05051964 Text of the speech made by Mr. Bhutto (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 1112 held on 5 May 1964.
05051964 Text of the speech made by Mr. Bhutto (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 1112 held on 5 May 1964.
Since the present series of meetings of the Security Council began in February, I have had the occasion from time to time to apprise the Council of the situation prevailing in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. When the Council adjourned on 20 March 1964, at the request of the Indian representative, members of the Council made an appeal to both parties to refrain from any measures that might aggravate the situation.
The very fact of the question being before the Security Council has had a restraining effect on various forces that would otherwise have made the situation in Kashmir even more explosive than it is today. Yet the melancholy fact remains that the Government of India has not made any positive response to the pronouncements made here in the Council. Thus the situation in Kashmir remains highly disquieting and disturbed.
In my statement to the Council on 17 March, I mentioned three striking facts on which world attention had been focused during the preceding thirty days :
"First, the movement of protest in the State of Jammu and Kashmir has continued; secondly, India has shown no signs of relenting in its policy of oppression against the people of the State; thirdly, the Government of India has shown itself to be bent on adopting those very measures towards the annexation of the State against which Pakistan had specifically protested to the Council." (1104th meeting, para. 8.)
This statement of mine is as true today as it was when we met six weeks ago, notwithstanding the release since then of Sheikh Abdullah.
On 8 April Sheikh Abdullah was released from jail.
The conspiracy case against him was withdrawn. It will be recalled that after some five years of incarceration without any trial whatsoever, Sheikh Abdullah and his principal lieutenant, Mirza Mohammed Afzal Beg, and twenty-four others, were brought to trial in May 1958 on trumped-up charges of conspiring with Pakistan to bring about the secession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir from India. The trial dragged on drearily.
The fact that these charges had been fabricated and were totally false is now sufficiently known. The very withdrawal of the case against Sheikh Abdullah implies a clear admission that the charges were utterly baseless. Public opinion throughout the world has been outraged by this high-handed attempt to destroy the Kashmiri leadership politically. It was a part of a policy of terror and oppression to deny to the people of Jammu and Kashmir their right of self-determination.
A prominent Indian journalist, writing in The Hindustan Times of Delhi of 8 April has this to say of the Abdullah trial :
"Sheikh Abdullah, on trial on charges which everyone recognized were bogus, had become the totem figure of the long, dark night of the Bakshi rule. The night had. ended. Much has changed since then. Much more was changing, but so long as Sheikh Abdullah remained in jail, there was no promise that what the horrible night was giving place to was a clear morning."
To those who have followed the course of what foreign observers have called an "open rebellion" by the people of Kashmir against Indian domination, especially after the Hazratbal incident of December last, the acquittal of Sheikh Abdullah has come as no surprise. Whatever the reason for this belated action, there is no evidence that it signifies a change of heart on the part of the Government of India. Neither does it appear to have been animated by a desire to seek a peaceful, and honourable solution of the Kashmir dispute, It is quite the contrary. The rebellion of the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the leadership of the Action Committee, the Plebiscite Front and the Political Conference, had reached such a dimension and intensity that it had become impossible for the puppet Government of Indian-occupied Kashmir and the Government of India to control the course of events in the State. This is the borne out by a correspondent of The Daily Telegraph of London of 31 March :
"There,"-in the Vale of Kashmir-"the Action Committee, which demands a plebiscite for Kashmir, has shown itself virtually in control of the population while the National Conference, whose election to office is said by India to obviate the need for a plebiscite, looks on helplessly."
The same correspondent goes on to say:
"More dangerously, it does not seem to worry the Government"-of India-"that Mr. Sadiq, who has shown himself a loyal pro-Indian, does not control the Vale of Kashmir."
Members of the Security Council would doubtless wish to know why I maintain that the Government of India has shown no signs of relenting from its policy of oppression against the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In my statement to the Council on 17 March, I invited the attention of the Council to the historic resolution of the Action Committee, adopted two days earlier in Srinagar, affirming that the people of the State would not accept any solution of the Kashmir issue which is not based on the freely expressed will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Let me quote from this momentous resolution of the Action Committee:
"The promises made to the people of Kashmir should be fulfilled by holding a free and impartial plebiscite so that the problem of Kashmir is solved once and for all "We declare that it is the firm and unshakable decision of five million inhabitants of the State that this is our country; we will decide its fate on the principle of self determination through a free and impartial plebiscite. We are not prepared to accept any other solution. Now, the time has come that without any further delay steps should be taken to decide the future of the people of the State. through a free and impartial plebiscite...
"Again, when the problem of Kashmir is now under discussion in the Security Council, the people of the State, with one voice, demand that, in accordance with the previous resolutions, immediate steps should be taken so that five million people of the State may exercise their birthright of self-determination."
The Political Conference issued a similar statement the following day, urging that an appropriate atmosphere be created for the meeting of the leaders of India and Pakistan to solve the Kashmir question in accordance with the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Maulana Masoodi and Maulana Farooq, two important leaders of the Action Committee, endorsed these demands. This caused concentration in political circles in India because they signified a categorical rejection of India's claim that the State had finally acceded to India.
After eleven long years of imprisonment, the Government of India has released Sheikh Abdullah. Sheikh Abdullah is a free man because it was the universal and uncontrollable demand of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Abdullah is out of prison because the political organizations Sheikh in the State, voicing the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and articulating their aspirations, forced the Government of India to open the prison gates. Sheikh Abdullah has been set free because the National Conference, the corrupt and discredited ruling political party, collapsed completely. Sheikh Abdullah is with his people again because of the virtual repudiation of the authority of the puppet Sadiq regime and the consequent administrative paralysis in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The compulsion of events and forces drove the Indian Government to withdraw the fake case against Sheikh Abdullah and his colleagues. No, it was not out of magnanimity or out of free will that the Government of India released Sheikh Abdullah from his eleven long and tragic years of imprisonment.
