04091965 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Parthasarthi (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1237 held on 4 September 1965.
04091965 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Parthasarthi (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1237 held on 4 September 1965.
Mr. President, as one newcomer to another, may I at the outset take this opportunity to convey to you the warmest congratulations of my Government and also my own on your appointment as your country's chief representative to the United Nations. My delegation looks forward to close and friendly collaboration and co-operation with you and the United States delegation. You bring to your present post a record of high and distinguished services to your country and to your people, and my delegation is indeed very happy to see you here. Now, to follow the advice of your very distinguished and famous predecessor, the late Governor Stevenson, let us get on with the work that lies ahead of us.
First of all, I must express the gratitude of my delegation to you. Mr. President, and to the members of the Council for inviting us to take part in the proceedings of the Council on the serious situation that has arisen as a result of Pakistani aggression on the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. This meeting has not been called at our instance, but since it has been called I owe it to the members of the Council to present the related facts to the Council in as brief and concise a manner as possible. It shall be my endeavour to assist the Council in arriving at correct conclusions and taking correct steps, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and the generally accepted principles of international law
As the representatives are aware, the India-Pakistan question, as it euphemistically called, has been on the agenda of the Council for nearly eighteen years. It was in January 1948 that India first brought the question to the Council on the issue of Pakistani aggression on the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. Incidentally, it may interest the members of the Council to know that it was my father who brought the issue here. Now it has fallen to me to bring to your attention the second massive aggression against Kashmir,
Since 1948, the issue has remained on the agenda without a satisfactory solution. Why has there been no satisfactory solution? It is primarily because the Council refuses to face the simple fact of aggression by Pakistan. It was deliberately sidetracked, confused and befuddled by Pakistan's claims which have no justification in law or even political exigency. Be that as it may, the Council has once again the opportunity to do justice to itself and to India. It is the hope of the 475 million people of India that this time the Council will refuse to be sidetracked, confused or befuddled. As the representatives are aware, after the Pakistani aggression on the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947-1948, a cease-fire was arranged between India and Pakistan and it became effective on 1 January 1949. The cease-fire agreement imposed the clear and unambiguous obligation on the two countries to respect the cease-fire line established by the agreement.
What has been the conduct of the two parties in relation to the agreement and the line? The cease-fire agreement did not lead to the vacation of Pakistan's aggression on the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. In fact, it allowed Pakistan to remain in occupation of two-fifths of the State. Despite this continuing aggression, the Government of India has always endeavoured to respect the cease-fire agreement. It has spared no efforts to maintain peace and tranquility all along the cease fire line. It has cooperated with the United Nations Chief Military Observer, accepted every reasonable proposal made by General Nimmo and, what is more, the Government of India itself prepared a gentleman's agreement to ensure respect for the cease-fire line for discussion with Pakistan. What has been Pakistan's attitude towards the cease-fire agreement ? I could quote to you innumerable extracts from statements by the leaders of Pakistan, the leaders of the so called Azad Kashmir, which is a euphemism for that part of the State which is under the illegal occupation of Pakistan, and thousands of inflammatory newspapers reports from Pakistan to prove that Pakistan did not wish to respect the sanctity of the line. All this I could quote to you, but I shall not do so at this time in extenso. It will suffice to give you a few samples.
Here is an extract from the Pakistani newspaper Dawn of 29 August 1961, which states:
"President Ayub Khan emphasized that the people of Pakistan could not forget Kashmir because the present Cease-Fire Line was a constant source of danger to Pakistan rail, river and road system, and provided innumerable defence problems."
The same newspaper in its edition of 23 March 1962 had the following:
"President Ayub Khan, referring to the Cease-Fire Line, said: 'Is it any rational line? What does it indicate ? Is it an outcome of war? What purpose does it serve ? Does it serve any strategic or economic or other interests' ?"
Mr. Bhutto, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, told a news conference on 19 May 1962 at Dacca :
"Pakistan now realized that the Kashmir problem will have to be settled by our intrinsic strength, and the Kashmiris may rise to the same heights as the Algerians."
