Address to the Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on September 30, 1963 (afternoon session)

Mr. President,

It is my privilege to convey to you the warmest congratulations of the delegation of Pakistan on your unanimous election to the high office of President of the eighteenth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Beyond the formal ties of diplomatic relations between your great country and mine lie the intangible bonds of shred attitudes and aspirations which constitute a firm basis of friendship between Pakistan and Venezuela and the vast continent to which your country belongs. I am confident that under your wise and skilful guidance this Assembly, which is meeting in a time of hope and expectation, will advance mankind toward the fulfillment of the ideals for which this organization was established. These ideals revolve around one central purpose; the attainment and preservation of world peace.

Peace alone can ensure human survival and progress. Such peace as the world enjoys today is precarious and uncertain, maintained only by the knowledge that nuclear was will end not in victory but in mutual annihilation. Yet the great powers hold in readiness immense stores of weapons and engines of destruction which serve only to increase tension and mutual suspicion. The first necessity, therefore, is to put an immediate end to this dangerous and self defeating arms race in which the great powers have been engaged for more than a decade. Ever since the end of the Second World War the United Nations have been preoccupied with this fundamental problem.

The decision of the General Assembly adopted three years ago, setting the aim of general and complete disarmament, was an important new development in the search for an enduring peace. However, the subsequent record of the negotiations has not been encouraging. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery have not ceased to multiply. The Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee which has been dealing with this urgent problem has made little progress. That this should be so is no reflection on the endeavors and the good faith of its members. One has only to study the contributions made by many of them to appreciate the value of the Geneva discussions.

May I state, however, that the non-representation in this forum of certain military significant states in the world imparts to its deliberations a degree of unreality. If disarmament is to be general and complete it must obviously be universal. No significant military power, much less a major military power, can be excluded from the scope of its implementation. Nor can it be expected that it would accept the obligation of a disarmament treaty negotiated without its representation.

The treaty to prohibit the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, under the water and outer space, comes as a ray of light in a dark horizon. Our children and generations yet unborn have been safeguarded against the future poisoning of the air they breathe, the water they drink and the food they eat.

In the dark ages, when unwanted children were buried alive, the Prophet Muhammad cried out in wrath; “What will you answer when the innocents that you have slain rise before God’s judgment seat and ask, ‘For what crime were we slain’?”.

Let us hope that by this treaty our progeny and succeeding generations will be safeguarded against the agony of a living death. But as a measure of disarmament the test ban treaty is important more for what it promises than for what it has achieved. As has been well said, it is but the first step on a thousand-mile journey. It does not prohibit underground tests, it does not halt the nuclear arms race, much less reverse it.

At the time of adhering to the treaty, the Government of Pakistan expressed the strong hope that the prohibition of testing would be followed soon by agreements to cease underground tests also and to prevent the future spread of nuclear weapons. Unless these and other measures of nuclear disarmament are taken, the test ban treaty, although welcome in itself, may turn out to be of only illusory value in dissipating the fear of nuclear war from the minds of men. My government attaches the highest importance and priority to the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons as a next step in the quest for general and complete disarmament under effective international control.

In this regard, President Mohammad Ayub Khan gave expression to the concern of Pakistan in his address to the seventeenth session of the General Assembly in the following words:

“An aspect of disarmament which is of deep concern to Pakistan is the clear and present danger of the spread of nuclear weapons and the knowledge of their technology to states which do not now posses them. The General Assembly is aware of this danger. 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.”

In the reluctance of some member states to accept the safeguard system devised by the International Atomic Energy Agency, we find cause for grave concern, particularly when the aversion to agency safeguards is accompanied by the priority plans to produce elements essential to the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Time and again the agency has drawn attention to the increase in the number of countries reaching the stage of nuclear capability and the danger of such capability and the danger of such capability being diverted to war-like purposes. We support the decision of the Governing Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency to recommend extension of its safeguards to nuclear reactors exceeding the capacity of 100 thermal megawatts and to study the question of applying safeguards to equipment. The great merit of international safeguards, as compared to bilateral safeguards, is that, being uninfluenced by political expediencies, they inspire greater world-wide confidence. The objective of an effective system of safeguards should be to insure, by inspection and verification at every stage of the process, from the designing and manufacture of the reactor equipment to the disposal of nuclear material, that atomic power intended for peaceful use will not and cannot be used for other purposes.

While basic differences of both a qualitative as well as quantitative nature continue to persist on the substantive issues of general and complete disarmament and on measures for effective international control, the negotiations in Geneva do seem to my delegation to have opened prospects of limited steps which can be taken immediately. In the past, much controversy existed between the merits of a partial approach to disarmament as against attempts to deal with the problem in a comprehensive manner. We trust that with the conclusion of the test ban treaty, pragmatic good sense will prevail over doctrinaire considerations. My delegation believes that at this stage, the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee could profitably devote itself to the task of reaching agreements on such limited measures as the prevention of surprise attack and the placing in orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons of mass destruction. We welcome, in this connection, the recent agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union for peaceful cooperation in outer space. The United States and the Soviet Union have also indicated their readiness to make mutual concessions in order to facilitate agreements on measures to prevent surprise attack and war by accident. In particular, my delegation welcomes the proposal to establish inspection posts at the main points of concentration and movements of military forces in the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries. We hope these limited steps in disarmament, and other measures such as the reduction of military expenditures and the release of an agreed proportion of funds thus saved for the purpose of economic and technical assistance to the developing countries, could be taken in the atmosphere created by the conclusion of the test ban treaty.

