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.
I have already spoken-about my Government's position. in regard to this fresh aggression by Pakistan against the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, about the forbearance my Government has shown and the measures of self-defense that we have been forced to take.
The Council does not seem to be facing up to the simple issue of aggression. It is now considering a draft resolution sponsored by Bolivia, the Ivory Coast, Jordan, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Uruguay. We have just seen that draft resolution. Naturally, we have had no time to study it or refer it to our Government for instructions. The Council will appreciate that I am in no position to state my Government's reactions. However, I would like to offer some general comments.
Cease-fire is a very desirable objective, but it can come only after Pakistan has been condemned as an aggressor and the Council has instructed the Government of Pakistan to withdraw its troops, whether or not they are in uniform, from the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is only along these lines that a durable cease-fire will be possible.
In this context, I can do no better than to read out the text of the reply sent today, 4 September, by my Prime Minister to the Secretary-General :
"I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your message received on 2 September,
"I appreciate the considerations that have prompted you to address an appeal to us and to Pakistan. Our Permanent Representative in New York has been in frequent touch with you and has kept you informed of the situation as It has been developing since 5 August. I have no doubt that from all the information that you have received from the United Nations observers in Kashmir and on the basis of your own assessment, it is clear that the root cause of the present dangerous situation is the undertaking of massive infiltrations of armed personnel from the Pakistan side, well organized and trained in sabotage and subversive warfare, the whole operation being conceived, planned and executed by Pakistan. The infiltrators are, in fact, members of Pakistan armed forces. These infiltrators are, in fact, members of Pakistan armed forces. These infiltrations are still continuing. Such action by Pakistan is a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of the cease-fire agreement, and against all canons of international law and code of good neighbourliness. It is to meet this thinly disguised invasion that the Government of India, while showing every forbearance, has been forced to take preventive military action".
"In your message you have appealed in the interests of peace that we should indicate our intention to respect the cease-fire agreement, that there should be a cessation of crossings of the cease-fire line by armed personnel from both sides of the line and a halt to all firing across the cease fire line from either side of it. While I appreciate the motivations of your appeal, I have to point out that the terms of your message are such as might leave the impression that we are responsible equally with Pakistan for the dangerous developments that have taken place. Unless your message is read in the context of the realities of the situation as they have developed, it tends to introduce a certain equation between India and Pakistan, which the facts of the situation do not bear out. Indeed, it seems to me that your message has to be read in conjunction with the report that you have sent to members of the Security Council.
"I would like to take this opportunity to apprise you of the salient facts of the situation. Since 5 August, several thousands of infiltrators from Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir have crossed the cease fire line. These men have come camouflaged as civilians and fully armed with modern weapons, signal equipment. large quantities of ammunition and supplies and explosives. From the interrogation of the prisoners captured by us from among the infiltrators, many of whom are regular officers of the Pakistan Army, it is now known that a military headquarters was set up in Murree in West Pakistan in May 1965 under General Akhtar Hussain Malik, General Officer Commanding, 12th Division, of the Pakistan Army. This organization is known as Military Headquarters Gibraltar Force'. Their instructions were to destroy bridges and vital roads, attack police stations, supply dumps, army headquarters and important installations, inflict casualties on Indian forces, and attack VIPs in Jammu and Kashmir. The statements of the captured prisoners and the nature and type of weapons which the infiltrators carried, large quantities of which have been captured by us, bearing the markings of Pakistan ordnance factories, prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the infiltrators were armed and equipped by the Pakistan Government and have operated under their instructions.
"Pakistan, however, has denied any knowledge of these armed infiltrators and persists in the theory that there is an internal revolt in Kashmir-a revolt which does not exist and has not been noticed by independence. foreign observers. Since your message was sent, the situation has been further aggravated by a massive attack launched by two regiments of tanks and aircraft supported by Pakistan troops in brigade strength, across the cease fire line and the international frontiers between the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir and West Pakistan. The attack, which is in great strength, is aimed at our key positions controlling our lines of communications. Even
On its own admission, as indicated in President Ayub Khan's broadcast of 1 September, the Pakistani forces have gone to the assistance of the infiltrators whom Pakistan chooses to call 'freedom fighters'. There is no pretence in it of any kind of defensive action and the Pakistani attack clearly constitutes aggression. The Pakistani attack is accompanied by the usual tactics of the aggressor, namely, indiscriminate bombing of the civilian population. In a bombing raid on 2 September, the Pakistan Air Force killed fifty civilians and injured an equal number in addition to bombing of a mosque. We have to meet the situation created by this latest Pakistani aggression.
