04051962 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Morozov (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1010 held on 4 May 1962
Text of the Speech made by Mr. Morozov (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1010 held on 4 May 1962
Gentlemen, after almost five years, the Security Council is once again obliged, on the initiative of Pakistan, to examine the so-called question of Kashmir. As early as the beginning of this year, as you know, attempts were made to secure urgent consideration of this question in the Security Council. In the Pakistan letter of 29 January 1962 [S/5068] it is stated that: ".. a very grave situation prevails between India and Pakistan which calls for immediate consideration by the Security Council.
It should be pointed out at once that even then it was obvious to anyone who studied this representation carefully that there were no grounds for the assertion that India, by its actions in the Kashmir region, was creating a threat to international peace and security. For this reason, as you will doubtless recall, as early as 1 February 1962 [990th meeting] the representative of the Soviet Union in the Security Council, V.A. Zorin rightly observed that there was no need to call a meeting of the Security Council on the Kashmir question.
Now, after hearing out the six-hour speech made by the representative of Pakistan, those who listened to him and studied the text of his statement objectively will note first of all that in spite of its length, this speech contains no new circumstances to supplement those which representatives of that country have referred to during the discussions which have occupied nearly a hundred meetings of the Security Council devoted in various years, starting in 1948 and continuing until 1957, to the consideration of this question. Now, as then, there are no grounds for accusing India of creating a threat to peace and security in the Kashmir region.
If we cast our minds back over the period separating us from the last discussion of the Kashmir question in the Security Council four and a half years ago, we shall find that the main, the basic fact, is the continuing occupation of one third of the territory of Kashmir by Pakistan forces. On the other hand, not one objective investigator can adduce, in respect of that period, a single fact to indicate that India has used, or proposes to use, force in that region.
If we are to speak of new facts relating to the period mentioned, these new facts consist in the situation's definite normalisation, which is evident in that considerable part of Kashmir which is under the jurisdiction of India.
One cannot avoid noting, in this connection, certain indisputable facts which bear witness to the undoubted progress achieved by the people of Kashmir in that part of the territory since the cessation of military activities. We venture to refer to certain data drawn from the document which the delegation of India yesterday asked should be distributed here as an official document. We shall mention some of the facts which have not yet been referred to here. Here are a few figures characterising, in very spare and unvarnished terms, the real situation now obtaining in that part of the territory which is under the direct administration of India.
Total capital investment in the economy of Kashmir has increased more than twofold: per caput income has increased by 20 per cent; food production has increased from 300,000 to 500,000 tons; the amount of electric power produced has increased almost four times, the number of industrial undertakings has increased almost threefold per caput expenditure on public health services has increased six times; the number of hospitals and other medical establishments has increased almost fourfold; and finally, gentlemen, as a result of this indubitable progress, the population's average life expectancy has risen from thirty-two to forty-seven years. These then are the really new facts, if are going to speak of new facts, relating to what has happened in recent years in this part of Kashmir.
Having said this, I should remark that some of you may think or say that it would be more appropriate to put forward facts of this kind, not in the Security Council Chamber, but in the neighbouring Economic and Social Council Chamber which is a more suitable place for statements showing improvements in the standards of living and economies of individual countries.
These new facts do, of course, merit the attention of the Economic and Social Council. But it is quite deliberately that we mention them on the present occasion; for we wish to show with all the emphasis at our command that, when the ground less assertion is made over and over again that the people of Kashmir has not exercised its right to national self-determination, these data, together with the fact that the population of Kashmir has during the period in question more than once expressed its will through general elections, have not only economic and social but, above all, political significance. Therefore, from our point of view, the document submitted here by the Indian delegation is quite rightly headed: "Jammu and Kashmir Development in Freedom."
