03101962 Extract from the speech made by Mr. Chakravarty, representative of India in the General Assembly meeting 1141 held on 3rd October 1962.
03101962 Extract from the speech made by Mr. Chakravarty, representative of India in the General Assembly meeting 1141 held on 3rd October 1962.
Now I have also to talk a little about Kashmir. I very much regret that this matter has been brought up again so soon after the prolonged deliberations in the Security Council. Immediately after independence, Pakistan put economic pressure on Kashmir by cutting off essential supplies even after signing a standstill agreement. When that failed, an armed invasion by tribal people from Pakistan followed. There was no talk then of self-determination. How can anyone take Pakistan's solicitude for self-determination for Kashmiris seriously when as late as December 1959, President Ayub said that:
"Kashmir is vital for Pakistan, not only politically but militarily as well. Kashmir is a matter of life and death to us." A
What is Pakistan's right in Kashmir anyway? It is perhaps not known to many people that the partition of India that created Pakistan was confined to the old British India. The British Government made it clear that this partition was of British India and that it did not apply to those States, such as Kashmir and several hundred others, which were ruled by Indian Princes. These Indian Princes had entered into treaty relations with the British Crown which exercised suzerainty. The British Government took the view that, with the withdrawal of the British from British India, paramountcy lapsed.
The status quo ante having been restored, the Princes were given the right to accede to either Dominion and the founder of Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah, himself agreed that the accession should be decided only by the Prince ruling the State. This decision was incorporated in the Government of India Act of 1935 as amended by the Indian Independence Act of 1947, an Act of the British Parliament, which created the Dominions of India and Pakistan. None of the provisions of that Act can be questioned, least of all by India, Pakistan or the United Kingdom. In fact, that Act of the British Parliament has the same validity as an international treaty, as the provisions of the Act were the results of agreement between three Member States.
India went to the defence of Kashmir only when the Ruler of Kashmir acceded to the Dominion of India. After accession, Kashmir became an [integral part of India and it had not only the right but the obligation to defend it. It was India which brought the Kashmir case to the Security Council in 1948 requesting it to call upon Pakistan to put an end immediately to giving assistance to the tribal invaders coming across miles of Pakistan territory. When the Security Council took up the matter for consideration, the then Foreign Minister of Pakistan said that the Pakistan Government emphatically denied that they were giving aid and assistance to the so-called invaders or had committed any act of aggression against India.
When the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan went to visit India and Pakistan, the truth could not be concealed any longer, and the same Foreign Minister had then to admit that not only were Pakistan nationals fighting in Kashmir but that regular units of the Pakistan Army were also fighting there. Pakistan thus came to Kashmir clearly as an aggressor since it had no other right to be there.
In accepting the United Nations resolutions of August 1948 and January 1949, Prime Minister of India made it quite clear that if Pakistan did not act upon these resolutions, by withdrawing its troops and tribesmen from Kashmir, the Government of India's acceptance of the resolutions should not be regarded as binding in any way. Despite this clear reservation, Pakistan chose not to comply with those resolutions. These facts have been forgotten with the passage of time and Pakistan is now talking about respect for law. Where was this respect for law when Pakistan illegally moved into the territories of Jammu and Kashmir by force? Why did not Pakistan comply with the United Nations resolutions promptly? They tried to stall then because they knew that the memories of arson, plunder and rape were still fresh with the Kashmiris and a plebiscite at that time would have been especially disastrous for them.
