07051964 Text of the speech made by Mr. M.C. Chagla (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1113 held on 7 May 1964.
07051964 Text of the speech made by Mr. M.C. Chagla (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1113 held on 7 May 1964.
It was said of the Bourbons that they learnt nothing and forgot nothing. The representative of Pakistan is different from the Bourbons in the sense that he has forgotten everything and learnt nothing. The most vital fact he has forgotten which has changed the whole situation in Kashmir was the Chinese attack on India. China today is in possession of about 15,000 square miles of Kashmir territory, which is Indian territory. By a significant of generosity at other people's expense, Pakistan has recently handed over 2,000 square miles additionally to China,
We have been witnessing with amusement, and also with a certain amount of disgust, the greatest tightrope act ever seen in international affairs. Pakistan has achieved this with extraordinary skill by keeping one foot in the South-East Asia Treaty Organization and the Central Treaty Organization and the other in the Chinese camp. Pakistan is getting closer and closer into the Chinese embrace, and the latest incident of this touching affection between the two countries is what happened in Djakarta when Pakistan, China and a few other countries ``ganged up"-I am sorry about using the expression, but it is the only way to describe what has happened-"ganged up" to deny the Soviet Union a place in the Asian world and refused Malaysia admittance to the next Asian-African conference as an Asian country, although Malaysia has an undoubted right to it. Pakistan tells the United States that it is an ally and wants arms in order to fight communism. It tells China that if China attacks India, Pakistan will stab India in the back. Pakistan prodemocracy to us and asks us to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir, but it does not permit even a vestige of democracy in its own territory. It has suppressed the democratic movement in East Pakistan. It has refused the principle of self-determination which it professes to consider so sacred-to Pakhtunistan and Baluchistan.
I must emphasize a fact that the representative of Pakistan has conveniently overlooked, namely, that in the context of what has recently happened there, Kashmir is vital to India not only for recovering the territory which China has unlawfully occupied, but also for resisting future aggression by China. The defence of Ladakh, which is in the north-east of Kashmir, against the continuing menace of China is impossible except through Kashmir.
When I said that the representative of Pakistan has learnt nothing, I meant that he still believes that we are living in the mediaeval age and not in modern times. One of the most serious problems that is facing us and which the Security Council will be discussing very soon is racial apartheid. But there is an equally serious problem, equally vicious and evil, and that is religious apartheid. In principle there is no difference between the two. Both discriminate between man and man and do not respect human dignity. Pakistan was founded on the principle of religious apartheid, and that principle is still observed today, the most eloquent testimony to which is the fact that no less than 300,000 members of the minority communities from East Pakistan have sought refuge in India since the beginning of this year. They have fled from persecution and insecurity of the worst type, involving their lives and property and even the honour of their women.
These people are not only Hindus, there are also Buddhists and Christians among them. It is an indisputable fact, of which notice has been taken by the whole world Press, that no less than 40,000 Christians left East Pakistan because of the religious oppression practised by Pakistan and the fear for their security which these people felt. I would like to refer here to the Easter message of 29 March 1964 issued by Archbishop Lawrence of Dacca in East Pakistan. He is not prejudiced against Pakistan, he is not pro-Indian; he is an archbishop who, I take it, is impartial in his judgement. This is what he says:
"Perhaps never has there been so much real physical and mental suffering in this archdiocese as during the past month or two"-his archdiocese is in Pakistan.-"As you know, Catholics and other Christian communities in the district of Mymensingh have suffered very much." Mymensingh is also in East Pakistan-"They have been victims of harassment, of mental affliction, of physical mistreatment. Their homes have been violated, their security of body and peace of mind lost. Conditions were so bad that Christians, almost 20,000 of them, fled from their homes to India, leaving behind all their earthly possessions. Some lost their lives, others were wounded, some are still under treatment in hospitals and camps. Almost all your Catholic brethren of the parishes of Mariannagar, Baramari, Biroi-Dakuni and Bhaluka para fled." These are all places in East Pakistan- "The parishes of Rani Khong, Baluchora and Jallhatra have lost a smaller number. It has been a sad experience for these refugees, a time of real sorrow. Likewise, it has been difficult for those who have remained within. The sorrow of priests, brothers, sisters and of myself is hard to put into words.