We cannot fail to observe that in the light of these real facts a note of definite discord was sounded by the assertion made in the speech of the representative of Pakistan [1007th and 1008th meetings], who, as if purposely, attempted to paint the present situation in the region of Kashmir in sombre colours. An obvious discord, or, as the representative of India, Mr. Krishna Menon, said here [1009th meeting], the shadow of a threat was contained in this assertion by the Pakistan representative. I want to give two quotations from the statement of the representative of Pakistan, because they seem to me important for an explanation of the position now assumed. by the Pakistan delegation on this question in the Security Council:
"If the Security Council does not want the elements in the State who started the liberation battle to start again, if the Security Council does not desire that the tribesmen. should get out of hand and pour into Kashmir again, if the Security Council does not desire that the people of Pakistan should get out of hand and-if I may mix the metaphor-take the bit between their teeth and run away with the whole system of ordered government and if the Security Council does not desire that powerful neighbouring States should plunge into the vortex when it starts again, the Security Council had better take note of the realities of the situation." [1007th meeting, para. 63.]
And further on, we read:
"And if it boils up again, it will not then be confined to where it was confined in those days- a local struggle in the State of Jammu and Kashmir." [Ibid., para. 64.]
Here, gentlemen, every word is a threat to use armed force and not only a threat to use it in the Kashmir region, but in fact a threat to draw practically the whole world into an armed conflict Nobody, of course, can be led astray by the words regarding the so-called "liberation battle", for it is known that these words have served in the past and still serve, merely as a cover for the invasion of Kashmir territory by the Pakistan forces and the presence of these forces on part of that territory at the present time. I shall not go into the history of this invasion now. Hundreds of meetings have been devoted by the Council to the examination of the Kashmir question, and the records of these meetings contain a sufficient wealth of factual material. The representative of India has already recalled here the dark and tragic picture of this invasion, which it then was and still is groundlessly sought to represent as a so-called "liberation battle".
We shall merely recall-and this perhaps might prove useful that the invasion of the territory of Kashmir by Pakistan forces is noted, in objective yet extremely definite terms; in the resolution adopted on 13 August 1948 by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan - a resolution which was later confirmed by the Security Council, a resolution which was not rejected by Pakistan at the time.
References have already been made here to this key document, and further references will be made-and with justification. I ask you to forgive me for not, in my turn, being able to avoid quoting certain vital or material provisions of this document. For example, in part II, Section A, paragraph 1, we read:
"As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material. change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State."
I would draw attention to the last phrase: "..the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State."
And I quote paragraph 2:
"The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting."
Here in some sort-rather lyrically told, and I would have said rather toned down-is the story of the picture which the representative of India drew yesterday in the Council. Here it mentions that they "entered the State for the purpose of fighting". Here are the calm and quite objective lines confirming the fact of armed aggression against Kashmir. It is known, however, that this decision for the withdrawal of the Pakistan troops, this provision of the resolution, has never been implemented. And now, here at a meeting of the Security Council, before the eyes of the whole world, as we became convinced in listening to the statement of the representative of Pakistan, they again openly threaten to repeat the invasion of Kashmir, and moreover, an even larger on scale.
One thinks involuntarily, gentlemen, of the connection between the new and bellicose statements made after a long interval- and these feverish military preparations and the flow of foreign arms into countries which are members of the well known military blocs of CENTO and SEATO.
Will you now kindly turn your thoughts to what happened here yesterday at the meeting of the Security Council? Compare these war like declarations with what was said here yesterday by the distinguished Defence Minister of India, Mr. Krishna Menon. I do not yet possess the text of the provisional verbatim record, so am obliged to speak from the notes when I made during the meeting and from the statements to the press which were published. Nevertheless, I think, that I shall be able to convey the sense of his statement accurately. The sense of the statement is clear. It is as the representative of India said, that the Government of India will not take the initiative in military action and India will not use force if force is not used against India.
It was particularly stressed that, despite India's rights in respect to the one third of Kashmir which the Pakistan troops continue to occupy, India will continue to seek a peaceful settlement and will not begin military operations, as I say, if military operations are not begun against it.
Gentlemen, a comparison of the two statements which we have heard, those of Pakistan and India, needs no comment. On the one hand we hear warlike sabre-rattling and see the continuing occupation by force of part of the territory of Kashmir while the other side displays extreme restraint, patience and a love of peace in keeping with the general line of the neutral and peaceful policy followed by India.
