18101951 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Graham (United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan) in the Security Council Meeting No. 564 held on 18 October, 1951
18101951 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Graham (United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan) in the Security Council Meeting No. 564 held on 18 October, 1951
In this hour of the bereavement of the people of Pakistan and grief in India and the world in the death of the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaqat Ali Khan, I wish again to express my sympathy to Begum Liaqat Ali, who served him through the years with intelligent devotion, and to the people of Pakistan whom he served with high dedication. For many years he was the right arm of the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinah, militant shephered of the Muslim people. In these last years, as the first Prime Minister, Liaqat Ali Khan was the eloquent voice of the mind and heart of the hopeful young nation. As the chief bearer of the burdens and hopes of eighty million people, he led them in troubled times to a high position among the nations of the world.
He is another witness to the fact that some of the noblest spirits of our time are born of the spiritual heritage and democratic hopes of the peoples of the South Asian subcontinent. He bravely laid his life as a sacrifice on the altar of peace. May his faith in peaceful procedures still prevail among the people. In his sacrificial death, he lives and carries on for his people. His immortal spirit, in cooperation with other noble spirits of the living and the dead of both countries, will work mightly for an early settlement of the Kashmir dispute in the advancement of the co-operative progress of two great peoples and the peace of the world.
I wish to express our grateful appreciation to the Governments of India and Pakistan for their generous hospitality, courtesies and co-operation.
To the Secretary-General and his associates, I am thankful for their cooperation in the selection of the able and experienced members of the advisory and administrative staff. The competence, industry and loyalty of the staff are the stuff out of which is woven the fabric of teamwork and the devotion of a mission to the principles and procedures of the United Nations. I list them again here in gratitude: Mr. Petrus Schmidt, a veteran of the Korean and Eritrean United Nations Missions, principal secretary, and his assistant, Mr. David Blickenstaff, political and liaison officer; General Jacob Devers, former Commander of the Sixth Army during the Allied offensive into Germany and former Commander-in Chief of the United States Ground Forces, Military Adviser, and his aide, Colonel Joy, Dow, also pro tempore acting information officer; Mr. Miguel Marin, experienced political and legal adviser, whose services with the united Nati Commission for India and Pakistan have given him first-hand knowledge of the documents, proceedings and reports of UNCIP; Lieutenant-Colonel and Professor William B. Aycock, a veteran of Patton's Third Army, personal assistant to the United Nations Representative and pro tempore liaison officer; Mr. Philippe d'Esterno, formerly of the United Nations staff of Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Plebiscite Administrator designate since 1949, political officer and acting information officer; Mr. Edward Lawson, leader in the movement for civil rights, United Nations social affairs officer and adviser on minority problems; Miss Audrey Awen, administrative assistant; Miss Mary Robertson, Secretary to the United Nations Representative; Miss Louise Crawford, secretary pro tempore; and Sergent Richard Hainey, secretariat aide to General Jacob Devers.
It would be remiss not to recall the able and devoted work of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan in 1948 and 1949, through whose good offices were achieved the cease-fire and the acceptance by both Governments of its resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, both of which, together with the three reports of UNCIP [S/1100, S/1196, S/1430 and Adds. 1, 2 and 3], constitute the reference frame of our Mission; of General A. G. L. Mc Naughton, former war Commander of the Canadian Armies, as the mediating President of the Security Council in December, 1949; and of Sir Owen Dixon, the internationally distinguished Justice of the Australian High Court, as the first United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan, whose. summary report [S/1761 and Add. 1) is a basic document in the Kashmir dispute.
We should in these troublous times be mindful of the competent vigilance, during many arduous months in a rugged terrain along the cease-fire line, of General R. H. Nimmo and his United Nations military observers from many lands, and of his predecessor, Brigadier Harry Angle, who, together with some of his observers and air crew, lost his life in the crash of the United Nations plane, and of General Delvoie, the first military adviser to the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan of the air services of Major H. W. Robertson and his crew, and the administrative services of Mr. Mark Short and his staff, who remain stationed on the sub-continent with General Nimmo General Jacob Devers, our Military Adviser, has expressed a high tribute to the leadership, discipline, morale and co-operative spirit of both armies.
To the Security Council we are grateful for the opportunity and rich experience of coming to know something of the background, lives and struggles and hopes of two great peoples. Upon the settlement of their differences may largely depend on the peace, freedom, welfare and progress not only of the two nations on the sub-continent but also of all the nations on the earth.
