in a general and direct election for the creation of legislative and parliamentary bodies. As the Foreign Minister knows, his own President has repeatedly stated that the people of Pakistan are not fit to exercise such democratic rights and, after seventeen years of independence, the people of Pakistan are still being educated in basic democracy, which I need hardly say is a very diluted form of democracy. The real reason for insisting on a plebiscite is to try and see whether it cannot inflame communal passions in Kashmir by making the inhabitants of that State believe that their religion is in danger, and bring about the recurrence of the terrible events of the partition of India in 1947 : bloodshed, migrations, untold human misery.

 

Therefore, if I may sum up, our position on Jammu and Kashmir is clear and unambiguous. The two resolutions of the Security Council dealing with the plebiscite were conditional and contingent on Pakistan vacating its aggression, and that condition has not been complied with. a condition. It is really more than It was the very basis on which these two resolutions were founded, and the condition not having been complied with and the basis having disappeared, these resolutions are no longer binding on us. various factors intervening-to which I shall draw attention a In any case, by the passage of time and little later-they have become obsolete. We cannot possibly contemplate with equanimity the threat to the integration of our country and the danger to our cherished principle of sec Larism by the holding of a plebiscite in Kashmir. I wish to make it clear on behalf of my Government that under no circumstances can we agree to a plebiscite in Kashmir.

 

Let me deal with the allegation of Pakistan of the so-called attempt on the part of my country to further "integrate" Kashmir with India. In the first place, as Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India, what we have been doing is adjusting our relations with a constituent State of the Indian Union. It is on a par with the Congress of the United States of America dealing with one of its fifty federated States. Therefore, the question raised by Pakistan is purely a domestic matter with which only India is concerned and in respect of which Pakistan has no right to intervene or interfere and which has been specifically excluded under the Charter from the jurisdiction of the United Nations.

 

But even so, let us see what we have done which has roused the wrath of Pakistan and which has brought it with such urgency to the Council. I may point out that part XXI of our Constitution deals with provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There are also other articles in that part which deal with other States in the Indian Union, such as Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Maharashtra. These provisions in turn are intended to be only temporary and transitional. These will continue to apply so long as the necessity for their application continues. When the necessity disappears, these provisions will be deleted and the provisions of the Constitution which apply to all the States would also apply to the States with regard to which special arrangements have been made under this part. It may be pointed out that the powers of the central Government have constantly been modified or extended within the framework of the Constitution, so that the relationship between the central government and the constituent units has been changing. These changes which occur at various intervals are part of the larger process of the organic growth of the Union of India. Now the changes which are being contemplated and which formed the subject matter of Pakistan's letter of 16 January 1964 [S/5517], are changing the title of the Head of the State from "Sadr-i-Riyasat" to "Governor" and that of "Prime Minister" to the "Chief Minister" This is only a change in nomenclature.

 

The other proposal complained about is that the representatives of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian Parliament are hereafter to be elected directly by the people of Kashmir and not appointed on the recommendation of the Kashmir Legislature, as has been done so far. What is wrong with this? One would have thought that Pakistan, with its professed solicitude for the right of self-determination of the Kashmiris, would prefer the direct election of their representatives to the Indian Parliament,

 

The next objection refers to certain amendments to introduce more progressive labour legislation. India is a member of the International Labour Organisation and has adopted a number of ILO conventions. The Indian labour legislation is in keeping with these conventions. The need for such labour legislation in Kashmir was not felt for very long, since there was hardly any organized factory labour in Kashmir. Now that certain mineral resources have been discovered and the mining industry has started, it has become essential to introduce modern labour legislation to prevent abuses. We are bound by the ILO conventions and we cannot ignore our obligations with regard to any part of our territory. Similarly, what can be the objection to the Government of India sharing with the State Government concurrently the power to make laws in respect of medical and other professions when the State Legislature agrees to this change and there is a formal request by the duly elected Government of Jammu and Kashmir ? We feel that an integrated, all-India system of medical and other services will lead to progress and increased efficiency and the co-ordination of professional standards in different parts of India. So all these changes are for the benefit of the people of Kashmir. It is not a suppression of any human rights. If the Prime Minister of India used the expression "the gradual erosion of article 370", it was a perfectly correct expression because by its very nature article 370 is temporary and must gradually fade away and disappear.

 

In his speech the Foreign Minister of Pakistan referred also to further acts of integration by mentioning "the taking over of responsibility for the administration of highways, telegraphs, telephone, income tax, broadcasting and customs, the subordination of the Accounts and Audit Department of the State to the Auditor-General of India, the abolition of the custom barriers and the permit system for entry into and out of the State, the subjection of its economic plans 'to the Planning Commission' and the authority of the Supreme Court of India over Kashmir, and the arrogration by the President of India of powers to promulgate laws in Jammu and Kashmir by executive fiat-all these, among other things"-and I am still quoting the Foreign Minister of Pakistan-"are links in the chain with which Jammu and Kashmir has been shackled" [1087th meeting, para, 59]. If ever there was a travesty of what we have done in Kashmir it is this.