The Dawn of Karachi in its edition of 21 October 1963 had a story under the headline, "Force will be met with force: Habibullah Khan warns India". Mr. Habibullah Khan, then the Home Minister of Pakistan, stated, among other things:
"Pakistan would give all possible assistance to the Azad Government of Jammu and Kashmir to meet Indian aggression against Azad territory. The Cease-Fire Agreement is a truce between the two armies of Pakistan and India and is no bar against the exercise of basic human rights by the people of Kashmir."
The Morning News of Dacca in its edition of 23 October 1963 had a story headlined: "Cease-Fire Line not binding on Kashmiris-Agreement was a truce". The newspaper quoted Mr. Khurshid, the erstwhile President of so-called Azad Kashmir, as saying:
"...the Cease-Fire Line in Kashmir was not binding on the people of Kashmir and that his Government did not recognize the Cease-Fire Line of 1949 as a dividing line between Azad Kashmir and Indian occupied Kashmir."
Mr. Khurshid went on to say that the freedom fighters in Kashmir State had nothing to do with this Agreement.
In this very Council, on 7 February 1964, the Minister for Foreign Affairs said:
"For India, the situation is simple. It is in possession of the major part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and would like nothing better than to be left alone. But we, seeing our kith and kin, our flesh and blood, suffer tyranny and oppression, shall we remain silent spectators ?" [1089th meeting, para. 80].
"That it is the restraining hand of the Pakistan Government alone which preserves peace in Kashmir-all the charges against us levelled by the Indian representative notwithstanding-is apparent from the repeated demands made by the Azad Kashmir Government, and the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference for the abrogation of the cease-fire agreement. These demands are not lightly made." [Ibid., para. 114].
Not only by their statements but also by their actions, the Government and the leaders of Pakistan have shown scant regard for the cease-fire agreement and the cease-fire line. Thousands of violations of the line have been brought to the notice of the United Nations Chief Military Observer, and he has given a sufficient number of awards against Pakistan to establish clearly that that country felt no compunction in violating the line. What is more, on at least three occasions, the Chief Military Observer made some suggestions to the Government of Pakistan for improving conditions on the cease-fire line.
In October 1963, the Chief Military Observer proposed to treat the activities of armed civilians and armed police within 500 yards on either side of the cease-fire line as a breach of the cease-fire agreement. India agreed; Pakistan rejected the suggestion. On 24 June 1964, the Chief Military Observer proposed a meeting between the military representatives of India and Pakistan to work out agreed principles for the control of civilians in the area of the cease-fire line. While India accepted the suggestion, so far Pakistan has not done so. On 8 March 1955, the Chief Military Observer again proposed a meeting between military representatives of India and Pakis fan in order to work out agreed principles for controlling the activities of the civilians in the area. On 26 March 1965, India agreed to the proposal. On 5 April, India was informed by the Chief Military Observer that a meeting would not be possible, since Pakistan was not agreeable to it.
In 1964, the Government of India itself proposed an official-level conference with Pakistan for the purpose of restoring tranquility along the cease-fire line and along India's international borders with Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan agreed to India's request for the conference and fixed a date for it. The Indian delegation was ready to leave for Karachi when suddenly Pakistan called off the talks at the last moment.
Over the years, Pakistan has perfected the technique of sending armed troops across the cease-fire line in civilian disguise. These armed civilians were in most cases part of Pakistan's regular or irregular troops. Even the so-called Mujahids-the so-called freedom fighters-were formed in June 1965 into a regularly constituted Pakistan Mujahid Force with commanding officers, junior commissioned officers, non commissioned officers and other ranks. According to the decision of the Government of Pakistan, units were to be raised on the order of the Commander-in-Chief and were normally to serve in districts in which they were raised. For certain legal purposes, they were to be deemed part of the Pakistan Army. So much for the so-called freedom fighters.