These differences have resulted from conflicting interpretations of the obligations of the two Governments regarding demilitarisation under the provisions of the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan which both Governments had accepted.
It is of decisive importance that these differences be resolved. The longer they remain unresolved, the more difficult it is to reach a settlement, because of the vicious circle which delay itself creates. For example, during the summer the Government of India expressed grave concern over talk in Pakistan of a holy war against India. During the summer also, the Government of Pakistan expressed grave concern over the lack of an effective demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and over Indian troop movements near the border of Pakistan.
The lack of an effective agreement on demilitarisation causes impatience and indignation among the people of Pakistan, and, among some elements, talk of a holy war against India. Delays in demilitarisation cause talk of war. Talk of war causes delays in demilitarisation. One of the problems. close to the heart of the matter is to find a way to bring to an end this circle apparently without an end. It is my hopeful faith that the high capacity for social, political and military inventiveness of the leaders of the two countries, with continued mediation of the United Nations, will soon find a formula to end the talk of war and bring about demilitarisation.
To resolve these differences and break the vicious circle, twelve proposals were submitted to the parties as a basis for a draft agreement.
I shall not here recapitulate the whole report, which is already in your hands. I shall now simply give the main substance of the twelve proposals, submitted to the two Governments on 7 September 1951 for consideration as the basis for an agreement, and the positions of the two Governments regarding these twelve proposals. In doing this, I shall, since the report is a composite work with my staff, include mainly by direct quotation from the report the main differences between the parties, the conclusions and the recommendations, and then make some-purely personal observations. First I quote from the central body of the report as follows:
In order to assist in the creation of an atmosphere conducive to the adoption of a plan of demilitarisation, and to narrow the differences between the parties with regard to such a plan, the United Nations Representative presented the proposals contained in the draft agreement as specified below. The official replies of the two Prime Ministers expressed not only the desire of their respective Governments to settle peacefully their differences regarding the State of Jammu and Kashmir, but also their willingness to take definite steps to relieve the cumulative tensions between the two peoples".
First, let us consider proposals 1 to 4: "49. Paragraphs 1 to 4 of the proposed agreement deal with general principles. Their objectives were as follows:
"A. To meet a threat of recourse to war, the United Nations Representative proposed that the Governments of India and Pakistan
"1. Reaffirm their determination not to resort to force and to adhere to peaceful procedures and specifically pledge themselves that they will not commit aggression or make war, the one against the other, with regard to the question of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;"
"B. To meet the problem of detrimental propagandhi, the United Nations Representative proposed that the Governments of India and Pakistan
"2. Agree that each Government, on its part, will instruct its official spokesmen and will urge all its citizens, organisations, publications and radio stations not to make warlike statements or statements calculated to incite the people of either nation to make war against the other with regard to the question of jammu and Kashmir;"
"C. To meet alleged violations of the cease-fire, the United Nations Representative proposed that the Governments of India and Pakistan"
"3. Reaffirm their will to observe the cease-fire effective from 1 January 1949 and the Karachi Agreement of 27 July 1949;' "D. To meet the situation created by the convocation
of a Constituent Assembly in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the United Nations Representative proposed that the Governments of India and Pakistan "4. Reaffirm their acceptance of the principle that
the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations :'
"50. The replies of both Governments indicated that they were favourable to these first four clauses of the proposed agreement........."
"55. Paragraph 5 of the proposed agreement was drawn up as follows:
"The Government of India and Pakistan.........
"Agree that subject to the provisions of paragraph 11 below, demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir contemplated in the UNCIP's resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 should be effected in a single, continuous process."
"56. Agreement that the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be effected in a single, continuous process implied, in the opinion of the United Nations Representative, the implementation of part II of the 13 August 1948 resolution, together with sub-paragraphs 4 (a) and (b) of the 5 January 1949 resolution as a whole..."
"57. The position of the two Governments on this proposal may be expressed as follows:
"India
"The Government of India agreed that demilitarisation should be effected in a single continuous process in so far as it combined the demilitarisation envisaged in sub-paragraph 4 (b) of the 5 January 1949 resolution with part II of the 13 August 1948 resolution but not to the extent of including the substantial part of sub-paragraph 4 (a) of the 5 January 1949 resolution. India was therefore willing to withdraw the bulk of the Indian forces plus some of the remainder. so as to leave on the Indian side of the cease-fire line one line of communication area head-quarters and one infantry division... but of four brigades of four battalions each, provided such a plan calls for complete demilitarisation on the Pakistan side of the cease-fire line, except for a civil armed force of 4,000 persons normally resident in Azad Kashmir territory, half of whom should be followers of Azad Kashmir and the other half persons who are not followers of Azad Kashmir. This force, according to the Government of India, should be commanded by United Nations officers or 'locals' and not by Pakistan officers.
