Letter dated 21 January 1971 from the representative of Pakistan A. Shahi to the President of the Security Council
Letter dated 21 January 1971 from the representative of Pakistan A. Shahi to the President of the Security Council
I am instructed by the Government of Pakistan to bring to the notice of the Security Council the serious situation which has arisen in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, a territory whose status remains to be determined in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council as well as the international agreement embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, jointly accepted by both the parties to the dispute.
This serious situation has been directly caused by the actions of the Government of India, taken on 8, 9 and 12 January 1971, in prohibiting entry into the State of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and other well known leaders of Kashmir, Mirza Afzal Beg and Mr. G. M. Shah, in banning the Plebiscite Front and in subsequently arresting a large number of political workers in the Indian-occupied area of the State. These actions have been taken with the objective of suppressing all political activity in the State and of preventing participation in Indian parliamentary elections of the representative organisations and personalities of the Indian-occupied area.
In this context, it needs to be borne in mind that it is a well-known and established principle of the jurisprudence of the United Nations that, in a territory whose people have not exercised their right of self-determination elections held under the control of the occupying or administering authority cannot be a substitute for a plebiscite or referendum held under im partial auspices. In regard to the specific question of Jammu and Kashmir, resolutions 91 (1951) and 122 (1957) of the Security Council have clearly laid down that "any action" which a constituent assembly convened by India "might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof... would not constitute a disposition of the State" consistent with the principle that "the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations."
In total disregard of this principle, however, it has been one of the main contentions of the Government of India that, by holding four elections in the Indian-occupied part of Jammu and Kashmir, India has fulfilled its obligation of ascertaining the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir with regard to the accession of the State to India. This contention, of course, runs totally contrary to the fact that these elections were not allowed to be fought over the issue of that accession.
Apart from this inherent characteristic of the elections in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, the fact has been brought out by abundant impartial evidence that the elections held in 1952, 1957 and 1962 were rigged and consisted of nothing but fraudulent manipulations by the Government of India and its puppet regime in Kashmir. This evidence is on the records of the Security Council. As regards the elections which were held in 1967, I would invite reference to my letter of 27 April 1967 contained in document S/7862. Now, the Government of India has clearly shown by its latest actions that it is not prepared for the elections to be held this year to become a fair poll of popular opinion in the State. A leading Indian newspaper, the Hindustan Times of New Delhi, stated in its editorial of 11 January 1971 that, by imposing restrictions on the Plebiscite Front, the Government of India "will now be spared the familiar embarrassment of rigging the elections".
Another main contention advanced by India with regard to the Kashmir dispute has been the people of the Indian-occupied area have accepted the State's accession to India. Always removed from reality, this contention has now been further disproved by India's alleging in the official notification issued on 12 January that the members of the Plebiscite Front and its sympathizers had disclaimed or questioned India's sovereignty and territorial integrity by saying that Kashmir was not a part of India and that the question of its accession to India remained to be decided. In this and an accompanying notification, India has acknowledged that "violent activities were gathering momentum rapidly and would have become uncontrollable and have an adverse effect on the security of the State unless the activities of the Plebiscite Front are checked immediately and its influence among the youth and students is brought to an end." This admission of widespread agitation and discontent in the Indian-occupied territory is signal proof of the fact that India has been keeping the bulk of the State under forcible subjugation and that the people of the State are by no means reconciled to Indian occupation.
It may be pertinent here to quote reports of these actions of the Government of India published in the international press. The Times of London of 8 January 1971 in a dispatch from New Delhi dated 7 January stated:
"Sheikh Abdullah and his Plebiscite Front Movement which is seeking self-determination for the Muslim majority in the northern state of Kashmir, have decided to contest the forthcoming mid-term parliamentary election.
"The decision has alarmed the Central Government, which has refused to hold a plebiscite in the disputed territory for the past 20 years...
"There can be no doubt that the Government would be in an embarrassing position, both at home and internationally, if the Shaikh's movement won the election with a large majority."
The New York Times of 10 January, carrying a New Delhi dispatch of 9 January, reported:
"Apparently, New Delhi fears that if the front is allowed. to contest the state elections it might gain control of the Kashmir Government."
An editorial of The New York Times of 13 January 1971 stated: "Mrs. Gandhi's admirable faith in the democratic process unfortunately seems to stop at the Kashmir border. The Kashmiri Government in Srinagar, backed by New Delhi, has barred Sheikh Abdullah, leader of Kashmir's Muslim. majority, from the state and has arrested more than 500 workers of the Sheikh's political organisation, the Plebiscite Front. The Front, which seeks self-determination for Kashmir, will be barred from contesting the election."
The Government of India has sought to justify these actions by insinuating that it is Pakistan which encourages agitation in Indian-occupied Kashmir. While the baselessness of an allegation of this type hardly needs to be exposed, it may be pertinent here to quote the editorial of the Hindustan Times of 11 January, which said that the notion that Pakistan is preparing to strike betrays a whole series of diplomatic, political and military assumptions that seem... removed from objective reality."
The notification issued by the Government of India on 12 January 1971 declaring the Plebiscite Front to be an "unlawful association" gave the following as one of the grounds of such declaration:
"[The Front,] has for its object a so-called settlement of the question of the accession of the State to India through a plebiscite and the said object, which amounts to an assertion of a claim to determine whether the State is, or will remain, a part of the territory of India, is an unlawful activity."
It is unquestionable that the object of the Front, as described in the notification, is identical with the object solemnly proclaimed by the Security Council in its resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir, by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan and by both the parties to the dispute when they declared their adherence to the letter's resolutions. In banning the pursuit of such an object, India declares the upholding of international law as unlawful and assumes a position totally incompatible with the obligations of its membership of the United Nations. On India's own showing, the Plebiscite Front seeks nothing more than that the pledge given to the people of Jammu and an impartial plebiscite should be held to determine the disposition of the State. Evidently, neither party to the dispute can prejudge the result of such a plebiscite. It is, therefore, clear that when India asserts that the demand for the plebiscite amounts to an attempt to bring about the "secession" of Jammu and Kashmir from India, it brings a charge not against those who articulate that demand but against itself for attempting to perpetuate an occupation which, it knows, is intolerable to the people of the State and will not withstand any fair ascertainment of their popular will.
The Government and the people of Pakistan view with serious concern the situation created by these actions and would wish the members of the Security Council to take cognizance of the fact that these actions aggravate tensions in the subcontinent of India and Pakistan and that the responsibility for the consequent deterioration of the relations between India and Pakistan will lie squarely on the Government of India.
I shall be grateful if this letter is circulated as a document of the Security Council.
(Signed) A. SHAHI
Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations
(Source: UN Document no. S/10084).