S/PV.548 Security Council

l wish to bring to the attention of the Counci1 in connexion with item 3 of the revised provisional agenda that after the adoption by the Conncil on 30 March [539th meet'ing] of the resolution concerning the Inclia-Pakistan question [S/2017/ Rev.1 J, the President of the Security Council received two letters relating ta this matter. One of those letters was dated 4 May 1951 and was from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan. The second, dated 10 May 1951, was from the permanent representative of Pakistan to the United Nations. Those letters have been issued as documents S/2119 and S/2145 respective1y and have been circulated ta the members of the Council. 2. l wish ta make it dear that although item 3 on the provisional agenda bears the general title "The Inclia- Pakistan question", it is confined to the two letters that l have mentioned, With this clarification, are there any objections ta the provisional agenda? The date of election to lill a vacancy in the International COlll't of Justice

In connexion with the date of election ta fi11 a vacancy in the International Court of Justice, l am certain that l sha11 be interpreting t1~e genera1 feeling of the Council in expressing our deep grief at the death of Judge José Philadelpho de Barros e Azevedo. In him we have 10st both an international and renowned jurist and a clistinguished member of the International Court of Justice. As President of the Security Council and on behalf of my de1egation, l wish

l wish to express to the President and to the Securîty Council, in the name of my Government and my delegation, our deep gratitude for the high tribute you have paid to the memory of Judge José Philadelpho de Barros e Azeyed? I-~e rendered the highest service to the legal mstItutlOns of Brazil, the modern development of which was profoundly influenced by his great learning and his generous ideas. He contributed greatly to the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice by his constant insistence that the Court should recognize the social and economic changes of our time. His premature death was a great loss to Brazil and to the International Court of Justice. 5. The' PRESIDENT: The particular question that has to be taken up by the Council at the present mo· ment with regard to this item is that of fixing the date of the election, in accordance with article 14 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, to fi.!1 the vacancy which has thus occurred in the Court. A note by the Secretary-General has already been circulated on this matter, the text of which appears in document S/2153 dated 16 May 1951. 6. As a suggestion from the President and since the Council wilI have to take some action on this question, l wish ta submit the foIIowing draft resolution which l shall read out: "Noting with regret the death of Judge José Phi- lade1pho qe Barros e Azevedo on 7 May 1951, "Noting further that a vacancy in the Court for the remainder of the deceased's tenu of office has thus occurred and must be filled in accordance with the terms of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and "Noting that, in accordance with article 14 of the Statute, the date of the e1ection to fi.!l this vacancy shall be fixed by the Security Council, "Decides that an election to fill the vacancy shall take place during the sixth session of the General Assembly; "Decides further that this election shall take place priar ta the regular election to be held at the same session to fill the five vacancies which will occur owing to the expiration on 5 February 1952 of the terms of {ive members." ,,7. If no representative wishes to make any remarks 'or observations on this draft resolution, l shall submit It ta the vote. A vote 'Was tal~en by show of hands. The Illdia-Pakistan question

Pursuant to a previous decisian of the C<Jt111cil, l invite the representative af Pakistan to participate in the discussion of this item in accordance with rule 37 of the provisional mies of procedure. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Ahmed S. B o/~ha1'i, representati'l-'e of Pakistan, took a place at the Security Cottncil table.

l should like ta point out that at the beginning of the meeting l said that although the item appears under the general heading, the discussian will be confinecl tü the twa letters. l should be most g-ratef111 to the members and to the representative of Pakistan if they would be good enough ta keep within the limit af the two letters. 10. l now reoognize the representative of Pakistan, who has requested tü malœ a statement an this question.

