CEASE-FIRE VIOLATIONS BY INDIA ADDRESS TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL, October 25, 1965

Mr. President,

The consideration of the India-Pakistan question by the Security Council has now reached a stage which will be decisive, as much for the issue of war or peace in South Asia as for the effectiveness and authority of the United Nations.

I am grateful to the President and the other members of the Security Council for having convened this meeting, at our request, to consider the rapidly deteriorating situation between India and Pakistan. The reasons which prompted our request were the virtual collapse of the ceasefire and the total disregard by India of the letter and spirit of the Council’s resolution of 20 September, 1965. That resolution provided for various essential measures to facilitate an honorable settlement of the political problem underlying the conflict between India and Pakistan—namely, the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. It was stated authoritatively in the Council that the resolution stood as a whole and had to be implemented as such. It represented the Council’s commitment to secure a peaceful settlement of the dispute. That was emphasized by the members of the Council and also by numerous member states speaking in the general debate of the current General Assembly session.

What is India’s attitude to that commitment? As far as the world is concerned, today India has unmasked itself. It has said that it is not prepared to participate in the Council’s deliberations if these go beyond paragraph 1 of the Security Council’s resolution of 20 September. In other words, it shows contempt for the Council’s resolution and the Council’s authority. That fact is so plain that it needs no elaboration.

The Council is told that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and that any discussion relating to it amounts to a gross interference in India’s internal affairs. That is to say, the Council’s deliberations for eighteen years, extending over more than a hundred meetings, with all the statements made by its members, the resolutions adapted, the pledges given, the commitments solemnly entered into—all these are to be expunged because India has decided to annex Jammu and Kashmir and to repudiate unilaterally all its obligations.

Has any member state—South Africa included—in the history of the United Nations gone further in its brazen defiance of the World Organization?

When the Council met on 27 September to consider the situation, it did so as a result of the Secretary-General’s report that the cease-fire agreed to unconditionally by the Governments of India and Pakistan was not holding. The Council reaffirmed its previous resolution and demanded that the parties urgently honour their commitments to the Council to observe the cease-fire and withdraw their forces as necessary steps in the full implementation of the resolution of 20 September, 1965.

Nearly a month has elapsed since the Council adopted its last resolution, but the cease-fire continues to be unstable and negotiations have still to ‘ begin on the withdrawal of troops and a settlement of the political problem with regard to Jammu and Kashmir. In our submissions before the Council, we have consistently affirmed that, while a cease-fire and withdrawal of troops must necessarily form a part of the effort to reach a permanent settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, it was unrealistic, in political terms, to divorce the problem of the cessation of hostilities from that of settling the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

The reason for this is not far to seek. One of the parties considers the cease-fire as something which merely facilitates its continued hold on the greater part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is, therefore, unwilling to allow such stabilization of the cease-fire and withdrawal of troops as would permit the Council, as well as both parties to the dispute, to proceed with the task of finding a peaceful settlement of the dispute. It is for this reason that my delegation has constantly urged that the Council would be defeating even the immediate purpose which it had in mind if it allowed India to escape with the impression that the Council had resigned itself to the continuance of the status quo in Jammu and Kashmir.

It is also on this account that my Government has always urged the Council to remind the parties not merely of their duty to refrain from the use of force in ther relations, in contravention of the United Nations Charter, but also of their responsibility to honour and implement in good faith the obligations and commitments undertaken by them under the United Nations resolutions which lay down the accepted and agreed solution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

In its resolution of 20 September, 1965, the Security Council demanded that India and Pakistan should issue orders for a cease-fire to take effect on 22 September at 7 a.m. Pakistan complied with it. India asked for an extension of the deadline by eighteen hours on the pretext of giving sufficient notice to local commanders. The Council agreed to extend the time-limit by fifteen hours. As we expected in Pakistan, India utilized this opportunity to improve its military position. While pretending to get ready for a ceasefire, India moved an entire division against Khem Karan, on the Indo-Pakistan border, in a frantic bid to regain lost ground. Simultaneously, it launched major offensives in the Wagab, Sialkot and Fazilka sectors. Most of these actions were, however, thwarted as a result of the vigilance of our army commanders and the stiff resistance of the Pakistan troops.

Even after the cease-fire, there is no let-up in India’s aggressive attitudes and activities. It has been flouting the cease-fire agreement by following a deliberate and systematic plan to seize forcibly as much territory as possible. It has also been endeavoring to improve its position on the actual line of control by creeping forward and occupying areas which it failed repeatedly to capture during the war.

Since 23 September there have been a large number of violations of the cease-fire by Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir and against Pakistan territory. These have been reported by our military authorities to the United Nations Observers and by our Permanent Representative to the Secretary-General. In spite of their endeavors, the United Nations Observers have not been able to ensure effective observance of the cease-fire or vacation of territory seized forcibly by India since 23 September. It is no wonder that the Secretary-General is concerned about the deterioration in the situation and mounting tension in various sectors of the battlefront, and that he has come to the conclusion that “the existence of the cease-fire must be considered precarious.”

At the meeting of the Security Council held on 27 September, I mentioned some of the breaches of the cease-fire committed by India between 23 and 26 September. I also drew the attention of the Council to the first three reports of the Secretary-General which showed that our complaints were well founded. The Council was naturally concerned over this state of affairs and again called for strict observance of the cease-fire. Let us now see how far India has complied with the Council’s directives.

There has been no diminution, even after 27 September, either in the number or in the gravity of breaches of the cease-fire committed by India. Numerous complaints have been filed by our military authorities of which only a small proportion have been investigated so far by United Nations Observers. Their reports, however, leave no doubt as to India’s responsibility for proved violations of the cease-fire. I shall not weary the Council with details of all the cases investigated by the United Nations Observers, but I should like to invite the Council’s attention to some of the major breaches of the cease-fire which India has committed during this month and which have been dealt with in the Secretary-General’s reports dated 18 and 23 October.

In the Domel-Tanqdhar sector, on 6 October, 1965, the Indians launched a major offensive at Jura and Shahkot bridges in the presence of United Nations Observers. This fact is borne out by paragraph 12 of the Secretary-General’s report of 18 October, from which I quote:

“Observers stationed at Jura reported that Jura and Shahkot bridges had been shelled and attacked by Indian troops at 1045 hours on 6 October……A later report from the Observers received on 13 October indicated that Indian attacks at Jura and Shahkot bridges had continued in the presence of the Observers and that Pakistan troops had returned the fire……In view of the heavy mortar firing, the Observers had to withdraw west of Jura.”

An Indian operational order captured by Pakistan forces during this fighting revealed that the 19th Indian Division stationed in Indian-held Kashmir was ordered to clear the bulge east of River Kishenganga and to dominate the river line. Three Indian battalions were used to destroy the Jura and Shahkot bridges, supported by medium, field and mountain artillery. Helicopters were also used for logistic support. A photo-scat copy of the skeleton operational order as noted down by the Indian Commanding Officer of the 4th Kumaon Regiment, who took part in this operation, is being distributed for perusal of the members of the Security Council. This Indian operation continued for more than ten days, in total disregard of India’s cease-fire commitments and the intervention of United Nations Observers. This premeditated attack has created an extremely dangerous situation, the consequences of which will have to be borne by India and by India alone.

In the Kotli-Naushera sector, on 7, October, Indian troops, supported by artillery attacked Pakistani positions on the Indian side of the ceasefire line in the Khuiratta-Janghar area. Again, this aggression took place in the presence of the United Nations Observers, who confirmed that the Pakistani position mentioned in our complaint had been attacked by the Indian troops at 0140 hours and at 0215 hours during the night of 6-7 October, and that Indian troops again shelled the Pakistani area between. 0265 and 0925 on 7 October. They also reported that two of the Pakistani positions had been occupied by Indian troops on the night of 7 October and were taken by Pakistan forces later on the same day.

In the Uri-Poonch sectors, the Indians are building a road linking Poonch town with Uri, thus committing a serious violation of the cease-fire. The UNMOGIP have been informed of this violation and of the fact that Pakistan forces will have to take action to prevent the construction of the road. Furthermore, as is now well known, on 29 September the Indian local commander issued an ultimatum to Pakistani forces in the Chhamb sector to vacate areas under Pakistani control, failing which, Indian forces would launch an offensive action. This did not prove to be an empty threat. The Indians did launch a well coordinated attack on 1 October in the area between the 81st and 74th Northings. This area has been in the possession of Pakistan forces since before the time of the cease-fire. These facts have been substantiated by the United Nations Observers in the area, as can be seen from paragraph 11 to 21 of the Secretary-General’s report dated 7 October.

