10021964 Text of the speech made by Mr. Chagla (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1090 held on 10 February 1964.
10021964 Text of the speech made by Mr. Chagla (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1090 held on 10 February 1964.
I listened to the statement of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan at the last meeting more in sorrow than in anger. One can control one's anger, but it is difficult to control one's sorrow. My sorrow is due to the fact that the representative of Pakistan should have given expression to sentiments which vilify my country and my Government, which are a calumny to the record of peace and progress that it has set up since its independence. And this by, a neighbour, against us whose only desire is to live in peace and amity with the people of a country which only a few years back constituted, along with itself, the subcontinent of India. I do not propose to imitate the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. I do not wish to wear out the patience of the members of the Security Council by a lengthy dissertation. Their patience has been sufficiently taxed. I think, therefore, it will be a waste of time to reiterate what I have already said in my earlier statement [1088th meeting]. That is on the record and it speaks for itself. It clearly defines the position and attitude of my country and I stand by every word I have said there.
The representative of Pakistan has realized that the only way he can seek to justify his approach to the Security Council is to make out a case of trouble and discord in Kashmir or, to quote his own words in his opening statement that Kashmir is in open rebellion against India [1087th meeting]. If the facts show that there have been no communal disturbances in Kashmir, that on the contrary there has been complete harmony and that far from revolting against India, Kashmir at every stage of this unfortunate incident of the loss of the sacred relic has turned to India for help and support, then it is clear that no change has come about in the situation in Kashmir which according to the representative of Pakistan, justifies the present, application of Pakistan to the Security Council-not that the fact of disturbance or trouble in Kashmir would justify any intervention by Pakistan, since we have repeatedly stated that what happens in Kashmir is entirely a domestic matter for India.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has quoted President Khan as having said that recently there was a spontaneous referendum in Kashmir. How right he is. And what was the result of that referendum? The clear verdict that the Kashmiris gave was that while they were opposed to the local administration, they had full confidence in the fairness and sense of justice of the Government of India. In my earlier statement I quoted utterances of responsible Pakistan statesmen inciting the people of Kashmir and inflaming communal passions. I said before and I repeat that Pakistan excepted that the loss of the sacred relic would lead to bloodshed in Kashmir and the Muslim community would rise against the Hindus and the Sikhs. Even here the Foreign Minister of Pakistan has stated that at this very minute blood is flowing in Srinagar. May I ask whether it is a statement. of fact or a wish and a hope ? Let me categorically state to the members of the Council that there is no trouble whatsoever in Kashmir today. The sacred relic has been found and, what is more, it has been identified by the respected religious leaders of Srinagar, including Maulana Masoodi, who is not only not a supporter of the Government but who is a member of the Opposition.
We have been told that Kashmir is a vital question. Vital to whom? To the people of Kashmir or to Pakistan? President Ayub Khan in moments of self-revelation has more than once stated that Kashmir is vital to Pakistan's economy and defence. I quote:
"Kashmir is vital for Pakistan, not only politically but militarily as death." well. Kashmir is a matter of life and death.
This is what President Ayub Khan said in December. 1959. And again the President of Pakistan said:
"You might say, 'why can't you give up Kashmir ? Well, we cannot give up that dispute not because we are bloody minded but ...for example for the reason that Kashmir is connected with our physical security. Thirty-two million acres in Pakistan are irrigated from rivers that start in Kashmir."
This is from the speech delivered by President Ayub Khan at a luncheon meeting at the National Press Club in Washington on 13 July 1961, and as reported in the Pakistan Times of 14 July Again I quote the President;
"Kashmir is important to us for our physical as well as economic security."
This was what President Ayub Khan said at Karachi on 19 July 1961, as reported in the Pakistan Times of the following day. One more quote:
"Pakistan's President declared that Kashmir was a life-and-death question for Pakistan, and without the solution of this problem we cannot be assured of the safety of our territory, especially the western wing of our country....."
President Ayub Khan made this statement at Dacca on 18 October, and it was reported in the Pakistan Times of the following day.
So the cat is out of the bag. Kashmir is not vital for human reasons or human considerations; it is vital to Pakistan for its own reason, namely, its own security and its own defence. This also explains what the founder of Pakistan, Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, once said that he was not satisfied with the Pakistan which he had obtained because it was a "moth-eaten, truncated Pakistan" It is therefore not out of consideration of human rights that Pakistan has been so ceaselessly and pertinaciously pressing the Kashmir case before this Council.
The truth is that Pakistan wants Kashmir in support of its two-nation theory, according to which Kashmir, because its population has a Muslim majority, must necessarily form part of Pakistan. If we are thinking only of the people of Kashmir, of their rights, of their security, of their desire to live in peace and quiet, then it is time to put an end to this unending controversy. Pakistan talks glibly of a plebiscite. Does it realize what its consequences will be? In the place of peace and quiet we may have bloodshed. If the theft of the sacred relic could be exploited to produce riots 1,500 miles away, the stirring of communal passions on a large and massive scale may lead to serious communal riots all over India and Pakistan and to migrations. The only people who would suffer are not the politicians in Pakistan who preach a holy war but millions of innocent people who are not interested in politics and who want to be left in peace to carry on their normal avocations. So, if we are thinking only in terms of maintenance of peace and respect for human beings, then we should think a thousand times before we disturb a situation which has existed since India became independent.