l am grateful ta the PreRident for giving me an opportunity to subl11it the views of the Government of Pakistan to the Secllrity C<Jt111cil an this {Jccasion. l have noted the wishes of the President with regard to the limitations of the present discussion, and l assure him that l shaH respect them fully in my statement. 12. The two letters, one datecl 4 May 1951 and signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, and the other dated 8 May 1951 and signed by myself, both addressed ta the President, which are far the Security Council's consideration, appear as documents S/2119 and S/2145 respectively. In the first letter, the attention of the Security Council has been drawn to a proclamation issued by the Yuvaraja of Jammu and Kashmir for canvoking a constituent assembly in the State. The second letter brings to the notice of the members of the Security Council an extract from a speech delivered .by the Prime Minister of Indian-occupied Kashmir which reveals that the pm"pose of the Maharaja's Government in convening the said constituent assembly is to decide the future shape and affiliation of Kashmir, defiantly declaring that no power can veto the decision üf the proposecl constituent assembly. 13. The contents {Jf the Yuvaraja's proclamation and the utterance of Sheikh Abdulla, ta which the attention of the Secl1rity Council has been drawn, have appeared in the Press, including the Indian Press. 1 The text of this r~SQ!1,ttion was subsequelltly set forth in .. doc1,lment 8/2174, ! , '.. 14. The subject of these two letters is by no means new to the Security Council. The attempt to convoke a constituent assembly in the India-held part of Kashmir and the grave threat to the prospects of a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute which lies in such an unwise, undemocratic and defiant manœuvre have been thoroughly discussed by the Security Council. It is a thousand pities that the Security Council has to turn its attention again to this matter and that this time it has to do so because its appeals, warnings, requests - whatever one likes to call them - ta the Government of India have heen igored. 15. The plan to convoke a constituent assembly was brought to the notice of the· Security Council as early as 14 December 1950, in a letter to the President of the Security Council from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan [S/1942] . The representative of the United Kingdom, in his intervention on 21 February 1951 [532nd meeting], found it difficult to reconcile the action contemplated in the Kashmir National Conference resolution with the agreement "already enshrined" as he said "in the two Kashmir Commission resolutions" which, he pointed out, provided for settlement of the future accession of the State by a fair and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. He added: ~ "... ?1Y Government has felt some anxiety lest the I<..ashmlr State authorities should embark on some Idnd of independent action which would be a challenge, as we felt, ta the authority of the Security Council and of the United Nations." 16. Ambassador Ernest Gross, speaking on the same day, was "impressed by the sober anxiety which Sir Gladwyn Jehb voiced on this matter" and in particular associated his Government with the statement of the representative of the United Kingdom that: "... .no refer~nce to the wishes of the people of Kash1l11r regardlllg the future accession of the State made otherwise than under the auspices and with the full con~ent. of the United Nations can be regarded as constltutlllg a settlement acceptable to this Council." • 17. Tt was hoped that the representative of Inclia would reassure the Council that the device of a constituent assembly to evade an international agreement and ta deI;y the right of self-determination to the people of Kashmlr would not be proceeded with. He did indeed say t~at so far as his Government was concerned, the constItuent assemb1y was not intended to prejudice 18. This was at best a very precarious stand. Far from being reassuring, it only served to increase the apprehension felt by Pakistan and hy an those who regard the international agreement between India and Pakistan to hold a fair and impartial plebiscite under United Nations auspices as the only possible peaceful solution of the Kashmir dispute. 19. On 21 March, therefore, the representative of the United Kingdom expressed his concern in the following words [537th meeting] : "1 wish l could say to the Council that we feel satisfied from what the representative of India has said that the Government of Pakistan has no cause for disquiet in respect of the proposed constituent assembly. Incleed, if it had not heen for a series of disturbing pronouncements by Sheikh Abdulla and by Ministers of the Government of India and of the Kashmir State Government, the Council would probably have felt that what the representative of India has told the Council was a sufficient guarantee that nothing would be done by the constituent assembly which would in any way prejudice the sett1ement of the future accession of Kashmir in the manner to which the two Governments and this Council are committed. "But when the Council is confronted with a statement by the Prime Minister of the Kashmir State Government that 'without caring for the opposition of Pakistan, Britain and America, the proposed constituent assemhly for the State will he set up on the due date to decide aIl big issues inc1uding accession', the view of the Government of India as stated by its representative, that 'while the constituent assembly may, if it so desires, express an opinion on this question it can take no decision on it' does not holcl out any real promise that the Government of Inclia will take al! steps possible to prevent the Kashmir State Government from action which must inevitably prejudice the work of the United Nations in settling this dispute. l therefore wish to make a further earnest appeal to the representative of India to make it c1ear beyond all doubt that his Government will do everything in its power ta prevent action which will damage the work of the Council of which he himself is so distinguished a member." "The matter of the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is an international question, a matter which this COllncïl has had within its purview for more than three years. It clearly falls within the field of external affairs and Sir Benegal Rau has told the Council that the external affairs of the Government of Kashmir are within the control of the Indian Government. The Security Council, therefore, should Le entitled to assume that the Government of India will prevent the Government of Kashmir from taking action which would interfere with the responsibilities of this Council." 21. The representative of Turkey, observing that a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations was the only way ta bring about a just solution of the question of Jammu and Kashmir, added [538th meeting]: "Once we have accepted this principle, we must also admit that such measures as convening a constituent assembly which will not be representative of the whole territory, in arder to decide the future of the State, would not be in harmony with this principle." 