20011948 . The Period From February To November 1949 A. Task Before the Commission
20011948 . The Period From February To November 1949 A. Task Before the Commission
Upon its return to the Sub-continent the Commission had for its guidance the Resolutions of the Security Council of 20 January and 3 June 1948 establishing the Commission as one of good offices and mediation and directing it to proceed to the area of dispute with a view to accomplishing in priority the duties assigned to it in the Security Council Resolution of 21 April 1948. It, further, was to assist the Governments of India and Pakistan in the implementation of:
(a) its Resolution of 13 August 1948, which is comprised of three parts: Part I, the cease-fire order, already effective; Part II, the truce agreement; Part III, which is complemented by;
(b) the Resolution of 5 January 1949, which set forth the principles to be followed in the preparation and the holding of a plebiscite in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
It was evident that the most urgent questions were: (a) the completion of the implementation of Part I relating to the cease-fire; and (b) the establishment of details relating to the implementation of the Truce provided for in Part II of the Resolution of 13 August 1941
B. Situation Prevailing when the Commission Arrived on the Sub-Continent
When the Commission arrived on the Sub-continent on 4 February 1949 fighting in the State of Jammu and Kashmir had ceased.
The High Commands of the Indian and Pakistan Armies had, on 15 January, on their own initiative, held a conference in New Delhi (Annex 47). It was decided at this meeting. with reference to Part I of the 13 August Resolution, that the cease-fire in Jammu and Kashmir should be advanced from an informal to a formal basis. As far as Part II-Truce-was concerned, the conference was of an exploratory nature. The Commanders-in-Chief agreed on certain proposals related to the Truce which were to be referred for approval to their respective Governments. The Military Adviser to the Commission was asked to take part in the conference in order to be informed of the decision and recommendations of the High. Commands. The holding of this meeting and the decisions and recommendations reached were an encouraging development.
The Commission's immediate plan was to invite the views of the Governments of India and Pakistan regarding the carrying out of their commitments as embodied in the Resolution of 13 August. The Commission expected that the two Governments, moved by the same spirit which prompted them to agree to the cease-fire and the holding of the 15 January conference would reach a speedy agreement on the details for the implementation of Part II of the 13 August Resolution.
Upon its arrival in Karachi on 4 February 1949, the Commission entered into consultations with the Pakistan Foreign Minister. During these conversations, the Commission was informed that considerable progress had already been made in the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein, who had entered the State for the purpose of fighting. The Foreign Minister believed that by the middle of that month (February), the obligation of the Pakistan Govern
ment in this respect would have been fulfilled. The following submissions were presented by the Pakistan Government on Part II of the Resolution of 13 August 1948:
(a) Paragraph A. 1. in connection with B. 1.-A plan should be prepared by which the withdrawal of the Pakistan forces and the "bulk" of the Indian forces would be synchronized. The Azad forces should be withdrawn from the forward areas for reorganization and training. When this process was completed, these forces would replace the Regular Pakistan troops.
(b) Paragraph A. 2.-The Pakistan Government would complete the fulfilment of its commitments by the middle of February 1949.
(c) Paragraph A. 3.-It was necessary to define
(1) "evacuated territory", in order to determine the areas under the control of both Governments.
(2) "local authorities", which raised the question. of the Azad Kashmir "Government" and the
Pakistan Political Agent in Gilgit.
(3) the scope of the word "surveillance".
(d) Paragraph B.1- See sub-paragraph (a) above.
In addition to the consultations on the implementation of the Truce Agreement, at the request of the Pakistan Government, certain matters relating to the Resolution of 5 January 1949 were also discussed.
Upon its arrival in New Delhi, the Commission heard the representative of the Government of India, who, while submitting the views of his Government on the Truce, indicated. that he limited the scope of his submission to the broad outlines of the problem. He felt that before any of the implementation of the Truce could be elaborated, the scope and the meaning of the Resolutions of 13 August and 5 January should be clearly understood. For example, he felt that the expressions ``local authorities" and "surveillance" should be well explained so as to leave no doubt. The Indian representative also mentioned the disbanding and disarming on a large scale of the Azad Forces as an essential condition to be fulfilled before any plebiscite could be held.
C. Activities of the Commission
(1) Different Means of Negotiations
In endeavouring to assist the Governments of India and Pakistan to carry out their commitments as embodied in the Resolutions of 13 August and 5 January, and mindful of its character as a body of good offices and mediation, the Commission employed various procedures. On different occasions during the past year it engaged in separate negotiations; it requested the two Governments to submit their own proposals. It submitted to both parties in its own initiative compromise formulas. On numerous occasions it sent dele. nations to confer with both Governments. It entrusted its Sub committees with specialized tasks. The Commission also invited both Governments to joint meetings of military representatives as well as of representatives of cabinet rank. Finally, it suggested arbitration of those differences which existed concerning the implementation of Part II of the 13 August Resolution.
