20011948  First Interim Report of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan

20011948  First Interim Report of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan

 

A. Purpose of the Report

 

The Commission submits this interim report in pursuance of the Security Council's resolutions of 20 January, 21 April and 3 June 1948 instructing it to keep the Security Council informed on matters concerning the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and on actions taken under the resolutions.

 

In accordance with the instructions contained in the resolution of 21 April, the Commission proceeded to the Indian sub-continent and placed its good offices and mediation at the disposal of the Governments of India and Pakistan. However, the situation that confronted the Commission upon its arrival was different from that which had been envisaged by the Security Council during the deliberations which preceded the formulation of its resolutions, inasmuch as regular Pakistani troops were within the frontiers of the State of Jammu and Kashmir participating in the fighting.

 

This new element necessarily influenced the approach of the Commission with regard to the implementation of the Security Council's resolution of 21 April. Agreement between the Governments of India and Pakistan on the terms for cessation of hostilities became the first prerequisite for the ultimate settlement.

 

After thorough consultations with the Governments concerned, and consideration of the military aspects of the problem as explained by the High Commands of the Indian and Pakistan Armies, the Commission submitted its resolution of 13 August 1948, for a cease-fire and truce agreement, through which it sought to achieve this immediate objective, linking it at the same time with the study of conditions for a peaceful and final settlement of the dispute between the two Dominions.

 

The Commission furnished both Governments with detailed written and oral elucidations regarding all points of its proposals upon which clarification was requested. The Government of India signified its acceptance of the resolution as a whole. The Government of Pakistan attached to its acceptance certain conditions which went beyond the compass of the resolution, thereby making impossible an immediate cease-fire and the beginning of fruitful negotiations to bring about a peaceful and final settlement in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

The text of the resolution and the related correspondence with India and Pakistan were released to the Press in order that the public might have a complete picture of the aims and purposes of the resolution as interpreted by the Commission to both Governments.

 

The Commission, having no enforcement measures at its disposal and being an organ of good offices and mediation, felt that it had exhausted the possibilities of further negotiations in the sub-continent. Consequently, the Commission decided that it should prepare an interim report informing the Security Council of its endeavours to the date of departure from the sub-continent and the circumstances which determined its actions.

 

B. Structure, Scope and Competence of the Commission

 

The genesis of the Commission is composed of two main stages: the resolution of 20 January, which created a commission of mediation and led to the resolution of 21 April, which, in turn, explicitly formed the Commission and gave it terms of reference. Its structure, scope and competence are derived as follows:

 

Security Council Resolution of 20 January 1948

 

By the resolution of 20 January 1948 (S/654) the Security Council established a Commission composed of three members, The one to be selected by India, the second by Pakistan, and the third to be designated by the two members so selected. resolution instructed the Commission to proceed to the sub continent as quickly as possible, to act under the authority of the Security Council and, in accordance with its directions, to keep the Security Council currently informed of the Commission's activities and of developments of the situation; and to report to the Security Council regularly, submitting the Commission's conclusions and proposals.

 

The resolution invested the Commission with a dual function (1) to investigate the facts pursuant to Article 34 of the Charter; (2) to exercise any mediatory influence likely to smooth away difficulties, carry out the directions of the Security Council, and to report how far the advice and direction of the Security Council had been implemented.

 

It empowered the Commission to perform these functions in regard to (1) the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir; and (2) other situations when the Security Council would be so direct.

 

The Security Council instructed the Commission to take its decisions by a majority vote and to determine its own procedure. The Council authorized the Commission to journey separately or together wherever the necessities of its tasks required, and directed the Secretary-General to furnish such personnel and assistance as it might consider necessary..Security Council Resolution of 21 April 1948

 

Subsequent to the establishment of the Commission, various drafts were submitted in the Security Council in an effort to arrive at a resolution the conditions of which would be acceptable to India and Pakistan. Both Governments, however, made reservations to certain parts of the draft resolution. On 21 April 1948, the Security Council adopted a revised draft resolution presented jointly by Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America (S/726). The objections regarding the implementation of the resolution which had been raised by India and Pakistan before the adoption were maintained and expressed thereafter (S/734/Corr. 1 and S/735).

 

In this resolution, the Security Council enlarged the membership of the Commission to five. It recommended to the Governments of India and Pakistan measures which it considered appropriate to bring about a cessation of the fighting and to create proper conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite in order to decide whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir was to accede to India or Pakistan..

 

To assist the two Governments in carrying out the measures recommended, the Security Council instructed the Commission "to proceed at once to the Indian sub-continent and there place its good offices and mediation at the disposal of the Governments of India and Pakistan with a view to facilitating the taking of the necessary measures, both with respect to the restoration of peace and order, and to the holding of a plebiscite, by the two Governments, acting in cooperation with one another and with the Commission, and [it] further instructs the Commission to keep the Council informed of the action taken under the resolution..." (S/726).

 

The Security Council instructed the Commission to certify to the Council whether the plebiscite had or had not been free and impartial.

 

Security Council Resolution of 3 June 1948

 

By the resolution of 3 June (S/819), the Security Council

 

reaffirmed its resolutions of 17 and 20 January and of 21 April. It directed the Commission to proceed without delay to the area under dispute with a view to accomplishing in priority the duties assigned to it by the resolution of 21 April 1948.

 

On 15 January 1948, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Pakistan addressed a letter to the Secretary General transmitting three documents (S/646 and Corr.1). The first of these documents was the reply of the Government of Pakistan to the complaint raised by the Government of India against Pakistan under Article 35 of the United Nations Charter. The second document stated other complaints of Pakistan against India (concerning Junagadh and Manavadar, fulfilment of financial and military agreements. and genocide). That document also requested the Security Council to adopt appropriate measures for the settlement of these disputes and for the restoration of friendly relations between the two countries. The third document gave particulars of the Pakistan case referring to matters dealt with in the previous two documents.

 

The resolution of 3 June 1948 directed the Commission further to study and report to the Security Council when it considered it appropriate on the matters raised in the aforesaid letter in the order outlined in paragraph D of the Security Council resolution of 20 January 1948.

 

Composition of the Commission and Nomination of its Members

 

In pursuance of the resolution of 20 January 1948, the Government of India selected Czechoslovakia to serve on the Commission. This was announced to the Security Council on 10 February by the President. On 21 April 1941, the Security Council enlarged the membership of the Commission from three to five. On 23 April two additional countries, Belgium and Colombia, were nominated as members of the Commission by the Security Council. On 7 May 1948, the President of the Security Council indicated that the Government of Pakistan had requested that Argentina designate a representative to serve on the Commission. On the same date, the President of the Security Council nominated the United States of America as the fifth member of the Commission.

 

Compositions of Delegations

 

The delegations of the five countries which constitute the Commission are as follows:

 

(1) Representatives

 

Argentina Minister Ricardo J. Siri

Belgium Minister Egbert Graeffe

Colombia's Minister Alfredo Lozano

Czechoslovakia Ambassador Josef Korbel

United States of

America Ambassador J. Klahr Huddle

 

(2) Alternate Representatives

 

Argentina Minister Carlos A. Leguizamón

Belgium Mr. Harry Graeffe

Colombia Mr. Hernando Samper

United States of

America Mr. C. Hawley Oakes

 

(3) Advisers to the representative of the United States of America

 

Mr. J. Wesley Adams, Jr.

Major Francis M. Smith (U. S. Army)

 

(4) Secretary-Stenographers for the delegation of the United States of America

 

Mr. William Goode

Mr. Harrison Troop

 

Secretariat

 

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, in compliance with the Security Council resolution of 20 January 1948, designated the following personnel to assist the Commission in its task:

 

Personal Representatives of the Secretary General

Mr. Erik Colban

 

Principal Secretary

Mr. Arnold V. Kunst

 

Deputy Principal Secretary

Mr. Henry S. Bloch

 

Personal Adviser and Assistant to Mr. Colban

Mr. Richard Symonds

 

Legal Adviser

Mr. Hsuan-Tcui Liu

 

Assistant Secretaries

Mr. Mohammed Ali Aghassi

Mr. Arthur Campbell

 

Press Officer

Mr. William F. Clark

 

Interpreter and Documents Officer

Mr. Sylvain Lourie

 

Administrative and Financial Officer

Dr. Slavomir F. Brzak

 

Photographer

Mr. Alfred Fox

 

Secretary-Stenographers

Miss Louise Crawford

 

Miss Marie Ellington

Miss Cecile J. Lefort

Mrs. Muriel Hanna Lewis.

Miss Pauline Perron

 

(c) Activities of the Commission

 

Groups and Subsidiary Bodies

 

In pursuance of its task, the Commission established the following groups and subsidiary bodies:

 

(i) On 16 July 1948, a group composed of Mr. Lozano (Colombia), Vice-Chairman, and Mr. Adams (United States of America), was sent to Karachi to engage in preliminary discussions with the Pakistan Government on the possibilities of a cease-fire agreement. The group returned to New Delhi and reported to the Commission on 19 July, (S/AC. 12/21 and S/AC./ 12/22).

 

(ii) On 14 August 1948, the Commission, sitting in Karachi, divided into two groups in order to submit simultaneously to the two Dominions the Commission's proposal of 13 August 1948. Mr. Lozano, Chairman, with Mr. Siri (Argentina) and Mr. Oakes (United States of America) remained in Karachi (S/AC. 12'40 and S/AC. 12/41). Mr. Korbel (Czechoslovakia), Vice-Chairman, accompanied by Mr. Huddle (United States of America), Mr. E. Graeffe (Belgium), Mr. Leguizamon (Argentina) and Mr. Samper (Colombia) proceeded to New Delhi (S/AC.12/45, and S/AC. 12/46). On 20 August, the group which had remained in Karachi rejoined the rest of the Commission in New Delhi.

 

(iii) On 2 September 1948, the Commission, sitting in Karachi, received a letter from the Prime Minister of India asking when the resolution of 13 August and related documents could be made public. The reply to the Indian Government on 4 September explained the situation and it was decided that Mr. E. Graeffe should go to New Delhi and offer the required elucidations to the Government of India. (iv) On 10 September, the Commission decided to divide into two groups: one under the chairmanship of Mr. Huddle, accompanied by Major Smith (United States of America) with Mr. E. Graeffe and his alternate, Mr. H. Graeffe (Belgium), went to Rawalpindi to study the situation on the western. section of the front in Kashmir; the other group. under the direction of the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Siri, with Mr. Lozano and Mr. Korbel proceeded to Srinagar. On 18 September, the groups reunited in Srinagar.

 

(v) Under the chairmanship of Mr. Lozano, a Military Affairs Sub-Commission was created on 14 July. It drafted a military questionnaire to be presented to the Government of India. In this connexion, a Mission consisting of Mr. H. Graeffe, Chairman, and Major Smith were sent to report on the situation on the eastern side of the front in Kashmir. Subsequently this Mission prepared a questionnaire which was presented to the Pakistani military authorities. The Mission then visited and reported on the situation on the western section of the front in Kashmir.