Since last December, two demands have resounded. throughout the State: 'Release Sheikh Abdullah", and "Hold plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir". Unable to stem this flood-tide of public opinion and seething unrest in the State, the Sadiq regime had no option but to open the prison gates, and set Abdullah-that Lion of Kashmir-free.
The Hindustan Times, of 22 April, reports Mr. Nehru was saying that circumstances in Kashmir were such that there was no alternative to releasing Sheikh Abdullah. The Statesman of New Delhi wrote editorially on 15 April :
"A movement to demand the release of the Sheikh was already building up a few weeks ago. In the first few days of this month it became clear that it would gather greater momentum, and would command much broader allegiance. If the movement had become a fact, the only alternatives would have been either to yield to it-much worse than anticipating it-or to crush it without qualms of and take a road leading to wholly unlikable ends."
The Economist of London of 4 April commented as follows:
"Sheikh Abdullah, the former Prime Minister of Kashmir, has spent longer in prison under Mr. Nehru's rule than the latter did under the British ...
"The Indian Government has not had a sudden rush of liberalism to the head. It has been forced by events to take a political risk for fear of worse; a risk which, as has happened so often to the British, it may now regret not having taken sooner...
"Effective civil authority in the Kashmir Valley has been assumed by an unofficial 'action committee, which moved from remanding Abdullah's release in February to openly demanding a plebiscite by mid-March. There is now no question of Abdullah, at liberty, creating a popular demand for a plebiscite, if he chose to; it exists, whether he wants it or not."
Sheikh Abdullah's voice, silenced for more than a decade, speaks again. It echoes the demand of the people of the State for self-determination, for a plebiscite, for negotiations between India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri leaders in order to restore communal harmony, peace and amity between the peoples of the subcontinent by settling the dispute of Jammu and Kashmir. This voice has disturbed the recalcitrant elements in India. Within a few days of his release threatening statements were issued by the leaders of India, both inside. and outside the Government, that if Sheikh Abdullah does not desist from this demand, his days of personal liberty may be numbered. Let me quote some of the statements of the Ministers of the Government of India; Members of the Indian Parliament, leading public men and newspapers on this subject.
Mr. Lal Bahadur Shastri, Minister without Portfolio: stated in the Indian Parliament on 11 April: "There could be no freedom for preaching some kind of independence or secession from India." He repeated this threat on 27 April. Addressing a news conference at Patna on 13 April, the Minister of Education for India, Mr. M.C. Chagla - who is sitting opposite me-declared: "The law will take its own course if Sheikh Abdullah preaches secession of Kashmir."
Mr. C.G. Desphande, President of the Mahasabha, a fanatical Hindu political organization, consi Hindu. claimed that Sheikh Abdullah's release and the pronouncements which he made were a threat to India's integrity and security. Mr. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, the General Secretary of the Jan Sangh, a militant Hindu organization, accused Sheikh Abdullah of playing the game of Pakistan and called upon the Government of India to adopt a firm policy in regard to Kashmir. Mr. V.K. Malhotra, another Jan Sangh member, referring to Sheikh Abdullah's speeches, declared that anyone who said Kashmir was not a part of India should be treated as a traitor. Mr. N.C. Chatterjee, a member of the Indian Parliament, asked: "When an Indian citizen, charged with high treason and under trial for five or six years, is released, where stands the rule of law?"
Turning now to the Indian press, The Times of India of Bombay, in its leading article of 11 April, wrote:
"The Government of India cannot hope to maintain its claims to the State as an integral part of India and, at the same time, allow men with a martyr's halo around their heads to carry on a campaign rejecting this claim."
In a second editorial comment on 16 April the same newspaper wrote:
"Sheikh Abdullah is now a demagogue at large and he is plainly engaged in secessionist political activity. Mr. Shastri and Mr. Chagla have done well to warn Sheikh Abdullah on behalf of the Government of India that if he continues to challenge the validity of the accession he will be dealt with under the law of the land like any other citizen of this country. If he chooses to ignore the warnings-and he has already described it as a threat which he will not submit to-and continues to adopt a secessionist posture, the Government of India. must not hesitate to arrest him again."
Again on 27 April The Times of India. in its panic, commented editorially: "If Sheikh Abdullah is not silenced after his meeting with Prime Minister Nehru, he should be dealt with under the law."
The Patriot of New Delhi, in its issue of 15 April, eve went to the extent of demanding that to deal with the situation created by Sheikh Abdullah's pronouncements, the President, of India should declare an emergency in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and assume to himself all powers of Government, all dictatorial powers; in other words, the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be annexed outright by India.
Sheikh Abdullah's rejoinder is characteristic of him. Speaking to a gathering of 100,000 people in Anantnag on 17 April, he asked: "If I am re-arrested and put in prison again, will the Kashmir issue be solved ?" His audience of 100,000 people all shouted in unison: "No, never." This report is from The Statesman of 19 April.
