20091965 Text of the speech made by Mr. Zafar (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 1242 held on 20 September 1965.
20091965 Text of the speech made by Mr. Zafar (Pakistan) in the Security Council meeting No. 1242 held on 20 September 1965.
I listened very carefully to the statements that were made the day before yesterday (1241 st meeting). There are many points which demand discussion, but I wish to confine myself at this stage to some brief submissions. These, we feel, are absolutely necessary if the grave issues confronting us are all to be clarified.
I must say at the very outset that it is not the policy of my Government to join issues with any individual member of the Security Council. As a Member of the United Nations, and as a party to a dispute that has tragically persisted for eighteen years and remains unsolved on the agenda of the Council, my Government, I believe, has a right to expect at least two things. from anyone who participates in the judgement-making processes of this Council.
First, he must be objective enough not to cast reflection upon, far less to question, the basis, the raison d etre, of the statehood of a Member State. Second, he must not in any manner denigrate the value of those decisions of the Council itself which govern the consideration of an issue and which have been repeatedly affirmed over a number of years. I think it was evident that, at one point the day before yesterday, these expectations were not fulfilled.
The representative of Malaysia made the observation regarding the Kashmir question that: "It"-meaning the Kashmir dispute-"began simmering in August 1947 when one ancient country and one ancient people were cut into two unequal parts." (1241st meeting, para. 19.) This is indeed a strange observation coming from the representative of a country which shares with Pakistan membership in the Commonwealth and many other close ties. His observation amounts to an attack on the very existence of Pakistan as a sovereign and independent country. What "one ancient country" and which "one ancient people '' is he referring to? The partition of the subcontinent was carried out with the consent of the two main political parties, namely, the Congress representing the Hindu majority, and the Muslim League, representing the Muslims of India. There were in 1947, and there are still in India today, influential Hindu leaders who resent the creation of Pakistan and are out for its destruction. I am sure this could not be the position of the representative of Malaysia.
Further, when the representative of Malaysia talked of "ancient resolutions from the musty records of the past'', I am afraid he did not encourage respect for the Council's decisions. He seemed to imply that if one disobeys a resolution of the Council long enough, one can count on the resolution becoming "ancient" and being buried in "the musty records" of this Council.
For those who shy away from the mention of these resolutions, let me point out that India itself invokes them when, according to its interpretation, Pakistan is supposed to have acted contrary to their provisions. General Nimmo and the United Nations Military Observer Group have been quoted in these discussions. What do they derive their authority from, except the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan which were accepted by the parties? In fact, the day before yesterday, the representative of India said that Indian troops are in the State of Jammu and Kashmir with the consent and sanction of the Security Council.
In making this statement, what was he doing except referring to the Commission's resolutions and putting a gloss on them ? The State of Jammu and Kashmir is a territory in dispute. It is certainly not an integral part of India if Kashmir were an integral part of India, if the Commission's resolution. were defunct, the question of the council's consent and sanction would not arise.
Kashmir never was and never became a part of Indian territory. Even if it is admitted that people from Azad Kashmir have crossed over into occupied Kashmir, it cannot be said that they have trespassed on Indian territory, India first usurped Kashmir and, having done so, now maintains that any move to challenge its usurpation is an aggression against Indian territory. If this position were accepted, there would be no end to colonialism. Indian leaders have accepted Kashmir's right of self-determination and the problem of Kashmir cannot be compared to that of the fissiparous movement in India.
We are confronted today with a clear issue of war or peace. Pakistan, as I have already said, stands for peace. The imperatives of peace will not be satisfied if the Security Council bases its approach on what happened in early August 1965 about which it has no irrefutable evidence. General Nimmo has been quoted here. May I point out certain observations made by General Nimmo which were not quoted.
The first is from the Secretary-General's report, it is the passage which qualifies General Nimmo's conclusions about the so-called infiltration. It reads:
"...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." (S/6651, para. 6).
The second is from General Nimmo's letter to the Secretary-General dated 30 August 1955, which is appended to that report:
"As you will note, the investigations, which often have to be carried out in extremely difficult circumstances and at varying lengths of time after the particular action has occurred, have in general not yet been able to verify, either through observation or direct evidence, the identity of those responsible for the action and participating in it, or whether and to what extent there had been in fact crossing of the cease-fire line" (Ibid)
These observations speak for themselves. More important is the consideration-and the records prove it that the cease-fire line has been violated thousands of times during the sixteen years it has been in existence. It is not the violations of the cease-fire line that brought the matter to the Security Council. What gave the gravest turn to the situation was the outright, self-admitted invasion of Azad Kashmir by India and its inevitable results. What brought to it the dimension of aggression was the invasion of Pakistan by India on 6 September 1965.