"Not all of you are aware of the happenings. But I was aware of this danger long ago and I warned the Government" that is, the Pakistan Government- "of what was likely to happen if strict measures were not taken to stop this injustice. Unfortunately, my warnings were not heeded."
This establishes what I have said previously, that the Governments of Pakistan was privy to the riots that took place in East Pakistan. This is what the Archbishop said: "I warned the Pakistan Government to take steps to stop these communal riots and the Government took no action."
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has said that if the Kashmir problem was solved relations between India and Pakistan would become friendly and the two countries would live in peace and amity ever afterwards. I beg to differ. In my opinion, Kashmir is not the disease; it is only the symptom of a disease which is much more deep-rooted. The disease is the fundamental difference in the outlook of India and Pakistan. India is modern, secular, believing in a multi-communal, multi linguistic society, while Pakistan believes in a religious State in which people would practise only one religion and in which members of other religions should have no place whatsoever. As long as Pakistan continues to remain what it is, it must keep up religious frenzy and religious fanaticism. This is the only explanation to the large and continuing exodus of minorities from East Pakistan. Pakistan has already denuded West Pakistan of minority communities. And now it has. launched upon a cold, calculated policy of doing the same with regard in East Pakistan.
We would like to say that hardly any of the 50 million Muslims of India wish to leave the country. Far from Muslims wishing to leave India, Muslims from East Pakistan have been coming to our country because they find greater security there. And when we evict these infiltrators because they are not Indian nationals, Pakistan makes a grievance of it and insists on our keeping these infiltrators within our borders,
I think it is necessary to re-emphasize what really is the issue before the Security Council. The issue is not, as suggested by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, the status of Kashmir or the question of the accession of Kashmir to India.
The issue is Pakistan's aggression against Indian territory, This is the item on the agenda of the Security Council. This was the item brought before it when we came here complaining of Pakistan's aggression. It is important to note that this aggression, namely, the unlawful presence of Pakistan's armed forces in Jammu and Kashmir, was admitted by Pakistan after considerable prevarications. It also follows from the fact of Pakistan's aggression against India that Kashmir is an integral part of India. India could not be the complainant, and Pakistan could not be the accused, except for Pakistan's aggression against Indian territory.
The aggression which was committed in 1947 still continues. If the Council wishes to discuss Kashmir at all, it should discuss the question of Pakistan's aggression and find ways and means of Pakistan's vacating the aggression. A burglar who breaks into a house and takes possession of the ante-room cannot ask the owner of the house to prove his title to the remaining portion of his property while he calmly squats in that part which he has unlawfully occupied. Let first things come first. It will be time enough to talk of the status of Kashmir and the legality of accession after Pakistan has conformed to elementary international ethics by withdrawing its troops from part of a country which it does not own.
Permit me to say, in all frankness, that our Government and people have a grievance to the effect that during the years the Kashmir question has been before the Security Council, most members of the Council have turned a blind eye to the patent fact of Pakistan's aggression. It is that attitude, together with the indulgence that Pakistan's allies have shown it in the Council, that has been the greatest obstacle to the solution of this question which has bedevilled relations between ourselves and our neighbour. There have been numberless meetings on the subject of Kashmir, and millions of words have been spoken in the Security Council and I am sorry I am adding to those millions a few more.
Members have made this suggestion and that, but the vital question brought before the Security Council has remained unanswered. Our people expect an answer from the Council. So long as it is not answered, the Council will be unable to grapple with the basic elements of the Kashmir situation. My delegation hopes that even at this late hour, the members of the Council will give careful thought to the matter and give an answer to these questions which I now pose : (1) how is it that Pakistan occupies two fifths of Kashmir and by what right? (2) has it any legal right to be in the possession and control of any part of Kashmir territory 2 (3) has it any right to negotiate and give away any part of Kashmir to China, which it has admittedly done, as I have said, having given away 2,000 square miles? (4) what steps should the Council take to make Pakistan vacate its aggression ?
