19061958 Letter dated 19 June 1958 from the representative of Pakistan Mr. Agha Shahi to the President of the Security Council regarding the arrest of Sheikh Abdullah.
19061958 Letter dated 19 June 1958 from the representative of Pakistan Mr. Agha Shahi to the President of the Security Council regarding the arrest of Sheikh Abdullah.
It was not the intention of my Government to reply to the allegations of the permanent representative of India in regard to the re-arrest of Sheikh Abdullah contained in his letter to the President of the Security Council of 11 June 1958 [S/4024] But inasmuch as he has employed a novel and starting technique of misrepresentation in citing foreign press reports to justify the indefensible actions of his Government in occupied Kashmir, I am to make instructed by a strong protest the tactics to which he has re my Government sorted in order to confuse world public opinion.
I am further instructed to bring to the notice of the Security Council the following examples of deliberate misrepresentation resorted to by the representative of India to cloak the actions of his Government in suppressing the fundamental liberties of the people of Kashmir. The first is the device of lifting isolated parts of sentences from entirely different contexts and piecing them together so as to make them look like one integral quotation. In paragraph 7 of his letter, the representative of India has given the following quotation.
To-day's dispatch from our special correspondent in Srinagar provides little evidence of the symptoms of public disturbance-the shops were all open today and busy ensnaring tourists in the usual manner. There is no curfew in the town and no sign of outward tension beyond intensified armed police patrols."
(The Daily Telegraph, London)] 2 May 1958)
No such passage occurs anywhere in the newspaper which has been quoted. It has been fabricated by the representative of India himself. Actually, the portion of the above quotations which is underlined here has been lifted from its context and separated from the material part of the sentence. This sentence occurs in the following passage in an editorial of the The Daily Telegraph of 2 May:
"Those who hopefully looked on Sheikh Abdullah's release from five years' captivity as a conciliatory gesture by the Kashmir Government will have been dismayed by the circumstances of his re-arrest after three months of freedom. To-day's dispatch from Our special correspondent in Srinagar provides little evidence of the symptoms of public disturbance which according to the Prime Minister Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, his continued freedom was tending to provoke. It will not help to quote British precedents for such action without also listening to British experience. This preventive arrest of a political opponent can only damage the Government without in any way helping locally to reconcile Muslim and Hindu."
The remainder of the quotation in paragraph 7 of the letter of the permanent representative of India (namely: "the shops..patrols' ') has been conveniently lifted, not from the same editorial, but from Gordon Shepherd's dispatch appearing in the same issue. [Photostat copies of the editorial and the news dispatch are attached to the present letter (App I, secs. 1 and 2).]
This artful manipulation of joining two separate groups of words which occur in two separate contexts to make them look like one integral whole distorts the sense of both the editorial and the dispatch, and is not just fortuitous. By doing so, the representative of India seeks to convey an impression that Sheikh Abdullah's re-arrest was treated with complete indifference by the people of Kashmir. But the plain meaning of the editorial, when read without mutilation and transplantation, is that Sheikh Abdullah's detention was without justification altogether. It may be pointed out that while the editorial questions the cause of his re-arrest, the quotation in paragraph 7 of the letter of the representative of India has been so concocted as to refer to its effects. Thus, a meaning has been attributed to the The Daily Telegraph, which it evidently does not convey.
Another example of misrepresentation is provided in paragraph 5 of the representative of India in which a quotation from the The Daily Telegraph, London, of 3 May 1958, has been given by him as follows:
"Even his private army', they (Sheikh Abdullah's adherents) say, was a purely mercenary force paid £3 a month with Pakistan money."
But the actual passage in this issue of the newspaper reads:
"There are divided views as to why this critical Friday passed off so peacefully. The authorities claim that it proves that Sheikh Abdullah had no genuine supporters. Even his 'private army' they say, was a purely mercenary force paid £3 a month with Pakistan money. One Kashmiri, an evident sympathizer, told me, on the other hand, that Sheikh Abdullah had left strict instructions that no blood should be spilt if he were re-arrested."
By willfully changing the reference of the pronoun "they", in the quotation, to "Sheikh Abdullah's adherents" instead of "the authorities", the permanent representative of India has distorted the evident meaning of the newspaper report (Cf. app. 1, secs. 3 and 4).
There are also several examples of the technique of suppressive provided in paragraph 4 of the letter of the permanent representative of India. The quotations therein have been so truncated or produced in such a manner as to misrepresent the evaluation which the newspapers in question have. themselves made of the situation in Kashmir. The last quotation in this paragraph is from a dispatch datelined New Delhi, 30 April, which appeared in the Manchester Guardian of 1 May 1958. That dispatch about Sheikh Abdullah's re-arrest begins with the following words, which the representative of India has suppressed to distort its meaning:
"Information received here indicates that there has been no immediate provocation for the extreme step taken by the Kashmir Government."
