08021949. Text of the note of meeting held at the residence of the Foreign Minister, Pakistan, Sir Mohammad Zafrulla Khan, at Karachi on February 8, 1949 (UN Document No. S/AC/12/Info. 10)
Documents in Support of United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan Report
08021949. Text of the note of meeting held at the residence of the Foreign Minister, Pakistan, Sir Mohammad Zafrulla Khan, at Karachi on February 8, 1949 (UN Document No. S/AC/12/Info. 10)
Present
Government of Pakistan: Sir Mohammad Zafrulla Khan, Minister for Foreign Affairs; Mr. M.A. Gurmani, Minister for Kashmir Affairs; Mr. M. Ayub, Liaison Officer; Mr. A.A. Khan, Under Secretary.
Members of the Commission: Mr. Alfredo Lozano, Mr. Hernando Samper (Colombia).
TH Foreign Minister thanked Mr. Lozano and Mr. Samper for giving him this opportunity of placing before them some of the doubts and misgivings entertained by the Pakistan Government with regard to the notes of the meetings between Mr. Lozano and the Prime Minister of India at New Delhi on 20 and 22 December 1948, a copy of which was communicated by Mr. Colban to the Pakistan High Commissioner in New Delhi on 28 December 1948. The Foreign Minister reminded Mr. Lozano that the Pakistan Government had accepted the Commission's proposals of 11 December 1948 (S/1196, annex 3) on 25 December 1948, as explained to The Pakistan and clarified to the Pakistan Government by Mr. Lozano in his memorandum of 25 December 1948. Government, therefore, did not consider itself to be bound in any way by any clarifications or elucidations that might have been given by the Commission to the Government of India,
Mr. Lozano replied that this position was fully appreciated by the Commission. He welcomed the opportunity of removing any doubts or misgivings which might have arisen in the mind of the Pakistan Government with regard to the clarifications given to the Government of India.
The Foreign Minister observed that to facilitate discussion of the matter, a memorandum had been prepared analysing the aide-memoire relating to Mr. Lozano's meetings at New Delhi on 20 and 22 December 1948 (S/1196, annex 4), and setting out the views of the Pakistan Government with regard to them. (The Foreign Minister then handed over to Mr. Lozano Mr. Gurmani's letter of 7 February 1949, together with its enclosure.) The Foreign Minister suggested and Mr. Lozano agreed that this memorandum might be discussed paragraph by paragraph so as to reduce to the minimum the points which required the consideration of the Commission as a whole. The result of the discussion is given in the succeeding paragraphs. (References are to the items in the memorandum attached to Mr. Germany's letter of 7 February 1949.)
AIDE-MEMOIRE No. 1
Item (1)-Mr. Lozano confirmed that the only question for determination was whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir should accede to India or to Pakistan, and that this was to be determined through "the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite" as stated in clause 1 of the Commission's resolution of 5 January 1949. Mr. Lozano added that he had made it clear in the conversations with the Prime Minister of India that the Commission could not, at that stage, consider any other method of ascertaining the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but "it would be up to the Plebiscite Administrator to report to the Security Council (through the Commission), if he found the plebiscite. procedure to be impossible for technical or practical reasons". Mr. Lozano remarked that it was implicit in the whole arrangement and had been clearly stated by him in the general clause of his memorandum of 25 December 1948, that no modifications or additions to the Commission's proposals of 11 December 1948, subsequently embedded in the Commission's resolution of 5 January 1949 (S/1430, paragraph 143), could be entertained unless they were acceptable to the Commission and to the Governments of India and Pakistan.
The Minister for Kashmir Affairs thanked Mr. Lozano for his clarification of the position, and remarked that the wording of paragraph 3 of the first aide-memoire might tend. to encourage the Government of India, and the Maharaja's Government in particular, to place difficulties in the way of the conduct and organization of a free and impartial plebiscite, if not to make it altogether impossible to hold. He wanted an assurance that lack of cooperation from either side would not be regarded as a practical and technical reason for not holding the plebiscite. Mr. Lozano gave this assurance.
Items (ii) and (iii)-The Foreign Minister recalled that during the discussions in Paris in November-December 1948, the Pakistan representatives had requested the Commission to specify the powers of the Plebiscite Administrator, particularly with regard to such exercise of its authority by the administration as might affect the freedom and impartiality the plebiscite. It was suggested in particular that the Plebiscite Administrator should have the powers of direction and supervision over the State forces and police, and over government officials of the revenue, forest, civil supplies and other departments to the extent that this was necessary to organize and conduct the plebiscite and to ensure its freedom and impartiality. The Commission had argued that it was un necessary to do so, as clause B. 3 (b) of its draft proposals of 11 December 1948 (S/1196, annex 3) vested the Plebiscite Administrator with all the powers that he considered necessary for organising and conducting the plebiscite and for ensuring its freedom and impartiality, and that the manner in which these powers would be exercised and other details would have to be settled with the Plebiscite Administrator under clause B, 10 of the Commission's proposals. The Pakistan representatives acquiesced in this view, but were disturbed at the attempt of the Indian representatives to exclude certain powers from the purview of the authority of the Plebiscite Administrator.