In a score of speeches that he has delivered since his release on 8 April, the Sheikh and his close comrade, Mirza Mohammed Afzal Beg, have dealt with all the issues which lie at the heart of the Kashmir dispute. Emphasizing the need for a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan at a press conference and a public meeting in Jammu on 9 April, the Kashmiri leader made a number of important points. First, he said that the only alternative, a clash of arms between India and Pakistan, would be suicidal, especially for Kashmir, because, he said, "bombs will fall here, not in Madras or Karachi". Secondly, he argued that, apart from other irritants, the continuance of the Kashmir dispute was a source of bitterness that lay at the root of the communal conflagrations which threatened to destroy both countries. At the same meeting Mirza Mohammed Afzal Beg asked:
"If Mr. Swaran Singh and Mr. Bhutto could sit down for six to solve the Kashmir dispute, why should I or anybody else be branded as a traitor for saying that the dispute existed ?"
On the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination, Sheith Abdullah has been forthright and uncompromising. Speaking to more than 20,000 people in Jammu on 9 April, he declared emphatically that it would be wrong to claim that the people of Jammu and Kashmir had already exercised their right of self-determination through three general elections, when the truth was that all three elections had been rigged. This charge was made, he said, not only by him but also by all opposition parties in Jammu and Kashmir, including the Jan Sangh, an extremist Hindu organization led by Mr. Premnath Dogra.
Later, speaking in Doda, a town in Jammu, on 15 April, Sheikh Abdullah said that the argument that the people of Kashmir had exercised the right of self-determination by electing a Constituent Assembly was beside the point, because elections were not held on the issue of accession. He added that the elections were rigged, even according to Prime Minister G.M. Sadiq when Mr. Sadiq was the leader of the National Conference, The Hindustan Times, 15 April)
On 17 April, the Kashmiri leader declared before a gathering of over 100,000 people in Anantnag that there should be no doubt that the Kashmiris would not rest until their right of self-determination was conceded. Neither with the help of army nor by repression could the people's determination be crushed or their right to demand a plebiscite be suppressed, according to Sheikh Abdullah as reported in The Hindustan Times-not the Pakistan Times, but The Hindustan Times, of Delhi-on 18 April.
On 18 April, Sheikh Abdullah stated at Pampore that India's claim that the Kashmiris have decided their future was fantastic. They had never exercised the right of self-determination. He asked the United Nations, which he termed as the world's conscience, why it had not helped the people of Kashmir to secure the right of self-determination after India and Pakistan and other world Powers had pledged themselves to allow the Kashmiris to exercise it. (The Hindustan Times, 19 April.)
In statements and speeches on 23 and 24 April in Srinagar, Sheikh Abdullah repeated that the people's demand for self-determination must be met. And, the important point to note is that wherever he spoke of this demand, his Kashmiri listeners endorsed it with acclamation and the greatest enthusiasm.
On India's claim that the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India is final and irrevocable, Sheikh Abdullah was categorical, and I quote The Statesman of 12 April:
"With reference to the Indian contention that the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir had ratified Kashmir's accession to India, he (Sheikh Abdullah) stated in Jammu on 10 April, that this was not correct. The Constituent Assembly had taken a decision on accession, he said, after he, its founder, had been imprisoned with his comrades, and other members had been bribed or coerced."
Sheikh Abdullah added that he was hurt that the country of Buddha and Gandhi relied on false arguments, and even argued that, since circumstances had changed, basic principles should also change.
Speaking in Doda, on 14 April, Sheikh Abdullah, in a sharp rejoinder to the Education Minister of India, Mr. Chagla, said that the Indian Constitution recognized the provisional character of Kashmir's accession. He further pointed out that the Constituent Assembly, according to the late Sir Benegal Rau's statement in the Security Council [536th meeting], had no right to decide on the accession issue. (The Hindustan Times. 15 April). On 17 April, according to The Statesman of the same date, he declared before a crowd of 100,000 people in Anantnag;
"The eyes of the world are seeing that the Kashmiri people reject the Indian claim that Kashmir's accession to India is final.
"To repeat that Kashmir is an integral part of India is utter nonsense."
On 20 April, speaking in Srinagar to a mass meeting of over 150,000 people, Sheikh Abdullah said:
"...We challenge the Indian assertion that the question of Kashmir's accession has been settled 'once and for all and Kashmir is as good a part of India as Madras or Punjab."
Reminding Mr. Nehru of his promise in 1947 that "Kashmir's future is the concern of the Kashmiris alone", Sheikh Abdullah said: "This is a promise given to us by the Security Council as well and we want its implementation." The Hindustan Times, 21 April).
On the question of holding a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir as pledged to the people of the State, Sheikh Abdullah has also defined his stand, I quote The Hindustan Times of 19 April :
"On 18 April, he said at Pampore that the demand of the people of Kashmir was an 'impartial plebiscite'. No one could deprive them of this right. He added that India, Pakistan and the United Nations were committed to an impartial plebiscite and the people of Kashmir could not be cowed down by suppression."
On 20 April, Sheikh Abdullah's prominent comrade, Mirza Mohammed Afzal Beg, when asked in Srinagar whether the plebiscite demand had lost its importance, disagreed and said that the plebiscite was a human right which must be respected. (The Hindustan Times, 21 April).
On India's contention that passage of time had rendered the principles of the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan obsolete, Sheikh Abdullah, according to The Statesman of 11 April, had this to say on 9 April in Jammu, the very first day after his release from prison; "Principles could not change merely on account of passage of time..."
Turning to the measures taken by the Government of India to "integrate" the State of Jammu and Kashmir with India, Sheikh Abdullah warned, and I quote The Times of India of 11 April :
"...the demand for closer integration with India would not help the preservation of unity in the State. He added that the Kashmiri Muslims do not want to be integrated. Even the Indian army could not force them to do so."