Now there is another category of armed troops in Pakistan, which is called the Azad Kashmir Reserve Force. That this Force is in no manner separate from the regular Pakistan Army is proved by the following extracts from the first interim report of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan: (a) "The Commission was repeatedly informed by you [the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan] and by the representatives of the Pakistan Army that the Azad Kashmir forces were under the overall control of the Pakistan High Command" (S/1100, para. 108); (b) "his [the Foreign Minister of Pakistan's] reply to a Commission questionnaire that all forces fighting on the Azad side were 'under the over-all command and tactical direction of the Pakistan army" [Ibid., para. 127]; (c) "In answer to the questionnaire placed by the Commission before the Government of Pakistan on 4 August 1948, the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated that the Pakistan Army is at present responsible for the over-all command...of Azad Kashmir forces" [Ibid., annex 27, appendix, para. 1 (b)]; (d) "During the expose made by the High Command of the Pakistan Army on 9 August 1948, it was stated that the Azad Kashmir forces were operationally controlled by the Pakistan Army". (Ibid, annex 27. appendix, para. 1 (c).)
An additional point in this connexion may be emphasized: the cease-fire agreement of 27 July 1949 is between the Governments of India and Pakistan and the United Nations. Commission. United Nations observers will bear out the fact that posts on the Pakistan side of the south-east line in the west and in the north have been manned by "Azad Kashmir'' battalions and Northern Scouts, all under the over-all control of the General Headquarter of the 12th Infantry Division of the Pakistan Army at Rawalpindi.
Let no member of this Council be under any illusion that whatever happens in Pakistan occupied Kashmir, be it in the military or in the civilian sphere, is not strictly under the control and direction and inspiration of the Government of Pakistan. The administration of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is run by the Kashmir Affairs Joint Secretary and other Pakistani officials seconded to the so called Azad Kashmir Administration. The periodical changes in the presidency of the so-called Azad Kashmir take place at the command of Rawalpindi.
This is the background of the invasion of Kashmir on 5 August 1965. On that day large bodies of Pakistan troops in civilian disguise fully armed with automatic weapons, supplied with rations and huge amounts of Indian currency, carrying transistors and propaganda literature, began to infiltrate across the cease-fire line and the international border into the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. The infiltration took place across the cease-fire line in several carefully selected sectors: up in the north, near Chakan, Keran and Tithwal: on the western sector of the line, at Uri, Punch, Mendhar, Rajori and Naushera. The infiltrators also crossed into the Chhamb and Samba sectors of the international border. The strength of the Pakistani troops who infiltrated across the cease-fire line in civilian disguise is estimated at about 5,000. They came to parties varying in number, some of them in groups consisting of 100 or 200 men. Their immediate objectives, according to the documents captured from them and statements made by prisoners, were to destroy bridges, police stations, petrol dumps and other important installations, and also to cut roads. Further, they were to capture the summer capital of the State, Srinagar, especially the adjacent airfield. Among their other objectives was the assassination of political and other leaders, as also the general terrorizing of the population by setting fire to schools, hospitals, etc., and attacking places of worship. They sought to conceal themselves in the forests and mountainous terrain, and some of the parties managed to reach the outskirts of the capital, Srinagar. There were attempts to cut the Srinagar-Leh road, which is India's vital line of communication with the north-eastern portion of the State. Large groups of these armed troops clashed with Indian Security Forces within a depth of five to ten miles of the cease fire line from Punch to Naoshera on the western sector of the line, Heavy casualties were inflicted on these men and large numbers of them surrendered themselves to the authorities. Mopping-up operations are in progress and the Indian Security Forces have tried to seal the main passes, cutting the cease fire line through which they came, and there is fear of other infiltrations. Large quantities of arms and equipment have been captured. There should be no doubt about the organized and deliberate manner in which the Pakistan Government. participated in this armed infiltration. The evidence of the complete involvement of the Pakistan Government-if such evidence is required-is illustrated by the presence of the President of Pakistan at the dinner in Murree, in West Pakistan, in the second week of July, in honour of the Force Commanders and Company Commanders who were to take part in the infiltration operations. The capture of large quantities of arms and ammunition, the nature and type of weapons carried by the men, the statements made by the officers and other ranks who were captured by the Indian Security Forces, the markings on some of the weapons seized, the messages. transmitted by men on the mobile transmitters which they carried, and above all, the very document before you-I refer to the report of the Secretary-General (S/6651)-all this should convince anyone who is willing to be convinced of Pakistan's direct complicity in this whole affair.