In Pakistan also the Indians have been re-organizing and regrouping their forces in front of the Lahore, Sialkot and Kasur sectors, contrary to the spirit of the cease-fire; and they continue to disregard the interventions made by the United Nations Observers as can be seen from paragraph 46 of Document S/6710/Add. 4. This paragraph states:

“On the morning of 13 October, between 0920 and 1000 hours, Indian troops fired with tank and field artillery at Pakistan positions in the Siphon area on both banks of the canal. The Observers observed no reaction from Pakistan artillery, but believed that there was an exchange of small arms fire. At approximately 1005 hours, the firing stopped and the Observers took this opportunity to place their jeep with the United Nations flag in the west bank of the canal in full view of both sides. Nevertheless, firing was resumed by Indian troops with artillery, antitank guns and recoilless rifles and lasted nearly one hour.

In the Ferozepere sector, in violation of the cease-fire agreement, India brought the 23rd Infantry Division, equipped through United States military aid, from the North Eastern Frontier of India to Ambala, an Indian military station close to West Pakistan. A few days ago this Division was moved to Ferozepore. All the evidence indicated that India intended to launch an attack on the Khem Karan sector, which has been in the occupation of Pakistan forces since before the time of the cease-fire.

In the Sulaimanke sector, Indian forces on 4 October engaged our posts at Sanderke with heavy guns and small arms, which created an extremely tense situation.

In the Rajasthan sector also, according to the Secretary-General’s report dated 23 October, the Chief Officer of UNIPOM considers the area “to be probably the most potentially dangerous sector of the conflict between India and Pakistan”.

The responsibility for this dangerous situation rests entirely with India as the Indian forces in the Rajasthan area have made repeated attacks in pursuance of a deliberate and systematic plan to seize territory which has been under Pakistan control since before the cease-fire came into effect, On the morning of 7 October 1965, Indian forces, in approximately battalion strength, attacked our post at Raichandwala, which has been in our occupation since before the cease-fire. They used mortars and medium machine guns. On 9 October, the Indians attacked Kelnor, and outpost on the Indian side of the border held by Pakistan since before the ceasefire. This breach of the cease-fire has been confirmed by the United Nations Observers, as can be seen from paragraph 70 of document S/6710/ Add.4.

On 12 October, the Indians attacked our position at Ghotary. These attacks have been confirmed by United Nations Observers in the area, as can be seen from paragraphs 66 and 67 of document S/6710/Add.4.

On 14 October, the Indians attacked the Pakistani-held village of Nawatala. This is confirmed by paragraph 71 of the Secretary-General’s report dated 18 October and by paragraph 8 of his report dated 23 October which reads:

“On 15 October also, an Observer in the Chor-Barmer sector who had proceeded to the village of Nawatala reported that the village had been attacked on 14 October by Indian troops and occupied by them the next day. When the Observer told the Indian major that the village previously had been definitely occupied by Pakistan troops, the Indian local commander replied the he had instructions to clear Pakistan infiltrators from Indian Territory. The Observer later received the same reply from the Indian battalion and brigade commanders.”

This shows India’s respect for the cease-fire.

On 15 October, the Indians, after capturing a Pakistani-held post at Kelnor, crossed the Indo-Pakistan international boundary near the village of Bhame Jotar, which is well within Pakistan’s territory. This constituted not only a serious breach of the cease-fire, but also an act of aggression against Pakistan.

Our Army authorities informed the Chief Officer of UNIPOM on 18 October that Indian forces in the Rajasthan area were being reinforced by one fresh infantry division. These reports were confirmed by United Nations Observers, who informed General MacDonald on 21-22 October that there had been quite a “substantial build-up in the Jaisalmer area.”

The threat of Indian aggression is, however, not over. The Indian Chief of Staff has agreed “to stop offensive action and forward movement” only pending consultations with his government. I must make it clear to the Council that if India proceeds with its evil intentions and launches an attack on our positions in Rajasthan the armed forces of Pakistan will take whatever military action is deemed necessary in this and other sectors of the war front.

In a futile attempt to justify her aggressive action in the Rajasthan sector, India has been asserting that Pakistan held only the border outpost of Munabao in Rajasthan when the cease-fire came into effect. This Indian lie has been finally nailed by the Secretary-General in his report dated 18 October. I invite the Council’s attention to paragraph 68 of that report in which the Secretary-General categorically states that “the above-mentioned positions under attack by Indian troops”—Malesar, Raichand and Ghotary—”are located in the area held by Pakistan forces.”

Again, in paragraph 70, he refers to Kelnor, which was attacked by Indian forces, as “a Pakistan-held position near the border on the Indian side”. And then, in paragraph 71, while reporting the Indian seizure of Nawatala, it is made clear that this area “had been definitely occupied by Pakistan troops.”

Apart from the above serious cease-fire violations in Jammu and Kashmir and along the Indo-Pakistan borders, the Indians have committed inhuman atrocities on the civilian population in parts of Pakistan which are under their occupation. Acts of barbarity being committed by Indian military authorities against Pakistani prisoners of war have been reported to the Secretary-General. Documents captured by the Pakistani forces reveal that the Indians are violating the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. Wounded Pakistani prisoners of war have not been given adequate medical treatment, and some have been killed in the Rajasthan and Fazilka sectors. All such cases have been brought to the notice of UNIPOM in the hope that they would be able to persuade the Indians to abide by the Geneva Convention and to accord humane treatment to the prisoners of war.

The Security Council, in its resolution 211 of 20 September, called for the withdrawal of armed forces subsequent to the coming into effect of the cease-fire. In identical telegraphic messages sent to the Governments of India and Pakistan on the same day, the Secretary-General stated, inter alias:

“I request your plan and schedule for the indicated withdrawal of your troops.”

Again, the Secretary-General in his telegram dated 23 September, 1965, to the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan said:

“……it is my duty to inform you that I expect to receive from you at a very early date your plan and schedule for the required withdrawal of any of your troops that are now on the wrong side of these lines.” Pakistan’s response to the Secretary-General’s request was positive and constructive. Our Permanent Representative pointed out to the Secretary-General on 26 September that:

“…. no withdrawal can take place until it has been jointly agreed to by representatives of the two Armed Forces and a mutually accepted programme of withdrawal has been prepared.”

The Indian reply and subsequent communications to the Secretary-General, on the other hand, were contentious and designed to delay the withdrawal as long as possible and to provide India with excuses to resile from any plan of withdrawal that may be formulated whenever it suited India.

In his message of 13 October to the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India, the Secretary-General expressed his concern over the fact that “the withdrawals foreseen in the Security Council resolutions have not taken place.”

In this letter, the Secretary-General put forth two possible courses of action. First, that:

“…..each party might find it possible to formulate its own plan and schedule of withdrawal and that the respective time schedules might be coordinated with the assistance of United Nations Military Observers.”

Alternatively, the Secretary-General suggested that:

“…..appropriate military representatives of each side be brought together by and with an acceptable representative to be designated by me to meet either in the area or at United Nations Headquarters for the purpose of formulating an agreed withdrawal plan..”

Pakistan took a practical approach to the problem and accepted the second alternative suggested by the Secretary-General. It was also recommended that the meetings should be held in the subcontinent rather than at the Headquarters of the United Nations as all the relevant information would be more easily available in the subcontinent, and senior military officials could take part in these meetings.

Let us now look at the Indian reply to the Secretary-General’s proposals. The Prime Minister of India in his letter of 18 October, 1965, stated that:

“…..since a cease-fire has not been effectively established, the stage for a planned schedule of withdrawals over the entire area of conflict has not yet arrived.”

This is tantamount to saying that withdrawals cannot take place before the cease-fire becomes effective. The Council has already heard the extent to which India is observing the cease-fire agreement. India’s deliberate and continuous violations of the cease-fire might very well be used to block withdrawal of forces. The tactics used by India to thwart demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir since 1948 are likely to be repeated here again. I am sure that the Council will see through the Indian designs and machinations and will not let India once again flout the will of the United Nations on one false pretext or another.

In his letter to the Permanent Representative of Pakistan, dated 22 October, the Secretary-General welcomed our favorable response to his suggestion. He proposed to send Major-General Syseno Sarmento of Brazil. Commander of the United Nations Emergency Force in Gaza and Sinai, to the area at an early date to visit both capitals and to arrange for representatives of India and Pakistan to meet at some mutually agreed place, possibly near the front lines, and to seek agreement on a plan and schedule for the withdrawal by both parties. We have accepted the proposal. India s reply is still awaited.