As the speakers who have preceded me have pointed out this Assembly meets in an atmosphere of good-will and hope. We are encouraged by the constructive statements addressed to the Assembly by President Kennedy and the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. These statements contain concrete proposals which we hope will provide a basis for serious negotiations among the interested powers and contribute to a further amelioration of the situation. We see in the test ban treaty a sign and a symbol of the will of the Soviet Union and the Western powers for peaceful co-existence. President Kennedy and Chairman Khrushehev looked into the abyss and stepped back from it. We are told that there is no possibility of co-existence in the ideological field. Nevertheless, as statesmen, they cannot want nuclear war. Their enlightened self-interest demands that they re-establish sanity in the world because the two super states whose destinies they guide must recognize the limits of their power.

The world is asking itself the question: Will the test ban treaty be a turning-point in history? We cannot see past the veil which obscures the future. Dangerous questions are still outstanding. There has been no change as yet in the position of the East and the West on Viet-Nam, Loas, Germany, Berlin and Cuba, even though their frozen positions have somewhat melted. Nevertheless, the world is breathing with relief the new atmosphere of a limited détente which is unmistakable. We pray that in culmination of the current trend a mutually acceptable modus vivendi may be reached between the great powers.

Apart from the East-West tension, serious problems persist and continue to poison relations among nations. As President Kennedy said here the other day, the cold war is not the only expression of tension in this world and the nuclear race is not the only arms race.

In Africa the death-spasm of colonialism and the obstinate pursuit of the false doctrine of racial superiority kindle the embers of old fears and hates. In the Caribbean, which last year brought the world to the brink of catastrophe, there is yet no peace but only a precarious truce. But it is in Asia, with its stormy history, that peace is perhaps the lest secure. This vast and ancient continent, inhabited by more than half of the population of our planet, continues to be the scene of great convulsions which may well change the destiny of mankind. The giant has awakened, still hardly conscious of its strength but capable, as in the past, of setting in motion forces and events that could change the course of world history. From end to end, from the Pacific to the Mediterranean, there is tumult and conflict, Neighbor is set against neighbor, peoples divided by war and diplomacy are made the pawns of forces beyond their control. In Viet-Nam and in Korea, in Laos, in Palestine and in the sub-continent of India and Pakistan, there exist bitter disputes and explosive situations which disturb the tranquility of Asia and the peace of the world. Is it not time to take a new look at the state of this largest of all the continents and to devise an approach that lo0oks beyond the policies of maintaining the status quo AND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES? For the well-being of the teeming masses of Asia and for the sake of the peace of the world it is imperative to find just solutions to the disputes that divide Asian nations.

Among these disputes the Kashmir question has a dimension and an importance of its own, involving, as it does, the future of 550 million people of Pakistan and India, the largest concentration of population next to the of China, and more than one-sixth of the human race. Estranged from each other, the two countries must remain the chief source of danger to the stability of the Asian continent. Reconciled, they have it in their power to assure the future of a large segment of mankind.

While this is no occasion for me to attempt a presentation of the Kashmir question in detail, I must yet remind the Assembly that the central issue in the dispute is that of self-determination. Pakistan seeks no other solution than that of the free exercise of this right by the people of Kashmir.

This principle was accepted by both parties to the dispute. Its implementation has been blocked by one party. We now hear it said that India has made no such co0mmitment. We know, of course, that the easiest way to repudiate a commitment is to deny that it was ever made. However, the commitment, the pledge the word of honor are on public record, which may sometimes be forgotten but can never be expunged. Furthermore, the commitment is not of a vague and general nature, made in some pious declaration, but is explicitly embodied in an international agreement as set forth in the two United Nations resolutions which were solemnly accepted by India and Pakistan and which constituted the basis for the cessation of hostilities in Kashmir. Could any commitment be clearer than the very first article of the resolution of January 5, 1949:

“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”?

The pledge, that the future of Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people as freely expressed, was given not to the United Nations but directly by India to Pakistan. Again, what could be clearer than the following declaration of the Prime Minister of India in his communication of October 31, 1947, addressed to the Prime Minister of Pakistan:

“Our assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order are restored and leave the decision regarding the future of this state of the people of the state is not merely a promise to your Government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world”?

Was any international commitment ever more clearly made, so consistently repeated, and yet more willfully dishonored”

Sometimes, rather than deny the commitment, India’s representatives contend that there were conditions attached to the commitment which were not fulfilled and that Pakistan did not fulfill those conditions. We have said repeatedly that we are prepared to accept any impartial third-party verdict on this issue. It is India which makes an allegation and then refuses to submit it to impartial investigation.

Against the background of the assurances that I have quoted. It will not be difficult to appreciate the concern of the Government of Pakistan, and the indignation of our people, when the Prime Minister of India, as in his statement of August 13, 1963, talks of the idea of a plebiscite as being “old and discarded”.

Pakistan seeks no concession but the right of the people of Kashmir to settle their own future. Let me state clearly and unambiguously from this rostrum that we shall not, now or ever, barter away the lights of the people of Kashmir in return of a settlement on the basis of a division of spoils.

The Kashmir dispute remains the basic cause of conflict between Pakistan and India. The other frictions and differences between the two countries are not comparable in magnitude and gravity to this essential issue which impinges on the viability and future of Pakistan itself. We are confident that all the other outstanding problems between us and our neighbor can be settled amicably if only the Kashmir quarrel is settled.

