06091965 Text of the speech made by Mr. C. S. Jha (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1238 held on 6 September 1965.
06091965 Text of the speech made by Mr. C. S. Jha (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1238 held on 6 September 1965.
I am most grateful to you, Mr. President, for your welcoming words, and I am grateful to the Council for giving me the opportunity of expounding the position of my Government.
I have just heard the statement of the representative of Pakistan. He spoke with emotion and with a great deal of rhetoric. But rhetoric is no substitute for facts, and what the Council and what the whole world has to apply themselves to are the facts of the situation. I will briefly answer some of the points that he made, later, but to begin with, may I have your permission to read out the text of the message dated 6 September from the Minister of External Affairs of India to the Secretary-General in answer to the communication by the Secretary-General forwarding resolution 209 (1965) of the Council.
"The Minister of External Affairs of India presents his compliments to the Secretary-General and has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the text of resolution 209 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1237th meeting on 4 September 1965. The Government of India, having given the most careful consideration to the resolution of the Security Council, would like to convey the following views to the Security Council
"The Government of India appreciates that the Security Council, in its anxiety to stop the continuance of hostilities and bloodshed has urgently adopted a resolution in the hope of bringing about an immediate cease-fire. This resolution has evidently been adopted without taking into consideration the reply of the Prime Minister of India communicated to the Secretary-General on 4 September 1965 [6672] in response to the appeal of 1 September addressed by the Secretary-General to the Government of India [S/6647]. The reply of the Prime Minister of India narrated the events leading to the present situation in Kashmir, and also urged the steps which should be taken to restore peace in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is also evident that the resolution does not take into consideration certain important findings and recommendations of the Secretary-General contained in his report of 3 September [S/6651]. Further, neither the resolution nor the discussions which preceded the adoption of the resolution took note of the fact that on 1 September Pakistan violated the international border south of the cease-fire line between the State of Jammu and Kashmir and West Pakistan in order to attack the Chamb-Jaurian sector within the State of Jammu and Kashmir, there-by extending the area of conflict. While aggression across the international border in the Chamb-Jaurian sector continues, this attack, directed as it was by regular forces of the Pakistan Army towards gaining territory and cutting the vital lines of communication between the rest of India and the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, has changed the entire character of the situation. The offensive action in the Chamb area was being fed by bases in Pakistan along the border of Pakistan with the State of Jammu and Kashmir. There were strong concentrations of Pakistan forces on the western frontier between India and Pakistan.. On 5 September, after the resolution of the Security Council calling for a cease-fire, Pakistan aircraft bombed an Indian Air Force unit in Amritsar in the Indian State of Punjab. Pakistan aircraft also bombed Ranbir Singh Pura and other places in Jammu and Kashmir well away from the cease-fire line. It was obvious that Pakistan was preparing for an offensive against India in a big way and a situation was created in which action restricted to Jammu and Kashmir could no longer meet the need of the situation. Since the United Nations has throughout accepted that the security of Jammu and Kashmir is the responsibility of India, the Government of India had no alternative but to give effective assistance to our forces by moving across the Wagah border to stop Pakistan at the bases from which the attacks in Jammu and Kashmir were being mounted and supported.
"In resolution 209 (1965) the Security Council.
"Calls upon the Government of India and Pakistan to take forth with all steps for an immediate ceasefire.
"This cease-fire is posited on the condition mentioned in paragraph 2 of the resolution which
""Calls upon the two Governments to respect the cease-fire line and have all armed personnel of each party withdrawn to its own side of the line'.
"It is the view of the Government of India that, if a cease-fire is to be brought about and peace restored, the withdrawal of the 'armed personnel of each party,' referred to in this paragraph, must include all infiltrators from the Pakistan side of the ceasefire line, whether armed or unarmed, because, as stated by the Prime Minister of India in his reply to the Secretary-General, the present hostilities originated with large-scale infiltrations of armed and unarmed personnel from Pakistan, and until the activities. If such personnel cease and until such personnel are withdrawn from the Indian side of the cease-fire line, peace cannot be restored, for which Pakistan must accept full responsibility.
