11051964 Text of the speech made by Mr. Bhutto (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 1114 held on 11 May 1964.
11051964 Text of the speech made by Mr. Bhutto (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 1114 held on 11 May 1964.
There was a good deal of invective and vituperation in the statement of the representative of India. As for my country. men have read the statement, it is natural that many of them would want me to reply in kind. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is a primal human impulse and the resultant temptation is not always easy to resist. But my position is different from that of the representative of India. His concern is to avoid a solution of the problem before us; my duty is to urge that a lust solution be effected speedily. Considering the human poignancy of the problem, considering the travel and suffering of the people of Kashmir. I cannot allow myself to be deflected from the path of seeking an end to the tragedy which has overtaken that unhappy land since 1947. The representative of India enjoys abundant freedom to vilify us and to try to confuse the Security Council. My freedom, on the other hand, is greatly circumscribed by the duty to clear away the undergrowth, if I can, and again and again to emphasize to the Security Council, at the risk perhaps of wearying members, that the problem will not take care of itself unless the Council takes it effectively in hand. That is my primary aim, but while I have to keep it steadily in view, I am also confronted with the necessity of setting the record straight. It is not an agreeable task, but it is mandatory. For where the life and future of millions are involved, where the honour and reputation of a country are concerned, it is not something from which one can in conscience abstain.
Beneath a rather transparent mask of righteous indignation, there was a note of desperation in the speech of the Education Minister of India. The desperation is understandable. It is caused by the fact that the overwhelming force of public opinion in Kashmir has removed every moral and political support from India's occupation of the State. Perhaps the Indian representative feels bound to voice this desperation. But the extraordinary thing about his statement was not so much its poverty of facts and arguments as a plethora of irrelevancies.
Members of the Security Council have doubtless noted that, in his statement, the Indian representative dwelt on the situation between India and China, on SEATO and CENTO, on the happenings in Djakarta, on the Christian minority in Bengal, on the culture and cosmology of Pakistan, on the menace of military alliances, on Bourbons and brothels, and on a variety of other topics. Indeed, he opened his speech by talking of the Chinese conflict with India, which has nothing to do with the present situation in Indian-occupied Kashmir. Assuming that it is not against Indian policy to maintain a sense of proportion and rational discourse, this injection of irrelevancies is not an accident. It is deliberate. Its design is obvious. It is nothing other than to make a debate on Kashmir in the Security Council so utterly confused as to choke off every constructive proposal.
In my earlier statement, 1 had deliberately refrained from referring to the communal situation in the region because the Home Ministers of India and Pakistan have met to find a solution of the problem of evictions of Indian Muslim nationals and to bring about the restoration of a sense of security and safety to the minorities in both the countries. I do not in any way wish to prejudice those efforts or to inflame communal passions.
The Education Minister of India, on the other hand, has recklessly tried to rake up the embers of religious passions by charges of murder, loot and worse crimes alleged to have been carried out against the Hindus, Christians and Buddhists in Pakistan. The world is aware that there has been a mass killing of Muslim men, women and children in certain parts of India, especially eastern India, and the vandalistic destruction of their properties, homes and honour.
The single-mindedness with which the representative of India set about maligning my country led him to make the charge that Pakistan was founded on the principle of religious apartheid. This attempt to establish guilt by association is not only a calumny against my country but an insult to the struggle of the people of South Africa for equality, justice and freedom.
The Education Minister of India ought to know that the ideology of Pakistan is truly founded on Islam which admits of no apartheid, racial or religious. In history Islam has been a liberating force, upholding the equality and dignity of man as an individual human person regardless of race, creed or colour. This revolutionary role of Islam is universally acknowledged and I can only deplore that Mr. Chagla should consider the ideology of Islam to be mediaeval and reactionary. Islam acknowledges no established church nor does it recognize priesthood. We, the people of Pakistan, for that matter those of Asia and Africa who are the followers of Islam, recognize that all modern concepts of human equality in political, social and economic spheres are implicit in its teachings.
The predominantly Muslim countries which are Members of the United Nations recognize Islam in their constitutions as the official religion of the State. Does that make them mediaeval and reactionary? Does the Education Minister of India consider them, by virtue of such a provision in their constitutions, as practitioners of religious apartheid?
I would have thought that a representative of India would take particular care to avoid using such expressions as religious apartheid, a unique form of intolerance, the only example of which is provided by the Indian caste system. Indian society for more than 2,000 years, notwithstanding the Constitution of India, lives, moves and has its being in the caste system which is the negation of equality of man, the dignity and worth of the human person.
If, therefore, religious apartheid was involved in the creation of Pakistan, then the Muslims of the subcontinent were its victims and not its perpetrators.
The trouble with many Indian leaders is that they insist that Pakistan and its people should renounce the spiritual values of their faith which nurture the institutions and guide their way of life, before India can accept Pakistan's existence as an independent and sovereign State and as a fact of life. Such attempts at ideological aggression are contrary to the principles of peaceful coexistence between different political, social and economic systems in which alone rests the hope for world peace and the survival of human dignity.
In saying this, I have perhaps paid some tribute to the endeavours in India to make the Indian society a secular society, because if a Muslim from India is unable to appreciate the values, the principles, and the guiding forces of Islam, he has surely become a secular citizen.
There is another matter on which I must set the record straight, as the Education Minister of India has misquoted me. What I said in my intervention in Parliament, to which he referred, is that in relations between Stats and on the question of settlement of international disputes, the internal political and social regimes of countries are not relevant. Amplifying this statement, I said on that occasion, and on several others, that whether India has parliamentary democracy and Pakistan has the presidential system, whether India has direct elections and Pakistan has indirect ones, whether India has the caste system and Pakistan has not, are irrelevant to the question of a Kashmir settlement. What I said then, and what I say now, is elementary international law, and it is also a principle of Pancha Shila. I am surprised that the Education Minister of India should have forgotten so readily the principles of Pancha Shila proclaimed so resoundingly by his country for many years and which the world was never permitted to forget. And yet the Minister of India talks of the Bourbons.
Mr. Chagla has taken special pains to malign Pakistan in the eyes of the Christian world. May I inform the Council of the sentiments of the Pakistani Christians, whose leaders in a joint statement on March 14,1964 said; "We never sensed any feeling of communal hatred or misgivings from the members of the majority community towards us in Pakistan."