For more than a year relations between Pakistan and India have been further aggravated by the expulsion of tens of thousands of Muslim citizens of India from their homes in the States of Assam and Tripura across the border into East Pakistan. This problem is being discussed by the two governments through diplomatic channels. It is our earnest hope that it will be resolved in accordance with law and the principles of justice.

It is a cardinal principle of the foreign policy of Pakistan to live in peace and friendship with all its neighbors, without exception. With some of them we have had differences. We have been largely successful in composing them. We have concluded boundary agreements with Burma, India, Iran, and the People’s Republic of China which have resolved border disputes on the basis of mutual accommodation and friendship.

No country regrets more deeply than mine the outbreak of the border conflict between its two giant neighbors, China and India. This conflict has been a matter of deep and direct concern to us. Its repercussions have complicated the problem of our own security. We believe that this dispute can be resolved peacefully. A solution by war is inconceivable; it carries the risk of escalating into a much wider conflict. It is therefore with deep apprehension that we view the radical alteration in the delicate military balance of the region by the augmentation of India’s military strength. Our fears of the resulting danger to the security of Pakistan are not purely psychological; they are deeply rooted in history and flow from the evidence of India’s readiness to resort to military force to settle disputes with its neighbors. Similar fears have also been voiced in other countries of the region.

Pakistan bears no ill will to the people of India. With the people of India, the people of Pakistan have shared a common history for nearly thousand years. During this long period they have influenced each other in many ways. These facts are central in our awareness. They inform our policy towards our neighbor. We are ever ready to continue the search for a basis of peaceful and honorable co-existence through an equitable settlement of all our mutual differences, of which by far the most important is Kashmir.

If war and violence are to be banished, then ways must be found to solve international disputes peacefully. The world we live in is passing through a period of transition and conflict. There are disputes between nations, there are struggles against domination, there are problems created by racial discrimination and by the existence of economic imbalances between nations. These are the tribulation of our age. The United Nations was established not to perpetuate privilege, but to ensure that, through peaceful change, a world community might be evolved in which no nation will dominate or rise against another.

The domination of one people by another is no new phenomenon; however, the organized form which it has taken under the system of colonialism is perhaps unique in the history of the world. The most pernicious aspect of colonial rule is that economic exploitation, which is its basic purpose, was sought to be concealed under the notion of the superiority of one race over another whether as reflected in the brutal form of apartheid or in the more subtle doctrine of civilizing nations, holding empire over distant lands for the selfless purpose of training their backward peoples in the arts of life.

The bitter legacy of these ideas will, we hope disappear with the final disappearance of colonialism. In the newly-independent countries of Africa one sees today men of all races working together in mutual respect and to mutual advantage.

In South Africa alone, the doctrine of racial discrimination is proclaimed as the official philosophy of the state. The rulers of that unhappy country, blind to the evidence of their eyes, deaf to the appeals of the world, and ignoring the march of history, have attempted to halt its course. South Africa could become the hope of Africa; its rulers have chosen to make it the shame of the world. For many years mankind has hoped and prayed that good sense and reason would prevail in South Africa over prejudice and folly. Let us pray that the time for hope is not past, for the ordeal which the South African government has imposed upon all its people can result only in a victory for hate and chaos.

But let us not court disaster by the fond hope that the moral pressure of appeals made year after year by this Assembly will deflect the South African government from its fatal course. The interests of the peoples of South Africa, be they white, black or brown, and of the peace and tranquility of Africa and of the world demand that effective measures be taken to check the inhuman policies of South Africa and to avert disaster.

We welcome the decision of the Security Council calling for an embargo on the sale of any kind of arms to South Africa. We hope that, in their own true interest, all those countries whose close political and commercial links with South Africa place them in a position to put effective pressure on the racist regime will not hesitate too long before doing so. The Pakistan delegation is in full sympathy with the efforts that are being made by the General Assembly and its organs to exert pressures on South Africa to develop a multiracial community in which:

“… the social and legal structures would be dedicated to equality of all before the law, and to the participation of all ethnic groups on an equal footing, in economic, social, cultural and political activities.

All over the world one sees colonialism giving way to relationship between nations based on equality and mutual respect. It is our earnest hope that the Governments of the United Kingdom and the other Administering Authorities will continue to follow the path of wisdom in granting self-government and independence to the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories under their administration, in accordance with the aspirations of the peoples concerned.

It is a matter of the deepest regret that Portugal persists in an attitude which is contrary to the trend of history and at variance with Portugal’s own great past. When the colonial systems of the other European powers are in the process of total dissolution, it is contrary to the laws of life to expect that Portuguese rule in Africa will not pass away. We pray that the leaders of Portugal, who have set their country against the world, will have the vision to see where lie its true interests in Africa and in the world.

In this context, the General Assembly must take note of a historic event which took place in May of this year. Heads of state of thirty-two African Countries met in Addis Ababa and pledged themselves with remarkable unanimity to take active measures in order to liberate the remaining dependent territories in that continent. The conference adopted a Pan-African charter and established consultative machinery. The Pakistan delegation hails this event as the manifestation of Africa’s urge to political unity and the consciousness of a Pan-African community. A historian of antiquity has observed that out of Africa there always comes something new. The nations of Asia, and even those of Europe, which are yet lacking in a similar kind of consciousness of their continents must applaud the peoples of Africa for setting them an example. Pakistan wishes God-speed to free Africa in its search for continental unity.