"It has been stated by the Secretary-General in paragraph 15 of his report of 3 September, that the restoration of the cease-fire and a return to normal conditions along the cease-fire line can be achieved inter alia by :
"(a) A willingness of both parties to respect the agreement they have entered into :
"(b) A readiness on the part of the Government of Pakistan to take effective steps to prevent crossing of the cease-fire line from the Pakistan side by armed men, whether or not in uniform.'
"These findings of the Secretary-General, based on the reports of the UNMOGIP, established beyond any doubt that Pakistan committed aggression against India across the cease-fire line. This aggression began in its massive form soon after India agreed to withdraw and withdrew from the Kargil area considered strategically vital to the security of the Srinagar-Leh road, on the assurances given by Pakistan through the Secretary-General that the security of this road would not be endangered by Pakistan. But as stated by the Secretary-General in paragraph 4 his report: 'Subsequently, there were some military attacks on the road by armed elements from the Pakistan side. This establishes clearly that Pakistan had no intention of honouring solemn assurances given to India through the Secretary-General and was bent on renewed and further aggression."
"The facts leading to the present situation and narrated in Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri's message of 4 September to the Secretary-General are borne out by the Secretary-General's report, wherein it is stated in paragraph 6 that:
"General Nimmo has indicated to me that the series of violations that began on 5 August were to a considerable extent... in the form of armed men, generally not in uniform, crossing the cease fire line from the Pakistan side for the purpose of armed action on the Indian side. This is a conclusion reached by General Nimmo on the basis of investigations by the United Nations observers, in the light of the extensiveness and character of the raiding activities and their proximity to the cease-fire line...As regards violations by artillery, there was heavy and prolonged artillery fire across the line from the Pakistan side in the Chamb/Bhimber area on 15 and 16 August, and on 19 and 26 August the town of Punch was shelled from the Pakistan side, some of the shells hitting the building occupied by the United Nations military observers. Pakistan artillery again shelled the town of Punch on 28 August... It is likewise confirmed that as of 24 August armed elements from Pakistan were still occupying Indian positions (pickets) north of Mandi in the Punch sector of the cease-fire line.
"The Secretary-General's report has also stated that United Nations military observers have confirmed that on 1 September, the Pakistan army supported by artillery and air force attacked the Chamb area of the Jammu-Jhangar sector; and on 2 September attacked Jaurian village across the international border between India and Pakistan.
"Thus, aggression by Pakistan has been clearly established by the independent authority of the United Nations and it is to be regretted that the Security Council has not taken this into consideration or asked Pakistan to withdraw from across the international border south of the ceasefire line and to respect the international border between India and Pakistan.
"While the Secretary-General in his recommendations to the Security Council referred to above has sought willingness of both parties to respect the agreement they have entered into, this appeal should more appropriately have been addressed to Pakistan alone because India has always respected the agreement in respect of the cease-fire line. This is borne out by the report of the Secretary General itself. In paragraph 9 of this report he has stated that on the morning of 9 August 1965, a telegram was received from General Nimmo warning that the situation was deteriorating along the cease-fire line. On the basis of this report, the Secretary General asked the representative of Pakistan to convey to his Government his 'very serious concern about the situation that was developing in Kashmir, involving the crossing of the cease fire line from the Pakistan side by numbers of armed men and their attacks on Indian military positions on the Indian side of the line, and also my strong appeal that the cease-fire line be observed.' In response to this appeal, the Secretary-General has noted that: 'I have not obtained from the Government of Pakistan any assurance that the cease-fire and the cease-fire line will be respected hence forth or that efforts would be exerted to restore conditions to normal along that line. The reason for Pakistan refusing to give such an assurance is also evident from paragraph 10 of the report of the Secretary-General when he described the considerations which led to his withholding the statement he wanted to make in consultations with the Governments of India and Pakistan. While India was agreeable to the statement proposed to be issued by the Secretary-General, according to Secretary-General : 'The Government of Pakistan was strongly negative about the statement in general on the grounds that it favoured India in that it dealt only with the current cease-fire situation without presenting the political background of the broad issue and thus was lacking in balance, since a cease-fire alone supports the status quo to India's benefit,'' It is clear from this that Pakistan did not want and does not want to maintain the status quo in respect of the cease fire line and it's only aim is to violate the ceasefire line and by aggression to extend by force the forceful occupation of the two-fifths of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the whole of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Thus, it is Pakistan alone who should be asked to express willingness to respect the agreement they have entered into and to desist from altering the status quo by force.