A prominent leader of the Garo tribe in East Pakistan, Kan Sangura, in a statement published in the Press on 7 April 1964, stated:
"We had never received any ill-treatment from anybody in Pakistan. We left our villages only out of fear, as one day we suddenly saw a group of people belonging to the Bangshi and Hajang tribes leave Pakistan for India. We stayed there about a month, after which the Indian officers started taking the Christian Garos to far-off places. We were frightened at this and wanted to return to Pakistan. This infuriated the Indian officials who refused to let us go back to Pakistan."
Referring to the Garo exodus from Pakistan, the president of Pakistan, addressing a mammoth meeting on 4 March 1964 in East Pakistan, declared that Pakistan wants all the migrants to return to their homes, that the Government would in that connexion make earnest efforts to assist them and that their homes and their lands would be protected by the Government of Pakistan until they returned to Pakistan. In response to the President's declaration, these tribes are now gradually returning to Pakistan. So far, more than twelve hundred families of Garo Christians have returned to their homes.
As the treatment meted out to the Christian minority in Pakistan, let me quote from a statement made today by Mr. Joshua Fazluddin, a Christian leader who is a recipient of the Pope's Medal and Rosary and a versifier of Holy Gospels. I quote:
"The Garos got direct inspiration, even aid, to leave Pakistan."
"The exodus of Garos, even their number, is not at all a true index of the treatment of the Christian minority in Pakistan.
"In Pakistan the Christians enjoy perfect social freedom and security as evidenced by the growing number of Christian schools, colleges, hospitals and other institutions. That they enjoy perfect religious freedom is clear enough from the growing number of churches and convents as well as theological schools and colleges, and that there is no prejudice against Christian workers is amply proven by the advent of many new missionaries".
The representative of India painted a glowing picture of the condition of the minorities in secular India. Let me know before the Council the views of a Christian Member of the Indian Parliament on the communal situation in India. Mr. Frank Anthony, let me say, is no publicist of Pakistan. He was heckled by frenzied interruptions and prevented from completing his speech in the Parliament of a country which Mr. Chagla would have the Council believe is the epitome of secular democracy. Anthony said on 14 April 1964, according to the official records of the Indian parliament: "How will you ever attract their"-Indian Muslims'-"loyalty and love for this country if every now and then... they may be objects of recurring murder, if every now and then they have to walk in the shadow of death, of arson of loot and of rape ?"
According to Mr. Anthony, the ruling party in India is infected with communalism :
"Look at some of the States, some of the leading members of the ruling party, indistinguishable in their thinking, in their approach from the worst communal element in this country,"
About the militant Hindu organizations in India, Mr. Anthony has this to say:
"...they are the well-known communal parties in this country. There is no need to name them; they are already known. In spite of their protestations, their goals and their objectives are clear. The tragedy is that they not only have the political, but they have paramilitary arms..."
This statement deserves to be carefully noted. It means that the Government of India permits militant communal organizations, whose avowed object is the expulsion or annihilation and termination of the minorities to maintain paramilitary forces to consummate their ends.
An English language newspaper of Calcutta The States man of 4 May 1964, has this report in regard to the complicity of the administration in the riots, from a special correspondent who had toured the riot-torn areas in Eastern India: "They"-the Hindus-"had also learnt that one could get away with looting, arson, murder and other crimes if these are committed in an organized way".
Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan-to whom the representative of India referred as the infinitesimal voice in India representing: a small body of public opinion, which I think we all know is hot truly correct because Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan was one of the founding fathers of the Indian liberation movement and is still a very important force in the political life of India wrote a letter to the presiding officers of both Houses of the Indian Parliament after visiting the riot affected areas. The text was published in the Indian Press on 17 April 1964:
"I visited all the affected areas in the city (Jamshedpur) but did not have the stomach to visit more than two of the seventeen Muslim refugee camps."
He goes on to describe the extent of the disturbances of which the Government of India was apparently oblivious :
"Terrible things have happened and on a scale that has not been realized by Delhi or the country at large."
The organized nature of these crimes has been emphasized in this letter also:
"There is no doubt in my mind that there was an organization behind these dastardly activities which operated from a command centre, manufactured and spread rumours, planned and financed specific actions, provided the whole operation with a political and philosophical justification."
This is about the happenings in India-secular India, democratic India, modern India.
How and why the Indian administration failed to deal with this organized, militant force is also described in Mr. Narayan's letter :
"It was further proved how inadequate and inefficient I was by the civil administration and how the forces of law and order were themselves infected considerably with the virus of communalism".
This virus of communalism, according to the letter, has also affected the political parties in India:
"It is interesting to note that all the political parties"chiefly three operate in the area: the Congress, the Praja Socialist Party and the Communist Party of India-"and the trade unions were rendered completely impotent in the face of the upsurge of organized criminality".
And finally, Mr. Narayan's letter states:
"It was also proved that education"-this will be interesting to the Minister for Education-"including science and engineering education, was no guarantee against animality and criminality"-which was epitomized the other day.
In a joint statement issued in Calcutta, on Saturday, 25 April 1964, Mr. Jayaprakash Narayan and seven others, Indian leaders, stated the truth about the communal riots in India. I shall quote some extracts of the :
"Atrocities have been committed in India that are as bestial, shameful and unthinkable as any committed elsewhere."
It goes on :
"Women, and pregnant women at that, had been cut down, bludgeoned to death, babies thrown into the fire and young women raped to death".
In contrast, the Muslims in Pakistan risked their lives to save Hindu citizens, and this is also acknowledged in the Indian leaders' statement :
"There"-in Pakistan-"at least thirty young Muslims have laid down their lives in trying to protect their Hindu neighbours".
It is a noteworthy fact of Indian political life that organized political parties exist in India with their own paramilitary organization, or private armies, which are allowed to develop and flourish and which are dedicated to the mass expulsion of the Muslim minority, 50 million strong, or its annihilation as a separate religious and cultural group by force and by violence. I make this statement with all deliberation and due sense of responsibility, and I am prepared to substantiate it, if called upon, in this world forum. By way of instance, let me quote to you what Mr. Frank Anthony, an Indian Christian, member of the Indian Parliament, said in the Indian Parliament as reported in The Times of London of 14 April 1964:
"The heart of all his speech,"-as reported by the Times correspondent-"however, was a charge that communal killings this year had not been spontaneous outbreaks of Hindus maddened by reports of the sufferings of fellow Hindus in East Pakistan, but an organized expression of entrenched 'revivalist' political forces in this country. He asserted that men in the pay of these revivalists (which can be taken to mean parties such as the Jan Sangh and the Hindu Mahasabha) had been responsible for the killing of Muslims, and had incited the tribal peoples into attacks not only on Muslims but, he implied on 'defenseless men, women and children' of his own Anglo Indian community. "...For all the official talk of the need for 'exemplary
punishment' few, if any, murder charges have arisen from this year's killings."