The record is open for all to observe and to come to the only logical conclusion. India is flagrantly violating the cease-fire and then using the ineffectiveness of the cease-fire to frustrate any plan for withdrawal. Pakistan accepted the cease-fire in good faith and has taken no offensive action since it came into effect. But surely, we cannot be expected to carry out the cease-fire unilaterally and then follow it by a one-sided withdrawal. The Security Council must also bear in mind India’s past record when it frustrated all the attempts made by the Military Sub-Committee of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan to effect demilitarization in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. India must not be permitted to repeat its past tactics with regard to withdrawal of troops and once again hold up implementation of the resolutions of the Security Council. If the Security Council is determined to implement its resolution of 20 September, it should compel India to show respect for the cease-fire and cooperate with the Secretary-General in implementing the withdrawal provisions of the Council’s resolutions.

I must remind the Council that a cease-fire and withdrawal of troops are, in the words of the Council resolution of 20 September, 1965, only the first essential steps towards a peaceful settlement of the outstanding differences between India and Pakistan with regard to Jammu and Kashmir. The Council must now address itself to this basic problem.

This my President has also pointed out in his communication to the Secretary-General this morning:

“To effect a cease-fire and withdrawal of troops would be dealing only with symptoms, not the disease. Present indications are that, unless the Security Council gets down to dealing with the root cause of the conflict, the present cease-fire may prove to be only a short-lived lull in fighting. The institution of a Security Council Commission such as we have proposed would be evidence of the determination of the Security Council to see the conflict urgently and peacefully resolved, a fact which should result in a lowering of tension in the subcontinent and thereby help to strengthen the expectation that the cease-fire would endure.”

The need for prompt action under paragraph 4 of the Council’s resolution of 20 September, 1965, has become more urgent than ever on account of the large-scale arrests by India of political leaders in Jammu and Kashmir and the expulsion of thousands of people who opposed Indian rule. It is a fact which many impartial observers have attested to, that almost simultaneously with the cease-fire India let loose a reign of terror in the occupied portion of Jammu and Kashmir.

In a letter addressed to the President of the Security Council on 18 October, 1965, the Permanent Representative of Pakistan has drawn attention to the situation which prevails in that unfortunate land. He has quoted from the dispatches sent by correspondents of a number of reputable and well-known newspapers to show the brutality with which the Indian occupation authorities have set upon the people of Jammu and Kashmir. As the Council can visualize there are stringent restrictions on press dispatches from Srinagar. Yet stories are beginning to leak out which give us some idea of the extreme measures employed by India to wreak vengeance on the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

(Interruption: Now follows a debate whether or not the Foreign Minister of Pakistan can dwell upon the internal situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He is finally permitted to continue his speech which he does.)

What I have to say now goes to the heart of the problem in the sense that it is in conformity with the Security Council resolution of 20 September. The Security Council resolution of 20 September is not divisible. The ceasefire is connected with withdrawals, and withdrawals are connected with the underlying problem that divides India and Pakistan over the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This is an indistinguishable, in dissolvable problem. It is a great tragedy that India would not even want the Security Council to hear of the latest developments, to inform the Security Council as to what is the situation in the subcontinent, how the cease-fire is being observed, why it is not being observed, the object with which it is not being observed, why they are not effecting withdrawals, what their intentions are behind not wanting to effect withdrawals, and why they do not want to go to the heart of the problem that has caused bloodshed once in a generation between India and Pakistan.

This is an indication; this is a betrayal, of the state of mind of India in refusing to discuss a problem which has been before the Security Council for the last eighteen years. They call the Jammu and Kashmir state an integral part of India and they say that it is a gross interference in the internal affairs of India to discuss the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

This is the mind of India; this is the mentality of India. A dispute which has brought war and bloodshed and misery to the subcontinent twice in eighteen years, which has been before the Security Council for the last eighteen years, which has engaged the attention of the whole world for the last eighteen years, is regarded by India, unilaterally—like Mr. Ian Smith who regards the question of Southern Rhodesia unilaterally—to be a part of India. The world must be blind, truth must be suppressed, reality must be hidden, so that India, by the sheer weight of its force, and by its military power, is able to defy the Security Council and deny it the right of proceeding with the determination of a dispute which has to be resolved and must be resolved.

I am thankful to those members of the Security Council who have allowed the rule of law, the rules of procedure, not to be subjected to Indian intimidation, because if the Security Council is to arm India with a super-veto, if the great powers are going to move in step with India’s obduracy, then there can be no justice in the world, and then we might as well implement what is regarded to be a threat by us, but what we in good conscience believe to be the only honorable course left open to us.

I again thank the members of the Security Council for having correctly and courageously interpreted the rules of procedure and the resolution of 20 September.

As I was saying, the Council can visualize there are stringent restrictions on press dispatches from Srinagar, yet stories are beginning to leak out which give us some idea of the extreme measures employed by India to wreak vengeance upon the people of Kashmir. A dispatch by the special correspondent of the Paris daily, Le Figaro, contains the following account of his meeting with some of those who have escaped the Indian terror:

“An angry young man grabbed my arm and told me the story of his village, Nandi somewhere in the vicinity of Poonch. ‘Indians have cutoff the breasts of our girls and held them up saying ‘here is your Pakistan.’ ‘Seven members of my family have been taken by the soldiers and butchered,’ he went on with tears in his eyes. Another man interrupted: ‘They locked people in their houses and set fire to them. The whole village has been burnt.’

“This morning I visited another refugee camp further up in the north. Here again I had the same accounts from fleeing villagers. One of them, a bearded man, told me how his village had risen against the Indians five or six months ago. ‘Twenty men of our village were participating in action against the Indian Army.’ What kind of action? ‘Sniping at soldiers……

(Interruption: At this stage India again tries to interrupt but as a result of the ensuing debate the Indian delegation decides not to return to the meeting after the recess. Foreign Minister of Pakistan is allowed to continue his speech.)

“Sniping at soldiers passing by, blowing up bridges. Eighteen days ago the Indians launched an attack against our village, and after a fight they entered it and burned all the houses, killing everyone in sight. He said he had escaped with his two sons, his daughter and his wife. He did not know where the others were and how many survived.

The correspondent of Le Figaro, who has no direct interest in the subcontinent, continues:

“A little girl, aged about twelve, was standing beside a tall man wearing a blue shirt. She was firmly gripping the man’s hand. ‘We found her wandering alone in the jungle’, he told me. ‘She was keeping the cattle, when the Indians came up and burned her village. So she fled alone, without knowing what happened to her brothers and sisters and family.’ The same correspondent of this paper says that the refugees from Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir keep asking questions, and he quotes them:

“Why are we treated like that? What have we done? Who has given you the right to behave with us in such manner? Why do you help India? All we want is to be free from India and to go back to our homes and to our honor.”

The magazine, Newsweek, of New York, in its issue of 11 October, 1965, reports a tour of camps of refugees from Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir by its correspondent. The journal writes:

“There, reported our correspondent, he heard tale after tale of Indian atrocities against Moslems in Jammu and Kashmir. ‘I talked to the people at random and they all told stories of India’s butchering Moslem families, burning down villages, raping and torturing villagers.”

The Newsweek article continues:

“A ten-year-old girl told me she saw her parents shot. One woman, sobbing and hysterical, said her small children were cut into pieces and her husband taken away when Indian troops attacked her village.”

The Delhi correspondent of The Daily Telegraph, in a dispatch about Indian-occupied Kashmir, said this on 12 October, 1965:

“Resentment and hatred are growing against the Indian army in Kashmir as it is burning houses of those persons who are charged with helping and hiding guerrillas.”