 

Does Pakistan expect that while it continues its aggression, we should sit with folded hands and do nothing whatever in Kashmir to improve the lot of the people ? Every action we have taken and to which the representative referred has been in favour of amelioration of the conditions in Kashmir, in favour of modernizing the State. Lock at the language used by the representative of Pakistan: "the subordination of the Audit and Accounts Department of the State to the Auditor-General of India ''. Is it a bad thing to have a proper audit of the accounts of a State by an independent official like the Auditor-General of India, or that Pakistan wants those in charge of the revenues of Kashmir to pay ducks and drakes with the people's money? Surely, the abolition of custom barriers and the permit system for entry into or out of Kashmir helps trade and commerce and prevents unnecessary delays in the passage of goods between Kashmir and other parts of India. In India we have a Planning Commission which plans for the economic development of the country. The plan is prepared after full discussion and debate at various levels. We want Kashmir to participate in economic processes which are the modern methods of ensuring orderly economic development, beneficial to all the people of the country. It is indeed surprising that objection should be taken even to what is called the imposition of the authority of the Supreme Court of India over Kashmir. The Supreme Court is the highest court in our country, and under our Constitution it is the custodian of the fundamental rights of citizens. It is to safeguard these fundamental rights of the people of Kashmir that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been extended to Kashmir. The President of India does not promulgate laws unless the necessity for it arises and the conditions for the promulgation are duly satisfied. Our President is not a dictator. He is the constitutional Head of the State, and he can only act on the advice tendered to him by the Government of India, which is a Government responsible to Parliament. It is indeed a misuse of language I would rather say a perversion of language-to speak of these changes in Kashmir ``as links in the chain with which Jammu and Kashmir has been shackled" No amount of declamation from Pakistan will deter the Government of India from doing the duty by our people in Kashmir.

 

The Foreign Minister of Pakistan, overwhelmed by the enthusiasm generated by his cause, agreed with the statement attributed to Sheikh Abdullah that "millions of rupees of the Indian Exchequer have largely been utilized to corrupt the people of Kashmir and almost kill their soul" [1087th meeting, para 31]. Let us see how we have been corrupting the people of Kashmir and almost killing their souls. The revenue of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 was $5.5 million. In 1959-1960 it was $23.5 million. The per capita income in 1950-51 was $38 and in 1959-60 it was $48. The annual food production prior to 1951 was 0.3 million tons and 1961 it was 0.5 million tons. The electricity produced before 1951 was 4,360 kilowatts per year and in 1961 it was 16,000 kilowatts. The number of factories in 1947-1948 was 44 and in 1961 it was 138. The roads per hundred square miles prior to 1951 were 2.5 miles and in 1961 it was 40 miles. This is important. The number of tourists before 1951, in a country divided from the outside world by "a wall of steel", in the words of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, was 27,207; in 1961 it was 71,000. The number of pupils in primary schools prior to 1957 was 65,000; in 1961 it was 197,000. The number of high schools and higher secondary schools in 1947-1948 was 52; in 1961 it was 262. The figures of literacy were 6.6 per cent before 1947; in 1961 it was 12 per cent. The number of hospitals and dispensaries in 1947-1948 was 89; in 1961 it was 349. The average life expectancy before 1951 was thirty-two years; in 1961 it was forty-seven years. What a distressing picture of a country, again to quote the phrase used by the Foreign Minister, "under the control of India"!

 

I will now turn to the baseless and mischievous connexion which Pakistan has sought to establish, in its letter of 16 January 1964, between these changes in the constitutional relation between India and one of its constituent States and the theft of the holy relic from the Hazratbal shrine. It is suggested that this sacrilege has served to provide a spark to the bitter discontent and indignation which has been mounting in Kashmir as a result of India's policies and which is now rampant among the people of Jammu and Kashmir against recent Indian moves to "integrate" that part of the State with the Indian Union; that since the theft of the holy relic the Muslim population of Jammu and Kashmir has given vent to its anger through massive demonstrations for more than ten days and that hundreds of thousands of Muslims kept marching in morning procession day after day through the streets of Srinagar. You will note that what is stated here is that the demonstration was by the Muslim population of Jammu and Kashmir; no one else joined. It will be immediately noticed that Pakistan has tried to give a communal turn to the incidents in Kashmir. To Pakistan everything is communal. It cannot observe any event except through communal glasses. It cannot understand how Hindus and Muslims can live peacefully in Kashmir and have the best of relations. Its philosophy is that in the very nature of things Muslims must hate the Hindus and the Hindus must hate the Muslims,

When the sacred relic was stolen, Pakistan expected that there would be communal riots in Kashmir. Not only did it expect this, but it did its best to incite them, as can be seen from the statements that appear in the Press and also from the utterances of responsible men in Pakistan. President Ayub Khan, speaking in Sukkur, on 4 January 1964 said that the theft of the holy relic is a calculated political conspiracy to subject the Muslims of the occupied Kashmir to more and more atrocities... No Muslim, however sinful, could ever think of committing such a sacrilege". Therefore, according to Mr. Ayub Khan, it was certain that no Muslim could be held res ponsible for this heinous crime and as such it was evident that the crime was motivated by a political conspiracy; andt his he ascerted without a little of evidence. As you see, the suggestion in this statement is that it must be a Hindu who stole this relic in Kashmir, and thereby incited the Muslims of Kashmir against the Hindus.

 

I am now quoting a very well-known newspaper from Stockholm. Sevenska Degbladet of 30 December 1963 said:

 

it is difficult to believe that the theft of Moham med's lock of hair that has caused such riots in Kashmir, would have been initiated by Hindus even naturally, there are fanatics in Hindu circles also. It is more probable. that the deed was committed by some Pakistan agent, perhaps one of the Pathans who, during the last few years, have been recruited by agencies on the Pakistan side to take part in a planned 'Algerian liberation war' on the Indian side. In this way Chinese interests are also served. The Indian defence of Ladakh is wholly dependent on the connexions of the Stringer and the Vale. The only road from Ladakh goes straight down to Srinagar and, therefore, has an enormous strategic importance.``

 

In quoting from the dispatch from Richard Critchfield, Mr. Bhutto, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, conveniently omitted a significant portion thereof. This is what the dispatch says in continuation of what Mr. Bhutto quotes: "Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the Foreign Minister, Mr. Bhutto, urged the Kashmiris to rebel against the Indian controlled Government." And the Foreign Minister comes to you here to appeal for peace. I repeat the Foreign Minister, Mr. Bhutto, urged the Kashmiris to rebel against the Indian-controlled Government.