The weapons seized from the infiltrators consist of light machine guns, rifles, Sten-guns, grenades, rockets, rocket launchers, and large quantities of ammunition and explosives. The weapons, considering their range and the quantities of ammunition, could be supplied only by the Government of Pakistan. While some of the weapons carry markings to indicate their Pakistani origin, markings on others have been erased, clearly in order to conceal their origin. The Indian Security Forces have captured infiltrators with uniforms uncontestably belonging to the so-called Azad Kashmir batta lions, which, as I have stated earlier, are part of the Pakistan Army. Some of these armed troops in civilian disguise have been captured with badges showing their ranks and battalion badges marked "AKRF", that is, Azad Kashmir Reserve Force. From the accounts given by the captured prisoners, it is confirmed that the majority of the raiders belong to the regular Azad Kashmir battalions of the Pakistan Army.
The first interrogation of prisoners revealed that the planned training for the armed infiltration began in May 1965. Two of the officers who have been captured hold emergency commissions in the Pakistan Army. The prisoners have disclosed that a military headquarters was set up in Murree, in West Pakistan, under the command of General Akhtar Hussa n Malik, General Officer Commanding the 12th Division of the Pakistan Army. The headquarters was known as Military Headquarters ``Gibraltar Force"-what the word. "Gibraltar '' is supposed to indicate is anybody's guess. The prisoners also disclosed during interrogation that they had received over six weeks of systematic and intensive training in guerrilla tactics and the use of several weapons. They confirmed that their tasks were to try to damage bridges, raid supply pumps, army headquarters, roads, convoys of motor vehicles and mules belonging to the Indian Security Forces, and to assassinate the VIPs in Jammu and Kashmir. The transmitters and receivers which they carried were for the purpose of transmitting messages to Pakistan and receiving instructions from there.
One of the objectives of these Pakistani troops in civilian disguise, as I have stated earlier, was to cut roads and communications of vital and strategic nature. In pursuance of this objective, between 5 and 16 August 1965, Pakistani troops tried to cut the strategic road between Srinagar and Leh. They attempted to destroy bridges and lay mines on the roads and harass convoys of the Security Forces. As perhaps the members of the Council are aware, similar attempts were made earlier, and in May 1965 the Indian Army was forced to counter-attack the Pakistani troops in the Kargil sector, and captured three of their posts. This was done in order to ensure the safety of the road from Srinagar to Leh. However, as is stated in the report of the Secretary-General, on being assured by the United Nations that military observers would be posted in the sector to ensure the safety of the road, Indian forces withdrew from three posts at the end of June. During the course of the current invasion of the State, and for exactly the same reasons, Indian forces once again occupied the three posts. On two other sectors of the cease-fire line also. Indian forces have been forced, purely as a defensive measure, to cross the cease-fire line and to occupy the strategic points from the point of view of defence rather than of offence. These points are in the Tithwal and Uri sectors of the cease-fire line. While the mopping-up operations were going on, it was learned that a large number of Pakistani troops in civilian disguise had begun to concentrate on or near the cease fire line at certain points. The occupation by Indian forces of these points was therefore forced upon them, firstly, to seal off the routes of escape, and secondly, to prevent crossings of the cease-fire line by additional troops in civilian disguise from the Pakistan side.
This is the action which Pakistan claims has led it to cross the cease-fire line-the measures that we have taken in self-defence in the southern sectors on 1 September 1965. It is a blatant perversion of the truth. Having willed themselves into believing that as soon as their troops arrived at the scene, the people of the State would rise in open rebellion, having allowed themselves no doubts, having been misled by their own propaganda, the authorities of Pakistan could do no less than to order the massing of further troops in civilian disguise on or near the cease-fire line was ordered to provide cover to the troops massed on the cease-fire line in civilian disguise. This can be verified by glancing through the report of the Secretary General.
