19061962 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Haseganu (Romania) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1013 held on 19 June 1962

 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Haseganu (Romania) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1013 held on 19 June 1962

The Romanian delegation has carefully studied the documents relating to the situation in Kashmir and the statements made before the Council by the representatives of the two parties directly concerned, India and Pakistan. We have, of course, also studied the history of the Kashmir question, the records of the discussions and all the documents which have accumulated over the fourteen years during which the United Nations has been considering the question in one form or another.

In my delegation's opinion, a comparison between the debates which are now taking place and those held in earlier years leads to one preliminary remark: the discussions have remained at the same stage, the same problems are raised, the same arguments are used and reference is made to aspects of the question which are in fact the same and most of which are well known.

Accordingly, we must first of all conclude that there are no new elements to indicate any real aggravation of the dispute between India and Pakistan in Kashmir and to justify a fresh and urgent examination of this question by the Security Council.

There can be no doubt, however, that in order to reach a correct conclusion and an effective solution we must analyze not only the Security Council's debates but also the living realities and the developments of the situation which we are discussing From this point of view, it will be seen that during these fourteen years, while the discussions in the United Nations. marked time, life itself moved forward and provided a reply to the question around which the Security Council's debates have removed to whom does the State of Jammu and Kashmir belong and what is the will of the people of that part of the world?

If the question is considered from the strictly legal point of view, the reply is not difficult. Indeed, the actual legality of the act of association of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India is not and cannot be questioned by anyone, just as the legality of the association to India of over 500 Indian States and principalities cannot be contested. To cast doubt on that legality would be tantamount to questioning the legality of the creation and accession to independence of both India and Pakistan.

In the arguments they advance before the Security Council, the representatives of Pakistan try to contest the validity of this act and assert that this accession to India was not supported by the people and that it does not even now represent the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. But it has not been possible to produce any conclusive evidence to that effect.

If we analyse developments in the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the years 1948-1962, we shall find that it has become completely integrated in the Republic of India, that the relations between the people of that State and those of India have been consolidated and that there are no noteworthy signs of any clear trends towards separatism. Thus, while the theory of the need to consult the will of the people had some meaning in 1948, to begin to discuss it again today would simply amount to disregarding the real facts, which show that the people of Kashmir expressed their will in local and general elections in 1951, 1957 and 1962. By the votes they cast on those occasions. and by their active participation in the effort that is being made to raise the economic and cultural level of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the people of Kashmir have shown and are still showing that they regard their country as an integral and inalienable part of the Republic of India.

Accordingly, there is now no legal or factual basis for discussing to whom the State of Jammu and Kashmir belongs. From that point of view, we consider that our discussion is pointless.

In the light of those considerations, the Romanian delegation feels that the Security Council can make a useful contribution to smoothing out the differences between India and Pakistan on the question of Kashmir by accelerating the settlement of this dispute through direct conversations between the two parties and by preventing the problem from being artificially complicated by the introduction of elements foreign to its substance. Unfortunately, we have to admit that such elements do exist and are actively brought to bear.

In this connection, I should like to draw the Security Council's attention to some facts. For example, while the Indian representative has stated categorically and unreservedly that his Government would not take the initiative in resorting to force in the case of Kashmir, the representative of Pakistan. has in effect avoided giving any such guarantee here. He showed us that, although the Pakistan Government does not intend to take the initiative in resorting to force, there might be cases in which it would no longer be able to control events.

We do not think that the representative of Pakistan is contemplating the possibility of a repetition of the events of 1947; on the contrary, we hope that the Government of that country will ultimately give the same guarantee as the Government of India and that it will make every effort to curb any rash actions.

Yet, objectively speaking, whatever may be the intentions of the Government of Pakistan-which do not wish to discuss the attitude hitherto taken by various important figures in that country really encourages such actions. Nor can we ignore the fact that Pakistan belongs to military blocs which are pursuing in that region interests other than those calculated to promote good neighbourly relations between the two peoples. These blocs, which defend the expansionist plans of imperialist circles and colonialist positions, are obviously interested in fostering and exacerbating local rivalries.

It is a coincidence that the question of Kashmir began to be ventilated once again at the time when India liberated Goa and other territories which had belonged to it for centuries from colonial oppression, and at a time when we are witnessing a recrudescence of imperialist pressure against India? We cannot but conclude that the dispute between India and Pakistan about Kashmir is being artificially fostered by those who are anxious to maintain strained relations in South East Asia and to compromise the contribution which India is making to the struggle for the total abolition of colonialism and for the relaxation of international tension.

Being forced to retire from the historical arena, colonialism is endeavouring to hand down to the liberated peoples a most difficult heritage, a large number of time-bombs, which will enable the colonialists to retain or re-establish their privileges in one form or another. The situation which has been created in connection with Kashmir is an illustration of this colonial strategy. While life, in its forward march, is in the process of solving the problem, we are witnessing efforts to maintain artificially the explosive character of this issue.

The Romanian delegation considers that the United Nations should oppose any such action.

We do not think that any proposal which calls for fresh investigations or establishes new arbitration or mediation procedures can serve a useful purpose in the present circumstances.

In so far as the question of Kashmir is still a dispute between India and Pakistan, it primarily concerns those two countries and its constructive solution depends above all on the

cessation of all outside interference.

We are convinced that the peoples of India and Pakistan, which have so much in common in their history and which waged a joint struggle for the overthrow of colonial domination, will be able, especially in the present circumstances, to make what unites them, namely the interests of peace, security and the advancement of all mankind, prevail in their relations.