 

(vi) An investigating sub-committee composed of Mr. Leguizamon, Chairman, Mr. H. Graeffe, Mr. Samper and Mr. Adams was sent to Srinagar on 31 August to study and report on the general background of the economic and political situation prevailing in the

 

State of Jammu and Kashmir. All these groups and subsidiary bodies were accompanied by members of the Secretariat.

 

D. Proceedings of the Commission

 

The first normal meeting of the Commission was held in Geneva on 16 June. The representative of the United States of America was elected temporary Chairman pending the adoption of rules of procedure. The Commission considered the letters of 9 June 1948 from the President of the Security Council to the Commission (S/AC. 12/1/Corr.1) and to the Prime Minister of India (S/AC.12/2) on the subject raised in a letter dated 5 June 1948 (S/825) from the representative of India to the President of the Security Council. The next three. meetings were devoted to the discussion of rules of procedure, which were approved at the 4th meeting on 18 June and amended at the 11th meeting on 3 July (S/AC.12/4/Rev.1).

 

Rules of Procedure

 

The Commission agreed on the principle of rotation of chairmanship, the Chairman to hold office for a period of three weeks and to be succeeded by the Vice-Chairman. The chairmanship was to be assumed by the delegations in English alphabetical order. The election of the Rapporteur was postponed to a later date.

 

It was agreed that decisions in the Commission should be taken by a majority of not less than three concurring votes of members present and voting. It was also agreed that the official Press communiques should be previously approved by the Chairman and that Press releases and verbal briefings might be issued by the Secretariat unless decided otherwise by the Chairman.

 

Proceedings in Geneva

 

Altogether, eleven formal meetings were held in Geneva. Five of these were mainly devoted to correspondence with the Governments of India and Pakistan regarding the purposes and plans. the Commission.

 

The Commission on 22 June answered (S/AC.12/10) the questions of the Prime Minister of India (S/825) regarding the point or points on which it wished to confer. This answer elicited further questions from the Government of India (S/AC.12/13), to which a reply was made on 1 July (S/AC./12/ 16). The Commission felt that it should phrase its reply to the Prime Minister in terms as general as possible in order to avoid any controversy which might jeopardize its departure for the sub-continent. After considering the different aspects involved in the communication of the Prime Minister, the Commission decided that it would be unwise to commit itself in advance on the scope of its investigations but that, on the other hand, there should be no doubt as to its objectives and competence. In the reply it was clearly stated that, while having as its principal task the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Commission had reserved its decision with

 

regard to further dispositions. Both Governments were informed of the procedure the Commission intended to follow in initiating its work and were invited to appoint liaison officers.

 

A decision was taken regarding the name to be adopted by the Commission. Various terms had been used both in official correspondence and in resolutions of the Security Council as well as in the letters of credence of the delegations. The use of Commission of Mediation...Commission of Good offices..., Kashmir Commission....and Commission on the India and Pakistan Question... was considered. In the light of the terms of reference and particularly of the resolution of 3 June, which instructed the Commission "to proceed without delay to the areas of dispute with a view to accomplishing in priority the duties assigned to it by the resolution of 21 April'', i.e., the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir; and, second, "to study and report...... when it considers it appropriate on the matters raised in the letter of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan", it was though preferable to adopt a name which, although less precise, would cover the entire field of its work. A motion therefore was approved in favour of the name United

 

Nations Commission for India and Pakistan.

 

The remainder of the time in Geneva was occupied with administrative arrangements for travelling to the Indian sub. continent. It was decided that the Commission, while on the sub-continent, should take up its duties both in New Delhi and Karachi, with the first formal sessions in New Delhi. It was also agreed that a brief stop should be made in Karachi to enable the Commission to pay its respects to the Government of Pakistan. An advance party, consisting of two members of the Secretariat, was dispatched on 25 June to arrange accommodations and office facilities in Karachi and New Delhi.

 

Proceedings on the sub-continent

 

The Commission stopped in Karachi from 7 to 9 July. The principal representatives were received informally by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Relations, Sir Mohammed Zufrullah Khan. He reviewed at length, and along the lines of the expositions made before the Security Council, the general background of the problem and the broader issues involved in the dispute between India and Pakistan. In the course of this interview, the Foreign Minister. informed the members of the Commission that the Pakistan Army had at the time three brigades of regular troops in Kashmir, and that troops had been sent into the State during the first half of May. Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan stated that this action had been taken as a result of the spring offensive by the Indian Army..

 

Also while in Karachi, the Commission received a letter from the "Azad Kashmir Government" setting forth its views in regard to the conditions with which it would be willing to comply in the implementation of a plebiscite, inviting the Commission to visit Azad Kashmir, and requesting that it be given an opportunity to present its case as a party to any settlement in one situation (S/AC.12/Info.3).

 

At the 12th meeting, held in New Delhi on Tuesday, 13 July, it was agreed that the Commission's work would be facilitated if its formal proceedings were not public and were supplemented by individual conversations in private with representatives of the parties concerned.

 

On the afternoon of the same day, the representatives of India, Sir Girja Shanker Bajpai, Secretary-General of the External Affairs Ministry, and Mr. M. K. Vellodi, liaison officer to the Commission, attended the 13th meeting. Sir Girja Shanker Bajpai briefly set forth the views of the Government of India and stated that, irrespective of the differences between India and the Security Council, the presence of the Commission was highly regarded by his Government. He also. clarified the reasons, given in the Security Council, for the dis patch of Indian troops to Kashmir (S/AC.12/Info 2).

 

From the time of their arrival in New Delhi, and throughout their stay there, all the representatives on the Commission had frequent personal discussions with members of the Indian Cabinet and with responsible officials concerning the possibilities which might be examined.

 

At the 14th meeting, it was agreed that the question of an immediate cease-fire should be explored and that the Government of India should be asked for its observations regarding the ways and means by which such a cease-fire might be brought about.

 

A resolution (S/AC.12/17) in the spirit of the Security Council's resolution of 17 January 1948, and designed to enlist the cooperation of the two Governments in promoting a suitable atmosphere for cessation of hostilities, was passed at the 15th meeting. It was conveyed to the representatives of India, who were present during the latter part of the meeting, and dispatched to the Government of Pakistan through the High Commissioner in New Delhi. Reassuring replies were received from both Governments (S/AC.12/18 and S/AC.12/19).

 

During the course of the 15th meeting, the question of a possible cease-fire was raised formally with Sir Girja Shanker Bajpai, who undertook to consult his Government on its views and conditions. It was stated by Mr. E. Graeffe, Chairman, that the broad policy of the Commission was one of mediation and that its immediate objective was to bring about a cessation of hostilities rather than to deal with specific provisions contained in resolutions of the Security Council. A sub-commis sion to study matters related to the cease-fire was established.

 

Having thus initiated inquiries concerning the views of the Government of India, the Commission decided to send a party to Karachi forthwith to discuss the question of a ceasefire with the Government of Pakistan. At the 17th meeting, extensive military information was presented by the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army, members of his staff, and various general officers who had been in command in Kashmir.

 

The sub-commission established at the 15th meeting was named the Military Affairs Sub-Commission and was requested to prepare further questions of a military character which might be presented to the Government of India in writing.

 

On 17 July, a Mission comprising Mr. Lozano, Vice Chairman, and Mr. Adams, together with three members of the Secretariat, proceeded to Karachi furnished with instructions. The Mission had two conversations with Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan and Mr. Mohammed Ali, the Secretary-General of the Government of Pakistan. In the first meeting, held on 17 July, the Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed regret that the Commission had not formulated concrete proposals and hoped that it would not merely make recommendations, but would phrase its decisions in terms of directives. He offered to ascertain his Government's views upon a cease-fire.

 

At the second meeting, held on 18 July, Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan set forth three minimum considerations to be taken into account if cessation of hostilities was to be brought about: (1) that the Indian troops should be withdrawn from the State; (2) that provisions should be made for the main tenance of law and order and the protection of the Muslim population following the withdrawal of Indian troops; and (3) that the views of the "Azad Kashmir Government" should be taken into due consideration. The issue mentioned under (2) above, and evolving from the withdrawal of Indian troops, could, in the Foreign Minister's opinion, be settled by the introduction of international forces; a strong action to this effect on the part of the Commission could solve the difficulty. The importance of such forces would be enhanced by the simultaneous withdrawal of the Pakistani forces and volunteers, the necessity for which he also admitted. As for the views of the Azad Kashmir people, the Foreign Minister's intention was not to induce the Commission into recognition of the so-called Azad Kashmir Government, but he felt that the letter's approval, whether expressed directly to the Commission by their representatives or through the medium of the Government of Pakistan, might be of decisive importance.

 

Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan stated that three main reasons had motivated the entry of Pakistan troops into Kashmir: protection of the territory of Pakistan from possible aggression by Indian forces; prevention of a fait accompli in Kashmir by the Government of India; and prevention of the influx of refugees into Pakistan.

 

Reports on these two discussions were presented, on the return of the Mission to New Delhi, at the 18th meeting on 19 July.

 

At the 19th meeting, on 20 July, a confidential cable was drafted and dispatched informing the Security Council of the presence of Pakistani troops in Kashmir. The Commission adopted a resolution requesting the Secretary-General of the United Nations to appoint a military adviser (S/AC.12/23). Consideration was given to a draft questionnaire presented by the Military Affairs Sub-Commission, which was approved at the following meeting. It was agreed that the Government of Pakistan should be requested to send a special representative to New Delhi to place before the Commission that Government's official views on matters relating to a cease-fire.

 

At the 21st meeting, on 22 July, the Commission decided to proceed to Karachi to consult with the Government of Pakistan. It was also decided to send a military mission to make a survey of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir.

 

At the 22nd meetings, Mr. Mohammed Ali Secretary General of the Government of Pakistan, who had come to New Delhi at the request of the Commission accompanied by Mr. Mohammed Ayub, liaison officer, recapitulated the views which. had been given earlier by Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan in informal discussions with Mr. Lozano, and confirmed the minimum conditions of his Government with respect to an immediate cease-fire.

 

Mr. Mohammed Ali again stressed that his Government had hoped that the Commission would make concrete proposals in regard to a cease-fire. He expressed the view that a cessation of fighting would be possible if the conditions for a plebiscite were guaranteed. The extreme solution, he said, would be an unconditional cease-fire under the terms of which both sides would stop fighting and stay where they were pending further arrangements. However, Mr. Mohammad Ali added that the Government of Pakistan considered that even for an interim cease-fire agreement (before the establishment of the conditions for a plebiscite) the Indian Army would have to be withdrawn from Muslim majority areas.

 

The Commission used the last few days in July, before its departure for Karachi, primarily for informal meetings with the Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs. Pandit Nehru, and other representatives of the Government of India, in order to ascertain the views of their Government on the question of a cease-fire. During these conversations, held mainly with the then Chairman, Mr. E. Graeffe, the following principal points were submitted by the representatives of the Indian Government (1) The regular Pakistani forces should be withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir; (2) Indian forces should remain along fixed lines and occupy certain advanced strategic position; and (3) the evacuated territories situated outside of the fixed line should be provisionally administered by existing local authorities, or, if necessary, by local authorities to be designated by the Commission, and should be supervised by observers of the Commission, but remain under the sovereignty of the State of Jammu and Kashmir until the final settlement of the dispute between India and Pakistan.