The whole burden of the Pakistan Foreign Minister's song has been that the only thing which poisons relations between Pakistan and India is the Kashmir problem, and that, if the Kashmir problem is not solved, relations between the two countries will not improve, and communal troubles will continue. This, to my mind, is an open threat to the Security Council. Pakistan is telling you, Mr. President, in strong, strident and threatening tones, that, if the Kashmir problem is not settled, there will be bloodshed and war. Is anyone going to submit to this threat and intimidation?
The iron fist is concealed in a velvet glove. The representative of Pakistan has quoted Chairman Khrushchev and President Johnson and has relied on what they said about the settlement of territorial disputes by peaceful methods. Even the devil can quote Scriptures for his purpose. I cannot imagine a more perverse interpretation of the very noble sentiments to which Chairman Khrushchev gave expressions, which were whole-heartedly endorsed by the Prime Minister of India and to which President Johnson responded, than for a country to talk of peace while brandishing a sword
The reliance of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan on the appeal made by Chairman Khrushchev makes even more inexplicable his refusal to join with India in a no-war declaration. It is true that these sentiments are embodied and enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, but they require constant reminders and reiterations. On behalf of my Government, I wish to declare that India under no circumstances will resort to war for the settlement of its differences with Pakistan.
I repeat that India under no circumstances will resort to war for the settlement of its differences with Pakistan. Will the Foreign Minister of Pakistan also make a similar declaration?
Why have we? It is true that Pakistan wants peace, but it wants peace at the point of a bayonet and on its own terms. had no refutation from the representative of Pakistan of the statements made by responsible Pakistan leaders threatening violence against India? As I have said before, even in his letter to the Security Council of 16 January 1964 [S/5517] there is a threat of violence which is not even decently veiled but which is open and flagrant.
The representative of Pakistan has repeated the slander against India that Kashmir is under India's "colonial rule". Kashmir became part of India not as a result of conquest, nor is it a case of one race ruling over another; Kashmir has always been part of India since time immemorial, and the people of Kashmir and the rest of India are racially and ethnically the same. Even religiously; although in that part of India the Muslims might be in a large majority, this majority professes the same religion as 50 million Muslims in India. It is here that the basic difference between Pakistan and ourselves arises. The bond that Pakistan finds with the people of Kashmir, and which makes the representative of Pakistan say that the people of Kashmir are their kith and kin, is not a common nationality; it is not a common race; it is not common traditions or common. history, but their bond of religion. We emphatically deny and repudiate a philosophy which equates nationality with religion. The basic philosophy on which our State is based and our Constitution enacted is a multiracial society, a society in which people of different religions can live together happily and can be treated as equals before the law and can enjoy the same rights and opportunities.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has spoken with great indignation of the way the Muslims are treated in India and of the frequency of communal riots. It is a gross travesty of truth to say that at every Muslim festival Muslims are being attacked. Is the Pakistan case so bad and so weak that it has to rely on such patent falsehoods? Muslim festivals are celebrated from time to time with members of other communities rejoicing with their Muslim brethren. Fairs are held at Muslim shrines, where tens of thousands of Hindus and Muslims attend and pay their respect to the saints. Even recently in Kashmir, as I pointed out, the loss of the sacred relic was mourned not by the Muslims alone but by the Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs, and when the relic was recovered the rejoicing was not confined to the Muslim community, but extended to all the communities in Kashmir and the rest of India. On the contrary, there was no rejoicing in Pakistan, where the recovered relic was described as a fake, presumably to incite further hatred against India, Pakistan has a mentality which makes it impossible for it to understand that Hindus and Muslims can live side by side in peace and concord.
The Foreign Minister painted a lurid picture of communal riots in India. He mentioned the figure of 550. This is a gross exaggeration. Here I might say that we inherited a bad legacy from the British period of communal riots throughout the Indian subcontinent. This was a phase which both our countries have reasons to be ashamed of, but the whole orientation of Indian policy since India became independent has been to create confidence so that these communal incidents should become a thing of the past. Since Pakistan has mentioned certain figures, it may also give the Council some figures. Between 1950 and 1956 alone, there were 8,021 cases of communal incidents in East Pakistan, in which members of the minority community were victims. These incidents were brought to the notice of the East Pakistan Government. Since 1956, of course, there have been several hundred more cases. We condemn these riots, whether in Pakistan or in India. We regret the loss of innocent lives, and we do our best to prevent such riots.
Here again the attitudes of India and Pakistan are diametrically different. As I pointed out earlier, the incitement to communal riots has been a part of Pakistan's policy. The representative of Pakistan has quoted some statements of members of the Hindu Mahasabha, which is a communal party in India. The representation of the Hindu Mahasabha in the Indian Parliament-one member out of 500-reflects the following that party enjoys among the people. The Indian National Congress, which is the party in power today, is strongly opposed to the philosophy underlying that party. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan is not in a position, and cannot be in a position, to quote leaders of the Indian National Congress or the members of the Indian Government inciting the Hindus in India to attack the Muslims. Indeed, that would be opposed to the basic policy of the Indian National Congress. Mahatma Gandhi gave his life in the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity, and, notwithstanding the grave provocations we have had from Pakistan, the party which he led and which won the independence of India has always preached communal harmony. There is not a Muslim in India who does not look upon our Prime Minister as a true friend.