After having committed aggression, Pakistan as an afterthought trotted out the plea that her troops had entered Kashmir to help the Muslims who were engaged in a freedom movement. This was also patently false. Let the true nature of Pakistan's action's be exposed by the statements of someone whom the Foreign Minister of Pakistan quoted extensively in his last speech [1112th meeting]. In 1948 Sheikh Abdullah, as the head of the Emergency Administration of Kashmir, was a member of the Indian delegation to the Security Council, and this is what he had to say-this is what he had to say here before the Security Council:
"I was explaining how the dispute arose-how Pakistan wanted to force this position of slavery upon us. Pakistan had no interest in our liberation"-let me repeat: "Pakistan had no interest in our liberation ``''or it would not also have opposed our freedom movement. Pakistan would have supported us when thousands of my countrymen were behind bars and hundreds were shot to death".
He is referring to what happened before 1947. Whereas India supported the Kashmir liberation movement, this is what Sheikh Abdullah says about the action of Pakistan when the people of Kashmir were fighting for their freedom against the Maharajah's rule. Sheikh Abdullah further stated;
"The Pakistani leaders and Pakistani papers were heaping abuse upon the people of Kashmir who were suffering these tortures.
"Then, suddenly, Pakistan comes before the bar of the world as the champion of the liberty of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
"I had thought all along that the world had got rid of the Hitlers and Goebbels, but, from what has happened and what is happening in my poor country, I am convinced that they have only transmigrated their souls. into Pakistan".
According to Sheikh Abdullah, the reign of the Hitlers and the Goebbels has not passed; the reign still continues in other parts of the world.
As I was listening to the Pakistan representative's speech, I was wondering whether I was participating in a debate on Kashmir or in a debate about Sheikh Abdullah's opinions on Kashmir and its status. There was a long string of quotations from the representative of Pakistan which his advisers must have taken a long time to cull from newspapers published in India. Let me first say this about the release of Sheikh Abdullah. I think it is a tribute to democracy and freedom in India that Sheikh Abdullah not only has been released, but enjoys full freedom to express his opinions. What is more, our free Press has given full publicity to what he has been saying, even though his opinions might be unpalatable to the Government. If we could have ordered the Press to black out all that Sheikh Abdullah said, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan would have been deprived of material for three quarters of his speech. But unlike Pakistan, we have no censorship of the Press in India. Sheikh Abdullah is free to go anywhere he likes in India and to meet anyone he likes. He has just met Mr. C. Rajagopalachari, who was once our Governor-General and who today is one of the most vocal opponents of our Government in India.
The release of Sheikh Abdullah also proves another important fact that we are perfectly confident that the situation is normal in Kashmir and that his release would create no disturbances or untoward incidents. It completely disproves the Foreign Minister of Pakistan's thesis that Kashmir is in revolt. No government in its senses would release Sheikh Abdullah if there already was trouble in Kashmir.
Let me say one further thing about what Sheikh Abdullah has been saying. The opinions of any person, however distinguished or eminent, cannot alter or affect the question of the status of a territory. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of law. If two people get married and the marriage is valid in law, the status of these two people cannot be altered by a thousand opinions suggesting that they are living in sin. But if Sheikh Abdullah's opinions are to be relied upon, it is more to the point to ascertain what his opinions were from 1947 to 1949 when the question of the accession of Kashmir arose.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan is a lawyer and I am sure he knows the Evidence Act which is in force both in his country and in mine. As he knows, it is only statements made at or about the time, that are admissible as evidence. Statements made long after the event not only have no evidential value but are not evidence at all. Sheikh Abdullah gives a graphic description of Pakistan's aggression and the invasion by the raiders supported and backed by the Pakistan Government.
We have heard a great deal from the Foreign Minister of Pakistan about treating Kashmir as a human problem. But let us see how Pakistan treated the people of Kashmir in 1947 and 1948. I quote from the official records. Council: the Security
"When the raiders came to our land, massacred thousands of people-mostly Hindus and Sikhs, but Muslims, too-abducted thousands of girls, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims alike, looted our property and almost reached the gates of our summer capital, Srinagar, the result was that the civil, military and police administration failed."
To the same effect but a little more emphatically, be stated in a statement to the Press issued on 16 November 1947 at Srinagar, as reported in The Hindustan Times of 18 November 1947:
"These raiders abducted women, massacred children, they looted everything and everyone, they even dishonoured the Holy Koran and converted mosques into brothels, and today every Kashmiri loathes the invading tribesmen and their arch-inspirators who have been responsible for such horrors in a land which is peopled with an overwhelming majority of Muslims".