 

Newspaper and radio reports emanating from Kashmir indicated a noteworthy increase in fighting. Confirmation of these reports was received from Sir Girja Shanker Bajpai and Mr. M. K. Vellodi, who appeared at the meeting held on 29 July.

 

The Commission proceeded to Karachi on 31 July to enter into discussion with the Government of Pakistan. At an informal meeting held on 1 August in the residence of the Foreign Minister, Sir A. Dundas, the Governor of the North west Frontier Province, reviewed in broad outline the social and economic problems of the tribesmen over a period of more than 150 years, and the policy which the former Governments of British India had pursued and the Government of Pakistan was pursuing in order to prevent the incursion of tribesmen into their territory.

 

He claimed that incursions of the tribesmen during the past year had assumed the character of a religious crusade, animated by a desire for vengeance due to the communal disturbances that had taken place in the East Punjab, and the oppression of the Muslims by the Dogra dynasty in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Governor added that the movement of tribesmen into Kashmir had in fact to be canalized through his province in order to avoid the serious risk of outright war within the territory of Pakistan. Further, he said that tribesmen obtained petrol from local sources in Pakistan and made use of railway and local motor transport. Mr. Mohammad Ali added that denial of this petrol would have amounted to an economic blockade and might have been implied. grave consequences for the Government of Pakistan.

 

During its first week in Karachi, the Commission held six formal meetings, all of which were designed to get an exact view of the situation and of the Pakistan Government's attitude toward the possibility of a cease-fire. First publicity concerning the presence of Pakistan troops in Kashmir appeared in Pakistan papers, having its source in the Civil and Military Gazette of 31 July 1948, a paper published in Lahore.

 

On 4 August, Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan made an extensive statement on the political, legal, economic, and strategic aspects of the dispute. In his analysis, the Foreign Minister made frequent references to the Junagadh case and the problem of genocide. He indicated, however, that it was not his intention to go into these matters at present, but he touched on them by way of illustration.

 

The Commission asked the Foreign Minister a number of questions, which he answered first orally and then in writing. The following is a resume of the reply of Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan :

 

(i) Pakistan had not informed the Security Council of the presence of its troops in Kashmir because, by the time they had been sent into the State, the question had been entrusted to the Commission, whose early departure for the sub-continent was expected. The matter had been put before the Commission immediately after its arrival in Karachi. In the view of the Foreign Minister, the presence of Pakistani troops in Kashmir did not raise the question of international obligations since Pakistan had never accepted any with regard to non-interference in Kashmir.

 

(ii) Referring to the legal aspects of the case, Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan stated that it had been agreed between India and Pakistan that, in instances where the ruler of the State did not belong to the same community as the people of the State and the ruler performed the act of accession, that act had to be finalized by a free and impartial plebiscite, He considered the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as clearly invalid because the Maharajah had made a choice contrary to the known wishes of the people. The Foreign Minister observed that, if the principle of plebiscite was applicable in Junagadh, it also should apply to Kashmir.

(iii) Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan confirmed that petrol was obtained by the tribesmen from local sources, repeating the argument that any attempt to stop the petrol supply would have entailed grave consequences for Pakistan.

 

(iv) The Minister for Foreign Affairs dwelt at length on economic and strategic considerations. He argued that India, if it had control over Jammu and Kashmir, would be in a position to divert all five rivers of the Punjab, i.e., the Chenab, Jhelum, Beas, Sutlej and Ravi, the last three being already under Indian control, and thus could reduce to a desert one-third of the irrigated areas of West Punjab; nevertheless, he stated that Pakistan would abide by the results of a plebiscite were it to favour accession to India.

 

He pointed out that, if the Radcliffe Award had followed the terms of reference under which the Boundary Commission had operated and included all Muslim majority areas in West Punjab, the Pakistan boundary would have been much further to the east. In this case, India would have had no direct access to Kashmir, During the 29th meeting, held on 5 August, the Commission discussed the Foreign Minister's statement and agreed that it should avoid any action which might be interpreted as signifying de facto or de jure recognition of the "Azad Kashmir Government". The Commission also considered the possibilities of a plebiscite but agreed that it would be impracticable as yet to make any definite proposal. At this meeting, the principles which underlay a cease-fire proposal were also discussed.

 

At the 30th meeting, on 6 August, the Commission considered a telegram received from the Government of Pakistan protesting against the speech delivered by Prime Minister Nehru on 25 July in Madras and asking what measures were contemplated by the Commission. It felt that, in view of the presence of Pakistani troops in Kashmir, any. representation to the Government of India on the speech made by Prime Minister Nehru would be ill-advised and, therefore, receipt of the telegram was acknowledged without comment. The Commission exchanged views concerning alternatives to a plebiscite, keeping in mind that the study of any such alternative could not be seriously undertaken without the consent of the Governments of India and Pakistan.

 

The Military Mission, on 6 August, presented its report on the visit to the eastern sections of the front in Kashmir. The Military Mission had left New Delhi on 27 July and had returned to Karachi on 5 August. The major conclusion of the report was that, if the two Governments concurred, the military authorities, under the auspices of the Commission, should be able to work out a cease-fire agreement without great difficulty.

 

At its 32nd meeting, on 9 August, the Commission heard from the representatives of the Military High Command of Pakistan. The Commander-in-Chief gave an account of the tactical situation on the Kashmir front. He corroborated declarations made to the Commission by the Indian High Command that, from the military point of view, there would be no difficulties in stopping the fighting if the provisions were fair to both sides. He submitted a plan for a cease-fire in which he

He stressed the need for military observers and suggested a minimum of fourteen United Nations observer teams. sure that both the Indian and Pakistan armies would co operate materially in providing the observers with the necessary equipment.

 

On 10 August, the Commission undertook to draft a cease-fire proposal. The study of this proposal was the main subject-matter of the next six meetings.

 

At the 39th meeting, on the morning of 13 August, the Commission was informed that the Foreign Minister of Pakistan desired to be received. A meeting was called for the afternoon of the same day, on which Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan made a statement in which he brought up, among others, the following points: (1) The uncertainty of the Pakistan Government concerning the way in which the Commission interpreted its terms of reference; (2) the legal aspects of the problems of accession and plebiscite; and (3) possibilities for a cease-fire agreement

 

At the close of the 40th meeting, the Commission unanimously adopted the following resolution :

 

[Resolution Adopted by the Commission at its 40th meeting, 13 August 1948]

 

The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan,

 

Having given careful consideration to the points of view expressed by the representatives of India and Pakistan regarding the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and

 

Being of the opinion that the prompt cessation of hostilities and the correction of conditions the continuance of which is likely to endanger international peace and security are essential to implementation of its endeavours to assist the Governments of India and Pakistan in effecting a final settlement of the situation.

 

Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal :PART I

 

Cease-fire order

 

The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that their respective High Commands will issue separately and simultaneously a cease-fire order to apply to all forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as of the earliest practicable date or dates to be mutually agreed upon within four days after these proposals have been accepted by both Governments.

 

The High Commands of the Indian and Pakistani forces agree to refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

(For the purpose of these proposals forces under their control shall be considered to include all forces, organized and unorganized, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides.)

 

The Commanders-in-Chief of the forces of India and Pakistan shall promptly confer regarding any necessary local changes in present dispositions which may facilitate the cease fire.

 

In its discretion and as the Commission may find practicable, the Commission will appoint military observers who under the authority of the Commission and with the cooperation of both Commands, will supervise the observance of the cease-fire order.

 

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations.

 

PART II

Truce agreement

 

Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in parts I, both Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their representatives and the Commission.

 

A

 

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 that State.

 

The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

 

Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission.

 

B

 

When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in part II, A, 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

 

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. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.

 

The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within its power to make it publicly known that peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human and political rights will be guaranteed.

 

C

 

Upon signature, the full text of the truce agreement or a Communique containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will be made public.

 

PART III

 

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the truce agreement, both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.

 

On 14 August at 6 p.m. the resolution was presented to the Governments of India and Pakistan. Mr. Lozano, Chair man, handed it to Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan in Karachi, and Mr. Korbel, Vice-Chairman, to Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in New Delhi.

 

The two groups of the Commission remained separated for about a week awaiting the replies of the respective Governments. During a few meetings held between the Commission and Prime Minister Nehru and Sir Girja S. Bajpai, views were exchanged on a number of points made by the Indian Government (S/AC. 12/46) as follows:

 

(1) The lines fixed for the forces at the moment of the cease-fire should be worked out as precisely as possible.

 

(ii) No legality should be accorded to the presence of Pakistani troops by acceptance of the proposition that the cease-fire would be effective along these fixed lines.

(iii) The sovereignty of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should not be affected.

 

(iv) The lines would run close to the Pakistani frontier and thus, to avoid incursions of Pakistani regulars or the tribesmen, India would need a number of strategic points in the territories evacuated by its troops.

 

(v) India should retain such strength of forces in Kashmir as to guarantee defence and maintenance of law and order and the protection of the territory against external attack.

 

(vi) Pakistan should not participate in the organization and conduct of the plebiscite.

 

The Commission defined its position with regard to the above points, on the basis of which the Prime Minister signified the acceptance of the resolution in a letter dated 20 August to Mr. Korbel, Chairman of the Commission. The letter appears below.

 

[Letter dated 20 August 1948 from the Prime Minister of the Government of India to the Chairman of the Commission]

 

On 17 August, my colleague, the Minister without Portfolio, and I discussed with you and your colleagues of the Commission now in Delhi the resolution which you had presented to us on the 14th instant. On the 18th, I had another discussion with you, in the course of which I tried to explain to you the doubts and difficulties which members of my Government, and representatives of the Government of Kashmir whom we consulted, had felt as the result of a preliminary but careful examination of the Commission's proposals.

 

During the several conferences that we had with the Commission when it first came to Delhi, we placed before it what we considered the basic facts of the situation which had led to the conflict in Kashmir. This fact was the unwarranted aggression, at first indirect and subsequently direct, of the Pakistan Government on Indian Dominion territory in Kashmir. The Pakistan Government denied this although it was common knowledge. In recent months, very large forces of the regular Pakistan Army have further entered Indian Union territory in Kashmir and opposed the Indian Army which was sent there for the defence of the State. This, we understand now, is admitted by the Pakistan Government, and yet there has been at no time any intimation to the Government of India by the Pakistan Government of this invasion. Indeed, there has been a continual denial and the Pakistan Government has evaded answering repeated inquiries from the Government of India.

 

In accordance with the resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations adopted on 17 January 1948, the Pakistan Government should have informed the Council. immediately of any material change in the situation while the matter continued to be under the consideration of the Council. The invasion of the State by large forces of the regular Pakistan Army was a very material change in the situation, and yet no information of this was given, so far as we know, to the Security Council.