In order to curtail the length of this letter, I shall refrain from citing more fully than the representative of India has done in paragraph 4 of his letter. The reports and comments appearing in the Manchester Guardian of 11 January 1958, and the New Statesman of 1 February 1958, make it abundantly clear that the purport of the testimony from these sources, which has been adduced by him, is contradicted by these sources themselves. (Relevant passages relating to this testimony may, however, be seen in appendix II.)
My Government trusts that this disregard of the elementary decencies of faithful quotation by the representative of India will be protested by the members of the Security Council as well as by the organs of world public opinion to which such cynical injustice is being done.
The tactics of misrepresentation adopted by the representative of India in his letter of 11 June 1958 are but characteristic of India's entire attitude towards the United Nations and the world in the Kashmir dispute.
In the present context, the representative of India seems to rely largely on foreign press reports to substantiate the case for Sheikh Abdullah's imprisonment. It is therefore necessary to quote other reports and comments appearing in prominent newspapers about the lack of any justification for this arbitrary and provocative step on the part of the Government of India taken through its puppet regime in occupied Kashmir. (Relevant quotations appear in appendix III.)
As regards the vague accusation that Sheikh Abdullah was exciting religious hatred in Kashmir, the following testimony of Mr. Kingsley Martin of the New Statesmen of London, in the issue of 22 March 1958, may be quoted :
"I went to see the Sheikh in his home in Srinagar when he had come back tired after a long day in which he had addressed eleven meetings. He was in a reasonable mood... The truth about the Sheikh confirmed my conversation with people who have known him for a quiet and many years-I first met him in 1948 and my own judgement is the same-is that he is not a 'communalist', bas never been anti-Indian and only attacks India now and quotes the Koran in his speeches because he is a Muslim leader opposing Indian rule."
The Times of London carried the following report in its issue of 22 April 1958, about Sheikh Abdullah's last public appearance before his re-arrest:
"He (Sheikh Abdullah) spoke in fact for 50 minutes in his clear and ringing voice, alternately expounding verses from the Koran and leading the singing of songs from Iqbal, never touching on politics save once to exhort his hearers to have faith, for it was God's will that one day they should rule themselves in freedom and dignity'. The congregation abstained from any demonstration except for occasional applause; all must have known that the government had banned political meetings and that a few slogans would have sufficed to turn the gathering into an unlawful assembly. Outside, the shorthand writers stood with pencils poised, ready to jot down any seditious utterance; but an Indian official commented disgustedly: 'He is not going to say anything: he is afraid of being re-arrested." "
The subtle attempt to interpret Sheikh Abdullah's practice of reciting from the Koran, the beloved Holy Book of Islam, as fomenting religious passions is indicative of the extreme intolerance which is inherent in the minds of the rulers of India. It seems that this practice of Sheikh Abdullah, a practice of prayer and piety, which he maintained even in his days of collaboration with Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru, has now become anathema to the Hindu temper of the Indian Republic. This intolerance is in fact the very danger that the Muslims of Kashmir, the preponderant majority of the State, fear most in being unnaturally linked to India.
To substantiate the accusation that Sheikh Abdullah was raising a private army for subversion and sabotage, the permanent representative of India has, in paragraph 5 of his letter, quoted from the Daily Telegraph London, of 3 May 1958. The newspaper's correspondent discussed this very question with Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammed, India's puppet, on 1 May 1958. The relevant passage from his dispatch published in the Daily Telegraph of 2 May 1958 reads as follows (see app. I, sec. 1):
"There were about 4,500 of them (Sheikh Abdullah's volunteers) shortly before his arrest. I asked (Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed): 'If Sheikh Abdullah's organization had grown into such a menace, how was it that 36 hours after his re-arrest there has still not been the slightest sign of protest from his followers ?' The Prime Minister replied, 'We have been asking ourselves that. I have been a little surprised at the lack of any reaction so far. It seems to show that Sheikh Abdullah was a latent rather than an actual menace, but a menace he was.' When asked what his prisoner would be brought to trial and given a chance to defend himself in public against these charges, Mr. Ghulam Mohammed was cautious. He said: 'We shall see. This matter is being investigated and I shall see what my legal experts recommend.''
