15021957 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Jawad (Iraq) in the Security Council Meeting No. 769 held on 15 February 1957.
Text of the Speech made by Mr. Jawad (Iraq) in the Security Council Meeting No. 769 held on 15 February 1957.
Between my country and the two Dominions which are parties to the Kashmir dispute, there are a number of close ties which require no emphasis. Some of these ties were inherited from the remote past, others were woven during recent decades, still others are projected for the future. The long and arduous struggle of the Indian people as a whole for freedom and independence was a source of inspiration for the people of my country and the Arab people in general. The achievement of these objectives by India and Pakistan was a turning point not only in the history of Asia and the Far East, not only in the history of the Middle East, but also in the history of the nations and peoples which aspired to achieve free, independent and democratic life. Since the day when the peoples of the two great States became sovereign, the people of my country followed with admiration the vast strides made by the Indian and Pakistani people in the political, economic, cultural and social fields. We found in their endeavours-which have been directed toward the promotion of democratic life, the raising of the material and cultural standards of the population as a whole, and the assumption of a decisive role in international relations examples of how liberation movement can contribute to the construction of a healthy national and international life.
Over and above our past relations, we admired India for its democratic institutions, whether they are represented in its political parties, parliamentary practices, trade-union activities or freedom of speech. Furthermore, we like the Indian people for their courage in facing and challenging the material and social realities, for these realities are reflected in their economic and social reforms and in their five-year plans. We draw considerable satisfaction from observing the constructive role India has been playing since its independence in promoting and supporting the liberation of subjected people. There are a number of other reasons for which we Iraqis and Arabs like and admire the Indian people and their leadership.
With Pakistan, we have strong ties of brotherhood, or religious beliefs and of national aspirations. The history of the Arab people and that of the Pakistani people met at certain historical epochs, and, although we lived apart in other periods, both peoples were always inspired, during their long history, by the same sources for their particular civilizations, namely, by Islam as a religion and by the Koran as a guiding book. Both peoples worship one God. Thus, the sense of unity of purpose is deeply planted in the soul of every Arab and every Pakistani.
We have been watching the progress of Pakistan in the political, economic and social fields with profound pleasure. We know how difficult it is to build up society after it has been subjected for a long period to colonial domination, feudal exploitation and internal strife. Therefore, we draw immensely. satisfaction from seeing Pakistan construct its political and economic edifice in the most patient, logical and inspiring way.
If there is a tender spot for Pakistan in the heart of every Arab and every Moslem, this has not deterred us from liking and admiring India and the Indian people. To us, India and Pakistan are partners in their past, present and future. Let no State boundaries mislead those who look at the map of the Indian subcontinent, divided between India and Pakistan: nature has joined them together and subjected them to its various phenomena. Furthermore, history cannot be erased by an act of partition. Indians and Pakistanis have lived together, shared periods of progress and prosperity, and suffered together the cruelties of man and nature.
Here, I must ask the Council's indulgence for this small digression into matters which might not at first sight, appear to be directly related to the question now under discussion. My country's connection with India and Pakistan places it in a very special position, and we intend to clarify in advance that our attachment to India is no less strong than our attachment to Pakistan. That is why we have tried to give certain indications of our relationship both to India and to Pakistan, in the hope that our opinion on the question of Kashmir will not be misconstrued by either of the parties to the dispute.