The facts are so overwhelming in their detail that it is impossible for me to do them justice in this presentation. What has been reported in the press is inevitably only a fragment of the reality which, were it visualized here, would so stir the Council’s conscience as to bring immediate condemnation on India. And India, fearing that all the truth would be told, brought about an unusual, an extraordinary, procedural debate in which it had no right to be a party. For the first time in the history of the Security Council, it brought about a procedural debate to thwart the truth, to suppress the facts, to make reality out of the falsehood of its policies. That is why they are not here tonight—not because of procedural technicalities or legal niceties, but because under the bright lights of the Security Council they do not want to hear the truth, they do not want to know what they are doing to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. They are not prepared to hear of their atrocities; that is why their seats are vacant. They do not have the courage to hear of the atrocities and the barbarism they are perpetrating against the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and that is why you find them absent in an unprecedented fashion.. It is not because of the procedure, it is not because of legal niceties; it is because in their conscience and in their hearts they know that they are following, barbaric, a Nazi-like policy against the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

The harrowing tales which they relate of Indians murdering all the young men and abducting the women are corroborated by the fact that the refugees pouring into Azad Kashmir are by and large old men; old women and children below the age of ten. Young men and women are conspicuous by their absence in the Azad Kashmir refugee camps. The people of Rajauri District, who had declared for freedom after the call to arms by the Revolutionary Council, are being subjected to unheard of atrocities. The borders of this district and Mendhar area have been almost sealed by the Indians and the entire population is facing the prospect of annihilation at the hands of Indian soldiers.

It must be recalled here that, in the month of August, Indian troops burnt down the town of Mandi and twelve adjoining villages. Three families of Muslims in village Bedar Balnoi were burnt alive in their houses and many Muslims were shot down by Indian soldiers in cold blood in the presence of their families. Several girls were also abducted in the same village. Similar barbarities were committed in other villages in Muzaffarabad, Rawalkot and Mirpur sectors. And because the Indians have no answer, Mr. President, that is why they are not here tonight.

The entire Batamaloo suburb of Srinagar inhabited by Muslims was set on fire and razed to the ground. Many Muslims were burnt alive in this suburb by the Indian Army. This burning was reported by the correspondent of The Washington Star in the paper’s issue of 1 September, 1965: “During the past three weeks hundreds of Kashmiri houses have been burned to the ground—about 440 in Srinagar alone and scores of others in from fifty to seventy villages scattered throughout the valley. “Indian officials claim Pakistani infiltrators started the fires. But both extremist and moderate Kashmiris and the victims themselves, interviewed while digging in the smoldering wreckage, claim the Indian army was responsible.”

The Indian army was responsible for the destruction and devastation and for setting Kashmiri towns and villages ablaze, for abducting women and children and for tearing the breasts off people. I do not say that as the Foreign Minister of Pakistan; that is what The Washington Star says, a United States newspaper, the newspaper of a country which is friendly to both India and Pakistan and which would like to see a settlement.

What is the difference between the extermination of the Jews in Europe by Hitler and the extermination of Muslims by Indian bayonets in Asia? Is there any difference? Are we to have a double standard? After twenty years of the ghettos of Poland we are still reminded of the horrors and atrocities committed against the people of Europe by Hitler. Men were killed men were shot, women and children were killed, torture was inflicted. Is torture in Europe different from torture in Asia? Is death in Europe different from death in Asia? If people die in Europe is it different from people dying in Asia? Are they not human beings in Asia? Do they not feel the same pain? Mr. President it is for you and your grandiose Council to answer these questions.

This explains why there has been an exodus of about 75,000 Kashmiris so far from Indian-occupied Kashmir. There are extremist fanatical organizations in India, called the RSS and Jan Sangh, and the ruffians and hooligans in their service have been armed by Indian authorities to carry out the heinous design of exterminating those who resist the Indian occupation. If this is falsehood, the Indian Foreign Minister should be here to deny that charge. I say with all the solemnity and with all the sovereignty of 100 million people of Pakistan that that is not a false charge. There is not an iota of exaggeration in this charge. If this is incorrect, the Indian Foreign Minister should be sitting here to deny this charge on behalf of his people. But the Indian representatives have fled. Why have they fled? Is the Indian delegation not capable of answering these charges? The Indians are very good at forensics. They are philosophers. We know that they ate very capable in using pretty words. Why are they not here? They are not here because they cannot answer the charges of the Government of Pakistan or of the people of Pakistan; they cannot answer the conscience of mankind against the atrocities, barbarous acts and ruthlessness; they have no answer to the tragedy and the upheaval that they have brought about on the subcontinent of Asia to the trouble that they have created in Asia. They are not here because they have no conscience, they have no integrity, and they have no words. They are afraid to account for what they have done to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

As I have said, more than twenty years have passed since the Nazis executed their programme of exterminating the Jews in Germany. We still read the stories of those horrors and the world tries to salve its conscience by description and dramatization of those bestial acts. Today, despite the existence of the United Nations, despite the solemn commitment of the Charter, despite the convention against genocide, despite all the talk, with its intervals of ten minutes, about the sacredness of human life, India is perpetrating similar acts in. Jammu and Kashmir. Will the world remain unmoved? Will it refuse to stir because the people involved are so distant from the air-conditioned headquarters of the United Nations? Are we all to be so shackled by our inhibitions, so bogged down in expediencies, and so crippled by our calculations of power interests that the blood that is being shed in Jammu and Kashmir, the families that are being torn apart and wiped out, the voices that are being throttled, will bring forth no response from us? The ghettos of Poland live as a painful and fearful memory, but the ghettos of Jammu and Kashmir are stinking with human flesh. ripped asunder by a monstrous and habitual aggressor, determined to destroy, like a blood thirsty barbarian, all that stands in his way—the beauty and the life of Kashmir, the living and the dead, the truth and the reality.

Pakistan will not stand by and allow India to carry on these monstrous acts in Jammu and Kashmir, where 5 million people live. If the United Nations remains unmoved and unconcerned, Pakistan will take up the challenge and will be prepared for the ultimate consequence of life or destruction, of extermination or honor.

This attempt by India to take advantage of the cease-fire in order to exterminate the population of certain areas in Jammu and Kashmir is one part of the human reality which is unfolding before us. The other is the resistance movement in the Indian-held area and the barbarous response to it from the Indian Government. Let me now give the Security Council an idea of the situation in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, particularly in the valley of Kashmir which has deteriorated rapidly since the ceasefire. This is why the Indian Foreign Minister has absented himself from the deliberations of the Council meeting, although he has come all the way from Delhi. The Indian representatives do not want to hear the truth and the reality of the situation. The Guardian of London stated on 22 October:

“Day by day come reports from Srinagar—many of them attested by Indian sources—of student demonstrations, riots, police firing, use of tear gas, throwing of grenades, closing of schools and colleges.”

Mr. President, you are an academician connected with a university, and here we see that schools and colleges are being closed in order to perpetuate Indian terror. The article continues:

“The Indian Government, having earlier this month arrested more fiery opposition leaders in Kashmir, yesterday turned its attention to Maulana Masoodi and Mr. Karra who want Kashmiris to use non-violent means of persuading the Indian Government to consult them about who they want to be ruled by. Now all leaders, disunited about methods as they have been, are united in being prisoners.”

The correspondent of The Times, London, stated on 22 October:

“Leaders of all political groups opposed to present Indian policies in Kashmir are behind bars: Sheikh Abdullah”—whose son sits in my delegation—”overtly pro-Pakistani leaders, and now those who have tried for years to steer the Valley away from violence and who have sought some middle way, where, in fact, there was none”.

The dispatch in The New York Times on the same date commented that the arrests had virtually wiped out the leadership of the Kashmiri people. It quoted authoritative sources as saying that “the Government had ample evidence that the men had been maintaining close ties with Pakistani infiltrators.” The same dispatch added:

“In an interview last week, Mr. Dhar, Kashmir’s Home Minister, said the Government had no evidence that Mr. Masoodi and Mr. Karra were guilty of collaboration with the infiltrators.”

If one examines the reports of Indian statements regarding the so-called infiltrators which have appeared in the world press, a pattern emerges which is revealing of the truth about the resistance movement in Jammu and Kashmir. Since this movement encompasses the entire population of Jammu and Kashmir and involves both the Azad and the Indian-occupied territories, it is natural that the Indian Government should get involved in, perpetual contradictions when it seeks to establish, that all the trouble is the work of agents from Pakistan. At first they said that the guerrillas had no local support. Then they conceded indirectly that they had some local support, because otherwise the battles fought by guerrillas near Srinagar and the alleged existence of ammunition dumps in mosques could not have been explained. Then they began to assert that some of the leaders of the resistance movement were collaborating with the guerrillas but a few were not. Then they said that those other leaders—the few of them—also were in collaboration with the guerrillas.