 

Does the Foreign Minister accept this presentation of his statement to be correct? The Economist of 4 January 1964, also quoted by Mr. Bhutto, says :

 

"Pakistan's Foreign Minister, Mr. Z.A. Bhutto has charged Indian occupation authorities with instigating the theft, apparently so as to terrorize the 'oppressed' Muslims into fleeing from their homes. This is an implausible accusation, to put it mildly, but the point is not that it is implausible, but that it is made."

 

So, The Economist realizes the point of Mr. Bhutto, the Foreign Minister, in making this charge that the theft was instigated to terrorize the oppressed Muslims. The suggestion was that there should be trouble in Kashmir and the people of Kashmir, especially the feelings of the Mulims, should be inflamed and that they should rise against the Hindus.

 

Now, unfortunately for Pakistan, it is a fact which can not be changed that there was complete communal unity during the demonstrations by the people of Kashmir protesting against the theft of the relic. Hindus and Sikhs joined their Muslim brethren in mourning this loss. To the Hindus and the Sikhs the relic was not a Muslim relic but a relic belonging to Kashmir, indeed to the whole of India. We in India respect each other's religion. Hindus revere Muslim saints and vice versa. We all join in the celebrations of different communities. It requires a modern secular rational outlook to understand this phenomenon.

 

A further significant fact of these demonstrations is that not only were they not aimed against the Government of India but, on the contrary, they showed complete confidence in the policies of my Government, and what is more, they appealed to the Union Government that they, rather than the local administration, should investigate this crime and bring the guilty to book. It was in response to the appeal of the people of Kashmir that the Government of India sent its highest officials to Srinagar to investigate the matter and to recover the relic. The action of my Government was successful: the relic was recovered and restored. According to a report in The New York Times of 4 February 1964, under the date-line of Srinagar 3 February:

 

"A Committee of Muslim leaders decided today that the hair now ensrhined in a mosque near here was the one that disappeared from there last December 26th."

 

According to the latest information that I have received, a special "didar", or exposition, of the holy relic was held on 3 February at Hazratbal. A number of prominent religious personalities, most of whom were nominated by the Action Committee, to whom reference has been made by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, saw the holy relic and declared it genuine in the presence of the large number of people in the mosque. Among those who identified the relic was Maulana Masoodi, about whom also a reference was made in the statement to the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. The investigation is in the final stage and the accused persons will be put on trial very soon. It is true that the demonstrations were aimed at the local administration, but surely it is a fundamental right in a democracy of the people to express their dissatisfaction with their Government. Such demonstrations are not unknown even in more sophisticated societies. The people of a democratic country. have the inalienable right not only to show their want of confidence in their Government but to turn it out and elect another one.

 

What I have been saying about the nature of the demonstrations in Srinagar is amply borne out by the testimony of foreign correspondents who were on the scene and who witnessed what had happened. Thus, The Guardian, the well-known English newspaper which Mr. Bhutto quotes, had this to say on 16 January 1964:

 

"There was singing and dancing in the streets of Srinagar yesterday after the Government announced that the relic had been found. A sullen and angry cry suddenly transformed into a joyful one."

 

The New York Times of 24 January 1964 has the following story from its correspondent, Thomas F. Brady:

 

"The dissatisfaction of Kashmiris with their local government, but apparently not with the Indian national Government, found expression in protests and riots that followed the theft. The big Moslem majority there seems to have shown no animus toward the Hindu! minority... Indeed, the indications are that main targets. of the arson and looting that followed the disappearance of the relic were the extensive business interests of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, former Prime Minister of the State and of his brother and political right hand, Bakshi Rashid. Both are Moslems."

 

I am not here to defend either Mr. Bakshi or his brother. The point of the quotation is that the demonstrations were against the local administration and not against the Government of India. The New 1ork Times of 5 January 1964, had the following:

 

"One view that was expressed here was that the pro Pakistan elements had stolen the hair in an attempt to discredit the pro-Indian Kashmir Government."

 

The Foreign Minister quoted the views of an Indian columnist in The Hindustan Times of 8 January. This columnist is obviously not friendly to the Government of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed or even to the present successor Government. In a free country with full freedom of the Press everyone is entitled to express his own views. In fairness to the columnist, I must, however, read two paragraphs from the same article which Mr. Bhutto for obvious reasons left out:

 

"But the striking fact has to be recorded that the dismay and anger of the people of Kashmir did not express themselves in communalism or in anti-Indian sentiment. The people did not turn to the pro-Pakistan elements for guidance and leadership. Their own demand was that India should intervene, for investigation of the sacrilege, to punish the guilty and to ensure that Kashmir does not lapse back into Bakshi rule

 

"The people of Kashmir have given their clear verdict and they are entitled to hope that they have struck the blow for a good and clean administration responsible to their needs and aspirations. They have put their trust in India doing the right thing by them. Can we afford to betray them again ?"

 

So the emphasis in all these quotations is that the people of Kashmir have confidence in India, that they want India to intervene and that they are not satisfied with the local administration.

 

Having failed in its evil design to stir up trouble in Kashmir, Pakistan diverted its attention to East Pakistan, and serious riots broke out in Khulna and Jessore and the Muslims there attacked the Hindu minority. There were terrible incidents of looting, arson and stabbing. A large number of members of the frightened minority started a trek towards India, which lay just across the frontier. It is strange that while in Kashmir itself the large Muslim majority did not suspect the Hindus of having a hand in the theft of the relic, 1,500 miles away the Muslims of East Pakistan were demonstrating against the Hindus and accusing the Hindu community in Kashmir of anti Muslim actions. May I quote the dispatch of Jacques Nevard in The New York Times of 19 January 1964:

 

"Few people here"-"here" means East Pakistan, where these riots took place -"give much credence to the Government-supported view that the East Pakistan riots were caused by the disappearance three weeks ago of a reputed hair of the Prophet Mohammed.