 

The Commission will appreciate that this conduct of the Pakistan Government is not only opposed to all moral codes as well as international law and usage, but has also created a very grave situation. It is only the earnest desire of my Government to avoid any extension of the field of conflict and to restore peace, that has led us to refrain from taking any action to meet the new situation that was created by this further intrusion of Pakistan armies into Jammu and Kashmir State. The presence of the Commission in India has naturally led us to hope that any arrangement sponsored by it would deal effectively with the present situation and prevent any recurrence of aggression.

 

Since our meeting of 18 August, we have given The Commission's resolution is our most earnest thought. There are many parts of it which we should have preferred to be other. wise and more in keeping with the fundamental facts of the situation, especially the flagrant aggression of the Pakistan Government on Indian Union territory. We recognize, however, that, if a successful effort is to be made to create satisfactory conditions for a solution of the Kashmir problem without further bloodshed, we should concentrate on certain essentials only at present and seek safeguards in regard to them. It was in this spirit that I placed the following considerations before Your Excellency: That paragraph A, 3 of part II of the resolution

 

should not be interpreted, or applied in practice, so as (a) To bring into question the sovereignty of the Jammu and Kashmir Government over the portion of their

 

territory evacuated by Pakistan troops; (b) To afford any recognition of the so-called Azad Kashmir Government; or (c) To enable this territory to be consolidated in any way during the period of truce to the disadvantage of the State.

 

That from our point of view the effective insurance of the security of the State against external aggression, from which Kashmir has suffered so much during the last ten months, was of the most vital significance and no less important than the observance of internal law and order, and that, therefore, the withdrawal of Indian troops and the strength of Indian forces maintained in Kashmir should be conditioned by this overriding factor.

 

Thus at any time the strength of the Indian forces maintained in Kashmir should be sufficient to ensure security against any form of external aggression as well as internal disorder.

 

That as regards Part III, should it be decided to seek a solution of the future of the State by means of a plebiscite, Pakistan should have no part in the organization and conduct of the plebiscite or in any other matter of internal administration in the State.

 

If I understood you correctly, A, 3 of part II of the resolution does not envisage the creation of any of the conditions to which we have objected in paragraph 3 (1) of this letter. In fact, you made it clear that the Commission was not competent to recognize the sovereignty of any authority over the evacuated areas other than that of the Jammu and Kashmir Government.

 

As regards paragraph 3 (2), the paramount need for security is recognized by the Commission, and the time when the withdrawal of Indian forces from the State is to begin, the stages in which it is to be carried out and the strength of Indian forces to be retained in the State, are matters for settlement between the Commission and the Government of

India.

 

Finally, you agreed that part III, as formulated, does not in any way recognize the right of Pakistan to have any part in a plebiscite.

 

In view of this clarification, my Government, animated by a sincere desire to promote the cause of peace and thus to uphold the principles and the prestige of the United Nations,

have decided to accept the resolution.

 

(Signed) Jawaharlal Nehru Prime Minister, India

 

At the 43rd meeting, the Commission discussed a reply to this communication. The reply to the Prime Minister of india was dated 25 August, and reads as follows:

 

"I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your communication dated 20 August 1948 regarding the terms of the resolution of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan which the Commission presented to you on 14 August 1948.

 

"The Commission requests me to convey to Your Excellency its view that the interpretation of the resolution as expressed in paragraph 4 of your letter coincides with its own interpretation, it being understood that as regards point (1) (c) the local people of the evacuated territory will have freedom of legitimate political activity. In this connexion, the term evacuated territory refers to those territories in the State of Jammu and Kashmir which are at present under the effective control of the Pakistan High Command.

 

"The Commission wishes me to express to Your Excellency its sincere satisfaction that the Government of India has accepted the resolution and appreciates the spirit in which this decision has been taken.

 

(Signed) "Josef Korbel Chairman'

 

The Prime Minister of India submitted another letter, dated 20 August, the contents of which according to the statement of Sir Girja S. Bajpai, were not to be considered as a condition to the acceptance of the Commission's resolution.

 

by the Government of India. The text of the letter follows:

 

"You will recall that in our interview with the Commission on 17 August, I dealt at some length with the position of the sparsely populated and mountainous region of the Jammu and Kashmir State in the north. The authority of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir over this region as a whole has not been challenged or disturbed, except by roving bands of hostiles, or in some places like Skardu which have been occupied by irregulars or Pakistani troops. The Commission's resolution, as you agreed in the course of our interview on the 18th, does not deal with the problem of administration or defence in this large area. We desire that, after Pakistani troops and irregulars have withdrawn from the territory, the responsibility for the administration of the evacuated areas should revert to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and that for defence to us. (The only exception. that we should be prepared to accept would be Gilgit.) We must be free to maintain garrisons at selected points in this area for the dual purpose of preventing the incursion of tribesmen, who obey no authority, and to guard the main trade routes from the State into Central Asia.

 

(Signed) "Jawaharlal Nehru Prime Minister, India"

 

The Commission made the following reply, dated 25 August:

 

"I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 20 August 1948 relating to the sparsely populated and mountainous region of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the north.

 

"The Commission wishes me to confirm that, due to the peculiar conditions of this area, it did not specifically deal with the military aspect of the problem in its resolution of 13 August 1948. It believes, however, that the question raised in your letter could be considered in the implementation of the resolution.

 

(Signed) "Josef Korbel Chairman"

 

On 20 August the group of the Commission that had remained in Karachi returned to New Delhi. The Chairman reported on his conversation with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan and handed to the Commission the latter's memorandum dated 19 August 1948, containing his Government's views on the resolution of 13 August (appendix to S/AC.12/44).

 

In the memorandum dated 19 August 1948, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan analysed the resolution and requested the Commission to furnish his Government with clarifications.

 

The Pakistan Government's memorandum stressed mainly the following points:

 

(i) That is a supervision of the implementation of the cease-fire and truce agreement by the neutral military. observers established.

(ii) Unless India accepted the conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite, cessation of fighting could not be secured.

(iii) That the withdrawal of tribesmen must be conditioned by the withdrawal of Sikhs and members of the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh to ensure the security of the Muslim population.

(iv) That the whole State of Jammu Kashmir and not only the Azad Kashmir-controlled area should be under the surveillance of the Commission. (v) That the presence of Pakistani troops was in fact not a material change in the situation, since India had launched an offensive before that, and by so doing had caused the material change in the situation.

 

(vi) That maintenance of law and order should be provided.

(vii) That the presence of Pakistani troops was welcome.

 

in the Muslim areas, whereas non-Muslim troops were objected to by the population of these areas. The Pakistan Government in the memorandum presumed that the object of part III of the resolution was to secure a free and impartial plebiscite to decide whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir was to accede to India or Pakistan.

 

At the 42nd meeting, on 21 August, a drafting committee was appointed to prepare a reply to the above memorandum. The answer (S/AC.12/55) was sent to the Government of Pakistan on 27 August.

 

At the same meeting the Military Mission, having just returned from its tour of the western section of the front, presented its report. The Mission was of the opinion that, once agreement had been reached on the political level, the military aspects of a cease-fire would offer little difficulty.

 

At its meeting of 26 August, the Commission decided to send a sub-committee to Srinagar to conduct a survey of the general economic and political background of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

On 28 August, the Commission left for Karachi, with the exception of those members of the delegations and Secretariat who were scheduled to leave on the 31st for Srinagar.

 

At its 53rd meeting, the Commission studied a request from Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan for further explanations of its proposals. The Commission's reply, dated 3 September 1948, defined evacuated territory as that territory being currently under the effective control of the Pakistan High Command, and repeated its oral assurances to the effect that, in the implementation of part III, it would be guided by the terms of the Security Council's resolution of 21 April 1948 setting forth the conditions for a plebiscite, subject to such modifications as the Commission might determine with the approval of both Dominions. The full text of the letter (S/AC.12/58) to Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan appears below.

 

[Letter Dated 3 September 1948 from the Commission to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan]

 

On 19 August 1948 you were kind enough to present to Minister A. Lozano, then Chairman of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, a letter dated 19 August 1948 with a memorandum attached asking for clarification of a number of points in the United Nations Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948. The points contained in the memorandum were answered

 

by the Commission's letter dated 27 August 1948. Moreover, during the two meetings which the Commission had with you on 31 August and 2 September, ample opportunity was given for further clarification of certain points of the resolution.

 

At your request the Commission is glad to offer you the following interpretation of points on which you asked for additional elucidation :

 

In connexion with paragraph A, 3 of part II of the resolution, the term evacuated territory refers to those territories in the State of Jammu and Kashmir which are at present under the effective control of the Pakistan High Command, it being understood that the population of these territories will have freedom of legitimate political activity.

 

The Commission reaffirms that, according to its resolution, United Nations neutral military observers will be posted on both sides of the cease-fire line with the object of ensuring that the conditions of the truce are adhered to. In case of a breach of any of these conditions, a report will be made to the Commission, and the Commission, on being satisfied that action in respect of the report is necessary, will call upon the authorities in either area to take the desired action.

 

As regards paragraphs B, 1 and 2. Part II, the Commission, while recognizing the paramount need for security of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, confirms that the minimum strength required for the purpose of assisting the local authorities in the observance of law and order would be determined by the Commission and the Government of India. The Commission considers that it is free to hear the views of the Government of Pakistan on the subject.

 

As regards part III :

 

(a) You are respectfully referred to paragraph 2 of the Commission's memorandum accompanying its letter dated 27 August, which clarifies the position of the Commission on this subject.

 

(b) The Commission will be guided by the terms of the Security Council's resolution of 21 April 1948 setting forth the conditions for a plebiscite, subject to such modifications as the Commission might determine with the agreement of the Governments of Pakistan and India.

 

Regarding publication, the Commission has the honour to inform you that it will publish, after having received the answers of both Governments to its resolution, the full text of the resolution and the correspondence relevant to it as exchanged between the Commission and the two respective Governments.

 

(Signed) Josef Korbel Chairman

 

Between 30 August and 4 September, the Commission or its individual members held a number of conversations with representatives of the Pakistan Government viz. the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Secretary General. All of these conversations were intended to explain and amplify statements, and to induce them to accept the Commission's resolution. The situation was reviewed in detail and the resolution of 13 August discussed point by point.

 

The prolonged discussions between the Commission and the Government of Pakistan after the acceptance of the resolution by the Government of India caused a certain degree of anxiety on the part of the latter, which was pressing for an answer and for publication of the text of the resolution and documents relevant to it. The urgency was stated to be caused by the forthcoming recess of the Parliament and by the necessity of informing the public. The matter was considered between the Government of India and the Commission and, as a result, India agreed to postpone for a few days the recess of the Parliament.

 

At one of the meetings, the Chairman requested the Foreign Minister of Pakistan to fix a date for reply, explaining that this was dictated by the fact that the Commission had to deal with two Governments and had to suit the time-tables. of both, and besides, by the most important fact that fighting was still going on and human life was being lost.

 

The time was tentatively fixed and, consequently, Mr. E. Graeffe was asked by the Commission to go to New Delhi in order to give oral explanations regarding the delay in publication.