(2) Completion of Part I of the Resolution of 13 August 1948 (demarcation of the cease-fire line)
When the cease-fire was announced on 1 January 1949, it was understood that the forces on both sides would remain behind the actual fighting line with such adjustments as the Commanders-in-Chief might agree on. The demarcation of a line was an important step, not only for the purpose of furthering the implementation of Part I, but in order clearly to establish the position of the forces and thus avoid the danger of incidents and violations of the cease-fire order.
On 4 July 1949, following repeated attempts to negotiate agreement on military and political aspects of the Truce simultaneously, the Commission addressed a letter to the two Governments (Annex 25) inviting them to a joint meeting for the purpose of demarcating the cease-fire line. that this meeting would be without prejudice to political issues It was stated or to future negotiations concerning the implementation of Part II of the 13 August Resolution.
The reaction in both Dominions was favourable to this initiative. The Governments of India and Pakistan accepted the invitation. From 18 July to 27 July 1949 authorized military representatives of both Governments met in Karachi under the auspices of the Truce Sub-Committee with the representative of Colombia as Chairman. During the military talks, the Indian and Pakistan delegates conceded important adjustments in the factual positions which, until that date, had been a matter of considerable controversy and had presented serious difficulties to further agreement. On 27 July the delegations of India and Pakistan signed an agreement (Annex 26) under the provisions of Part I of the 13 August Resolution, stating that as a complement to the suspension of hostilities in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 1 January 1949, "a cease-fire line [was] established". The demarcation of this line was specified in paragraphs B.2(a) to (d) of that Agreement. It was further stated that "both sides [should] be free to adjust their defensive positions behind the cease-fire line... [and that] there [should] be no increase in forces or defenses". It also stipulated that the Commission would station observers where it deemed necessary and that "the delegations [should] refer this agreement to their respective Governments for ratification, the documents of ratification to be deposited with the Commission no later than 31 July 1949.
Both Governments ratified the agreement and deposited with the Commission their instruments of ratification.
Although a number of minor incidents took place during the six and one half months before the cease-fire line was finally demarcated, observer teams, composed of officers from Belgium, Canada, Mexico, Norway and the United States of America headed by the Commission's Military Adviser, in close co-operation with the military authorities on both sides, greatly contributed to preventing that any of these should become major breaches of the cease-fire.
The line contemplated in the cease-fire agreement of 27 July 1949 has been completely demarcated on the ground. The Commission trusts that this step will prove to be an important contribution to the peaceful settlement of the whole dispute.
(3) Implementation of Part II of the Resolution of 13 August 1948
After preliminary discussions, the Commission felt that it could no longer expect the two Governments, independently of the Commission, to agree on the details for the implementation of the Truce. The proposals submitted at the meeting of the two Commanders-in-Chief on 15 January 1949 were rendered inoperative, since they were not endorsed by their Governments.
Consequently, the Commission in a letter dated 2 March 1949 (Annex 9) invited the Governments of India and Pakistan to send their civil and military representatives to meet with the Commission's Truce Sub-committee. In that letter the Commission suggested that "in order to advance the work as quickly as possible and to build upon discussions previously held, the representatives of [the two Governments] be prepared to inform the Sub-committee of the measures already taken by [them] with respect to the Truce Agreement and to present, for discussion, proposals for the further implementation of Part II of the Commission's Resolution of 13 August 1948",
The joint meetings began in New Delhi on 9 March. The first meeting was devoted largely to the consideration of the cease-fire line. The Pakistan delegation, understanding that the Indian delegation would respond in like manner in a subsequent meeting, presented a comprehensive scheme (Annex 10) for the implementation of Part II of the 13 August Resolution.
The Government of India did not agree with the premises on which the plans of the Pakistan delegation were based. The Indian delegation informed the meeting that it was unable to respond to the Pakistan delegation by presenting a similarly comprehensive plan, until a basis for agreement was reached. The meetings were adjourned. Subsequently, on 28 March the Commission received the Government of India's own views (Annex 16).