May I refer to the testimony of an exalted and impartial observer of the Indian scene. Even Pakistan will not be able to challenge the importance and the significance of his statement. His Majesty King Syad of Saudi Arabia at the conclusion of his visit to India said this, and I would draw the Council's attention to his words:
"When I set foot on this precious soil,"-that is, India ``two questions engaged my mind: the fate of the Muslims of India and the general administration of this sub continent after withdrawal of the British rule.. I desire now, at the conclusion of my visit to India, to say to my Muslim brethren all over the world, with greater satisfac tion, that the fate of the Indian Muslims is in safe hands. This assurance has been corroborated by all Muslim leaders whom I met."
Here is another piece of impartial testimony-I am quoting it from a document of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities:
"In the course of a discussion at the United Nations Sub Commission on 11 January 1959, Mr. Richard Hiscocks (United Kingdom) said that in India Mahatma Gandhi and Mr. Nehru, two outstanding leaders of the world, had the courage to swim against the current and bring about a revolution in the approach to untouchability and to minorities. Mr. Nehru particularly in the last ten years was responsible for sponsoring legislation in the battle against discrimination of religious minorities.
"He wondered whether leaders in other countries, for instance Pakistan, had the courage to emulate the example of the Indian leaders.
"Senior Hernan Santa Cruz (Chile) said he had been in India recently and felt that Mr. Nehru and the Indian Parliament played a notable role in promoting tolerance and getting the viewpoints of minorities appreciated."
Let us look at the Press. As in every other country, we have a few irresponsible newspapers also, but the Government has always appealed for restraint, and I am glad to pay a tribute to the Indian Press, which has shown commendable restraint in the reporting of views and in their comments on the communal holocaust in East Pakistan and has assisted the Government of India in the restoration of law and order. Ours is a free Press, and those who are familiar with a free Press know how difficult it is to restrain it; but in Pakistan, where the Press is controlled, important papers, papers which have official backing, have carried on a raging campaign against India, There is hardly a day when hatred against India and the Hindus is not preached. Here are a few instances of what has appeared in Pakistan newspapers recently. This is from an Urdu paper, the Hurriyet of Karachi, of 4 February 1964: "Kashmir is aflame. Rivers of Indian Muslims' blood are flowing in Bharat" that is, India "and Muslim women are being outraged" One can imagine the effect of a statement like that on the minds of the Muslims, both in India and in Pakistan. If ever there was a statement to inflame passions, it is that. They paint Kashmir as aflame, with rivers of Muslim blood flowing and Muslim women being outraged. If that is not incitement, I do not know what it is. I now quote from the Dawn of Karachi, of 1 January 1964-a paper, blessed by the Government;
"They" that is, the people of West Pakistan-"have called upon the Muslims in India and Pakistan to declare 'jehad' "-holy war-"on the issue and save Muslim shrines in that country from further sacrilege."
Which Muslim shrine has been sacrileged? Will the Foreign Minister tell me that? I quote again from the Dawn, the issue of 17 January 1964:
"The President, Sardar Mohammed Alam Khan, directed the Muslim Conference office-bearers to recruit 'razakars' "-that is, fanatics-"for 'jehad' and make them ready 'till second directive"."
That is an order for recruitment, a declaration of war. They are only waiting for the proper time to march on Kashmir.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has taken pride in the way the Government of Pakistan has treated its minorities. Now, there are various ways of treating minorities, and one that Pakistan has adopted is perhaps the most effective one. It has driven out all but a few Hindus from West Pakistan, and it is resorting to policies which are gradually driving out Hindus from East Pakistan. If the objective of Pakistan's policy was to have a State with only men of one religion living in it, that objective could not be better achieved than by the actions that Pakistan has been taking since its inception. And here may I say in passing that out of the 30,000-odd refugees who have crossed over from East Pakistan into one district of Assam, alone-namely, Garo Hills, 3,000 are Christians. So it is not only the Hindus who do not feel safe; it is also the Christians, who are also a minority in Pakistan.