These statements of Sheikh Abdullah reflect the will of the people. Sheikh Abdullah is right when he says that there will be no acceptance of the status quo by Pakistan or by the people of Kashmir. And he is right when he says that the future of the State must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State. Urging the solution of the Kashmir problem, Sheikh Abdullah said on 9 April in Jammu, according to The Statesman of 11 April.
"Kashmir continues to be a dispute between India Pakistan relations. It should be settled by the two countries through negotiations having regard to the wishes of the Kashmiri people."
On 17 April, he said at Anantnag that he would like to meet the Pakistani leaders and also know their mind. (The Hindustan Times, 18 April.) On 24 April, he declared in Srinagar that he would like to have an opportunity to meet Kashmiri leaders like Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas, Mir Waiz Yusuf Shah and others in "azad" Kashmir.
On the eve of Sheikh Abdullah's release, I made a statement hoping that it would be possible for the Kashmir leader to hold discussions with the President of Pakistan. Referring to this suggestion, Sheikh Abdullah stated in Jammu on 12 April that since India and Pakistan were both parties to the Kashmir dispute, what I had said was "reasonable" (The Statesman, 12 April.)
It might be recalled that when Pakistan asked for a meeting of the Security Council on the question of Kashmir, We reported that a grave emergency had arisen in Kashmir, with the people having risen in open rebellion against Indian occupation. It was contended then on behalf of India that demonstrations in Kashmir were only the expression of a feeling of grief over the loss of the holy relic. But these demonstrations continued menacingly after the restoration of the holy relic, and so this contention became untenable. Then the Indian representative was forced to shift his ground.
He would then have us believe that the demonstrations signified only a protest against the local administration signified only a protest against the local administration. Subsequent events, which have been abundantly reported in the Press, some of which I have cited, have exposed the hollowness also of this contention. And so the position is now being taken that the unrest in Kashmir relates to the details, the nuances of Kashmir's accession to India, and not to its very basis.
But again this position has forcefully been challenged throughout the length and breadth of Indian-occupied Kashmir. The fact is now beyond dispute that the people of Kashmir have challenged the validity of the accession to India of their homeland. They have made it plain that they demand their future to be settled by the plebiscite which has been pledged to them by India and Pakistan and the United Nations. "Our demand: plebiscite"-these words have been seen and heard all over Kashmir. There is nothing else that the people of Kashmir demand, and there is nothing else that Pakistan wants the Security Council to arrange.
The developments that have taken place have clarified the situation. The people of Kashmir have joined ranks against Indian occupation. But the Government of India, according to its own spokesmen, is not prepared to change its stand that this occupation should continue to be foisted upon the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Could there be a clearer confrontation directly posing the danger of a head-on clash ?
I believe that we need to ponder this question carefully. We need to visualize the situation that has arisen now in Indian-occupied Kashmir. On the one side, we see the entire population of the Indian-occupied area making manifest their demand for an early plebiscite to determine their status. On the other side, we see the Government of India showing no signs whatsoever of relenting from its opposition to this democratic and popular demand of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
What is the clear affirmation in Sheikh Abdullah's statements which have been acclaimed by the people at large ? These affirmations are: (1) that the accession made by the Maharaja in 1947 was provisional and subject to a plebiscite; (2) that any solution of the problem based upon the cease-fire line or its adjustment or rectification is completely unacceptable; (3) that India, Pakistan and the United Nations are committed, wholly committed, entirely committed, to enabling the people of Kashmir to exercise their right of self-determination; (4) that the elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir were rigged, spurious and fraudulent; and (5) that the steps taken or contemplated by India to integrate the State into the Indian Union are null and void, now and for all time.
Confronted by an outright challenge to its stand, the Indian Government is trying to deal with the people of Kashmir through Sheikh Abdullah by the dual method of cajolery and threat. The threat of re-arresting Sheikh Abdullah as I have shown, has not been too subtle; nor has any secret been made of the hope that he might be lured into accepting an arrangement falling short of a free and unfettered plebiscite. One can expect that should this manoeuvre succeed, we shall again hear the claim from the representatives of India that the acknowledged leader of the people of Kashmir has accepted India's occupation of Kashmir.
But the issue that we are concerned with is not whether any political manoeuvre by India will succeed or fall. The issue is not what resources India will deploy to sidetrack the demand of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The issue is the demand itself. The issue is whether the opposition of the people of Kashmir to Indian domination in its demonstrated unanimity is something which can wisely be ignored by the United Nations. It has created a situation now which cannot possibly be left to take care of itself. Yesterday's press reports tell us of widespread demonstrations by the students in Srinagar in support of the demand for self-determination. The student demonstrators declared that nothing short of a plebiscite would satisfy their demand, and asked the chief of the United Nations Military observers Group for India and Pakistan to convey their demand to the Security Council. A curfew was imposed on several towns and many people were injured as a result of baton charges by the police The ferment in Kashmir continues, replete with grave possibilities of serious trouble.
There is ferment also among the people of Pakistan. I must enter a caveat here, and I should not be misunderstood as uttering a threat to India, when I say that if the Indian authorities again resort to a suppression of the people of Kashmir by force, the people of Pakistan may find it extremely difficult to stand aside and may demand of its Government whatever measures are necessary for the amelioration of the situation in Indian-occupied Kashmir.
This, I trust, will give the members of the Council an idea of the perils facing us if the situation is subjected to a laissez faire attitude on the Council's part. A situation, where an occupation authority is in direct confrontation with the mass of the people united in opposition to it, is a situation pregnant with dangers. Should the very sharpness of the situation, which has no fluidity and no blurred outlines evoke a statesman-like response, a just and honourable solution may yet be achieved. The peril of a direct clash, which cannot fail to disrupt the fabric of peace in the subcontinent, can still be avoided by the initiatives of the Security Council. For, to put it plainly, it is a situation which has to be brought under the United Nations, so that it will not jeopardize international peace and security, and peace in the subcontinent.