 

"Officially approved processions to protest the loss of the relic got out of hand in the Khulna and Jessore district of East Pakistan, leading to riots against Hindu."

 

I request the Council to mark and note the words "officially approved"

 

The repercussion of the Khulna riots resulted in riots in Calcutta, Refugees from East Pakistan came to the city with lurid tales of what had happened to their co-religionists on the other side of the frontier. The passions of the Hindus in Calcutta were inflamed and unfortunate incidents took place where Muslim lives were lost and some houses in which the Muslims lived were burnt down.

 

Now, by coincidence I myself was in Calcutta for four days while these riots were taking place. I had been there on an official tour as Minister of Education, but I was an eyewitness to what was done by the West Bengal Government to put down these riots. I express my admiration for the strong measures taken by the Chief Minister of West Bengal. He immediately called out the troops and curfew was ordered throughout the city. Our Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Nanda, also arrived in Calcutta and further action was taken. About 5,000 hooligans were rounded up, a citizens' committee was set up to help to restore peace and order, and assurance was given that no land lord would be permitted to beneft by the destruction of Muslim houses and that as far as possible Muslims would be rehabilit ated in the same places where they originally lived. I was staying with the Governor of West Bengal, Miss Padmaja Naidu, a distinguished daughter of a distinguished mother, and she threw open a large part of the Government House in order to give shelter to the Muslims who had lost their homes and their belongings. The Calcutta riots were put down firmly and sternly, and today there is complete peace and the normal situation has been restored.

 

The terrible tale of communal riots did not end here, however. There were subsequent riots in Dacca, Narayanganj Chittagong, Barisal - they are all places in East Pakistan-and in many other places in East Pakistan. Terrible scenes were enacted, and even-according to as important a news agency as Reuters about one thousand Hindus were killed. Our own information is that throughout East Pakistan the number is much larger, the trouble has not yet ended and the tension still continues. The Deputy High Commissioner for India in Dacca has so far received requests for migration from over 50,000 families, involving more than 200,000 people, into one district of Assam, namely Garo Hills; alone, about 20,000 refugees have moved from East Pakistan. These are official figures.

 

I did not have any desire to cite these figures-they are grim and unpleasant but I felt that I should give the Security Council a full picture since the distinguished Foreign Minister of Pakistan in his statement sought to present a one-sided picture before the Council. I wish to make it clear that what ever may happen in East Pakistan, we do not condone the criminals who are guity of taking innocent lives To us a Muslim life is a precious as a Hindu life because both a Hindu and a Muslim are Indian citizens. We condemn bloodshed and looting and arson, whatever may be the cause or the provocation and wherever it may take place. We have respect for human life and we abhor communal frenzy or fanaticism.

 

As our Prime Minister said in his appeal to the nation from his sick bed on 23 January 1964:

 

"We have had distressing news of happenings in East Pakistan in the past few days in which lives of many innocent men, women and children have been lost. These have naturally shocked and upset us. I hope that our countrymen will maintain calm and will refuse to be provoked by these events. Such restraint will be in keeping with age-old traditions of tolerance which is our most precious heritage. Whatever happens elsewhere, citizens of India should prove themselves worthy of their heritage and discharge their sacred duty to live in amity and good will with their fellow citizens whatever be their religion or faith. In that way alone, we can prove ourselves worthy of our heritage and the confidence which Mahatma Gandhi, our leader, reposed in us and of our dedication to the principles of freedom and democracy and our secular State."

 

However, I am sorry to say that the attitude of Pakistan is different. By its policy, by its action, by its utterances, it has deliberately incited these riots. There was peace and harmony between the two communities in India before Pakistan preached "jihad", holy war, and accused the Hindus without a shred of evidence, of being at the bottom of the theft of the sacred relic. It deliberately and for set purpose created an atmosphere so that riots should break out in East Pakistan. Thousands of innocent lives have been lost. It makes no difference whether these lives were of Hindus or Muslims. The physical act by which these lives were lost might be committed by a Hindu or a Muslim fanatic or a Hindu or a Muslim ruffian, but the Pakistan Government cannot be absolved of its responsibility for the death of these innocent people. We in India treat all our citizens alike. We give them the same rights and we want complete communal harmony. We have successfully achieved this, and if we are left to ourselves we will have no com trouble whatsoever; but whenever there is communal trouble we unal put it down with a heavy hand. Pakistan, on the other hand, has from its very inception based its policy on communal hatred and fanaticism. It has incited the Muslims in Kashmir to rebel against India, and it has constantly harped on the theory that Hindus and Muslim are two separate nations.

 

Let me point out the attempts we have made to improve our relations, and also point out what Pakistan has done in return. Our Prime Minister appealed to Pakistan more than once to enter into a "no-war declaration". He said that both countries must settle their differences peacefully and resolve that under no circumstances and for no reason will either country go to war with the other. This offer was refused. Why? Has Pakistan got mental reservations? Does she intend to use violence against India under certain circumstances? When the recent trouble broke out, our President appealed to President Ayub Khan to issue a joint declaration to our respective peoples appealing for peace and harmony. This very reasonable proposal of joint appeal-which, by the mere fact of its being made jointly by the two respective Heads of State, would have had the most beneficial psychological effect-also was refused. We then proposed that the two Home Ministers of India and Pakistan should meet and visit the scenes of disturbance and suggest what further steps should be taken to prevent such happenings. We were met with a Counter proposal which was tantamount to refusal..