Again in a press statement issued on 19 November 1947 at Srinagar and reported in The Hindustan Times of 20 November 1947, he said:
"The invaders who came in the name of Pakistan to make us believe that they were true servants of Islam..."
and I hope the Muslim countries in the world will note what these true servants of Islam did to the Muslims in Kashmir and I continue :
"...scorched our land, ruined our homes, despoiled the honour of our women and devastated hundreds of our villages. These lovers of Pakistan dishonoured even the Koran and desecrated our mosques which they turned into brothels to satisfy their animal lust with abducted women."
This is Sheikh Abdullah telling us what the Pakistan raiders, backed and supported by the Pakistan army and the Pakistan Government, did to the people of Kashmir, and this is the human problem which, as I have said, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Bhutto, says we have to discuss p before the Security Council. This is the human interest in the people of Kashmir that Pakistan showed when invading it in 1947.
To go back to the official records of the Security Council, Sheikh Abdullah said: "Under those circumstances, both the Maharaja and the people of Kashmir requested the Government of India to accept our accession." Note, when the land was invaded, when mosques were being desecrated and turned into brothels, not only the Maharaja but also the people of Kashmir turned to us asking us to accept the accession. From the official records of the same meeting I quote again :
"We should prove before the Security Council that Kashmir and the people of Kashmir have lawfully and constitutionally acceded to the Dominion of India, and Pakistan has no right to question that accession."
That was Sheikh Abdullah speaking in 1948. Can anything be clearer or more authentic than this? Then he went on to say:
"I refuse to accept Pakistan as a party in the affairs of the Jammu and Kashmir State; I refuse this point blank. Pakistan has no right to say that we must do this and we must do that."
On 18 June 1948, at a press interview in Delhi, Sheikh Abdullah said:
"We the people of Jammu and Kashmir, have... thrown our lot with the Indian people not in the heat of passion or a moment of despair, but by deliberate choice"-this is self-determination.-"The union of our people has been fused by the community of ideals and common sufferings in the cause of freedom. India is pledged to the principle of secular democracy in her policy and we are in pursuit of the same objective." In a broadcast from Radio Kashmir on 1 July 1952, he said: "Kashmir's accession to India is final." The Kashmir Government Bureau of Information, in New Delhi, issued an authorized version of Sheikh Abdullah's speech made in Jammu on 12 April 1952:
"The relationship existing between India and Kashmir which had been sanctified by the blood of countless martyrs was irrevocable and in power on earth could 'rend us asunder'. We have chosen to remain with India at our own will and the idea is for which Gandhi ji laid down his life."
In his most authoritative pronouncement made in the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir on 11 August 1952, Sheikh Abdullah said as follows: "It was also made clear that the accession of the Jammu and Kashmir State with India was complete fact and in law to the extent of the subjects enumerated in this Instrument"-that is, the Instrument of Accession.
In another pronouncement made in the Constituent Assembly on 19 August 1952, he said:
"We have no intention to secede from India. Everybody knows the conditions through which India and Pakistan were passing at the time of our accession to India. Our accession to India, as I have stated in my last speech, is complete".
I do not wish to depart in the slightest degree from what I have already stated before the Security Council that the Indian Independence Act did not contemplate a provisional accession nor a conditional one and that the accession did not require any ratification or consent of the people. The accession was complete and irrevocable as soon as the Ruler had executed the Instrument of Accession and it had been accepted by the Governor-General of India. But after the accession, a Constituent Assembly was elected when Sheikh Abdullah was Prime Minister.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has relied on a statement made by Sheikh Abdullah according to which the three elections in Jammu and Kashmir were rigged. It is not necessary for my purpose to go into the question of the two latter elections. But as far as the first election was concerned, when the Constituent Assembly was elected, it was held under the auspices of Sheikh Abdullah himself who was the Prime Minister. Even while the Constituent Assembly was in session, an agreement was reached between the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, of which Sheikh Abdullah was the Premier, and the Central Government. This agreement, which is known as "the Delhi Agreement'', provided for more. power, to the Central Government than the original Instrument of Accession, which was restricted to the three subjects of defence, external affairs and communications, and the Delhi Agreement, was ratified by the Constituent Assembly.