The urgency of the situation to which I have drawn the Council's attention cannot be appreciated unless we remember that there exists at present not even a truce agreement between India and Pakistan on Kashmir. All that there exists between India and Pakistan regarding Kashmir is the agreement embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, The cease fire arrangement in Kashmir is based upon these resolutions, and in fact constitutes only a partial implementation of them. It has been authoritatively established by the Commission that the cease-fire order was meant to be linked; this was the exact expression used by the Commission-with the truce and with the establishment of the proper conditions for a plebiscite.
The agreement of 29 July 1949, which was invoked by the representative of India in his letter of 20 March 1964 is merely an agreement for the demarcation of the cease-fire line and explicitly affirms that it is "under the provisions of part I of the commission's resolution of 13 August 1948". It is obvious that it is not an independent instrument. If the commission's resolutions are regarded as obsolete by India, then the cease-fire order also becomes obsolete. Actually, however, regardless of what the representative of India might say here, a declaration by either party that the Agreement embodied in the commission's resolution is obsolete does not deserve to be given any consideration unless that party is to be understood as denouncing the cease-fire also and contemplating a resumption of hostilities.
I say this because the commission's resolutions embody an agreement of which any unilateral denunciation is inadmissible. It is inadmissible because first, the agreement embodies undertakings of an international character by which the parties have assumed international obligations and, secondly, it constitutes an international engagement for the benefit of third parties.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir are third-party beneficiaries of the commission's resolutions. The rights of these third-party beneficiaries cannot be extinguished by any unilateral denunciation of the undertaking by India. The objective of the resolutions was, and remains, that of ensuring to the people of the State the free and fair exercise of their basic right to a plebiscite. Such a right vests in them as an actual juridical right under the well-established doctrine of stipulation for the rights of others, "stipulation pour autrui". It follows that these resolutions cannot be abrogated except by agreement of India, Pakistan, the United Nations and the people of Jammu and Kashmir. I am drawing attention to this basic aspect of the case because it brings out the nature of the situation with which the Security Council is faced. Apart from defining the juridical position involved, it brings into sharp focus the explosive nature of the present situation where the inherent right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, recognized in a formal instrument, is denied by the Indian Government which proclaims that any assertion of this right constitutes the high crime of treason. Surely, the other party to the agreement which gave recognition to this right and pledged its fulfilment cannot remain unconcerned or inactive in the face of such an attitude.
I am aware of the impression which exists at present in some quarters that perhaps a loosening of thoughts is in process in India so that we should stand aside and let matters develop by themselves. Now, I have no wish to ignore a salutary, though rather intangible, development. It is true that there are indications that the people of India, by and large, would wish to see a solution of the Kashmir dispute which has remained frozen for over a decade and which has constantly strained India's relations with my country. There have been statements from well-known Indian leaders, organizations and publicists, which have stressed the need for the Government of India to do some re-thinking on the Kashmir issue and to realize that its attitude so far on this question has not done any good to India. Prominent among these are Mr. C. Rajagopalachari, the first Indian Governor-General of independent India and General Cariappa, the first Indian Commander-in-Chief.
Mr. K. Santhanam, in an article in The Hindustan Times of 14 April entitled "The Alternatives in Kashmir '', considers that the rejection by India of the idea of a plebiscite is wholly inexplicable. Talking of Kashmir and the Sino-Indian disputes, he goes on to suggest :
"The more I think of these problems in which India has got entangled, the more I am convinced that a frank and unconditional acceptance of international conciliation, arbitration and adjudication is the sole logical, wise and humane policy."
According to an article in The Hindustan Times, of 15 April the position is:
"The real problem in Kashmir is not Sheikh Abdullah. The real problem is that 17 years of independence"-of India and Pakistan-"have not brought the people of Kashmir political stability, organic unity of security or status.
"It has been assumed too easily that the search for overcoming these disabilities is necessarily inimical to India's interests. Emotive slogans like integration have been. allowed to distort the definition of our basic interests to the point where many of us have forgotten that there is such a thing as the people of Kashmir, four and a half million of them, whose wishes need to be taken into account. And whatever one talks about the wishes of the people of Kashmir in respect of ascertaining what they are precisely, we allow opportunist politicians, who are only thinking of their own selfish ends, to raise the demon of Pakistani and assorted foreign conspirators at work."
This trend, which is encouraging for peace, has found an apt expression in an article written by Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan, a prominent Indian leader, Writing in The Hindustan Times of 20 April, Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan observes:
"What, after all, is the substance of Sheikh Abdullah's statements? This, that the future of Kashmir has to be decided by the people of Kashmir, and that it has to be done in a manner so that the dispute about it between India and Pakistan is amicably ended. With a little imagination. It was possible to see that this clear and principled stand of the Kashmiri leader opened for India a wonderful opportunity that could be exploited to the advantage of all concerned. What actually is happening, however, is a parrot-like reiteration of slogans that carry no conviction in any dispassionate quarters.
"One of these slogans is that the accession of Kashmir to India is final and irrevocable. The Sheikh has questioned that, and it is for impartial lawyers to decide the issue. But the vital point to keep in mind is that it is not by legal advocacy that a human problem like that of Kashmir can ever be settled. Indeed, it was such realisation that had prompted the original promise of Prime Minister Nehru to ascertain the wishes of the people."
Mr. Narayan goes on to say:
"At this point, two further slogans are raised: first, the people of Kashmir have already expressed their will at three general elections; secondly, if the people of Kashmir are allowed to express their will, it will be the beginning of the end of the Indian nation."