 

The Foreign Minister referred to certain talks that took place between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and has sought to make out as if the talks failed due to Indian intransigence. Let me now state what the facts are. On the eve of the first round of talks in Rawalpindi, in Pakistan, the Pakistan Government announced an agreement in principle on the demarcation of the border between that part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir which is now under the unlawful occupation of Pakis lan and Sinkiang. At this stage we could have legitimately broken off the talks, but despite the provocation we decided to continue them. In March 1963, while the talks were still going on, Mr. Bhutto went to Peking and signed the agreement. Again, we showed restraint and continued the talks, though we had enough provocation. The talks were finally broken off by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Bhutto, in spite of all effort to keep the talks going. This proves that the intransigence was not on our side at all but entirely on the side of Pakistan.

 

Now let us contrast this with the attitude of Pakistan. When China attacked us and was guilty of clear and unabashed aggression, Pakistan carried on virulent propaganda against us and in favour of China. Not only did it use every effort to prevail upon friendly countries not to give us assistance in the hour of our dire peril, but it took up the attitude that it was not China, but India, that was guilty of aggression. The whole of the world, with the possible exception of a few States, saw and understood that we had been victims of a cruel aggression.

 

The Foreign Minister has given expression to excellent sentiments with regard to the preservation of peace and the solution of international problems by peaceful negotiations rather than by violent means. We fully endorse these sentiments and we have always subscribed to them. It is easy to come to the Security Council in the garb of innocence and to appeal to world opinion by emphasizing that the attitude of Pakistan has always been friendly and peaceful and that it has not given any provocation whatsoever to my country-but, when we look at the facts, we find quite a different picture. From time to time, there has been open incitement to violence by responsible opinion in Pakistan; constant suggestions have been made that, if the Kashmir problem cannot be solved peacefully, it must be solved by violent means. Even in the Foreign Minister's own letter of 16 January [S/5517], which the Council is now considering, the conclusion is very significant, namely, that "the people of "azad" Kashmir and Pakistan may, in desperation, turn to other courses". What are these other courses? Courses other than peaceful courses are violence and bloodshed. I have rarely seen, in a public document addressed to a body which is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and good relations, and open threats being held out by a member State to refer to violence under certain circumstances. How, then, can we take the Pakistan Foreign Minister's statement here seriously?

 

I may refer to a letter that appeared in The Observer on 17 June 1963, by the late John Strachey, Labour M.P., who had visited both India and Pakistan as a Member of a parliamentary delegation. Addressing the editor of The Observer, he wrote:

 

"You complained that India still keeps a large part of her army on the Pakistan frontier. Before going to Pakistan last month this seemed to me also to be an indefensible deployment of India's forces, but during the week in which my colleagues were in Pakistan, a Pakistan Cabinet Minister declared publicly that the Kashmir question must be settled immediately by peaceful means or otherwise. Another Pakistan public man in a key position assured us that if China attacked again he and his friends would not miss the opportunity this time but would immediately attack India. And almost every Pakistani public man whom we met started the conversation from the assumption that India had attacked China.``

 

As you know, Mr. John Strachey, who died recently, was a very respected Member of Parliament. This is his own testimony as to what he heard from a Member of the Pakistan Cabinet and from men high up in Pakistan public life. This clearly shows that Pakistan has all along intended to use violence against our country when the opportunity arose.

 

In this connexion, I would also like to mention the real attitude of Pakistan with regard to Kashmir. When one analyses the speech made by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, the underlying sentiment is this: India must settle the problem of Kashmir with Pakistan to the latter's satisfaction; if it does not, there will be communal disturbances, there will be trouble, there might even be bloodshed. Therefore, Pakistan has approached this Council not with an appeal but with a threat, and we are being asked to submit to this threat. It is unfortunate that Pakistan does not realize that it is making the lives of millions of people both in our own country and in Pakistan mere pawns in the game of politics.

 

India today is perhaps the only country which can stand up to Chinese expansion and aggression. If India failed, there therefore not only in the interest of India itself, but also in the would be nothing to control the Chinese forward policy. It is in the interest of peace that India should be strong. grateful for the aid of those countries. We are very we have received from friendly But the whole purpose of this would be completely nullified if India became domestically weak. No country can be internationally strong if it does not also have domestic strength. The domestic strength of India depends upon secularism, upon the vital necessity of the different communities that reside within India living in peace and harmony. Pakistan does not want India to be strong; it wants to weaken India, both internationally and domestically. Its recent flirtations with China are clear evidence of this fact. In this context, Kashmir assumes great importance. Pakistan has been complaining of India's changing the status quo with regard to Kashmir, and yet it has given away to China, in the border agreement, over 2,000 square miles of Kashmir. Pakistan has no right or title to it and yet it has been generous at another country's expense. If ever there was a gross change of status quo, it has been by Pakistan. But, apart from the fact that legally and constitutionally Kashmir is part of India, apart from the fact that we do not subscribe to the theory that Hindus and Muslims are two nations and that Kashmir is the symbol and guarantee of our secularism, Kashmir has now assumed vital importance because of the continuing menace of China. A mere glance at the map of India will be sufficient to illustrate this.