 

Mr. E. Graeffe's presence in New Delhi, which continued. after Pakistan's reply to the resolution, resulted in a number of conversations with members of the Indian Cabinet, who stated that the admission by Pakistan of the presence of regular troops had changed the situation considerably. In their opinion, a cease-fire was, in these conditions, a difficult affair and the Commission should report to the Security Council. It was also mentioned that the clarifications of the resolution obtained from the Commission met with the entire satisfaction of the Government of India.

 

On 4 September, the Commission met informally with the representatives of the Azad Movement, Chaudri Ghulam Abbas, Supreme Head, and Sardar Mohammad Ibrahim Khan, President. Mr. Abbas' main contention was that part III of the resolution should have been introduced as the first step, but he raised no objections to parts I and II of the resolution. In his opinion, once the conditions for a plebiscite had been agreed upon, there would have been no difficulty in implementing a cease-fire agreement. Sardar Ibrahim stressed that the resolution did not guarantee India's complete

 

acceptance of definite conditions for a plebiscite, the fairness and impartiality of which could be determined by the Commission. According to him, an unconditional cease-fire was not acceptable. On 6 September at its 55th meeting, the Commission considered the reply of the same date from the Government of Pakistan to the Commission's resolution. The text follows:

 

[Letter Dated 6 September 1948 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan to the Commission]

 

The Government of Pakistan have had under serious and anxious consideration the proposals made by the Commission in its resolution of 13 August 1948, and the clarifications and elucidations of its provisions that the Commission has since furnished in the course of discussion and in writing. They are now in a position to transmit to the Commission their views on these proposals as clarified and elucidated by the Commission.

 

They desire to make it quite clear at the outset that these views are the views of the Government of Pakistan and are not as such in any sense binding upon the Azad Kashmir Government, nor do they in any manner reflect the views of the Azad Kashmir Government. They note that it is the intention of the Commission to hold discussions with Azad Kashmir representatives, as individuals, and they do not doubt that these representatives will convey to the Commission the views of their Government on the proposals of the Commission. The Government of Pakistan would at all times be prepared to lend their good offices to persuade the Azad Kashmir Government to accept the view of the proposals of the Commission which the Pakistan Government themselves take, but such acceptance must rest finally with the Azad Kashmir Government themselves. As has already been explained to the Commission, political control over the Azad Kashmir forces vests in the Azad Kashmir Government, and it is the latter Government alone that has authority to issue a cease-fire order to those forces, and to conclude terms and conditions of a truce which would be binding upon those forces.

 

It must further be stressed that the struggle for the liberation of Kashmir was initiated by Azad Kashmir, now represented by the Azad Kashmir Government, and that Government is a necessary party to any settlement of the Kashmir question. Indeed, this view. is implicit in the proposals of the Commission itself, inasmuch as these proposals postulate a course of co-operation between the Commission and the local authorities in several respects.

 

It is common ground that the question in dispute with reference to the State of Jammu and Kashmir is the accession of the State as a whole to Pakistan or India, and that this question is to be determined by the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.

 

With regard to the conditions of the plebiscite, the Commission has explained that it will be guided by the terms of the Security Council resolution of 21 April 1948, setting forth the conditions for a plebiscite subject to such modifications as the Commission might determine with the agreement of the Governments of Pakistan and India. In interpreting the terms of the Security Council's resolution, the Commission will no doubt be guided by the explanations offered by the sponsors of the resolution during the course of the discussion of the resolution in the Security Council.

 

As a result of the clarifications and elucidations furnished by the Commission, the Government of Pakistan understand that the Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948 seeks to achieve the objectives outlined below:

 

First, a cease-fire order in accordance with the proposals set out in part I of the resolution, so that the fighting may be brought to an end.

 

Secondly, that the conditions of a truce, the period of which the Commission is anxious to reduce to a minimum, be agreed upon in accordance with the proposals set out in part II of the Commission's resolution. These proposals con template the actual determination of the cease-fire line, and that synchronization of the withdrawal of the armed forces of the Governments of Pakistan and India shall be arranged between the High Commands of the two Governments and the Commission, and that all territory under the authority or control of the Pakistan High Command, including Gilgit and the areas under the control of Azad Kashmir, shall during the period of the truce continue to be administered by the authorities which are in de facto control of it at the time of the cease-fire, and that no civil or military officer of the Government of India or of the State Government shall enter into or exercise any authority over it. The Azad Kashmir forces shall remain intact, i.e. shall not be disarmed or disbanded. The surveillance contemplated by the Commission over the local authorities does not imply the exercise of control over or interference with the administration.

 

Thirdly, that this period be utilized towards restoring peaceful conditions throughout the territories of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, so that once that was achieved to a reasonable degree, the conditions for preparing and holding a free and impartial plebiscite could be put into effect forth with. The Commission would also consider during this period, along with the representatives of the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan, any proposals suggesting additions to or modifications of the conditions set out in part B (paragraphs 6 to 15, both inclusive) of the Security Council's resolution of 21 April 1948.

 

Fourthly, that the Commission proceed to prepare and hold the plebiscite at the earliest possible date. As soon as this stage is reached, the conditions of a free and impartial plebiscite shall be put into operation and shall override all arrangements in operation during the period of the truce which are inconsistent with those conditions.

 

The Government of Pakistan desire to stress that they are interested in and would be affected by the result of the plebiscite at least in an equal degree with the Government of India, and they assume that it will be the constant endeavour of the Commission to bring about and promote conditions in and affecting the State of Jammu and Kashmir which would place the two Governments on a position of absolute equality and advantage vis-a-vis the plebiscite, and should leave no room for any feeling on the part of either Government and indeed of any section of the people of the State that any party or section was subject to any handicap or disadvantage, or enjoyed any position of privilege or advantage denied to any other.

 

In the view of the Pakistan Government, the presence of the armed forces of the Government of India in any part of the State would militate against the restoration of peaceful conditions and would also conflict with the establishment of conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite. This is a view that the Government of Pakistan intends to continue to urge upon the Commission for their acceptance.

 

The Commission will recall that the Security Council was firmly of the view that the only effective method of stopping fighting in Kashmir was to provide clear and adequate assurance to Azad Kashmir [forces] and to the tribesmen helping them that the structure of a settlement had been erected which would guarantee to the people of the State the free expression of their will in respect of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan or India, and to this end the Security Council laid down a set of conditions in part B of its resolution of 21 April 1948. The considerations that led the Security Council to this view operate with even greater force today. Without these assurances, the Pakistan Government could not be expected successfully to persuade the tribesmen to withdraw from the State. It is therefore absolutely essential that, as part of the truce agreement, the acceptance of the Government of India should be secured to the minimum conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite to decide whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall accede to India or Pakistan as laid down in part B (paragraphs 6 to 15, both inclusive) of the Security Council's resolution of 21 April 1948, and explained by the sponsors of the resolution in the Security Council. In the view of the Government of Pakistan these conditions are susceptible of improvement, and the Commission would no doubt hold further discussions with both Governments for the purpose of securing their agreement to such additions and modifications as may be urged before the Commission or which the Commission may consider necessary.

 

The Government of Pakistan has not been informed. of any clarifications and elucidations of the proposals contained in the Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948 that the Commission may have furnished to the Government of India. If no clarifications or elucidations have been furnished, no point in that behalf arises. If any clarifications or elucidations have been furnished by the Commission to the Government of India, it is necessary that they should be communicated to the Government of Pakistan and the latter's agreement to them secured. It is equally necessary that the clarifications and elucidations furnished by the Commission to the Government of Pakistan should be communicated to the Government of India and their acceptance of them secured. The Commission will recognize that it is of the utmost importance that any agreement between the two Governments. should be arrived at on the clearest possible basis, so that there is left no possibility of any misunderstanding of any of the matters agreed upon. In other words, it is essential that the two Governments should agree simultaneously to the same thing and in the same sense.

 

Although there are several features in the Commission's proposals which from the point of view of the Pakistan Government are not satisfactory, nevertheless as a step towards the solution of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and in the interest of furthering international peace and security, the Pakistan Government have authorized me to inform the Commission that :

 

Subject to the clarifications and elucidations furnished by the Commission to the Government of Pakistan being accepted by the Government of India, and the elucidations and clarifications, if any, furnished by the Commission to the Government of India being acceptable to the Government of Pakistan, and provided the Government of India accept the conditions laid down in part B (paragraphs 6 to 15, both inclusive) of the Security Council's resolution of 21 April 1948, as explained by the sponsors of the resolution in the Security Council, for a free and impartial plebiscite to decide whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir is to accede to India or Pakistan, the Government of Pakistan accept the proposals contained in the Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948, as clarified and elucidated to the Pakistan Government by the Commission.

 

(Signed) Zafrullah Khan Minister for Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Relations, Government of Pakistan

 

On 6 September, the Commission replied to the above letter as follows: "I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 6 September 1948, giving the response of your Government to the Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948.

 

"The Commission observes that your Government has found itself unable to accept without reservation the proposals of the Commission as contained in its resolution of 13 August 1948, the purpose of which is to obtain the agreement of the Government of Pakistan and the Government of India to effect a prompt cessation of hostilities and the correction of conditions the continuance of which is likely to endanger international peace and security.

 

"The Commission wishes me to inform you that it will consider the questions which you have raised in your letter at an early occasion. It is, however, desirous to stress that the authentic interpretation of its position is contained in its memorandum of 27 August 1948 and its letter of 3 September 1948, both addressed to Your Excellency.

 

(Signed) "Josef Korbel Chairman"

 

A further letter, dated 6 September, was received by Mr. Korbel from Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan. The text of the letter reads as follows:

 

"I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 6 September 1948 acknowledging receipt of my letter of the same date containing the views of the Government of Pakistan on the Commission's resolution of 13th August 1948. I note the assurance of the Commission that it will

 

consider at an early occasion the questions that have been raised in that letter.

 

Your letter goes on to stress that the authentic interpretation of the Commission's position is contained in its memorandum of 27 August 1948 and its letter of 3 September 1948, both addressed to me. Since your letter of 3 September does not contain a precise and full record of the clarifications and elucidations furnished by the Commission in the course of discussion in our meetings of 31 August and 2 September 1948, may I venture to inquire whether the Government of Pakistan in drawing up the statement of their views on the Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948 have or have not been justified in relying upon the clarifications, elucidations and assurances orally furnished by the Commission in the course of these discussions.

 

(Signed) "Zafrullah Khan Minister for Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Relations, Government of Pakistan"

 

The text of the resolution of 13 August and the correspondence between the two Governments and the Commission which related to the proposals contained therein were released on 6 September for publication in the morning Press on 7 September.

 

At its last meeting in Karachi, on 7 September, the Commission replied to the letter quoted in paragraph 99 and explained that the oral information provided by the two members of the Commission did not differ either in meaning or spirit from the content of the Commission's memorandum of 27 August and letter of 3 September. The full text of the Commission's letter of 7 September (S/AC.12/62) to Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan follows: "In answer to your letter to me of 6 September 1948, acknowledging receipt of my letter of the same date, the Commission wishes me to convey to you that in the many discussions between representatives of the Pakistan Government and the Commission, the oral information provided by the members of the Commission did not differ either in meaning or spirit from what was contained in the Commission's written memorandum of 27 August and its letter of 3 September 1948, or from the text of its resolution of 13 August last.

