S/PV.1238 Security Council

At the previous meeting, on 4 September 1965, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 209 (1965) calllng for a ceasefire, respect of the cesse-fire Une and withdrawal by ail armed personnel of India and Pakistan to theIr own sides of the cesse-fire Une. 1 am sure that 1 express the feeling of the members of this Council in stating that we unanimously and earnestly hoped that this call would L, !zeded by the parties concerned. 2. It is with tbe greatest regret and with the deepest consciousness Of the gravity of the situation tbat we now take cognizance of the report [S/6661] just presented to us by the Secretary-General. This report Shows chat the Situation iS even more serious and grave that when we last met. 3. The duties of my office as President of the Security Council therefore requiredtbat, in accordance witb the decision tahen on 4 September, 1 act witb dlspatch in convening a new meeting of the Security Council in order to try to prevent any further aggravation of the situation. 1 dld this as soon as reports made clear the extreme urgency of the situation, and I appreciate very much the prompt response of the members of the Security Councll to my convening 0i this meeting. E If was SO decided. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopfed. The meeting was suspended af 3.45 p.m. aad resumed af 6.15 p.m. The Indic-Pokistan question Telegrams dated 1 September 1965 from !he Secretary-General addressed to the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan (~46647); Report of the Secretary-General on the current situation in Kashmir with particulor reference to the cease-fire agreement, the cesse-fire line and the functioning of the United Notions Military Observer Group in India ond Pakistan (S/6651)

In accordance wlth the decision taken at our previous meeting, 1 propose to Invite the representatives of IndiaandPakistantoparticipate in the discussion of the question on our agenda. Af fbe invifafioa of fhe Presideaf, Mr. Chandra shek3m.r Jha fIadia) and Mr. Amjad A!i (Pakisfaa). fookplaces af fhe Council fable.

1 now calI on tbe repr?sentative of Pakistan. 7. Mr. Amjad AL1 (Pakistan): The invasion of Pakistan by India is an event to which there is no parallel in the history of the United Nations. It is not only a most brasen aggression on the territory of a Member State; it is a deliberate transgression of the very purposes and principles of the United Nations. 8. Not since the combined strength of the allied nations vanquished Hitler% hordes has the world been witness to a Power as crased and cruel and contemptuous of the rights and existence of small nations as India under its aggressive and militant régime. What Hitler and the Nazis did in Europe, India has taken upon itself to do in Asia. 9. This morning, India flung down the gauntlet to aIl the nations and peoples of the worldwho value freedom and abhor war. If Pakistanhas acceptedthis challenge, it was done SO not only on its own behalf but also on behalf of every nation whioh has a stake in the principle of independence, equal sovereignty and selfdetermination of peoples. The severe test whioh my nation faces now is what will bring it glory in the eyes of those who would die rather than surrender before a perverse and predatory Power. 11. Pakistan is one-fifth India’s sine. This is one basic fact which should not be fOrette” on this occasion. I repeat, Pakistan is one-fifth India’s sise and immeasurably smaller in military capacity and economit potentlsl. This fact has bee” a” element in our constant, collectiveawareness. Thatwehaveneverlost sight of it is proof enough of the utter absurdity of any notion tbat we couldevensecretlyharbouraggressive designs upon India. Our President has, time and time again, in public and in private, expostulated witb his owu people sud with the leaders of India abat the imxmity of war behveen India and Pakistan. But while we are, and bave always been, conscious that we are much smaller tha” Indla, and ca” much less boast of armour, we bave “ot on that account been prepared to countenance India’s usurpation of Kastiir. Geograpbically small sud militarily weaker though we may be, we are “ot orave”. We bave “ever hesitated to challenge India’s annexatio” of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, whlch is against the wishes of its people and in utter contempt of the solemn international agreement contained in tbe reeolutio” of 5 January 1949u that the accession of the State to India or to Pakistan shall be determined by a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the direction and control of the Unlted Nations. In tinies of tranquillity as much as in times of turbulence, we bave knocked at the doors of the Security Council, asking notbing but that thls agreement be implemented, this pledge be fulfllled, this trust net be allowed to be betrayed. And while we bave too often been disappointed, we bave “ever denled the assurance to the dovmtrodden people of Kashnrir that they wi11 not be abandoned to a fate of oppression under India~s colonial rule. We bave reminded tbem again and again that there is a United Nations, that there is such a thing as the sanctity of international agreements, that ail the world Powers are committed to the principle of self-determlnation of peoples, that these Powers bave vowed the liquidation of colonialism, and that the pledge of allowing the people of Kaslunir to decide their future without any pressure or intimidation from outside is a pledge as much from the Security Council as from India and Pakistan. We bave assured them that, in tbis day and age, deoency is bound to prevail in international affairs and that tbis pledge Will net be dishonoured. 12. If tbls is a crime, we plead guilty. And we willingly submit ourselves tu the bar of public opinion in the world. 