 

The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has sung pacans of praise in favour of Sheikh Abdullah. He has told us that Sheikh Abdullah is the Lion of Kashmir, leader of Muslims there, and that we have put him behind bars. It is dangerous to have short memories. May I remind the Foreign Minister of Pakistan of what his own Prime Minister at the time, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan said about Sheikh Abdullah :

 

"Speaking to pressmen at Srinagar on November 10th [1947], during Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's visit to that place, Sheikh Abdullah was reported to have observed that there may not be a referendum at all. This quisling who has been an agent of the Congress [Party] for many years, struts about the stage bartering away the life, honour and freedom of Muslims of Kashmir who are rotting in gaol." "This statement was made by Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan on 10 November 1947. In other words, when it suits Pakistan, Seikh Abdullah is a quisling-and, when it suits Pakistan better, he is a hero and the Lion of Kashmir and the leader of the Muslim community. I do not know when the tune will change again. Again, in a telegram dated 25 November 1947 to the Prime Minister of India, the Prime Minister of Pakistan said:

 

"I am extremely sorry that you still support Sheikh Abdullah, who you know is a quisling and a paid agent, to disrupt the Mussulmans of Kashmir."

 

So here our Prime Minister was being accused of supporting a quisling who should not have been supported.

 

I would like to say a word and I am sorry that I cannot say more because the matter is sub judice - about the trial of Sheikh Abdullah. We very much regret the delay that has taken place in concluding this trial, but it is being conducted according to the procedures laid down by law. The Times of London in a dispatch when the trial started pointed out how fair the judge was and how he held the scales of justice even between the prosecution and the defence. It is true, as the Foreign Minister has pointed out, that there are a large number of witnesses. This is inevitable in a conspiracy trial. I must also point out that the delay is partly due to the fact that there has been lengthy cross-examination of witnesses by the defence and from time to time adjournments have had to be given in the interest of Sheikh Abdullah himself. And the most significant feature of this trial is that Sheikh Abdullah has a counsel of his own choice, a very distinguished lawyer from the London bar, Mr. Dingle Foot, Queen's Counsel. Therefore, the trial is public and every facility is given to the accused to defend himself.

 

There is another matter to which I would like to refer in the statement made by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. The Foreign Minister has also spoken of the "wall of steel" that "separates... Kashmir from the outside world" and has said that "India is trying desperately to conceal what is happening there under a massive blanket of censorship" [1087th meeting, para. 16]. Now one thing about which we are particularly proud is that Kashmir has always been open to any visitor from any country and of any nationality. We have nothing to hide in Kashmir, nor are we ashamed of anything we are doing there. Every year 70,000 to 80,090 tourists, including a large number of foreign tourists, come to this most beautiful spot.

 

Pakistan has made a great deal of play with the idea of self-determination. It has tried to appeal to world opinion by proclaiming that its interest in Kashmir arises from the fact that the people of that State have been denied the right of self determination. Now, in the first place, we must determine what are the connotations of the word "self" in this expression. What is the "self" which has the right to determine its destiny, to determine whether it would be a part of one country or another or would be independent? It is clear that the "self" contemplated in the enunciation of this democratic principle is not and cannot be a constituent part of a country. It can be operative only when one is dealing with a nation as a whole, and the context in which it can be applicable is the context of conquest or of foreign domination or of colonial exploitation. It would lead to disastrous consequences if the expression were extended to apply to the integral part of any country or sections of its population, or to enable such integrated or sections of the population to secede. The principle of self-determination can not and must not be applied to bring about the fragmentation of a country or its people. Let us not forget that the United States fought a bloody civil war to prevent, not a small part, but the whole of its South from seceding and constituting itself into an independent country. I have no doubt that a large majority of the people of that part of the United States were opposed to Abraham Lincoln and his policies and wanted the freedom to refuse to emancipate the slaves; and yet the United States Government, very rightly and properly, in my opinion, refused to break up its country by permitting a part of it the right to secede.

 

In the world today we have innumerable countries in Africa and Asia with dissident minorities. Many of these minorities might like to set up governments of their own. We would have to repaint the map of the world, and many States Members of the United Nations would be broken up. Many countries today have populations made up of different races, religions and cultures, and the future of the world depends upon the evolution of multiracial States and nations of different parts of the world. Pakistan's thesis is a reactionary and obscurantist one. The thesis of self-determination which Pakis tan advocates has been used in the recent past by colonialists and neo-colonialists for the disruption of newly emergent States. Pakistan would have the hands of the clock set backwards and would go back to the days when countries permitted only one religion and persecuted those who followed another faith. I appeal to this Council not to listen to contentions and arguments which would be destructive of peace and progress and which would lead to the dismemberment of many nations.

 

Pakistan possesses the happy gift of preaching what it has itself never practised. It asks us to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir without even so much as thinking of holding an election in its own country. It wants us to concede the principle of self determination to a constituent part of our country without looking nearer home. Has Pakistan ever thought of permitting self-determination to the Pathans who want a State of their own, which is described as Pashtunistan?

 

Let me say a word about the allegation of eviction of India Muslims made by Pakistan against us. I shall refute this charge not by arguments but by cold statistical facts to which there can be no answer. The Indian census figures for 1961 show that there was an increase of 25.6 percent in the population of Muslims in India during the period between 1951 and and 1961, against an overall increase in the population of India of 21.5 per cent. Is India being driven out? Not only is no Indian Muslim leaving India, but the fact is that Pakistani Muslims in large Does this prove genocide or that Muslims number have been infiltrating into the surrounding Indian States of West Bengal, Assam and Tripura. This is clearly proved by Pakistani census figures. It will be seen from those figures that the Muslim population in East Pakistan increased by 26 per cent during the period 1951-1961. It is significant, however that much smaller increases have been recorded in some of the districts of East Pakistan bordering on India. Noakhali had an increase of only 4.7 per cent, Comilla 15.4 per cent and Bakarganj 16.8 per cent; and Sylhet indicated a rise of only 13.9 per cent, against the over-all provincial increase of 26 per cent. The Indian census figures in the neighbouring border districts of Indian States are complementary and reveal that the population of Muslims in Tripura rose by 68 per cent, in Darjeeling by 200 percent, Dinajpur by 24 per cent, in Malda by 62 per cent, in Garo Hills by 49 per cent and in Khasi and Jaintia Hills by 88 per cent. These figures speak for themselves and are parti clearly revealing when it is remembered that the over-all increase in the Muslim population in India as a whole was 25.6 per cent. Every natural demographic consideration will show that this big increase could have been possible only by a large-scale influx from East Pakistan, particularly from those districts which, according to the Pakistan census figures, show abnormally low increases in population.

