17091965 Text of the speech made by Mr. Chagla (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1239 held on 17 September 1965.

17091965 Text of the speech made by Mr. Chagla (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1239 held on 17 September 1965.

 

We are meeting here this morning under very distressing and tragic Fighting is going on between two neighbouring countries. I assure you that, as far as we are concerned, we have the friendliest and most cordial relations with the people of Pakistan. Although President Ayub Khan has said that we are at war, our Prime Minister more than once has stressed the fact that there is no war between the two countries and that we do not want to be at war with Pakistan.

 

This is a peculiar tragedy for our country. We have always stood for peace. We are wedded to the cause of peace. Our great leader, Mahatma Gandhi, gave the message of non violence and peace to the whole world, and it is sad that we should be involved in this war. But Mahatma Gandhi also said that a country must defend itself against aggression, that a country must have self-respect and dignity; if a country. loses dignity and self-respect, that country ceases to exist. I assure you that this particular conflict that is going on is a conflict not of our making. If we have to resist with arms Pakistan's aggression, it is purely for the purpose of self-defence.

 

As I have said. war is opposed to our basic philosophy. We realize the horrors and devastation of a war. A war makes no distinction between combatants and non-combatants, between the innocent and the guilty. War means to us a threat to our economic progress. We are fighting a tremendous war against poverty and ignorance. As Minister of Education, I know what the war against ignorance means, and we do not want to be stopped or deterred from carrying on that war. Therefore, we do not want to divert either our attention or our resources from our primary purpose, which is to raise the standard of living of our people.

 

Now I hope to satisfy you that even after Pakistan's aggression every step that we have taken has been in self-defense. Our reply to Pakistan has not been offensive; it has been purely defensive. I also want to point out to the Council that we have done our best to prevent the escalation of this war. And may I now point out that it was Pakistan which for the first time used field artillery; it was Pakistan that used tanks with air cover it was Pakistan that started the bombing of cities; it was Pakistan that started the dropping of paratroops; it was Pakistan that used its navy to bomb one of our seaports, while we have not used our navy at all.

 

The basic question which this Council faces and which it must answer and resolve is: Who is the aggressor ? Who has committed aggression ? I ask the Council not to shirk reply to that question. a

 

I think that on the records of this Council it has been established beyond any doubt that in this particular conflict aggression was committed by Pakistan upon our territory. May I first of all refer to paragraph 6 of the Secretary-General's report [S/6651] of 3 September 1965:

 

"General Nimmo has indicated to me that the series of violations that began on 5 August were to a considerable extent in subsequent days 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, even though in most cases the actual identity of those engaging in the armed attacks on the Indian side of the line and their actual crossing of it could. not be verified by direct observation or evidence."

 

Therefore, we have here a finding of the Secretary General, based upon first-hand information from General Nimmo, that this conflict started on 5 August with armed men from the Pakistan side invading our country. I cannot understand or Imagine how there could be a clearer finding of aggression than we have here. It is important to note that resolution 210 (1965) also mentions the date of 5 August. That, to our minds, is the crucial date, and the Council has to apply its mind to that date. What happened on that date? What happened on that date was that Pakistan invaded India. Kashmir is a part of India and the invasion of Kashmir was an invasion of India and aggression on Kashmir was aggression on India.

 

But we have other evidence of Pakistan's complicity and the support that Pakistan has-been giving to these infiltrators. May I read out a few quotations.

 

President Ayub Khan in a broadcast on 1 September 1965 said:

 

"How can she"-India, that is-"blame anyone from Azad Kashmir"-they call it Azad Kashmir, we call it the part of Kashmir unlawfully occupied by Pakistan "or, for that matter. from any part of Pakistan, for going to the assistance of these brave people ?"

 

I ask you to mark "any part of Pakistan". So here is a statement from the Head of State asking how India can expect any part of Pakistan not to help these so-called brave people and I shall deal with these brave people presently-who have invaded India.

 

Then Mr. Bhutto, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, said this on 13 July 1965 in the National Assembly:

 

"Circumstances and conditions have been the most eloquent compulsion to action-what was valid, proper and realistic yesterday need not be valid, proper and realistic today."

 

So that the Foreign Minister of Pakistan moulds his policy not according to law, not according to international morality, but according to circumstances and conditions.