 

"The Commission observes in your first letter of 6 September, transmitting the views of your Government on the Commission's resolution that you have made assumption and expressed certain conclusions which do not accurately reflect the Commission's position or its oral explanations, and it reserves the privilege, therefore, of answering that communication in greater detail at a later date.

 

(Signed) "Josef Korbel Chairman"

 

To the above letter the Foreign Minister of Pakistan on 7 September, replied to the Chairman of the Commission as follows:

 

I beg to acknowledge your letter of 7 September. I am sorry to note that in the Commission's opinion I have in my first letter of 6 September made assumptions and expressed certain conclusions which do not accurately reflect the Commission's position or its oral explanations. I shall, however, await the more detailed comments which the Commission proposes to make on my letter, and if I am convinced that any unwarranted assumptions or conclusions have found their way into my letter to which you refer, I shall be very glad to correct them. I shall be greatly helped in this connexion if you will kindly direct your Secretariat to expedite the dispatch of the draft minutes or draft summary record of our meetings with the Commission on 31 August and 2 September.

 

With regard to the first paragraph of your letter I would, at this stage, submit no more than that at the very least the oral information provided by the Commission in our meetings raged over a much larger field than that covered by the Commission's letter of 3 September 1948.

 

(Signed) "Zafrullah Khan Minister for Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Relations,

 

Government of Pakistan"

 

Having decided at its 56th meeting to leave Karachi, the Commission arrived in New Delhi on 9 September and was received by the Prime Minister Mr. Korbel, Chairman, remarked at the outset that the Commission was anxious to know whether the Government of India was inclined to continue negotiations in the light of conditions attached to the resolution by the Government of Pakistan. In particular the Commission wanted to find out whether the Government of India (1) would reconsider its position towards an unconditional cease-fire; (2) would deem advisable to negotiate directly with the other Dominion and the Commission on the situation. in Jammu and Kashmir; (3) would consider a supplement to the resolution regarding conditions of plebiscite in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

The Prime Minister's answer was that (1) an unconditional cease-fire was impossible for his Government, to accept, as any further step could be undertaken solely after the withdrawal of Pakistani forces; (2) no direct negotiations seemed to him possible at the moment, since both Governments had been negotiating without any fruitful results for months on end, and as long as there was no further basis for a settlement, direct approach was not advisable; (3) he could not accept any supplement to the resolution, which had been submitted to him as acceptable only in its original presentation. Besides, he would not see any useful purpose in discussing conditions of plebiscite with fighting continuing.

 

At its 58th meeting on 10 September in New Delhi, the Commission, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Huddle, decided to divide into two groups, one to join the Mission already in Srinagar and the remainder of the Commission to go to Rawalpindi, and from there to investigate the situation in the Azad Kashmir territory. It was also decided that the Commission would start preparation of its interim report. The representative of Colombia was unanimously elected as Rapporteur.

 

At its 59th meeting in New Delhi on 11 September 1948, the Commission adopted a resolution to the effect that the Commission should leave the Indian sub-continent for Geneva within ten days, there to finish its interim report to the Security Council. During the meeting, a drafting sub-committee was appointed to prepare a detailed explanatory letter which might clarify the views of the Commission regarding objections raised and reservations made by the Government of Pakistan to the resolution of 13 August 1948.

 

On 14 September a group headed by Mr. Huddle, Chairman, and consisting of Mr. E. Graeffe, Mr. H. Graeffe, Major Smith and two members of the Secretariat, left for Rawalpindi. The group visited a number of localities in Azad Kashmir territory and held conversations with the leading personalities of the Azad Movement. The group returned to Srinagar on 18 September and gave a detailed report to the Commission.

 

The investigating sub-committee informed the Commission of the type of material it had collected during its stay on the eastern side of the front in Kashmir. It was, however, not able to complete its study.

 

At the 62nd meeting held in Srinagar on 19 September the Commission approved the text of the reply to the letter dated 6 September from Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan. The text of the Commission's reply follows:

 

[Letter Dated 19 September 1941 from the Commission to the Pakistan Minister for Foreign Affairs]

 

The Commission has given careful consideration to your first letter of 6 September 1948 in which you have transmitted the views of your Government on its resolution of 13 August. Several of the points raised therein are covered by the terms of the resolution and by the elucidations offered to you in its communications of 27 August (S/AC.12/55), 3 September (S/CA.12/58), and 7 September (S/CA.12/62).

 

As regards the other points of your letter the Commission wishes to confirm its oral explanations, as follows:

(a) With respect to point 2, the Commission was repeatedly informed by you and by representatives of the Pakistan Army that the Azad Kashmir forces were under the overall control of the Pakistan High Command. In connexion with the political aspect of the question raised in points 2 and 3, the existence of the Azad Kashmir Movement has not been ignored by the Commission, consideration thereof appearing in part II, A, 3 of its resolution of

13 August.

(b) As regards the last sentence of point 5, the Commission wishes to repeat that the individual explanations offered by the sponsors of the Security Council's do not form a part of that document and are not binding upon the Commission, but receive due consideration by the Commission in its deliberations.

 

(c) Concerning point 6, the objectives the Commission seeks to achieve are clearly outlined in its resolution and are elucidated in the appendix to its letter of 27 August, and in its letter of 3 September. Moreover, the Commission agrees that it will be anxious to reduce the truce period to a minimum and that the resolution does not contemplate the disarmament or disbanding of Azad Kashmir forces.

 

(d) The Commission considers that the questions raised in points 7, 8 and 9 of your letter are not pertinent at this stage, but relate instead to the agreement envisaged in part III of the resolution. As for the particular issue raised in point 9, the Commission stresses again it's conviction that the objectives and terms of its resolution provide adequate incentives to obtain the co-operation of the Azad Kashmir forces and of the tribesmen in the implementation of the resolution through the good offices offered by the Pakistan Government.

 

(e) As regards point 10, the text of the resolution and the correspondence relevant to it, as exchanged between the Commission and the two respective Governments, have been published. The explanations offered by both Governments are in full harmony.

 

As regards the conclusions contained in point 11 of your letter, upon presentation of the resolution the Commission requested the Governments of Pakistan and India to consider and accept this document as a whole. It was intended that the details for the implementation of the resolution be discussed at common meetings between the representatives of both Governments and the Commission in subsequent stages, and following the cessation of hostilities. The Commission observes with regret that the Government of Pakistan has been unable to accept the resolution without attaching certain conditions beyond the compass of this resolution, thereby making impossible an immediate cease-fire and the beginning of fruitful negotiations between the two Governments and the Commission to bring about a peaceful and final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

The Commission sincerely hopes that the Government of Pakistan may find it possible to reconsider their position and accept the proposal contained in the Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948, as clarified and elucidated in the present letter and the correspondence mentioned therein.

 

(Signed) J. Klahr Huddle

Chairman

 

The Commission, not wishing to leave the sub-continent without making a further appeal to the Governments of India and Pakistan, pending its return or future dispositions, adopted the following resolution on 19 September:

 

"The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan." "Having decided to leave for Europe to prepare an interim report to the Security Council on the present situation in the

State of Jammu and Kashmir, hereby

 

"Resolves to appeal to the Governments of India and Pakistan to use their best endeavours during the absence of the Commission to lesson the existing tension in this dispute so as further to prepare the ground for its peaceful final settlement, which both Governments have declared to be their most sincere and ardent desire."

 

E. Political Analysis

 

The approach of the Commission to the task entrusted to it by the Security Council's resolution of 21 April 1948 was initially based on the complaint of the Government of India concerning the dispute over the State of Jammu and Kashmir and on the reply and counter-complaints of the Government of Pakistan. Its main immediate endeavours were dedicated towards bringing about a cessation of hostilities with a view to establishing conditions favourable to a final and peaceful settlement of the situation.

 

As set forth in the letter of 1 January 1948 (S/628), the Government of India placed its complaint against the Government of Pakistan under Article 35 of the Charter, which allows any Member to bring to the attention of the Security Council any situation the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. India alleged that such a situation existed between it and Pakistan owing to the aid which invaders, consisting of nationals of Pakistan and of tribesmen from the territory immediately adjoining that Dominion on the north-west, were drawing from Pakistan for operations against the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which had acceded to India on 27 October 1947, and was part of India.

 

The Government of Pakistan in its communication of 15 January 1948 (S/646 and Corr. 1) denied that it was giving aid and assistance to the invaders, but conceded that a number of independent tribesmen and persons from Pakistan were helping as volunteers the "Kashmir Government '' in its struggle for liberty. In the same communication and as a separate document, the Government of Pakistan brought to the attention of the Security Council, also under Article 35 of the Charter, the existence of other disputes and requested that appropriate measures be adopted for their settlement and the restoration of friendly relations between the two Governments.

 

The Security Council, having considered the statements made by the representatives of India and Pakistan, defined the competence and terms of reference of the Commission in its resolution of 21 April 1948, and further directed the Commission in its resolution of 3 June 1948 to study and report when it considered appropriate on the matters raised in the letter of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan.

 

The Commission had reason to feel uncertain regarding the nature of the reception which would be accorded to it upon arrival in Karachi and New Delhi. Both India and Pakistan had in effect rejected the Security Council's Resolution of 21 April 1948. Pakistan had only under protest designated a member country of the Commission and had officially stated (S/735) that the Security Council's resolution was inadequate to secure the objectives set out in its preamble and was not acceptable to the Government of Pakistan.

 

The Government of India specifically stated, in a letter dated 5 June 1948 from its representative to the President of the Security Council, that "there can be no question of the Commission proceeding to implement the resolution on Kashmir until objections (viz. to provisions of the Security Council's resolution of 21 April 1948) raised by the Government of India had been satisfactory met". This letter further stated that if the Commission were to visit that country, the Government of India would like to know in advance the point or points on which the Commission would wish to confer with them". (S/825).

 

The Commission therefore proceeded from Geneva to the Indian sub-continent without firm assurances that either Government would assist the Commission in the implementa of its terms of reference, under which it hoped to function. Moreover, the Commission had been informed before its arrival on the sub-continent that the general atmosphere was not altogether favourable to its work.

 

It was the purpose of the Commission to pursue its work in accordance with the directives given by the Security Council on the background of the situation as previously explained at length by the parties to the Council, the salient points of which were :

 

(i) Religious disturbances increased in intensity and violence immediately before and directly after the partition of British India. Mass movements of population took place throughout the subcontinent

(ii) Muslim tribesmen were inflamed by reports of the deaths and displacement of large numbers of Muslims in the course of the disturbances. The tribesmen, bent on avenging their co-religionists, swarmed from the mountains into the State of Jammu and Kashmir, penetrating as far as its southern borders on the east, entering the State in its south-western areas from the adjacent territory of Pakistan and reaching the outskirts of Srinagar.

(iii) Nationals of Pakistan entered Jammu and Kashmir for the purpose of fighting.