22. The representative of the Netherlands put the. the matter very tersely when he said [538th -meeting] : "The choice of affiliation to one nation or another is so fundamental in its nature and consequences that only the people themselves can and ought to make that choice. lt stands to reason that such a choice should be freely made untrammelled by biased pressure from interested outside parties. No prearranged political organization in part of the State concerned, set up uncler the auspices of authorities which have already macle their choice, should interfere with this complete freedom of choice." 23. The representative of Ecuador said [539th 1neeting] : "In present c1rcumstances the constituent assembly of J am1l1U and Kaslunir cannot be considered as representing the people as a whole or as free manifestation of the people's will and the decisions of such an assembly can neither change nor deprive of their effect the international undertakings entered into by Inclia and Pakistan in respect of the plebiscite." 24. The representative of China also was very apprehensive and feared that "such a constituent asse1l1bly may adopt a resolution declaring the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India, or the assem- .. bly may incorporate in the constitution an article ta that effect". Apart from this, he felt that "such a constituent assembly might prejudice the issue in other "In the first place, a constitution adopted before the plebiscite would have the tendency, or at least the appearance of having the tendency, of making a formai definitiverelationship of Kashmir to India. In the second place, the constitutional provisions which the constituent assembly might adopt rnight dovetail the State political structure of Kashmir so closely wih the State political structure of India as to signify definitive accession. Such tendencies or appearances may arouse suspicions and passions which may make the solution of the problem more c1ifiicult than it is now." 25. With the weight that attaches to all these views sa clear1y, so forcefully and so cogently expressed, the Security Cotl11cil aclopted a resolution on 30 Mareil 1951 affirming, inter alia, in extremely moderate but unambiguolls terms, that any action that the proposed constituent assembly lllight attempt ta take ta determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the will· of the people expressed through the democratïc method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. Paragraph 8 of the operative part of the resolution callecl upon the Governments of India and Pakistan "to take al! possible measures to ensure the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations and to refrain from any action likely to prejudice' a just and peaceful settlement". 26. Yet, within a few days of the adoption of this resolution, in fact on the very day on which the Security Council approvecl the appointment of Ml'. Frank P. Graham as United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan [543rd meetù1g] the Maharaja's Government issued a proclamation which, to say the least, showed scant regard for the timely warnings given by the Pakistan representative and the grave anxiety expressed by members of the Security Council. The paraphrasingof that proclamation as provided by Sheikh Abdulla [5/2145] leaves little doubt, if doubt there ever was, as to the real intent and purpose behind the proposed convocation of a constituent assembly in the India-held part of Kashmir. 27. As early as 21 February 1951, the representative of the Unitec1 States of America in his statement saic1 [532nd meeting] : "1t is our impression that the proclamation which ordered the carryinginto effect of these steps implementing the 28 Octoher Kashmir National Conference resolution was approved by the Government of India." 28. That impression was and is widespread. That view was and is held by many besides those who have taken part in the attempts to find a just and peaceful solution of the Kashmir dispute. So far as the Gov- ~eclde .the fut~re. affihation of Kashmir by a free and 1l1~partial pleblscite under United Nations auspices, w111 not common sense dictate that firstthings should come first, and the question of the constitution should be taken up only after the question of accession is settled? To procee? with the constituent assembly at this stage, ;vhatever ltS avowed purpose may be, is deliberately to 19nore the appeals made to India by many members of the S~curit.y Council and the wishes of the Security Councl1whlch called upon bath parties to ensure the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations and to refrain from. any action likely to prejudice a just and peaceful solution. 1 regret to say that India has so far hardly pél!s~ed any test which could be regarded as crucial and ",:,hlOh should prove beyond doubt that it respects the rlgh~ of s~lf-determination of the people of Kashmir and lS anXlOUS to reach a peaceful solution of the Kashmir dispute. 29.. The device o~ a so-call~d con~tituent assembly in Indm-held Kashmlr would, 1f perslsted in, be a most un~appy augury for the future. That it is by no means él!S mnocuous as may be claimed is clear to neutral observers. For ex~ple, the c~rrespondent of the New .Yorlz H emld Trtbune, report1l1g from Srinagar in the lssue of 27 May, comments on the attitude of noncocoperation with the United Nations amongst Indian officlaIs, and goes on to say: . "~his attitude is ~lso prevalent in Kashmir, where officlals are dete~m!ned !hat nothing Ml'. Graham says can alter thelr mtentlOn to convoke a constituent assembly which, among other tasks, will be empowered (with the sanction of the Indian Governmet;t) to make the final decision for accession to Indla." 30...Can sl~ch a. deeision - or, for that matter, any declslon arnv~d at by a mere show of voting in any par~ of .Kashmlr, so long as the Indian Army is in occupatlOn 111 that part - be a free or democratic deeision? Let the same correspondent speak: 31. This correspondent also observes: "It is now obvious that India, in strong possession of the Valley of Kashmir, intends to hang on ta it even if this policy should involve outright defiance of the United Nations or war with Pakistan." 32. l must therefore convey to the members of the Security Council the impatience and bitterness which the I()ng delay over the settlement of the Kashmir question and the continued intransigeance of India have created in the minds of the people of Pakistan. The prop<Jsed constituent assembly is, in their view, an attempt on India's part to contrive yet another pseudolega1istic subterfuge to cover its occupation of Kashmir by force and against the will of the people. 33. For the sake of the prestige of the Security Council and of the United Naiions, if fo,r no other reason, the impression should· not be aUowed to grow that India can break its international pledges without world opinion pronouncing its verdict on the grave danger to international morality and international peace which such a breach would involve. The Government of Pa1cistan therefore sincerely hopes that the 5ecurity Coundl will take reso1ute action in the matter. 34. 'vVe are not convinced that there is need for framing a new constitution for Kashmir before the question of accession is impartially decided under United Nations auspices. We are not convinced that the proposed constituent assembly is not an attempt to confuse the issues, poison the ati110sphere and obstruct a just and peaceful solution. And, finally, we are not cOllvillced t'hat the Governl11ent of India can be absolved of its full responsibility in this matter by any attempt on its part theoretically ta separate the so-ca1led auton01110US sphere of the Maharaja's Governmellt l'rom India's own sphere of authority.