Eight years ago, in the beautiful city of Bandung, twenty-nine independent states of Asia and Africa met together in the first intercontinental conference of the former subject races in the history of mankind. The Bandung Conference enunciated ten principles of international conduct, including the elimination of colonialism in all its forms and manifestations, to guide them in their international relations. Since 1955, more than a score of dependent peoples have emerged as independent and sovereign states. My delegation believes that, with their distinctive experience, they have a rich contribution to make to the problems which continue to face the peoples of Asia and Africa. Old disputes persist and new frictions have arisen. The time has come, therefore, to convene a second Asian-African conference to review the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the first and to revitalize and renew its pledges which still remain unfulfilled. We have no doubt that a second conference will not fail to make a valuable contribution to world peace.

The passing of colonialism is only the first step towards the establishment of rational and mutually beneficial economic relations between the nations, essential to the well-being of the world as a whole and to the creation of a true international community. This organization, which has made a significant contribution to the liberation of peoples and nations, faces a great challenge in the economic field. The peace, prosperity, and political stability of the world cannot be assured if poverty, disease, and ignorance continue to afflict two-thirds of mankind.

The division of the world into an affluent North and an impoverished South makes for conditions of imbalance and instability. The main problem of the poor countries is not that they are poor in resources or lacking in enterprise. Their problems arise from the fact that, during the period of colonialism, their economies were only developed to serve as adjuncts to the industry and commerce of the colonial powers. It is only in the last decade or so that, upon attaining independence, these countries have turned their attention to the fullest exploitation and development of their resources.

Industrialization is the way to the economic development of under-developed countries, to their ability to satisfy the demands of growing populations for a better way of life and even to the rationalization of agricultural and raw material production.

The task of economic development can be carried out more speedily if their efforts are supplemented by assistance which is demanded not as atonement for past economic wrongs but flowing from a realization of enlightened self-interest. The prosperity of the affluent countries themselves cannot, in the long run, be separated from the economic development of the poorer countries. The need for a common effort to raise the standard of living of the poorer nations is, of course, recognized and I need not labor the point.

We do not believe that a debate on the respective merits of bilateral or international aid programmes would be productive. The needs of the developing countries for capital, for equipment, and for skills are so great that programmes of aid from different sources will supplement rather than compete with each other. For this reason my government believes that the aid programmes of the United Nations are not a substitute for aid received bilaterally and that increase in the size and scope of the former, for instance, through the establishment of a United Nations capital development fund, is welcomed, both because it will contribute to the total effort and because it will widen participation in that effort.

From whatever sources it may come, the flow of capital and skill into the under-developed countries make a vital contribution to their development efforts, as it will take many years for the presently under-developed countries to reach the stage of self—sustaining growth. This aid is gratefully received, but the availability of aid should not blind us to the fact that the primary purpose and desire of the under-developed countries is to attain viable economies.

Almost all the under-developed countries are producers of raw materials or agricultural commodities, on the export of which they depend for the import of goods and services to sustain and develop their economic life. The short term fluctuations for which the markets of primary products are notorious impose heavy losses on the primary products are notorious impose heavy losses on the primary producing countries and add to the difficulties of economic planning. The problem has been made much worse by what appears to be a secular trend of a fall in the price of raw materials and agricultural commodities in comparison with the prices of manufactures and capital goods. In simple terms, this means that the producer in a highly industrialized country is constantly charging more for what he sells to the farmer in the under-developed country and paying the latter less and less for what he has to offer in exchange.

The problem of stabilizing the terms of trade between the industrialized countries and the producers of agricultural commodities and raw materials, therefore, calls for urgent solution. This might take the form of stabilizing the prices of raw materials and commodities, as has been done in the case of coffee, tin, rubber, and some other products, or a scheme to insure developing countries against losses from heavy falls in the prices of their export commodities. It is no less important that the manufactures of the developing countries should not be excluded from existing or potential markets by tariff walls and cartel-like arrangements.

The forthcoming conference on International Trade and Development, which will be held in Geneva next year, will, we hope, make an important contribution towards finding solutions to these problems. Its success will depend on the attitude taken by the industrialized countries in dealing with the problems of the developing countries. We would expect that their own enlightened self interest will prevail over monopolist tendencies and pressures from groups unable to look beyond short-term advantage.

The United Nations is often criticized for its inadequacies. Pakistan has had its share of disappointment. Nevertheless, seeing the United Nations at work in the Congo and in West Iran, who would deny that this organization is a living force and an influence in the affairs of the world? There are few problems between nations which do not, in one form or another, come under the purview of the activities or interests of the United Nations. Whenever nations have sought the assistance of the organization and have given it their honest cooperation, it has been possible to find mutually satisfactory solutions. Indonesia and the Netherlands gave a striking demonstration last year of their faith in the principles of the United Nations Charter by agreeing to the peaceful settlement with the assistance of the organization, of their protracted and bitter dispute over West Irian. That is only an example of what can be achieved when governments are willing to subordinate considerations of sovereignty and narrow self-interest to the common interest of the peaceful settlement of disputes. We note with deep distress that another source of friction has now arisen in the region, affecting three states with which Pakistan has close and friendly ties. We are confident that the statesmanship of the leaders concerned will make possible peaceful adjustment of the situation.