14. The first manifestations of this policy of the Indian Government were political. It will be recalled that the Security Council held a series of meetings On the India-Pakistan question in early 1964, duriug whioh Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, the leader who advocates the right of the people of Kashmir to determine their destiny, was released. The Seourity Counoil weloomed this development and all members expressed the hope that Sheikh Abdullsh’s efforts would be allowed to bear fruit in a just and honourable settlement of the Kashmir dispute and a reoonciliation between India and Pakistan. At the end of its series of meetings, the Counoil appealed fora climate of modernation between the twooountries. Onour part, the Fore@ Minister of Pakistan even offered a moratorium on a11 contentious issues between India and Pakistan SO that the new leaclership in India would bave time to settle dovm. Somehow, we enoouraged a birth of hope in Pakistan tbat sane oounsels would prevail in India and that the dark shadows hanging over the subcontinent might now be Bghtened. 15. What was lndia’s response? How did India reaot tc tbese currents of good will from oui side? It first started a propaganda barrage againstSheikhAbdullah. Then On 4 Deoember, the Home Minister of India announced that his Government had decided to annex Kashmir to India in suoh a mariner as to make it impossible for the people of Kashmir ever to exercise their right of self-determination. The protests of the people of Kashmir, and our own, were answered in May by India% act of putting Shelkh Abdnllah baok in prison. 16. This was just the politioal prelude to military moves which soon followed. The Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Shastri, stated in Lok Sabha on 28 April that “If Pakis@n does not listento reason” - implying that if Pakistan does not aooept Indian diotation in the Rann of Kutch dispute-“Indian Army will deoide its own strategy and the employment of its manpower and equipment in the manner which it deems best.” This threat was repeated by other Indian leaders. Following these open threats, Indian troops massed in offensive positions along the borders of West Pakistan and East Pakistan. These warlike preparations and hostile moves againsf Pakistan were taking place whilst negotiations were inprogress for a peaoeful settlement of the Rann of Kutoh dispute. In order to facilitate these negotiations, Pakistan restrained its forces in the Rann of Kutch from advancing to the 24th parallel-where theIndla-Pakistan border lies-following the surrender of Biar Bet by Indian forces on 27 April. It is important to remember 17. On 17 May, Indla’s forces deliberately cmssed the cease-fire line in Keshmir in the Ksrgil area and occupied three posts of the Pakistan side. This tbreat, as well as the act of movlng a brigade tim the Aksai Cblh front and a mountain division tirn the Nefa area, where Indlan forces weresupposeùtoguard Indla on the Chinese border, were two olear pointers to Indian designs on Kasbmir. 18. Al1 this had notldng t0 do With the so-caIIed infiltration of armed men Into Indian-cccupied Cashmir. what was the truth about tbis so-calIed infiItration? We declared solemnly befors the SeCretaIy- General that no troops of Pakistan or && KasbmIr crossed the cesse-fire Rne. India alledged otherwlse. But we vindicated our stand when we suggested that Mr. Ralph Bunche, tbe personal representative of ths Secretary-General, prccsed withsnunrestrictedma date tc bcth parts of Kasbmir and examine the situation for himself. If there was any truth in Indla’s allegatiens, why dld India fight sby of the prcposed mission of Mr. Bur&e? 19. The fact la that thls alibi that Indlan action in Kasbmir in August had the limlted objective of stcpplng the so-called infiltrators was meant only tc delude tbat outside opinion whicb is net conversant with the reslities of India and Pakistan. Otherwlse, how dld it happen that Indla mounted an offensive in Kashmlr wbich far exceeded the action of thefreedom fi+?rs in Kasllmir? 20. As the Security CounclI is well aware, the cesse-flre Une in Kashmlr had been in a state of agitation for almost a year, with mumerous violations on bath sides. A technical report fmm the Ur&ed Nations Military Observer Group inIndia snd Pakistan (UNMOGIP) could net brlng out the relative magnitude of these incidents. It is one thing for the cesse-fire Une to be vlolated: it is snother for the part of Kasbmir on one side of the cesse-fire llnetobe invaded. There is a dlfference between violation and invasion. 21. It was India that staged an invasion In Kashmir and thus reduced the cesse-fire line to a nullity. Tais was done with public fanfare. On 14 August, India% agent in Kashmir, Ghulam Muhammad Sadlq, whom it designates as Prime Minister of Kashmir, said that the invasion of & Kasbmir could not be ruled out. On 22 August, the Prime Minlster of India said that India would carry the fight to ths Pakistan side. On 23 August, the Defence Minister of India stated in the Indlan Parliament that Indian troops had in the past been crossing the cesse-fire Iine and would do SO again if necessary. The same day,Indian forces shelled the village of Awan Sharlf in West Pakistan, killing twenty civllians and woundll tbirteen, includ- 22. As The Times of Londonreportedon2September: “India has for the past few weeks been enjoying accounts of the victorious advance into Pakistan territory. n 23. Faced with this clear aggression, what did Pakistan do? We remained patient for two weeks. Our army refrained from crossing tha cesse-fire line. We even refrained from giving air support tc isolated posts in the Uri-Punch ssctor, which faced overwhelming lndian fcrces unaided. 