So, the legal and constitutional position is perfectly clear an accession which is absolute and irrevocable, accompanied though not required by law-by the consent of the people expressed through Sheikh Abdullah who was the leader of the largest party in Kashmir, and followed by the ratification likewise not necessary according to the law-of the Constituent Assembly. Therefore, we have three facts to consider: first, the legal accession which is complete and irrevocable; the consent given by Sheikh Abdullah as the leader of the party, which was not necessary by law but still given, and finally, the Constituent Assembly elected when Sheikh Abdullah was. Prime Minister through adult suffrage, which ratified the Constitution.
It has been argued that the elections to the Constituent Assembly were not held on the specific issue of accession. This is a 1 erroneous argument. The very purpose of a constituent assembly is to make a constitution, and the elections to the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir were definitely and clearly held for that purpose. This is normal practice in many countries in which constituent assemblies have been specifically Constitution elected and charged with making the constitutions of those States. This Constituent Assembly formulated a for the State of Jammu and Kashmir and duly ratified it. Section 3 of this Constitution states: "Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India."
Also, recently, Sheikh Abdullah has made statements which are quite different from those cited by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. Naturally, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan has selected only those which suit his purpose and omitted those which support the case which India has placed before the Security Council. Speaking at Batoti on 15 April 1964, as reported by The Hindustan Times on 17 April 1964 as recently as that-Sheikh Abdullah said:
"It is unfair to condemn me for positions I have not taken. Mr. Krishna Menon, for instance, has quoted a statement made by me fifteen years ago against an independent Kashmir and has suggested that I have retracted from that statement. I still stand by every word of the statement and in fact by all my commitments."
So, even today, according to this, Sheikh Abdullah stands by all his commitments, and what his commitments are I have read to the Council from extracts of statements made by him as long ago as 1948 and later. Sheikh Abdullah went on to say:
"It is the Government of India which I feel has gone back from its commitments."-that is another matter "I have no intention to disown my responsibility in leading Kashmir's accession to India in 1947. Nor do I repudiate my subsequent agreements with the Government of India which were intended to shape the State's relations with the Centre in accordance with the wishes of the people."
The Hindustan Times of 10 April 1964 reported that Sheikh Abdullah had made it clear at his news conference earlier that a plebiscite was not the only method for ascertaining the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. He had said that if the Government of India felt that a plebiscite would lead to trouble for the subcontinent, other methods must be explored to solve the problem amicably and democratically so that everybody would be satisfied. Now, this relates obviously to the relations between the Government of India and one of its constituent parts. What Sheikh Abdullah says is this: Let us try to find ways and means to satisfy the wishes of the State of Kashmir and ensure that our relations are such that they are agreeable both to the Central Government and to the Constituent State of the Federation of India.
Let us see what Pakistan has done to Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a great fighter in the freedom struggle of India and Pakistan and popularly known as "the frontier Gandhi ''. Pakistan released him after a long period of detention. I think the release was just a few days before the Security Council met last February. I see it as a dramatic gesture. But having released him, his movements were restricted to his village. He has not been permitted to address public meetings, to give interviews to the press, to issue statements, and hardly any word about him is permitted by the "basic, democratic" Government of Pakistan to appear in the Press or to be broadcast in its radio. H: was so badly treated by Pakistan while he was in detention that today this great man is a physical wreck. Compare this with the manner in which we treated Sheikh Abdullah while he was under trial. I met him less than a week ago and he is, I can assure the members of the Council, in the best of health.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has again referred to the point which I thought I had shown to be entirely baseless when I addressed, in one of my previous statements before the Security Council [1090th meeting), namely, that Kashmir is in open revolt. I pointed out then that there was complete inter communal unity in Kashmir and that not a single incident had taken place to mar the prevailing friendship and amity between the different communities living in Kashmir. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has referred to demonstrations taking place in Kashmir. Since when have demonstrations become an evidence of a revolt in a country? Because Pakistan does not permit demonstrations, it does not understand the meaning of demonstrations. In a free and democratic country, of course there are demonstrations, both in favour of and against the Government. There is no doubt that when Sheikh Abdullah was released there were demonstrations, but they were demonstrations in which members of all the communities participated, and until today, as far as we know, there has not been a single untoward incident.