It would appear from the above that all that is necessary to deprive a person of his human rights in occupied Kashmir today under Indian dispensation is mere suspicion that he is a "latent menace". No overt culpable act on his part, which all civilized codes of law require as the indispensable condition for criminal liability, needs to be proved. In this connection, a dispatch of The Times, London, dateline Kud, Kashmir, 11 June 1958, published in The New York Times of 12 June 1958 says as follows:
"Although Sheikh Abdullah is not on trial, it is commonly expected that the government hopes to implicate him. It was reluctant to put him on trial for various reasons, ranging from providing a public platform for him to the possibility that the trial might boomerang. The Sheikh is under arrest but no formal charges have been filed against him."
The connotation of the words ``hope to implicate him" and the "trial might boomerang '' does not need any explanation. It illustrates the sham and shortness of India's attitude in this matter, which is further exposed by the following extract from a foreign observer's report:
"What can be dismissed as pretence is the suggestion being thrown out here that Abdullah's re-arrest was a purely local security decision which should be treated on that isolated plane."
(Dispatch datelined Srinagar, 30 April 1958 The Daily Telegraph, London, 1 May 1958)
In paragraph 8 of the letter of the representative of India, eleven excerpts have been given from the speeches of some political leaders in Pakistan which, according to him, show how "the authorities in Pakistan" are committing further violations of the resolution of the Security Council dated 17 January 1948. In the first place, the first five statements, as well as the last three quoted in this paragraph, emanate not from the authorities of the Government of Pakistan, but from people in Pakistan's public life. The Government of Pakistan would not care to deny that India's actions in Kashmir for more than ten long years have evoked the deepest resentment of the people of Pakistan and that this resentment has been, and will continue to be, expressed by the leaders of all shades of opinion in the country. In fact, these quotations only serve to throw into sharp relief the added burden that India's policy and attitude impose on the Government of Pakistan in restraining the people of the country and counselling them to continue to put their reliance on the ability of the United Nations to bring about a just and peaceful settlement of the problem. That the Government of Pakistan remains faithful in letter and spirit to the Security Council resolution of 17 January 1948 is manifest from the following pronouncement made by the Prime Minister of Pakistan on 6 June 1958:
"Bhera (Sargodha District) June 6: Prime Minister Malik Firoz Khan Noon said here last evening that the public sentiments with regards to the Kashmir question had reached the highest pitch and that some people wanted to stage an agitation and cross the cease-fire line. "Continuing, the Prime Minister pointed out that Pakistan was committed to the United Nations to seek a peaceful solution to the Kashmir dispute. He said he was still hopeful about the peaceful solution of both the Kashmir and the canal water disputes. He therefore warned the people not to be deceived by those who wanted to follow a path different from the one pursued by the Government."
(Dawn, 7 June 1958)
The point needs to be brought to the particular attention of the members of the Security Council that this conciliatory attitude has been made public not by the Government of Pakistan alone. Even the Azad Kashmir Government, despite extreme provocation, is making a strenuous urge to denounce the ceasefire agreement on the ground that the agreements to which it was preliminary have not been honoured by India. This is clear from the following:
"Rawalpindi June 5: Replying to questions on the contemplated move of Chaudhri Ghulam Abbas for breaking the cease-fire line, Sardar Mohammad Ibrahim reiterated that the campaign was untimely and detrimental to the interests of Pakistan and Kashmir".
(Dawn, Karachi, 6 June 1958)
That India should choose to ignore such counsels of moderation reflecting the peaceful intentions of the responsible authorities in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir and that it should instead seize upon utterances made in the anguish of spirit caused by its own suppression of the rights of Kashmiris, is proof of its intention to present an alibi to the world for its rejection of every reasonable proposal, including the latest proposals of Dr. Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan, to solve the Kashmir problem.
Lastly, the letter from the representative of India characterizes our letter of 6 May "a blatant attempt at interference with the internal affairs of Jammu and Kashmir, one of the constituent States of the Indian Union, a Member State of the United Nations''. This is altogether a false assertion.
The state of Jammu and Kashmir is not one of the constituent states of the Indian Union it is a territory in dispute and the question of its accession to India or to Pakistan has to be decided by a free and impartial plebiscite under United Nations auspices. This assertion made by the representative of India is an attempt to destroy the very basis of the actions of the Council which, from the very beginning, has held that the issue of accession is one to be settled by a fair and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations. Both India and Pakistan are solemnly pledged to this course of action. It is the deliberate and repeated assertions of this outrageous character on the part of India that constitute a continual provocation to the people of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir and a blatant defiance of the authority of the United Nations. Such assertions are also in flagrant violation of the Security Council resolution of 17 January 1948.
I am instructed to repeat here that pending a fair and impartial plebiscite in Kashmir, which alone will constitute a final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the wishes of the people and with the resolutions of the United Nations, my Government is bound to be actively concerned with conditions in Kashmir and will not abdicate its right, or depart from its duty, to draw the attention of the Security Council to any violations of the Council's resolutions to which both the parties stand committed.