New, judging from a report in The New York Times of 23 October, they say that these leaders of the people of Kashmir are Pakistani agents themselves. The next logical step would be to condemn the entire Muslim population of Jammu and Kashmir as consisting of Pakistani agents, which would mean condemning 90 per cent of 5 million people. All that would have been ludicrous if its effects were not so deadly. The Indian allegations about infiltration are now seen to be not merely a canard, but the means by which India supplies itself with pretexts to crush all vocal opposition to its hated occupation. Let me quote a report filed from Delhi in the Baltimore Sun of 11 October. I am quoting American newspapers friendly to both India and Pakistan. The report says:

“The reports of demonstrations and arrests were the first official confirmation of substantial unrest in Srinagar since the troubled state went into what amounts to a war footing early in August. Mr. Dhar blamed the incidents in the city on the remnant of the Pakistani guerrillas……and their agents among the local population. His remarks constituted the first admission by a Government official”—that is the Home Minister—”that the guerrillas were receiving significant co-operation from the people of Jammu and Kashmir.”

If an impartial outsider reads reports of happenings in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir which are published in the world press, the question will naturally arise in his mind: How deep, how widespread, is the opposition of the people to Indian occupation? He will, of course, remember that the press reports cannot possibly convey the full dimensions of the revolt because of the manifold restrictions, because of censorship, barriers of language, and the difficulty of foreign reporters obtaining access to the humbler folk. All the same, he will come across numerous indications which can be pieced together and from which a coherent picture will emerge. Let me now mention some of these.

On 13 October, The New York Times reported that three boys, sixteen years old, were killed by the Indian police in Srinagar.

There is a parallel between what the Indians do in Jammu and Kashmir, and what the Portuguese are doing in Angola and Mozambique, or what Mr. Ian Smith does in Southern Rhodesia. These Southern Rhodesians, and the Indians, and the Portuguese; they want to destroy the spirit of Asia and Africa. The spirit of Asia and Africa cannot be destroyed. It is vibrant; it is youthful; it is enthusiastic; it is full of life. We must achieve our objectives. The age of domination has come to an end. It has come to an end throughout the world and that is why they cannot face the fact that they are dominating 5 million people.

As I have said, sixteen-year old boys and girls were killed by Indian soldiers and Indian bayonets. Commenting on the slaughter of the innocents, the Home Minister of the Indian-sponsored Government in Srinagar is reported to have said that the firing could not have been avoided because “for a small group of police to move around in the narrow lanes of the old city in the present atmosphere is just to invite trouble.” What does this statement mean except that the population of Srinagar is totally hostile to India’s army and police and will not hesitate to battle with it wherever it can.

The same newspaper, that is, The New York Times—very much respected and quoted by the Indian delegation in the General Assembly—was quoted in the General Assembly by the Indian delegation as if it were a bible; and I am now quoting this bible—of 13 and 14 October reported that Muslim girls at a college had played a significant role “in a new wave of agitation that has been sweeping” Srinagar. It mentions an eighteen-year girl, who hitherto lived a cloistered life, as having stood on a stage at a public meeting and shouted “Indian go home.”

It quotes the girl as saying “We must show how we feel. We Muslims here are tired of Indian rule. We want to be with Pakistan.- Of course they want to be with Pakistan. They are part of us; they are our blood: they are our flesh; they are our lives and they will be a part of us.

Is it conceivable that a movement would absorb the passion and dedication of boys and girls of that age unless it was rooted in the heart and soul of an. entire people?

News dispatches about the situation in. Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir report that shops are closed in Srinagar and there is no traffic in the streets. The New York Times of 13 October reported that only armed policemen and army patrols are seen moving in the streets of Srinagar.

The Financial Times of London of 8 October said:

“Only the very prejudiced can deny that mass opinion in Kashmir is now overwhelmingly anti-Indian.”

The Foreign Editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine, an eye-witness in Srinagar, reported on 10 October: “At least 30,000 policemen and soldiers have turned Srinagar into a huge army camp.”

On 19 October he further reported how street battles developed between the people and Indian police when unarmed demonstrators demanded a plebiscite and an end to Indian brutalities. When he drove through Srinagar he saw crowds of protestors everywhere asking for a plebiscite and shouting curses at Indians.

These developments in Indian-occupied Kashmir reached a climax on 23 October when the Indian puppet regime in Kashmir decided to assume control of Muslim trusts, mosques and shrines, and post police guards at these places. The same day there were reports of widespread demonstrations in Baramula and Shopian against the desecration of a revered shrine in Chrar Shareef. It can be imagined how deep must be the hostility of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to the regime of the occupying power when the occupation forces find it necessary to deny them free access to their places of worship where it is natural for them to congregate and worship and pray to Allah. The extreme nature of this act can be understood by anyone in East or West who remembers that the act of worship touches the deepest and most intimate part of a people’s personal life and no Government will dare encroach upon it unless it is utterly desperate before mass opposition.

The situation in Srinagar and the Valley is brought out in the dispatch published in The New York Times of today. It confirms what I have said above and bears out the fact that the news stories are tightly censored. The newspaper’s correspondent, reporting from Srinagar yesterday had this to say:

“The Indian Government is seeking to destroy the Kashmir self-determination movement with virtually all the means at its disposal.

“In the last few weeks, the Government’s policy has shifted from a selective pruning of the movement’s most radical elements to all-out suppression.”—of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

“The large Indian police and army forces in the state have been used liberally to break the back of the movement’s organization and to dissuade its members and sympathizers from further activity.”

He goes on to say that the gaols in Jammu and Kashmir:

“……are crammed with those who demand a plebiscite to determine Kashmir’s future.”

The correspondent continues:

“Last Friday, policemen and soldiers blocked all roads to the Hazaratbal shrine, turning away thousands”—thousands, Mr. President—”of Moslems who tried to go there for their weekly worship.

“Srinagar Moslems said it was the first Friday in 350 years……..”

Mr. President, the first Friday in 350 years. Yours is a great country; yours is a great continent, but imagine, the first time in 350 years that a people should be told that they cannot go to the shrine for congregational prayers. For the first time in 350 years the people should be told this—there must be something very extraordinary that the people should be denied this for the first time. Can you imagine Catholics being told for the first time in centuries that they should not go to the Vatican to receive papal blessings? Can you imagine the Jews being told that they cannot go to Jerusalem for their religious obligations? But the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir, for the first time in 350 years, were stopped from going to their most holy shrine because the situation was such that India could not tolerate religious freedom for the five million people of that state.

“The Government said that it had had to take the unusual action” – they regard it as an unusual action—”to prevent a repetition of the violent demonstrations that took place at the shrine last Monday.

“Action has also been taken to prevent Moslem merchants in Srinagar from showing support for the self-determination movement.”

This is in The New York Times. The report confirms the tight news censorship imposed by the Indian authorities. It says:

“The Government has also taken steps to prevent news of the unrest and its counter-measures from reaching the outside world.”

That is, from reaching you, Mr. President, and from reaching members of the Security Council.

“Several correspondents who tried to transmit articles on the situation from here last week had the articles returned by the cable office marked ‘Objectionable.’

“One high-ranking official in the state government said, ‘We are not going to let any news out of here which is not favorable to our position’.”

This is the secular democracy of India which takes so much pride, and which tells the Western countries that India is the only democracy in Asia. The only secular democracy which butchers its own minorities, which suppresses its own people which destroys the soul of its own society, which has untouchables and which defies the Security Council. This is the secular democracy of India which is supposed to receive support from other democracies in the West. And this secular democracy of untouchables, where we, as non-Indians are regarded as sub-human, will not allow any news to go out of here which is unfavorable. This is the democracy of India which does not allow any unfavorable news concerning India to get out of Jammu and Kashmir. And they come here and sit and talk with great forensics and with a great deal of eloquence of their democracy. They pontificate and lecture to us as to what is the meaning of democracy. We know the meaning of democracy; you know the meaning of democracy; we all know. But they come here and tell us what is secular Indian democracy, which has a caste system, which has people who are suppressed because they are born in different castes, which has people who are killed and destroyed because they are different from them. Then they come and tell you that they are a democracy and that they must be supported. Yet that same democracy refuses to let news out—leave alone destruction, chaos, slander, burning of villages, raping of women and children. These people do not want news to get out of their secular democracy.

The New York Times report is confirmed by a dispatch appearing in the Observer, London, of 24 October saying:

“Hazratbal Shrine in Srinagar, from where in December 1963 an uprising in Kashmir sparked off, might once again see the same. For at Hazratbal on Monday, occurred a clash between police and the mob of Kashmiri students which Government spokesmen say might have terrible consequences.”

These are Government spokesmen saying that it will have terrible consequences.

The report continues:

“Hazratbal has become a symbol for right to self-determination campaign and a last desperate throw by Kashmiris. It is clear that the plebiscite campaign in Srinagar has been taken over completely by students and has become a kind of children’s revolt terrifying in its innocent determination.”