"Both, to my mind, are baseless slogans. The elections in Kashmir after Sheikh Abdullah's arrest were neither fair nor free. If that has to be disproved, it can be done by an impartial inquiry and not just by official assertions. Delhi seems to believe that by auto-suggestion it can establish any fact it pleases."
I am apt to agree with Mr. Narayan that Delhi does seem to believe that by auto-suggestion it can establish any fact it pleases. To go on with Mr. Narayan's statement, he says:
"I may be lacking in patriotism or other virtues, but it has always seemed to me to be a lie to say that the people of Kashmir had already decided to integrate themselves with India. They might do so, but have not done so yet. Apart from the quality of the elections, the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir was never made an electoral issue at any of them. If further proof were needed, it has come in the form of Sheikh Abdullah's emphatic views, who, to put it at the least, is as representative of the people as any other Kashmiri leader.
"Lastly, if we are so sure of the verdict of the people, why are we so opposed to giving them another opportunity to reiterate? The answer given is that this would start the process of disintegration of India. Few things have been said in the course of this controversy more silly than this one. The assumption behind the argument. is that the States of India are held together by force and not by the sentiment of a common nationality. It is an assumption that makes a mockery of the Indian Nation and a tyrant of the Indian State."
"Threats have been held that, should Sheikh Abdullah misbehave, the law would take its course. The law had taken its course for eleven years and the issue remained unsettled. It is not likely to achieve more in the future. It is remarkable how the freedom-fighters of yesterday begin so easily to imitate the language of the imperialists.
"The last and final slogan raised in the ballyhoo is that there is no Kashmir question at all, and that, if there was one at any time, it has now been settled once and for all. Kashmir is a part of India and that is a fact of history, they say. That, I think, is the worst form of auto-suggestion.
"The slogan-raisers forget that less than half of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is under the occupation of Pakistan. Has that been accepted as a settled fact? If so, when and where? If not, how is the issue of Kashmir settled, except in the private thoughts of those who believe that we shall keep what we have and they shall keep what they have? Secondly the issue is still pending before the Security Council and United Nations observers are still posted in Kashmir. Thirdly, here is a leader of the stature of Sheikh Abdullah who clearly states that the issue has yet to be settled. Therefore, as an humble servant of this country, I plead earnestly that instead of trying to take shelter in a fool's paradise of our own making, let us have the courage to face facts and deal with them on the basis of the ideals and fundamental principles that guided our freedom movement.``
Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan is no mean leader of India.. He was a founder and architect of the Indian independence movement. Mr. Narayan is by no means a voice in the wilderness. Fortunately, there are also other voices of reason in India which make themselves heard from time to time. The Chairman of the Praja Socialist Party, Mr. S.M. Joshi, stated on 20 April, that the wishes of the people of Kashmir should be ascertained to solve the Kashmir problem, that India should honour its promises in this regard because it was agreed at the time of the cease-fire that the wishes of the people of the State would be ascertained. Mr. Joshi added, and I quote from The Times of India of 21 April: "It is said that we have not fulfilled the undertaking. Our position has been falsified in international politics."
This development is no doubt encouraging to all those Who want to establish a climate of friendship between India and Pakistan. It is, however, important to appreciate that it is not something which can be left to grow by itself. A concrete improvement in the present state of affairs cannot thus be achieved. On the contrary, it is a trend which will develop only if it is nourished by the influence and activity of the United Nations and by the good will and earnestness that we believe is reflected here in the Security Council.
Perhaps this consideration needs to be put in plainer words. A voice like that of Mr. Narayan, whom I have quoted at length, is the voice of reason and of conscience. It is the voice that beckons India to the paths of peace. But if the Security Council, which in this matter represents the reason and conscience of the world, remains silent, this voice becomes a voice in the wilderness. It becomes lost in India of the overweening and obdurate policies of the Indian Government. One has only to consider the history of the Kashmir dispute to realize this truth. The elements in India which seek a just and honourable settlement of the Kashmir dispute have existed all along, but they have received scant encouragement. Impartial public opinion throughout the world has condemned the Kashmir policy of the Indian Government, both from the ethical and the political points of view, but no effort has been made . so far, no initiative taken at the international level. which would bring about the required revision of the policy of the Government of India, a revision which is desired by the world at large,
During the recent weeks, the struggle of the people of Kashmir has gathered momentum within the State. In ever increasing numbers, nations throughout the world are showing visible manifestation of their support of the people of Kashmir in their quest for self-determination. At a previous meeting I informed the Council of the support of the 700 million people of China, who are the immediate neighbours of the people of Kashmir, to a solution based on the wishes of the people of Kashmir as pledged to them by India and Pakistan. Since then, the President of Iraq has extended his support to the implementation of the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir. Earlier, in December 1963, the Government of Ceylon publicly called for an early solution of the dispute in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, as envisaged in the resolutions of the Security Council which were accepted by both Pakistan and India.
More recently, on 15 April and 18 April 1964, the Governments of Indonesia and the Philippines called for a settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The hundred million people of Indonesia, through a joint communique signed by the Foreign Ministers of Indonesia and Pakistan on 15 April, recalled with regret that:
"...the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir had not been solved peacefully and might even constitute a threat to peace and stability in the region. The two Foreign Ministers agreed that this dispute involved the question of fundamental rights of the people of Kashmir and impaired the growth of friendly relations between Pakistan and India, affecting also the development of Asian-African solidarity. They therefore called for an early solution of this dispute in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State and other provisions, as envisaged in the Security Council resolutions accepted by both India and Pakistan."