24. But India was not stopped from its deliberate course by our moderation and restraint. When we found that our controlled reaotion could not bring sanity to India and we were forced to take defensive action in the Chhamb area of Kashmir to forestall further aggression, Indiawasthefirsttothrowaircraft into combat and tbus make a.nother move towards the escalation of the conilict. 25. This brief account clearly shows that until yesterday there were the followlng outstanding facts of the present conflict between India and Pakistan: India was the first to destroy the atmosphere of moderation which was sought to be established behveen the two countries; India offered gratuitcus provocation to Pakistan as much as to the United Nations when in December 1964 it proceeded to annex Kashmir SO as tc thwart for ever the self-determination of the people of Kashmir; Indiacommitted a blatant act of aggression when, in May, it seized three posts on the Pakistan side of the cesse-fire line in the Kargil area of Kashmir; India announced on 29 April that its army would chcose a place advantageous to it directly to strike Pakistan; India was the first to cross the cesse-fire line in Kashmir; India was the first to bring aircraft into the fighting and thus enlarge the conflict. 26. These were the outstanding facts of the Indian- Pakistan situation until yesterday. But they are exceeded, though not eclipsed, by today’s events. On thesc events, 1 cari do no better then quote the words “We always knew that these arms would be raised against us. Tlme bas proved thls ta be so. “NO~ that the Indian rtiers with their customary cowardlce and hypocrisy bave ordered their armies tn march iato the sacred territory of Pakistanwlthout a formal declaration of war, tlmr bas corne for us to Qve them a crushing reply which will put a” end to India% adventure %I imperialism. “The brave people of Lahore bave been chose” as the flrst to confront the enemy. They will remaln in history as the people who delivered the last blow to destroy the enemy. The hundred mill.ion people ,-f Pakistan will net rest until Indla’s guns are sllenced for ever.” 27. The actual events reported PS far are that the Indhm ArmylaunchedanattackonPakistazterritory on the Lahore front early this mor”l”g. This was preceded by heavy artillery shelling. Trie Indizm Air Force strafed a stationary passenger train “esx Waztrabad rallway station. The President of Pakistan bas described this outrage as a grim sequel to Indla’s wilful acts of aggression. 26. 1 should like to quote from paragraph 4 (g) of the Scecretary-General% report [S/6661]: “General Nimmo reported in the early morning of 6 September that the following information had pst been received from the CGS Pakistan Command: ‘On 6 September 1965, at 5 a.m., Indian troops bave attacked across the West Pakistan border from Jassar Bridge (Pathankot area and south to Solaimanke). Major attacks Lahore, Sialkut from Jassar and Kasur from Femzepore (all in Pakistan). Estlmateù strength whole Indian Army less four divisions.’ ” 29. 1 understand from news reports chat Indla is maklng use of several pretexts to justify its treachery. One of these is that a Pakistani plane strafed a” India” base in Amritsar yesterday. 1 totally and vehemently deny that allegation. Another is that our forces crossed the “internationalfrontier” into Jammu and Kashmir. Let me make it clear that there is no inter”atiF:al frontier between any part of Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan. Jammu and Kasbmlr ls not a State or province of the Indian Union but a territory in dispute whose disposition is yet to be determined according to the law of the United Nations. There in no international frontier betwee” Pakistan and I<imaginatian Selon portée pas rait du au les Hitkr dirigeeaots adeptes ravvagé raa&itm 1% même de contre cela valables dicatlons cière. de que Et maintenant. evexy Mer, ignm$ng n WhlCh R?oula faci?li- ïntera5tional agree- Mutions of tbe United Matio0.s Commission for Iadia and Pakistan of 13 August 19482f and 5 January B949,U jointly accepted by.Pndia and Pakistan. The agreement m%kes it the firm ob&gation of India and Pakistan to demilit%tize Kssbmir and en%ble a free anrd impartiai plebiscite tlaere. 32. TMS is tilt? fou pidure of Kndia’s poliey towarcis Pakistaa and other neigbbowPng peuples. We bave hmwn since the establishmémt of India and Fakistan as two sovereigm States tb& tbe mental@ oflndian ruk?rs bas always souglat to undo the partition of Britisb India, effected by agreement in 1947, and to mnex Pakistan. Tbey bave always givenbints to WS, 33. 1 can assure you tbat every sou1 in Pakistan echoes these words today. 34. At this grave hour Pakistan appeals to ail free and freedom-loving countries to give us their fiill support in the exercise of our inherent right of individual and collective self-defence, recognised in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. As the Foreign Minister of Pakistan has said in his message of 6 September [S/6669] to you, Mr. President, Pakistan will exercise this rightuntil tbe Security Council has taken effective measures to restore international peace and security bY vacating India% aggression against Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir, which India bas forcibly and illegally occupied inviolation of the United Nations resolutions. The aggression unleashed by India against ouï country poses for the United Nations one of the most serious challenges to its very basis. The situation calls for action by the Security Cou&l immediately, including enorcement ction to put an end to the Indian aggression and to restore international peace and security on the basis which 1 bave just stated. This is the only way to secure a lasting peace in the region.

The next speaker on my 1iSf is the representative of India, the Foreign SecretarY of that country, Xlr. C. S. Jha, whom 1 welcome te this Council table and whom 1 now recognise.