And yet the representative of India talks of his country as a modern and secular State, believing in a multi-communal, multi-linguistic society and accuses my country of keeping up religious frenzy and religious fanaticism.
Recently, Mr. N.M. Anwar, Congress Member from Madras, caused a stir in the Rajya Sabha when he bluntly. admitted that the Muslims in the ruling Congress Party are "show boys". Participating in the debate on the Finance Bill, Mr. Anwar dwelt on the problems of the Muslim minority in India and said that the problems of India's 50 million Muslims were innumerable.
Speaking of the Indian Union Muslim League Mr. Anwar said that this organization "often interpreted the mind and soul of the Muslim community of this country". He welcomed the release of Sheikh Abdullah and expressed the hope that Sheikh Abdullah, who is the real architect of Kashmir's destiny, would bring about closer relations between India and Pakistan.
Mr. Anwar-a Member of the Indian Parliament. Like the Indian representative here-said ;
"Certainly, where is the comparison? I tell you that Sheikh Abdullah is bringing home the lesson to the Hindu community of India that, if you want to look for real leadership of the Muslims, do not go to show boys. and charity boys. They are not going to be assets but liabilities to the Hindu society...
"Under the present joint electoral system the Hindu society has no opportunity to get to know the real mind of the Muslim community because most of the Muslims whom the secular party has adopted have naturally got to be considered as show boys of the majority community."
In my statement of 7 February 1964 (1089th meeting). I had apprised the members of the Security Council of the brutal evictions of the Muslims of India from the states of Assam and Tripura in Eastern India. The representative of the Government of India has claimed: "Hardly any of the 50 million Muslims of India wish to leave the country." (1113th meeting. para. 9.)
I challenge that statement of the Education Minister. After the communal killings in January last, over 100,000 Muslim refugees poured into East Pakistan from the neighbouring districts of West Bengal, a province of India. In Calcutta alone, nearly 2,000 families demanded migration certificates from the Deputy High Commissioner for Pakistan to seek asylum in East Pakistan.
In addition, 130,000 Muslims have so far entered East Pakistan, driven out of India, deprived of their belongings under an organized plan of the Indian authorities. It should be realized by the Government of India that the root of the problem in the present circumstances is its policy of eviction of Muslims. One hundred and thirty thousand displaced and destitute people have poured into East Pakistan over the last two years. The continuance of these evictions results in the creation of insecurity and uncertainty in the minds of the Hindu minority in Pakistan. The allurement that Indian authorities provide for the migration of Hindus from Pakistan add to the difficulties of the situation.
Members of the Security Council are aware that there is a substantial number of Buddhists living in Pakistan-some half-million of them. The Education Minister of India has said that we are treating our Buddists ``abominably". Let us see what the Buddhist leaders in Pakistan have to say. The leader of the Buddhist delegation to the Asian Buddhist conference has made this statement: "I take this opportunity to mention, by way of showing an example of mutual respect for different religions in Pakistan, as in other civilized countries, that our Government have donated us a spacious plot of land in Dacca" -that is in East Pakistan-"for setting up an international Buddhist university and other related institutions. Besides, the Pakistan Government is extending to us all facilities in the field of education, culture and development of general social life."
While the Education Minister has talked of the so-called ill-treatment of Christians in Pakistan, he has been silent about the systematic and brutal persecution of the Nagas, most of them Christians, which has been going on in East India for many years. Let me refer to the Latest independent report about the Nagas, which appeared in The Observer of London in dispatch from a special correspondent published in its issue of 23 February 1963:
"Reports from Nagaland reveal serious military repression both before and after the election for the new Naga State Assembly on 31 January."
The correspondent gives an eye-witness account, which I quote:
"On December 4, three villages were burnt and the populations were badly beaten. Women and children were not spared. A one-year-old child was snatched from its mother and its hand; broken in two."
This is not a statement by the Pakistan Government, but from The Observer. It goes on :
"Five people were beaten to death. Four others were shot. They were chosen because they were influential men in their society,"
Brutalities of this kind have been perpetrated on the Nagas for a long time. Sixteen years of aggression and terror have been visited upon this small Christian fortress in the eastern part of India. In spite of India's ruthless drive to crush the spirit of the Nagas, these brave people have fought and resisted all Indian in-roads against their liberation movement.
I come now to the other charges levelled against Pakistan by the representative of India. He began his speech by saying:
"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 act 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. (1113th meeting, para. 4.) Apparently, India's amusement and disgust are reserved for Pakistan alone and not for the other members of Western alliances, who recognize China and desire to promote normal relations with our country in the interests of world peace.
May I ask the representative of India what his own country is doing. It has one foot in the Communist camp and the other in the Western camp. It is dancing to both tunes. While it proclaims non-alignment with both, it exploits both, and each against the interests of the other. India accepts arms aid from both the Communist and non-Communist comps. India's arms are very long: it takes both from the West and from the East. Today, reports in The New York Times show that it is asking for massive military assistance from the United States. Can India then still claim to be a non-aligned country? And yet it has persistently denounced Pakistan for being a member of SEATO and CENTO, both of which are defensive alliances.
Whatever the changing world situation, India claims the change in its favour. Whatever the change, India interprets it as another reason to reinforce its hold on Kashmir. When Pakistan accepted United States military assistance, the situation in Kashmir underwent a change, according to India, in favour of India, so as to justify refusal to implement the right of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. When Pakistan Joined SEATO and CENTO the situation in Kashmir changed, according to India in favour of India, to reinforce its stand against the self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. When the world was divided into two cohesive camps, the situation in Kashmir, according to India, underwent a change in favour of India, to force the people of Jammu and Kashmir to remain bound to India against their wishes. Now, when India accepts military aid and has become aligned, the situation, according to India, has changed in favour of India, precluding the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine their future freely and in accordance with their wishes. And today, when the patterns of alignment and non-alignment have altered radically, the situation, according to India, has changed in favour of India, permitting it to absorb and devour Kashmir as an integral part of India. Thus, whatever the change, one fact stands out except to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
To India. there is no such thing as the objective merits of claims. The Greeks of old had their sophists and the Middle Ages their schoolmen. The modern world has the practitioners of statecraft from modern, democratic secular India.