It is, perhaps, easy and possible for Pakistan to get rid of its minorities. For us, we look upon the Muslims not as a minority but as an important and integral part of our nation. Fifty million Muslims live with their Hindu brethren in all parts of the country, in every village, town and city. To us the very thought of an exchange of Hindus and Muslims is abhorrent. We realize that India would break up and disintegrate if it cannot give all the communities which live in it protection and full rights.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan does not like the cold. statistical facts. He prefers to rely on his fancy and his imagination. I am not going into the figures which I gave in my earlier statement on the subject of the illegal movements of persons from East Pakistan across the borders into India [1088th meeting]. The patent fact remains, which has not been disputed and cannot be disputed by Pakistan, that while the population of Muslims in East Pakistan has increased by 26 per cent during the census period 1951-1961, the Hindu population has remained stationary and that the Muslim population in West Bengal has increased much more than the natural rate. The Foreign Minister is surprised that any Muslim from East Pakistan should want to go to India. Perhaps even the Muslims of East Pakistan and India a better and a more peaceful country in which they can enjoy democratic and fundamental rights. Forty thousand Pakistan Muslim nationals today are working and earning their living in India on a proper visa Besides, about a quarter of a million Muslims from Pakistan visited India during 1963 on short-term Indian visas. If Muslims were insecure in India, would such a large number of Muslims from Pakistan be travelling to India? The Foreign Minister also suggested that with strict passport regulations imposed by India, it would be impossible for Pakistan nationals to migrate into India. He forgets that there is an open frontier of 2,000 miles between eastern India and eastern Pakistan, and
no passport regulations and not the strictest police surveillance in the world can prevent people from crossing the frontier. He also quoted The Times of London. Let me quote from a dispatch in an equally important English periodical, The Economist, of 5 October 1963 by a correspondent who claims to have been in Pakistan lately:
"The sub continental strategy of irritating India has received its latest expression on the Assam-East Pakistan frontier. India has long complained of 'infiltrations' from East Pakistan, numbering, some say, up to half a million since 1951. The exodus is probably more an index of East Pakistani misery than a cold political calculation from Rawalpindi. When the said 'emigres' are returned over the frontier, Pakistan protests that India is attempting to depopulate Assam of its Muslims."
Mr. Richard Critchfield, whose article the Foreign Minister of Pakistan quoted with approval, says this about Pakistan in the New York Herald Tribune of 1 January 1964:
"West Pakistan still receives 51 per cent of the national budget but provides 90 percent of the Central Government staff and almost all the armed forces.
"East Pakistan, with more than half the country's population but not 15 percent of its land area, carns 70 percent of the export income, but until recently received only a third of expenditure allocations, a fifth of United States aid and almost no new private development money.
"It is these Pakistanis who have not found the conception of Pakistan a really captivating idea. Restoration of adult suffrage and the rights of free Press, speech and assembly"-which do not exist in Pakistan" could help to remedy this President Ayub cannot form the durable political base he needs on hatred of India alone."
According to Mr. Critchifield, the only durable base that Pakistan has for its foreign policy- and this is what I said in my earlier statement also-is the hatred of India.
With such a situation in East Pakistan, is there any wonder that the people should be leaving for better opportunities elsewhere? Infiltration of Pakistanis has created a problem not only for India but apparently also for Burma, which is the only other country neighbouring East Pakistan. Burmese press reports indicate that the number of such illegal entrants in Burma is of the order of a quarter of a million.
There has been no change in our policy concerning migrations from Pakistan, but on compassionate and humanitarian grounds we are obliged to offer all facilities and expedite the processes concerning the examination of applications or migration certificates from East Pakistan into India. All States as you are aware, give compassionate consideration to the request of refugees fleeing in fear of persecution. It is ridiculous to suggest that the announcement by our Home Minister of better facilities for migration of the Hindu minority from East Pakistan to West Bengal would aggravate communal feelings if there are riots in East Pakistan which cause much loss of life, if the tension continues, if the Press keeps up its unceasing propaganda, is it surprising that the Hindu minority should be in a state of panic and should want to migrate to India where it would have such safety?
In this connexion, I should like to mention that the following report has been received from the Government of the State of Assam in India. It is a harrowing tale, and I am sorry I have got to read it before this Council. While a batch of refugees numbering about 1,000 were crossing into Assam from East Pakistan on the evening of 6 February, the East Pakistan Rifles, a quasi-military force of the Pakistan Government, opened fire on them. Eleven refugees, including some women, were injured and two children were killed this fire.
The injured persons and the dead bodies were brought by the refugees into Assam. The Assam Government has lodged a protest with the East Pakistan Government and has appealed to the Pakistan authorities to put a stop to the shooting down of unarmed persons seeking refuge in India.
I am surprised at the suggestion made by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan that there should be an inquiry by an impartial tribunal to decide whether the Muslims who have been evicted were Indians or Pakistan nationals. A sentative of Pakistan has stated that the maintenance of communal harmony was a domestic problem for India and Pakistan. Is it less of a domestic problem for India to decide whether a particular person is or is not an Indian national ? May I ask, with all respect, whether any of the countries which have the honour of being members of the Security Council, and whose representatives are sitting around this table, would agree to abdicate their sole sovereign right of deciding which aliens they should admit or permit to reside on their territory or of determining who is a national and who is an alien? I have said before that we do not throw people out arbitrarily and we have done our best and we are doing our best to give a fair hearing to anyone who has been aggrieved by the quit notice.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has made an unworthy attack on the Hindu society and religion. I cannot expect him to understand the philosophy or the tenets of that religion. Similar attacks have been made by the President of Pakistan during his goodwill tour of countries of South and SouthEast Asia. Apparently goodwill was to be advanced by attacking the Hindu religion. It requires broadmindedness and tolerance to appreciate a faith which is not one's own. It is true that the caste system still exists in India, but we are pledged to achieve a casteless society and we are ceaselessly working towards that end. It is not easy to change institutions that have existed for centuries. As the representative of Pakistan has himself admitted, we have proscribed untouchability, it is illegal. We have made it a penal offence for any person to deny to one who was known as untouchable any public right, and when we make our appointments, frame our policies and develop our industries, caste plays no part whatsoever, and even in social matters, its hold is becoming more and more tenuous.