 

Let us now examine the picture on the other side. After the partition and the consequential mass migrations and killings Pakistan succeeded in getting rid of practically all non-Mulims in the Western wing. In the Eastern wing, 9.34 million were left, according to the Pakistan census figures of 1951. This was roughly 22.03 per cent of the total population of East Pakistan, which was 41,93 million. The corresponding figure for 1961, as can be seen from the Pakistan figures, is 9.38 million non Muslims, which constitutes 18.5 per cent of the total population of 50.84 million in East Pakistan. It will be noticed that the percentage has gone down by nearly 3.6 per cent over the period of ten years. What is more remarkable is that the population of the Hindu minority in East Pakistan has remained practically stationary, although the increase in population of Muslims in Pakistan during this decade was 26 percent. If there had been a similar natural increase in the number of non-Muslims, there should have been an increase of well over 2.25 million. Why has there not been this natural increase? The answer is that they have all been squeezed out during this period. That fits in with our records, which show the arrival in India of refugees of approximately that number. If the Foreign Minister of Pakistan has any other answer, let him come out with it. Let him also think about who is guilty of evicting minorities.

 

I also wish to point out that no one is evicted from India without complying with the provisions of the rule of law. In the first place, there is a careful administrative scrutiny as to the nationality of the person concerned, and it is only after the scrutiny reveals that the person is not of Indian nationality, or that he does not have the necessary permit for residence or visa, that he is served with a quit notice. Further, after he has been served with a quit notice he has a right to go to the High Court for a writ on which he can satisfy the Court thas the decision of the Administrative Tribunal was incorrect. Recently, both in Assam and Tripura, judicial officers have been appointed even for the purpose of scrutiny before quit notice is served.

 

There is one other minor matter to which I would refer and that is that a large number of non-Muslims have been appointed in the recently constituted Ministry of the States of Jammu and Kashmir. Under normal parliamentary procedure, it is entirely the right of the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir to constitute his Cabinet. In India we do not make appointments on communal considerations. It is true that we try to see, as fast as possible, that no part of India and no large community goes wholly unrepresented in the Government, and that is a federal principle with which federal governments are familiar. It is a tribute to Kashmir that its Cabinet should truly reflect the inter-communal unity that prevails in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

The reference made by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan to the dismissal by Prime Minister Shamuddin of officers of The State Government is not correct. These dismissals were made not for the motive suggested by the Foreign Minister, but as a part of the drive against inefficiency and corruption. All the officers were not dismissed, but many of them were retired. Sixty of these officers were Hindus and Sikhs. The communal colouring sought to be given is entirely without foundation.

 

Before I conclude, I would like to refer to some other points in the statements of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, both in his letter to the Security Council dated 16 January 1964 [S/5517] and his statement the other day. The Foreign Minister complained that the statement of Mr. Nanda, Minister of Home Affairs of India, at the session of the Indian National Congress held at Bhubaneswar was inflammatory in character. Mr. Nanda spoke in Hindi and we have here the full text of his statement. I do not find anywhere in the speech that Mr. Nanda made anything even remotely suggestive or calculated to incite communal passions. On the contrary, Mr. Nanda said :

 

"In case something happens there"- that is in Pakistan - "we should not allow anything to happen here"-that is, in India-"and in case some trouble arises, stern measures should be adopted and immediately everything brought to normal."

 

Evidently, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan has relied on some erroneous English translation of Mr. Nanda's speech. As a matter of fact, far from inciting communal passions, Mr. Nanda played a most worthly role in Culcutta in organizing joint Hindu-Muslim conciliation and peace squads which in conjunction with the stern measures taken to bring miscreants to book, including the police and military firing at them when ever necessary, helped in bringing the situation in Culcutta which, it should be remembered, has a large population of 6 million inhabitants - within control and back normal in two to three days. It is inconceivable that on to the platform of the Indian National Congress where Mr. Nanda spoke, which is always on the side of inter-communal unity, any Minister, far less the Home Minister, would make inflammatory speeches.

 

The Foreign Minister of Pakistan in the course of his statement said the reply of the President of India to President Ayub Khan's letter was not helpful. What could be more helpful and sincere and earnest than the concluding paragraph of our President's letter of 16 January 1964 which has been circulated to members of the Security Council [S/5522]. I might also refer to the statement made by our President on the occasion of our Republic Day on 26 January, which is couched in the same spirit and I quote from that latter :

 

"In our democracy men of all faiths have the right to live in honour and harmony under the rule of law; life and liberty of every citizen, irrespective of caste or creed, ought to be sacred to every other. Any departure from this is not only morally indefensible but politically dangerous; it weakens our internal unity at a time when the danger to our country from without is undiminished. The Government can and will take every step necessary to put down anti-social behaviour but the cooperation of people is no less important if peaceful conditions are to be preserved, for such peace is the basis on which we could build our future"

 

On the other hand the letter of the President of Pakistan contained some very serious allegations against India. In our President's reply attention had to be drawn to those inaccuracies in order to put the matter in proper perspective. It is clear, however, that the spirit of our President's message was one of cordiality and constructive approach to try to solve the very urgent problem of restoring communal harmony with which both countries are faced.