"In your message, Mr. Secretary-General, you have yourself recognized that essential to the restoration of the cease-fire would be a cessation of the crossings of the cease-fire line by armed personnel. As I have indicated above, the root cause of the present dangerous situation lies in the massive infiltrations of Pakistani armed personnel. Since the Pakistan Government disowns responsibility for the armed infiltrations, your appeal to Pakistan, so far as armed infiltrators are concerned, can hardly be productive of results and the root cause of the trouble will remain.
"India is a peace-loving country. We have neither the inclination nor is it in our interest to be deviated from the path of peace and economic progress to that of a military conflict. Pakistan has, however, by sending armed infiltrators in large numbers across the cease-fire line brought about a situation in which we have no choice but to defend ourselves and take such preventive action as may be deemed essential. In taking such preventive action we have, in certain sectors, had to cross the cease-fire line for the purpose of effectively preventing further infiltrations. This is a matter of great importance to us".
"As to the cease-fire agreement, you are well aware that we have shown respect for the cease fire line all these years though Pakistan has shown scant regard for it. Over the past two years, General Nimmo, Chief Military Observer, has made proposals for a meeting between the representatives of India and Pakistan with a view to ensuring the observance of the cease-fire agreement and to preventing its violation from the Pakistan side by armed civilians. We have always accepted these proposals, but Pakistan has either rejected them or not responded to them. In July 1964, he offered to me a gentlemen's agreement with Pakistan to ensure tranquillity along the cease-fire line. Pakistan at first agreed to a meeting and the representatives of India and Pakistan were to meet in Karachi on 2 November 1961. However, a day before the meeting was to be held, Pakistan postponed the meeting unilaterally and did not suggest any fresh date thereafter.
"Pakistan's international behaviour is such that it cannot be ignored in considering your appeal. It will be recalled that in 1947-1948 Pakistan undertook action similar to the present one and persisted in denying its complicity for several months until the truth could no longer be hidden and it had no way but to admit to the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, in July 1948, that Pakistani forces had been fighting in Kashmir for several months. That act of Pakistan's aggression the United Nations seems to have forgotten, but that aggression is still with us and Pakistan continues to be in forcible occupation of two fifths our State of Jammu and Kashmir.
"It is within your knowledge that in April 1965, Pakistan launched a military attack in our territory in the Rann of Kutch, a clear case of use of force for the assertion of its claims, which is forbidden by the Charter of the United Nations, the Bandung Declaration, the charter of the Organization of African Unity, the Cairo Declaration many other international declarations of our
time. In spite of such provocation we showed forbearance and reached an agreement with Pakistan on 30 June 1965 for the peaceful settlement of the border question. The hope was solemnly expressed by both sides in the agreement that it would result in better relations between India and Pakistan and in the easing of tensions between the two countries. It is now clear, however, that even when Pakistan was putting its signature to that agreement it was planning and organizing the massive armed infiltration across the cease-fire line in Jammu and Kashmir, and even before the ink was dry on that agreement, Pakistan launched thousands of its armed infiltrators across the cease-fire line. We cannot be expected to wait for Pakistan to violate the cease fire line and attack us at will, and we cannot go from one cease-fire to another without our being satisfied that Pakistan will not repeat its acts of violations and aggression in the future.
"There is no other name for the massive infiltration of Pakistanis across the cease-fire line and across the international frontier between Jammu and Kashmir and West Pakistan, and the military attack that Pakistan has launched into our territory, but aggression. That aggression throws on us, as a sovereign State, responsibilities for defence which are our right and duty to discharge.
"To sum up, I have taken this opportunity of acquainting you with all the aspects of the complex and dangerous situation that has been brought about by Pakistani actions. We owe it to you and to the high office you occupy with such distinction, to leave you in no doubt as to our position. Mr. Secretary-General, you have appealed for peace and we greatly appreciate your anxiety and the sincerity of your efforts. India has always stood firmly for peace and our position needs no reiteration. What is essential, however, today is that Pakistan should undertake forthwith to stop infiltrations across the cease-fire line and to withdraw the infiltrators and its armed forces from the Indian side of the cease-fire line and the international frontier between Jammu and Kashmir and West Pakistan. Furthermore, we would have to be satisfied that there will be no recurrence of such a situation. These have to be the starting points of any steps towards the restoration of peace for which you, as Secretary-General of the United Nations, are bending your efforts. I trust that, in the first instance, you will ascertain from Pakistan if it will accept the responsibility for withdrawing not only its armed forces but also the infiltrators, and for preventing further infiltrations. This, in fact, we take it, is the basic assumption underlying your appeal".
The Secretary-General's report [S/6651] contains the following in paragraph 9:
"I have not obtained from the Government of Pakistan any assurance that the cease-fire and the cease fire line will be respected henceforth or that efforts would be exerted to restore conditions to normal along that line".