When even this served no purpose and the troops in civilian disguise already within the State began to be killed or captured or even to surrender, in large numbers, to the Indian security forces, on 1 September 1965 Pakistan took the ultimate step. Pakistani troops in regular attack formation and in brigade strength supported by armoured regiments which contained Patton tanks crossed the cease-fire line, indeed the international boundary, in the south-western part of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. The strength of the Pakistani troops who have crossed the cease-fire line, the support provided by the armoured regiments and by fast modern aircraft all this leaves no doubt that the attack was premeditated, well planned and in utter violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the generally accepted principles of international law and the cease-fire agreement
In spite of this overwhelming evidence which clearly proves that the invasion was organized by Pakistan and is directly controlled and conducted by it. Pakistan denies that it has any hand in the matter. As soon as the Government of India became aware of the serious nature of the invasion, it instructed its High Commissioner in Pakistan immediately to call on President Ayub Khan to impress upon him the gravity of the situation. The High Commissioner was asked to tell the President of Pakistan of the grave consequences which would follow if immediate steps were not taken to withdraw the troops, that is the troops in civilian disguise. The appointment was fixed for him with the President of Pakistan and he arrived in Rawalpindi. However, he was unable to see President Ayub Khan. Instead, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Bhutto, met him and told him blandly that Pakistan knew nothing about massive aggression of the cease fire line. It was an internal revolt of the people of the State against India, he said. This fiction continues to be maintained.
According to the Press release issued by the permanent mission of Pakistan to the United Nations on 1 September 1965, President Ayub Khan declared on that day, and I quote from the Press release :
"Referring to the popular revolt which broke out in the occupied Kashmir on 8 August 1965, the President said: 'The successes achieved by the freedom fighters have been. striking and their heroic deeds will be a source of inspiration to all those engaged in the struggle for freedom in different parts of the world. The torch of freedom lit by these patriots has been carried from village to village and city to city.''
Presumably, the Field Marshal was referring to his own troops who are supposed to be freedom fighters. But on 18. August 1965, the cat had already been led out of the bag by Chaudhuri Ali Akbar, the Home Minister of Pakistan, who said, and I quote from the Pakistan newspaper Dawn of 19. August 1965:
"The Minister said it was natural that the people of Azad Kashmir should have the fullest sympathy for their brethren in occupied Kashmir: who can question their right to go to their help? They have a right to be there".
The same newspaper in its edition of 20 August 1965 attributed the following statement to the Pakistan Foreign Minister:
"The cease-fire line, he said, was drawn only temporarily and it was there by an accident of history. It should have been farther down in occupied Kashmir."
To quote the newspaper Dawn again, the Pakistan Foreign Minister, replying to India's charge of Pakistani aggression in Kashmir, said:
"How could Pakistan commit aggression against its own people ? People living on the two sides of the cease-fire line were indivisible. They are our own people."
Finally, here is another statement attributed by the same paper to Mr. Bhutto: "As a matter of fact, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was Pakistani territory which India has usurped," First, the correspondent of The Times of London, in his dispatch which appeared in that paper on 11 August 1965, wrote: "There is no indication of any armed revolt by people on the Indian side as announced by Pakistan radio."
Secondly, the Baltimore Sun of 10 August 1965 carried a report from its correspondence in Srinagar in the following words:
"There is no evidence visible in or near the city to support the report from Pakistan of a popular uprising against India nor of repressive measures against the population.
The same correspondent stated :
"Highly reliable sources here"-that is, my Srinagar "confirmed the Indian statement that the guerrilla raids which broke out here a week ago are conducted by infiltrators from the Pakistani territory Political sources, hostile to the Indian Kashmir Government, agreed that there is no uprising of local residents. They said that their followers around the State report no signs of a revolutionary movement, which the Pakistan Government has said is operating in Indian Kashmir."
Thirdly, the correspondent of the Chicago Daily News, Mr. Paul Hurmuses, describing the Pakistani infiltrators as "marauding Pakistani guerrillas" in a dispatch on 12 August 1965, wrote:
"Pakistanis have infiltrated at several points along the 475 mile long, sixteen year old cease-fire line that is supposed to be supervised by the United Nations military. observers.