 

Then we have this from the Morning News of Karachi, 20 August:

 

"Mr. Bhutto told reporters that the cease-fire line,

 

which India describes as an unshakable boundary, is a temporary arrangement. It could very well have been drawn further down inside occupied Kashmir."

 

This in his respect for the resolution by which the cease fire line was established. According to Mr. Bhutto, it is a temporary arrangement; it could be changed, it could be altered, it could be modified to suit Mr. Bhutto's pleasure.

 

Then something more. The Morning News of Karachi of 19 August quoted a statement by the Central Home and Kashmir Affairs Minister, Chaudhuri Ali Akbar, under the headline "Kashmiris Free to Cross Line, Pakistan Will Help Freedom Fighters". To call these people "freedom fighters" causes me to say: What sins are committed in thy name, Freedom; Abolt Azad Kashmir, this Minister said: "Who can question their right to go to their help? They have to be there." And about Pakis tan's help he said: "The freedom fighters will not find Pakistan wanting in the hour of need."

 

In this connexion I should have quoted one more passage from paragraph 9 of the Secretary-General's report to which I referred earlier, where he gives his finding with regard to the cease-fire line :

 

"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. I did receive assurance from the Government of India, conveyed orally by its representative to the United Nations, that India would act with restraint with regard to any retaliatory acts and will respect the cease-fire agreement and the cease-fire line if Pakistan does likewise.".

 

While we were prepared to honour our international obligation to respect the cease-fire line, Pakistan informed the United Nations representative that it was not prepared to do As regards the support by Pakistan for what has been happening in this invasion mounted by it on our territory, I do not want to wear this Council with a great number of facts and details. I must respect the patience of this Council; I know how anxious it is to come to some conclusion. But there are certain facts to which I must refer.

 

On 8 June 1965 the Pakistan Government issued an ordinance entitled "The Pakistan Mujahideen Force Ordnance". The Mujahids are supposed to be freedom fighters. In this connexion the Pakistan Times of 12 June wrote:

 

"Pakistan will now have a regularly constituted Mujahids force"-these are the people who have invaded India-"with a rank structure similar to that of the army, according to a Press release of the Inter-Service Public Relations Directorate. It will have commanding officers, junior commissioned officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks. The Mujahids, for certain local purposes, will be deemed part of the Pakistan army and will be be treated on a par with army personnel of the corresponding rank"

 

Thus there is no ambiguity as to the situation. These 4,000 to 5,000 people who invaded our country on 5 August were really part and parcel of the regular Pakistan Army. They may have come in civilian garb or they may have come dressed in any manner they liked, but the fact remains that they were part of the regular Pakistan forces.

 

It is very interesting to note that the headquarters for the training of the infiltrators was located near Murree in West Pakistan, under the command of Lieutenant-General Akhtar Hussain Malik, General Officer Commanding the 12th Infantry Division of Pakistan. This organization is known as Headquarters ``Gibraltar Force". I do not know why they chose the name "Gibraltar '''. but, after all, a person is entitled to adopt any name he chooses. All commanders connected with Operation Gibraltar were summoned to Murree during the second week of July 1965. President Ayub Khan of Pakistan addressed them personally to explain to them their task of creating confusion and chaos in Jammu and Kashmir. Then these infiltrators were organized into eight forces, each of them composed of six companies of 110 men each. In most cases they are commanded by regular Pakistani army officers of the rank of major, while the platoon commanders are either junior commissioned officers or senior non-commissioned officers.

 

The Indian Security Forces have captured vast quantities. of arms and ammunition seized from these infiltrators. Some of the arms and ammunition captured from the infiltrators bear the marking POF, that is, Pakistan Ordnance Factories. Two of the captured officers held emergency commissions in the Pakistan army.

 

I have photographs here; I could also bring arms here to satisfy you that they were manufactured in Pakistan. These infiltrators carried radio sets so that they were in communication with Pakistan Headquarters. There cannot be the slightest doubt of this. No judge-and I appeal to you, Mr. President can on this evidence come to the conclusion that on 5 August a regular invasion of India was mounted by Pakistan and that these infiltrators were backed and supported by Pakistan; they were supported by them.