Seeking to narrow the differences on the Truce existing between the two parties, there ensued a series of conversations and exchanges of communications between the Commission and both Governments. For this purpose, the Chairman and the representative of the United States proceeded to Rawalpindi, Pakistan, to confer with the Pakistan Minister in Charge of Kashmir Affairs, while the Vice-Chairman and the representative Argentina remained in New Delhi. These negotiations were conducted along parallel lines in each capital and were designed to explore avenues of approach which, it was hoped, would lead to agreement on the truce. The conversations demonstrated that the formula which the Commission had in mind at that time was unacceptable to both Governments. The Commission felt that they did, however, provide a basis for the formulation of a plan. At this point the Commission concluded that it should, itself, take the initiative by proceeding to draft truce proposals for presentation to the two Governments.
The Commission, having been joined in Rawalpindi by the members who had remained in New Delhi, compared the reactions of each Government, and proceeded itself to draft Truce proposals (Annex 17) which were presented on 15 April to both Governments for their acceptance. Neither Government accepted them.
The answers of the two Governments furnished the Commission with views which, although still opposed, appeared to provide scope for the formulation of revised proposals.
The Commission transmitted to the Governments of India and Pakistan on 28 April under the designation of "Truce Terms" (Annex 21), a proposal it deemed represented a fair compromise. In its accompanying letter (Annexes 22 and 23), the Commission stated that it considered it Essent: "that the Governments of India and Pakistan agree on terms. which will permit the implementation of the provisions of the truce without further delay", and expressed to both Governments the urgency which it attached to the withdrawal of armed forces from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Commission added that it did not believe that fruitful results would be obtained at that time from further discussions and requested from both Governments their "unreserved acceptance".
The Truce Terms of 28 April are divided in three parts:
Part I Cease Fire Line;
Part II Withdrawal of Troops;
Part III General Provisions.
Part I.A.t Through I.C. relating to the cease-fire line have already been implemented as a result of the Karachi Agreement. Paragraph I.D. refers to the sparsely populated and mountainous region of the territory of Jammu and Kashmir in the north. As the Government of India had repeatedly claimed the right to post and maintain garrisons at some strategic points in this region, the Commission, in an effort to meet the position of the Government of India, provided that without prejudice to the provisions of point 8 of the Resolution of 5 January 1949, should the Commission and/or the Plebiscite Administrator conclude that it was necessary for the defence of the area, the Commission and/or the Plebiscite Administrator might agree to the Government of India stationing garrisons north of the cease-fire line, upon advice from the observers or upon reports from the Government of India.
Part II of the Truce Terms dealt with the withdrawal of troops from the territory of the State. Following the principles embodied in Part II of the 13 August Resolution, the Commission established the schedules of withdrawal of the Pakistan troops and the bulk of the Indian forces. In its covering letter to the Indian Government (Annex 22), the Commission submitted a plan for the withdrawal of the bulk of the Indian forces from the State. This suggestion was made in conformity with the terms of paragraph B.1 of Part II which stipulated that the bulk of the Indian forces would be withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in stages to be agreed between the Government of India and the Commission. Part III of the Truce Terms contained various general provisions. In established:
(a) That the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission;
(b) That immediately upon the acceptance of these terms the Commission will enter into consultations with the Government of India regarding the disposal of the Indian and State armed forces, and with the local authorities regarding the disposal of the armed forces in the territory to be evacuated by Pakistan troops, with a view to initiating implementation of 4(a) and (b) of the Commission's Resolution of 5 January 1949.
(c) Other provisions which were made for the release of prisoners of war and for the publicity to be given throughout the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the fact that peace, law and order would be safeguarded and that all human and political rights would be guaranteed. The Truce Terms also provided that they should be without prejudice to the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Indian Government answered by letter dated 18 May (Annex 48) and the Pakistan Government by letter dated 30 May (Annex 49), submitting their respective views on the Commission's Truce Terms. Neither letter constituted an acceptance, but brought out clearly that great differences of opinion still existed between the two Governments.
Following the receipt of the replies, the Commission sent a Mission to New Delhi to ascertain on what conditions the Government of India would accept the Truce Terms. A similar mission was sent to Karachi. The reports of these two missions proved significant and valuable in that both clearly revealed that the main obstacles to the implementation of Part II of the Resolution of 13 August were still unaltered; in spite of the Commission's several efforts to mediate a compromise agreement through separate consultations, the two Governments maintained, on the whole, their previous attitude towards the conditions under which they would be able to carry out their obligations.
In response to the Mission's enquiries, the Government of India addressed a letter to the Commission dated 17 June (Annex 50), followed by a further letter dated 19 June (Annex 51).
