27091965 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Parthasarathi (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1245 held on 27 September 1965.
27091965 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Parthasarathi (India) in the Security Council meeting No. 1245 held on 27 September 1965.
Presumably the resolution just adopted by the Security Council will be communicated to the Government of India by the Secretary-General, and my Government will no doubt give it the consideration it deserves. But I must point out in fairness and justice that this resolution should be addressed only to Pakistan. From the very beginning Pakistan has been opposed to an unconditional cease-fire. This is clear from the records of the Council as well as from the statements made by Pakistan's representatives in the Council.
In contrast with Pakistan's attitude, India has at every stage expressed its willingness to accept an unconditional cease fire. This is also clear from the records of the Council, from the communications sent by the Prime Minister of India to the Secretary-General, and from the statements made by the leader of the Indian delegation. Mr. M.C. Chagla, Education Minister, in the Council.
As far back as the second week of August, as stated by the Secretary-General in his report of 3 September, the Government of Pakistan had refused to give any assurance about observing a cease-fire and the cease-fire line. To quote the Secretary-General :
"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 at 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." [S/6651, para. 9.]
The President of Pakistan, in his telegram dated 5 September 1965, addressed to the Secretary-General [S/6666]. stated categorically that he would not accept an unconditional ceasefire. He stated, in the penultimate paragraph of that telegram: "Therefore, insistence on a cease-fire can only be meaningful if there is a self-implementing agreement to follow it."
Pakistan's attempt to force a settlement of what Pakistan calls "the Kashmir dispute" on its own terms by threatening to continue its aggression was made even clearer by President Ayub
Khan in his letter of 13 September addressed to the Secretary General, in which he said:
"While you propose a 'cease-fire without condition' you go on to add that the Security Council would, soon after the cease-fire, proceed to implement its resolution of 6 September. The provisions of the Security Council resolutions of 4 September and 6 September that the cease-fire be followed immediately by withdrawal of all armed Pakistan personnel to the Pakistan side of the cease fire line and the consolidation of the cease-fire line through the strengthening of the United Nations Military Observer Group would result in restoring India's military grip over Kashmir. We would thus merely revert to the same explosive position which triggered the present conflict." [S/6683, para. 9.]
He repeated this view in his letter dated 15 September addressed to the Secretary-General [S/6683. para. 14].
On the other hand, the Prime Minister of India, in his response to the Secretary-General's appeal for a cease-fire, as expressed in his letter to the Secretary-General dated 14 September, said:
"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., Indian standard time, on Thursday, 16 September 1965, provided you con firm to me by 9 a. m. tomorrow that Pakistan is also agreeable to do so." [S/6683, para. 8.]
In reply to the Secretary-General's message of 14 September the Prime Minister of India said:
"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." [Ibid., para. 11.]
On 18 September, the representative of India-the Education Minister, Mr. Chagla-challenged the representative of Pakistan to accept an unconditional cease-fire and to make a declaration to that effect in the Council [1241 st meeting, paras 154]. The only response from the Law ``Minister of Pakistan was to ask the Council not to adopt the draft resolution and to warn the Council that if it was adopted "another and wider conflagration is bound to ensue." [1242nd meeting, para. 66],
India accepted a simple cease-fire under Security Council. resolution 211 (1965) of 20 September 1965. Pakistan did not give any indication of its acceptance until the last minute of the time limit allowed under the resolution of 20 September that is to say at 3 a.m. New York time on 22 September 1965. Obviously there was a reason for delaying the communication of its acceptance until the last minute. It's Foreign Minister's statement to the Security Council that the President of Pakistan had already issued orders for a cease-fire beginning at 12.05 hours West Pakistan time was made for propaganda purposes, because three hours after his statement the Pakistan Air Force bombed Amritsar, causing heavy civilian casualties. I refer to document S/6709.
In a letter dated 25 September 1965 addressed to the Secretary-General [S/6711]. I brought to the notice of the Secretary-General a number of serious violations of the ceasefire by Pakistan troops. The Secretary-General's first report on the cease-fire dated 25 September [S/6710] also proves that Pakistan troops opened fire with rifles and light machine-guns towards the Uri-Punch road from dominating positions to the west of the road. The fire was observed by a military observer.
Finally, the Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations has dispelled all doubts about his Government's determination not to observe an unconditional cease-fire, in his communication dated 26 September 1965. addressed to the Secretary-General [S/6715]. In this communication he stated: "You appear to be concentrating almost exclusively on making arrangements for withdrawal of troops and reestablishing the old cease-fire in Jammu and Kashmir. In our judgement, however, military disengagement should proceed concurrently with an honourable political settlement...... Moreover, if immediate steps are not taken to bring about an honourable settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, we would be faced with the real danger of resumption of hostilities which may well lead to a conflict of much greater dimensions."
These facts prove conclusively that Pakistan started this trouble on 5 August 1965 with the intention of creating and maintaining an armed conflict with India to force a settlement of what it calls "the Kashmir question" on its own terms. It is therefore clear that Pakistan has not accepted an unconditional Ocease-fire and has no intention of observing it.
The issue before the Council is therefore quite clear, and that issue is to get Pakistan first to abjure the ways of force and violence and to honour the cease-fire without any mental or other reservations, as we have from the start agreed to do and as Pakistan has clearly failed to do. Until Pakistan is made to comply with the Council's call for a cease-fire, until the cease fire becomes really effective, no useful purpose can possibly be served by any kind of discussion, in the Council or elsewhere, as to any possible subsequent steps.
What is the situation today? All along the western border between India and Pakistan, Pakistan continues to indulge. in highly provocative attacks on our troops and positions. The Council cannot possibly expect our forces to stand idly by. They have clear instructions to meet every attack with determination, in defence of their positions and themselves.
In the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, hundreds of armed Pakistani raiders continue to commit acts of aggression. To this day, Pakistan has not held responsibility for them. Instead, the Pakistan controlled radio continues to blare forth calls to them to continue their nefarious activities and to say that these will continue, notwithstanding a cease-fire.
In such circumstances, it would be utterly futile for the Council to waste its valuable time on questions like withdrawal. We hope the Council will take note of this fact and will confine itself to the task, first, of securing Pakistan's compliance with the call for a cease-fire.