I wish to contradict a statement made by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan in his last statement [1112th meeting] that there was a curfew in Kashmir, that there was a "lathi" charge which means a baton charge-against the students. That statement is absolutely false. I have a telegram from India saying that all that happened was that the students demonstrated; there was no curfew, there was no violence, there was no baton charge against the students. I am really surprised and shocked that a responsible representative of a responsible Government should come before this body and. make a statement that is false and baseless in order to prejudice India's case.
As I said in my last statement, and I repeat: throughout this time there has not been a single incident in Kashmir where communal amity has been jeopardized. When the sacred relic was lost, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs mourned the loss. When the sacred relic was recovered, they rejoiced. When Sheikh Abdullah was released, all communities garlanded him and demonstrated in his favour. Students may hold a particular view about the future of Kashmir. They have every right to demonstrate. It is a democratic country. But to come to the Security Council and make a statement that there was violence in Kashmir and that there was a baton charge is the height of irresponsibility.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has advanced a rather curious argument that if we take the attitude that the resolutions adopted by the Security Council have become obsolete, then the cease-fire agreement has also become obsolete. It is clear, from a perusal of the official records of the Security Council, that the cease-fire line is a complement of the suspension of hostilities and can be considered separately from part II and, therefore, from part III of the resolution of 13 August 1948.
There is a sinister significance in these suggestions of the Pakistan Foreign Minister. It is not merely a legal argument; it is a threat to disturb the peace of the subcontinent, because. In another part of his speech, he made no secret of his Government's intention to excite and inflame his people to go to the rescue of the people of Kashmir-what he calls the rescue of the people of Kashmir. In other words, Pakistan is working up a situation which might lead to further aggression, either by so-called raiders or openly by the Pakistan army.
Now, of course, Pakistan is in a strong position because it is counting on help and assistance from a newly-found friend and ally, China. In my opinion, the Security Council should take serious notice of what the Foreign Minister of Pakistan has said on this point. We are all here in the cause of international peace. In flagrant negation of all that the United Nations stands for, a Member State solemnly informs this body, the Security Council, that Pakistan is preparing to commit a breach of the peace.
When we last met, every member of the Security Council was anxious that India and Pakistan should come together, have talks and discuss ways and means of restoring communal harmony in both India and Pakistan, and take steps to prevent a recurrence of the terrible incidents that took place in both. countries.
One hopeful and significant event that took place after the last meeting of the Security Council on this subject in February [1093rd meeting] was that the Home Minister of Pakistan, at the initiative of our Prime Minister, met in Delhi to have talks on this question. I do not know what the relations between Mr. Bhutto and Khan Habibullah Khan are, but I am rather surprised to find that there was not even a passing reference to these talks in the long statement by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. After returning to Pakistan, Khan Habibullah Khan, the Home Minister of Pakistan, issued a statement on these talks. I quote from The Pakistan Times of 25 April 1964:
"The Pakistan Home Minister said that in spite of serious obstacles the meeting of the Home Ministers was quite a success, as the two Governments succeeded in setting about 90 per cent of the points necessary to restore communal harmony and peaceful atmosphere. The Government of Pakistan is determined to iron out the remaining points of difference, including evictions of Muslims from India and migrations of Hindus from East Pakistan, during the second round of meetings to be held in Rawalpindi and Karachi next month."
That means that the second round is going to be held. this month, very soon.
Therefore, the talks between the two Home Ministers have been fairly successful. They have not been concluded and they are to be resumed later this month. I should have thought that the Foreign Minister of Pakistan would have shown some restraint in the statement which he made on Tuesday, 5 May [1112th meeting], and not indulged in diatribes against India and Prime Minister Nehru. But I realize that restraint is a quality that is not easily acquired.