When there is an almost general strike in a city when all popular leaders of a people are thrown behind bars, when the police dare not move about in small numbers, when the Government is driven to obstruct the people’s prayer congregations, when schools and colleges are closed, when the young are in the forefront of the opposition movement, it will be but a heartless soul who does not conclude that this is an extreme situation which cannot possibly be allowed to continue. The people of Jammu and Kashmir, themselves, are unarmed, they are fighting their oppressors with only the weapons which the weak have always used against the strong. The editor of the Frankfurter Allegmeine and the correspondent of The New York Times whom I have quoted have both said that people in Srinagar came to them and pleaded, “Please tell our story to the world. Please tell them what you have seen here. You are now our only hope.”

It means, Mr. President, please tell the story to you and to the members of your Council because you now are their only hope.

As I read these words, I am driven to ask the question: Are we here so hardened in our hearts, so deadened in our conscience, so morally bankrupt, that we will be deaf to this piteous pleading of a people groaning under the oppressor’s heel?

The truth of the reports I have quoted can be verified by a visit to any part of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir by any impartial observer from any country in the world.

In our Permanent Representative’s letter to you, Mr. President, dated 18 October 1965, my Government suggested that the Secretary-General send immediately his personal representative to visit the Indian-occupied part of Jammu and Kashmir and gather a first-hand account of the situation. My Government believes that what is happening in the occupied state of Jammu and Kashmir today should be brought under the scrutiny of the whole world. This is, above all, a human problem and a human question. Irrespective of the measures that the Council may eventually decide to take in order to bring about or facilitate a final settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, it is the Council’s duty to go to the succor of a people whose fate has been the subject of its deliberations for nearly two decades and who are today subjected to untold hardships under its very gaze. The people of Jammu and Kashmir are a part of Pakistan. We cannot and we shall not stand by as silent spectators while India, with seeming impunity, proceeds to wreak vengeance upon them.

I repeat with all the solemnity at my command that the hundred million people of Pakistan will not and shall not allow Indian tyranny and Indian oppression to be perpetrated against them. We shall face extinction but we will not allow these absent war-lords to perpetrate horror and crimes against the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It is a part of our duty, it is a part of our faith, it is a part of our religion, it is a part of our tradition. it is a part of our culture, it is a part of our life, that we shall honor our commitments to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. This you must know. And then do not say that we spread trouble or that we are the cause of anguish and anger. We have suffered. Our people have suffered. We have clone through torment and turmoil. Young women and children destroyed, killed, lacerated. I speak this evening with a bleeding heart. I come from the battlefields of Pakistan; where we have fought a monstrous and a habitual aggressor—and I tell you, Sir, that we are prepared for all consequences, but we shall never surrender our honor and our self-respect. The Security Council must know this, the Permanent Members of the United Nations must know this; Pakistan will face destruction, but we shall honor our pledge, because we are an honorable people. And this you must know when you pontificate under your great lights.

I would like formally to reiterate the request of my Government that a fact-finding committee, or the Secretary-General of the United Nations should without further delay visit the embattled State of Jammu and Kashmir in order to see what is happening there, report the facts to the Council, and suggest prompt and effective measures to end this intolerable situation in Jammu and Kashmir.

The situation in Jammu and Kashmir today, with its passion and poignancy, its suffering and tragedy, should serve to restore some perspective to the Council’s consideration of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. It is all very well for people to listen to arguments and counter-arguments on the two sides and say, “Oh, well, it is a very complex question.” It is all very well for world powers to go through careful calculations of their interests and opine, “Oh, it is a very delicate problem.” But to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and to the people of Pakistan, the people who are involved in it, whose life and honour are at stake, whose happiness and aspirations are threatened, whose very existence as a people is jeopardized, there is nothing complex or delicate about this problem. What is so complex in an issue of freedom or enslavement? What is so delicate in a choice between security and torture? I have assumed that the members of the Council are aware of numerous reports which all say that the huge demonstrations in Srinagar have just one slogan: “Our demand is plebiscite.” This shows that, however. it may look in a debating chamber of the Security Council, the plebiscite is eminently feasible to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. After all, it is their judgment which is of supreme importance.

Is the Council aware that Jammu and Kashmir is larger in size and population than several members of the United Nations? Its five million people have never been a part of India. “What they seem to resent simply,” a reporter wrote in the Irish Times of 11 October, “is their belonging to India being taken for granted by New Delhi.” For India to say that there is an issue of national integrity involved here is preposterous because the national integrity of India comprises the territory which was included in the Dominion of India at the time of its establishment as an independent state on 15 August, 1947, and those territories which acceded to it without dispute. By no stretch of imagination can Jammu and Kashmir be included in either of these categories.

How, when and where did Jammu and Kashmir become an integral part of India? Not when India came to the Security Council saying that—and I quote from India’s communication of 1 January, 1948:

“It was imperative on account of the emergency that the responsibility for the defence of Jammu and Kashmir State should be taken over by a Government capable of discharging it. But, in order to avoid any possible suggestion that India had utilized the State’s immediate peril for her own political advantage, the Government of India made it clear that once the soil of the State had been cleared of the invader and normal conditions restored, its people would be free to decide their future by the recognized democratic method of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices.”

These are the words and the commitment of the Government of India. Jammu and Kashmir did not become part of India when India accepted the UNCIP resolution of 5 January, 1949, paragraph I of which states: “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.”

Jammu and Kashmir did not become an integral part of India when, in later years, the Indian representative assured the Council that India was committed to the UNCIP resolutions and that no decision of a so-called Constituent Assembly in Srinagar would come in the way. Then, how and when did Jammu and Kashmir become an integral part of India? By the decision of the people of Jammu and Kashmir? Certainly not, at no time have these people been consulted. They have been held by the Indian bayonets and by the Indian terror and by the Indian atrocities.

Jammu and Kashmir became a part of India only by the fiat and by the arrogance and by the chauvinism of the Government of India. Is this a position which the Council will accept? Pakistan will certainly not accept it, even if the Council were to accept it.

Colonialism in its classical form is on the wane. Only a small number of powers continue to hold on to their possessions, justifying their action by the fiction that the territories in question form part of the metropolitan nation. This is the position which India has taken in the case of Jammu and Kashmir.

It would be interesting to see how one colonial power, speaking of its colonies in Africa, interpreted the Government of India’s position vis-à-vis Kashmir. Speaking in the General Assembly on 11 October, 1965, the Foreign Minister of Portugal said:

“We have here two points of the utmost importance: first, foreign countries or outside organizations cannot request that a plebiscite be held in a territory which is part of another nation; and, second, integration of a territory by a constitutional provision or clause is considered to be legitimate and final, and should be so accepted by all.”

The Portuguese Foreign Minister, who was defending his Government’s policy in Angola and Mozambique, went on to say:

“Let us see whether the Indian Government from now on will dare to ask for the implementation of other and different criteria when other governments are involved.”

India, which herself has only just emerged from centuries of foreign domination, has joined the dwindling ranks of colonial powers and deals with occupied Jammu and Kashmir as if it were a colonial possession. The atrocities that are being perpetrated on the defenseless people of Jammu and Kashmir are no less cruel than those which the people of other colonial territories have had to suffer. The repressive laws through which India seeks to cow the people of Jammu and Kashmir are no different in their character and effect from those which the Rhodesian minority employs to prevent the people of Southern Rhodesia from exercising their right of self-determination. If the Government of South Africa has sent hundreds of leaders of the South African people to prison without trial, then the Government of India is acting no differently in occupied Jammu and Kashmir.

The General Assembly adopted, only the other day, a resolution on the situation in Southern Rhodesia. The Council will shortly meet in order to consider the South African question. It should come as no surprise to the world that, as the Government of South Africa has done in the case of apartheid, the Government of India now pleads that discussion of Kashmir in the Security Council compromises the internal sovereignty of India by raising matters which are within her domestic jurisdiction.. Mr. Shastri speaks the language of Mr. Ian Smith when he asserts that any concern by the United Nations in the fate of the people of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes interference with India’s internal affairs and infringement of India’s sovereignty.

The minority clique which today rules Southern Rhodesia against the will of its people, on the basis of a constitution specially made to perpetuate alien rule, would like nothing better than to be left alone in the possession of the land which they have stolen from the real people of the country. The Government of India constantly complains that there is little sympathy and understanding in the world for its case on Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian leaders should ponder over this fact and try to understand the reason why they can seek support for their policy on Jammu and Kashmir only from the Ian Smiths of the world.