 

What is the utility of this Council if it will not condemn aggression on these facts ? If you are satisfied-and I ask you to say that you are satisfied-to respect the Secretary-General's report and if you are satisfied that aggression was committed by Pakistan on 5 August, I say that it is your duty to condemn this aggression. Otherwise, international law has no meaning and international society cannot exist. Not only must this aggression be condemned, but also Pakistan must be asked to vacate this aggression. An aggressor cannot get away with the fruits of his aggression. I beg you: do not equate the aggressor and the victim, do not bracket them together. My one objection to resolutions 209 (1965) and 210 (1965) of 4 and 6 September, if I may say so with respect to the Security Council, is that both India and Pakistan are treated alike, that both of them are called upon to do something without distinguishing in any way

whatsoever the role played by Pakistan and the role played by India.

 

I hear certain nations talking of impartiality, that they must be impartial between India and Pakistan. Mr. President, you have been a judge, I have been a judge for seventeen years. Where I have two parties before me, I am not impartial: I have to reveal my judgement; I have got to say who is right and who is wrong. A judge cannot afford to be impartial. When two parties appear before a judge, he has to decide. You are the judges, and I think that it is wrong for the Security Council to say that it is going to be impartial as between India and Pakistan. It is an entirely wrong attitude, a weak attitude; it is an attitude which will completely destroy the utility of this Council. If you have no evidence, you may withhold judgement or reserve it. But when you have this statement of the Secretary General, when you have the evidence that I have produced, how can this Council say "We will bracket the two countries together, we will be impartial, we will not pass judgement"? I think that the time has come when the Council must call a spade a spade. The Security Council has hesitated too often in doing this. But there are times in history-and this is one of them; as I develop my argument I will satisfy you that we have reached the watershed of history-when the Security Council must call a spade a spade.

 

What was the grand design of Pakistan? Let me explain it to you. When it sent these 4,000 or 5 000 infiltrators or invaders or armed men-call them what you like-Pakistan expected that there would be an uprising in Kashmir. They thought that the large Muslim majority in Kashmir would support them and that Kashmir would fall into their mouth like a ripe plum. What happened? The whole of Kashmir stood firmly behind the constituted Government of that State and behind the Government of India. Kashmir is proud of its traditions of a multi racial society, just as India is. In Kashmir we have Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Christians. All of them stood firm and resisted this aggression. They handed over the infiltrators to the Government and to the security forces, and this grand design of Pakistan failed. Having failed in that, Pakistan started an attack in force with its regular army. That was the attack in the Chamb sector. You are perhaps not familiar with the map of Kashmir; but may I explain that the Chhamb sector is a very crucial one in Kashmir; it contains our lifeline, our lines of communication to our Army on the cease fire line and also communication to the army that is facing China in Ladakh and trying to meet that menace. Their entry in this particular sector of Kashmir was for the purpose of destroying our lifeline so that we should be crippled both with regard to our army on the cease-fire line and to our defence against China.

 

Pakistan's other objective was to make this a religious war. We are living in the modern age. We have learned to understand that religion is something personal and intimate. It is your contact with your Creator. It is your attempt to understand the inscrutable mystery of existence. We do not wear our religion on our sleeves now. We do not ostentatiously brandish it in the face of people. But I am sorry to say that Pakistan is still in the mediaeval age.

 

The idea was that not only the people of Kashmir but the 50 million Muslims in India would support Kashmir and that there would be communal trouble in India.

 

There are 2 million Muslims in Kashmir but there are 50 million Muslims in India India-some of the members. do not realize this is the third largest Muslim country in the world. These Muslim brothers of ours, fellow citizens of ours, live in perfect satisfaction with all the rights that the majority community enjoys under our Constitution. They have all the fundamental rights. We are a secular State. But Pakistan does not like this because it is a theocratic State; it is a religious State. To Pakistan religion is the basis of citizenship. To us religion is not the basis of citizenship. This argument will appeal to my friends from the Middle East and from other parts of the world where people of different religions live. together as nationals.

 

There is one good thing about Mr. Bhutto : he lends himself to quotations. may I quote him again, on this question of religious war. This is what Mr. Bhutto said in his broadcast of 3 September 1965:

 

"Let India not be complacent in waging war in Kashmir. Let them not disregard the lessons of history. Let them not forget that if Pakistanis have hitherto shown the patience of a Solomon, they are also the descendants of the heroic soldiers of Islam who have never showed any hesitation in laying down their lives in defence of their honour and the pursuit of justice".