What the preparatory meeting of the sponsors of the Second Asian-African Conference, which was held recently in Djakarta, has to do with the present debate in the Security Council would, perhaps, bewilder all of us. It is, however, obvious to my delegation why the representative of India, who has been a jurist and has invoked the rules of evidence, which he loves so much, should yet disregard those very rules by citing patent irrelevancies to the Security Council. He said:
"Pakistan, China and a few other countries" -why does he not admit it, why does he not say Indonesia, why does he not have the courage to say "Pakistan, China and Indonesia?"-"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 "[1113th meeting para. 4].
These statements are untrue; they are utterly untrue. They have been made in a blatant attempt to win favour for India in certain quarters by maligning and misrepresenting Pakistan.
I must state for the record, and state most clearly, what happened in the Djakerta meeting It is well known that the Government of India made every endeavour to prevent. The convening of a Second Asian-African Conference. When these attempts failed, the representatives of India descended on Djakarta. Two days before the end of the Preparatory Meeting, without any consultation or notice, India proposed that the Soviet Union should be invited to the Second Asian-African Conference. All delegations were taken somewhat by surprise as the USSR had not participated in the first Bandung Conference. While acknowledging the great contribution made by the Soviet Union to the struggles of African and Asian people against imperialism and colonialism, several countries expressed doubts as to whether the Soviet Union is an Asian Power. Other delegations wanted time to seek instructions from their Governments. I made it very clear on behalf of Pakistan that we were taking no position on the substance of the proposal, but that we needed time to consult Karachi and Rawalpindi. Therefore, it ill becomes the representative of India to say that Pakistan "ganged up" with a few other countries-he means Indonesia and Indonesia alone-"to deny to the USSR a place in the Asian world".
In regard to Malaysia, I expressly stated that Pakistan considered that Malaysia should be invited to the Second Asian-Afrien Conference as soon as possible. I made this statement on 14 April 1964 in the presence of the Indian delegation and other delegations which were present at that meeting. The representative of India has again accused Pakistan of handing over 2,000 square miles of territory "at other people's expense" to the People's Republic of China. Pakistan has not surrendered a single inch of territory to the People's Republic of China. The boundary negotiations, which took place in a spirit of mutual accommodation and compromise, resulted in the relinquishment of 750 square miles of territory by Chana in favour of Pakistan-territory which lies beyond the main axis of the Karakoram mountains which constitutes the principal watershed between the Indus and the Tarim River basins. This 750 square miles of territory was in the effective possession of China prior to the boundary agreement and had always been under Chinese jurisdiction and control. From the end of the nineteenth century, when the British rulers of India acquired control of the northern areas of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, never did they once exercise control or jurisdiction over the 2,000 square miles that Pakistan is accused of having surrendered to China or even over the 750 square miles of territory relinquished by the People's Republic of China to Pakistan. On the contrary, notes served by the former British Government of India to the Chinese authorities acknowledge the latter's title and sovereignty over this area, and these notes exist in the archives of the British and Pakistan Governments,
The representative of India ought to know that where frontiers are undefined, and territories have for centuries remained in the possession of the other side, it is fantastic to talk of "surrender" of a territory which one has never possessed and to which it is not possible to put forward claims under the rules and customs known to international law. There has been a net acquisition of territory. What the representative of India has said about the surrender of 2,000 square miles of Pakistan is another example of auto -suggestion to which his Government is so susceptible.
The Sino-Pakistan Boundary Agreement has been hail: o throughout the world by the Government and the Press as a statesmanlike settlement. Let me reiterate that the Sino
The Pakistan Boundary Agreement does not affect the status of the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It does not derogate from the imperative of demilitarization of the State as required by the resolutions of the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan. It does not detract one jot or tittle from the right of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Article six of the Boundary Agreement specifically safeguards all these matters. Let me quote this article:
"The two Parties have agreed that after the settlement of the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, the sovereign authority concerned will reopen negotiations with the Government of the People's Republic of China, on the boundary, as described in Article two of the present Agreement of Kashmir so as to sign a Boundary Treaty to replace the present Agreement.
"Provided that in the event of that sovereign authority being Pakistani, the provisions of this Agreement and of the aforesaid Protocol shall be maintained in the formal Boundary Treaty to be signed between Pakistan and the People's Republic of China."
It was not necessary for us to introduce this provision, but we did it only because we knew that this dispute was in the Security Council and it had to be determined by this world Organization. We left the proviso there that if the Security Council or if the plebiscite were to be determined in favour of India, India would have an opportunity and a legal right and legal claim to renegotiate the boundary agreement with the People's Republic of China.
The representative of India has again repeated the thesis which he put forward in the Security Council last February 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". [1113th meeting, para. 5].
Here we have yet another argument, conjured up by India as to why Kashmir must be held in bondage regardless of the right of self-determination and the solemn international agreement to respect that right to which India is pledged. The representative of India maintains that Kashmir has not assumed vital importance for India's defence against China. Here then, is a dangerous doctrine. Self-determination and sanctity of international agreements must give way to the considerations of military strategy and the neocolonial avarice of India. The members of the Security Council have only to cast a glance at the map of the region to realize the hollowness of this contention. It is not through Ladakh or Kashmir that the security of India can or will be threatened. There are easier and more obvious invasion routes to the heart of India. In the name of the defence of India, India seeks to negate the Charter of the United Nations by invoking the doctrine of real politic. Who is speaking the language of Hitler and Goebbels? Which country has taken a leaf out of the infamous pages of Mein Kampf?
You must hold the people of Kashmir in bondage because you fear that you cannot defend India adequately against China unless and until you chain the people of Kashmir. Today you want to chain the people of Kashmir. Tomorrow you will want to chain the people of Nepal, of East Pakistan and of West Pakistan in order for you to defend yourselves against Communist China. This is the most dangerous and most notorious doctrine that has been propounded in the Security Council.
