17031964 Text of the speech made by Mr. Chakravarty (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1104 held on 17 March 1964
17031964 Text of the speech made by Mr. Chakravarty (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1104 held on 17 March 1964
I must first of all thank you, Mr. President, and the members of the Council for giving me the permission to appeal before you in connexion with this case.
It is not my intention to enter into a substantive discussion at this stage on the merits of the Kashmir case since the object of my present intervention is merely to seek an adjournment of the discussion. The circumstances under which the Security Council is now meeting are well known to members, although my delegation is not quite sure if a majority of the members themselves were at any stage convinced of the necessity for this. meeting. The Council meets when international peace and security are gravely threatened The case has been on the record of the Security Council for all these years. It has been the concern of the Security Council to bring the parties together with a view to finding a peaceful solution. The threat to peace and security does not and has never come from us. The sixteen-year-old Pakistani aggression, of course, remains a constant threat so long as it is not vacated.
When the Council met on 3 February 1964 [1087th meeting], our Minister of Education, Mr. Chagla, had urged that there was no new situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and that there was no grave emergency as alleged by Pakistan and as such there was no case for a meeting of the Security Council. The Pakistani plea was one of grave emergencies. I would like to ask the Foreign Minister of Pakistan how did this emergency suddenly disappear on 17 February 1964 [1093rd meeting] when he asked for an adjournment. Obviously, he himself was not satisfied about the emergency. By agreeing to this request for adjournment, the Council also recognized that there was no emergency.
As the Council will recall, the Minister of Education of India, Mr. Chagla, protested against this adjournment and he said:
"It suits the convenience of the representative of Pakistan to go to Pakistan for a few days and come back. It does not suit me. After all, if it is a question of convenience, the convenience of both parties should be considered.
"Therefore, I strongly oppose any suggestion that this debate should be adjourned for a short time. I am ready to sit here today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow and conclude these proceedings." [1093rd meeting, paras, 10 and 11.]
Thereafter, on a motion by the representative of Morocco, the Council adjourned under subparagraph 2 of rule 33 of the provisional rules of procedure. An adjournment under this rule is an adjournment sine die.
Now the ostensible reason given by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan on 17 February in support of his request for adjournment was to enable him to have consultations with his Government and also to have more time for reflection. We knew that the real reason why the Foreign Minister wished to return to Pakistan was his desire to pay host to the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of China. Although this fact was not given out at the time to the Council, Mr. Bhutto openly admitted as much at a press conference in Karachi. As the Council will recall, on 15 February, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan had solemnly declared that: ".. this problem is so difficult and so fundamental to us that all other considerations are superseded when it comes to the question of the problem of Kashmir'' [1092nd meeting, para, 12]. Did the Foreign Minister think that discussions with his visitors were even more important than deliberations in the Security Council ?
We would have hoped that the Security council would convey its displeasure to the Foreign Minister of Pakistan for the cavalier fashion in which he was treating the Council. He calls for a meeting of the Security Council whenever it suits his convenience and asks for an adjournment to suit his own time table without considering the convenience either of the members of the Security Council or of the Government of India. Despite our objections, the Council, in its wisdom, decided to grant the request of Pakistan and adjourned the meeting sine die. Again, when the Foreign Minister of Pakistan asked for yet another meeting, the majority of the members of the Council once more accommodated him in complete (disregard of the convenience of my Government.
In my letter of 8 March 1964 [S/5582], I already conveyed to you, Mr. President, the views of my Government with regard to the holding of a fresh meeting. We have also conveyed to you in that letter the understanding of the Government of India of the circumstances in which the Security Council adjourned. We had also ventured to express our views that a further meeting of the Security Council can be convened only for substantial reasons with due regard for the convenience of the two sides. No such reasons have been furnished by the Permanent Representative of Pakistan in his letter dated 4 March 1964 [S/5576].
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has now tried to introduce some arguments to justify an urgent meeting on the ground that peace on the cease-fire line in Kashmir is threatened.
The Council will remember that during the period before Pakistan called for the last meeting of the Council on 16 January, Pakistan had taken every opportunity of creating difficulties and bringing about an atmosphere of crisis in Kashmir. In his letter of 1 November 1963, the representative of Pakistan had alleged military preparations by India on the cease-fire line and disturbances of the peace in the area of Chaknot. This Pakistani allegation was investigated by the United Nations Chief Military Observer who came to the conclusion that India had concentrated no troops in or in the vicinity of Chaknot, but that, on the contrary, Pakistani troops had been reinforced in the area contrary to the Cease-fire Agreement. Accordingly, he gave an award of "no violation" against India and an award of "violation" against Pakistan. Thus the complaint of the Pakistan Government was proved to be false and baseless.