Mr. Lozano agreed that he had stated to the Prime Minister of India that the words ``direction and supervision of the State forces and police" had been deliberately omitted from the Commission's proposals, and that it was not the intention of the Commission that the Plebiscite Administrator should interfere with the day to-day administration of the State. At the same time, it had been made clear in the discussions with the Prime Minister of India that the Plebiscite Administrator would exercise all the powers which he considered necessary for organising and conducting the plebiscite and for ensuring its freedom and impartiality. If anything was done by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir or the local authorities' ' which, in the view of the plebiscite Administrator, militated against the plebiscite being free and impartial, the Administrator would have full authority to rectify the situation.
Item (iv)-Mr. Lozano remarked that the Prime Minister of India was greatly concerned with regard to the large number of Azad forces which would be left in the areas to be evacuated by the Pakistan Army under the terms of the truce, and therefore, he reassured him that it was the intention of the Commission that there should be large-scale disarming of these forces. Mr. Lozano added that it was not the Commission's intention that this disarming should take place during the truce period and that on this point the position had been correctly stated in paragraph 2(c) of the Commission's letter of 19 September 1948 to the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. With regard to the plebiscite stage, action would be taken in accordance with clause 4(b) of Mr. Lozano's memorandum of 25 December 1948.
Item (v)-Mr. Lozano and Mr. Samper explained that the provision with regard to the return of refugees to the State had been made out of a desire to solve a difficult human problem, and to enable all the citizens of the State to participate in the plebiscite. The Commission had not had the time or opportunity so far to examine the problem in all its aspects or to work out the manner in which its proposal should be implemented in practice. As far as they were aware, it was UNCIP's intention that the Pakistan commission should operate only within Pakistan, and the Indian commission only within the territory of India. Neither commission would on its own operate within the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, but the two commissions would, no doubt, advise and assist the Plebiscite Administrator in evolving a machinery for facilitating the return of the refugees to the State, Mr. Lozano and Mr. Samper added that this represented their own tentative views, and should not be taken to bind the Commission. They confirmed, however, as was clear from the language of clause 6 (a) of the Commission's resolution of 5 January, that the Commission's intention was to enable the citizens of the State to return to the State and to exercise all their rights as such citizens, but that the Commission had not yet considered matters pertaining to the rehabilitation of the refugees in their original homes.
Item (vi)-The Foreign Minister recalled that during the discussions in Paris he had explained to the Commission that whereas certain persons, such as bona fide tourists, traders, etc,, had entered the State for a lawful purpose, there were several other categories, such as R.S.S. and Sikh terrorist bands and a large number of non-Muslims from India, who had been planted in various parts of the State, particularly in the Jammu province, who could not be said to have gone into the State for a lawful purpose, and should, therefore, be asked to leave before the plebiscite was held. This was quite apart from the fact that only the nationals of the State could participate in the plebiscite. The Foreign Minister added that he had not insisted on a definition of the term "lawful purpose" because he agreed with the Commission that this was one of the matters which would come up for discussion under clause B. 10 of its proposals of 11 December. He, however, could not agree that one of the parties to the dispute, namely, the Maharaja's Government, would have the right to determine. whether or not a person had entered the State for a lawful purpose. In these and in other similar matters, the decision must necessarily be taken by the Plebiscite Administrator.
Mr. Lozano said that the point had not been specifically considered by the Commission, but that in his view, whatever practical arrangements were arrived at, contentious cases would, no doubt, have to be referred to the Plebiscite Administrator for decision.
Item (vii)-The Foreign Minister observed that the suggestion contained in the aide-memoire was not only misleading but positively mischievous. He explained at length the circumstances in which India had been partitioned and affirmed that the Pakistan Government was a no more theocratic and a no less secular State than the Government of India. In any case, he felt that this was an altogether irrelevant consideration, and that a free and impartial plebiscite could only be secured if there were complete freedom of speech and assembly throughout the State. The Foreign Minister, however, agreed that nothing should be done which would tend to disturb law and order. Mr. Lozano replied that the aide-memoire should not be taken to mean that he agreed with the views expressed by the Indian representatives, and that his own observations were limited to the remark "that any political activity which might tend to disturb law and order could not be regarded as legitimate. The same test would apply to freedom of press and speech".
Item (viii)-The Foreign Minister pointed out that the Pakistan Government's views with regard to this matter were the same as with regard to item (vi), namely, that decisions in such cases could not be left to one of the interested parties, and that all such matters fell within the purview of the Plebiscite Administrator. Mr. Lozano agreed that it was one of the responsibilities of the Plebiscite Administrator to ensure implementation of clause 7 of the Commission's resolution of 5 January 1949, but that the manner in which this should be carried out was a matter for discussion with the Plebiscite Administrator under clause 10 of the resolution.
Item (ix)-Mr. Lozano remarked that what he had said with regard to item (viii) applied equally to item (ix).
AIDE-MEMOIRE No. 2.
Item (i)-Mr. Lozano agreed that, as stated in part IIA. 3 of the Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948, "the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the Commission".
Item (i) Mr. Lozano confirmed that as he had stated with regard to item (v) of the first aide-memoire, the Commission aimed at that stage to enable the refugees to participate in the plebiscite, but that the question of their permanent rehabilitation in their original homes had not yet been considered.
The Foreign Minister suggested, and Mr. Lozano agreed, that a record note of the meeting should be prepared and after it had been agreed to by Mr. Samper, it should be sent to the secretariat of the United Nations Commission for the Commission's information.
(Signed) H. Samper
Alternative representative for Colombia
(Signed) M. Ayub Liaison Officer
9 February 1949.