"The Secretary-General, in the second recommendation contained in paragraph 15 of his report, has urged categorically that the Government of Pakistan is to be asked to express its readiness to take effective steps to prevent crossings of the cease-fire line from the Pakistan side by armed men, whether or not in uniform'. It is obvious from this that, as stated in the reply of the Prime Minister of India to the Secretary-General, the present situation has arisen not from any armed revolt in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as wrongly alleged by Pakistan, but as a result of massive armed infiltration organized and planned by Pakistan, followed by attacks
by the Pakistan Army and Air Force. Until this aspect of the situation and the recommendations of the Secretary General in this regard are taken into consideration, no progress can be made to restore peace in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
"The Government of India is of the firm view that an immediate cease-fire and the implementation of paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 209 (1965) can be brought about only when Pakistan takes effective steps to further crossings of the cease-fire line from the Pakistan side by armed and unarmed personnel, civil and military, whether or not in uniform, and also immediately removes from the Indian side of the cease-fire line all such personnel who have already crossed the cease-fire line, Pakistan must also vacate aggression in the Chamb area. forcibly occupied by Pakistan since I September from across the international border, and undertake to respect in future the international border between India and Pakistan. Furthermore, India would have to be satisfied that there will be no recurrence of such a situation before a cease-fire can be effective and peace restored."
This message from the Minister of External Affairs in reply to the Secretary-General gives the position of my Government with regard to the matter that is before the Security Council incidentally, I note that there is no response from Pakistan. Although more detailed, the message contains substantially the same points that were made by the Prime Minister of India in his message of 4 September to the Secretary-General. Our position has therefore been made clear before the Council, and I have nothing more to add in that respect.
Now, with the permission of the President, I would like to say a few words about the rhetorical, highly coloured and, in many instances, false statements made by the representative of Pakistan. He talked about Pakistan's being one-fifth the size of India. I think that perhaps that is arithmetically a little wrong, but nevertheless it is correct that Pakistan is smaller in size than India. But what do we see today? We certainly do not judge a country by its size. A large country and a small country are both Members of the United Nations and enjoy sovereign equality; they are equals before the international community. But today we find that Pakistan has mounted an aggression against India with the help-and I have to mention this regretfully-of weapons obtained from its ally by deceitful means throughout these years. These weapons were obtained for other purposes, but today they are being used against the sons of India, against friends of the United States, in an action which is a patent example of aggression.
The representative of Pakistan has also referred to what he calls India's aggressive actions. In his statement, he has turned a blind eye to many things. He has not mentioned the report of the Secretary General of 3 September 1965, which is a Council document and which indeed forms the basis of the consideration of this matter by the Council. That report has been ignored. He has ignored the fact of the massive infiltrations commencing on 5 August, which again is a matter of history, which is testified to in the report of the Secretary General in no uncertain terms, and which is again based on the observations of United Nations observers who have been specifically entrusted with the task of observance of the cease fire. All these, according to Pakistan, do not exist. The incidents of 5 August and thereafter-the massive infiltration of hundreds, and in fact thousands, of men armed to the teeth with modern weapons, well organized and coming into our territory to commit sabotage and arson-those facts have been completely ignored.
