Address to the Nineteenth Session of the United Nations General Assembly on January 22, 1965

Mr. President,

On behalf of the delegation of Pakistan. I take pleasure in extending to you our most sincere congratulations on your election to the high office of the President of this Assembly. Having had the pleasure of knowing you personally for many years, may I also add my personal greetings. I am confident that your conduct of the deliberations of the assembly will add to your reputation and further enhance the good name of your country with which Pakistan enjoys relations of increasing friendliness and cooperation.

It is all too evident that we are passing through a time of severe test for the United Nations, for its efficacy and, indeed, its very existence. The constitutional crisis that has overtaken us has its roots in different conceptions of the role of the United Nations in the minds of the great powers. We all have our ideas on the ideal solution for this crisis. If I do not choose to articulate mine at this stage, it is for the sole reason that the issue is the subject of delicate negotiations at present and I have no wish to try to muddy the waters still more. At the moment, it might not be an excessive hope that the immediate issue of the normalization of the Assembly’s proceedings will soon be resolved. But that, of course, will not be the final resolution of the crisis; the deeper problem of the harmonization of our views regarding the functions of the United Nations and its two main organs, the General Assembly and the Security Council, will remain.

I am confident that the Asian, African, and Latin American countries, which have an enormous stake in the existence and vitality of the United Nations, will play a decisive role in that final res0lution. They have demonstrated their deep concern and it has, I believe, become apparent that no solution of the problem will be viable unless it has the wholehearted support of the smaller powers that constitute the bulk of the United Nations. It is encouraging to observe that their influence has served to translate the issue from a clash of rigid, legalistic, and doctrinal standpoints to the problem of how the activities of the United Nations can be realistically financed and its constitution worked in such a way that its capacity to keep the peace will not be impaired.

It seems generally accepted that the whole problem of peacekeeping by the United Nations needs to be comprehensively reviewed. When occasion arises, my government will put forth its considered views on the various issues involved. At this stage, it is enough for me to state our basic assumptions. These are;

First, like all peace-loving states, Pakistan needs the United Nations with its capacity enhanced;

Second, this need will not be fulfilled if the United Nations departs radically from the Charter, unless there is agreement on suitable amendments to the Charter;

Third, the international community is confronted at present with problems, immediate and awesome, with which no other organization than the United Nations is equipped to deal;

Fourth, the present crisis will not be finally resolved unless we all candidly take stock of our respective experiences of the working of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security and, in so doing, coordinate our viewpoints in order to evolve a common approach to its role and intervention in future.

It is enough to consider the international situation as a whole, and the problems and disputes which trouble various parts of the world, to realize the need for a continuous strengthening of the will and the ability of the international community to defend peace and make it possible for the world to work for the progress of its peoples. What is needed, as the United Nations Organization enters the twentieth year of its existence, a year which has been declared as the International Cooperation Year, is a reappraisal of its achievements and its shortcomings and a solemn rededication to its original principles and purposes. The League of Nations was established largely for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in Europe. Today, voices are again raised in favor of maintaining a world-wide status quo on the basis of something which has been described as the law of the ceasefire line.

Mr. President, the world is today going through a period of upheaval without precedent. It would be a delusion of the most dangerous kind to believe that the world, as it is today, however pleasant it might seem to some, can be maintained on the basis of make-shift solutions and a precariously balanced status quo. Around the world are problems that must be solved; racial conflict, remnants of colonialism, nations divided by war or strategy, the human race divided among those who possess wealth beyond the wildest dreams of the alchemists and those for whom their daily crust of bread must fall like manna from heaven. Where, in a world thus divided, shall we draw our ceasefire lines? The United Nations must not be allowed to become the instrument of injustice and inequality. That is the way, not to peace and security, but to the quick sands of expediency and the maze of power politics. If this organization is not to go the way of the League of Nations, it must never lose sight of its very first purpose to secure settlement of international disputes by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law.

The tendency of great powers to look at disputes between other nations not on their merits, but on their relation to their own power interests, the inconclusiveness of the proceedings of the Security Council because of this tendency, the complacent assumption that disputes between countries which are not militarily very powerful can easily be frozen, the refusal to make pronouncements on disputes in accordance with principles universally accepted-all these have been responsible for a state of affairs in which disputes not only remain unsolved but are aggravated by the passage of time.