"The bold Pakistani movie climax a year of repeated military clashes and are by far the most serious since 1947, the year of independence for both India and Pakistan. Pakistan then sent waves of fierce Pathan fighters in a bid to seize all of the 86,000 square miles on the western flank of the Himalayas.
"This week's attacks were launched from the Azad Kashmir of the Pakistan side of the cease fire line.
"The United Nations observers on the scene have established the existence of the heavily armed infiltrators and have recorded a number of clashes between them and
Indians``. Fourthly, The New York Times of 14 August 1965 published the following dispatch from Srinagar :
"On the basis of most reports thus far, the infiltrators appear to have been recruited mainly among the people of Azad Kashmir rather than from among those of the Indian-held section of the disputed territory."
Is it surprising, therefore, that the only source from which glorified accounts of the revolt come is Pakistan ?
The people of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir are alleged to have set up a revolutionary council. There is no such revolutionary council. The leaders of even those political parties who are opposed to the Government of the State have testified to this. This figment of Pakistani imagination-the revolutionary council-is supposed to be calling for the liberation of the people from Indian rule over a radio station alleged by Pakistan to be located somewhere in the State. We know where the radio station is located. It is in the part of the State which has been illegally occupied by Pakistan. Further, the radio station is broadcasting on two frequencies
registered by Pakistan in its name with the international Frequency Registration Board. Pakistan has infiltrated the troops, provided them with arms, ammunition, food and Indian currency, established a revolutionary by council-incidentally, none of its leaders is named-supplied them with a radio station called the "Voice of Kashmir", and provided these infiltrators with heavy artillery cover. And now we are asked by Pakistan. to believe that the people of the State are in revolt against India.
Did these Pakistani troops in civilian disguise, who infiltrated across the cease-fire line, beginning 5 August 1965, achieve their objective? They did not. Due to the prompt action taken by the security forces, with which there was wholehearted cooperation from the local population, the Pakistani troops, although they were able to penetrate into the State at some points in considerable depth, failed miserably in all their objectives. What is more, these so-called libera tors, not receiving any support from the local population, in fact being hunted by many brave Kashmiris, wreaked their vengeance on innocent people-men, women and children-on those who refused to cooperate, thereby proving themselves to be what they really are: marauders employed by Pakistan to commit looting, arson, murder and rape, Is it necessary for my delegation to remind members of the Council of the close parallel between the invasion of 1947-1948 and that of 1965? Is it necessary to inform representative that, as in 1947-1948, so in 1965 the heinous acts of rapes plunder, arson, looting and murder have been committed by Pakistan troops? For the benefit of those representatives who were not in this Council when this matter was considered from 1948 onwards, I shall cite an instance.
On 10 August, in the village of Badgam, they set fire to two high schools. The inhabitants of the village who tried to put out the fire were fired upon by them.
On the night of 14 August, they started a fire in Baramula area on the outskirts of Srinagar, resulting in the destruction of 300 houses, Some of them with incendiary material in their possession were captured. A Pakistani radio broad
the cast admitted that this outrage was committed by Pakistani infiltrators. Another typical incident: A group of Pakistani troops entered a village and started firing and looting. When the Indian security forces arrived on the scene, they found that eleven villagers had been killed, four wounded and six houses burnt down.
Another ghastly incident: On 8 August, some girls from the village Nangam in the north-west of the Kashmir valley went to a nearby forest to collect firewood. They detected some Pakistani troops hiding there. The girls returned to the village and told their parents of this fact, who in their turn informed the authorities. A strong detachment of security forces was immediately sent to the forest and the surprised Pakistani troops fled, leaving behind substantial quantities of arms and ammunition. Next evening, the Pakistani troops suddenly returned to the village, surrounded it and started. looting the houses and violating the women. They wanted to make an example of the village for not cooperating with them. Four village leaders were bayoneted and, when the villagers protested, seventeen of them were shot at point-blank range. The Pakistani troops then set fire to the village and left with the looted property. The leaping flames attracted the attention of an Indian patrol, which immediately ambushed the Pakistani troops in the encounter, thirty-six of them were killed on the spot and many more injured.