It seems hardly necessary to return in any detail to the discussions which have taken place in previous years in the Security Council on the Kashmir question. It is impossible to analyse in any detail the dozens of different references and quotations contained in the last statement of the representative of Pakistan. Indeed it would be impossible with any regard for seriousness to calculate, as the distinguished Muhammad Zafrulla Khan tried to do, how many of the young people in the territory of Kashmir cried "Long live Pakistan" or "Long ive India" in the public places, and how the local police reacted to these cries; or enter upon a discussion of dozens and dozens of trifling and irrelevant facts out of which an attempt was none the less made here, as with tiny stones for a mosaic, to create an unreal picture of the present situation in Kashmir. In this connection, we can only suggest that there is evidently still some force in the ancient saying: "He who proves too much proves nothing." However, from amongst the matters connected with the history of the Kashmir question and the previous discussion of this question in meetings of the Security Council, I should like to deal with two really important issues which were raised at the earlier discussions and which have already been touched upon in the course of the debate at the Council's present meeting. We will confine ourselves to these two questions, dealing with them very briefly.
These questions are the withdrawal of troops from the territory of Kashmir, and the so-called plebiscite. Not only objective analysis of the wealth of documentation on this subject, but even the representatives of Pakistan cannot deny that the plebiscite, which was unquestionably a compromise measure, was contemplated and could have taken place fourteen years ago only subject to the proviso that the Pakistan troops, who, as is known, had invaded the territory of Kashmir in 1947, were withdrawn.
In the resolution of the United Nations Commission dated 5 January 1949, we read in paragraph 2 the following:
"A plebiscite will be held when it shall be found by the Commission that the cease-fire and truce arrangements set forth in parts I and II of the Commission's resolution of 13 August 1948 have been carried out…’’
And what are the provisions in part II of the resolution of 13 August 1948 which are mentioned ? If we turn to part II of section B of that resolution, we read in paragraph 1:
"When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals. referred to in part II, A, 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan. forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission."
We have already said that the conditions, according to which the Pakistan troops should have been withdrawn from the principality of Jammu and Kashmir, have not been complied with. Therefore we agree that, in accordance with the text of the resolutions mentioned, and also in accordance with the generally accepted principles of international law, to which Mr. Krishna Menon rightly referred here yesterday, the question of holding a plebiscite has lapsed, since the provisions which were a condition for holding it have never been fulfilled.
In order to justify the failure to comply with the obligations regarding the withdrawal of Pakistan troops from the territory of Kashmir, as you know, gentlemen, assertions which were advanced many years ago are not being repeated anew, in the same and also in slightly altered-form, claiming that the resolution of 13 August 1948 provided for the simultaneous withdrawal of both Pakistan and Indian troops.
It must be said that at times this opinion has been put forward in completely undisguised form. Let us take, for example, the Graham report of 31 March 1958. In this document we read:
"They [the Government of Pakistan] informed me further. that they were prepared to withdraw the Pakistan troops from the State of Jammu and Kashmir simultaneously with the withdrawal of the bulk of the Indian forces from the State
In other cases, the same statement has been made in somewhat different form. They have spoken, and are speaking now, of a so-called synchronised withdrawal of the troops of India and Pakistan, or a so-called demilitarisation of Kashmir. The most recent statement of the representative of Pakistan at a meeting of the Council leaves no doubt that today the so-called synchronisation or demilitarisation of Kashmir implies. the same incorrect interpretation of the resolution of 13 August 1984 in other words, the proposition that the withdrawals of Pakistan and of Indian forces from the territory of Kashmir should begin simultaneously.
It is hardly worth wasting time or effort in proving that references of such a kind contradict the text of the resolution of 13 August 1948, since this resolution provides clearly that Pakistan must first withdraw all its forces from the entire territory of Kashmir.
That is why the present new attempts after the passing of fourteen years, to make India responsible for the collapse: of the plan to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir at that time are groundless.
We have made this small historical excursion in order to demonstrate further that the plebiscite-which in the given conditions of 1948 could have had a definite meaning if the key condition mentioned by us, the withdrawal in the first place of all Pakistan forces from the whole territory of Kashmir, had been observed - has now fourteen years later, in the light of entirely different circumstances, and because life has not stood still but has moved forward, lost any significance whatsoever.