There are many practical ways in which the structure of the organization can be strengthened and its capacity to act made more effective. A more efficient conduct of the work of the General Assembly, in accordance with the suggestions made in the report of the committee set up to examine the matter, is one of the ways in which that can be done. There is need also to strengthen the capacity of the United Nations to keep the peace, and the first essential in this connection is to find ways of avoiding the sort of difficulty that has been experienced in the financing of the peace-keeping operations in the Congo and the Middle East. We are happy that the Working Group on the Examination of the Administrative and Budgetary Procedures of the United Nations has been kept in being and given the mandate of bringing about the widest possible measure of agreement among all member states on the financing of the peace-keeping operations. We sincerely hope that the Working Group will succeed in its task. There is need also that the composition of the main organs of the United Nations, and in particular the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and the Secretariat, should be made more representative of the present nearly universal composition of the United Nations. We cannot but regret that political considerations of an extraneous nature have so far made it impossible for the rightful representatives of China to take their place in the United Nations and thereby make the Organization a truly universal one. We hope that counsels of wisdom will prevail in the end and that considerations of a practical nature, if nothing else, will inspire a more realistic approach to this question than has been the case up to now.

The world has known, in the past, attempts by a single power to impose peace and order in the world. The ancient Persians under the Achaemenians established the first world state in history. Alexander the Great was inspired in pursuit of his world-wide conquests by the ideal of a universal human community. The writ of Rome ran through many parts of Europe Africa, and Asia,. Surviving the dark ages, the ideal of a universal community was largely realized in Europe under dual supremacy of the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor. In the Islamic world, the Caliphate held together diverse peoples and nations for many centuries in the framework of a universal state. Then came Cenghis Khan and following him Timur, who built their world empires on the ruins of great civilizations which they destroyed. They believed and acted upon the credo that, as there is but one God in Heaven, there must be only one ruler on earth. And until recently the sun never set on regions of the earth subject to Pax Britannica.

During the last few centuries, attempts of European powers to establish world-wide or continental domination have plunged mankind into wars of unparalleled suffering and destruction. In the present historical context, the political evolution of the world is oriented towards an international world order based on the consent and cooperation of equal sovereign states.

Can this experiment succeed? Historians who contemplate the contemporary world scene as spectators of all time and all existence do not seem to believe that it will. They look to the imposition of a world order by the unchallengeable power exercised in combination by the two super-states as the only alternative for mankind to self-destruction. In default of such a combination we are warned that in the foreseeable future a third power may well believe itself to be under the mandate of Heaven to rule the world.

Philosophies such as these are a challenge to our faith in the United Nations. The world organization was conceived as an alternative to world hegemony to the domination of one super-power or more over all others. It is inconceivable that in the era of the United Nations sovereign states will acquiesce in an order imposed by the strength of a great power or even that the shape of the world will be decided by the contest of exclusive ideologies or ways of life. We shall do well to remind ourselves, while we are preoccupied with short-term prospective, of the ultimate goal towards which the United Nations must move, if mankind is to be saved from self destruction and permitted to realize the promise of man’s high destiny implicit in his advent.

The Pakistan delegation does not wish to enter into a debate of recrimination and slander. We have done our best, in our own moderate and proper fashion to try to impress upon this audience the importance of the settlement of the dispute on Kashmir as a fundamental problem as a problem that affects the peace and stability of Asia. It is my duty, unfortunately, to take this rostrum again to refute the distortions and allegations that have been made against the Government of Pakistan.

First of all, with your permission, I should like to deal with the question of infiltration – a matter which we consider to be a deliberate policy of eviction of Indian Muslim citizens from India into Pakistan. I would declare here before you that the question whether these people are being evicted or whether they are infiltrators can be decided by a United Nations inquiry commission, by an international inquiry commission, by a Commonwealth inquiry commission, or by any third-party commission agreed to by India and Pakistan. These are ascertainable facts. It can be ascertained by any inquiry commission whether these unfortunate, helpless people driven by the Indian bayonet into Pakistan are Indians or Pakistanis. That is a verifiable fact, an ascertainable fact. The submission of the Government of Pakistan to the Government of India has been that it should kindly stop this genocide and kindly permit its citizens, who have a right under the Indian constitution to live in peace and tranquility on Indian soil, to determine their own future. However, these people, because they are Muslims because the sin they have committed is to have been born with a different religion, are being deliberately driven from their homes and hearths into Pakistan.

We have again and again appealed to the Government of India to hold a ministerial conference on the subject, to hold a high-level conference on the subject, or to allow an inquiry commission to determine the future of these poor, innocent people driven out of their homes, but so far these appeals have fallen on deaf ears. The Government of India has refused to permit a solution of this human problem. These poor, unfortunate people from the States of Assam and Tripura are being driven out of India into East Pakistan, only because they happen to be born Muslims and although they are Indian citizens and under the Indian constitution have the same protection of equal rights as the other citizens of India. I repeat from this rostrum of the United Nations General Assembly that Pakistan is prepared here and now to accept an international inquiry commission into the matter, a United Nations inquiry commission into the matter, a Commonwealth inquiry commission into the matter or any other third-party commission mutually agreed upon by India and Pakistan, to investigate and determine the future of these poor, unfortunate citizens who are being driven from their homes.

We are told that this is a convenient attempt by the Government of Pakistan to reduce its own population so as to remove the disparity in population between East Pakistan and West Pakistan, in order to enable equal; representation in the National Assembly of Pakistan on the basis of parity between West Pakistan and East Pakistan. That is an admission of the fact that there have been elections in Pakistan, that there is a National Assembly in Pakistan that there have been not only one election but three elections in Pakistan as in the great state of India, for Pakistan and India became independent at precisely the same time.