The latest incident I know of occurred on Thursday last Pakistani aircraft-Saber jets-attacked a village in the Chhamb sector of Jammu and Kashmir with machine-gun fire and bombed it, killing about fifty persons. During the course. of the attack, the aircraft made a direct hit on a mosque. The name of the village is Jaurian.
The facts which I have recounted above, and which are amply supported by the document before the Council, can lead to only one conclusion. It is that Pakistan is once again guilty of aggression against the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the earlier stages, it was a disguised invasion, although the disguise was very thin. Now Pakistani troops in regular attack formation, supported by armoured regiments and fast jets obtained from its military allies, are operating five to six miles on the Indian side of the cease-fire line. The aggression is so patent and deliberate that for it to be condoned by this Council would be tantamount to repudiating the obligations assumed by its members under the Charter of the United Nations, the generally accepted principles of international law and, what is more, the cease-fire agreement which was arranged with the help of the United Nations itself. Through this deliberate aggression, Pakistan has torn the cease-fire agreement to shreds and reduced the cease-fire line to shambles. The only part of the resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948 [S/1100, para. 75] was ever implemented, although fitfully by Pakistan, was part 1 relating to the cease-fire. That agreement has now been denounced by Pakistan through its conduct. By sending troops across the cease-fire line in the thousands, Pakistan has nullified the line. The Security Council must therefore consider the facts of Pakistan aggression and now, at least, come to the correct conclusion. The conclusion is that by condoning the aggression of 1947-1948 the Council in fact, although unwittingly, gave some legal semblance to Pakistan's armed presence in a part of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. In this manner, Pakistan was given an excuse for continuing aggression and, what is more, for perpetrating further aggression.
On behalf of the Government of India, I formally demand of the Security Council to condemn Pakistan as an aggressor and to instruct it to withdraw from all parts of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Council must now allow itself once again to be put out of action by any excuses or subterfuges. It is the duty of the Council to make Pakistan confront the provisions of the Charter and inculcate in her the sense of good neighbourliness, a sense of justice and a desire and willingness to live in peace and harmony with India.
The PRESIDENT: In acknowledging the statement made by the representative of India, may I, first of all, on a personal note, thank him very much for his kind reference to me. In turn, may I welcome him on behalf of the Council. He has a distinguished and noble record in the service of his country in many capacities, and I am sure I express the sentiments of all when I say that I have no doubt that he will make an equally distinguished contribution to the great work of the United Nations.
I give the floor to the representative of Pakistan. Mr. Amjad ALI (Pakistan): May I express to you my delegation's felicitations, Mr. President, on presiding over this august body, the Security Council, for this month. I need not recount your great experience, ability and outstanding knowledge of law, as these are well known. I am confident that you will prove a most worthy successor of a very famous predecessor.
May I also express my gratitude to you, Mr. President, and to the Council for inviting my delegation to participate in the meeting. As I have not received any instructions from my Government, I reserve the right of my delegation to express its viewpoint on this matter, of supreme consequence to us, at a subsequent meeting of the Council.
I would like to state that the appeal made by the Secretary-General to the President of Pakistan is receiving the earnest consideration of my Government.
In regard to the statement we have just heard, for a minute I thought that India, having called the meeting, had inscribed its name as the first speaker. I will be extremely brief and will say that I strongly and totally repudiate the allegations made by the representative of India. There is not a single statement made by him which is not based on deliberate fiction and cannot be controverted by facts. These facts relating as much to India's traditional contempt for the Security Council's resolutions on Kashmir as to its contravention of the international agreement about the settlement of the Kashmir dispute, as to the more recent aggressive acts of India, the shelling of Awan Sharif, in West Pakistan itself; as to India's being the first to cross the cease-fire line in May, and as to the India air force's escalation of the conflict-are overwhelming.
My delegation reserves the right to answer India's false allegations in a definitive manner on occasion. a more appropriate