As we shall show presently, and as has already been shown here in the convincing statement of the distinguished representative of India, the people of Kashmir, in the years since that time, has been able to express its will in a sufficiently definite manner. Let us look at some facts. It is known that the Indian Independence Act passed by the British Parliament on 18 June 1947 ended British rule in India on 15 August 1947. This Act provided for the creation, as from that date, of a new State Pakistan-through the detaching of certain regions in the north-west and east of British India.
We may recall that, in accordance with the Act, some 565 Indian States, which up to that time had been directly. governed by Indian princes and rulers, became free to link their future with whichever of the two Dominions they chose. The provisions applying in particular to the procedure for the adherence of Indian States to the Union of India were contained in the Constitution of India, which entered into force on 15 August 1947.
This provision stated that an Indian State should be deemed to be accepted into the Dominion if the Governor General had recognized the agreement on association drawn
up by the ruler.
The Constitution also provided that the Indian States which had associated themselves in this way became an integral part of the Union of India. We would further recall that almost all the States joined either India or Pakistan at different times after 15 August 1947. In each case the agreement on association was signed by the ruler, as required by law.
On 26 October 1947, as has already been mentioned here, the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir drew up an agreement on association with India, in strict accordance with the constitutional form and procedure which we have just recalled. The Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, endorsed the agreement on association on 27 October 1947.
It is important to stress that this document is identical with hundreds of other agreements with States which joined either India or Pakistan.
Thus, as has already been noted here, Jammu and Kashmir became, as from 27 October 1947, a State forming part of the Union of India. Strictly speaking, this agreement alone from the standpoint both of national legislation and of international law-was sufficient for Jammu and Kashmir to be considered an integral part of India.
However, the matter did not end there. In 1951, 1957 and 1962, elections were held within the framework of the Constitution of India, including general elections in 1957 and 1962, in which an overwhelming majority of the population of Kashmir very clearly expressed its will.
Statements have been made here-and may be made again-as to the need to effect new studies and investigations of some sort, to adopt arbitration procedure, with a view to establishing the circumstances and reasons which have made it impossible, up to now, to regard the position throughout Kashmir as having been normalised. The Soviet delegation considers that in the light of the analysis of the circumstances which have been adduced here during the meetings of the Council, in the light of the circumstances which we have just stated to the Council, in the light of the real situation which has developed in the course of recent years in the region under discussion, such measures or proposals could only exacerbate the Kashmir question and increase the temperature and tension. The adoption of such decisions could not, in our opinion, serve the cause of the strengthening of international peace and security. Such decisions would be calculated only, as before, to create an atmosphere of uncertainty and anxiety, to call in question the indisputable fact that Kashmir is an integral part of India.
This is why the Soviet delegation, in the light of all the circumstances just described, cannot allow the adoption of such proposals. The position of the Soviet Union on the Kashmir question has been stated on numerous occasions at meetings of the Security Council. It is clear and precise to the highest degree. The question of Kashmir, which is one of the States of the Republic of India and forms an integral part of India, has been decided by the people of Kashmir itself. The people of Kashmir has decided this matter in accordance with the principles of democracy and in the interest of strengthening friendly relations between the peoples of this region.
As Mr. NS. Khrushchev pointed out in 1955, the population of Kashmir does not want Kashmir to become a toy in the hands of imperialist forces. And a policy based on the principle of "divide and rule" undoubtedly conflicts with the vital interests of the peoples of both India and Pakistan. This was well understood at the time, and still is understood, by the people of Kashmir.
That is why attempts to set passions alight about religious differences between certain peoples of India could never be in the interests of those peoples. Such attempts can profit only those whose desire it is to see the peoples of Asia divided those, in particular who would like to exploit the abnormal relations between India and Pakistan, for purposes having nothing in common with the task of strengthening peace in this region and throughout the world.
Therefore, gentlemen, the sooner a peaceful settlement of the so-called Kashmir question is reached on the basis of unconditional respect for the will of the people of Kashmir which has irrevocably decided to link its fate with that of India, the better it will be, and this will be in full accordance with the Principles and Purposes of the United Nations Charter.
In our opinion, the members of the Security Council can note with satisfaction the statement of the Government of India that India will never take the initiative in starting military action in the Kashmir region. This formal statement constitutes a guarantee given by India. In our view, the Government of Pakistan should give a similar guarantee, if it is also really trying to achieve peace.