The relevant portion of the joint communique signed by the Foreign Ministers of the Philippines and Pakistan stated:
"The Foreign Secretary of the Philippines and the Foreign Minister of Pakistan agreed that the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India involved the question of the fundamental rights of the people of Kashmir and that this dispute inhibits the establishment of friendly relations between Pakistan and India to the disadvantage of the development of solidarity between African and Asian countries. The two ministers agreed the need for an early solution of the dispute in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir, as envisaged in the resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations. accepted by both Pakistan and India,"
Among the other nations of the two continents that in recent weeks have similarly emphasized to delegations composed of Kashmiri leaders who visited them the necessity for an early settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the principle of self-determination, as pledged to the people of Kashmir by India, Pakistan and the United Nations are Morocco, the Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Senegal, Sudan, Somalia, Algeria, and Tunisia in the continent of Africa and Ceylon, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia in the continent of Asia. I find it necessary in this context so quote from a statement issued by President Habib Bourguiba on 19 March after his meeting with the Kashmiri leader of a delegation which visited some of the countries of Africa and Asia in April :
"I remember the position I had taken some years ago on this very subject. My stand was not that of a Muslim supporting Muslims but that of a man who respects human dignity and the right of a people to decide for themselves a principle that constitutes one of the most. noble manifestations of respect for humanity. I remember also having publicly taken a clear stand against India's refusal to heed the Security Council resolution to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir.
"My stand does not mean that I support one party against another, Muslims against Hindus, or Pakistan against India. We have made it clear that on this question our position is inspired by decisions taken in the Security Council.
"We have clearly explained in our correspondence to the Indian Prime Minister that we cannot approve of India's policy on this particular issue and that we remain firm on the stand that we have taken."
In the same vein, President Ben Bella has stated:
"We have always been cognizant of the Kashmir case and have made our position clear, namely, that the people of Kashmir should have the right of self-determination and that the resolutions of the Security Council in this regard be fully implemented."
Needless to say, the people of Pakistan and the people of Kashmir shall remain ever grateful for these important and heroic statements of Africans who have pronounced so nobly and so boldly and in such an impartial way on a just and a righteous cause. Assurances of support by all these countries, and by others also, have been extended to the cause of the people of Kashmir, who have thus behind them, in their bitter struggle against Indian chauvinism and neo-colonialism, the sympathy and support of all anti-colonial peoples of Asia and Africa, and indeed also of Latin America.
And yet the Prime Minister of India persuaded himself to declare in the Indian Parliament on 13 April that the Kashmir problem would have been solved long ago, had it not been for Western support of Pakistan. Such myopia is truly tragic. May I remind the Prime Minister that the Kashmir problem would have been solved long ago, had it not been for the infidelity of his Government to the principles of international justice and its repudiation of its own solemn pledges and international commitments. If the Kashmir problem has remained alive in spite of all the repression, the terror and domination to which people of Kashmir have been subjected for seventeen years, it is because the spirit of the Kashmiri people is indestructible and their resolve to secure their rights remains unshaken.
Members of the Security Council have supported the principle of self-determination as set forth in the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan are also parties to those resolutions. Having committed itself of its own free will to the implementation of these resolutions India has sought to repudiate that obligation and even to deny the existence of the Kashmir dispute. And now the Prime Minister of India, with an air of injured innocence, bewails "in effect that the Security Council, and particularly its Western members, have failed to execute a similar "volte-face".
Let me also remind the Prime Minister of India that it is not only the West which has refused to betray the people of Kashmir. Since 1948, when the Security Council first became seized of the Kashmir dispute, some thirty countries of Latin America, Africa, Asia, Europe and North America which have at one time or another been non-permanent members of the Council have also called for the implementation of the Com mission's resolutions. Let not the Prime Minister of India nurse the illusion that the Kashmir dispute would have been solved according to his own wishes long ago, but for Western support to Pakistan. Let him remember that not only the West, but also the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America have clearly espoused the cause of the people of Kashmir and called for the implementation of the Commission's resolutions to resolve this dispute in a peaceful and just manner.
I have dealt so far in my statement with the new elements in the Kashmir dispute, the people's revolt against Indian domination, and the rapidly increasing international sympathy and support from Western Europe, from Latin America and particularly from the people and the Governments of Asia and Africa, for their struggle to achieve a peaceful and just settlement of the dispute through the exercise of their right of self determination as pledged to there by India and Pakistan and by the United Nations.
I have set forth the declaration of Sheikh Abdullah and Mirza Mohammed Afzal Beg on the questions of self-determination, accession, plebiscite and integration, and on the procedures that should be adopted in order to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute between India and Pakistan in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. I have also set forth the views of the men of peace and good will in India in regard to these basic issues.
But what is the response of the Government of India to the imperatives of the situation? Has there been any attempt on its part to reassess it and to revise its policies with a view. to finding an amicable settlement of this dispute ? Regrettably, this does not seem to be the case.
Speaking in the Indian Parliament on 13 April, the Prime Minister of India dismissed Sheikh Abdullah's statement by merely describing them as "unfortunate". Mr. Shastri, Minister Without Portfolio, thought it fit to reiterate in the Indian Parliament on 12 April that "the accession of Kashmir to India is irrevocable". Mr. Shastri even threatened the Kashmiri leader with serious consequences for expressing a contrary view. The Indian Home Minister, Mr. G.L. Nanda, pompously declared: "Certain facts of history cannot be undone. The accession of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Union was a fact of Indian history. It is a fact of world history. There can be no going back on that." (The Hindustan Times, 16 April.)