I do not envy the representative of Pakistan for his choice of metaphors. I think they are in extremely bad taste. He has compared India to a senile person showing his false teeth. India is a young country as far as freedom is concerned, although it is old in tradition and history. It is a country which, since its independence, has maintained democratic institutions and has launched upon its economic development in the setting of freedom. These are not false teeth. These are the teeth which we acquired with our birth as an independent nation.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan showed surprise that we should resent Pakistan's friendship with China. We do not. We ourselves believe in friendship with all countries and we were friendly with China before it committed aggression on us. The Foreign Minister objected to my expression when I spoke of Pakistan's flirtations with China. Perhaps Pakistan has serious matrimonial intentions. What we object to and resent is Pakistan's attitude towards us from the time the Chinese aggression began. One would have thought that when China attacked us Pakistan would have said to us : "We have our quarrels, we have our differences, but we are neighbours and we will not add to your troubles." That would have been a helpful attitude. However not only did Pakistan not stand by us, but it used every argument to prevent friendly countries from giving us aid. It used the same tactics which it is using now in the Security Council, and its threat against its allies in the South East Asia Treaty Organization and the Central Treaty Organization was that, if they gave aid to us, Pakistan would walk out of the alliances.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has said that his country has always been loyal to its allies. In this connexion I shall content myself with quoting a statement made by Premier Chou En-lai on 10 April 1963 to the Associated Press of Pakistan. Premier Chou En-Lai disclosed that the leaders of Pakistan had assured him in 1954 that Pakistan had joined the Western military alliances only to gain political and military ascendancy over India and that "Pakistan had no other motivation in joining the pacts' '. I wonder whether the Foreign Minister is going to say: "Save me from my friends." Having tried its best to prevent us from strengthening our defences in the hour of our peril, Pakistan carried on, and carries on still today, a propaganda in support of China and seriously suggests that we are the aggressors and China the aggrieved party. This seems to be the favourite gambit of Pakistan: always to accuse the innocent party of aggression.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has insinuated that it is not only with China but with other neighbouring States bordering on India that we have strained relations. The motives and objects of this uncalled for and malicious propaganda which Pakistan has been carrying out against us are all too obvious. Our non-aligned policy is based on friendship with all countries, whatever their ideology and whatever their political or economic structure. We have very friendly relations with our immediate neighbours, Afghanistan, Nepal, Burma and Ceylon. We were on equally friendly terms with China, but China attacked us and took violent and unlawful possession of a part of our territory.
Pakistan has gone to the length of comparing us with South Africa. I vividly remember the year of 1946, when I was at the United Nations as a member of the Indian delegation. and I handled the draft resolution against South Africa which India had submitted and which India succeeded in getting adopted in the United Nations General Assembly by a two thirds majority as resolution 44 (I). We were the first to lead the crusade against racial discrimination and South Africa's racial policies. Pakistan's crude attempt to set us at odds with our African brethren will not succeed. I suppose what Africans say it is more authentic than what the distinguished Foreign Minister of Pakistan alleges. Permit me to quote, as an example, what Albert Luthuli has said in his recent book, Let My People Go. As the Council is aware, Chief Luthuli of South Africa is an outstanding African leader: he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and wrote his book in 1962. On page 210 of his book he states:
"The way in which India at U.N.O. has taken up the cudgels on behalf of the oppressed South African majority, and dragged the whole scandal of apartheid into the open, has heartened us immeasurably..."
If any parallel exists, it is between the policies of Pakistan and South Africa. The Government of South Africa, instead of putting down racialism and apartheid, supports it, glories in it and gives it a legal and official bocking. Pakistan too, instead of working for a multi-communal society, preaches hatred of one community against the other and exhibits intolerance and fanaticism in every aspect of its policy. Here I may mention that the General Assembly at its seventeenth session adopted resolution 1761 (XVII), which called upon Member States, among other things, to cease all trade with South Africa. As is well known, India has had no trade with South Africa for the last seventeen years. In spite of the adoption of that resolution, and in spite of its co-sponsoring and voting for the resolution, Pakistan continue to carry on trade with South Africa, and here I would like to quote from a United Nations document of 22 November 1963, which contains the replies received from Member States in pursuance of General Assembly resolution 1761 (XVII) and the Security Council resolution of 7 August 1963. The replies were contained in communications to the Secretary General or to the Chairman of the Special Committee on the Policies of apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, or in statements before the General Assembly or the Security Council. the Pakistan statement contained in document: quote from the aforementioned "It has prohibited the import of South African goods into Pakistan, and has banned the sale of arms, ammunition and all types of military vehicles and other strategic goods to South Africa. It is still carrying on a certain amount of export trade with South Africa in pursuance of earlier commitments, but is actively considering the termination of such exports."
The General Assembly adopted resolution 1761 (XVII) as long ago was 1962, and this reply of Pakistan that I have quoted was submitted on 22 November 1963.