Now we come to this question of self-determination. We all know and we have all been talking about self-determination, which is, no doubt, a very good principle. But it ought to be applied to all those countries where by force of arms, by the vicissitudes of history, people are held under an alien Power. It is not, however, applicable to sections of a people. If the policy of self-determination were to apply to parts of constitutionally created States, most of them would be broken up. The plea of self determination in a plural society could mean disruption. And may I add that most of the new States in Asia and Africa fall into this category. That is why, I venture to suggest, the United Nations is trying so hard to prevent the secession of Katanga on the plea of self-determination. Even the older States would not be safe. For example, must the United Kingdom allow self-determination to Wales and Scotland, France to Brittany, the United States to some of the Southern States, Canada to the French community or Belgium to the Walloons or to the Flemish population? Numerous other cases could be cited. If religion is the criterion for self-determination, are we to separate Catholics from Protestants in Europe and in America, or Muslims from Christians in the Near East or in Africa? Self-determination. cannot be merely a process of disintegration or fragmentation. When self-determination is applied to minorities in a nation, after new minorities are created.
It is interesting that Prime Minister Suhrawardy of Pakistan declared in 1956 that the creation of Pakistan, despite the presence of 9 million non-Muslims in the country, put an end to the two-nation theory on the basis of which Pakistan was created. He said: "All of us, Muslims and non-Muslims, are Pakistanis first and last." This illustrates that now either Pakistanis do not believe in the two-nation theory or that self determination is not the right of a new minority.
Now, we do not wish in any way to interfere with the internal affairs of a neighbouring State, and I would take this opportunity to reiterate the policy of the Government of India, which is to seek all possible ways of making our relations with Pakistan not only friendly but truly neighbourly and fraternal. I am glad to see that the same expressions were made by the Foreign Minister of Pakistan when he assured us: "We want to live in friendship with India, and we want to be friends with India, if only it can be done on honourable terms. Yes, he raised these issues. And may I crave your indulgence, Mr. President, to draw the attention of the Assembly to certain facts relevant thereto? Did Pakistan permit the people of the Princely States in Pakistan to exercise the right of self determination after their Ruler had acceded to Pakistan? As was discussed in the West Pakistan High Court a few years ago, the accession of Bahawalpur had been forced on the Ruler of that State. The Khan of Kalat revolted against accession and was arrested and detained in 1958. In neither case was the principle of self-determination applied. When Pakistan purchased the territory of Gwadar from the Sultan of Muscat, what happened to Pakistan's solicitous regard for people's right to self determination? No opportunity. was given to the people of Gwadar to say whether in the second half of this, the twentieth century, they wished to be bought like chattels. Is Pakistan prepared to grant the right of self determination to the Pakhtoons ?
Self-determination is a democratic process. There has not been a single general election in Pakistan itself since its creation in 1947, even on the comparatively limited franchise which was obtained in the British days. The President of Pakistan has repeatedly said that the people of Pakistan are not fit to exercise such democratic rights, and after fourteen years of independence the people are now being educated in basic democracy. It is gratifying to find that Pakistan considers Kashmiris to be fitter for the democratic right of self determination though its own citizens are not yet considered fit for such democratic self-expression, even though they had experience of it in the British days.
It is indeed a sad comment on Pakistan that, during these fourteen years, the Pakistanis have forgotten what they had learned in British days, while Kashmir during the same period has learned to practise democracy, though Kashmir had none of it in the pre-independence time. Pakistan having blocked a plebiscite, the people of Kashmir framed their own Constitution through a Constituent Assembly elected on a universal adult franchise and ratified the Ruler's accession. This is certainly a much more widespread exercise of democratic rights than has ever been practised in Pakistan.
The solicitude of Pakistan for the self-determination of Kashmiris might have been much more appreciated had self determination been practised by Pakistan in regard to territories under its own control. It is indeed ironic that a Government that has denied the democratic rights of universal and direct suffrage to its own people, a Government that says that democracy is not suited for the genius of its own people, should advocate self-determination for the people of a neighbouring country which has had elections on a universal adult franchise at least three times since its independence.
One may well ask why Pakistan, if it sincerely believes in the principle of self-determination, had to invade the States in the first place. The demand for the self-determination of Sudeten Germans was followed by an attack on Czechoslovakia. Pakistan chose to follow the reverse procedure: only when aggression in Kashmir failed did Pakistan become a champion of self-determination for the Kashmiris.