I was very happy to see that Pakistan is now trying to emerge as a great protagonist of African-Asian solidarity and as a great champion of anti-colonialism. I do not think that it is necessary for India to remind our African and Asian friends of the stand that we have always taken in our common fight against colonialism, in support of their independence, and in our opposition to apartheid. I am sure that the African and Asian countries will look askance at this championship of the Africal-Asian caused by a country which is a member of the South-East Asia Treaty Organization and the Central Treaty Organization, which believes in military alliances, and which has always questioned the principle of non-alignment. I do not think that it is necessary for India to remind our African and Asian friends of India's stand on colonialism ever since its independence and of its struggle against British colonialism for many decades prior to 1947. Nor do I think that the African and Asian countries have such short memories as to have forgotten Pakistan's continuing warm friendship and maintenance of diplomatic, commercial and other relations with the Government of Portugal, nor the trade relations that Pakistan maintained with South Africa in the face of the united stand of Asians and Africans against commercial and other inter-course with South Africa; nor the Pakistan Government's pro-imperialist role in the Suez crisis.
I might also remind members of the Council that it was India in 1946 that persuaded the General Assembly to pass the first resolution (44(1)) against racial discrimination in South Africa and we were also among the first to raise the question of South West Africa in the United Nations and we have continued to carry on a ceaseless fight against apartheid in all its forms. It is somewhat strange that Pakistan should talk so glibly of Indian neo-colonialism when Pakistan in respect of anti-colonialism or champion-torests of which it has continued. to subserve directly or otherwise ever since its inception. through membership in the Central Treaty Organization, particularly to stem the rise of Arab nationalism. I would not like to elaborate further on this point but all that I would say is that we have nothing to learn from Pakistan in respect of anti-colonialism or championing the cause of freedom of colonial and dependent peoples.
The Pakistan Foreign Minister has referred to many African and Asian countries supporting Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. We know that the Foreign Minister of Pakistan has been all around the world trying to get certificates of good character from different countries. We do not know how Pakistan's case was presented to these countries. But there is hardly any value attached to ex parte judgements, which Mr.
Bhutto, as a lawyer, should clearly realize. In one case at least we can say that the support which Pakistan has received is purely a marriage of convenience. I am referring to the joint communique with China, to which the Foreign Minister of Pakistan referred [.089th meeting] with such emotion. For sixteen years the Chinese Government has maintained a non-partisan and a neutral stand on the Kashmir issue. But now, after its invasion of India in pursuance of its own global policy motivated by the chauvinistic desire to establish China's domination in Asia and Africa with the assistance of some other countries including mainly Pakistan, China has chosen to take sides. Pakistan and China are both aggressors in Kashmir. Both have acquired their gains by the use of force and aggression. The affinity between them is all too obvious. It is no wonder that the Pakistan representative soon after the Chinese aggression against India went around the world trying to persuade various countries that it was not China that was the aggressor but India.
In an eloquent peroration the Foreign Minister of Pakistan appealed for good relations between our two countries. But even in this appeal he did not resist the temptation of indulging in vituperation against India. Vituperation comes so easily to him. He said that India has stalled and prevaricate for sixteen years. I wonder whether it is a typographical mistake and whether he meant Pakistan rather than India, for prevarication has all been on the side of Pakistan-ever since 1947 when it denied aggression and was ultimately compelled to admit it. Stalling has also been on its side-the refusal to vacate its continuing aggression.
I am glad that the Foreign Minister of Pakistan realizes that this is an age of freedom and self-determination and of removing shackles which bind people. Most wonderful and laudable sentiments. May I offer him a little friendly advice? Why not start translating these noble sentiments into action in Pakistan itself? Why not give adult suffrage to his people, who are clamouring for it? Why not confer democratic rights and fundamental freedoms upon his people, who have been groaning under the oppression of an autocratic and tyrannical regime?
How autocratic and tyrannical that regime can be, may be gathered from what is happening in Balochistan. Mr. Abdul Haq, a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan, disclosed the other day that the "Id" gathering in Balochistan had been bombarded. Other opposition members have also drawn attention to the repression that is going on in Baluchis tan and the country-wide arrests, the "lathi" charges-perhaps the Foreign Minister confused Kashmir with Baluchistan-the firings and bombings, and they have expressed the opinion that this might be crossing the limits even of a police State. The Guardian, which the Foreign Minister of Pakistan is so fond of quoting, stated in its issue of 24 April 1962, referring to the
Balochistan Administration : "The Administration is typical of good colonial rule and there is a wide gulf between it"-that is, the Administration "and the people".