Pakistan is one of the few African and Asian countries which still has diplomatic relations with Portugal; not only that it has had extensive commercial and air traffic relations. India broke off diplomatic relations with Portugal a long time ago. Surely, it is not merely a vivid imagination but a diseased and perverted one which can compare Kashmir with Angola and Mozambique. Again, to equate the question of self-determination in Kashmir with the question of self-determination in Angola and Mozambique or in other African territories is ridiculous. While Jammu and Kashmir is a part of India, Angola and Mozambique are non-self-governing territories specifically so declared in General Assembly resolution 1542 (XV) adopted in 1960-whose people have, under the United Nations Charter, the inalienable right of independence in accordance with the wishes of the people.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan waxed eloquent over the question of self-determination. I note that though he used many words he had no answer to the question whether he was prepared to concede the right of self-determination to the Pakhtuns, the Blochis or to East Pakistan whose people, as a matter of common knowledge, racially, ethnically and linguistically, are different from the people of the rest of Pakistan.
Let me repeat that the principle of self-determination is applicable to nations and nation States and cannot be used for the breaking up of a State or the fragmentation of peoples. It is this principle which the United Nations and all African States invoked to oppose the self-determination of Katanga. No one questions the rightness of this decision which saved the Congo and perhaps a large part of Africa from further division and fragmentation and chaos 1 repeat our position which I think I already made clear in my statement of 5 February [1088th meeting]. We fully endorse the principle of self-determination and I repeat: we fully endorse the principle of self determination. But no Member of the United Nations will accept it as an instrument for the fragmentation of states and nations.
As a Member of the United Nations India has already exercised the right of self-determination. Through a Constituent Assembly of elected representatives in which the representatives of the State of Jammu and Kashmir participated, the Indian people gave themselves a Constitution which has been in force for fourteen years. Under that Constitution three general elections based on universal adult suffrage have been held, in the last of which there was an electorate of 210 million - the largest known in history. The Indian people inhabiting Jammu and Kashmir have fully shared in that self-determination. They have already exercised their right of self-determination, but. When it is suggested that there should be self determination for the people of Kashmir, as distinct from the people of India, this is a proposition which we cannot accept, as indeed any other suggestion based on the premise that the majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir happen to profess a particular religion.
Did Pakistan permit the people of the princely States in Pakistan to exercise the right of self-determination after the Ruler acceded to Pakistan? As was disclosed in the West Pakis tani High Court a few years ago, the accession of a Bahawalpur had been forced on the Ruler of that State. The Khan of Kalat revolted against accession and was arrested and detained in 1958. In neither case was the principle of self-determination applied. When Pakistan purchased-and I emphasize the word "purchased" the territory of Gwadar from the Sultan of Muscat, what happened to Pakistan's solicitous regard for the people's right to self-determination? No opportunity was given the people of Gwadar to say whether in the second half of this, the twentieth century, they wished to be bought like chattel.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan sought to counter my argument with regard to accession when I said that the question of religious complexion did not enter into the legal validity of the Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler of Kashmir. He relied on the instance of Junagadh. Now in that case, accession would have contravened the principle of contiguity, apart from the fact that the large majority of the people of Junagadh -and that is beyond dispute-were totally opposed to the Ruler acceding to Pakistan. You have only to look at the map of that part of India to realize how absurd Junagadh's accession to Pakistan would have been. In the case of Kashmir, not only have we a legal, unconditional accession, but we also have the principle of contiguity satisfied; and even if we were to take into consideration the wishes of the people of Kashmir, at the time of accession, there can be no doubt that the National Conference-which, as I already pointed out in my earlier statement, was the party representing the large majority of the people of Kashmir-was clearly and emphatically in favour of accession to India. In the case of Hyderabad and Jodhpur as well, the principle of contiguity applied, and the people of those states were in favour of accession to India. I do not wish to repeat what I have already said about the effect of the Ruler of Kashmir executing the Instrument of Accession and the Governor-General of India accepting it. I have also pointed out that various statements made by the Prime Minister of India and others with regard to consulting the wishes of the people were made in the context of the situation then existing and on the clear understanding that Pakistan would discharge its obligations solemnly given to the Security Council and vacate its aggression.
During the discussion between the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India regarding the Commission's plebiscite proposal of 11 December 1948, which later became the resolution of 5 January 1949, the position of the Prime Minister of India was the following: "The Prime Minister emphasized firstly that, if the Government of India were to accept the Commission's plebiscite proposals, no action could be taken in regard to them until parts I and II of the Commission's resolution of 13 August had been fully implemented; secondly that, in the event of Pakistan not accepting these proposals or, having accepted them, of not implementing parts I and II of the resolution of 13 August, the Indian Government's acceptance of them should not be regarded as in any way binding upon them. . . ."
This is what the Prime Minister of India said on 21 December 1948, and this is the exact position I am taking up today in the year 1964. The Prime Minister made it clear that unless the terms of parts I and II of the Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948 were implemented, the acceptance of the Government of India would not be regarded as binding upon us. There is no difference whatsoever in the position taken by the Prime Minister in 1948 and the position I am taking at this table in 1964.