The representative of Pakistan has also ignored and forgotten, although the world has not forgotten-and certainly we have not forgotten-the invasion of Jammu and Kashmir by Pakistan in 1947-1948. The Council will recall-or certainly the permanent members of the Council-that at that time the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which is an integral part of the Indian. Union juridically and in fact, was invaded by Pakistan, and for months Pakistan refused to admit any hand in that invasion. Before the Security Council, its representatives solemnly and on several occasions denied any complicity in the invasion of Kashmir, any complicity in the activities of the raiders who had come across the boundary between Jammu and Kashmir, on the one hand, and Pakistan, on the other. But truth cannot be hidden forever. Seven months later, in July 1948, when they realized that it was no longer possible to hide the fact of their complicity, they admitted before the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan that the Pakistan Army had been in Kashmir in the strength of one or two brigades I cannot recall now which it was; that they had been there, and had been there for several months.
That, of course, happened several years ago. But the consequences are still with us. Today, Pakistan occupies two fifths of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, without the slightest shadow of legal right, and its occupation is based solely and entirely on force. That is aggression, which we shall not forget. The Council may have forgotten that there have been tendencies sometimes to forget it-but we cannot forget. That is aggression, and that aggression is continuing today.
Not content with that aggression, Pakistan has engineered aggression in the form of massive infiltrations of armed personnel, the fact of which can no longer be doubted in the context of the report of the Secretary-General and the reports of the United Nations observers.
I would request the Council to pause for a moment and consider the enormity of this action. India is a peaceful State. It does not want to get into any trouble with its neighbours ; it has no designs on its neighbours; it does not cover any territory. Its record of peace, and its contribution to peace, is inscribed in the archives of the United Nations. Here we are, a peaceful State-and suddenly thousands of armed personnel, most of them belonging to the regular forces of the Pakistan Army in the camouflaged garb of civilians descend on our territory. They descend in the midst of our population, with instructions from the Pakistan Government-as has been shown and abundantly proved by statements of captured prisoners, by photographs of weapons and of men who have been captured to commit sabotage, arson, murder and pillage, to disrupt the lines of communication, to harass the Indian Army and to create an internal uprising. These are the motives with which these people came into our territory.
I said a moment ago that this is a matter to be paused over and pondered. Is it permissible for a State, a neighbouring State, to send thousands of armed personnel into another State to commit illegal acts? Does that not amount to aggression? Does that not amount to a flagrant violation of the Charter ? Is it not against all principles of peaceful coexistence ? Is it not contrary to the numerous international declarations the Bandung Declaration, the Charter of the Organization of African Unity, the Cairo Declaration, and numerous other declarations which have been adopted by nations and which today embody the ethos, the ethics of international life? Surely, that sort of action cannot be permitted. If it does occur, a sovereign State is obliged-it has not only the right, but the duty to defend itself against this kind of aggression.
That is all we did. The infiltrators who came into our territory were dealt with in accordance with the normal way of dealing with law-breakers, which is the right of every State. But then, these people kept on coming. We made it quite clear -the representative of Pakistan has even quoted some statements by my Prime Minister and others-that this was a most worrisome situation for us, a situation of patent and naked aggression - a situation which is not permissible for a neighbouring State to create under the Charter of the United Nations, or under any other code of international behaviour. Therefore, we had to take action to meet this situation. We were faced with an endless chain of men being sent over the frontier. We pushed them back, and they continued to come into our territory. Therefore, we had to take military action; we had to take defensive measures which would not only enable us to deal with these people in our territory but, even more important, which would enable us to stop these infiltrations. We made no secret of this; as a matter of fact, our representatives here informed the Secretary-General of this development.
The most curious feature of this whole business is the fact that Pakistan denies completely any knowledge of these armed infiltrations or of dispatching these infiltrators. According to Pakistan, they do not exist; according to them there is a mythical revolt in Kashmir.
