18091965 Text of the speech made by Mr. Chagla (India) In the Security Council meeting No. 1241 held on 18 September 1965.
18091965 Text of the speech made by Mr. Chagla (India) In the Security Council meeting No. 1241 held on 18 September 1965.
Mr. President, I shall try to be as brief as possible in view of the lateness of the hour and your laudable desire to bring this meeting of the Security Council to a close by coming to a conclusion which will help the cause of peace.
May I point out that this war has now taken on a new dimension. The latest reports we have had are most disturbing.. Chinese troops are massing on our border. At four points they have already indulged in probing actions and they are poised for an invasion or a serious attack as soon as the ultimatum to which I referred at the 1239th meeting, expires. And the ultimatum expires tomorrow. But the Council will be making a serious mistake, if I might say so with the greatest respect to the members of the Council, if it looks upon this new trouble on our frontiers as something having to do merely with India and China. I want to satisfy the Council that what is happening now is an extension of the India-Pakistan conflict.
The representative of Pakistan blandly rejected what I said yesterday about the complicity between China and Pakistan; but unfortunately the record is much too clear for such bland dismissal of the charge I made yesterday.
May I refer to two or three quotations from responsible officials of the Government of Pakistan. In a telecast of the American Broadcasting Company in July 1961. President Ayub Khan, the Head of a member country of the South East Asia Treaty Organization and of the CENTO, and a recipient of United States military aid, felt no hesitation advocating China's system to other countries of South and South East Asia. Questioning the view that the relations between certain countries of South and South-East Asia and India were friendly he asked whether those countries were going to feel more secure. "In fact, they would be looking for protection elsewhere, and my belief is they will find it under China's system". He argued that if India's economic and military potential was developed, the rest of Asia, far from taking it as a comfortable example, would be apprehensive of India's growing might and,. out of fear, might seek protection which China would be willing to extend.
In a statement to the Associated Press of Pakistan made on 10 April 1963, Premier Chou En-Ial disclosed that the leaders of Pakistan had assured him 1954 in -mark the year 1954-that Pakistan had joined the Western military alliances only to gain political and military ascendancy over India and that "Pakistan had no other motivation in joining the pacts".
Initiating a foreign policy debate in the Pakistan National Assembly in 1963, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. Mr. Bhutto said that in the event of a war with India, Pakistan would not be alone; Pakistan would be helped by the most powerful nation in Asia.
In December 1963 the Chinese Vice-Minister for Foreign Trade, Mr. Nan Han-Chen, then on a visit to Pakistan, said: "We have to build ourselves militarily, economically and financially to beat the aggressors." And he added: "If ever there is war between India and Pakistan, China will surely support Pakistan and not India."
Apart from this, we have been reading in the Press about the visit of Mr. Chou En-lai and the Vice-President of the Chinese Republic to Pakistan in recent times-and you will have noticed that the one country in the world which is opposed to the cessation of these hostilities between India and Pakistan is China. It has condemned the action of the Security Council it has called it an imperialist body. It has condemned the peace mission of the Secretary-General, calling him a stooge of the imperialists. And this is for obvious. reasons. China is fighting India through Pakistan. The whole policy of China is to disrupt the economy of India, to break up the country, because China realizes that India is the only country in Asia which can withstand the menace of Chinese expansionism. Therefore, there is no point in saying, as the representatives of Pakistan have said: "We have nothing to do with China, there is no complicity between ourselves and China; we are fighting this war with India singlehanded".
I come now to the question of Kashmir, I do not want to delve into history. I studied history at Oxford and I am very fond of history, but history must be reserved for a proper occasion. Therefore, all that I have to say about Kashmir I said at great length when I intervened in the debate last year. But I want to make my position clear on Kashmir. I do not want this Council to be under any misapprehension as to the attitude of my Government with regard to Kashmir; nor do I want the representative of Pakistan to be under any misapprehension. Kashmir is an integral part of India. Kashmir is a unit of the India Federation and we will not permit our Federation to be broken up. The separation of Kashmir from India means the break-up of our Federation of India. It would mean as much a break-up as if any other part of India were separated from India. Therefore, as far as the position of Kashmir is concerned, it has been stated by the representatives of the Government of India on more than one occasion, and, as I said, I myself stated it clearly and categorically at our last meeting.