Our approach to the problem stems from a deep sense of responsibility as a Member of the United Nations which believes in universal peace and justice. No sentiments of any kind, nor worldly goods, nor political gains, can in any way divert us from following the path indicated by the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In my delegation's opinion, it is not possible to appraise the issues involved in the India Pakistan question without direct references to the background of the matter. There are a number of phases, both material and cultural, involved in that background. It is, however, hardly necessary at this stage to refer to the various factors-economic, social, religious and cultural which enter into the formation of the claims presented by Pakistan and India. The record of this question since 1948 contains a considerable amount of material which leaves no doubt as to the nature of the problem and the reasons which have led to the creation of a stalemate. However, any future. action to solve the problem must take into account certain aspects of this background which have a direct bearing on the question; this must be done in order to place the matter in the proper perspective. One of the aspects which, in our opinion, merits some consideration is the relationship between the question of Kashmir and the whole process by which India and Pakistan achieved their sovereign status. Under the scheme of partition, Kashmir became free to accede to India or to Pakistan. The people of the Indian sub-continent were able, after years of struggle, to wring their independence from the United Kingdom. This was an achievement of the people, the result of their struggle and the outcome of the many sacrifices they had made in men and material. Many generations of Moslems and Hindus have suffered from persecution, illiteracy, despotism and all kinds of privations-at the hands not only of foreign rule, but also those Indians and other nationals who were instrumental in the implementation of the colonial rule and policy. Moreover, foreign rule had created its machinery, by means of which it was able to keep 400 million people in subjugation. It had resorted to the creation of a feudal class and the strengthening of the feudal system. It had also helped to create a middle class, which it attached to the machinery of economic exploitation. Economically and politically, the struggle the people of the Indian peninsula was aimed not only at their liberation from foreign rule, but also at their liberation from all the vestiges of foreign domination. In other words, the independence of the Indian subcontinent-which was accompanied by the scheme of partition, as part and parcel of that independence -was an act to restore to the people their natural right to live under a form of government of their own choosing. Only the people of that sub-continent had the right to plan their future. political and economic life. That is why some people chose to go to India, while others went to Pakistan. The religious beliefs of the people were one of the determining factors in the selection of their political allegiances, but the major premise lying at the foundation of the two States was the act of recognition of the people's right to determine the type of State which, in their estimation, would guarantee their rights and liberties.
Consequently, any action which followed the act of independence and the scheme of partition had to stem from one fundamental principle-namely, the freedom of the people to choose the side to which to accede. Thus, any action on part of India or Pakistan to coerce any group of people or any State to join it is fundamentally an act which contradicts and entire historical epoch of struggle, which is in opposition to the principles of freedom and democracy of the people, and which is a hypocritical evaluation of the historical significance of the sovereignty of the people.
It is hardly necessary to say how many of the Indian Princely States were despotically ruled by individuals for their own egoistic ends, how many people enjoyed no political rights or liberties. Religious beliefs played an important role in the maladministration of justice by these rulers It was an epoch of which the less is said, the better. But it is essential to remember that it was the paramount moral duty of the Governments which came into power following the liberation of the Indian sub-continent to avoid the pitfalls and to prepare the foundations for remedying the abuses of that epoch. It follows logically that those who, in 1957, assumed the responsibility for molding the future shape of things in India and Pakistan should restore the people's stolen rights to the people themselves.
We are inclined to believe that the principle of democratic accession of majority of the Princely States to other Dominions, as well as the recommendations of the British Cabinet Mission of 1946, were well observed. It is to be remembered that as from August 1947 the Princely States became free to decides their future political status. That status, it was under-stood, theoretically would have to take one of two forms, either the State had to join one of the two Dominions or it had to remain independent. In practice, accession was influenced by many factors, including economic, geographical and communal factors.
Kashmir was one of three States that had not decided upon accession by 15 August 1947. Pending a decision, the ruler of Kashmir concluded standstill agreements with India and Pakistan; these agreements were to maintain the status quo emanating from the cessation of Kashmir's political relationship with the British Crown. It meant the acceptance by the authorities concerned of the postponement of the decision regarding the accession of the State, but, under the pressure of circumstances, at a moment of turmoil and faced with the tragic events which followed partition, the Ruler of Kashmir decided to accede to India, thus putting an end to the agreements. The Ruler, however, made it clear that the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people, once law and order had been established there.
At this point, the argumentation started. We do not wish here to enter into a discussion of this matter. Whether or not the accession was legal, one thing, however, cannot be denied, namely, that it was a conditional accession which should be confirmed by a referendum or a plebiscite.
When the question was brought to the attention of the Security Council in 1948, the Kashmir situation was no doubt viewed in the framework of the circumstances whole process of the creation of the two Dominions on the one hand and, on the other, in conjunction with the principle of self-determination. It could therefore be said that one of the primary considerations in the settlement of the problem was to ascertain the wishes of the people of Kashmir. The idea of a plebiscite no doubt had been in line, on the one hand, with the traditional struggle for liberation conducted by all the people of the Indian subcontinent and, on the other, with the principle of self-determination. Thus, its acceptance by India and Pakistan showed clearly that the two States were prepared to follow a procedure which conformed both to the wishes of the people of Kashmir and to the underlying principles upon which they had achieved their own sovereign status.