Today, the whole world knows, however, as has been testified to by foreign and independent observers, then there is no revolt in Kashmir: the people are with the Government -contrary to what Pakistan has tried to lead or mislead the world to believe-and therefore co-operate with the Government. They are angry that their homes and herds have been raided by these armed men from across the cease fire line, and they have helped the Government in tracking down these infiltrators. There is no revolt of the people in Kashmir. In fact, the people are suffering-they have suffered and are suffering-at the hands of Pakistani armed personnel, both regular personnel and this camouflaged body of infiltrators.
While the Secretary-General was making earnest efforts, in consultation with the representatives of India and Pakistan, to find a way out of this difficult situation-even while these efforts were being made-Pakistan, on 1 September, mounted a terrific attack: two regiments of tanks, to begin with extremely lethal weapons which they had deceitfully obtained from their allies for other purposes-a most severe onslaught, partly across the cease-fire line, partly across the international frontier between Jammu and Kashmir, and today, they have penetrated something like twenty miles, or even more, and are threatening our lines of communication with our armed forces in Kashmir, and also the lines of communication in general between Jammu and Kashmir and India. This they call defensive action.
These words -"defensive action" are in current use. Yet, if there is one thing history has taught, it is that aggressors, when they use those words, use them for a different purpose: to camouflage their aggression.
In the broadcast on 1 September, President Ayub Khan, while reiterating the denial of any knowledge of infiltrators, or of any responsibility for these armed infiltrators, and in announcing the invasion of the Chamb area, into Jammu, went on to say that Pakistan forces were obliged to go into Jammu and Kashmir to help the so-called freedom fighters.
Mark these words. This is not defensive action he does not state he went there to defend Pakistan. He went there to help others whom he thought were freedom fighters. This is not defensive action. By the very words of the President of Pakistan, the action that Pakistan has taken with the great military thrust supported by tanks, heavy artillery aircraft, etc., as a result of which Pakistani forces have penetrated many miles into our territory-could not be called defensive action. It was an offensive action. Tanks are usually used for offensive purposes in such a manner. It was aggression, whatever may be the reason or justification in their own eyes for that action.
The representative of Pakistan has also denied that there is an international frontier between Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan. The State of Jammu and Kashmir is a part of the Indian Union; I repeat this, as it has been repeated dozens of times before this Council. And if we have to repeat it again, we do so because it is our sacred right and our sacred duty to defend the integrity of any part of India. That right and duty cannot be taken away from us, even by the United Nations, because the very basis of the Charter of the United Nations is the recognition of the sovereignty of a country. We have the right to defend our territory, and Jammu and Kashmir is a part of India; no emotional outburst on the part of Pakistan can change that fact. I want to make that clear. All consideration by this Council has to take account of that very basic fact. If it is ignored, then the very basis of this consideration disappears. India has the right to defend itself. As Prime Minister
Nehru stated, several years ago, an attack on Jammu and Kashmir is an attack on India. He was stating an obvious fact, but wanted to emphasize it because the eyes of our predatory neighbour have always been cast on Jammu and Kashmir. As you know, there is a cease-fire line, which of course is not an international frontier; it is a line arising out of the cease fire agreement of 1949. But below the cease-fire line there is a long frontier between the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan; and the fact that it is an international frontier cannot be altered merely because Pakistan has advanced a spurious claim to the State of Jammu and Kashmir; there can be no other frontier but an international frontier between Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan. Therefore, even taking the worst view-which I do not for a moment admit that it is a disputed frontier does that justify a State marching its armies across a frontier it regards as disputed? As I said, no dispute exists and if the theory put forward by representatives of Pakistan were adopted, then the whole of international society would lose the very basis for its coexistence.