I would now refer to the question of Kashmir. It has been said that the central issue in Kashmir is not that of self-determination but that of the aggression committed by Pakistan in the years 1948 and 1949. That is not a new charge. Indian charges of Pakistan’s aggression were heard by the Security Council and rejected when it decided that the question of Kashmir’s accession should be decided by the Kashmiris themselves. That decision was accepted by India. Can India now go back on its acceptance of the United Nations resolutions, which were adopted after a full hearing was given to India’s charges? Under what notion of justice can a so-called aggression by Pakistan justify the denial to the Kashmiri people of their natural rights to determine their own future? I should like to quote some of the statements of the Prime Minister of India on the question of a plebiscite in Kashmir. The Prime Minister of India said:

“I should like to make it clear that question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this view”

That was stated by Mr. Naehru on October 27, 1947.

The prime Minister of India also said:

“We are anxious not to finalize anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for them ultimately to decide.

“And let me make it clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about the accession of a state to either Domination, the accession must be made by the people of that state. It is in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir.”

That was stated by Prime Minister Nehru on November 2, 1947.

The Indian representative in the Security Council said:

“The question of the future status of Kashmir vis-à-vis her neighbors and the world at large, and a further question, namely, whether she should withdraw from her accession to India, and either accede to Pakistan or remain independent, with a right to claim admission as a Member of the United Nations –all this we have recognized to be a matter for unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir, after normal life is restored to them.”

That was stated in the Security Council on January 15, 1948. The following was stated by the Prime Minister of India:

“… the Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible.”

That was stated by the Prime Minister of India in a letter dated September 11, 1951, addressed to the United Nations representatives. Then again the Prime Minister of India stated:

“We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it.”

That was stated by Mr. Nehru in a broadcast to the Indian nation on November 2, 1947.

Those are the pledges given by no less a person than the Prime Minister of India to his own people, to the people of Pakistan, and to the world at large, both from his own country and in the Security Council of the United Nations. Now we are told that Pakistan has committed aggression in Kashmir. If Pakistan has committed a wrong against the people of Kashmir, let the people of Kashmir themselves decide whether it is Pakistan that has committed any wrong against them or it is the people and Government of India which has usurped their territory and has committed vandalistic plunder against the people of Kashmir. That is for the Kashmiris themselves to decide. It is not for Pakistan or India to decide whether the Kashimirs want to accede to Pakistan or India.

Pakistan does not want Kashmir. We do not say that Kashmir should automatically become a part of Pakistan. We say that the people of Kashmir, like the people of any part of Asia or Africa, should have the right self-determination, that they should decide their own future in a free and impartial way, in a manner which not only the people of Kashmir want but which the government of both, India and Pakistan, have decided in the United Nations by two resolutions of the Security Council. These two resolutions of the Security Council are now being denied, firstly, on the grounds that this would mean Katangization of India, and that a pluralistic state like India would not like to see the Katangization o its country. Nor would we like to see the break-up of our neighbor. Nobody would like to see the Balkanization of a state. But this is not a question of Katanga or of the Balkanization of India. The Indian Independence Act gave the rulers of the princely states the choice to decide their own future in consultation with the wishes of the people. There is no analogy whatsoever between the Balkanization of a country and the exercise of the right of self-determination given to a people and accepted by the other states and agreed to by the Government of India here and to the world at large.

However, another reason has been advanced: that the conditions have changed. The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus has been applied by the government of India to the question of Kashmir. It will be recalled that the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus, which has no respect for agreements solemnly arrived at, which shows contempt for agreements entered into by sovereign states, has usually been advanced by aggressive states, by states like Nazi Germany, which tore up agreements on the pretext that conditions had changed.

Is it for India to be a judge of its own cause? If conditions have really changed, it has to be objectively ascertained by an impartial body. Well, let an impartial body objectively ascertain whether conditions have changed. This is not to be ascertained subjectively at any time on the whim and fancy of the Government of India, which has committed aggression against the people of Jammu and Kashmir but does not permit the people of Jammu and Kashmir to exercise the right of self-determination.

Shaikh Muhamnmad Abdullah, the great leader of Kashmir, languishes in gaol. For the last ten years, this great leader of the people of Kashmir has been rotting in the gaols of India. In that decade, we have seen many nations become free. A decade is a long period. To have the leader of a people in goal for ten years is far too long. Men die, children enter into maturity –and during that time this leader has been rotting in gaol, and the conscience of the world has not been aroused by the fact that Shaikh Muhammed Abdullah, the leader of the people of Kashmir, languishes in gaol. The world is so conscious of the voluntary imprisonment of a Cardinal in Hungary that the President of a country has to mention it. When a great leader of Algeria is in gaol for five years, the whole world is aroused. But here is the case of a great leader of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who has been languishing in gaol for the last ten years-and not a word, not a whisper, is uttered.

The hands of India are soiled with the blood of the people of Kashmir. Let their conscience be clear on this matter. Let them release Shaikh Abdullah. Let them hold a free and impartial plebiscite.

I shall quote from the London Times on the question of Shaikh Abdullah’s detention. The London Times says:

“The trial of Shaikh Abdullah, former Primer Minister of Kashmir, drags on in Jammu, and the hearing of charges of criminal conspiracy is moving more slowly than anybody could have expected – except those who believe that the Government is interested not in a conviction but in continued imprisonment for a man who if released would still be a potent force in Kashmir. The tenth anniversary of the Shaikh’s first arrest was two weeks ago and he has been in gaol ever since except for four months in 1958.