Dr. Lozano, Chairman of the Commission, accepted the points made by the Prime Minister of India, in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the aide memoire I contained in the Commission's second interim report. Mr. N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, whom also the Foreign Minister of Pakistan has quoted, said this in the Constituent Assembly of India on 27 May 1949:
"The accession was offered by the Maharaja and it was accepted by the Governor-General of the time... It is an absolutely unconditional offer... The accession is complete."
The position is quite clear, namely, that India itself offered, not as a part or pre-condition or post-condition of accession, but unilaterally to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, that after the soil of Kashmir was cleared of the invaders and law and order had been restored, the wishes of the people would be ascertained. It is in this limited sense that accession was said at that time to be subject to the wishes of the people. This did not and could not affect the legality of accession, which, as I said in my statement and as I maintain, was absolute. The Indian Independence Act of 1947, which surely the Foreign Minister of Pakistan would not repudiate, does not speak of conditional accession or any right of secession of a constituent State. Can he tell us if under that Act accession could be anything but complete and absolute? Does the Act contain any provision even remotely contemplating partial, temporary, inchoate, or conditional accession? Are there any words in the relevant provisions of the Act dealing with accession which are other than plain, straightforward and unambiguous?
The Prime Minister of India reaffirmed the same position. while speaking to Parliament on 8 August 1952:
"All the States in India acceded in July or August later that year (1947) on these three basic subjects-foreign affairs, communication and defence. Can anybody say that accession of any State was not complete in August or September or later in 1947 because it came in only on these three subjects? Of course not. It was a complete accession in law and in fact. So the accession of Jammu and Kashmir was complete in law and in fact on a certain date in October... There the matter rests and it is not open to doubt or challenge."
Therefore, we have never changed our position. Our position has remained the same from 1941 until today.
When I said that the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan which we had accepted had become obsolete, I did not say it out of any disrespect for the Security Council. We are a founder Member of the United Nations and we have the greatest respect for that Organization and particularly for the Security Council. But how else can you characterize a resolution which was adopted sixteen years ago and which has not been acted upon by Pakistan, except as obsolete? It is obsolete in the sense that the very bottom has been knocked out of it by the conduct of Pakistan itself. The Foreign Minister has very wisely not referred to the false statements made by Pakistan with regard to its presence in Kashmir. He has tried to get rid of those inconvenient facts by suggesting that they are irrelevant, because these events happened prior to the arrangement between ourselves. Pakistan and the Security Council. That is a total misreading of the Commission's resolutions. I have said it before and I repeat that these resolutions were conditional and the condition was the vacation of aggression by Pakistan, a condition which was not satisfied and has not been satisfied up to this day.
Pakistan apparently finds it difficult to explain its unlawful presence in Kashmir. The Foreign Minister has sought to dispose of this inconvenient question by saying that:
the controversies which existed before the acceptance of an agreement cannot be revived... Once an agreement is reached, you cannot revive the controversy which led to the agreement." [1089th meeting, para. 55.]
It is a strange argument that because we had agreed to a compromise formula on certain conditions, the compromise becomes sacrosanct even if the conditions have not been satisfied. It would indeed be a strange situation if one could not discuss tentative plans without being bound by them for all time. How could one then carry on negotiations? In the course of discussions many offers and suggestions may be made. These offers become binding if they are accepted. If they are not accepted, they terminate. If an offer is made and it is not accepted or not implemented, it cannot stand forever. We have made this clear on numerous occasions in the past and we are not doing so once again.
At no time did we abandon our sovereignty over the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and we have never agreed to any resolution which even by implication questioned this sovereignty. We have taken pains to see that this basic position, adopted in the Commission's resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 is not departed from. We were naturally not prepared to modify these resolutions which had been accepted by both parties, particularly as the suggested modifications were only in favour of Pakistan. All the subsequent talks about "synchronization" and about "balanced forces" and so on were not contemplated by the Commission in its resolutions.
I have just stated that the resolution of 13 August 1948 has become obsolete and the bottom has been knocked out of it by the conduct of Pakistan itself. May I briefly enumerate some of the major violations of the terms of this resolution by Pakistan:
(1) Continuing presence of Pakistan forces and Pakistan personnel in Kashmir. This is not disputed by Pakistan.
(2) Introduction of additional military equipment into occupied territory This again cannot be disputed by Pakistan.
(3) Construction of airfields in occupied territory; thus creating bases for attack against India, endangering its security. Again, this is an undisputed fact.
(4) Consolidation and incorporation of the occupied area of Jammu and Kashmir into Pakistan. Again there can be no dispute about this.
(5) Using its membership of military pacts to increase Pakistan's military potential in Kashmir and to strengthen the so-called "azad" Forces, officered, trained and equipped by Pakistan. I do not think this can be challenged either.
(6) Occupation of Northern areas. They have been occupied by Pakistan.
(7) Continuous threats of force and the creation of a war atmosphere, which are a constant menace to the cease-fire line. I have given the Security Council innumerable instances of these threats of force and the creation of a war atmosphere.
(8) Organizing and financing of subversion and sabotage in Jammu and Kashmir. Almost every month in Kashmir there are instances of subversion and sabotage organized and financed from Pakistan.