While mankind places its hope on significant progress towards an abiding peace, stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in the armories of the great powers, and exactions made on their people by others not so great in their blind quest for acquiring more arms at any cost, constitute in themselves a cause of world tension and a growing threat to peace. In view of this deplorable state of affairs, disarmament acquires added urgency and becomes an important and vital end in itself. The Geneva disarmament talks will soon enter their fifth year. We must pay tribute to the patience of the members of the Geneva Conference, to the spirit of sincerity shown by many of them over the years. The goal of complete and general disarmament unfortunately remains as distant as ever. The partial Test Ban Treaty gives us no reason for complacence as long as we are unable to secure the objective of a total ban on the production, testing, and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. It is hard to see how these complex objectives can be achieved by a body which excludes one nuclear power and is not joined by another. It is essential that a new start should be made, on a realistic basis, to seek the elimination of arms and armaments, particularly those which threaten the very existence of civilization.

The most immediate problem, in this connection, is that of stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. My country is among those which have urged, year after year, in this Assembly that if the problem of the spread of nuclear weapons is not checked in time and if some firm arrangements are not made to prevent conditions in which a sixth country joins the ranks of nuclear countries, one can be certain that, sooner or later, such a sixth nuclear power will emerge. This will necessarily be followed by yet other countries.

Let me recall here the words spoken by the President of Pakistan in his address to the Seventeenth Session of the General Assembly on September 26, 1962. He said, and I quote:

“Permit me to observe that the mere adoption of resolutions against the dissemination of nuclear weapons and in favor of the establishment of a non-nuclear club will not remove this danger. Unless the United Nations takes effective and urgent action in this direction, the race in nuclear armaments is bound to overtake other parts of the world in the immediate future.

“This imminent peril demands that the General Assembly give urgent consideration to the conclusion of a treaty to outlaw the further spread of nuclear weapons and the knowledge of their manufacture, whether by acquisition from the present nuclear powers or by any other means. The conclusion of such a treaty cannot wait until agreement is reached on other measures of disarmament.”

In the International Atomic Energy Agency, Pakistan has always advocated and supported the strengthening of a system of safeguards against the use of atomic reactors for weapons purposes. With all its inadequacies, the international safeguards system offers some security against the future dissemination of nuclear weapons. We continue to believe that the Agency’s system of safeguards should become mandatory and universal and that it should be developed to cover all aspects of nuclear capability. It has to be recognized, however, that matters have now reached a stage when a piecemeal strengthening of the Agency’s safeguards and of their application in a haphazard manner will not meet the requirements of the situation. We would urge that an international conference should be called at which all the countries of the world, including those at present not members of the United Nations or not represented in it, should examine this whole question in detail and devise strict arrangements which would make it impossible for non-nuclear powers to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons.

The Pakistan delegation has no doubt that such a measure would arrest the further deterioration of the present situation which threatens the world with a holocaust. It would also open the way to a more realistic attempt to achieve complete and general disarmament on a comprehensive and universal basis.

There has been a noticeable change in the mutual attitude of the Soviet Union and the United States of America. They have both demonstrated a commendable willingness and ability to respond to the changing realities of the world situation. So far progress has perhaps been only symbolic. This needs to be developed so that a trend is established in the direction of a universal detente.

The logic of this consideration applies. With greater urgency, to the situation in South-East Asia.

In the ultimate analysis, such an approach cannot be confined to the political sphere. It is germane to the economic relations of different social systems and of nations in different economic conditions. Indeed, it has to be brought to bear on the economics of the world, where foundations can be laid for a stability in international relations. It is in this precise context that one of the most significant events of our time took place in Geneva last year.

I refer to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Convening a conference of this size and scope was a major achievement and its results, notably the Final Act which was adopted unanimously, demonstrated the statesmanship, the understanding, and the spirit of cooperation of both the developed and the developing countries.

This conference represented a landmark; it marked the logical extension of the process of decolonization to the economic sphere. Its stimulus was recognition of the fact that, though the colonial era has passed, the basic structure of international trade still denied the developing countries an equal voice and indeed an equal status in matters affecting their vital economic interests. Pakistan welcomed the conference as a signal that the newly emergent countries will no longer accept an anachronistic world order inherited from the dead colonial past.

The importance of the long-range objectives of the trade and development conference goes far beyond the economic sphere. They touch upon the basic principle of human solidarity. If they are realized, they will mark the extension to the international plane of those regulatory processes which all modern societies accept on the domestic plane in order to ensure stability and an elementary justice in economic relations. Moreover, their realization will be a reliable insurance for peace because the so-called North South problem, if it erupts in a confrontation between the rich and the poor on a global scale, can undermine any fabric of international security. My government feels that the task of reducing, and eventually eliminating, the gulf between the rich and the poor is perhaps the greatest responsibility assumed by the United Nations, and we hope that the collective wisdom of the world community will be equal to the test.

These are global ends and regional action is one of the means to their fulfillment.

We in Pakistan were happy to join the fraternal countries of Iran and Turkey in Regional Cooperation for Development. The heads of state of the three countries launched the enterprise at their meeting in Istanbul in July, 1964, when a wide agreement was reached on greater freedom of communication among the three countries and the exploration of possibilities for creating mass consciousness of their common culture and civilization. This institution, instead of being exclusive, is open to accession by other countries in either all or some sphere of its activities. We hope that it will result in a broader base for our respective economies and in the enrichment of our cultures.