1 am most grateftd to you, Mr. President, for your welcoming words, and 1 ~UT grateful to the Council for giving me the opporfunit~ of expounding the position of my GoVernment. 37. 1 have just heard the statement of tbe representative of Pakistan. IIe spoke witb emotion and witb a great deal of rhetoric. But rhetoric is no substitute for facts, and what the Council and wbat the whole world bave to apply themselves to are the facts of the situation. 1 will briefly answer some of the points tbat he made, later, but to begIn with, maY T h~w vour nermission to read out the text of tha message dated 6 September from the Minister Of EXretary-General contained in bis report temba- [S/SS$l]. Further, neitbertbe resoluthe discussions which precededthe adoption reeolution toak mte of the fact that on ember Pakistan viola%d tbe international south of the cesse-fire Iine between tbe Jaurian sector continues, tbis attack, directed as it v+s.~ by re@lar forces of tbe Pakistan Army towards paining territory and cuttii tbe vital lines of commumcation bebxeen tbe lest of brdfa a.nd tk Idian state of Jammu and KasW, bas ebanged the eettie chara.cter of tlke situation The offensive action in the Cbbamb an-sa was beine fed by bases in Pakistan along tbe bord& of Pal&~ ta.0 witb the State of Jammu and Kasbmir. Therf were stmng coooemtratione of PakistmPorcesonthf western fmntier between India and Pakistan. Or 5 September, after tbe resolution of the Security CoamcÏl calling for a cesse-fire, Pakistan air- C&t bombed an Indian Air Force unit in Amrttsar in the kiian State of Punjab. Pakistan aircraft a&< bombed Ranbiirsinghpura and otber places inJamtm and Kasbmir well away from tbe cease-fire line It vas obvious tbat Pakistan was preparing for at offensive against bulia in a big way and a situation was created in wbich action restricted to Jammt and Kaslmdr conld no longer meet the need o “In resolution 200 (1965) the Security Council “Calls uaon the Goverament of Ir&a andPakistan to take fortbwith ail steps for an immediate ceasefire’. “This cesse-fire is posited on the condition mentioned io paragraph 2 of the resolution wbich “‘Calls upon the two Governments to respect the cease-flle line and bave all armedpersonnelof eacb party withdrawn to its own side of the Une’. ‘It is the view of the Government of India that, if a cesse-fire is to be brougbt about andpeace restored, the withdrawalofthe’armedpersonnelofeachparty’, referred to in this paragraph, must include all infiltrators from the Pakistan side of the ceasefire line, whether armed or unarmed, beoause, as stated by tbe Prime Minister of India in his reply to tbe Secretary-General, the present hostilities originated with large-scale infiltrations of armed and unarmed personnel from Pakistan, and ontil the activities of such personnel cesse and until such personnel are withdrawn from the Ind,ian side of the cesse-fire line, peace carmot be testored, for which Pakistan must accept iûll responsibility. “It has been stated by the Secretary-General in paragraph 15 of his report of 3 September, that the restoration of the cesse-fireandareturnto normal conditions along the cesse-fire line cari be achieved inter alia by: *l’(a) A willingness of bath parties to respect the agreement they bave entered into; “‘(b) A readiness on the part of theGovernmentof Pakistan to take effective steps to prevent crossingof the cesse-fire line from the Pakistan side by armed men, wbether or not in uniform.’ “Tbese findiis of tbe Secretary-General, based on tbe reports of tbe UNMGGIP. established beyond any doubt tbat Pakistan committed aggression against India across the cesse-fireline. This aggressiun began in its massive form soon after India agreed to withdraw and withdrew from tbe Kargil area, considercd strategioally vital to tbe security of the Srinagar-Leb road, on the assurances given by Pakistan through tbe Secretary-General that tbe security of this road would net be endangered by Pakistan. But as stated by the Secretary-General wesent situatioa and -Generlal Nibas indicated to me that tbe series of violatians tbat b8xs.n on 5 Ausust were to a ce%asideraMe extent . . . in tbe form Of armed men, m ly Mot in unifortn, cmssiog tbc case-fire lim? fizom tbe Pakistan side for the purpose of armed actioa on t&e Indian side. Tbis is a conclusion reached by General Nimrno on tbe basis of investigations by tbe United Nations observers, ia tbe U@t of the extensiveness and character of tbe midbg actitiaes and tbeir p-ity to tbe cesse-fire line.. . . As regarde violations by artillesy, there vas beavy and pmlonged artlllery S the Hne from tbe Pakistan side in the bimbar area on 15 and 16 August, and 26 Au@&& the town of Punch was shelled Pakistan side, some of the shells hitting oecupied tbe United Nations milltary observas. Pakistan artillery again sheIIed the l%UnCb on 26 August.. . . lt is llkewise contbat as of 24 August armed elements from Pakistan were still occunvins Indian wsitions (pickets) nortb of Mandi in the Punch sector of 1 the cesse-firire Une.’ “Tbe Secretnry-Geneml’s report bas also stated that Urdted Nations military obsemers bave conftkmed tbat on 1 September, the Pakistan army suppmted by arGUery and air force attacked the Chhamb area of the Jammu-Hangar sector; and on 2 September attacked Jaurian village across the international border between India and Pakistan. ‘*T~US, agression by Pakistan has been clearly established by the independent autbority of tire Unlted Nations and it is to be regretted tbat tk Seeurity Council bas net taken this into oonsideration or asked Pakistan to withdraw from across tbe international border south of tbe ceasefire line and to respect the international border between Indla and Pakistan. “We the Secretary-General in his recommendations to the Security Council referred to above bas sougbt willingness of bath parties to respect ‘The Secretary-General, in the secondrecommendation c>ntained in paragraph 15 of bis report. has urged categorically that the Government of Pakistan is to be asked to express its readiuess %o take effective steps to prevent crossings of the cesse-fire line from the Pakistan side by armed men, whether or not in unlform’. It is obvious from this that. as stated in the reply of the Prime Minister of India to the Secretary-General, the present situati.on has arisen not from any armed revoit in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as wrongly alleged by Pakistan, but as a result of &Y c!anbemadetorestorepeaœinthe ammu?mdKaalmur. ‘T&t+avermœntofIndlaisoftbefirmvlew thatauimmedlate txaœ-m and tbe implemeutatlœ cg ppragrapb 2 of Eeœrity couœll reeolutlon 209 (1965) œnbebmlghtaboutœlywben-tan takœ &ei3tivestepsrDstopfulthercrosslngsof theceaF~fir%llœfromthePaklstœsideby armedanduœrmed persœœl. civil agdmilïtazy, whetherornotblunlforz4andalsoïmmediately removesàomthehdlsnsideofthecease-flre liWl&llSUCb perœœelwlvJhave~uvssed the cesse-fire lins. Pakistan must also vaoate 7d~ti~E~Cf-b -. f-W occupied w macrœsthe intarnathnal border, and torespeotin future the intemafioœl bor&r hehveen India sud Pakistan. Furtbermore, Iudla wwld bave to be sati&edthattherewillbem reœrreœe of such a situation bsfore a cesse-fire œn be effœtive sud peaœ rssrn.” 58. Tlds message from the Mini&er of External Affsirsillreplytothe8ecretaly-Geœralglvesthe pœitlon of my Govermœnt witlk regard to the matter tbat is bef’ore the Securily Couucll-iwidentally, I uotethattherelsmrespousefromPakistau.Althugh moredetail*themœsageœntaiœsubstantiallythe same points tbt were made kq the prime Miuister ofhdla iabismessageof4SeptembsrtotheSecretarg-General. Our positlou bas iherefore beeu made clear behre tk Cœncil. sud 1 bave notldug more toaddintbatrespect. SS. Nœ’, with the permlsslon of the President, 1 pàwld like to say a few words about the rhetorical, hWy colœred ad, in many instances. false statemenls made by the represeutative of Paklstau. He tahd about Pakisku’s beïï one-fiftb the sise of India. 1 thluk that perhaps tbat is artbmetically a Httle wrcmg, but œvertheless a is cmmt that Pakistan is smalkr in sise than Iudia. But what do ~s~today?Weœrtahlydoœtjudgeaco~try byitssize.AlargpaumtqandasmaUwmwy~ bath Me&~+rs Of tbe Uuited Nations sud enjoy sovereign equalitp: tbey are equals before the international œmœmïty. But today we fïnd tbat Pakistan hœ mœated au aggression agalœt India with the help- ~IJwetomentïor1thisreg1~tfuHy4f~eapon~ ObUïœd fmm its ally by dezeitful means tbroughout tbese Y-. These weapoœ were obtaiued for other puposes. tut May tbey are belng uœd agaiœt the 80~ of India, agaœt frie.nds of the united States, h m action widch is apatmtemmpk0fagre~~i0~. 41. The representative of Pakistan has also iguored and forgotten, although the world has net forgottenand certahdy we bave net forgotten-the invasion of Jammu and Kashmir by Pakistan in 1947-1948. The Council wilI recall-or certainly the permanent members of the Councll-that at that time the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which is an integral part of the Indian Union juridically and in fact, was invaded by Pakistan, and that for months Pakistan refused to admit any hand in that invasion. Beforethe Security Council, its representatives solemnly and on several occasions denied any complicity in the invasion of Kashmir, any complicity hithe activities of the raiders who had corne across the boundary between Jammu and Kashmir, on the one hand, and Pakistan, on the other. But truth cannot be hidden forever. Seven months later, in July 1948, when they realised that it was no longer possible to hide the fact of their complicity, they admitted before the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan that the Pakistan Army had been in Kashmir in the strength of one or two brigades-I cannot recaIl now which it was; that they had been there, and had been there for several months. 42. That, of course, happened several years ago. But the consequences are still with us. Today, Pakistan occupies two-fifths of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, without the slightest shadow of legal right, and its occupation is based solely and entirely on force. That is aggression, which we shaI1 not forget. The Council may bave forgotten that-there have been tendencies sometimes to forget-. it-but we cannot forget. That is aggression, andthataggression is continuing today. 43. Not content with that aggression, Pakistan has engineered aggression in the form of massive infiltrations of armed personnel, the fact of which cari no longer be doubted in the conter& of the report of the Secretary-General and the reports of the United Nations observers. 44. 1 would request the Counciltopausefora moment and consider the enormity of this action. India is a peaceful State. It does not want to get into any trouble with its neighbours; it has no designs on its caphued prisoners. by photographs of weapons snd of mm who bave been captured-to commit sabotage, a-son, murder and pillage, to dfsrupt tbf? lines of communication, to harass the Indkm Army and to create an internal uprising. These are the motives with which these people came into our territory. 45. Isaidamom~tagothatthisisamattertobe paused over andpondered. Is itpermissible for a State, a neighbouring State, to send thouesnds of armed personnel into another Slate to commit illegaI sots? Does that net amotmt to aggression? Does that net amount to a flagrant violation of the Charter? 