Why has no assurance been forthcoming from Pakistan ? It is because that country has no desire to end its aggression on the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir. In fact, Pakistan has disowned any responsibility for sending armed troops in civilian disguise across the cease-fire line. As my Prime Minister stated in a broadcast to the nation yesterday, 3 September:
"The Pakistani Government has endeavoured to create a myth-and] this myth has been reiterated in President Ayub Khan's broadcast on 1 September-that infiltrators are freedom fighters and that there is an internal revolt in Kashmir".
Even today, on 4 September, neither the representative of Pakistan nor the Government of Pakistan has admitted responsibility for sending armed troops in civilian disguise across the cease-fire line.
Paragraph 15 of the Secretary-General's report gives five conditions which are necessary before "restoration of the cease-fire and a return to normal conditions along the cease-fire line can be achieved". One of the conditions, given in sub paragraph (b), is :
"A readiness on the part of the Government of Pakistan to take effective steps to prevent crossings of the cease-fire line from the Pakistan side by armed men, whether or not in uniform".
A further condition is the withdrawal of armed personnel. What guarantees can this Council give that even if Pakistan agrees to respect the cease-fire agreement and cease-fire line, it will take effective steps to withdraw all the armed personnel in civilian disguise who recently crossed into the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir ? Is there any guarantee available from the Government of Pakistan? If there is, what are the modalities of the withdrawal of the armed personnel in civilian disguise ?
In a broadcast to the nation yesterday, my Prime Minister said:
"What we are up against is a regime which does not believe in freedom, democracy and peace as we do." To quote from the Prime Minister once again :
"In the agreement between India and Pakistan in connexion with the Gujarat-West Pakistan border, signed on 30 June 1965, Pakistan solemnly affirmed its hope that the agreement would result in better relations and easing of the tensions between India and Pakistan.
"The conscience of the world will be shocked to know that even at the time this agreement was being signed, Pakistan had already drawn up the plan of armed infiltration in Kashmir and was training its personnel in Murree for operations to be undertaken just over a month later, even before the ink was dry on the agreement of 30 June. Such conduct speaks for itself."
It is the congenital hostility of the various regimes in Pakistan against India which dictates their policies. If the rulers of Pakistan were ever willing to live in peace with India, they would find a ready response from the Government and people of India.
The Council today speaks of a cease-fire. The Secretary General has appealed for a cease-fire. Do I need to remind the Council that India has repeatedly offered a "no-war pact" to Pakistan? On each occasion this offer has been spurned.
To meet the present situation it is essential that there be : first, an acceptable guarantee from Pakistan that infiltrations across the cease-fire line will be stopped forthwith and that infill raptors and the armed forces of Pakistan will be withdrawn from the Indian side of the cease-fire line and the international frontier with the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir and West Pakistan; and secondly, an acceptable guarantee that there will be no recurrence of such a situation.
These are the starting points for any steps toward the restoration of peace.
As I understand it, there has so far been no reply from Pakistan to the appeal issued by the Secretary-General on 1 September. In the absence of such a response from Pakistan and in the absence of assurances requested earlier by the Secretary-General, it seems premature for the Council to proceed with the consideration of the draft resolution. As far as my delegation is concerned, the reply of my Prime Minister to the Secretary-general's appeal-which I have just read out constitutes our attitude towards an appeal for a cease-fire from any other source.
Mr. Amjad ALI (Pakistan): I hope that I was clearly understood by the members of the Council when I said earlier at this meeting that I had no instructions yet from my Government, and therefore I could make no statement on behalf. The few remarks I made were meant only as a reminder to all that the allegations made by the Indian representative could be suitably refuted by facts. I am therefore rather surprised that the six-power draft resolution mentions in its preamble that the Security Council has "heard the statements of the representatives of India and Pakistan".
The Indian representative made his statement on his Government's instructions; 1 made no similar statement myself. The two statements cannot be put on the same footing: It is therefore for the Council to consider whether such a preamble as the one I mentioned is appropriate, and, more importantly, whether it will be at all helpful for the Council to adopt a resolution without hearing one of the parties.
I have not studied the draft resolution, I have merely glanced through it. I note with regret that the draft resolution does not even refer to the basis of the cease-fire which was established in Kashmir in 1949, the basis of the demilitarization and the plebiscite. This omission in itself can be seriously prejudicial to the position of the party which seeks the implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations.
Subject to instructions from my Government, I wonder how, without proof of the Security Council's intentions to engage in serious efforts toward the settlement of the Kashmir dispute, in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir as pledged to them by the United Nations, any appeal from the Security Council will effectively and convincingly restore the peace which we all desire.