Whatever be the vantage point from which one looks at these regional or continental structures, no one can deny that they serve to bring various people together. By extending the horizons of nations, by inhibiting parochial tendencies, by opening new vistas for the peaceful assertion of economic and political rights, they check a relapse of the world community into those narrow, strident, and exclusive nationalisms which are the sole alternative to the United Nations. As such, they were the cause of the United nations and lend content to its message.

Mr. President, I would now briefly refer to the situation in Europe. Even though no final settlement of some of the major problems has yet taken place, it is a discernible fact that a measure of political and military equilibrium has been achieved. It would appear that the principal powers have reached a stage at which there is a greater understanding of the nature and extent of the danger of a military confrontation, and they have succeeded in reassuring themselves as to the adequacy of their respective security arrangements. Reassurance and confidence are gradually replacing despondency and fear. This is indeed a significant development. Europe is engaged in an endeavor to acquire a sense of cohesion and to play a distinctive role as a link between the Atlantic and the East.

Before we turn our attention from Europe, I would like to make a few observations about the Cyprus question. It is gratifying that the tragic crisis, which led to so much violence and bloodshed, is now under some control and conditions appear generally favorable for a durable settlement. My purpose in referring to the Cyprus question is to emphasize the need for resolute efforts towards a fair and final solution. Pakistan maintains that in the search for a final settlement, the relevant international agreements which were responsible for the emergence of Cyprus as a sovereign independent state are of paramount importance. It is only on the basis of a just settlement that lasting peace can be brought to the strife-torn island.

Turning now to the continent of Africa we find that, within the span of but a few years, the vibrant African peoples have severed the colonial chains which had held them in bondage for nearly a century. They have forged a continental unity. The emergence of the Organization of African Unity bears witness to the vision and resourcefulness of African nations who have pledged their power to the struggle against the forces of colonialism and the inhuman policies of racial discrimination. Moreover, they have had the foresight to establish a machinery to seek peaceful solutions of inter-African disputes.

The post-independence history of several Afro-Asian countries shows that newly independent countries will have to exercise the greatest vigilance against colonialism and exploitation in its more subtle forms. The situation in the Congo is an example. It is most regrettable that outside intervention has further compounded a difficult problem which can finally be solved only by the Congolese themselves. However, we must give thought to this complex problem and determine to what extent we can assist the Congolese themselves. However, we must give thought to this complex problem and determine to what extent we can assist the Congolese people in their quest for a solution of their problems. It has been our experience that United Nations operations by themselves have not served their intended purpose. It is a matter of regret that, instead of promoting stability, the result of such operations has been unsettling and, in some respects, tragic. If we draw the right lessons from our experience in dealing with the Congo problem, we must concede that a more practical way of assisting a solution in the Congo would be for the organization to delegate its responsibility to an organization such as the O.A.U. They have a vital stake in the Congo and their efforts would be based on a closer appreciation of the currents and cross-currents that seem to stand in the way of a just and equitable settlement in the Congo. Without rancor or recrimination. I would also submit that the use of non-African elements by the United Nations has been a factor which has been largely counterproductive. It is necessary, therefore, that the peaceful objectives of the world community and its collective goodwill should be exercised through the African Community which alone can render meaningful assistance to the people of the Congo. I would venture to suggest that such a delegation of responsibility should also e supported by financial and material contributions to the O.A.U. for the accomplishment of this important objective.

There will be no peace in Africa unless the remaining vestiges of colonialism in Angola, Mozambique, South West Africa, and Southern Rhodesia are eliminated and the peoples of these territories are granted the right to determine their own future. We are happy that two more African countries, Malawi and Zambia, achieved independence during the last year. My delegation extends to them, as well as to Malta, a warm welcome as new members of this world organization.

No reference to Africa can be complete without deploring the grave situation in South Africa which threatens, more than ever before, to shatter peace and plunge the continent of Africa into turmoil and bloodshed. The Government of South Africa has not been deflected from its inhuman policies of apartheid and racial discrimination. Instead, it has let loose a reign of terror against the brave freedom fighters and imprisoned thousands of opponents of apartheid. It has thrown a challenge to world opinion and rejected all appeals and peaceful approaches made to it to abandon its policies which violate the principle of equality between man and man.