“The charges of conspiracy were formulated after his rearrest in 1958 but the trial began only a year ago. Then the defence was hopefully calculating that twelve months would see the prosecution case completed, although it was known that the state would produce about 250 witnesses. In fact, the past year has seen only a tenth of that number of witnesses completing their evidence.

“At the beginning of this year, speaking for himself and his colleagues in the dock (there are 24 accused persons), the Shaikh protested against the ‘unconscionable prolongation’ of the trial. He said that he believed the state had spent about £2,600,000 on the case and that he was unable to meet the mounting costs of defense.

“In June, the senior prosecuting counsel, Mr. N. S. Pande” – not the defense counsel, but the senior prosecuting counsel “retired from the case. He said that the money for his fees could be better used. The trial, he said, could go on for another five to seven years”

All we ask for in Kashmir is that India honors its pledge. India should stand by its pledge, and no pretext should be advanced to interfere with a humanitarian outcome of this dispute. The people of Kashmir like the people of the rest of Asia and Africa should be permitted to decide their own future according to their own free will.

Whether Pakistan should withdraw its troops, and how many of its troops should be withdrawn, is all that we are willing to submit to any third-party inquiry set up to determine what Pakistan should do and what India should do. In the last fifteen years, we have agreed to all fourteen proposals that have been advanced for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute, and India has rejected all of them.

It has been said that India exercises sovereignty over the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and that this sovereignty is total and complete. It is so total and complete that we had six rounds of negotiations with the Government of India, in which I participated, on the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This is a disputed territory, and it will always remain a disputed territory until justice is done to the people of Kashmir. We shall never agree to a solution which is based on expediency and on brute force. Justice is bound to be done to the people of Kashmir ultimately.

Reference has also been made to India’s conflict with China and our concern over this conflict. We are concerned over this conflict, because it affects two states which are our neighbors. We are also affected by it because, as a result of this boundary conflict. India has tried to magnify the whole conflict so as to receive gratuitous armed assistance from the Western powers. In the last fifteen years, India’s policies, even from this rostrum, have always been directed against Western powers. India has always tried to undermine the interests of the West. And now, all of a sudden, we are accused of a metamorphosis when they themselves are guilty of the most grotesque form of metamorphosis. In fifteen years, from this rostrum and other platforms, India has time and again accused and indicted the West for its policies and today it says that Pakistan has shifted its policies. What shift in its policies has Pakistan brought about? We are still members of the two defense alliances; we still adhere to them. It is India that wants the best of both worlds.

The world has been too kind to India. Time will show that India’s inconsistent policies are bound to come to a dead end, because India cannot continue this policy of duplicity indefinitely. We are members of the defense alliances, and we have obligations under the defense alliances from which we have not withdrawn. India, however, claims still to be a non-aligned country, whereas in fact we know that, as a result of the assistance that it is receiving, its policies are being directed and geared in certain ways for a certain period of time which are beneficial to the Government of India.

We have been accused of taking advantage of the Sino-Indian conflict. I would ask the Assembly: What Advantage has Pakistan taken of that conflict? When the unfortunate conflict broke out and when the Indian armies were on the run and on the run in such a humiliating fashion-Pakistan could well have taken advantage of the situation. But it was Pakistan that restrained itself; it was Pakistan that exercised remarkable restraint and took no action at all. I doubt if any other state in that situation would have restrained itself as Pakistan did at that t5ime. And yet this has not been appreciated. We have been told that we are taking advantage of the situation. As I have said, we could have taken advantage of the situation, but we did not, because we believe in the peaceful method, in the peaceful solution of international disputes, and not in solutions based on armed conflict.

In the last fifteen years, India has committed aggression no less than five times. That is an enviable record: in the last fifteen years I repeat, India has committed aggression five times to settle its international problems. Yet today Pakistan has been called an aggressor. This is most ironic.

We have been accused of having some sort of extraordinary relations with the People’s Republic of China. The People’s Republic of China is a neighbor of Pakistan. We have a boundary of some 400 miles with the Peoples Republic of China. We desire good relations with all our neighbors. Is that wrong? Is that a crime? Is it wrong for Pakistan to want to have friendly and harmonious relations with all its neighbors, in the interest of peace in Asia and in the interest of peace in the world? We have good neighborly relations with Nepal. We have good neighborly relations with Ceylon. We have good neighborly relations with Burma. We have resumed relations with Afghanistan. We would like to have good neighborly relations with India as well, if India were willing to base its policies on the dictates of justice and equity and were not prone to commit aggression against Pakistan, which it has repeatedly called its “Enemy No.1”. The former Defense Minister of India and other responsible people in India, including statesman, have referred to Pakistan as “India’s Enemy No.1” –but last October India came into a clash with the People’s Republic of China, and not with Pakistan.

What has been so extraordinary about Pakistan’s relations with the People’s Republic of China? We have signed a boundary agreement with the People’s Republic of China because we have a boundary with the People’s Republic of China because we have a boundary with the People’s Republic of China. If we had a boundary with Nigeria or with Guatemala, we would sign an agreement with Nigeria or Guatemala. But it so happens that the People’s Republic of China has a 400 mile boundary with Pakistan. We signed this agreement as an agreement between two equal sovereign states, in a spirit of compromise and adjustment. But these are not the methods to which India subscribes. India wants things on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That is why India cannot come to any agreement with any of its neighbors. That is why India wants Pakistan to vacate its illusory aggression. That is why India wants the People’s Republic of China to vacate its illusory aggression.