 

Why "heroic soldiers. am"? Are they fighting a war of Islam? It is an insult to Islam to suggest that Islam is intolerant or that Islam believes in wars and conflicts. Then Mr. Bhutto said the following at an Independence Day civic reception at Larkana on 14. August:

 

"India is known as a country believing in threats alone...I want to tell Mr. Shastri and India that after all justice is sure to prevail. We are not alone in this. Our religion is spreading all over the world".

 

Again the appeal is a religious appeal. The Council will realize the danger of this. There are 50 million Muslims living in India in peace and amity, in friendship and concord, with other communities. The whole attempt of Pakistan was to disrupt this unity, to bring about communal discord and then to appeal to this Council, or to the world, by saying: You see, Indians treat their minorities badly.

 

I told the Council that our action against Pakistan was purely defensive, and let me slightly elaborate this. What happened? They sent in these infiltrators on 5 August. How did we react ? All that we did was to cross the cease-fire line in order to prevent more infiltrators from coming into Kashmir. It was a purely defensive action. Then when they attacked us at Chhamb with their regular forces, as I told the Council, we had to cross into the Punjab, into Pakistan, in order to prevent these forces from being further strengthened and our lifeline from being destroyed. That again was a defensive action. Now I want to draw the Council's attention to something which is very interesting. I think it was Max Beerbohm who said that history does not repeat itself: historians repeat themselves. But in this case history has repeated itself; I do not know whether historians are going to repeat themselves or not.

 

There is a close similarity between this invasion by Pakistan of Kashmir and of India and what happened in 1947 and 1948. If one looks at the record, one will find-and it is a matter of record; I am not speaking outside the record-that Pakistan raiders invaded Kashmir and that Pakistan denied any complicity with these raiders. They said: We have nothing to do with it. Ultimately, Muhammad Zafrulla Khan-no less a person than Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, who is now a member of the International Court of Justice-agreed and admitted that Pakistan had armed the tribesmen to invade Kashmir.

 

This is exactly what is happening now. But the similarity does not end there. We have a gruesome history of what the tribesmen did to Kashmir and the people of Kashmir in 1947 and 1948, and there is a repetition this time. People have been killed; they have been tortured; mosques have been desecrated; mosques have been bombed and cruelty has been practiced of a sort which it is difficult to believe can be done in modern times. It almost goes back to the days of Hitler, when such things were possible. But I thought we had outlived the days of Hitler.

 

To show what happened in 1947, may I quote a statement by Sheikh Abdullah-as reported in The Hindustan Times of 18 November 1947-which I also quoted when I spoke before this on 7 May 1964:

 

"These raiders abducted women, massacred children, they looted everything and everyone, they even dishonored the Holy Koran and converted mosques into brothels, and today every Kashmiri loathes the invading tribesmen and the arch inspirators who have been responsible for such horrors in a land which is peopled with an overwhelming majority of Muslims." [1113th meeting, para. 21.]

 

On 7 September The Times of London, which is not known for its pro-Indian policy, published a photograph of a mosque in Kashmir bombed by these infiltrators. These are the protagonists Islam; these are the brave soldiers of Islam who are going to the rescue of the majority of Muslims in Kashmir.

 

No country, under these circumstances, could have done more than India has done to come to a friendly settlement with Pakistan. We have extended the hand of friendship; it has been rejected. We have made overtures; we have been rebuffed. Now let me give the Council a short resume of what we have been trying to do.

 

First and foremost, as far back as 1950, our late Prime Minister asked Pakistan to enter ethnologically, racially and culturally we are one; it would be a horrible thing to contemplate a war between our two countries; let us enter into a no war declaration.

 

What was the response ? It was: No. From 1950 onwards we have repeated this offer: We have said: we shall not go to war with you, and you must not go to war with us; if we have differences we shall settle them in a manner. peaceful

 

Why has Pakistan refused to enter into this no-war declaration ? I shall give you the reason. It is because she had a guilty mind: because she knew that when the proper time came, she would not hesitate to attack India. Now we know for a fact the reason for her not entering into this no-war declaration.

 

But this is not the only thing we have done. We agreed to have talks with Pakistan. We agreed to have a meeting of the Home Ministers of the two countries in April 1964. That meeting was adjourned. We continued to remind Pakistan of the need to have another meeting. After continuous pressure from India, the Government of Pakistan agreed to hold a conference on 23 November 1964 in Karachi. However, about ten days before the meeting was due to take place, the Government of Pakistan unilaterally postponed the conference indefinitely.