Mr. President, the problem of South Africa is not a problem of Africa alone. It is not only an anticipation of tragic consequences that compels our attention to it. In this twentieth century, when science and technology are helping the foundation of a single world community in which peoples of different nationalities, of different creeds, and of different races would live in peace and harmony and work for the collective good of mankind as a whole, it is anachronistic and intolerable that, in South Africa, a government should pursue the policy of dividing main from man on the basis of his birth. This is a matter which endangers the birth of an international community. It is not merely a matter of right or wrong but a matter of fact that the South African situation is a burden on the conscience of the human race. It threatens to arouse passions beyond our comprehension. This is no imaginary fear. Mankind’s abhorrence of massacre and bloodshed is not a matter of controversy. The South African government must be prevented from plunging headlong into a situation that can only lead to death and devastation, and that would make nonsense of our endeavor to provide for our children a better world. Such is the nature and magnitude of this problem and it is for this reason that my delegation appeals to all to take individual and collective action against the South African government. The Government of Pakistan has fully implemented the General Assembly resolution of 1962 and imposed a total embargo on trade with South Africa. I would urge sincerely that the major trading partners of South Africa apply economic sanctions against South Africa to demonstrate effectively their condemnation of the policy of apartheid from which the South African government will not otherwise desist.

I would now like to deal with the region of the Indian Ocean. It is in Asia that actual war continues in the swamps and jungles of South Viet Nam. It is here that the threat of a confrontation between the nuclear powers now exists, carrying with it the risk of world-wide conflagration. It is in Asia, too, that secondary arms races are developing, increasing the danger of involvement by the great powers and diverting the resources and energies of the region from the urgent tasks of economic development. If international peace is to be safeguarded and a system of international security established as envisaged in the Charter of the United Nations, then a beginning must be made by seeking a durable settlement in Asia. Such an Asian settlement, to quote an eminent political commentator, must stretch from the Yalu to the Himalayas. It is imperative that a beginning must be made, however daunting the task.

The most dangerous feature of the Asian situation is that one of the principal countries, in fact the country with the largest population in the whole world the People’s Republic of China is sought to be isolated and quarantined from normal international relations. During the worst phase of the cold war, the line of communications between the Soviet Union and the Western powers was open and a dialogue between them, even if bitter and full of invective, could take place in this organization. But no communication has existed with China. For this reason alone, it should cause no surprise if policies relating to China’s place and role in the world should be based on a lack of proper comprehension. It is imperative, therefore, not only for the effectiveness of the United Nations, but for the sake of the very peace of the world, that the People’ Republic of China should be brought into the United Nations. Only then can a beginning be made towards regulating the situation in Asia and restoring to that vast and conflict-torn continent the peace and tranquility which its peoples so desperately need. Unless this is done and done speedily, there can be no real progress towards meaningful disarmament. In fact, if the deliberations of the United Nations Organization should not continue to be deprived of the voice of a major world power and country with a population of 700 million people, if the unreality of this situation is to be ended and indeed it has to be ended then it is imperative that the People’s Republic of China should take its place in our midst in this organization.

Mr. President, in the United Nations Organization rest the hopes and aspirations of mankind for an orderly progress towards peace and prosperity through justice and equality. It has come to embody our collective dedication to this high purpose. It is the duty of every member to bring to this forum a sense of history and a true spirit of the community of man. Much as we would like to dispense with incongruity and discordance, it is also one of our necessary functions that we should point out the dangers that lie in our path. These arise from policies pursued willfully and in deliberation, policies that are contrary to the purposes of the United Nations, and that threaten to frustrate our collective quest for a better world order. It is indeed with the utmost regret that I now proceed to put on record a series of developments in our region which have the most dangerous possibilities, not only for those of us who are directly concerned, but also for those who live beyond our frontiers.

I draw your attention to the policy-makers of India who are determined to create tensions on their borders and produce an artificial situation for the exploi9tation of international rivalries. They have steadfastly refused to see merit in a policy of justice and equity, which would bring peace to the region and strengthen natural affinities on the basis of honor and goodwill, and thus lay the foundations of a permanent peace, and bring a sense of security to the more than half a billion people of the South Asian subcontinent. The policies being pursued by Indian leaders are fraught with consequences detrimental to the whole world. For historic reason, and because it is the largest of India’s South Asian neighbors, Pakistan is the main focus of Indian hostility. But Pakistan is not the only country in the region to have felt the impact of Indian ambitions and chauvinism. India’s smaller neighbors have had experience of the way in which India can ride roughshod over the legitimate interests of smaller countries when these happen to conflict with her ambitions. It was not for nothing that Senator Senanayake of Ceylon too might fall under India’s domination. Nepal’s natural and legitimate interest in promoting closer relations with other countries has been for long impeded by pressures from India. Sikkim has been virtually occupied by Indian forces and in the once peaceful kingdom of Bhutan, India ruthlessly makes use of financial and economic weapons to interfere in the internal affairs of that country.