The representative of Pakistan, surprisingly enough, referred to the people of Kashmir as the "kith and kin" of Pakistanis. It is a surprising statement. Why are they kith and kin of Pakistanis ? Is it merely because the majority of people in Kashmir happen to be Muslims? There are 50 million Muslims in India: I suppose that the next suggestion of Pakistan will be that they have got 50 million people in India who are their kith and kin and, therefore, they have a right to invade India to liberate these people who are groaning under the tyranny of India-as he has suggested that the people of Kashmir are groaning under the tyranny of India.
May I quote from a very significant broadcast which was made by Mr. Bhutto on 15 September "Pakistan can never be complete without self-determination in Kashmir. This is the demand of the Muslims of the subcontinent".
Let me make two comments on this statement. Even before a plebiscite, which the representative of Pakistan demands, has taken place, and even before the people of Kashmir have expressed their determination, as he wants them to do, Mr. Bhutto has made up his mind that Kashmir shall belong to Pakistan because according to him. Pakistan will never be complete without the self determination of Kashmir. Therefore, according to him, the self-determination of Kashmir means Kashmir belonging to Pakistan.
The second extraordinary statement is that this is the demand of the Muslims of the subcontinent. Now, with all respect to Mr. Bhutto, who made him the representative of the Muslims of the subcontinent ? According to him, this is not merely the demand of the people of Pakistan, but also the demand of the Muslims of India. If I had the time, I would satisfy the Council that hundreds and thousands of meetings of Muslims have been held in India, in all parts of the country, entirely supporting the Government of India on this issue. India is one in fighting this aggression by Pakistan and in taking up the attitude that Kashmir is an integral part of India. There is no Hindu-Muslim problem about Kashmir in India. Every Indian, whether he be Hindu or Muslim or Christian or Jew or Bhuddist, is agreed on one thing that Kashmir is an integral part of India and is, as I said, part of the Federation. which constitutes our country.
The representative of Pakistan has also talked about. disputed territory and he has tried somehow to exonerate himself from the charge of aggression which has been levelled. against him by suggesting that the Pakistani troops entered into disputed territory of Kashmir. I do not understand this expression. How is Kashmir disputed territory? If one looks at the resolutions of the Security Council, it is absolutely clear that India was made responsible for the defence and security of Kashmir, that our troops are there with the consent and sanction of the Security Council. If there is a dispute at all it is as to the question of a plebiscite. But as far as the territory is concerned today, the sovereignty is legally and constitutionally vested in India. If I had the time I would satisfy the Council, from the records of this august body, that that is the position; but I do not want to go into it. However, I want to make it clear that Kashmir is not a disputed territory. It is an integral part of India, not only because we say so; it is an integral part in law and in constitution, in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council.
The representative of Pakistan has charged us with violation of international agreement with regard to a plebiscite. I think that the shoe is on the other foot. It seems to be forgotten that it was we who came to the Security Council as complainants against the aggression of Pakistan against Kashmir. We were the complainants. The Pakistanis were the accused. And this Security Council called upon Pakistan to vacate its aggression, to withdraw its troops. Until today, that has not been done. If there has been a violation of international agreements, it has been by Pakistan, and that violation started in 1984 and has continued until today.
I do not want to go into the question of aggression by Pakistan. It is borne out by the report of the Secretary-General and the very able statement which has been made by the representative of Malaysia. But there is something more. Pakistan admittedly has violated the cease-fire line. According to the report of the Secretary-General, Pakistan has admitted that it does not respect the cease-fire line. According to Pakistan, the cease-fire line has ceased to exist. If you look at the resolutions to which reference has been made, resolutions passed as far back as 1948 or 1944, it will be seen that all the arrangements that were arrived at with Pakistan through the instrumentality of the Security Council were based on the integrity and inviolability of the cease-fire line. If Pakistan says the cease-fire line does not exist, then the resolutions of the Security Council which I termed as obsolete in my statement last year [1088th meeting, para. 33] not only have become obsolete but are dead. The representative of Pakistan has shown a great solicitude for the minorities in India. I do not think he needs to be so solicitous about them. They are perfectly happy, enjoying all the rights of free citizens, with all the fundamental rights guaranteed to them. He quarreled with me for calling Pakis. tan a religious State. He has forgotten his Constitution. Under the Pakistan Constitution, no one but a Muslim can be President of Pakistan. Under our Constitution, we make no distinction as to caste or community. He has forgotten that in Pakistan there are no real parliamentary institutions, there are no direct elections, and democracy functions, if at all, in a very diluted and modified form.