 

In October 1963, the United Nations Chief Military Observer decided to give awards against even civilians if they were found to commit breaches of the cease-fire agreement. The Government of India accepted this decision. The Government of Pakistan rejected it.

 

In 1964, the Chief Military Observer proposed a meeting between the military representatives of India and Pakistan to consider the problems arising out of the violations of the cease fire line by armed civilians. India accepted the proposal, but Pakistan Rejected it.

 

In early 1965, the Chief Military Observer renewed his proposal. India accepted it, but Pakistan rejected it again.

 

In July 1964, India proposed a gentleman's agreement to restore tranquillity along the cease-fire line. When Pakistan failed to respond, India repeated this offer-this is found in the letter of 21 August 1964 from the representative of India to the President of the Security Council [S/5911]. At this stage, Pakistan accepted the proposal, and a meeting was fixed for 2 November in Karachi. Two days before the Indian delegation was due to leave for Karachi, the Pakistan Government unilaterally postponed the meeting for an indefinite period, and the meeting has never taken place.

 

What happened in the Rann of Kutch ? I would like to say that this is the third invasion by Pakistan of India The first was 1947-1948 when Pakistan attacked Kashmir, which legally and constitutionally was part of India: the second was the aggression committed in the Rann of Kutch: and this is the third invasion. With regard to the Rann of Kutch, thanks to the intervention of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, We agreed to a truce and to certain cease-fire terms. I would like to draw the attention of members to the preamble of that agreement; "in the confidence that this will also contribute to a reduction of the present tension along the entire Indo Pakistan border...". While this agreement was being negotiated and before the ink was dry. Pakistan was plotting and planning to invade India.

 

I would like to come now to our response to the mission of the Secretary-General. May I in the first place express my appreciation of the very strenuous and difficult task that he has undertaken. I remember that I came here on the day the Secretary-General was leaving. I saw him, wished him Godspeed and told him that he would be most welcome in my country. I hope the Secretary-General will not misunderstand me, but there is a passage in his preliminary report with which I must quarrel: I do not think it is fair to my country, nor does it correctly represent what really happened in India and in Pakistan. I quote from the message of 15 September from the Secretary-General:

 

"The replies from both Governments to my message of 12 September have shown clearly the desire of both for a cease-fire, but both pose conditions which make the acceptance of a cease-fire very difficult for the other side. For this reason, to my profound regret, it has so far been impossible to obtain a cease-fire as required by the Security Council resolutions of 4 and 6 September. [S/6681, para. 31].

 

I wish to state that whereas President Ayub Khan posed conditions with regard to the cease-fire, we posed conditions whatever. We accepted the cease-fire unconditionally. I have the greatest respect for the Secretary-General and for his objectivity and impartiality. but I am really surprised at how he came to make a statement like this in the face of the letters which appear in his report. Let me read them out.

 

Let me first quote from the letter of the Prime Minister of India dated 14 September:

 

"In deference to the wishes of the Security Council and to the appeals which we have received from many friendly countries, we accept your proposal for an immediate cease-fire. We would, therefore, be prepared to order a cease-fire effective from 6.30 a.m., standard time, on Thursday, 16 September 1965, provided you confirm to my by 9 a.m. to-morrow that Pakistan is also agreeable to do so." [Ibid., para. 8.]

 

In his letter of 15 September, this is what he wrote:

 

"I reaffirm my willingness, as communicated, to order a simple cease-fire and cessation of hostilities as proposed by you, as soon as you are able to confirm to me that the Government of Pakistan has agreed to do so as well. The actual time when the cease-fire would become effective would depend upon the time when you are able to convey to me the agreement of the Government of Pakistan to a cease-fire." [Ibid., para. 11]

 

Does this mean that we were imposing conditions? What is the meaning of a simple cease-fire? I do not want to weary the members of the Council on this point, because it would take up too much time. It is quite clear from the whole tenor of the letters of my country's Prime Minister that he was prepared to accept an unconditional cease-fire. This is what the Security Council wanted, and we complied with the request of the Security Council.

 

Now let us see the reply of President Ayub Khan. He stated:

 

"I am fully conscious of the gravity of the present situation and also of the dangers implicit in the catastrophe that threatens to engulf the subcontinent particularly because of the certainty that as time goes on the present conflict would be bound to assume graver and wider dimensions."