Blinded by dreams of revving the imagined glories of the past, India has embarked on a programme to extend her hegemony across the length and breadth of the Indian Ocean from the Hindu Kush to the Mekong. She has thus set her foot on the path of naked militarism and political adventure.

The five year plan of rearmament which India intends to carry out with the assistance of foreign powers will cost the staggering amount of twelve billion dollars.

A vast and fearsome panoply of war in being created in a country whose citizens eke out a life of misery on an average income of 35 cents per day, deprived of the most elementary amenities of human existence. Twelve billion dollars are to be spent on instruments and symbols of power by a country which, according to the recent statement made in Delhi by the Head of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, must depend on the import of food grains for yet 30 years – the lifetime of a whole generation! And yet factories that might produce fertilizers will spew forth gunpowder. Steel that could be used to manufacture tractors will go instead into tanks.

This well publicized augmentation of arms is proceeding with the proclaimed object of defending India against an alleged threat of invasion by China. It is not my purpose to go into the history of the events that culminated in the hostilities between Indian forces and the force4s of the Chinese People’s Republic in October, 1962. A good deal has been written on the subject since then which throws light on the assertion that an innocent and unwary India suddenly became victim of an aggressive and expansionist China during those October weeks. It has only to be recalled that a short while before the outbreak of the Sino-Indian conflict, Indian newspapers announced the order by the Indian Prime Minister to the Indian Army to drive out the Chinese from the disputed border regions and the establishment of a special task force under the command of General Kaul to achieve this objective. Be that as it may, the situation that exists on the undefined and disputed border between the People’s Republic of China and India is one which needs to be settled. Of course, there is no reason for holding that it cannot be settled peacefully. Similar boundary differences have been amicably settled in all parts of the world and, in this very region, they have been settled between China and its other neighbors, like Afghanistan, Burma, Nepal, and Pakistan. The peculiarity of India’s so-called confrontation with the Peoples’ Republic of China is that, while the situation on the ground remains quiet, every now and then a clamor is raised that Chinese troops are being concentrated, air space is being violated, incursions are taking place here, there and everywhere, and that India is about to be invaded. On the other hand, with all this picture of impending and imminent catastrophe, the major portion of India’s forces continues to remain where they have always been, namely, in Jammu and Kashmir, on India’s border with West Pakistan, and all round East Pakistan. Indian military missions come and to in the capitals of obliging great powers seeking supersonic planes, submarines, and tanks, and the like in order to strengthen India’s fighting capacity in the mountains of the Himalayas. Can anyone seriously believe that China is preparing to invade India? Were that so, would China be calmly waiting while India augments her strength through a series of five year military plans? Indeed would China in October, 1962, have voluntarily called a cease-fire, withdrawn from parts of the disputed territory into which its troops had advanced, cleaned, oiled, and returned to India the guns left behind by its retreating troops? Even in the perpetration of this gigantic fiction, they give the lie to their own claims by keeping the great bulk of their fighting forces poised against Pakistan and adding submarines to their naval might. The fact is that the one abiding aim of Indian policy is to establish an Indian hegemony over the Indian Ocean region from the Hindu Kush to the Mekong.

A noted spokesman of modern India, Dr. Pannikkar, has described the outer limits of the Indian sphere of influence in the following words:

“Our vision has been obscured by an un-Indian wave of pacifism. Ahimsa (non-violence) is no doubt a great religious creed, but this is a creed which India rejected when she refused to follow Buddha. The Hindu theory at all times, especially in the period of her historic greatness, was one of active assertion of the right, if necessary through the forces of arms. To the Indian Ocean, we shall have to turn, as our ancestors did, who conquered Socotra long before the Christian era, and established an empire in the Pacific.”

Notwithstanding this open advocacy of a policy of expansion and domination, for a long time the posture of non-alignment served its purpose by enabling India to play off the United States against the Soviet Union. Today the Chinese bogey is being used to project the image of India as a bulwark of security and freedom for Asia and Africa against the so-called Chinese aggression and expansionism. Borrowing the language of the cold war, India now speaks not only of military conflict and invasion, but of a struggle between a Chinese ideology and a so called Indian way of life. This image of selfless devotion to the noble cause of defending freedom and democracy in Asia and Africa does not unfortunately accord with the fact that India has, in the past, made frequent use of force, both military and economic, for the settlement of different with its smaller neighbors. Is it conceivable that a re-armed and militant India will radiate a spirit of peaceful benevolence?

Those powers who are helping to re-arm India in the found hope that India will become an example of stability and democracy are entitled to their illusions. Let us, however, beware of the high sounding platitudes in which India policy is expounded. The reality behind the verbal facade is very different. We get a glimpse of the reality when, after the fall of Mr. Khurshehev and resumption of Sino-Soviet contacts, there was alarm and despondency in India over the stoppage of Soviet military aid. The self-appointed torchbearers of non-alignment now travel under the banner of double alignment and the apostles of peaceful coexistence in their hopes on the continuation of world tensions!