After the adjournment of the Council at the end of the last series of meetings-the Council will note the dates mentioned by the Foreign Minister-it was Pakistan which tried again to create tension on the cease-fire line, 1 suppose to enable the Foreign Minister to make out some case for a resumption of the Security Council meeting. It was Pakistan forces which first fired across the cease-fire line and thereby engineered certain clashes. India lodged complaints, as is normal in the circumstances, with the Military Observers about the cease-fire violations. According to our reports, Pakistan rejected a request by the Military Observer Group for an assurance of the safety of the personnel of the United Nations Observer Group who had to be sent to the affected area. India, on the other hand, offered all facilities and co-operation to these personnel. No doubt the United Nations Observer Team will in due course be reporting on these incidents and also on whether it was Pakistan or India which is at fault. There is no reason why the Council should at this stage submit to this kind of pressure from the Government of Pakistan.
Another reason for the urgency of this meeting given by the Foreign Minister is that the new Prime Minister of Kashmir, Mr. Sadiq, has reiterated the demand for the so-called integration of Kashmir with India. The Council will remember. that this was the main plea of Pakistan for calling the last series of meetings in January 1964. At that time, the Pakistani Foreign Minister had also stated that there was a revolt in Kashmir. During the debate, Mr. Chagla clearly explained to the Council that this charge of so-called integration was a mere propaganda manoeuvre on the part of Pakistan, to create the impression that there was a new situation in Kashmir which of course was not at all true. As he explained at the time, you cannot annex a thing which is already yours, you cannot make more complete what is already complete.
The Government of India fully recognizes that the President of the Council or any member thereof is empowered to call for a meeting on any matter which is borne on the agenda of the Council. At the same time, we feel that this right should be exercised fairly and reasonably. If any meeting of the Council is to be convened, the convenience of the Government of Pakistan should not be the only consideration. The convenience of the Government of India certainly deserves equal consideration.
The Council has not once, but twice, taken into consideration the convenience of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. Is it too much to expect that our convenience should also be taken into account? The Minister of Education, Mr. Chagla, whom the Government of India has appointed as its representative for the Security Council discussions on Kashmir, is extremely busy now with the budget session of the Indian Parliament. He is also the Leader of the Upper House of the Parliament and, as such, he cannot absent himself from the House during this important session of the Parliament. It is for this reason that we had requested the Council to defer the consideration of this case till the beginning of May 1964, when the budget session of our Parliament was expected to end. If there were in fact a grave situation, or if there had been some developments in which immediate intervention by the Council would have been helpful, that would be another matter. This, however, is not the case, Furthermore, no constructive discussions on Kashmir or any of the other outstanding problems can be expected unless and until the Pakistan Government stops the present persecution of its minorities. Members of the Security Council are even now witnessing the large exodus of minorities from East Pakistan into India. It is only with the flight, this time of the Christian minorities of East Pakistan that the Western countries are now becoming aware of the tragedy that is being enacted there. A reign of terror for the minorities has been let loose in East Pakistan which the Government of Pakistan is either unable or unwilling to control. Acts of violence, deprivation of property, assaults on women, etc., have become the order of the day in East Pakistan. There is a daily influx of over 3,000-I repeat, over 3,000-refugees who are fleeing Pakistan because of calculated persecution and continued insecurity as regards their life and property. Thus, of course, it is not a matter before the Council. We realize that, but India is faced with the prospect of hundreds and thousands of refugees pouring into India from East Pakistan. Already over 125,000 refugees have arrived in India. Nearly 75,000 people have fled from one neighbouring district of East Pakistan alone, and of these about 40,000 are Christians. The Government and people of India are directing their resources and energies towards meeting this tremendous human problem and are undertaking measures for rehabilitation and resettlement of these unfortunate people fleeing from persecution by Pakistan. My Government believes that first things must come first. The dimensions of this problem. are assuming more and more staggering proportions every day and are a source of grave concern to my Government. The Government of Pakistan does not seem to be concerned with this human problem, but with a cynical disregard for the suffering of its minorities, is more interested in diversionary tactics and in agitating the Kashmir issue. We, on our part, have already twice made proposals to the Pakistan Government for tackling the problem by joint discussions at the level of Ministers for Home Affairs but that proposal has been turned down. My Government owes it to itself and to its people that it should do full justice to its representation in the Security Council on this important question, which is bound up with the unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of India, against which Pakistan has committed aggression. The main preoccupation should be to make a constructive contribution towards the settlement of this question. For this purpose, and since no constructive advance is possible without the cooperation of both sides, it is necessary that India also should be represented by the Minister who has been specially designated by my Government to deal with this issue. It is relevant to point out that Pakistan is represented by its Minister of Foreign Affairs. In case the Security Council wishes to make a constructive advance, it should enable our Minister to participate in the discussions of the Council and to consider any proposals or suggestions that may come up. As I have stated earlier, there was no justification for an urgent meeting of the Security Council in February. There is no urgency for a meeting now. neither. In this view, I formally request that the Council be good enough to adjourn to any day in the first week of May 1964.
This is a very reasonable request, and I hope the Council will accede to it. I also hope that the Foreign Minister of Pakistan will give some consideration to our convenience and will find it possible to cooperate with us in this respect.