The representative of India charged me with having forgotten that under the Constitution of Pakistan only a Muslim could be elected as President of Pakistan. I have not forgotten the Constitution. What I do not accept is the assumption of the representative of India that because only a Muslim can be President of Pakistan, Pakistan is a theocratic State, Pakistan is no more a theocratic State than the United Kingdom, where only a member of the Anglican Church can be King or Queen.
The representative of India inquired why we regard the people of Jammu and Kashmir as our kith and kin. The answer is obvious. More than 80 per cent of the people of the State are Muslims. They belong to the same racial stock as the people of Pakistan and have the closest cultural, social and humanities with us. We can never be indifferent to their fate.
We are not demanding, however, that on this account Jammu and Kashmir should be handed over to Pakistan. All that we are asking is that the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be enabled to decide freely and without coercion whether the State should accede to Pakistan or to India.
The representative of India has further said that, on the analogy of Kashmir, we could also claim-which is his fear that since the Muslims of India are our kith and kin, they too could be "liberated". I am using his expression. The representative's analogy is all wrong. Kashmir is disputed territory; India is not. The possibility posed by him, therefore, is manifestly inconceivable.
The representative of the USSR was pleased to refer to the letters dated 4 September 1965 of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR to the President of Pakistan and to the Prime Minister of India (S/6685) in which the Soviet Government had offered its good offices to help to resolve the Kashmir dispute. I understand that Mr. Kosygin. The Prime Minister of the USSR, has sent another message to the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India inviting them to meet on Soviet territory; it has also been reported. that he would be prepared to take part in such a meeting if this was desired by Pakistan and India.
The Government of Pakistan regards this move as very important and highly significant. It deeply appreciates the offer of the Soviet Union and is giving urgent consideration to the message received from the Prime Minister of the USSR.
Several members of the Security Council have advocated the resumption of bilateral talks with regard to Kashmir. We are always ready for bilateral talks with India on this or any other matter in dispute, provided the ground for such meetings has been adequately prepared and the talks are likely to be fruitful Members of the Security Council will recall that there were bilateral negotiations with regard to Kashmir between the Prime Ministers of Pakistan and India in 1950-1951 and 1953-54. Direct talks also took place between the Heads of the two Governments in 1959 and 1960 and between the two Foreign Ministers for as long as six months during 1962-1963. All these talks proved unfruitful, because India refused to honor its international commitments with regard to Kashmir as embodied in the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan and endorsed by the Security Council.
The counter-proposals which India put forward from time to time were that the present cease-fire, line should become the international boundary, with some minor border adjustments. This was no "honourable and equitable settlement" and totally ignored the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir themselves.
The representative of India told the Council the other day that the agreed resolutions of the Commission were a dead letter, that Jammu and Kashmir had become an integral part of India, and that in no circumstances would India agree to the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite. If this statement represents the considered view of the Government of India, it is hard to understand what could possibly be gained by the resumption of direct bilateral talks between Pakistan and India.
The central fact in the whole situation is the suffering of the people of Kashmir. There is only one way out of this situation. Let conditions be established under which the people of Kashmir are enabled, without fear of coercion or persecution, to record their free verdict on their own future. That is the clear duty, as I see it, of this Council
In what manner does it propose to discharge that duty ? If India's position should be that the people of the occupied portion of Kashmir are, if not happy, at least well content with their present situation and they desire no change, why does it not put an end to the whole of this dispute by offering a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, with due safeguards against any fear of coercion or persecution? India does not do so because it is convinced that the verdict of the suffering people of Kashmir will go against India. What is it that the Council proposes to do in that situation ?
Pakistan has hitherto discharged its duty fully under the Charter to strive for a fair, just and equitable solution through peaceful methods. It is still eager to seek a solution through such methods provided there are no further prevarications and subterfuges and a self-implementing plan is adopted to bring about such a determination of the dispute. It is our earnest hope that the Council will have the determination, strength and wisdom to bring about such a solution.
I wish to say that I have received information that the third Arab summit conference, held in Casablanca from 13 to 17 September, called anew for giving up the policy of force in the settlement of international problems, for solving them by peaceful means, and for respect for the right of self-determination, and, consequently, it expressed grave concern over the armed conflict between India and Pakistan. It appealed to both States immediately to halt the fighting and to settle the dispute. by peaceful means in accordance with the principles and resolutions of the United Nations. That is what an organization of various Heads of State has stated.
We are asking the same thing of the Security Council, namely to determine clearly and without ambiguity that the right of self-determination must be given to the people of Kashmir, a right which was promised to them by the Security Council in its resolutions. A thing once pledged and not given will shake the faith of those people in the United Nations itself. Therefore, we are confronted with a situation. of both giving peace to the world and creating faith in the people who look to this Organization as one that will give them justice, that will give them fair play and that will bring to their countries a peace which will be of a permanent nature.