An idea has now been put forward that, as a result of the Chinese atomic explosion, the non-nuclear powers are facing a new and unforeseen danger. It has been suggested that certain nuclear powers should join together to guarantee non-nuclear powers against nuclear attack. What does this proposal amount to? The Chinese lest cannot be said to have created a new situation for Europe or for Latin America. This leaves the Indian Ocean area, at the center of the land masses of Asia and Africa. It is here evidently that the proposal for a nuclear guarantee made by Prime Minister Shastri in London is intended to have its impact. What in fact is the real nature of this nuclear guarantee? “Umbrella” or “shield”, it really amounts to no more than a lining up against the People’s Republic of China of the other nuclear powers. This dangerous proposal would turn the Indian Ocean into a cockpit of great power conflict. This is in direct contradiction with the efforts and objective of Asian and African peoples which are persistently directed towards freeing their continents from any nuclear presence and involvement.

Mr. President, my delegation, therefore, views the Indian proposal with serious concern. It would extend a nuclear hegemony into a non-nuclear area and thereby further complicate the already complex problem of disarmament. For Asia in particular, this would represent a misfortune of the greatest magnitude by bringing the entire continent under the perpetual shadow of nuclear weapons and extending the nature and scope of the confrontation between the great powers. If this dangerous proposal were to find support, it would inevitably have the effect of undermining the sovereignty and independence of the countries of Asia and Africa.

My country is a signatory of the Moscow Test Ban Treaty and we have always hoped that conditions will be created under which testing of nuclear weapons in all environments can be stopped and indeed their use and possession outlawed. The answer lies neither in self-righteousness nor in the sort of ingenious opportunism reflected in the plan of a nuclear umbrella. An agreement for the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons can be b4rought about only if all existing nuclear powers participate in it. If, on the other hand, it is sought to align some of the nuclear powers against others for the benefit of non-nuclear states, or one such state, all the chances of arriving at an urgent, comprehensive agreement will vanish. Even in this respect the Indian proposal strikes at the roots of mankind’s urge to restrict, and possibly to eliminate, the proliferation and presence of nuclear weapons. Where we, the nations of Asia and Africa, intend to reduce tensions, India seeks to add tension to tension. Whereas we desperately need disarmament, India embarks upon rearmament. Where we want peaceful settlement of disputes, India seeks to resolve them by force.

What is needed is a fresh and sincere effort at a general settlement which would attack the problem of international security simultaneously on the front of armaments as well as of the settlement of disputes and differences which are a potential threat to peace and likely to lead to a resort of war.

It is imperative that India must be restrained from involving the great powers in an arms race in the region of the Indian Ocean. It is not only in the context of India’s contemporary aggressive postures and the record of her recent conduct that Pakistan and other neighboring countries feel alarmed. There are historical reasons why the introduction of an arms race in the area causes serious disquiet. It is a historical fact that the British empi9re in India was the direct result of conflict and turmoil among the peoples of this area who were helped to wage war against each other by the British East India Company and its French rivals. The adventures of Clive and Dupleix must not be re-enacted in the twentieth century. This is indeed a matter of serious concern not only for Pakistan and India, but for the whole of Africa and Asia, since it represents a positive danger of outside domination and influence. I do not wish to labor the point, but I would emphasize the need to refrain from military interference in Africa and Asia in the interest of world peace.

If in this connection I refer to Jammu and Kashmir, it is not only because the problem of Kashimri is closest to the heart of Pakistan and because it effects the lives and the well-being of the hundreds of millions of people who inhabit the South Asian subcontinent, nor even because the peace and security of that region are affected by the continuance of this increasingly bitter dispute. I do so because Jammu and Kashmir is, above all, a test of the ability of the United Nations to up to its own high purposes and to meet the challenge to international order and law by states which will set themselves above the law. Jammu and Kashmir is not the only case in which a member state has flouted the resolutions of the United Nations and persistently refused to honor its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations. Kashmir is only the most insidious instance of the way in which the very purpose of the United Nations Charter may be defeated by bad faith on the one hand and expediency and power politics on the other.

Members are aware that this problem, which has been before the Security Council now for years, was again considered last year by that body, at the instance of Pakistan. It was the unanimous view of members that both parties should meet in order to reach a just and honorable settlement of the problems that have prevented the solution of the Kashmir dispute for so long. In his summing up of May 18, 1964, the President of the Council, His Excellency Ambassador Seydoux of France, speaking on behalf of the members of the council, addressed the parties as follows: –

Fifth: The members of the Council expressed the hope that the two parties would abstain from any act that might aggravate the situation and that they would take such measures as would re-establish an atmosphere of moderation between the two countries and also peace and harmony among the communities.