The Security Council, considering its highest duty was to maintain peace in the Indian peninsula and to promote justice for the people of Kashmir, reached decisions which were to serve as bases for the settlement of the question. It is hardly necessary to recall here the resolutions of the Council or those of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan as they have been well known to the world for the last eight or nine years. They indicate, among other things, the way the Council viewed the whole issue and the method for its settlement.
The whole issue centres around one major question, namely, that of the establishment of conditions under which a free and impartial plebiscite could be conducted. It will have been realised that all the resolutions, negotiations and reports were endeavours to promote such conditions. It could therefore be said that this problem, which was from its very beginning a clear one, at times had been obscured by the introduction of a number of elements foreign to it and sometimes quite irrelevant.
We do not wish to enter into a discussion of these elements, since such a procedure would be bound to take us away from the main questions. The statements made by the representatives of India and Pakistan were most revealing. They show clearly that the problem which was the subject of lengthy consideration by the Council remains unsolved, in spite of all the efforts that have been expended in that direction. Moreover, despite the passage of time, it seems that today the principal issue which the Council was called upon to settle in 1948 remains basically the same.
Furthermore, the submission of the Kashmir question anew implies, inter alia, that the Security Council is being called upon to assume its responsibilities as an effective organ of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace, to assert its authority and that of the United Nations under the Charter, and to provide directives as to the obligations of Member States.
We have listened most carefully to the points of view presented by the representatives of India and Pakistan, and thus we feel that the arguments put forward by the two parties provide indications that the present conditions surrounding the Kashmir dispute continue to involve elements which constitute a danger to peace in the Asian region and therefore, require new endeavours towards their settlement. These conclusions, reached after carefully examining the case and listening to the two points of view, will serve as bases for formulating our opinion with regard to any proposal put forward in connection with the dispute, It is generally accepted that the past resolutions of the Security Council and of the Commission should constitute the bases for the settlement of the dispute. The passage of time has neither changed the principles upon which the future of Kashmir was to be decided nor has made the method of a plebiscite less applicable now than it was eight years ago. Any development which has taken place on either side of the cease fire line has certainly had some effect on the situation, and for that reason there should be a cooling-down period after the withdrawal of the armed forces of both States.
In view of what has been said here by the two parties with regard to the situation of the armed forces in Kashmir, and because the dispute has continued unsolved as a result of the failure to reach agreement on the nature and method of the demilitarisation of the State, it will be agreed that this matter should receive high priority in any plan envisaged for the settlement of the dispute. Having stated that the holding of a plebiscite is the only way for settling the question, it therefore goes without saying that discussions should start with the problem of demilitarisation.
It requires no emphasis that the negotiation of differences is the only method for reaching an equitable solution. Past experience has shown that the presence of a third party has always been helpful in narrowing differences between the parties. For these and for other reasons, it would seem that, in entrusting the President of the Security Council with the mission of examining the situation, there would be many advantages. In requesting the President to examine, with the Government of India and Pakistan, ways of achieving demilitarisation in the light of the previous resolutions, the Council would show not only that it believes that a rapid solution is highly important, but also that it places its trust in the tradition of neutrality and respect for peace and international law which his country represents.
The recent experience of the United Nations with the role that an international force could play in solving international conflicts and in promoting conditions favouring peace may make the introduction of such a force a factor for achieving a settlement worth consideration. It should, however, be noted that this suggestion is accepted, first, to be examined within framework of the whole question and, second, that its employment should be absolutely in accord with the principles of the Charter.
We feel that the time limit set for the reporting of the President is rather short, and we would prefer that a longer period of time be given to the President.
The only concern of my Government is to see that steps are taken in order to decrease the tension and to prepare the establishment of peaceful relations between India and Pakistan.
We believe that the draft resolution submitted by Australia, Cuba, the United Kingdom and the United States [S/3787] contains all the elements necessary at the moment for taking certain positive steps in the solution of the Kashmir dispute. We hope, with the collaboration of India and Pakistan, that the President will be able to bring this painful episode to a happy ending.