We have very generously been offered a “no-war pact” with India. Now, much has been made of this no-war pact offer to Pakistan. It has just been offered again. I believe. Recently, during his visit to the United States, the President of India proposed that a no-war pact be signed between Pakistan and India and be registered with the United Nations. It is assumed that its registration in the United Nations would give the pact international validity in law and in morality.

May we ask the Government of India this question: What sanctity has been attached by India to the United Nations resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir to which India is a party? The respect shown by the Government of India for the United Nations resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir makes us highly skeptical about that assurance.

Pakistan is a member of the United Nations, and, as a member of the international organization, we are enjoined by the Charter of the United Nations to resolve international disputes by peaceful means. Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the United Nations Charter are quite clear. Article 2, paragraph 3 states:

“All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered”.

Article 2, paragraph 4 states:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”.

These provisions of the Charter place an obligation on Pakistan and on all other members of the United Nations to settle their international disputes by peaceful means. Are these not, in effect, a no-war declaration? As a member of the United Nations for the last fifteen years, and having resolutely carried out in letter and in spirit the resolutions of the United Nations, and believing that the Government of India also, as a member of the United Nations, is enjoined by this very Charter to settle all disputes by peaceful means, we wonder why, instead of discharging our obligations by deed, we should only repeat in words what we have already so solemnly affirmed between ourselves and before the world organization.

On the eve of the final round of talks, when it was clear that the chances of success were remote, and after making it difficult for the problem to be settled by peaceful means on the basis of honor and equity, India proposed a no-war pact, which in reality means that Pakistan should accept the cease-fire line as a permanent division of Kashmir. If we were to have agreed to a no-war pact, it would have mean that Pakistan agreed to accept the status quo. Such settlement can never be described as honorable and equitable. I repeat: Pakistan will not resort to armed conflict at this time or at any time. But we cannot sign on the dotted line on India’s dictation.

We are one-third the size of India in every respect – in terms of population and territory, in terms of armed, forces, manpower and economic strength. In all respects we are one-third the size of India. Pakistan would never embark on aggression against India, not only because we are a smaller country, but also because it is a cardinal principle of our foreign policy to settle all disputes by peaceful means and through negotiations, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.

From our point of view, it would be repugnant to our interests, to our higher principles to the welfare of our people and to peace and stability in the sub-continent and Asia, to embark on aggression to resolve the Kashmir dispute. We have never taken such action. We were not even tempted to resort to a show of force during India’s greatest hour of humiliation and defeat last winter. This is a sufficient demonstration of Pakistan’s peaceful intentions. I think that very few countries would have restrained themselves as Pakistan did when India faced this disaster on its frontiers against the People’s Republic of China. There can be no better demonstration of Pakistan’s peaceful intentions in words and in deeds than the conduct of Pakistan in the last fifteen years.

What, on the other hand, has been the conduct of India? What has been the attitude of India in the settlement of its disputes? India has the rare privilege of being the only modern state which in fifteen years has resorted on less than five times to armed force to settle its international problems.

In this respect, let us consider the statements of the leaders of India. I hope that the Assembly will bear with me when I repeat what has been stated by Indian leaders on the method of settling the Kashmir problem.

The Prime Minister of India said, on January 21, 1962:

“So far as China and Pakistan are concerned, India is determined to vacate their aggression”.

The former Defense Minister of India, Mr. Krishna Menon, stated:

“You are aware that we have not abjured violence in regard to any country who violates our interests”.

The Congress President, Mr. Sanjiva Reddy, said:

“We have to liberate the occupied areas in Kashmir. We are postponing the issue but we do not accept the cease-fire line as a permanent solution”.

He expected the people in occupied Kashmir to struggle to rid themselves of the usurper and said that:

“within a short period of time the Government of India will choose the correct time to liberate that part of Kashmir which is under Pakistan’s control”.

These are the remarks of those Indian leaders who have offered Pakistan a no-war pact.

We have good relations with all countries, with all the countries in our region. We have tried to resolve our differences by peaceful means with all countries with whom we have had differences. Pakistan will continue to promote peace in our region and peace in the world. We shall not resort to force. We shall live not only by our words but we shall show that our words can be demonstrated in action. It is for the Indian government to adopt similar policies so that we can live in peace.

Our people live in poverty. We want to wipe out the stigma and the vice of poverty. We would like to see cooperation and good-will between the people of India and the people of Pakistan so that we could harness our resources for the good of our people in the subcontinent, and for the good of people in Asia so that we can march forward towards a better order.

It is not the law of God that only the people of Asia and Africa shall live in poverty. Let us cooperate and let us bring about the best of our talents in order to eradicate the stigma of poverty, but this can only be done if there is justice in the world, if people are willing to accept the principles of equality, if they are willing to settle their disputes by peaceful means. It is of no avail to try to cast any doubts in the minds of our friends. We are steadfast friends. We have remained steadfast friends with those with whom we have had friendship, and over the last fifteen years Pakistan has demonstrated that it lives by its words and its deeds.

I pledge here, on behalf of the 100 million people of Pakistan, that the right of self-determination, which is a right which India has agreed to give to the people of Kashmir, will be achieved, and that the people of Kashmir will become the recipients of justice, because that is the law of equity and that is the law of fraternity.