Mr. Chagla, the Indian Minister of Education, representing India here, laid down the limits of Sheikh Abdullah's freedom of speech and expression. He declared on 10 April that any discussion of the Kashmir issue between the Indian leaders and Sheikh Abdullah must be "within the context of Kashmir being an integral part of India ''. (The Times of India, 13 April.) The Minister of Education also warned Sheikh Abdullah that if he did not change his mind on Kashmir's status the "law should take its course". (The Times of India, 13 April.) This is a threat by a former judge.
The new puppet "Prime Minister" of Indian-occupied Kashmir, Mr. Sadiq, not to be outdone in the campaign of intimidation against the Sheikh, boasted on 16 April: "No magician has yet been born who will just breathe, and our Administration and forces will vanish." He echoed that Kashmir was as much a part of India as Bombay, Calcutta or Madras. (The Times of India, 17 April.)
On the question of India's plans for integration of the State, Mr. Sadiq declared, on 19 April, that there was no question of delaying the infamous bill for changing the nomenclature of "Sardar-i-Riyasat" and "Prime Minister" (of Jammu and Kashmir to "Governor" and "Chief Minister". He promised that it would be taken up definitely in the next session of the State Assembly. (The Hindustan Times, 19 April.) On 20 April, this puppet "Premier" again advocated, in the capital of India, the early abrogation of article 370 of the Indian Constitution to make Kashmir's integration with India complete. (The Times of India, 21 April.)
On 15 April, Mr. Nanda said in the Indian Parliament that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to the Indian Union was "complete, final and irrevocable", and that the policy of the Government "is not going to be changed because somebody has said something somewhere".
On 29 April, Mr. T.T. Krishnamachari, the Minister of Finance, made a very revealing and rather picturesque statement in the Indian Parliament. He said that there was "no question of second thoughts'' by the Government on the status of Kashmir and that "the fundamentals of Kashmir's accession to India have already been settled, and only nuances remain to be discussed". It seems-though it is hard to believe-that this Indian Minister is asking to be reminded that the India Pakistan question does not relate to what he has called the "nuances' ' of Kashmir's accession to India. The Security Council is not exercised over the "nuances'' of accession. Pakistan's case is not directed to these "nuances''. The international agreement between India and Pakistan concerning the disposition of Kashmir is not meant to settle these "nuances". It has been made clear by the people of Kashmir, in every way possible, that they are not agitated over how these "nuances'' are to be determined. They-the people of Kashmir, and Pakistan, and the United Nations-all are concerned with the fundamental question of Kashmir's accession to India or to Pakistan, in accordance with the will of the people to be impartially ascertained. If any negotiations are to take place between India and Pakistan, the negotiations will deal with this fundamental question and this fundamental question alone, and not with any "nuances''.
This is how the Indian Government and its henchmen have reacted to the demand of the people of Jammu and Kashmir for self-determination and to the support that this demand has received throughout the world.
At this particular juncture, the interests of the people of Kashmir, the interests of the people of the subcontinent, indeed of all of Asia, demand that the Security Council take whatever steps may be necessary to move this dispute rapidly towards a peaceful and honourable settlement.
India claims that the people of Kashmir have already expressed their wishes on the question of accession. We maintain that the people of Kashmir so far have not been allowed to exercise their right of self-determination. We assert that they have yet to take a decision on the question of accession to India or to Pakistan. We therefore suggest that Sheikh Abdullah may be invited to appear before the Security Council as he should be able to give it information which will be of assistance in examining the question. I request that steps may be taken immediately to this end and that under rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure this should be done. The precedent has been established by the Council of inviting persons under this rule, without concerning itself with legal and constitutional questions. This, I believe, should assure sympathetic considerations of my suggestion.
If I might use this occasion to transmit a message from the people of Pakistan to the people of India, it is this: For sixteen years, we have been in a quagmire of controversies and controversies and conflict. Perhaps such dismal phases are bound to occur in the long history of nations. But an end to them is also bound to come. The truth has been uttered by wise men on countless occasions that there is a time for acrimony and there is a time for reconciliation. There is a time to wound and there is a time to heal. There is a time for assertion and a time for acceptance. For sixteen years India has stalled and prevaricated: for sixteen years Kashmir has been denied its inherent right to share in the freedom that came to India and Pakistan. The time to continue this state of affairs is now past. The time is over for India to be swayed by pique and to be dominated by narrow considerations of prestige. The time is over violating the spirit of the age, which is that of freedom and self-determination. Now the time has arrived for atonement. The moment has come for removing the shackles which have bound the people of Kashmir. The moment has come when, with statesmanship and vision, a wrong will be redressed, a burden eased, a pledge fulfilled and a word of honour kept. The time is now for placing the relationship of India and Pakistan on a footing of justice and tolerance and peace.
It might be that, through the mysterious workings of Providence and the will of Allah, a stage has been reached in the affairs of India and Pakistan which offers an unparalleled opportunity to both countries to open a new era of good neighbourliness and constructive endeavours. Kashmir is the crux of our relationship. If we settle this issue with due regard to the principles which we have both solemnly accepted and on which we have based our pledge to the people of Kashmir, we will move together to the uplands of sanity and peace. On the other hand, if we remain entangled in the coils of bitterness, we will consign ourselves to the abysm of conflict and hate. A tide has come in our affairs which, taken at the flood, will lead us both to fortune; omitted, our voyage will be bound in shallows and in miseries. The moment has arrived which will decide whether India and Pakistan will justly settle their dispute and fulfil their destinies or remain estranged from each other thus lose their ventures in a challenging and expanding world.