For many years India has sought to project her image. abroad as a country which is working to prevent war, to reduce world tension, to wipe out colonialism and to espouse the rights of small States against the great Powers. But from time to time the reality behind this image becomes exposed. The representative of India, carried away by the violence of his distribes against Pakistan, invokes doctrines which stronger States propound to impose their will on weaker ones. Imperialism has found no difficulty in clothing itself with philosophical justification for the evil that it inflicts. In 1962, in a diplomatic note addressed to the Chinese Government the Government of India formally stated that it had a common. border with the People's Republic of China right from the Pamir Mountains in the north-west to the borders of Burma, thereby claiming that not only Kashmir, but also Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and even parts of Burma were within the borders of India. This false and outrageous claim, like the one now made by the representative of India, was also a revelation of the inner thinking of the Government of India that all the neighbouring smaller States and territories must remain within the Indian sphere of influence or domination because they are "necessary" to the defence of India against China.
You may usurp and devour all the smaller States, but you can never, under any circumstances, dominate the spirit of the people of Pakistan. They will always stand by the liberation of the people of Kashmir and all the smaller States, in the name of the liberty and freedom of the people of those regions.
The world is perhaps not ignorant of the reasons why India strikes the posture of a nation bent on recovering by war territory from China. This stance is, of course, intended to impress the Western Powers while, simultaneously, negotiations for a peaceful settlement are carried on by proxy through the Colombo Powers with the People's Republic of China. This dual policy-to talk publicly of war with China and at the same time to put forward privately proposals for a negotiated settlement of the Sino-Indian border dispute-is obviously pursued to obtain the best of both worlds and, in particular, to procure massive military assistance from the Western world while maintaining a facade of non-alignment: How long can the world be taken in by such double-faced conduct ?
India looks upon the problem of Kashmir as a case in property law, a case of real property. In the revealing analogy drawn by the Minister of Education of India, his country's position in Kashmir is that of the rightful owner of a house, deed and title to which have been duly assigned and delivered to India by the previous owner, the Maharaja of Kashmir. The Minister of Education of India found it appropriate to describe Pakistan's role in Kashmir as that of a burglar. But Pakistan comes before this council not as a burglar nor as a self-proclaimed proprietor, nor as a feudal lord of Kashmir. We come here, and have come before you year after year, with the simple proposition that Kashmir is not a piece of property, that its fate is not to be sealed or signed through any instrument of accession, deed of transfer or other such transaction that has to be registered in a court of law, that it is rather the free-will of the inhabitants-Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or Christians-and their free will alone, which has to be determined and decided. It is not real estate, it does not involve property law and it does not have to be registered in a court of law. It is the will of the people that has to be determined.
Over the years, India has sought here, before this organ of international peace and in the world at large, to establish its proprietary right over Kashmir. It has tried to spin a web of pseudo,legalistic arguments in which to entangle forever the people of Kashmir. The voice of Kashmir, so long muted, is heard again, telling India clearly and unmistakably that Kashmir is not property, nor its 4,000,000 people loot or booty, that the right of self-determination must prevail, and it must prevail in Kashmir as it has prevailed elsewhere. The Minister of Education of India complains that the Council's consistent support of this principle over the years is to be ascribed to nothing but the blindness of some and the indulgence of others. Let him not deceive himself in seeking to deceive the world.
It is too late for India to seek sympathy for the doctrines which, in the last century, apportioned the countries of Asia and Africa among alien "owners". Today the world is on guard against attempts to appropriate territory on the basis of self-promulgated laws, for the self-appointed task of good governance, or on the pretext of national defence and strategy.
The Minister of Education of India addressed a set of questions to the members of the Council regarding the rights of Pakistan in Kashmir. The Council is, by word and deed, given clear answers to these questions. The Council may wish once again to remind the Education Minister of India of the resolutions adopted by it in the past on the question of Jammu and Kashmir.
The world-wide support given to the cause of justice and the rights of the people in Kashmir is not a certificate of good character to Pakistan. Pakistan seeks no such certificates, much less is it my intention to follow the example of my colleague from India in myself giving a certificate of good character to my own country. I shall gladly leave to him the enjoyment of the solitary virtues of self-righteousness and self-esteem. I leave it to our friends in Africa and Asia to ponder over the invitation extended to them to "look askance" at Pakistan's support of African-Asian cause because of Pakistan's membership of SEATO and CENTO. I will refrain also from going into the nature of India's non-alignment, its expediency, its practical utility and profitability on which the world has gained new insights in the last few years. As for Pakistan's alignment and alliances, the truth is plain for all to see that they have not stood in the way of Pakistan in its pursuit of its policy of friendship with all countries of the world, irrespective of their ideology, political beliefs or social systems. Nor have our engagements towards our allies prevented us from taking issue with them on questions of principle. Our support for the freedom movements in Africa and Asia has never wavered.
As regards apartheid, we have opposed this evil doctrine since the beginning side by side with all right thinking countries, not excluding India. Of course, since Pakistan, like the vast majority of African and Asian countries, was not a member of the United Nations in 1946, we are not in a position to claim the chronological honour of being the first to have raised the issue in the United Nations.
The representative of India was anxious to disclose that all trade relations between Pakistan and South Africa have not yet ceased. We are not here discussing apartheid or the question of sanctions against South Africa. These matters have been discussed in other forums and, as shortly after the present debate terminates, the Security Council will turn its attention to finding ways and means of compelling South Africa to end its intransigence and its persistent disregard of United Nations resolutions on the matter. On the question of Pakistan's trade with South Africa, I would like to put on record-and this is of course already widely known through the letter addressed by Pakistan to the Secretary-General-that while import and commercial relations of all kinds between Pakistan and South Africa have been completely banned, the questions of stopping Pakistan's exports to South Africa is receiving the most active and urgent attention of my Government. In passing, I would like to draw the attention of the members to the document dated 5 March 1964 which contains statistical tables of South Africa's foreign trade. A study of this document shows, India's so-called boycott notwithstanding, that India continues to trade with South Africa.
We have, in our previous statements before the Security Council, already dealt with the lack of legality in the Maharajas' accession to India and with the fact that the accession of Kashmir to Pakistan or to India can be decided only by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. By saying that the accession to India, affected by the Maharaja, makes Kashmir irrevocably a part of India, India knows, or should know, that India does not establish any link between India and Kashmir, because no link can be established by pseudo-arguments But what India does by this kind of rhetoric is to bring into question the very basis of India's nationhood, to throw into doubt the nexus that holds the Indian nation together. Kashmir is no part of India: therefore, by allowing it to decide its own future, India does not suffer th: loss or secession of a part of it, and the Indian nation as such remains inviolate. But by opposing Kashmir's act of self-determination, by equating Kashmir with the constituent States of India, Madras for example, by saying that if Kashmir goes, Madras will also go, India will not keep Kashmir but it might weaken its link with Madras. It is not by fulfilling a pledge solemnly given by its government in an international agreement that India will lose its integrity. It is by opposing the fulfilment of this pledge that India runs a risk of disintegration.