The main questions raised by the Indian Government in its above-mentioned letters of 18 May, 17 June and 19 June, 1949 (Annexes 48, 50, and 51) concern (a) the disbanding and disarming of the Azad Kashmir Forces and its relations with the withdrawal of the bulk of the Indian forces, and (b) the treatment of the sparsely populated areas of the North. The contents of these documents are analyzed in Part V of the present report.
The position of Pakistan as regards the controversial questions was started in its reply to the Commission's Truce Terms dated 30 May 1949 (Annex 49) and later reaffirmed to the delegation sent to Karachi.
The positions of the two Governments appearing to be widely divergent on important issues, the Commission was forced to conclude, after more than three months of separate negotiations on the Truce Terms, that it must resort to another procedure. The successful outcome of the Karachi military conference and the favourable atmosphere surrounding it indicated that the Commission should not endeavour to bring the two Governments together to discuss jointly the political aspects of the Truce.
The suggestion of joint political meetings was accepted by both Governments in principle. The Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Secretary-General of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs were of the opinion that, in order to create the best possible conditions for the meetings, the Commission should furnish to each the views already expressed by the other on the truce, and further, that it would be advisable for the Commission to present a tentative agenda for their consideration.
On 9 August 1949, the Commission invited the Governments of India and Pakistan to joint meetings and ministerial level to be held under the auspices of the Commission (Annex 27) for the purpose of considering the implementation of Part II of the Commission's Resolution of 13 August. A provisional agenda and a resume of each Government's views on the main points of the Commission's Truce Terms of 28 April were enclosed. It was pointed out in the letters that discussions in the joint meetings would be independent of the Truce Terms.
The replies from the two Governments (Annexes 28 and 29) indicated their agreement to meet, but already at this stage made strong reservations on the provisional agenda which the Commission had suggested. The Commission sent each Government the reply of the other to its invitation (Annex 30), and pointed out that the two Governments' views regarding the agenda could be examined at the initial meeting in the consideration of point 1 of the proposed agenda "Adoption of the Agenda".
Neither Government was willing to accede to the Com mission's request that their comments on the agenda be withheld until joint consideration of it took place at the meetings. In its reply (Annex 32), the Government of Pakistan stated that the problem of the Azad Kashmir Forces could not be discussed at the forthcoming conference and that the whole question of the Northern Region was not only beyond the scope, but contrary to the Resolution of 13 August 1948. The Government of India, on the other hand, stated (Annex 31) that the inclusion in the agenda of these two items was essential. The Commission concluded that as a responsible body, it could not continue to sponsor meetings which seemed fore doomed to failure at the outset. It also shared the preoccupation of the two Governments concerning the consequence of a possible failure of the meetings. The Commission therefore informed the Governments that it abandoned the idea of the proposed joint meetings (Annex 34).
(4) Suggestion for Arbitration
Having had to cancel the joint meetings, the Commission felt that mediation by it, under the limitations within which it was obliged to perform its task, was exhausted. As a final effort to find a solution to the Truce which was halting progress on the implementation of the Resolution of 5 January and the plebiscite, the Commission decided to ask the parties whether they would agree to submit to arbitration the points at issue.
On 26 August the Commission approved the terms of a memorandum (Annex 35), to be presented to both Governments, on arbitration of the differences existing between them concerning all questions raised to them regarding the two arbitration of Part II of the Resolution of 13 August 1948. The Chairman of the Commission proceeded to Karachi
and to New Delhi to submit for consideration the envisaged new course of action.
By letter of 7 September 1949 (Annex 37) the Government of Pakistan informed the Commission that it agreed to the suggested course of action.
The letter of the Secretary-General, External Affairs, Government of India, dated 8 September (Annex 36) concluded that the Government of India was unable to accept the Commission's suggested course of action.
The Indian reply appeared to be based on a misunderstanding. In order to offer additional explanations and to submit the Commission's further letter dated 10 September (Annex 38), the Chairman and Vice-Chairman proceeded to New Delhi,
The explanations, however, did not overcome the differences which the Government of India found in accepting arbitration, as applied to the Truce. The Commission was informed of this by letter dated 15 September (Annex 39).
In suggesting to both Governments that they agree to arbitration of the Truce, the Commission had, as a last resort in the process of placing its good offices at their disposal, envisaged a course of action that would settle the questions in which mediation had proved unsuccessful. Since this procedure did not meet with the approval of one of the Governments, it was evident that, in the circumstances, the Commission could no longer hope to continue in effective mediation of the differences, without a broader field of action. It was decided, therefore, to report to the Security Council in the expectation that a speedy solution could thus be reached.