As regards the cease-fire, I think that by now it should be clear to the members of the Council from the statements made by all members that we have accepted the cease-fire unconditionally. The letter of the Prime Minister of India is clear, categorical and unequivocal. We have refused to link the problem of Kashmir with the cease-fire. On the other hand, President Ayub Khan insists on linking this problem with the cessation of hostilities, and that position has been repeated emphatically by the representative of Pakistan. I challenge the representative of Pakistan even now, at this table, to state categorically whether he is prepared unconditionally to accept a cease-fire. I say here what my Prime Minister has said: I am prepared to accept a cease-fire here and now late this very moment, unconditionally. Is the representative of Pakistan prepared to do so ? If he is not, I beg you, Mr. President, and I beg the members of the Security Council when they draft a resolution to make a distinction between these two positions, not to equate us, not to bracket us and not to put us on the same footing.
The representative of Pakistan said he was opposed to the issuing of any order against him under Article 40 of the Charter. Why? Does he not want a cease-fire ? Is he not so sure of himself because China is coming to his rescue ? It again discloses an attitude which is not favourable to peace, which is not favourable to the cessation of hostilities.
We are living in serious times. The situation is becoming graver. War is extending and escalating. However, as far as we are concerned, we are prepared to give every assistance to the Security Council for the cessation of hostilities.
I do not wish to tax your patience by rebutting every statement made by the representative of Pakistan, for it would take much too long a time, but it should not be understood that I have accepted the various statements he has made. I could rebut each one of them if I were given the opportunity. However, there is one statement which I must rebut. I must nail the lie to the counter.
The representative of Pakistan said that we had bombed the civilians at a place-called Batamaloo The position is this. About the time the fire started, the Azad Kashmir radio blared forth a call to so-called freedom fighters asking them to set fire to all areas with important government offices-the State Secretariat building, the State Armed Police headquarters, the supply godowns and the agency office adjoining the place. Later the same evening and again the next morning, the Pakistan radio gleefully announced that freedom fighters had set fire to an area at Batamaloo with important government buildings. Next morning The Pakistan Times announced the same, as follows:
"Government buildings in Srinagar are on fire. Mujahids" -these are the people Pakistan sent across the cease fire line-"active in the heart of the city. Held State capital cut off from outside. Hundreds of Indians killed in skirmishes."
That same paper specifically mentions the arson committed in this particular case:
"The freedom-fighters set many government buildings on fire at Batamaloo about three miles from Srinagar yesterday and entrenched themselves in the heart of the city. The blaze continued for seven hours, according to the All-India Radio".
The representative of Pakistan, sitting before a responsible body like this, has charged us with setting fire to that place. What I have read is from Pakistan's own newspaper, their own radio, their own responsible officers.
Now, there is one more thing I would like to say. Every time we come here, Pakistan talks about the "revolt" in Kashmir. In this morning's Guardian, a leading newspaper in England, this is what appears in an article by the correspondent Donald Chesworth:
"An offer to stay in a Srinagar house-boat took me on a recent holiday to Kashmir. I was in the Kashmir Valley during much of the present trouble, arriving back in New Delhi on Sunday.
"Pakistan has alleged a popular uprising, nothing whatever to do with Pakistan, was the basis of the present armed conflict. At no time did I come across any evidence that there was a Kashmiri revolt, spontaneous or otherwise."
But that is not all. The Times of London, one of the most responsible newspapers of the world, stated on 11 August 1965, in a dispatch from its correspondent in India :
"There is no indication of any armed revolt by people on the Indian side"-of Kashmir-"as announced by Pakistan Ratio".
And the Baltimore Sun, a very responsible newspaper in the United States-as the President would know-on 12 August 1965, in a report from its correspondent describing a tour around Srinagar, said:
"There is no evidence visible in or near this city to support reports from Pakistan of a popular uprising against India, nor of repressive measures against the population".
The representative of Pakistan, sitting before a responsible body like this, has charged us with setting fire to that place. What I have read is from Pakistan's own newspaper, their own radio, their own responsible officers.