Let the Indian representative pretend as much righteous indignation as he may, the fact remains that we do not seek the disintegration of the Indian Union. What we seek is a conformity to the principles of the Charter, a scrupulous discharge of international commitments, and a recourse to concrete methods and procedures for the settlement of international disputes. What we seek is a practical demonstration of the principle of the sovereign equality of nations in the sub continent. What we seek is the restoration of the equipment in the relations between India and Pakistan will remove grievances and banish fear from the mind of each other. In sum, what we seek is the abandonment of those policies of the Indian Government which, contrary to the principles of organized international life, not only weaken India's moral fibre but also act as a drain on its strength.
There is one lesson written in the history of the post colonial a e. It is that when imperialist Powers have gracefully renounced their colonies, they have not lost but gained in strength. They have gained in it, not only in moral terms, but in prestige; not only in greater coherence of national life, but also in concrete terms of economics. By maintaining the possession of a land which resents this possession, by stifling the personality of a people whose affiliations lie elsewhere, a country drains its resources and dissipates its strength.
I have been accused by the Indian representative of threatening a breach of the peace in the event that India again resorts to the suppression of the people in Jammu and Kashmir by force. We ask that the situation in Kashmir be brought under the control of the United Nations. Would a nation that intended to resort to force and want a situation to be brought under the control of the United Nations ?
The representative of India says that Pakistan is Working for a breach of the peace. The peace plan for Kashmir, as embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, is not a breach of the peace. Is our consistent adherence to these resolutions a preparation for the breach of the peace? What prevents final and definite settlement on the Kashmir problem? Our attitude or India's attitude? We ask for an impartial investigation of the situation in Kashmir. Is that a threat ? We ask for negotiations which should be sincere and constructive and meaningful, and that attempts be made to bring about that negotiation. Is that a threat ? We ask for mediation with such precise terms of reference as will give an impetus to negotiations and make them coherent and peaceful. Are we then threatening a breach of the peace? We declare ourselves as willing to submit certain points of difference to arbitration. Are we then working for a breach of the peace? We ask that the resources of the United Nations should not be left untapped for the resolution of the problem; we urge that its procedures be not rejected. Is that a threat of war from us? India prevents investigation, India impedes negotiations; India blocks mediation; India rejects arbitration: and, to crown it all, the Indian representative says that any assistance given by the United Nations or its high personality, in the settlement of this dispute is intervention by a third party. The methods of peaceful settlement embedded in the United Nations system and prescribed by the Charter are the only alternatives to war. India blocks these alternatives. Is it not then provoking war ?
It was an Indian representative who, speaking in a different context, once charged that a certain foreign Power had and I quote: "consistently violated international law and the United Nations Charter which forced India to take action by barring all other avenues". Is that not precisely what India is doing in the Kashmir dispute ? Is it not "barring all other avenues'' by rejecting every one of the methods of the pacific settlement of disputes ? India protests even against the Security Council exercising its persuasive powers for the resolution of this dispute. What consequence would naturally follow from this attitude? It is one of our basic difficulties with India that India adopts a certain attitude and takes certain actions of which the consequences can be easily foreseen, but then it blames those consequences on others.
Of course, the Education Minister of India made the generous offer, towards the end of his speech, that India will find it possible to discuss with Pakistan our outstanding differences when a better atmosphere is established.
Here again, we are confronted with the basic malady in the relationship between India and Pakistan. India demands a better atmosphere, but blocks every move and every step that would bring about that better atmosphere. The question disturbs us and it should concern the Security Council. What does India mean by a better atmosphere? Does it not take two to establish a better atmosphere? Does it not require a sincere and constructive effort for the settlement of disputes ? Does it not necessitate a recourse to the methods laid down in the Charter for the purpose? If not, are we supposed to undergo a catharsis which will qualify us for meaningful negotiations with India? And is this atmosphere a matter of subjective judgement by India ?
By making a better atmosphere the condition for talks, when it can be only their result, India does something worse than putting the cart before the horse: it is making it impossible for the two countries to make even a beginning towards the settlement of the dispute.
It has been our experience during the last seventeen years that, no matter how hard we try to establish an atmosphere of moderation between India and Pakistan, our attempts are un done by the lack of any progress towards the settlement of the dispute between Jammu and Kashmir. This happened in 1950; it happened in 1953 and 1954; it happened in 1956, and it was what made the sustained endeavour of our President from 1958 to 1961 to place the relationship of India and Pakistan on a neighbourly basis a wholly one-sided effort by Pakistan. Now that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is coming to a head, it would be fatuous to expect, and sheer hypocrisy to promise, a better atmosphere unless the dispute is moved rapidly towards a peaceful and honourable settlement.
Members of the Security Council will recall that, on numerous occasions, India's representatives have taken the line that Pakistan has no locus standi in the problem of deciding Kashmir's future. Now, the Indian representative informs us that, on this problem. Kashmir has no locus standi either, for he has taken the line that a leader of the people of Kashmir should have nothing to say on the problem.
It is to be borne in mind in this context that when India argues that the integration of Kashmir with the Indian Union is India's internal constitutional matter, it is saying in effect that, in this matter, the Security Council has no locus standi. So India robs us of all of our locus standi. There exists an international agreement regarding the disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. According to India, neither Pakistan, the other party to the agreement, nor Kashmir, the party that is most affected by the agreement, nor the Security Council, the organ under whose authority the agreement was concluded, has any locus standi. Only India has a locus standi in Kashmir. Could any country be more determined against a settlement of the dispute by peaceful means?
In regard to the opinions of Sheikh Abdullah on the central issue of the Kashmir dispute-namely, self-determination, accession, plebiscite, passage of time, integration and negotiations for a peaceful settlement, which I quoted in my statement to the Security Council on 5 May 1964 [1112th meeting]-the representative of India tells us that these opinions are not admissible evidence and that only what the Kashmiri leader stated between 1947 and 1949 has any value as evidence.
I am aware that the representative of India has long experience of the application of the Indian Evidence Act, but may. I remind him that he and I are not engaged in proceedings in a court of law in either his country or mine. We are discussing Kashmir and the implementation of the right of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir in the forum of the Security Council. This is their inalienable human and political right, to be exercised as an act of their free and collective will.