 

(iv) The accession of Jammu and Kashmir, the legality of which is disputed by Pakistan, was accepted by India on 27 October 1947. Immediately thereafter, the Indian Army advanced into the State with the purpose of expelling the tribesmen and restoring law and order. India declared that "as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader" the question of the State should be settled by a reference to the people. (Letter dated 27 October 1947 from the Governor General to the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir.)

(v) The tribesmen were pushed back but the Indian forces, combined with the State forces of Jammu and Kashmir, were unable to expel all intruders or to establish authority throughout the State.

 

The Commission hoped, under its terms of reference, to induce the Government of Pakistan to exercise its influence on the tribesmen and the Pakistani nationals to withdraw from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. When that was accomplished, it intended to obtain a progressive withdrawal of Indian troops to the minimum strength required for the support of civil power in the maintenance of law and order, and, further, the agreement of the Government of India to a plebiscite along the lines indicated in the Security Council's resolution. The Security Council never contemplated during its debates that the Commission, though entrusted with a delicate and difficult task, should deal with a situation involving military action between two regular armies.

 

Another element, the significance of which had not been fully appreciated before the Commission's departure for the sub-continent, was the Azad Movement, which constitutes an organized political and military body, is assisted by the Pakistan High Command, and is engaged in active revolt against the existing Government. This Movement has co operated since October 1947 with invading tribesmen and individual Pakistani nationals. The leader of the Azad Kashmir Movement, Chaudri Ghulam Abbas, is at the same time the head of the Muslim Conference. The Azad Kashmir Movement controls a considerable part of Jammu and Kashmir State, particularly the greater part of the districts of Poonch, Muzaffarabad and Mirpur. The population of the Azad controlled area has been variously estimated at between one to two million people.

 

This situation imposed upon the Commission the additional task of not only obtaining the withdrawal of the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals, but also the cessation by the Azad forces of participation in the fighting.

 

The statement of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan to the effect that Pakistani troops had entered the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and later his reply to a Commission questionnaire that all forces fighting on the Azad side were "under the over-all command and tactical direction of the Pakistan Army", confronted the Commission with an unforeseen and entirely new situation.

 

According to the Security Council's resolution of 17 January, the Government of Pakistan was requested to inform the Security Council immediately of any material change in the situation. In a letter addressed to the Security Council, the Pakistan Government agreed to comply with this request. The Government of Pakistan had, however, not informed the Security Council about the presence of Pakistani troops in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan explained that, since the Commission had been charged to deal with the problems related to the India-Pakistan question, his Government thought that the information should instead. be given to the Commission, but he had been unable to do this previously because of the delay in its arrival on the subcontinent.

 

According to the statement of Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan, the Pakistani troops entered Kashmir early in May 1948. The records of the Security Council show that the Commission was provided for but not fully constituted at that time. The Commission had its first meeting in Geneva on 15 June, but was informed of the presence of the Pakistani troops in the State of Jammu and Kashmir only on 8 July.

 

From the outset, the Commission found it of primary and major consequence to explore the possibilities for a cessation of hostilities before going into the study of the substance of matters relating to a final solution. It devoted many meetings to the investigation of the military aspects of the problem and to sounding the two Governments as to how the fighting between their regular forces might be brought to an end. The representative of the Government of India. Sir Girja Bajpai, in the two formal meetings with the Commission in New Delhi, characterized the situation as a state of "undeclared war". He warned the Commission that the "sands of time were running short". He added that if no action were taken soon to end the hostilities India might be forced to extend its own action, and that the question in reality was whether the issue was to be settled in peace or in war,

 

From the conversation between the various members of the Commission with the Prime Minister and other Indian representatives while in New Delhi, it became apparent that the Government of India held that the presence of Pakistani troops in Kashmir constituted an act of aggression against the Indian Union. The Government representatives insisted that these forces must be withdrawn before any negotiations could be initiated for the final solution of the problem.

 

On the other hand, the spokesman Government declared that its forces would not be withdrawn the Pakistan unless the Indian forces were withdrawn simultaneously, in prearranged stages, and further that the proposals for a cease the fire order should have the consideration and approval of the "Azad Kashmir Government". In this connexion, it was explained to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan that to request formally the approval of the Azad Kashmir would constitute a de facto recognition of that "Government", which the Commission was not in a position to grant. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan appreciated that fact. Even his own Government had not granted legal recognition to the Azad ``Government" in view of the implications which might ensue. The actual position, however, was that the Azad people, who were vitally interested in the situation, could not be overlooked

 

Along the lines of the Security Council's resolution of 21 April, and on the basis of the situation as explained in previous paragraphs of the present report, the Commission considered that the Government of Pakistan should be asked, as a first step towards the final solution of the dispute, to withdraw its forces from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, with the understanding that, as the second step, the withdrawal of the bulk of the Indian troops would occur.

 

When the Commission was officially apprised of an element in the situation which had not been explicitly stated in its original terms of reference, it was forced to choose between two alternatives: either to inform the Security Council of this material change, requesting new instruction, or to proceed to exert its mediatory influence in search of ways and means to correct those conditions. The Commission, after thorough consideration of the implications involved in referring the case back to the Security Council, decided to use its good offices to endeavour to obtain the cessation of hostilities and to create a peaceful and friendly atmosphere deemed essential for a final settlement.

 

The Commission, as can be appreciated from the historical account of its proceedings, inquired extensively into the possibilities of instituting a cease-fire. It ascertained that the Government of Pakistan would be willing to accept a simple cease-fire. The Government of India, however, clearly indicated that it could not entertain any proposal which would permit the Pakistani forces to remain within the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Finding that there was no common ground for obtaining agreement to an unconditional or simple ceasefire, the Commission drew up proposals which were calculated to satisfy both Governments.

 

In order to link the cease-fire to the preparation for a final settlement, which was the desire of Pakistan, and yet. provide for the withdrawal of Pakistani forces and tribesmen, as India requested, the Commission proposed, as part II of its resolution of 13 August, a truce agreement based on principles. which it deemed fair and equitable, the details of which were to be worked out immediately following the cease-fire order.

 

These principles were:

 

(a) Withdrawal of the Pakistani forces from the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

(b) Withdrawal of tribesmen and other Pakistani nationals not normally resident in Jammu and Kashmir, and who had entered the State for the purpose of fighting. demands.

The above provisions were designed to satisfy India's Other principles were :

(c) Temporary administration by local authorities (Azad Kashmir) of territory evacuated by Pakistan troops.

(d) Withdrawal of the bulk of the Indian forces from Jammu and Kashmir.

(e) Temporary retention of such minimum of the Indian forces as might be required for the maintenance of law and order.

(f) Official assurances as to safeguarding people, law and order, as well as all human and political rights.

 

These proposals were thought by the Commission to satisfy Pakistan's demands.

 

Finally, to complete its proposals, the Commission requested the two contending Governments to reaffirm their previously expressed desire that the people of Kashmir be permitted to determine their future political status, a principle which had been accepted by both India and Pakistan. In general, the Commission considered that the principles of the truce agreement constituted a balance which could not but meet with the approval of both India and Pakistan, and which, upon acceptance and implementation, would promptly clear the way for both Governments to enter into active collaboration with the Commission in the study of terms for a fair and equitable plebiscite.

 

As a final endeavour to bring the two Governments into agreement on the principles whereby a cessation of hostilities might be implemented, the Commission, notwithstanding its stipulation that the resolution of 13 August be accepted as a whole, and stimulated by the strong desire to use all means within its power of persuasion to bring about cessation of fighting and a peaceful solution, decided to return to New Delhi once again to confer with the Prime Minister of India on the conditions attached by the Government of Pakistan to its acceptance of these principles.

 

The Prime Minister of India informed the Commission two days after it had placed these suggestions before him that he stood on his original premise that the Pakistani forces must be withdrawn from the State before the Government of India could consider any further steps. Regarding conditions for a free and impartial plebiscite, the Prime Minister reminded the Commission that his Government had reservations regarding paragraphs 6 to 15 of the Security Council's resolution of 21 April. A study of these conditions would require a long period of time and the Government of India could not be a party to such a study with the Pakistani troops present in Kashmir and fighting going on.

 

He therefore maintained that, having accepted the Commission's resolution of 13 August, the Government could not now consider any supplement to that resolution.

 

It will be noted that matters relating to the plebiscite have not been dealt with in detail in this interim report of the Commission. The paramount question of cessation of hostilities occupied almost entirely the attention of the Commission throughout its ten weeks' stay on the subcontinent. Although the Commission endeavoured to assess the attitude of the Governments of India and Pakistan in this respect, and although a sub-commission initiated a survey of conditions in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Commission could not enter into a detailed and comprehensive study. of the practicability of a plebiscite from the political and administrative points of view because its resolution of 13 August had not been carried out.

 

However, the Commission feels that some general observations might be made in this connexion :

 

There has been from the beginning a difference in approach to the problem of a plebiscite on the part of India and on the part of Pakistan. India appealed to the Security. Council and asked for its intervention to stop the incursions of tribesmen into the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Having this end in view, India's representatives at Lake Success, as well as those who participated in the conversations with the Commission at New Delhi, insisted that hostilities should cease as a preliminary step to arrangements for a future plebiscite.

 

Pakistan, however, viewed the problem entirely. different light, making the acceptance of a plebiscite dependent upon the previous withdrawal of all outsiders, including the armed forces of the Indian Union, the restoration and rehabilitation of all Muslim residents of Jammu and Kashmir as on 15 August 1947, and the establishment of an impartial independent administration in which the people of that State were fully represented.

 

During the informal talks in New Delhi between the members of the Commission and the Prime Minister and other members of the Government of India, it was confirmed that the plebiscite scheme as envisaged by the resolution of 21 April still did not meet with their approval. The Prime Minister told the Chairman of the Commission that it would be impracticable to arrange for a plebiscite to be held during the next twelve months, the preparations for a plebiscite would take several months and the intervening winter would not permit any substantial work. He added that fighting was constantly going on in Kashmir and that the situation might deteriorate if not dealt with promptly. The Secretary-General of the Government of Pakistan

Mr. Mohammad Ali, also expressed the view that it was impracticable to arrange for a plebiscite in 1948.

 

The Commission devoted part of its stay on the sub continent to sounding the sentiments and views of the Jammu and Kashmir Government as well as of the Azad Kashmir Movement. According to views expressed in conversations held with Sheikh Abdullah, the Prime Minister of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and with the leaders of the Azad Movement, arrangement for a plebiscite would require more than one year. Both parties independently based this opinion on the internal disruption caused by fighting and the time needed for repatriating hundreds of thousands of refugees.

 

Because of the difficulties connected with a plebiscite, the Commission did not lay down any conditions in part III of the resolution in order to facilitate the discussions between the Governments of India and Pakistan and the Commission for the settlement of the dispute. Although the Commission felt that conditions for a plebiscite might have been considered in accordance with the Security Council resolution of 21 April, the Commission wished to leave open the possibility for the consideration of alternative solutions mutually agreeable to both parties, with the provision that the will of the people should be assured.

 

The Commission is pursuing its work and will present in due time its report or reports to the Security Council on further developments.