(9) Having no common border with the People's Republic of China, Pakistan has nevertheless negotiated Kashmir's border with Sinkiang, thus disrupting the territorial unity of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This is the most recent violation, giving away over 2,000 square miles of Kashmir to China in a so-called treaty rectifying the border between Pakistan and China. Pakistan has no border with China. The only border is our border, the border of Kashmir. They are in unlawful possession of that part of Kashmir and they try to give away somebody else's property.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has referred to certain statements alleged to have been made by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, who until recently was the Prime Minister of Kashmir. I do not know the source from which he has obtained them. My instructions are that these statements are not genuine, and this is borne out by a clear-cut straightforward statement made by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, President of the National Conference, on 6 February 1964. He appealed to "all patriotic elements" in the State as well as in other parts of the country to join hands in defending the country's freedom against increasing threats from Pakistan. He drew attention to the ever increasing threats from Pakistan to the security of the State and: "the malicious hate - India campaign unleashed by Pakistan Press and radio." And he added:
"The need to close our ranks and forge unity among all those who believe in democratic secularism and planned economic progress of the nation has become paramount. It is time to forget and sink our past differences."
I quote again:
"Our representative in the Security Council" he is referring to my humble self- "has voiced the true feelings of the people of Jammu and Kashmir by asserting once again that since the people of the State had already thrice expressed their verdict to become an integral part of India, the question of holding a plebiscite must be treated as closed. He " that is, myself" has correctly stated that Jammu and Kashmir is as good a part of India as any other State. Therefore, Pakistan has no right to meddle in our internal affairs. The issue which still remains unresolved is the continued illegal occupation of a large part of our territory by Pakistan. Immediate vacation of Pakistan's aggression is the only relevant subject needing consideration by the Security Council. It is, therefore, earnestly hoped that no further delay will be permitted in resolving this basic point.``
I might point out that I received this very morning a telegram from Delhi saying that the statement on which the Pakistan Foreign Minister had relied is described by official circles in New Delhi and by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed himself in Srinagar as a crude forgery. I really think that when one relies on statements and flourishes them in the Security Council, one might take a little care and find out whether they are authentic and genuine. A false statement was relied upon by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan and we have just received a telegram that it is a crude forgery and we have the statement of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed himself contradicting the statement relied upon by the Foreign Minister.
There is a minor matter that I must clear up. It may be true that as between the United Kingdom, Pakistan and India, India and Pakistan were successor States to the United Kingdom, but there is no doubt that internationally Pakistan was a new State and India was the successor State to undivided India. If that had not been so, it would not have been necessary for Pakistan to be admitted as a Member of the United Nations. If both of us were successor States, then both of us would have automatically become Members of the United Nations. The Foreign Minister has also referred to mediation and arbitration. Need I tell him that in the matter of sovereignty, there cannot be mediation or arbitration? It is the clear insignia of sovereignty that the country which claims sovereignty cannot permit adjudication about it or leave it to some other country to decide whether in fact it is sovereign or not.
We have been told that four Indian divisions are stationed in Kashmir. I am not here to disclose military secrets. As in other sovereign States, our army, wherever stationed without our borders, is intended for the defence and security of our land and our people. Our people in Kashmir have nothing to fear from their own army. Indeed, aggression in Kashmir, by Pakistan on the one side and the People's Republic of China on the other, compels us to take adequate measures in self defence. This is exactly what the late Mr. John Strachey, M.P., from whom communication to The Observer I quoted in my earlier statement [1088th meeting], felt about our action.
I do not want to go again into the question of the Calcutta riots. I have already dealt with it. But it is totally false to suggest that the landlords have been allowed to make profit out of the property of poor Muslims which was burnt down. Both the Chief Minister of West Bengal and our Home Minister have made it clear that no one will be permitted to benefit by the troubles and misery which has been suffered by our Muslim fellow citizens. The Home Minister went further than that: if necessary, even the Constitution would be changed to prevent landlords from making money out of the misery of the poor. Already the West Bengal Government has promulgated an ordinance to deal with this situation.
To sum up, Pakistan came to the Security Council on two specific charges. One was that we were trying to integrate Kashmir further into India, and the second was that there is a grave situation in Kashmir which called for some action by the Council. In my submission, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan has failed to substantiate either of these allegations, and therefore there is nothing before the Council on which it needs to take action.
In conclusion, may I end on the same note that I did in my earlier statement. These recriminations, this unending debate, this making and answering of charges lead us nowhere. We are prepared to discuss all our outstanding differences with Pakistan, including Kashmir. Once the bitter feelings and the communal passions have subsided Pakistan can help in this by eschewing propaganda at home and abroad and by taking every measure to prevent incitement to communal passion in its Press and on its radio. I wish to assure the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, with all the emphasis at my command, that Pakistan has nothing to fear from India. We have no aggressive intentions. We feel that in the prosperity of Pakistan lies the prosperity of the whole subcontinent of India, and this prosperity, both of India and of Pakistan, depends upon Hindus and Muslims in both countries living peacefully side by side. Let us make every effort to come together and see whether we cannot take the necessary steps towards this end. This is essentially a matter for us to decide: Pakistan and ourselves. No intervention of a third party can be of much help. There are certain matters which can only be settled bilaterally, and the question of communal peace and harmony in India and Pakistan is one of them.