The Security Council gave a pledge to the people of Jammu and Kashmir that they would not be placed under a sovereignty which was imposed on them by an imperial army of occupation. On 20 September, 1965, the Council committed its prestige and power to going to the heart of the problem and to securing a just and honorable settlement of the dispute. The question is: should the Council allow either party to veto its efforts? If so, then one must be candid and say that the United Nations, this organization which we look upon as the custodian of humanity’s conscience, is now destitute of courage and drained of all its powers and its moral resources. The long history of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute is sufficient proof of how India’s willfulness has been encouraged by the seeming helplessness of this Council.

Should this process have no end? Is the Council powerful enough to tell Pakistan, “The blood you have shed shall not be in vain”, and so powerless as not to tell India to come to a settlement? You cannot approbate and reprobate. Either you are powerful enough to put your force, morality strength, will and law behind the settlement or else you tell us, “We cannot settle the problem: it is beyond our competence; we cannot do it, unless the Indians agree.” In that case, why do you stop us from the ultimate sacrifice? If you have the power to stop us, to bring about a settlement with all the experience that you have of the dispute, then you should have the strength and courage to fulfill your promise and your pledge and bring about a settlement between the people of India and the people of Pakistan by settling the dispute in Jammu and Kashmir. Why these double standards: one standard applicable to Pakistan and the other applicable to India? Is it because India is big and is resourceful? Well, Pakistan is not small either. Pakistan is not without resources either. Pakistan also has a place in Asia. Pakistan is in the forefront of the Asian movement.

If one is to go by the criterion of justice, of what is right, one does not go by the size of Pakistan or the size of India or by what your vital interests in India are or what your vital interests in Pakistan are. Your vital interests are best served by bringing about a just and honorable settlement. Therefore, the Security Council is committed by its resolution of 20 September to bring about an honorable and equitable settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. This it is committed to bring about in the interests of the Security Council, of the United Nations, of the great powers, of world peace and of peace in Asia. Do not tell us, “Pakistan, stop, because we have the power to force you to stop”, and tell India “Do not stop, because we do not have the power to stop you.” Do not tell Pakistan. “Accept the solution”, and tell India, “Do not accept the solution.” Both countries must be treated at par. The two countries have fought against each other. We have established our equality for all time with India, because India, a habitual predatory aggressor, committed aggression against Pakistan, and we repelled that aggression. We established Pakistan because we were on a basis of equality. There is complete equality between the people of India and the people of Pakistan. On the basis of equality, determine the issue on the rights and wrongs, on the morality of the situation and on the basis of international law and international agreements.

It is impossible to think of this dispute without recalling the many instances in history of the small or the weak being pitted against the strong. The betrayal of Ethiopia when it was pitted against Italy brought death and dishonor to the League of Nations. How can the consequences for the United Nations of the betrayal of Jammu and Kashmir be much different? The betrayal of Czechoslovakia before Hitler’s hordes involved the world in a disastrous war. The calculations of power interests in the case of Jammu and Kashmir may point differently today, but, whilst these are bound to be ephemeral, the moral laws are eternal and inexorable.

We are being counseled patience today. Has not Pakistan shown patience in the past? More than that, have we not demonstrated in full measure our willingness to cooperate in seeking a peaceful and honorable settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute? Even today, after repeated evidence of India’s obduracy—even to the point of leaving the chamber of the Security Council—Pakistan is prepared to go forward in search of a settlement of the dispute through the peaceful methods laid down in the Charter of the United Nations. The Council has called upon both parties to have recourse to these methods, pending the Council’s own consideration of the steps needed to bring about a final settlement of the dispute. We have accepted this advice. But what is the response from India?

According to a New Delhi dispatch of 3 October published in The New York Herald Tribune the next day, the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Shastri, said that India wanted peace with Pakistan but that this time it must be on India’s terms. Peace with Pakistan on India’s terms! We are not interested in peace on any terms. If it were a question of obtaining any kind of peace, there would be no need for the Security Council, there would be no need for the United Nations. Why not have a Hitler’s peace? Why not have a Chengiz Khan’s peace? You can have peace on the terms of the victor, you can have a dishonorable peace at any time. Why should there have been a San Francisco Conference, at which you, Mr. President, represented Uruguay and put your signature on the Charter? You came there with enthusiasm, with the belief that we were going into a brave new world based on justice and courage. Was that your concept when you went as representative of Uruguay to the San Francisco Conference—that there should be peace on any terms? Peace on any terms is always easy to achieve. Peace on any terms is something that can be achieved without war. It can be achieved on the basis of dishonor, on the basis of surrender. But the United Nations came into being, with its Charter. to achieve not peace on any terms but a just and lasting peace.

Mr. Shastri said: “This time it must be settled on India’s terms.” It will never be settled on India’s terms. That is out of the question. Who is Mr. Shastri to say that peace in the subcontinent will be settled on India’s terms? Have we lost ourselves? Are we completely destroyed? We are a hundred million people. We cannot allow peace to be settled on India’s terms. We who have ruled India for 800 years, we who have dominated India for 800 years and who are responsible for much of India’s civilization for the Delhis and the Taj Mahals and for the grandeur and glory of India, are we today in the twentieth century to accept peace on India’s terms? One hundred million people to accept peace on India’s terms? It is out of the question. It is for you to know that we will never accept peace on India’s terms. It is preposterous, it is scandalous, it is a dishonor to us, to accept peace on India’s terms when we have always established our equality and our spirit and have stood for an honorable and dignified world. The Muslims of Pakistan cannot accept that. It is out of the question. It is preposterous that this time it must be settled on India’s terms. It is out of the question.

Here the Council has a clear indication of India’s attitude. “Peace on India’s terms” is something which no warlord in history could possibly have improved upon. I crave the Council’s indulgence to contrast this with what I stated earlier, at the plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 28 September:

“If the United Nations works for a settlement, not on our terms, but in terms of the Charter, in terms of the international agreement accepted by both parties, then Pakistan will not stint its co-operation in the slightest measure.”

I stand by those words. That is the issue, without verbiage or embroidery. The Council here witnesses a clear confrontation, not between two powers, not between two nations, but between two attitudes and policies which directly impinge upon the value and effectiveness of the United Nations. Anyone might prefer to be neutral when it comes to a clash between two national interests: but who can be neutral when it comes to a clash between the attitude of compliance with the Charter and the attitude of defiance? No one can say, “Let us help one party to defy the Charter a little and the other party to obey it a little.”

It is impossible to comprehend how it can be within the bounds of human reason to remain neutral between these two attitudes. In fact, neutrality between them is actually an endorsement of the negative and defiant attitude, because it amounts to acquiescence in it and an encouragement of it. Need I say that such neutrality is an abdication of the functions of the Security Council, that it undermines all the principles of the Charter?

The present situation brings out the stark reality of the issue. Immediately after the cease-fire, when the world was beginning to feel a renewal of hope in the effectiveness of the United Nations, India lost no time in putting us all on notice that such hopes were ill-founded. The Education Minister of India is reported to have said in the Indian Parliament that the Government of India is prepared to have discussions with Pakistan, but only on the clear understanding that Jammu and Kashmir is a closed chapter. If Jammu and Kashmir is a closed chapter, then what is Pakistan supposed to discuss? And what is the problem the Security Council is trying to resolve?

That is the essence of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. If one looks at it as a collision of national interests and claims, it would be quite understandable that one might not like to take sides. But it is not merely a clash of interests. It is, I repeat, an opposition of two attitudes and philosophies towards the first and foremost purpose of the United Nations, which under Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Charter, is to bring about, by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes which might lead to a breach of the peace.

In regard to India’s commitment to a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir, I have cited at earlier meetings of this Council scores of pronouncements made by the late Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. These are on the record of the Security Council, as well as of the General Assembly. But the source of that commitment is not only the Government of India and its architect and first Prime Minister, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru. It is also the father of the Indian nation, the late Mr. Gandhi, for whom I had great respect. We who stood for Pakistan nevertheless respected Mr. Gandhi, who was regarded as the great Mahatma, the man of peace. We still have respect for Mr. Gandhi. He was assassinated by the bullet of a bigot—and that bigot was not a Muslim, but a Hindu.

