27051960 Letter dated 27 May 1960 from the representative of India C.S. Jha to the President of the Security Council
27051960 Letter dated 27 May 1960 from the representative of India C.S. Jha to the President of the Security Council
1. I have been instructed by the Government of India to refer the letter dated 29 March 1960 [S/4292], addressed by the Permanent Representative to the Security Council and to convey the regrets of the Government India the caused the Council by the volume and frequency of these communications arising out of factually inaccurate of
2. The Pakistan Permanent Representative complains that I have not stated anything more about the Mangla Dam Project. Your Excellency and the Members of the Council are aware of the Government of India's position on the Mangla Dam Project which was clearly stated in my letter of 7 August 1959 (S/4202), and in other previous communication on this subject. I do not propose to burden the Council with reiteration of the Government of India's position on this matter.
3. The Pakistan Permanent Representative has stated that in my letter of 29 October 1959 [S/4234], "portions have been lifted from the text of the proceedings of the Security Council and those. of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, and an attempt has been made to juxtapose them as to lead to inferences which are alien to the intention of the documents concerned". I dealt with the matter briefly and only referred to essential points as I did not want to burden the Members of the Council with long quotations. The only relevant points in a case of this sort are those bringing out the views of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on the points in issue. In view of the Pakistan Permanent Representative's allegation, however, I reproduce below, with apologies to the Council, paragraph 128 from the Commission's first interim report, which the Pakistan Representative has quoted, and paragraph 129 of the same report which he has not quoted, to show conclusively that the allegation made by the Pakistan Permanent Representative is entirely baseless:
"128. 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 problem 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.
"129. 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". (The italics are mine)
4. The Commission was clearly of the view that Pakistan did violate the Security Council resolution of 17 January 1948. I quote part of paragraph 4 of the appendix to a letter dated 27 August 1948, from the Chairman of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan to the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, which gives this position in clear unambiguous terms:
"The Security Council resolution of 21 April 1948, which sets forth the terms of reference of the Commission, was adopted with cognizance of the presence of Indian troops in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The presence of Pakistani troops in Jammu and Kashmir, however, constitutes a material change in the situation inasmuch as the Security Council did not contemplate the presence of such troops in that State, nor was it apprised thereof by the Government of Pakistan..."
5. In paragraph 6 of his letter the Pakistan Permanent Representative has quoted a passage from the aide-memoire handed by the Chairman of the Commission to the Government of India on 25 February 1949, to show that this text in no way lends support to my statement that "there is no exclusive or final character about the plebiscite proposal", This is yet another attempt to confuse the issues involved. The Pakistan Permanent Representative must be aware that the Government of India accepted the terms of the Commission's resolution of 5 January, 1949, not on 25 February 1949, but on 23 December 1948, when India's formal acceptance was communicated to the Chairman of the Commission and that the relevant aides memoire are, therefore, those dated 21 and 22 December, 1948, which recorded the Commission's views on alternative methods as follows:
"...As regards the third point [alternative methods], he [Mr. Lozano] said that the Commission wished the possibility of a plebiscite to be explored first. Should the plebiscite administrator, however, find a plebiscite to be impracticable, the way would be open to consider other methods for ensuring a free expression by the people of Jammu and Kashmir of their wish regarding the future status of the State.
"As regards alternative methods of ascertaining the wish of the people regarding the future status of Jammu and Kashmir, Mr. Lozano said that the statement in paragraph 3 of the aide-memoire dated 21 December 1948 was substantially similar to his own record which reads: 'Mr. Lozano said that 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. The plebiscite administrator and/or the Commission could then recommend alternative solutions. (The words within brackets and the italics are mine).
6. The Pakistan Permanent Representative in paragraph 7 of his letter questions the factual basis of the Government of India's view that Pakistan has failed to implement parts I and II of the Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948. The factual basis for the Government of India's view are the findings recorded by no less an authority than the Commission on the violation by Pakistan of part I of the UNCIP resolution. of 13 August 1948, by the organisation and consolidation of the so-called Azad Kashmir Forces (paragraph 225 of the Commission's third interim report) and by the annexation of Northern areas (paragraphs 272 and 274 of the same report). Relevant extracts from these paragraphs are reproduced below:
"...Although it might be a matter of discussion whether the increased since August 1948, there is no question that those numerical strength of the Azad Kashmir forces has actually forces, who have since then been working in close cooperation with the Pakistan regular Army and who have been trained and offered by that Army, have increased their fighting strength. It is reasonable to suppose that, if the Commission had been able to foresee that the cease-fire period would be prolonged throughout the greater part of 1949 and that Pakistan would use that period to consolidate its position in the Azad territory, the Commission would have dealt with this question in part II of the resolution of 13 August'' [paragraph 225].
"It seems, however, very doubtful whether northern areas were in fact in the autumn of 1948 under the 'effective' control of the Pakistan High Command, in the sense that the Commission understood the term 'effective control'. The Pakistan Government (Annex 24) stated that no Pakistan regular troops at any stage were employed in the operations which took place between May and December 1948..." [paragraph 272].
"...However, by January 1949 Pakistan undeniably held military control over the northern areas; the area was administered by local authorities, not those of the Jammu and Kashmir Government, with the assistance of Pakistan officials" [paragraph 274].
These show clearly that there was no need for a fresh determination of facts which had already been determined by the Commission. As for the non-implementation by Pakistan of part II of the resolution 13 August, 1948, even the Government of Pakistan does not claim that it has withdrawn its armed forces from Jammu and Kashmir, although the Security Council imposed upon it this obligation in part II as far back as 1 January 1949. The Government of India's view that Pakistan has failed to implement parts I and II of this resolution is, therefore, incontestable.
7. I request that this communication may kindly be circulated to the members of the Security Council as a Security
Council document.
(Signed) C. S. JHA Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations
(Source: UN Document no. S/4327)