"Pakistan
"The Government of Pakistan agreed that demilitarisation should be effected in a single continuous process subject to the provisions of paragraph 11 of the proposal of the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. The demilitarisation", according to Pakistan, "envisaged in 4 (a) and (b) of 5 January 1949 resolution should be combined with the provisions of part II of 13 August 1948 resolution. Pakistan was therefore willing to accept large-scale disarming and disbanding of the Azad Kashmir forces in a plan for the implementation of part II of the 13 August 1948 resolution, provided such a plan calls for withdrawals of the balance of the Indian forces (after the bulk) and a reduction of the State armed forces and State Militia "
So much for proposals 1 to 4 and 5. Now with regard to proposals 6 to 12:
"58. The principles for a plan of demilitarisation were set forth in paragraphs 6 to 12..."
Their main substance is implicit in the replies of the two Governments to these proposals, which also indicate the main differences regarding proposals 6 to 12. The replies of the Governments of India and Pakistan to paragraph 6 to 12 of the proposed draft agreement, as they have been summarised in the report, indicate, in the opinion of the United Nations Representative, that the points of difference between the two parties in regard to the interpretation and execution of demilitarisation on the basis of the draft agreement can be established as follows:
With regard to the period of demilitarisation the Government of India greatly doubts whether, during the period of ninety days, the firm will to settle the Kashmir question peacefully would have replaced in Pakistan the spirit and temper of war prevailing at the time. The Government of Pakistan agrees that the phase of demilitarisation should be completed as suggested during a period of ninety days, unless another period is decided upon by representatives of the Indian and Pakistan Governments.
Concerning the withdrawal of troops, the Indian Government is readly to withdraw the bulk of the army when the tribesmen, Pakistan nationals not normally resident in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and the Pakistani troops have been withdrawn from the State and large-scale disbandment and disarmament of the Azad Kashmir forces have taken place.
The Government of India maintains that further withdrawals or reductions, as the case may be, of the India and State armed forces remaining in the State after the complete withdrawal of the bulk of the Indian forces, cannot be related to the period of ninety days. Both the period during which these further withdrawals or reductions are to be made, and their phasing and quantum, cannot, in the opinion of the Government of India, be determined at present.
The Government of Pakistan agrees to the withdrawals as proposed in the draft agreement, emphasising that the term "further withdrawals or reduction" mentioned in sub-paragraph 7 B (ii) refers to large-scale reductions and disarmament.
The Government of India agrees that on the Pakistan side of the cease fire line at the end of the period agreed upon, there should be a force of 4,000 men, consisting of persons normally resident in the Azad Kashmir territory, half of whom should be persons who are not followers of Azad Kashmir. This force. should be commanded by United Nations officers or "locals" not Pakistan officers.
India states that there will remain on its side of the cease-fire line in Jammu and Kashmir one line of communication area headquarters and one infantry division of four brigades of four battalions each.
The Government of Pakistan maintains that the same standards should apply to the status of the forces to be left on side of the
The Government of Pakistan considers that a force of no more than four infantry battalions, with the necessary administrative units, should remain on each side of the cease fire line at the end of the demilitarisation programme. Pakistan, however, agreed that some slight difference in the strength or description of the two forces should not stand in the way of an agreement being reached. With regard to the Plebiscite Administrator, the report states in paragraph 60, point 4:
"(a) The Government of India considers that the proposals concerning the appointment of the Plebiscite Administrator should be omitted from the agreement. According to the Indian Government, they would be more appropriately included in proposals that deal specifically and in detail with the holding of the plebiscite and connected matters.
"(b) The Government of the Pakistan emphasises the importance of appointing the Plebiscite Administrator formally to office as much in advance of the final day of demilitarisation as possible."
From this analysis, the following conclusions are drawn in the report: "62. Due to the situation prevailing on the subcontinent, as explained in chapters II and III, it was not possible to effect demilitarisation during the time available as the United Nations Representative under his terms of reference.
"63. The United Nations Representative has set forth in chapter III the main differences between the two Governments, not only in regard to their interpretation and execution of the UNCIP's resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 concerning demilitarisation, but also in regard to points of difference between the parties concerning the proposals made by him for an agreement on a plan for demilitarisation. The United Nations Representative considers that, by doing so, he has carried out the instructions contained in paragraph 5 of the resolution of 30 March 1951 of the Security Council.