I am instructed to request that this communication, together with its appendices, may be circulated as a Security Council document and brought to the notice of the members of the Council.
(Signed) Agha Shahi Minister Plenipotentiary Acting Permanent Representative of
Pakistan to the United Nations
Appendix I
1.-Dispatch in the "Daily Telegraph"
of 2 May 1958
Arrest in Kashmir Defended
Sheikh Abdullah "latent menace" Private army, says Premier
From Gordon Shepherd
Daily Telegraph Special Correspondent
Srinagar, Kashmir, Thursday,
Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, Premier of Kashmir, described to me today why he ordered the re-arrest of Sheikh Abdullah, his main political opponent. He accused Sheikh Abdullah of conspiring with Pakistan to launch religious disturbances in Kashmir.
Sheikh Abdullah was seized at this house in Srinagar early on Wednesday and driven to Kud goal in the neighbouring province of Jammu. Ghulam Mohammed said: "We acted like any other Government would have done given the information in our possession. If Sheikh Abdullah had opposed me by normal means and has come forward with an alter native programme he would be free today. Instead, he preached Moslem fanaticism and that was too dangerous here for us to tolerate indefinitely."
I said: "Sheikh Abdullah began to use the religious appeal in mosque speeches soon after his re-arrest was delayed?."
Given every chance-Refused to come round
Mr. Gulam Mohammed replied: "We could have acted long ago. But we wanted to give him every chance to see sense and come round. This he simply refused to do. There were also other considerations." I asked whether Abdullah's reported secret contacts with Pakistan were among these "other considerations". At this question the Prime Minister removed his sunglasses and tapped. them on the table for emphasis. He said: "There is no doubt that Sheikh Abdullah was in league with Pakistan. It was from there that in all probability he was getting the funds with which to raise his private army."
Carried sticks-Brigade of "Ansars"
Mr. Ghulam Mohammed's mention of a "private army". refers to the so-called Brigade of "Ansars'' which Sheikh Abdullah was recruiting from his sympathisers. They wore a badge of inverted crossed swords and carried "lathis'' or stout sticks as "weapons".
There were about 4,5000 of them shortly before his arrest. I asked: "If Sheikh Abdullah's organisation had grown into such a menace how was it that 36 hours after his re-arrest there has still been not the slightest sign of protest from his followers?"
The Prime Minister replied: "We have been asking ourselves that. I have been a little surprised at the lack of any reaction so far. It seems to show that Sheikh Abdullah was a latent rather than an actual menace. But a menace he was."
When asked whether his prisoner would be brought to trial and given a chance to defend himself in public against these charges Mr. Ghulam Mohammed was cautious. He said: We shall see. This matter is being investigated and I shall see what my legal experts recommend."
Mr. Ghulam Mohammed referred to the "nonsense" broadcast over Pakistan radio today that Kashmir was in a state of turmoil. He asked me to convince myself that there had been no mass arrests and that life is continuing normally. Without a tour of the gaols the first point would be difficult to check. But as I reported yesterday, there is no reason to suppose that more than two of Sheikh Abdullah's supporters have been imprisoned with him.
The shops in Srinagar were all open today and busy ensnaring tourists in the usual manner. There is no curfew in the town and no sign of outward tension beyond the intensified armed police patrols.
Mr. Ghulam Mohammed seemed more apprehensive when I asked about the latest position on the cease-fire line with Pakistan "Something might be tried there, but so far the line has remained absolutely quiet," he said.
Armies unchanged-Pakistan frontier
"There do not appear to have been any unusual movements of Pakistan troops and our own forces have not been changed." He concluded with a special appeal to Britain for sympathy with his position.
"Your people know these particular problems better than anyone. Indeed it is your old preventive detention legislation which we have used. Just look where we are on the map.
"Apart from Pakistan we have Russia, China and Afghanistan on our borders. In that exposed position political stability in our tiny state is an absolute essential.'' Kashmir's desire-"All we want is peace"
"We just cannot afford to have any turbulence. All we want is to be left in peace to get on with our economic plan and do more to raise the living standard of our people. That counts far more in the long run then mass hysteria."
Mr. Ghulam Mohammed, who formerly served in Sheikh Abdullah's cabinet, is a powerfully built and confident man of 50, It is impossible to comment on his statements until the evidence to which he referred is produced. Only a formal and public charge of high treason against Sheikh Abdullah would nullify criticism of the methods used in silencing him.
It is also impossible to predict whether the complete claim in Kashmir will last. Tomorrow, the Moslem Sunday, will be the test period.