Let us see what the Pakistanis themselves had to say about their own Government. Here is Mr. Qureshi, speaking in the National Assembly at Dacca-this is a from the official records of Pakistan:
"We talk of the right or self-determination for the people of Kashmir although we deny the basic rights to the people of Pakistan."
On 2 April 1964, an interesting incident happened in the course of the debate in the National Assembly in Rawalpindi which threw a flood-light on the restrictions placed upon public debate in the legislature on the issue of self-determination for the people of Pakistan. Mr. Qumar-uz-Zaman, a member, stated that Pakistan failed to get sympathy on Kashmir because of failures within the country. The Government demanded self-determination for Kashmir but refused franchises for the people of Pakistan, and the world knew that the Government had on popular support. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan intervened saying that it was not relevant whether India was a democracy and Pakistan wns not. Evidently upset by Mr. Zaman's argument, be called it highly injurious to national interests. Mr. Hussain Mansoor, another member, said that the Foreign Minister could not refuse the charges against Pakistan by Minister Chagla in the Security Council-I am very grateful to Mr. Hussain Mansoor, whoever he is, I do not know him-and the Speaker intervened saying. "Kindly stop there; it is not a matter for playing about ''. The result of the discussion was that the House, with the support of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, went into a secret session. This is self determination. This is the right of the people of Pakistan.
I also find from the debate in the National Assembly of Pakistan-the debate on the Constitution First Amendment Bill, which was held on 20 March 1963-that under an ordinance which is on the statute-book of Pakistan today, a police officer interrogating a person can torture him into making a confession. When I read this, I asked myself: "Am I living in 1964, or am I living in the mediaeval era ?" I cannot conceive of a country putting on the statute-book a measure which permits the police to torture people into making confessions. And this is a statement made, again, in the National Assembly of Pakistan. This was stated in the Pakistan National Assembly by Mr. Yousaf Khattak, leader of the opposition.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has relied on opinions expressed by Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan and some other Indians in support of his case. The trouble with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan is that he does not or cannot realize that India is a democratic country and one of the fundamental principles of democracy is the right to dissent and the right to express that dissent. In a large country like India the Foreign Minister of Pakistan will always find some people with misconceived ideas who accept the thesis propounded by him. But has he taken the trouble to inquire what is the following of these people and whether is the remotest possibility of their view being accepted either by Parliament or even by the tiniest section of our people?
Towards the end of his speech, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan made a fantastic suggestion that Sheikh Abdullah should be called before the Security Council to give information which will be of assistance in examining the question before the Council. Sheikh Abdullah is a citizen of India, who, I assume, has a large following in Kashmir. He has the greatest affection and regard for our Prime Minister and is at present in Delhi, staying with the Prime Minister as his guest. Like any other citizen, he has the right to approach his Prime Minister and represent to him what changes he thinks should be made in the political and administrative set-up in Kashmir. But with all that he is no more than a private citizen. The parties before the Council are India and Pakistan, and they alone have the right to appear through their official delegations. It is solely for India to decide who should be a member of its delegation. The suggestion made by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan is, therefore, totally unacceptable to my Government.
The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has paid me a compliment by referring to me as a judge and quoting what I said in Patna that law must take its course with regard to Sheikh Abdullah. Perhaps the Foreign Minister of Pakistan does not appreciate the fact that in my country we have equality before the law and, as far as the law is concerned, it makes no difference whether the person concerned is high and mighty or is the humblest citizen. As a judge, and I was a judge for many years, I administered the law and I did not distinguish between one citizen and another. I applied the law equally. And that is all I meant when I said what the Foreign Minister of Pakistan quoted. It was not intended as a threat against Sheikh Abdllah, it was only a reminder that law cannot make any exception in favour of anybody.
My final appeal to the Security Council is to realize that the differences between India and Pakistan can be solved only by those two countries, and that there is more chance of a settlement if there is no intervention by third parties. No superimposed solution will do any good. The Security Council should take note of the discussions that have already started between the two Home Ministers and hope that these discussions will end successfully and bring about an atmosphere of communal harmony. It is only when such an atmosphere is established that it will be possible to discuss with Pakistan our other outstanding differences.