"64. It is with satisfaction and hope that the United Nations Representative emphasises the fact that the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, in their replies to his proposals for an agreement, expressed their willingness to :
"(a) Reaffirm their determination. force; not to resort to
"(b) Agree that each Government, on its part, will...... ...urge all its citizens...... not to make warlike statements........
"(c) Reaffirm their will to observe the cease-fire...... ;
"(d) Reaffirm their acceptance of the principle that the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations.
"Considering the results of the informal consultant jobs held by the United Nations Representative with the Governments of India and Pakistan, and the written replies received from the two Governments to his letter of 7 September 1951, and considering further the points of difference formulated at the end of chapter III of this report, the United Nations Representative has come to the conclusion that, although he does not underestimate the difficulties, the possibility of arriving at a basis of agreement between the two Governments is not excluded."
With regard to recommendations, the report in chapter V states the following: "Accordingly, the United Nations Representative recommends to the Security Council:
"1. That the Security Council call upon the Governments of India and Pakistan to take immediately all measures to improve the relations between the two countries by avoiding any increase of their military potential in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and by instructing their official spokesmen and urging all their citizens, organisations, publications and radio stations not to make war-like statements or statements calculated to incite the people of either nation to make war against the other with regard to the question of Jammu and Kashmir;
"2. That the Security Council consider the possibility of a renewed effort being made to obtain an agreement"-may I emphasise oral agreement-"of the parties to a plan for effecting the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;
"3. If the Security Council decides that a renewed effort to obtain an agreement should be made, it might consider instructing the United Nations Representative to implement its decision by continuing the negotiations with the Governments of India and Pakistan in order to obtain an agreement of the parties to a plan for effecting the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Such negotiations should be carried out at the seat of the Security Council, and the Council should instruct the United Nations Representative to report to the Council within six weeks." The United Nations Representative in making these three recommendations, because of his faith in the two Governments. wishes now to make an additional purely personal statement to emphasise the possible far reaching results of an early agreement on the implementation of the provisions for demilitarisation to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to the people of India and Pakistan, and to the people of the world.
With respect to the value of a settlement to the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the first significant result which would proceed from an agreement would be the exercise by the people of Jammu and Kashmir of the promised right of self-determination for which they have been anxiously waiting for three years. It would recognize the enduring idea that, in the long run, the sovereignty which proceeds from princes is subject to the sovereignty of the people who, after all, under God, are the highest sovereignty. Any status based on the compulsion of force by either nation or on the attrition of long delays in settlement would not be permanently accepted by the people of the State or of either nation, would not be in accordance with the principles and spirit of the United Nations, would not have the support of the moral opinion of mankind, and therefore could not long endure.
As a practical matter, without fulfilment of the promised right of self-determination through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite to be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, the continuing dispute, as has been well said, would become a running sore, which would tend to drain away resources and energies to the damage of the State and the peoples of both nations.
Furthermore, an agreement on the provisions for actual demilitarisation as a fair condition for holding a free plebiscite would obviously be welcomed by many peoples of Asia who, out of their long and recently victorious struggles for self-determination, have a most sympathetic concern. Such an agreement would give a lift to the spirit of peoples anywhere struggling to be free.
As to the value of a settlement to the peoples of both nations, the chief road-block in the way of the cooperation of India and Pakistan is the Kashmir dispute. The prior settlement of the Kashmir dispute. The prior settlement of the Kashmir dispute would help clear the way for the settlement of other disputes of importance to the life of millions of people in India and Pakistan. Without knowledge of and without any thought on my part of going into the merits of any other disputes, it is appropriate to point out that the importance of the other disputes adds even more to the high importance of settling the Kashmir dispute. The settlement of the dispute about which there is the most bitterness would remove the main barrier to the spirit of co operation between India and Pakistan necessary for the settlement of the disputes over evacuee property and waterways. In pointing out the importance of the disputes over evacuee property and waterways. I mean only to emphasise the higher importance of first settling the Kashmir dispute
The lack of settlement of the evacuee property issue gives millions of people, including their families and friends, a deep sense of grievance and injustice which is damaging to the creative energies and hopes of both peoples. These refugees from communal slaughter, uprooted from the land, who passed or counter-passed each other on the trek from one country into the other, have called forth the heroic efforts of both nations for their rehabilitation. To assuage some of the sorrow in their hearts and the horror in their memories, an agreement to adjust for them in their new country the values. of their lands, homes, shops and other property left behind in the old country would relieve some of the tension between the two peoples and add to the productive energies and morale of both nations.