Sixth: The members of the Council expressed the hope that in the light of our recent debate, the two countries concerned would resume their contacts as soon as possible in order to resolve by negotiation their differences, in particular their differences related to Jammu and Kashmir.”

Mr. President, Pakistan has at no moment shown any reluctance to hold bilateral talks with India for the settlement of the problem of Kashmir. In the 17 years during which this problem has festered and grown bitter, more than a score of suggestions have been made by eminent mediators and conciliators appointed by the United Nations in order to bring the parties together and to move the dispute towards a final solution. Each one of these proposals was designed to meet the objections raised by India to the implementation of the United Nations resolutions of Kashmir. But even through every single proposal was accepted by Pakistan, none could be put into effect because of India’s refusal to accept any conditions under which the people of Kashmir would be enabled to exercise, in a truly free manner, their right to decide the future affiliation of the state.

On many occasions, we have held bilateral talks with India Pakistan are even today ready to discuss with India the modalities by which the people of Jammu and Kashmir may exercise their right of self-determination. Pakistan is equally prepared to submit to the opinion of the International Court of Justice, or the arbitration of any other agency, by mutual agreement the differences that stand in the way of implementation of the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir. What Pakistan cannot, and shall never, accept is that the people of Kashmir should be deprived of their birthright and be held in bondage under alien rule.

In occupied Kashmir, repression increases as revolt and resentment grow. The meeting of the Plebiscite Front held in November, 1964, at Sopore in occupied Kashmir itself, reaffirmed the determination of the people of Kashmir to continue their struggle until the right of self-determination is achieved and the intruder expelled from their homeland. The Government of India, having failed to silence the voice of the Kashmiris, was obliged to set free Shaikh Abdullah who for long years languished in Indian jails for no other fault than that he had spoken up for the rights of his people.

Today, as the latest Indian puppet postures on behalf of his masters, the Government of India have cast aside all pretensions and are preparing to absorb Jammu and Kashmir into India by imposing upon it the direct rule of the President of India. This latest defiance of obligations is a clear indication of the lack of sincerity which characterizes India’s relations with its neighbors and in particular with Pakistan.

Mr. President, India is following a deliberate policy of denial of the right of self-determination not only in the case of Kashmir but in its suppression of the valiant tribesmen of Nagaland. As the whole world is aware, this is not an isolated phenomenon where the Government of India is concerned. This is only a manifestation of an earlier trend which was demonstrated by the fall of India’s heavy hand on the people of Hyderabad and Junagadh and by a deliberate and ruthless policy of animosity against Pakistan which the Government of India initiated and followed relentlessly from the birth of Pakistan up to this moment.

I want to declare with all the emphasis at my command that India’s attempt to pursue its policies of national chauvinism in flagrant violation of its international commitments and in open contempt of the principle of self-determination, which is an article of faith with nations and with men of good will throughout the world, will and must be frustrated. A dangerous situation is being created in South and South-East Asia by India’s attempt to set herself up as a successor to a colonial regime. This represents an attempt to reverse the entire history of the liberation of peoples from the colonial yoke and their struggle for national independence which has become enshrined in the conscience of our times.

My country has had to contend with the declared ill-will and active hostility of India at every turn and corner. The world at large, however, has yet to recognize the gravity of the situation caused by the deliberate and inhuman policy of evictions by the Government of India and perpetrated on its own people, which has already resulted in the entry into Pakistan of nearly half a million Indian Muslims. For India it is not enough merely to acquire vast quantities of military aid to intimidate her neighbors. She is prepared to use innocent lives even of her own citizens if they can be employed as an instrument of exerting additional pressure. In this case the victims are the Indian Muslims. The callous and inhuman treatment to which these Indian Muslims are being put merely because they follow the same faith as the majority of the people in Pakistan is a blot on the conscience of civilization. The purpose is clearly to half of Pakistan, a part of the country which already has one of the highest densities of population in the whole world.

Ejected from their homes, deprived of their goods and property, and forcibly pushed across the Indian border into East Pakistan on the unfounded charge that they are “Pakistani infiltrators”, the evicted Indian Muslims present a spectacle of inhumanity. They are a source of grave tension. The Government of Pakistan has done everything possible to avoid a conflagration. A commission of enquiry headed by a retired Judge of the Dacca High Court was appointed by the Government of Pakistan to examine the national status of these persons. The Government of India was invited to send its representatives to sit on this commission but it refused to do so. The commission examined a large number of evicted families and on the basis of documentary and other evidence, it found that the vast majority of the so-called “Pakistani infiltrators” evicted by India were in fact Indian Muslims who owned properties, earned their livelihood and in many cases had voted in the elections, in India. These findings have been borne out by the Jamaat-I-Ulema-I-Hind, an Indian political organization, and by general Cariappa, former Commander-in-Chief of India, who came to East Pakistan last autumn and personally visited relief camps where the evicted Indian Muslims have been temporarily housed by the Government of East Pakistan. It is indeed a commentary on the much vaunted secularism of Indian society and her political institutions that everyone of the persons expelled from India as an alleged infiltrator is a Muslim!