 

"However a cease-fire can be meaningful only if it is followed by such steps as would lead to a durable and honourable settlement in order to preclude the recurrence of a catastrophe such as now threatens the subcontinent. To bring about such a settlement, it would be necessary to evolve an effective machinery and procedure that would lead to a final settlement of the Kashmir dispute." [Ibid, para, 14.]

 

President Ayub Khan is posing a precondition that there must be machinery in the cease-fire agreement, or a cease-fire itself, which would lead to a final settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

 

There is another point. The Secretary General suggested and he has made the point here also-that President. Ayub Khan and the Prime Minister of India should meet and discuss their differences. It requires two to constitute a meeting. There cannot be a meeting with one person. What is the reply of President Ayub Khan? It is very revealing :

 

"While we are agreeable in principle to stop fighting I should like to point out that despite our most earnest efforts, the Ministerial level talks that followed the 1962 agreement proved barren and abortive in face of a firm refusal by India to arrive at an honourable settlement of the Kashmir dispute. On the other hand, India let loose a reign of terror, repression in the State and proceeded to adopt measures to 'integrate' the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian Union. In adopting these measures. India showed once again that it has no regard for its own solemn agreements and treats them merely as scraps of paper whenever it suits India." [Ibid., para. 14.]

 

I am not dealing with that now. Therefore, there is a clear refusal on the part of President Ayub Khan to meet the Prime Minister of my country. He says that the last effort was "barren" and "abortive". Again, I am not going into that history. We had six rounds of talks, and the meeting was broken up by Pakistan. But this is the response of President Ayub to Secretary-General's suggestion that the two leaders should meet and bring about a settlement.

 

The date of this reply of President Ayub Khan is very significant. Whereas the Prime Minister of India replied imme. President Ayub Khan took some time and that was deliberate. Members of the Security Council are aware of the news that was released in this country yesterday, 16 September namely, that China has given us an ultimatum, which expires, within three days, that if we do not carry out China's demands serious consequences will follow. It was only when President. Ayub Khan was assured that this reply was sent. This intractable and intransigent attitude is due to the fact that he's expected support from China. He wants India to fight on two fronts. While we are facing Pakistan in the direction of the Punjab, he wants China to stab us in the back. If ever a complicity was established between those two countries, it is this. The timing of the ultimatum and the timing of the reply of President Ayub Khan is not merely a coincidence. It has grave and serious implications. We are now threatened by an invasion from China.

 

It is sad that Pakistan should be taking this attitude with the help of the arms supplied to Pakistan by the United States not for the purpose of fighting India but for the purpose of meeting the Chinese menace. I have three statements here. The first is from no less a person than President Eisenhower; it is dated 24 February 1954:

 

"What we are proposing to do, and what Pakistan is agreeing to, is not directed in any way against India, and I am confirming publicly that if our aid to any country, including Pakistan, is misused and directed against another in aggression, I will undertake immediately, in accordance with my constitutional authority, appropriate action both within and without the United Nations to thwart such aggression."

 

This is what Mr. Bunker, who was then the Ambassador to India, said in November 1957:

 

"If Pakistan uses American arms against India for aggressive purposes, she will forfeit our assistance and we will be on the side of India."

 

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, who was, as you know, not very friendly to us in those days, said in 1956:

 

"I think there can be every confidence on the part of India now that there will be no use of those armaments in any aggressive way against India. Certainly Pakistan knows that if that should happen there would be a quick end to its good relations with the United States. On the contrary, under the principles of the United Nations Charter, the United States would be supporting India if it became a victim of any armed aggression."

 

I ask the United States: Is the United States going to permit Pakistan to commit a breach of faith with it, and also make it possible for a breach of faith to be committed by the United States with India ? These are not ordinary people giving us assurances. These are assurances by the President of the United States, by the Ambassador of the United States and by the Secretary of State of the United States. Today we have this extraordinary situation that Pakistan is fighting us with Patten tanks with arms which Pakistan received from the United States, and Pakistan is going to fight us in collaboration with a country which the United States considers to be its number one enemy. Therefore, American arms are going to be used to destroy a country which is friendly to them. United States.