Now, there is one more thing I would like to say. Every time we come here, Pakistan talks about the "revolt" in Kashmir. In this morning's Guardian, a leading newspaper in England, this is what appears in an article by the correspondent Donald Chesworth:
"An offer to stay in a Srinagar house-boat took me on a recent holiday to Kashmir. I was in the Kashmir Valley during much of the present trouble, arriving back in New Delhi on Sunday.
"Pakistan has alleged a popular uprising, nothing whatever to do with Pakistan, was the basis of the present armed conflict. At no time did I come across any evidence that there was a Kashmiri revolt, spontaneous or otherwise.'
But that is not all. The Times of London, one of the most responsible newspapers of the world, stated on 11 August 1965, in a dispatch from its correspondent in India :
"There is no indication of any armed revolt by people on the Indian side"-of Kashmir-"as announced by Pakistan Ratio".
And the Baltimore Sun, a very responsible newspaper in the United States-as the President would know-on 12 August 1965, in a report from its correspondent describing a tour around Srinagar, said:
"There is no evidence visible in or near this city to support reports from Pakistan of a popular uprising against India, nor of repressive measures against the population".
The Sydney Daily Telegraph, on 13 August 1965, stated in a write-up by its columnist Emery Bares:
"Whatever the basic rights or wrongs of the chronic Kashmir problem may be, Pakistan's claim that the present armed conflict there is a purely internal rebellion against India stretches credulity a trifle far."
The BBC television on 16 August 1965 stated: "Undoubtedly they hoped for much local support"-that is, the Pakistanis "perhaps a popular uprising, but there has not been one..."
This establishes what I said in my statement at the 1239th meeting, that the people of Kashmir would rise in revolt and they would be able to take Kashmir in that way. But may I say this and here I am echoing what my friend the representative of Malaysia said that this would be a very serious thing for the Security Council, it would be a very serious thing for international relations, it would be a very serious thing for international peace, if Pakistan could get a settlement of the Kashmir problem, could get a plebiscite, at the point of a gun or a bayonet, I call this blackmail. You invade a country, you spread terror in the country, you bomb civilians, you do everything that is in your power, and then you turn around and say: I agree to a cease-fire, provided you settle the problem of Kashmir and hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. That is not the way to settle international problems: there are other ways of settling them.
In conclusion, I once again wish to express the anxiety of my Government to put an end to this war. An end can be put to this war on honourable terms. But I do not understand the expression "cease-fire in principle". What does that mean? Either there is a cease-fire or there is not. Does Pakistan mean that we should stop fighting and they will go on fighting until they get the Kashmir problem solved ? What is the meaning of a "cease-fire in principle" ? A cease-fire is a factual thing. It means that the troops of both sides put down their arms and stop shooting at each other. But according to Pakistan, we should put down our arms and stop shooting while they continue shooting until their principle is conceded. That is not my understanding of a cease-fire, nor is it the understanding of my Prime Minister. When we said without reservation that we accept a simple cease-fire unconditionally, we meant it. But when President Ayub Khan replied to the Secretary General, he talked of a "cease-fire in principle", something that has been re-echoed by the representative of Pakistan.
I say that these are two differing attitudes of the two countries, and when you deliberate on the resolution, I beg of you to bear in mind these two absolutely differing attitudes.
Mr. AKA (Ivory Coast) (translated from French): At this moment, while the Council is deliberating, the world is going through a period of anguish and suspense when the slightest blunder could entail incalculable consequences for international peace and for all mankind. Two great nations, India and Pakistan, which throughout their long history have earned our sympathies and our friendship, are engaged in armed conflict.
As the Secretary-General points out in his report (S/6651), the causes underlying the problem that has brought us together are complex and of long standing. We believe that the arguments adduced by both sides are equally worthy of respect in principle and deserve the Council's attention. It is, however, undeniable that, whatever arguments are adduced, the Council cannot help to solve the dispute between India and Pakistan by peaceful means while unrestrained passions, resentments and violence prevail in these two friendly countries.
Consequently, my delegation strongly believes that the Security Council must renew its appeal to the parties for an immediate cease-fire, and we are ready to join in any initiative by the members calculated to achieve this result, which must. in the minds of all, be the first step required to meet the present situation.
In making these few preliminary remarks. I wish to reserve my delegation's right to refer to the substance of the question at the appropriate time.