I am sorry to take the Council's time, but I wish to put the record straight. The representative of Pakistan has talked of colonialism; he accuses India of colonialism in Jammu and Kashmir. The people of Jammu and Kashmir are the people of India. They are our kith and kin; they are blood of our blood, and they are as much Indian citizens as anyone else in any part of India. That is not colonialism. They enjoy the same rights and privileges, the same guarantees under the Constitution of India, as any other citizen of India. The representative of Pakistan would be well advised to look nearer home, to look within Pakistan itself. Some introspective examination is always good for the soul. If there is colonialism, it is the colonialism that is being practised in Pakistan. A ruling group, divorced from contact with public opinion, is ruling over large sections of the people of Pakistan. If there is colonialism, it exists in Pakistan. The Pashtoons, the Baluchis, the East Pakistanis, are being ruled without any regard to their civil rights, to their fundamental human rights and freedoms. That is colonialism as the world understands it.
The representative of Pakistan continued to repeat that all the action undertaken by Pakistan has been defensive action. I have already said that the action taken by Pakistan, first and foremost-and I repeat "first and foremost"-has been the planned and Government-directed infiltration, massive infiltration, of thousands of people into our territory, which is aggression. That is something which international society cannot tolerate; it is not open to any neighbour to behave in that fashion, and if it does behave in that fashion, retribution must come.
Every nation has the inherent right to exercise self defence, and that is what we have done against these armed infiltrators. The action undertaken by Pakistan is surely not defensive action. Its massive attack with tanks, heavy artillery and aircraft deep inside Jammu and Kashmir-accounts of which members of the Security Council must have read-cannot be defensive action, as I have already indicated. I would like to read what appeared in The New York Times today, 6 September, both in the news report and under the caption "Quotation of the Day". This is what General Mohammad Musa, Commander in Chief of the Pakistan Army, said to his troops on their success against Indian forces on the Indian side of the cease-fire line: "You have got your teeth into him. Bite deeper and deeper until he is destroyed. And destroy, him you will, God willing." Even God is brought into this. These are not the words of a Commander who is engaged in defensive action. This is cold-blooded aggression. They want to destroy us. They want to defeat our armies. They want to annex our territory. And surely it is up to us, it is our duty, it is our right, to defend our territory by all means. at our disposal.
Pakistan has, by its actions, converted and transformed this whole business into the realm of military action. What we have had to exercise is defensive military action because we have got to strike at the bases from where this attack has been launched and from where they expect to wreak destruction on us.
I shall content myself with these observations. I am most grateful to you, Mr. President, for having given me this time, and I hope that you will permit me to speak again if circumstances necessitate it. aggression. That is something which international society cannot tolerate; it is not open to any neighbour to behave in that fashion, and if it does behave in that fashion, retribution must come.
Every nation has the inherent right to exercise self defence, and that is what we have done against these armed infiltrators. The action undertaken by Pakistan is surely not defensive action. Its massive attack with tanks, heavy artillery and aircraft deep inside Jammu and Kashmir-accounts of which members of the Security Council must have read-cannot be defensive action, as I have already indicated. I would like to read what appeared in The New York Times today, 6 September, both in the news report and under the caption "Quotation of the Day". This is what General Mohammad Musa, Commander in Chief of the Pakistan Army, said to his troops on their success against Indian forces on the Indian side of the cease-fire line: "You have got your teeth into him. Bite deeper and deeper until he is destroyed. And destroy, him you will, God willing." Even God is brought into this. These are not the words of a Commander who is engaged in defensive action. This is cold-blooded aggression. They want to destroy us. They want to defeat our armies. I want to annex our territory. And surely it is up to us, it is our duty, it is our right, to defend our territory by all means at our disposal.
Pakistan has, by its actions, converted and transformed this whole business into the realm of military action. What we have had to exercise is defensive military action because we have got to strike at the bases from where this attack has been launched and from where they expect to wreak destruction on the US.
I shall content myself with these observations. I am most grateful to you, Mr. President, for having given me this time, and I hope that you will permit me to speak again if circumstances necessitate it.