 

Therefore, my short submission is that whereas our response to the Secretary-General's mission and the resolutions of the Security Council calling for a cease-fire has been positive, constructive and unequivocal, the response of Pakistan has been obstructive and non-co-operative. Let us look at the conditions that Pakistan has laid down for the cease-fire. There are four conditions. The first is, a cease-fire-of course, it wants a cease-fire. The second is withdrawal of all troops from Kashmir. This is an extraordinary condition. I am not going into the Kashmir question. If I may say so, the Security Council should confine itself to the simple question of the cessation of the conflict and mix up the political issue with this issue in this juncture. We have time enough for that when the fighting has stopped. But I want to say this about the withdrawal of all troops from Kashmir. Under the resolution of 13 August 1948 or the Unite Commission for India and Pakistan, we are entitled to have troops in Kashmir, and Pakistan had agreed to withdraw all its troops from that part of Pakistan which it occupies.

 

Paragraph 1 of part II, A, of the resolution reads as follows:

 

"As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from the State."

 

That was in 1948. We are in 1965 and the troops still remain. Not only do they remain, but they are used to invade us, to attack us, to commit inhuman cruelties upon the citizens of Kashmir Part II, B, of the resolution relates to India and in paragraph 2 it is stated that:

 

"Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of the cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the Commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order." Therefore, we are responsible for law, order, security and defence of Kashmir.

 

Kashmir is an integral part of India. It is a member of the Indian Federation, and it is as much our duty, our responsibility and our privilege to defend Kashmir and look after its law and order as it would be if it was Calcutta, or Bombay, or Delhi, or any other part of India.

 

And what is the demand ? When analysed, it means this. All troops should be withdrawn. That means that we have got the legal right, the constitutional right to have troops in Kashmir for its defence and security, but we must withdraw them before the great country of Pakistan will agree to talk with us or to accept a cease-fire.

 

The third condition is induction of an Afro-Asian force. We are entirely opposed to this proposal. We do not want any foreign troops in our country, on our soil. We can look after the interests of our people ourselves. We know how to defend ourselves, and we will never agree to any foreign troops being inducted into our country.

 

Finally and this is the most extraordinary condition of all-a plebiscite within three months. I have said that these conditions are impossible and preposterous. But let me deal with this last one: a plebiscite within three months. Again, I am not going into the political history of Kashmir. I said on the last occasion-and I stand by that-that under no circumstances will India hold a plebiscite. Kashmir is an integral part of India and we do not hold plebiscites in every part of the country. You, Mr. President, would not agree to hold a plebiscite in New Mexico, or Texas, or Alaska; and this would apply to many other countries that I could mention. But, apart from that, it is for the Security Council ultimately to decide whether a plebiscite should be held or Pakistan decides, and it wants a plebiscite at the point of the not. But gun, at the point of the bayonet. The argument is this: we have invaded Kashmir: now hold a plebiscite within three months.

 

I could understand Pakistan's coming to this Council after all, Kashmir is still on the agenda of the Council-and pleading its case. But no, Pakistan does not believe in going to international forums. I think that Mr. Bhutto said that he had lost his patience and that he was prepared to fight for a thousand years in order to get Kashmir. But this shows how impossible a condition has been laid down by President Ayub Khan before we can have a cease-fire.

 

Now may I add that this is not merely a conflict between India and Pakistan: it has much wider significance. The first significance is that the threat and menace of China looms large behind this war. It is much more than merely looming now; it has almost come to a concrete shape after yesterday's ultimatum. And I charge Pakistan with having launched upon this fight with India in the hope and expectation that China will be behind it and support it.

 

Then, this is a war between two ideologies. Let us face it. On the one hand, there is the religious State; and on the other, the secular State. This is the conflict; it is not Kashmir. Kashmir is merely the symptom; it is not the disease. The disease is that Pakistan believes in a religious State; it believes in religion as the nexus between citizens. We believe in a secular State, in a multiracial society. And it is also a fight between a free society and democratic institutions, on the one hand, and dictatorship and regimentation on the other. These are the issues involved in this war. And I think, if I may say so, that it is in the interests of Asia and the world that our free society, our multi-communal federation should survive.

 

The attack on Kashmir is an attack for the purpose of breaking up our federation, of breaking up our way of life, of preventing us from carrying on our great experiment of men of different religions and different languages living peacefully together. Mr. President, the same experiment is being tried in your country, the United States, and other countries are trying it. But Pakistan does not want it; it does not believe in it and wants to break it up.