As the representative of India is so wedded to rules of evidence and the Indian Evidence Act, may I remind him that the statements of Sheikh Abdullah before the Security Council in 1948 and 1949, as well as those which he made in 1952, were not part of the transaction of the so-called accession. Therefore, those statements are not admissible under the strict rules of the Evidence Act which he has applied in the Indian courts for so long. On the other hand, if the statements made by Sheikh Abdullah long after the accession, in 1948, 1949 and 1952, quoted by the representative of India, are relevant, then his most recent statements which I quote on 5 May 1964 are even more relevant to the present situation in Jammu and Kashmir which is the subject of this series of Security Council meetings.
If the representative of India considers that the rules of evidence should be applied strictly in this international forum, if he were presiding as a judge in the Security Council instead of you, Mr. President. Why does he not agree to let Sheikh Abdullah appear to testify before the Council as to what exactly are his views on the central issue of the Kashmir dispute? I request the Council again to invite Sheikh Abdullah to appear before it and hear from him directly what he has to say.
In my statement on 5 May 1964 I quoted extensively from Sheikh Abdullah's recent statements and summarized the affirmations contained in them. The point of my quoting these affirmations was that they have been massively acclaimed by the people of Kashmir. It is the acceptance and acclamation of these statements by the people of Jammu and Kashmir, as much as their content, that furnishes a true indication of the situation existing in Jammu and Kashmir today. In fact, these statements are the most faithful reflection we have of that situation and, therefore, they are an essential part of the record before the Security Council. Unable to face them, The Minister of Education of India has attempted to negate their effects by two arguments. The first is that "the opinions of any person, however distinguished eminent, cannot alter or affect the question of the status of a territory" [1113th meeting, para, 18]. The second rests on Sheikh Abdullah's previous statements made from 1947 to 1952. I shall deal with both these arguments.
As regards the first argument, it is evidently not applicable here. The affirmations made by Sheikh Abdullah are important because, far from being the voice of one individual, they echo the unanimous demand of the five million people of Jammu and Kashmir. Moreover, these affirmations are made by the person who was cited by India itself as having supported the Maharajah's accession to India. The records of the Security Council bear out that, in India's original representation to the Security Council made on 1 January 1948. Sheikh Abdullah was specifically mentioned as the leader who appealed for help to India. Surely then, Sheikh Abdullah should be able to throw a good deal of light on the terms and assumptions of this appeal. Indeed, even in the statement of the Indian representative on 7 May 1964 there is again a recognition of Sheikh Abdullah's status. The Indian representative has said that the accession was "accompanied... by the consent of the people expressed through Sheikh Abdullah who was the leader of the largest party in Kashmir" (1113th meeting, para 31). Surely, then, it is important to get a description of the nature of this consent from the person who is supposed to have expressed it.
As regards Sheikh Abdullah's previous statements made from 1947 to 1952, I am glad that the Indian Minister of Education brought them on record again. A juxtaposition of these statements with those that Sheikh Abdullah has made since and those which he is making now only helps one to realize how cruel must have been the disillusionment, how sharp the sense of betrayal, which Sheikh Abdulla4 suffered because of India's continued occupation of Jammu and Kashmir in breach of its commitments. Far from weakening Sheikh Abdullah's current stand, his previous statements reinforce it by demonstrating that this stand is not based on any prejudice or any preconceived notions, but is the result of experience.
During his statement, the representative of India quoted Sheikh Abdullah's statement of 17 April 1964, and, even in that statement, there occurs a sentence: "It is the Government of India which I feel has gone back from its commitments... (1113th meeting, para. 34). This is Sheikh Abdullah's statement of 17 April 1964 being quoted by the Indian Minister. The Education Minister read the sentence and added: "that is another matter". The point here is, and Sheikh Abdullah would be the first to make it, that this is not another matter. It is the very heart and core of the Kashmir issue that India has gone back on its commitments.
Apart from this, there is another aspect of Sheikh Abdullahs' statements which needs to be borne in mind. It has been brought out by Sheikh Abdullah himself. According to the Indian Express, Bombay of 4 May 1964, Sheikh Abdullah was asked whether it was not a fact that he had been responsible for the Maharajah's accession to India. The question, in fact, was how he could square his statements then with his statements now. His answer was:
"Yes, I supported accession to India before 1953. But it is not bringing peace to the sub-continent. When it did not bring peace to the sub-continent, what value did it have ?"*
The representative of India also tried to take comfort from a recent statement of Sheikh Abdullah that a plebiscite was not the only method for ascertaining the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. But, unfortunately for the Indian representative, this statement has now been clarified by Sheikh Abdullah and, as explained by him, it does not lend the slightest support to India's argument against a plebiscite. According to the Hindustan Times of 7 May 1964, Sheikh Abdullah said that elections could be a solution of the dispute, if they were fair and free and organized by a neutral third party so that nobody could point a finger at India. He added that India, being an interested party, should not be in Kashmir if and when elections were held and that the result of these elections must be acceptable to Pakistan: otherwise no purpose would be served. He further said that there should be a disengagement of the forces of India and Pakistan preceding these elections; other-wise the present tension would continue
I believe that this statement of Sheikh Abdullah should invite some reflection on the part of the Indian representative. Sheikh Abdullah lays down the following conditions for elections being a solution of the problem: first, they must be free and fair; secondly, they must be organized by a neutral third party; thirdly, Indian forces should withdraw from Jammu and Kashmir to enable those elections to be impartial; fourthly, their result must be acceptable to Pakistan and fifthly must be preceded by the disengagement of the forces of India and Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir. What is this formula except a restatement of the principles of the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan ? These provide that a plebiscite should be preceded by the withdrawal of the forces of India and Pakistan from Jammu and Kashmir and should be held under the direction and control of the United Nations to ensure its fairness, freedom and impartiality. The condition cannot be avoided that a settlement must be based on the wishes of the people which are impartially ascertained and are visibly so ascertained.