1s it net against sll principles of peaceful coexistence? 1s it not contrary to the numerous international declarations-the Bandunn Declaration. the Charter of theOrganinationof AfricanUnity, the Cairo Deolaratien, and numerous other declarations-which bave been adopted by nations and which today embody the ethos, the ethics of international life? Surely, that sort of action cannot be permitted. If it does oocur, a sovereign State ls obliged-it bas net only the rig@, bot the duty-to defend itself against this kind of aggression. 46. That is ail we did. The infiltrators who came into oui territory were dealt with in acoordance with the normal way of dealing with law-breakers, which is the right of every State. But t’en, these people kept on comitig. We made it quite clear-the representative of Pakistan has even quoted some statements by my Prime Minister and others-that this was a most worrisome situation for us, a situation of patent and naked aggression-a situation which is wt permissible for a neighbouring State to create under the Charter of the United Nations, or under any other code of international behaviour. Therefore, we had to take action to meet tbis situation. We were faced wtth an endless chain of men being sent over the frontier. We pushed them back, they continued to corne Into our territory. Therefore, we had to take military action; we had to take defensive neasures which would net only enable us to deal with these people in oui territory but, even more important, which would enable us to stop these : I filtrations. We made no secret of this; as a matter of fnct, oui representatives bere informed the Secretary-Genersl of this development. 47. The most curious feature of this whole business is the fact that Pakistan denies completely any knowlege Of these armed infiltrations or of despatching these infiltrators. Accordiig to PLustan, they do net exist; according to them there is a mythical revoit in Kashmir. 48. Today, the whole world knows, however, as bas been testified to by foreign and independent observers, 49. While the Secretary-General was makingearnest efforts, in consultation with tbe representatives of India and Pakistan, to find a way out of tbis dffficult situation-even wbile tbese efforts were being made- Pakistan, on 1 September, mounted a terrifie attack: two reglments of tanks, to begin v&b=-extremely letbal weapons which they had deceitfully obtained from their allies for otber purposes-a most severe onslaught, partly across tbe cesse-fire Iine, partly across tbe international frontier between Jammu and Kasbmir, and today, they bave penetrated sometbing like twenty miles, or even more, and are tbreatening our lines of communication with our armed forces in Kashmir, and also the lines of communication in general between Jammu and Kasbmir and India. Tbis they cal1 defensive action. 50. These words-wdefensive action”-are in current use. Yet, if there is one tbing history bas tac@, it is tbat aggressors, when they use those words, use them for a different purpose: to camouflage tbeir aggression. 51. In the broadcast on 1 September, President Ayub Khan, while reiterating the denial of any knowledge of infiitrators, or of any responsiblity for these armed infiltrators, and in announcing the invasion of the Chbamb area, into Jammu, went on to say tbat Pakistan forces were obliged to go into Jammu and Kashmir to help the so-called freedom fighters. 52. Mark these words. This is not defensive action; he does not state he went there to defend Pakistan. He went there to help others whom he thought were freedom fighters. This is sot defensive action. By the very words of the President of Pakistan, the action tbat Pakistan has taken-the great military throst supported by tanks, heavy artillery, aircraft, etc., as a result of which Pa&tati forces bave uenetrated many miles into our territory-could not*be called defensive action. It was offensive action. Tanks are usually usad for offensive purposes in such a mariner. It was aggression, wbatever may be the reason or justification in their own eyes for that action. 53. The representative of Pakistan has also desied that there is an internaional frontier between Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan. The State of Jammu and Kashmir is a part of the Indian Union: 1 repeat this, as it has b@en repeated @zens of times before this Cou&l. And if we bave to repeat it again, we do SO because it is our sacred rigbt and our sacred 54. India bas the rIght to defend itself. As prime Minister Nehru stated, sevexd years agc, an attack on JS.UUUU and Kashmir is an attack on India. IIe was stating an obvicus fact. but wanted to emphasiae it because the eyes of our predatory neighbour bave always been cast oo Jammu and Kashmir. 55. As you know, th@re is a cesse-flre line, wbich of course ls not an lnternationaI frontier: it is a lin@ arising out of the cease-fire agreement of 19493 But below the cesse-fire line there is a long frontier between the IndIan State of Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistatx and the fact that it ls an international frontier cannot be altered merely because Pakistan has advanced a spurious claim to the State of Jamrnu and Kashmir; ‘aere cari be no o’heer frontier but an lnternationa! frcntler between Jammu and Kashrnir and Pakistan. Therefore, even takIng the Worst viewwhich 1 do net for a moment admit-that it is a disputed frontier, dow tbat justify a State marching its armies acrocs a frontier it regards as disputed? AS 1 said, no dispute exists: and if the theory put foward by the representative of Pakistan were adopted, then the whole of international society would lcse th@ very basis for its coexistence. 