I said here in this Assembly last year that Pakistan was prepared to accept the determination by an impartial tribunal or some other body under international auspices whether or not the persons expelled as infiltrators were really Pakistani citizens as alleged by India or whether they were Indian citizens who have been tuned out from their ancestral homes, deprived of their means of livelihood and evicted for no other reason than that they practice the religion of Islam. This offer was repeated to the Indian government when the Home minister of India and Pakistan met last year to discuss the question of the treatment of minorities in the two countries and the eviction of Muslims of India. The Government of India turned down this eminently reasonable proposal on the ground that it would infringe on their sovereign right to decide the nationality of their citizens.

Now it is true that the right to determine whether a person is the national of a certain country must rest prima facie with that country. In the present case, even if the matter were to be considered in purely legalistic terms, India has no right to determine unilaterally that the persons involved are Pakistanis and then to push them across the border into Pakistan. The matter is not on which ought to be dealt with in these terms.

Eviction of Muslims from India has caused alarm and uncertainty among the 50 million Muslims of India and resentment and bitterness in Pakistan. There are 10 million Hindus in Pakistan. It has been the policy of the Government of Pakistan to make sure that the minorities are enable not only to live in peace and security but to flourish and prosper as honored citizens of the country. It is a matter of the deepest regret to Pakistan that, as a result of the continuing tension between the two countries and the large-scale rioting which took place in various parts of India last year, some disturbances broke out in East Pakistan and a number of Hindus were led by their fears to flee the country. I am happy to say that many of these persons have now returned to Pakistan and many more are returning. Up to the end of last year, more than 50,00 had already returned and been settled in their homes and restored to their properties. There can be no clearer proof of the policy of justice and generosity which the Government of Pakistan is following with regard to the minorities in Pakistan.

By contrast, the fate of the 50 million Muslims and of the other minorities in India is constantly in the balance. It is not only the Hindu revivalist parties who openly advocate an exchange f population between India and Pakistan on religious grounds. Speaking in the West Bengal Legislative Council, the Provincial Chief Minister, Mr. P.C. Sen, stated that the total evacuation of Hindu from East Pakistan over a period of 5 years was possible.

In the context of the complexities of the present international situation, India is pursuing policies which will lead us headlong into an era of darkness and strife. It is our solemn duty to make every possible endeavor to prevent this; and I would like to assure you that Pakistan is determined to spare no effort to resist, and fight against, this threat.

In conclusion, I would remind this great assembly that it is necessary to undertake the task of arresting this rapid deterioration in the interest of world peace. For in the twentieth century, no country stands alone in fighting tyranny. The Afro-Asian world in particular is conscious of the dangers that might flow from this deplorable situation. It has been our sincere endeavor over the years to seek a settlement with honor and justice and thereby protect not only ourselves but our region.

Mr. President, there are forces in Africa and Asia which are positive and represent the wave of the future. Asia and Africa are no longer passive and sterile, led one way or the other, according to the dictates of great power politics. They have emerged with a distinct personality of their own. Notwithstanding the brief period that has clasped since their emancipation, they are not only prepared but determined to play their rightful role in shaping and making their fullest contribution to the welfare of the world community. The historic Bandung Conference played a decisive role in giving substance to the Asian-African personality. My delegation considers it a privilege to announce to this forum with full confidence that the forthcoming conference in Algiers will not only be a milestone in our contemporary history. It will herald the birth of a mighty force which will be wielded for the collective good of humanity at large. It will seek to eliminate the last remnants of colonialism from our region. It will be animated by a spirit of dedication to the progress and development of freedom and justice for all without exception. We have faith that the second African-Asian conference will lay the foundation of a new spirit, a new force, resolute and determined to work for the collective aspirations of the entire human race. We are also confident that the countries of Africa and Asia will draw a lesion from history and proceed to take concrete steps against the continuance of inequality and injustice which has bedeviled the history of man from time immemorial.

In making these assertions, my delegation is fully conscious of the fact that this is indeed the rostrum from which such a declaration should be made, as the Asian and African member-states constitute the majority of the United Nations. It is in this understanding, Mr. President, that we appeal to our fellow member-states that they should, without exception, lend their support, and give their blessing, to the second African-Asian conference that has set itself a historic purpose of such significance. In o doing, they will be expressing their own dedication to the high purposes and the lofty ideals of the United Nations Organization.