I must recall here that, in my statement of 17 March 1964 [1104th meeting] I said that if one were to consider the Kashmir problem as it has arisen now, not in 1948, but today, and would embark on a search, however pragmatic, for an equitable settlement, one would be driven to the conclusion that there is only one way-the way of finding out what the people of Jammu and Kashmir themselves want. I added that one would thus be driven to write again the substance of the resolutions. Sheikh Abdullah's statement about what conditions are essential for ascertaining the wishes of the people brings out the truth of my submission. The representative of India tried to make much of the argument that Sheikh Abdbllah's release establishes that there is democracy and freedom in India and that the Government of India is perfectly confident that the situation is normal in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This argument had been anticipated by numerous statements made by the spokesmen of the Government of India. All of them expressed the hope that the release of Sheikh Abdullah would wash India of all the taint that it has borne for eleven years and would help its case in the Security Council.
Unfortunately, however, these statements only serve to strengthen the conclusion that-as I said in my last statement--this act of releasing Sheikh Abdullah was not a gesture of magnanimity on India's part. They corroborate the comment in The Economist of London, of 4 April 1964-which I then quoted that the Indian Government has not had a sudden rush of liberalism to the head. There is no change of heart on the part of India and that there is no ground for the members of the Security Council to feel that, by releasing Sheikh Abdullah, India might have made a gesture towards reconciliation with Pakistan and towards the resolution of the conflict in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Indian representative demonstrates before us that this act is purely a manoeuvre-the Prime Minister of India has called it a "calculated risk"-to prove normality where none exists. It is obvious that their hope, at the time of releasing Sheikh Abdulla was that he would "blow off steam" and then subside, and the situation in Jammu and Kashmir would thus simmer down. This hope is already being falsified by events. I referred to certain developments in Kashmir in my last statement. The Indian representative has vehemently denied by statement that a curfew was imposed last week in several towns in Jammu and Kashmir. Let me assure him that my statement was based on information obtained, not from our sources but from the Indian newspapers. According to The Statement of Delhi of 9 May 1964, there were demonstrations in Srinagar on last Friday, shouting, "Hold a plebiscite immediately". The Indian representative argues, "Well, there are demonstrations, so what?" The answer is that these demonstrations do not signify merely dissatisfaction with this or that policy of the Indian Government; they are not in protest against this or that administration. They signify rebellion against India's occupation of the State. The Indian representative reminds us that demonstrations take place in all democratic countries. But he evidently shies away from the fact that there is a basic difference between normal demonstrations in democratic countries and those that are taking place in Jammu and Kashmir. If demonstrations are the expression of a specific grievance, or if they protest against a specific policy, they are normal demonstrations. But when they are held by the people of a territory the status is in dispute, to reject an annexation forced on them and to demand that they be enabled immediately to decide their status by a plebiscite, what are they then except a revolt?
Actually, the unspoken point in the Indian argument is that the revolt in Jammu and Kashmir is unarmed and that, if it goes on, India has an overwhelming military might in Jammu and Kashmir to suppress it. That is the root of the confidence that the Indian representative expresses here. But what does this point do except bring out the explosive nature of the present situation. When, in reality India relies on her military might, India compels all those who sympathize with the revolt of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to conclude that nothing is so urgently desirable as effective resistance against the forces of suppression in Jammu and Kashmir.
In countering my statements about the revolt in Kashmir the Indian representative supported his argument by the observation that there is complete inter communal unity in Jammu and Kashmir. This is an astonishing reply. That the Indian representative should rely on this argument shows to what straits he has been driven by points of logic. If Hindus and Moslems live at peace with each other in Jammu and Kashmir-we are proud and gratified that they do-does it mean that they do not resent India's occupation of the State ? What has inter communal unity to do with the demand of the people of Kashmir that they are enabled to decide their future. for themselves ?
Apart from this, it is obvious that it is not the ventilation of the demand in Kashmir, but its fulfilment alone that can bring about normality. Apart from suppressing the people by force for many years, the Indian Government has been driven to the point where it feels that force is not enough. The present situation is merely that it is resorting to other means to frustrate the people's demand. It is not doing anything to meet this demand. So long as it does not do so, the protestations of freedom and democracy are not only baseless but, in the face of the combined voice of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, utterly irrelevant.
The Indian representative harps on the differences of outlook between India and Pakistan. Let me tell him that he does not enhance his country's reputation by these assertions. We in Pakistan have our faults, and I suppose that, in the final analysis, they can be overcome only by greater education, enlightenment and economic advance. But whatever they are, they are open, perhaps even blatant, and therefore eradicable.
That Indian representative's statement is a demonstration of the fact that there is something in the Indian mentality which is insidious and therefore impenetrable. It is a mentality so wrapped in national conceit, so enfolded in a holier than thou attitude, that it is small wonder that we in Pakistan sometimes succumb to despair about the future of our relations with our neighbour. They know that fanaticism is stalking their land; they know that their democracy so far is not more than a facade because it is not yet based on the habits of tolerance, yet they come here treating us to sermons about the loftiness of their society and of their souls.
We do not claim Kashmir on the ground that we are a better society. The United Nations is not here to award Kashmir as a prize for better performance either to India or to Pakistan. We say that, whatever we Indians are, ask the Kashmiris whom they want to join. are and whatever Let India marshal all its arguments against Kashmir's accession to Pakistan, but let these arguments be addressed to the people of Jammu and Kashmir at the time of plebiscite, and let them
decide. If India believed in democracy, it would have long
ago accepted this challenge. Members of the Security Council will have noticed how the Indian Minister for Education has reacted to the peace appeal that I made at the conclusion of my remarks on 5 May 1964 [1112th meeting]. When I pleaded with India that an end must come to our bitterness, that there is a time for struggle and a time for settlement, I meant every word of what I said. The Indian representative spurned and even ridiculed my appeal, but I must inform him that he has not provoked me into withdrawing it. I again transmit the message of my people to the people of India that it is within our power to transform the climate of our two countries, not by waving a magic wand, but by recourse to those concrete procedures which alone can rationally bring about the resolution of international conflicts.
We do not make it a condition for the settlement of our disputes that India must get rid of its caste system, we do not make it a condition that India should abandon its mythology, renounce its whole philosophy and reorientate its entire culture We take India as it is and its outlook and aspirations as they stand, and we seek a modus vivendi with it which, once established, might develop into a normal relationship.
We may be theocratic or mediaeval or backward, but we offer India those ways and means of establishing operational relationships between our two countries which are eminently secular and modern. What credit can be given to protestations of secularism and modernity if one is impervious to the counsels of mediation and conciliation and arbitration-all modern and secular ways of regulating international life? Let the Indian representative ponder this question and not be too preoccupied with the thought that I am putting it to him.