5% 1 am scrry tc tske the Ccuncil’s time, but 1 wish to put the record straight. The representative of Pakistan bas talkad of colonialism: he accuses India of colcnialism in Jammu and Kashmir. The pecple of Jarcmu and Kashmir are the people of India. They are ouf‘ kith and kin; they are blood of oui blocd, and they are as much Indlan citiaens as anycne else in any part of hidia. That is net colonialism. They enjcy the saine rights and privileges. the same guarantees under the Constitution of India. as any other Citizen of India. The representative of Pakistan wculd be well advised to lock nearer home, to lcok within Pakistan itself. Some introspective examination is always gcod for the seul. If there is cclcnialism, it is the cclonmlism that is being practlsed in Pakistan. A ruling grcup, divorced from contact with public opinion, is ruling cver large sections of the peuple of Pakistan. If there is cclonialism, it exists in Pakistan. The Pashtccns, theBaluchIs, the East Pakistan& are being ruled withcut any regard tc their civil rights, tc their fundamental human rights and freedcms. Thai is colcnialism as the wcrld understands il. 58. Every nation bas the inherent right to exercise self-defence, and that is what we bave done against these armed infiltrators. The action undertsken by Pakistan ls surely net defensive action. Its massive attack with tanks, heavy artillery and aircraft deep inside Jammu and Rasbmir-accounts of whlch members of the Security Council must bave read-cannot be defensive action, as 1 have already lndlcated. 1 should like to read out what appeared in The New -- York Times today, 6 September, bath in the news report and under tbe caption “QuotationoftbeDayR. Thls is what General Mohammad Musa, Commander in Chlef of the Pakistan Army, said to bis troops on their success against Indian forces on the Indian side of the cesse-fire liriez *You have got your teeth intc him. Bite deeper and deeper untll he is destroyed. And destroy him you Will, God wllling.” Even God is brought into tbis. These are not the words of a Commander who is engaged in defensive action. Thls is cold-blooded aggression. They want to destroy ns. They want to defeat our armles. They want tc annex our territory. And surely it is up to us, it is wr duty, it is our right, to defend our territory by all means at our disposal. 59. Pakistan has, by its actions, convertedandtransformed this whole business into the realm of military action. What we have had to exercise is defensive mllitary action because we bave got to strike at the bases from where this attack has been launched and from where they expect to wreak destruction on us. 60. 1 shall content myself wlth these observations. 1 am most grateful to you, Mr. President, for having given me this time, and I hope that you will permit me to speak again if circumstances shouldnecessitate it.

1 am privlleged-it is a rather melancholic privllege-once again to introduce a draft resolution sponsored by Bolivla, the Ivory Coast, Jordan, Malaysia, the Netherbmds anduruguay [S/6662]. 62. The formulation of this draft resolution is the result of many heurs of effort not only to express the ideas relevant to the immediate developments, but also to find the proper words tc describe them accurately. 63. We apologise for havlng made it necessary for the President to convoke this meetina after the heur originally fixed for our meeting this &ernoon. 71. Mr. RIFA’I (Jordan): Iiaving heard the statement which the Secretary-General has just made following upon the adoption of today’s resolution, 1 wish, on behalf of my delegation, to express to hlm once again our highest appreciation for the promptness of his actions whenever this Organisation faces a serious development in the world and whenever the Security Council entrusts him with an important task. 72. My understanding of what he has said is that he Will be making preparations to go to the area very soon. 1 feel certain that the sooner he goes, the stronger we Will feel that the situation between India and Pakistan is within control. 1 say this prompted net only by the obligations of my country toward the membership of tbls Council, but equally by our feellngs as an Asian nation attached to both India and Pakistan by strong ties of brotherhood. My delegation therefore supports the step which OUI Secretary-General intends to take, and we wish him a successful trip in his mission of peace and a speedy and safe return. 73. 1 again express the sincere hope of xny delegation that the Governments of both IndiaandPakistan will realize their weighty responsiblity for peace in their own region and in the world as a whole, and Will therefore facilitate tbe task of the Secretary-General as expressed in today’s resolution. 74. As to tbe fundamental question whlchliesbeneath the present unpleasant situation, we submit that it is time for the two Governrnents to make a serious and honest attempt to settle it peacefully amongthemselves, in accordance with the rights, claims and agreements pertaining to thequestion, and thesecurity Council should assist in this direction. Once this is done, then real peace will be established and Will flourish.

The resolution which the Council has just adopted does not require lengthy commentary; it adequately expresses our grave concern at the deterioration of the situation and oui wish to see the Governments of India and Pakistan comply without delay with the resolutions of the Security Council. 76. In that connexion, my delegation notes witb satisfaction the statement whichthe Secretary-General has just made. It hopes that he will be able ta carry out his plan promptly, a plan which, in oui‘ vlew, should help to hasten a return to peace.