 

What we are defending today is not merely the territorial integrity of our country-which is important enough. What we are defending today is the existence of a free democratic nation. We want to function as a free, democratic nation. It is the threat to our institutions that we are resisting.

 

Finally, I charge Pakistan with aggression. Aggression began in 1947 against Kashmir and continues today. It is a continuing aggression. The Secretary-General's reports show that Pakistan does not wish to renounce aggression as an instrument of its policy, and Pakistan has been allowed to enjoy the fruits of aggression and even permitted to make common. cause with China.

 

And I charge Pakistan with refusing to comply with the resolution of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan.

 

I ask that in the resolution which the Council ultimately will be pleased to adopt it will note that whereas we have unconditionally accepted a cease-fire, Pakistan has refused to do so. The action which I suggest that the Security Council should take is that it must brand Pakistan as an aggressor, and it must insist on Pakistan's compliance with the resolution.

 

May I deal now with the report of the Secretary General which he has read out and which I have had a short time to read. The Secretary-General suggested that the Security Council "could order the two Governments concerned, pursuant to Article 40 of the Charter of the United Notions, to desist from further hostile military action and to this end to issue cease fire orders to their military forces" [see para. 20 above].

 

Why two Governments? Why again bracket India and Pakistan together ? We have not said no. Why do you say you should call upon India and Pakistan to desist from taking hostile action ? I have read out the letter of the Prime Minister of India. Why this constant attempt at bracketing India and Pakistan together, coupling them together, putting them on the same footing?

 

The Secretary-General went on to say."...the Council might also declare that failure by the Governments concerned to comply with this order would demonstrate the existence of a breach of the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter."

 

I say that the Council must call upon Pakistan to desist from carrying out hostilities, and I ask it, under Article 39 of the Charter, to which the Secretary-General referred, not to declare that there is a breach of the peace, but to determine and the Security Council has the authority to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression"-the existence of act of aggression on the part of Pakistan.

 

With regard to the second suggestion reading as follow: "...the Security Council may wish to consider what assistance it might provide in measuring the observance of the case-fire" [see para. 21 above], after the cease-fire has taken place, and if we wish for any assistance from the Security Council, we will certainly ask for it.

 

The third suggestion reads as follows: "...the Security Council resolution 210 (1965) of 6 September also calls for a prompt withdrawal of all armed personnel to the positions held by them before 5 August 1965, and the Council may wish to study means of assisting in the carrying out of this requirement ." (see para. 22 above]

 

This deals with the modality of the cease-fire. I do not want to deal with this in detail, but may I say this. All the invaders who have entered Kashmir must leave. They must be withdrawn. They must be called back. Just as they were sent by Pakistan, they must be called back by Pakistan. Secondly, it must be made impossible for such infiltration to take place again. Thirdly, Pakistan must own up to its responsibility for these infiltrations.

 

The fourth suggestion is:..."the Council could request the two Heads of Government to meet together at the earliest We are possible time" [see para. 23 above] I have already dealt with that. As I have said it requires two to constitute a meeting. always prepared to talk with anyone. Debate and discussion are the life-blood of democracy. We have never said no to talks with anybody, but talks must have a purpose. There must be a basis for a talk. While this conflict is going on it is impossible to suggest that the two leaders can meet. Once there is a basis for talks, I hope the Head of the Pakistan State will agree to meet with the Prime Minister of India, and I am sure that the response of our Prime Minister will not be uncooperative.

 

Finally, the Secretary-General declared: "... I may again assure the Council of my availability and of my desire to continue to be of assistance in this matter in any way which may commend itself to the Council and to the two Governments" [see para. 20 above].

 

The Secretary-General is always welcome in our country. As I have said before, we have great respect and great regard for him personally and as the executive of this great Organization. Today he is the greatest international servant in the world. I know his desire for bringing about peace, and whenever he wants to come to our country he will be welcome. Whatever assistance we can give him for restoring peace will always be available.

 

I am very grateful for the patient hearing I have been given. I am afraid it has been longer than I expected, but the cause for which we are fighting is so important that I had to present India's case in full detail.

 

I agree with the Secretary-General that a great responsibility is placed upon the Security Council. I think this is a test of the Security Council. Is it going to meet the challenge? If international society is to function, the Security Council must answer the challenge. I therefore say: come to a decision, come to a conclusion, arrive at a judgement, and do not hesitate to deliver the judgement.