I have never quoted Mr. Gandhi since I have been Foreign Minister of Pakistan. I have quoted Mr. Nehru, who was the heir of Mr. Gandhi, the father of India’s democracy and secularism, but I have refrained—in spite of the emotions of the Kashmir dispute—from quoting Mr. Gandhi. However, we have reached the high tide: we have reached a crucial stage: and I am compelled to quote even Mr. Gandhi on Kashmir.

And what did Mr. Gandhi—the father of Indian nationalism and of the renaissance in the subcontinent, a man whom all of us respect—have to say? I should like to quote from a biography of Mr. Gandhi written by his private secretary, Mr. Pyarelal:

“Gandhi was on his way to Kashmir and had detailed talks separately with the Maharajah and his Prime Minister on 1 August in Srinagar. On the 3rd, a deputation of Kashmiris asked Gandhi in Jammu, ‘India will be free on 15 August; what of Kashmir?” Gandhi replied, “That will depend on the people of Kashmir.” They all wanted to know whether Kashmir would join the Union or Pakistan. ‘That again,’ said Gandhi ‘should be decided by the will of the Kashmiris.”

Those were the words of Mahatma Gandhi. He said that it was for the people of Kashmir to decide.

In all the eighteen years in which this dispute has been discussed here we have never quoted Mr. Gandhi. We do not want to make him a controversial figure in this issue. We have quoted what the Prime Minister of India said about the will of the people of Kashmir. The representative of India is absent from this meeting because he does not want to hear what the father of the Indian nation had to say about the future of Jammu and Kashmir. The whole delegation of India is absent from this meeting because they do not have the courage, or the conscience, or the heart or the eyes to face the truth and the stark reality of an indefensible position, a chauvinistic position, the position of an aggressor. That is why, as I have said, I am constrained at this high tide to quote what Mr. Gandhi himself had to say on the future of Jammu and Kashmir—namely, that the future of Jammu and Kashmir must be decided, not by the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir, by whom the Indian Government sets such great store; not on the basis of the arbitrary will of a Maharajah who was on the run, fleeing his state; but on the basis of the will of the five million people of Jammu and Kashmir.

It was to spare the Indian rulers embarrassment that we never before quoted Mr. Gandhi in this context. We do so now because we have discovered that it is well-nigh impossible to subject India to the kind of embarrassment to which those who are sensitive and have some sense of honor are easily susceptible. But the Prime Minister of India, who claims to be a disciple of Mr. Gandhi, should show some respect for the words of Mahatma Gandhi.

Whether Mr. Shastri does so or not, it is the duty of the Security Council to rise above the interests and demands of the parties to the dispute, to act independently and look at the issue in its human and moral reality. Jammu and Kashmir is not a piece of real estate. Its future is not a problem to be viewed only in the context of the rights and wrongs of India and Pakistan. It cannot be condemned to a kind of Klu Klux Klan administration. A leading collaborator of Mahatma Gandhi the father of India a prominent Minister of the late Mr. Nehru’s Cabinet, a contestant against Mr. Shastri for the Prime Ministership of India, none other than Mr. Morarji Desai, is reported to have said recently that the South Indian city of Madras would be razed to the ground if the people of the South sought secession from India. That may be his conception of how Indian unity can be strengthened. But Jammu and Kashmir is not “Madras or Bihar or Gujerat”—and those are the words of the late Prime Minister. Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru. Jammu and Kashmir is not a part of India, and therefore cannot be condemned to be a victim of Indian oppression.

To sum up, it is apparent that, as in January, 1949, the Government of India has once again agreed to cease hostilities with a perverse mental reservation. In the light of the events of the thirty-two days which have elapsed since the cease-fire formally went into effect, there can be little doubt that the great anxiety manifested at the time by the Indian Government for a cessation of hostilities was not prompted by any desire to eschew the path of force and aggression and to return to the methods of peaceful settlement for resolving its dispute with Pakistan.

Only four days after the cease-fire went into effect, I had the occasion to place before the Council a number of facts which indicated that India was using the cease-fire to re-establish its authority in Indian-occupied Kashmir and to crush the Jammu and Kashmir liberation movement. The Council has also been apprised of the various military measures taken by India to improve the tactical position of its forces and to recapture territory lost to Pakistan during the war.

In recent weeks there have been large-scale movements of Indian troops from other parts of India to Jammu and Kashmir and the borders of Pakistan. A mountain division equipped by the United States has been moved from the NEFA area to Ferozepur, and another such division from Ladakh to Tithwal. Augmentation of forces amounts to a grave violation of the cease-fire and gives the lie to India’s assurances of peaceful future behavior.

Pakistan accepted the Security Council’s call for a cease-fife in good faith and stands ready to carry out its obligations without reserve. We stopped fighting in order to avert further bloodshed and the danger of a more widespread conflict in the subcontinent, and perhaps beyond. However, Pakistan cannot be expected to exercise endless restraint in the face of India’s patent and proven aggressiveness. Pakistan cannot permit India to continue to nibble away at its positions and to obtain, under the cover of a cease-fire, what it failed to gain on the battlefield—namely, a position of military advantage from which it can dictate terms to Pakistan and force us to abandon our support for the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine their own future in freedom.

Mr. President and members of the Council, Pakistan complied with your call for a cease-fire in the expectation, on the basis of the solemn assurances given by the Council and, in particular, by the four great powers, that the future of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who have for eighteen years borne the burden of India’s tyrannical and hated occupation, would at last be the subject of a final settlement, based on justice and honor.

Paragraph 4 of the Security Council resolution of 20 September commits the Council to consider steps which it might take to bring about such a settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. More than a month has gone by since the cease-fire went into effect, a cease-fire which the Council regarded as the first step towards a peaceful settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. The withdrawal of armed forces called for in the resolution of 20 September has not even commenced and, from what I stated a short while ago, it is to be feared that the Government of India will delay as long as possible the withdrawal of its troops, with the object of averting or delaying consideration by the Council of the political problem underlying the Indo-Pakistani conflict.

In the light of experience, there cannot be any doubt that India will not of its own volition do anything to facilitate a peaceful settlement of the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir. The history of the last eighteen years has shown that India will use every argument, and will even run away from the Council, exploit every event and happening in the world to prevent the people of Jammu and Kashmir from exercising their right of self-determination. India will comply only when it realizes that the Council will not tolerate any dilatory tactics and will insist on strict implementation of all parts of its resolution of 20 September, 1965.

As I appear before the Council today, it would be unfair to the world community if I did not point out that Pakistan does not come here as a supplicant before this Organization. In signifying our willingness to stabilize the cease-fire and to withdraw our troops in conformity with the Security Council resolution, in assuring the Council of our readiness to cooperate in the search for a just and honourable settlement, Pakistan is adhering to the self-same path which it has followed all these eighteen years. It is the only path of honour. We believe in the implementation of the resolutions of the Security Council, and in so doing we take the rough with the smooth. We, do not flinch from sacrificing a position of advantage if justice so requires. We are fortified by the faith that, despite India’s arrogance and obduracy, despite its flouting all canons of civilized conduct, despite the armed might which it deploys against Kashmir’s helpless people, this long-drawn-out tragedy can end only in the victory of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and in the vindication of the honorable position which our country and our people have taken.

We are committed to honor our pledges. We shall honor our pledges irrespective of the consequences. It is only when a nation is prepared to stand by its word, by its commitments, by its honor and by its pledges that it can serve its people, that it can serve the cause of peace.

It is not a question here of unequal’s pitted against each other, with the Security Council trying to bring about certain equilibrium. It is more than that. You have to go back to the very quest of mankind for a just and Honorable future, for a right and for a proper society. That is what has brought about revolutions in the world. That is how the French Revolution took place; and when the Kings of Europe threatened France the revolutionaries of France said: “You threaten us: we give you the head of a King”.

And we tell you, Mr. President, we shall face complete extermination; we shall face destruction; we shall never dishonor our pledge. We shall fight by the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and we shall honor that pledge irrespective of what the Security Council does, irrespective of what the great powers do. This is a part of our faith: it is ingrained and enshrined in our very civilization. And we know it—each and every Pakistani knows, men, women and children. That is why we are able to face aggression from a country six times our size. We have fought it heroically, bravely: and when the history of that is written, it will be enshrined in the annals of mankind.

There is nothing inherently brave about us, but we stand for a righteous cause; that is why we are brave. We fight for justice; that is why we are brave. And, finally and ultimately, whatever you do, we must triumph; we must succeed because justice is with us. And those who have left this chamber will leave us also. They will run away from Jammu and Kashmir in the same way that they have run away from the chamber of the Security Council.