When 1 introduced a few minutes ago the resolution whlch bas now been accepted unanimously and said that tbe Secretary- General would flnd the means ready and adequate to the urgent needs of a most complex and difficult situation wbich threatens witb each passing moment to increase in complexity and dlftïculty, 1 bave indeed hoped for tbe best but net for somethlng better 78. Mere wcrds of commendation fall flat before lais international stature and his unexampled rompeteace in resolving the most entangled and intractable situations, into which tbis unfortunate world of ours appears to bava found a fatal facilityto drlft, and wbich it bas net yet foand the means to arrest. 1 am sure tbat even tbe pmbIem of Kashmir couId ba and would be bat tc bis will, ifonlyaIlthosewbohavesigned tbe Charter-ancl 1 tilude tbe members of tbe Security CcnmciI-would demonstrate. net merely by words but by de-s&, tbat the Charter is net a composition of higb-sonndlng words but the vehicle of a nobler way of international life and international bebaviour. 79. 1 am sure the Secretary-General, in nndertaking this task, has shown great courage, and therefore he is entitled not only to our best wishes but to the good wisbes of the entire wrld. 1 pray that bis efforts will be cmwned witb the success they deserve and chat tbe Kashmii of higb mountains and eternal swxvs and captivatiig sunsbine and scenery will find tbe peace tbat it deserves. the tranquillity that it needs and the concord that it must bave, at no distant date. Permit met to offer the very sincere thanks of my delegation to onr Secretary-General for undertalàng this tnsk. IIe alone cangiveus the hope that we need. 80. Lord CARAFON (Unlted Kingdom): When wehave received the reports whlch bave corne to us today, nnrl indeed tien we bava heard the speeches to which we bave listened today, it is unnecessary to emphasise tbe great dangers which arlse from the extremely grave and serious situation which is presented before us. 1 Mie~ tbat it would bs the wish of ail members that we should at this stage lin& our comments to giving me Secretary-General our warmest good wishes for the effort which he is now undertaking. 81. S am sure that every one of ns hopes and trusts that bctb the great nations involved in this conflict vflll respect the authority of the Security Council and wlll heed the call which the Council bas already mnmimously made. We pray that they may do SO before it is too late. We urge with all the force at our command that they should give the Secretary- General the fullest possible co-operation. Meanwhile, 1 am sure ail of us will be determined to refrain from any action likely to aggravate the dangernus situation in any way. 82. It is with that intention an3 wlth that confidence and with a sense of the utmost urgency of the need for further action that, speaking for my Government, we bave supported the draft resolution which was introduced today in the names of Bolivia, the Ivory Coast, Jordan, Malaysia, theNetherlandsandUruguay. If 1 may, I should like very respectftdly to con- 83. Finally, 1 am sure that we ail wish to join in wishing the Secretary-General well as he embarks on this great adventure in the cause of conciliation and peace.

1 now give the floor to the representative of Pakistan, who wishes to exercise the right of reply. 85. Mr. Amjad AL1 (Pakistan): The representative of Inclia talked of rny turning a bllnd eye. May I say that he turned his blind eyes to the flagrant Indian invasion of Pakistan today. The statement madebyhim is totally refuted by the facts. 1 cari produce massive evidence in its refutation. However, the crisis of today is too Sharp to permit a detailed reply. Again drawing attention to the nakedness of India’s aggression, 1 would reserve my delegation’s right of reply.

My delegation would like to associate itself with the delegations which bave expressed their satisfaction at the statement made just now by the Secretary-General. 87. As one of the sponsors of the resolution, 1 do not think that the task which the ço-sponsors had in mind when they entrusted it to the Secretary-General cari be carried out more appropriately or more completely than in the way he himself has proposed. It only remains for us to express our fervent hope that those efforts and the noble persona1 sacrifice which they Will involve Will have the successful outcorne which is awaited by the whole world and by the United Nations.

In view of the fact that the grave situation brought about by the events in Kashmir bas deteriorated and the fighting is spreading alarmingly, the Bolivian delegationunhesitantingly supports the Secretary-General% decision to go to the area of the conflict, congratulates him on.his decision and wlshes him ail success in his difficult task.

1 bave no further SpeakerS on my list. 1n concluding this meeting, 1 know that a11 members of the Security Council would want me, as their President, to express officially OUI thankS and appreciation, which has been voiced by several members, to the presentatives of Bolivia, the Ivory Coast, Jordan, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Uruguay, for their leadership in drafting the joint draft reSOlUtion whioh has now been adopted unanimously by thés Council. Their efforts are very much appreciated SI. The situation we are facing, as has been discussed bere tonight, bas withhi it the most fearful pctential. Two nations with combined populations of almost 600 million are confronting each other, and, accord@ to their officiai spokesmen, stand on the brick of a full-scale var. Indeed, sisable elements of their armed forces are even now looked in combat. This Council has acted, and acted promptly, twice, and botb times unanimously, to avert the holocaust which must surely result if the terrible forces which bave heen set in motion are net called back. It would in faet be hard to visualix. a catastrophe of more grave Qrcportions: grave and unthinkable in ternis of the suffering wbich it would surely bring to millions of people; in terms of substance SO sorely needed to feed bungi.. people being wasted on the purposes of wxr: in terms of the very future of two great nations witb wbich all members of the Council maintain friendly relations: and in ternis of its serious thrext to the maintenance of International peace and security. 92. Tbe Council has called in forthright ternis for an immediate cessation of hostilities throughout the subcontinent. Hours, even minutes, are of the most vital importance. I am sure 1 speak for every member of the Council in urging bcth Pakistan and India, as tbe resolution itself recites, to comply with the Council’s resolutions without hesitation before the point of no return bas been reached. The members of the Council bave indicated, by unanimously adopting the resolution, that we welcome in partmular the statement of our Secretary-General, in the light of this resolution, that he intends to pmceed promptly to the subcontinent. We hope-weknow-thathisprestige, his impartiality, his fairness, and the dignity of his office may help bring this tragedy to a prompt close and point the way towards establishment of an enduring peace between these two great countries. We, the members of the Council-indeed, the peoples of the world-ask for no more. We eXQeCt no less. 93. This concludes the meeting today. Under the text of the resolution previously adopted we must keep this subject under continuous review. We shall do SO. We shall keep in close consultation with the members of the Council, ami wethereforeadjournthis meeting, subject to call. The meeting rose at 8 p.m.