 

(Signed) Ricardo J. Siri (Argentina)

Egbert Graeffe (Belgium)

Alfredo Lozano (Colombia)

Josef Korbel (Czechoslovakia)

J. Klahr Huddle (United States of America)

 

APPENDIX A

 

Chairmen of the Commission

(18 June to 30 September 1948)

 

Term Member and representative

 

18 June to 8 July Argentina

H. E. Minister Ricardo J. Siri

 

72 DOCUMENTS ON KASHMIR PROBLEM

 

9 to 29 July Belgium

H. E. Egbert Graeffe

30 July to 19 Aug. Colombia H. E. Minister Alfredo Lozano

20 Aug. to 9 Sept. Czechoslovakia H. E. Ambassador Josef Korbel

1. to 30 Sept. United States of America

H. E. Ambassador J. Klahr

Huddle

 

APPENDIX B

 

Calendar of the Activities of The Commission

(28 May to 25 September 1948)

May

28 Lake Success Informal meeting of representatives of members of the Commission

June

15 Geneva Informal meeting of the Commission.

16 Geneva 1st meeting

17 Geneva 2nd and 3rd meetings

18 Geneva 4th and 5th meetings

21 Geneva 6th and 7th meetings

22 Geneva 8th meeting

24 Geneva 9th meeting

25 Geneva Advance party leaves for Karachi and New Delhi

29 Geneva 10th meeting

July

 

3 Geneva 11th meeting

5-7 en route Geneva

Athens-Basra

 

Karachi 8, 9 Karachi Informal meetings Foreign Minister with Pakistan

10 Karachi Commission moves to New Delhi

 

13 New Delhi 12th and 13th meetings (Indian liaison officers present)

14 New Delhi 14th and 15th meetings (Indian liaison officers present)

15 New Delhi 16th meeting 1st meeting of Military Affairs Sub Commission

16 New Delhi 17th meeting (Indian liaison officers and Commander-in-Chief present)

17 New Delhi Vice-Chairman and party leave for Vice-Chairman and party meet

with Karachi Pakistan Foreign Minister

Karachi

New Delhi 2nd meeting of Military Affairs Sub Commission

18 Karachi Vice-Chairman and party meet informally with Pakistan Foreign Minister

 

Party returns to New Delhi

 

19 New Delhi 18th meeting

20 New Delhi 19th meeting

21 New Delhi 20th meeting 3rd meeting of Military Affairs Sub Commission

22 New Delhi 21st meeting

23 New Delhi 22nd meeting (Pakistan liaison officers present)

24 New Delhi Visit to exhibit of captured equipment at GHQ and to HQ, Western Command

26 New Delhi 23rd meeting

27 New Delhi Military Mission leaves for Jammu

28 New Delhi 24th meeting

Jammu Military Mission goes Naushera and Jhangar

29 New Delhi 25th meeting

Jammu Military Mission at Naushera

30 Jammu Military Mission visits Poonch

 

August

1 New Delhi Karachi - Commission moves to Karachi

Karachi -Meeting with Pakistan Foreign Minister and Governor of North-West Frontier Province

Srinagar Military Mission to Baramullal and Uri

2 Karachi 26th meeting

3 Karachi 27th meeting Military Mission moves to New Delhi

4 Karachi 28th meeting (Pakistan Foreign Minister present)

 

5 Karachi 29th meeting

Karachi Military Mission arrives

6 Karachi 30th meeting

7 Karachi 31st meeting

9 Karachi 32nd and 33rd meetings, (Pakistan liaison officers and Commander-in-Chief present)

 

10 Karachi 34th and 35th meetings

11 Karachi 36th and 37th meetings

12 Karachi 38th meeting Military Mission goes to Rawalpindi and Abbottabad

 

13 Karachi 39th and 40th meetings (Pakistan Foreign Minister present)

Rawalpindi Military Mission to Muzaffarabad. and Chenari

14 Karachi Vice-Chairman and party New Delhi move to New Delhi

Karachi Chairman presents Commission's proposals to Pakistan Foreign Minister New Delhi Vice-Chairman presents Commission's proposals to the Prime Minister of India

15 Rawalpindi Military Mission to Muzaffarabad and Tithwal

16 Rawalpindi Informal meeting of Military Mission with Azad leaders

 

17 Rawalpindi Military Mission to Mirpur

18 New Delhi Meeting of the Vice-Chairman and party. with Prime Minister of India Military Mission returns from Rawalpindi

19 New Delhi Conversation of Vice-Chairman with Prime Minister of India

20 Karachi Chairman and party meet with Pakistan Foreign Minister

21 Karachi Chairman and party move to New Delhi

New Delhi Conversation of Vice-Chairman with Secretary-General, External Affairs

41st meeting

22 New Delhi 42nd and 43rd meetings

23 New Delhi 44th meeting

24 New Delhi 45th 46th meetings

25 New Delhi 47th meeting

26 New Delhi 48th and 49th meetings.

27 New Delhi 50th meeting

28 New Delhi 51st meeting

29 New Delhi Commission, less Economic and Political Mission, moves to Karachi

New Delhi Conversation of Chairman, Economic and Political Mission with Secretary General, External Affairs

30 New Delhi Conversation of Chairman, Economic and Political Mission with Secretary

General, External Affairs

New Delhi Interview of Belgium alternate representative with Governor-General of India

31 New Delhi Economic and Political Mission moves to Srinagar

Karachi Informal meeting of Commission with Pakistan Foreign Minister

September

1 Karachi 52nd meeting

 

Srinagar Economic and Political Mission interviews Prime Minister, Jammu and Kashmir

2 Karachi Meeting of Commission with Pakistan Foreign Minister

Karachi Meeting of Commission with Prime Minister of Pakistan

Srinagar Economic and Political Mission to Gulmarg

3 Karachi 53rd meeting

Srinagar Economic and Political Mission interviews Ministers of Revenue, Supplies and Trades, and Finance

4 Karachi Representative of Belgium moves to New Delhi

Karachi 54th meeting

Karachi  Informal meeting with Azad leaders.

Srinagar Economic and Political Mission to Baramulla, Sopore and Bandipur

New Delhi Informal conversation of representative of Belgium with Secretary-General,

6 Karachi 55th and 56th meetings of Commission

New Delhi Conversation of representative of Belgium with Secretary-General, External Affairs

Srinagar Economic and Political Mission to Anantnag and Pahalgam

7 Karachi 57th meeting

8 New Delhi Conversation of representative of Belgium with Secretary-General,

Karachi Commission moves to New Delhi

9 New Delhi Meeting of Commission with Prime Minister

Srinagar Economic and Political Mission. interviews Minister of Development

10 New Delhi 58th meeting

 

11 New Delhi Commission meets with Prime Minister of India 59th meeting

12 New Delhi Commission less the Chairman and representative of Belgium, moves to party move to

14 New Delhi Srinagar Chairman and Rawalpindi

15 Rawalpindi Chairman and party to Mirpur, meeting with Azad leaders

16 Rawalpindi Srinagar Chairman and party to Attack, etc.

Srinagar Economic and Political Mission moves to Jammu

17 Jammu Economic and Political Mission visits Akhbar

18 Rawalpindi Chairman and party rejoin Commission in Srinagar

Srinagar 60th meeting

Jammu Economic and Political Mission returns to Srinagar

19 Srinagar 61st and 62nd meetings

21 Srinagar Commission leaves for Geneva

New Delhi Conversation of Commission with Prime Minister of India

22 Karachi Conversation of Chairman with Prime Minister of Pakistan

25 Geneva Commission arrives

 

LIST OF ANNEXURES

 

1. Resolution adopted by the Security Council at its 230th meeting, 20 January 1948 (S/654)

 

2. Resolution adopted by the Security Council at its 286th meeting, 21 April 1948, concerning the India Pakistan question (draft resolution submitted jointly by Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America (S/726)

3. Corrigendum to the letter dated 5 May 1948 from

 

the representative of India to the President of the Security Council (S/734/Corr. 1)

 

4. Letter dated 30 April 1948 from the representative of Pakistan to the President of the Security Council (S/735)

5. Resolution on the India-Pakistan question adopted by the Security Council at its 312th meeting, 3 June 1948 (S/819)

6. Letter dated 15 January 1948 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan to the Secretary General concerning the situation in Jammu and Kashmir (S/646 and Corr. 1)

7. Notes on the meeting of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan with two members of the Commission (S/AC.12/21)

8. Notes on the informal meeting of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan with two members of the Commission (S/AC.12/22)

9. Notes on the meeting of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan with three members of the Commission (S/AC.12/40)

10. Notes on the meeting of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan with three members of the Commission (S/AC.12/41)

11. Notes on the meeting of the Commission with the Prime Minister of the Government of India in his office on 14 August 1948 (S/AC.12/45)

12. Summary of the meeting of representatives of the Government of India with the members of the Commission to discuss the Commission's resolution of 13 August (S/AC.12/46)

13. Letter dated 9 June 1948 from the President of the Security Council to the Chairman of the Commission -----(S/AC.12/1/Corr. 1)

14. Letter dated 9 June 1948 from the President of the Security Council to the Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs of the Government of India (S/AC.12/2)

 

15. Letter dated 5 June 1948 from the representative of India transmitting a communication from the Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs of the Government of India (S/825)

 

16. Rules of procedure of the Commission (S/AC.12/4/ Rev. 1) 17. Letter dated 22 June 1948 from the Chairman of the Commission to the Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs of the Government of India (S/AC.12/10)

 

18. Cablegram dated 26 June 1948 from the Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs of the Government of India to the Chairman of the Commission (S/AC, 12/13)

 

19. Letter dated 1 July 1948 from the Chairman of the Commission to the Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs of the Government of India (S/AC.12/16)

 

20. Letter dated 8 July 1948 from the "Azad Kashmir Government" to the Chairman of the Commission (S/AC.12/Info.3)

 

21. Report made by Sir Girja Bajpai, representative of the Government of India, on his statement before the Commission at its 13th meeting on 13 July 1948 (S/AC.12/Info. 2)

 

22. Resolution adopted by the Commission at its 15th meeting, held on 14 July 1948 in Faridkot House, New Delhi (S/AC.12/17)

 

23. Communication dated 17 July 1948 from the Government of Pakistan to the Chairman of the Commission concerning its resolution (S/AC.12/17) of 14 July (S/AC.12/18)

24. Letter dated 15 July 1948 from the Government of India to the Chairman of the Commission concerning its resolution (S/AC. 12/17) of 14 July (S/AC. 12/19)

 

25. Resolution adopted by the Commission at its 19th meeting, held on 20 July 1948 in Faridkot House, New Delhi (S/AC, 12/23)

 

26. Letter and memorandum dated 19 August 1948 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan to the Chairman of the Commission (S/AC.12/44)

 

27. Letter dated 27 August 1948 from the Chairman of the Commission in reply to the letter and memorandum dated 19 August 1948 (S/AC.18/44) from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan (S/AC, 12/55)

 

28. Letter dated 1 January 1948 from the representative of India to the President of the Security Council (S/628)