The co-operative spirit, enhanced by a settlement of the Kashmir dispute, would also likely facilitate the settlement of the dispute over rivers and canals. This dispute is another obstacle in the way of the cooperation of India and Pakistan in the development of a programme for the maximum use of the water resources to the advantage of both. Too much the waters from the hills and mountains wash away the precious topsoils, pile up the slit in the rivers, and go their wasteful way to the sea. The river valley systems can be cooperatively developed for the storing of vast water resources, conservation of the soils, irrigation and reclamation of the lands for the production of foods and fibres and for the generation of power to meet the urgent needs of the peoples of the whole sub-continent. Out into the waste places and up the hillsides would move the mills and factories with their creative power, and down from the hills would come tumbling the rivers for the electrification of civilization, cleanly charged with the potentials for the production of foods ,fibres, goods, books, leisure, culture and something more of the good life for the further self-development of the high natural and spiritual capacities. of the people of India and Pakistan.
During the past several months, along with my task of finding out the present differences between the two nations. over Kashmir. I have been trying to find out their historic differences in fundamental ideas and ways of life. I have read through scores of books and piles of related material, talked with many people in my line of duty and observed the life and scenes about me. I have, within the narrow limits of my time, my ability and opportunity, tried to dig deep into the centuries to find the origin and depth of these differences.
Though I am still in the midst of explorations, even the fragments of my findings move me to say that it is important for the peoples of the sub-continent and the world that every efforts should be made promptly by the two Governments and by the United Nations to settle this crucial dispute between the two pep'es. Despite all the history, experience and hopes which the two peoples have long had in common, a present crucial dispute too long unsettled might become too heavy. charged as to connect the currents of present differences with high potentials of profound historic differences. An unsettled dispute over Kashmir must not be allowed to overspread and engulf two nations in the horrors of fratricidal strife. Disputes dragging along over demilitarisation in one State must not be allowed to overspread and engulf two nations in the horrors of fratricidal strife. Disputes dragging along over demilitarisation in one State must not be allowed to drift into an unintended catastrophe for a whole sub-continent. A local spark must not become a global conflagration. It would be tragic for all peoples for the conditions on the sub-continent either to drift or to explode into war, which be ruinous for both nations and disastrous for the world.
The damaging results of unsettled disputes and the vast human needs of hundreds of millions of the people of the two nations emphasise the need in the mind and hearts of men and women of goodwill in both India and Pakistan for a settlement of this most crucial dispute. Furthermore, the mutually destructive fears, bitter memories and profound differences make imperative the finding of moral substitutes through the development of projects for creative international co-operation between the two peoples. International conferences between leaders and representatives of the two peoples can promote the co-operative development of water resources, hydro-electric power, economic programmes, scientific research, health projects, university exchange, intercollegiate sports, youth conferences, women's associations, civic clubs and every other fundamental field of international co-operation for a freer and fairer life. With full and final acceptance of each other's national independence and with full loyalty to their own high spiritual heritage and indigenous ways of life, the two peoples have opportunities for the needed positive programmes of cooperation as various as the life of the people on the long peninsula between the seas, as wide in scope as the vast sub-continent, as annual as the monsoons and as high as the mountains from which come the waters of life for the people.
An agreement on the provisions for the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir may provide the example of international cooperation for peace for which the peoples of the world hope in their day's work and pray in the sanctuary of their hearts. The leaders and the peoples of India and Pakistan want peace. Yet these two great peoples are turned from a larger realisation of their far-visioned programmes by fears of possible war on the sub-continent. The great masses of the people of the British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union, the United States and all the other nations of the world want peace. Nevertheless, a billion and a half people in two opposing worlds are turned from a larger fulfilment of their humane programmes by the fear of a third world war.
The intellectual, political and spiritual leaders of India and Pakistan have the most strategic opportunity, through the settlement of a complex and stubborn dispute, to give to the United Nations and to the peoples of the world a desperately needed example of international co-operation for freedom, self-determination and peace.
The United Nations, with all its growing pains and frustrations, is the only international body for the settlement. of the most difficult international disputes. The failure of peaceful settlement of such deep disputes has involved the world in tragedies too terrible to risk again. The United Nations, with all its defects, is nevertheless, with its multilateral procedures for the peaceful settlement of complex disputes, still the best hope of the peoples for peace.