 

The Foreign Minister of Pakistan characterized India's presence in Kashmir as colonial. I deeply regret that he has allowed himself to make such an outrageous allegation against my country. He is either ignorant of or chooses to ignore the history of India during the last fifty years. He seems to have forgotten that it was India's epic struggle against colonialism, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, a long drawn struggle against the mightiest Empire in history, that brought about freedom for India and his own country. He cannot be unaware of the tremendous impact of the Indian movement against colonialism on all freedom movements in Asia and Africa and the inspiration it provided and continues to provide for such movements all over the world. It is our great satisfaction to know that this is acknowledged by the newly emergent countries in Asia and Africa. He completely ignores the unceasing fight that India has waged in the United Nations and the support to freedom movements in Asia and Africa that India has given during the sixteen years of its independent existence and as a founder Member of the United Nations. To malign such a country as colonial shows the height of prejudice; to insinuate that India's present leaders, most of all Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru the greater part of whose life has been spent as a freedom fighter not only for his own country but for Asia and Africa should follow a colonial policy in something which Pakistan alone could do.

 

The fact is that Kashmir has, since the dawn of history, been a part of India, a repository of Indian culture and heritage. It has shared fully in the vicissitudes of Indian history. It has been a part of the Empire of Asoka and Akbar Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir, was founded by the Great Emperor Asoka in the third century B.C. The people of Kashmir are blood of our blood and flesh, and Jammu and Kashmir as one of the sixteen States of the Indian Union and the people of Kashmir as Indian citizens share in the total freedom which India enjoys. To say that Kashmir is under India's colonial hold is gross calumny and an insult to the people of Kashmir who are Indians and have been Indians ever since one can remember. The fact is that it is time Pakistan examined its own conscience and looked into its own heart and asked itself how it is that it is holding two-fifths of Kashmir; that, if anything, is colonial occupation.

 

It has often been said and, I think, it has also been repeated by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, that the only bone of contention between India and Pakistan is Kashmir and that if the problem of Kashmir were solved to Pakistan's satisfaction, then there would be friendship and full cooperation between our two countries. I beg to differ. As I have pointed out before, it is difficult to understand the basic philosophy on which the policy of Pakistan is based. In every aspect of its foreign policy, it has disclosed an anti-Indian bias. At one time we were told by responsible Pakistan leaders that the reason why they were driven into the arms of China was our Kashmir policy; as China did not like this reason for Pakistan's friendship for China, they changed the tune and suggested that even if the problem of Kashmir was solved, Pakistan would continue to support China. In other words, Pakistan's present attitude of hostility towards India is not due to the Kashmir problem alone, but it is something more deep-seated.

 

The same is the attitude of Pakistan with regard to communal riots. The argument is that riots would miraculously stop if the Kashmir problem were solved. Again, there is no connexion between Kashmir and the riots. Riots come about because of the communal policy of Pakistan and because of the incitement to communal passion of which it is guilty and of which I have given ample evidence earlier in my statement.

 

I wish I did not have to take so much time with the Security Council and that I had been spared the need for refuting the many allegations made by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan against us. Repetitious recriminations and fault-finding in the Security Council do not help. If these had been fruitful, we would not have been sitting here today after so many years. I was bound to set the record straight in the face of the grave and unfounded allegations made against us by Pakistan. I would like to assure you, Mr. President, and the Security Council, that despite provocations we shall continue to work towards amelia ration of our unfortunate relations with Pakistan. We do not want our relations to be built on recrimination but on friendship and co-operation and mutual respect. And here I wish to say categorically on behalf of my Government and the Indian people that wish Pakistan prosperity and well-being as a free and sovereign State and want to build our relations as between two friendly and neighbouring countries on the basis of equality, integrity and sovereignty.

 

You might as well ask me what steps should be taken to alter the present unhappy situation and bring about better relations between India and Pakistan. I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that the people of both countries want to be friends. They belonged to the same country sixteen years ago. They have shared the same tradition and the same past, and even today citizens of Pakistan and India have connexions and ties of relationship. If only the Government of Pakistan made a proper gesture and gave up its present attitude, my Government would meet it more than half way. With the greatest respect, I wish to suggest that the passing of resolutions will not be helpful. It is likely only to aggravate feelings. No resolution, however well drafted, will satisfy both the parties. What is necessary is action and what we have to remember is that first things must come first.

 

The first thing, therefore, is to restore normal conditions in the disturbed areas of India and Pakistan and to bring about inter-communal unity and harmony in both the countries. For this purpose, we are prepared to take any and every step in cooperation with Pakistan. My Government will welcome a meeting of Ministers from both countries to discuss ways and means. We must see to it that the disgraceful incidents which took place recently never take place again. They are a scandal ony civilized Government. Secondly, threats of violence which have emanated from Pakistan from time to time, as I have pointed out, must cease. Let Pakistan unequivocally declare along with India that the two countries will never resort to war and will settle all their differences by peaceful means. connexion, we welcome the appeal recently issued by Chairman In this Khrushchev and, as you know, our Prime Minister has warmly endorsed that appeal for the peaceful settlement of territorial disputes. President Johnson has also, in principle, welcomed the renunciation of the use of force. Once a better atmosphere prevails, it will be possible and we are prepared to discuss with Pakistan all our outstanding differences. We believe in discussion and debate, we believe in the resolution of differences by sitting around the conference table and we will welcome Pakistan to sit with us and resolve our differences. Let me implore Pakistan to remember that we are most anxious that our two countries constituting the subcontinent of India, should remain on friendly and cordial terms. The future prosperity and well-being of our two peoples depend on it.