The call comes to the peoples and the leaders of India and Pakistan not only from the United Nations but also from the homes and the common life and hopes of hundreds of millions of human beings all over the earth who toil in the fields and factories, people in the villages, towns and cities, mothers and fathers in homes, refugees without homes, sons and daughters dreaming of homes of their own, children in schools and without schools and the un-numbered millions of human beings disinherited by war and hate. The call comes from the people of our common human family around the earth who hope for homes and work in freedom and peace for themselves and their children.
On the vast Asian peninsula between the seas guarded by the highest mountains on this earth, developed one of the most advanced ancient civilizations of prehistoric times. Out of the basic Dravidian-Indo-Aryan stocks with Greco, Scythian, Arab, Persian, Turco-Afghan, Mughal and British elements and influences, have developed the peoples of India and Pakistan. The Portuguese, the Dutch, the French and more especially the British made the sub-continent an inter-dependent part of the great commercial revolution by which the new lands of America and the old lands of India and the East became the mighty pivots upon which the mediaeval turned to the modern world. The Hindu epics, traditions and folk dramas, the Koran, the Islamic traditions, the assimilations of great religions; the values and treasures of great languages and literatures the principles of the common law and the fundamental rights of the common man, the struggles of the peoples on that sub-continent, on the foundations of their own ancient spiritual heritage, for the principles of civil liberties, federalism and parliamentary government, of the basically humane people against whose imperial rule the peoples of the sub-continent struggled-all are now combined together in the ancient heritage and fresh hopes of the great peoples of India and Pakistan.
From the heritage and hopes, life and struggles of these peoples, great leadership has developed from the times of Ashoka to Gandhi and Nehru and from the days of Akbar to Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan. Out of the crossing of ancient faiths and modern science, old customs and modern. democracy, frustrations and hopes, patient sufferings and victorious struggles in great causes, have developed some of the noblest spirits of our time, always overburdened, sometimes baffled but never daunted on that sub-continent as they grapple with the problems of poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, religious intolerance, caste, class and exploitation of untold millions of people struggling toward a higher freedom.
On the southern sub-continent of Asia and in many lands east and west, men and women of goodwill are working and hoping through the long days and nights, against the desperate hours of a darkening age, to redirect the possibilities of the self-destruction of civilization to the potentialities of creative co-operation of nations in a great adventure of the human spirit through the United Nations, pioneering along the far frontiers of the vast wilderness of our yet unmastered civilization.
As a key part of this forward movement of freedom, an agreement on the provisions for the actual demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, by preparing the way for a free and impartial plebiscite and the self-determination of the people, would prepare the way for the settlement of other disputes and the larger co-operation of the Governments and peoples of India and Pakistan: it would strengthen the democratic and moral ties of the Indonesian, Southern Asian, North African, South-eastern European and Mediterranean world, not as a bloc but as a spiritual force for freedom and peace, and might bring about a reorientation of the relations of East and West for a decisively human turn in the tragic history of our times.
The great leadership of the peoples of India and Pakistan, by the settlement of this crucial dispute, might set in motion a spiritual chain reaction which, we pray, would encompass the earth with the moral power or mankind in behalf of human freedom, the self-determination of people and the cooperation of nations for the peace of the world.
Through the statement of the Kashmir dispute, through the mutual respect for the national independence and high values of both peoples and through the cooperation of both nations in their far-visioned educational, agricultural, industrial, social. scientific, medical and humane programmes for the equal opportunity, the more abundant and spiritual life of all their people, may I readapt, in a spirit of brotherhood with both great peoples, a hope which I once expressed for my own beloved country.
May India and Pakistan be nations in which, in the larger fulfilment of their own ancient heritage and youthful hopes, in response to their own great leaders, the people more and more become brothers in the sight of God and in the human heart; where the lowest and the highest and all the people equally together have the freedom to struggle for a higher freedom; where life is made richer by the vigour and variety of the differences of the people; where the answer to error is not terror, and the response to a difference in religion, race, colour, economic condition or social status is not discrimination, exploitation or intimidation. Where and when men are free, the way of progress is not subversion, the respect for the past is not reaction, and the hope of the future is not revolution; where the majority is without tyranny and the minority without fear, all people have hope for freedom, peace and brotherhood in the long human pilgrimage, under God, toward one world neighbourhood of human brotherhood.
An agreement regarding the provisions for the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir would be one decisive step toward the fulfilment of this long hope, to which India and Pakistan and the nations of the world are committed by the noble principles of the Charter of the United Nations.