Rule 8 of the Security Council's rules of procedure provides thaJt "the provisional agenda for a meeting shaH he communicated ... at least three days before the meeting", unless the circttl11stances are urgent, in whioh case "it may be communicatecl simultaneously with the notice of the meeting". 36. There has not been the nsual three -days' notice in this case, nor can it be said that consideration of documents S/2119 of 4 May 1951 and S/2145 of 10 May 1951 is a matter of urgency, since those documents have been before me111bers of the Coundl for a considerable time. Nor, indeed, has there been any new development in the situation. which was not envisaged by the Council when this ques1tion was extensively dis- 37. Let me recall what Sir Benegal Rau stated to the Council on the subject of the proposed constituent assembly in Kashmir. On 1 March 1951, he said [533rd meeting] : "The preseùt legal position is that Kashmir - by which 1 mean the State of Jammu and Kaslunir ~ is a unit of the Indian Federation, subject to federal jurisdiction in respect of the broad categories of defence, external affairs and communications, but completely autonomous in almost all other matters. In the autonomous sphere, the State is entitled to frame its own constitution and, for this purpose, ta convene a constituent assembly of its own people. The main purpose of the constituent assembly would be to proviele a proper elected legislature for the State to which the executive could be made responsible, as in the British parliamentary system of government. 50 far as the Government of India is concerned, the constituent assembly is not intended to prejudice the issues before the Security Council, or to come in its way," 38. Again, on 9 March, the representative of India declared [536th meeting] : "1 sha11 no\V turn to a matter which appears to have cansed some concern to certain members of the .Council, namely, the proposaI to convene a constituent assembly for Kashmir. As 1 have already said, Kashmir is at present a unit of the Inclian Federation and has ta be governed accordingly. When we \Vere drafting a constitution for India, we had to consider what provision should be made for the constitutions of the various units of the Indian Federation. It was decided that the framing of these constitutions should he entrusted to a constituent assembly for the unit concerned. Accordingly, several units convoked constituent assemblies for the purpose ~ for exalllpIe, Saurashtra, Travancore-Cochin and Mysore. Others lagged behind, for one reason or another. Kashmir is one of the units where a constituent assembly has not yet been convoked, sa that the constitution of the State is still to be made. Members will please note that the machinery of a constituent assembly was not devised only for Kashmir, but for other similar units of the Inc1ian Federation as weIl. Indeed, it is the recognized machinery for the framing of the constitution in most parts of the worlel. Accordingly, provision \Vas made in the Indian'Consti- .tution for a constituent assembly for settlhtg the details of the Kashmir constitution. Will that assembly decide the question of accession? My Government's view is that, while the constituent assembly 39. On 29 March 1951, the representative of India stated the following ta the Security Council [538th H1,eeting] : "This brings me to the subject of the constituent assembly, which apparent1y continues ta disturb some of the members of the CounciL l have already explained my Government's views on this subject [536th meeting]. Even in a federation, every State has a right to make its own constitution in its own proper sphere and to set up a special body for that purpose. For example, every State constitution now in force in the United States of America was framed in this way. India cannat, therefore, prevent Kashmir, which is at present a unit of the Indian Federation, from exercising a simi1ar right, whioh, indeed, is expressly recognized in the Constitution of India, Some me\11- bers of the Council appear to fear that in the process the Kashmir constituent assembly might express its opinion on the question of accession, The constituent asembly cannat be physically prevented from expressing its opinion on this question if it sa chooses. But this opinion will not bind my Government or prejudice the position of this Council." 40. That continues to be the position of my Government, and l reaffinn that so far as the Government of India is concerned, the constituent assembly for Kashmir is not intencled to prejudice the issue before the Security Council or to come in its way. 41. From the statements made by the representative of India on three previous occasions, which l have just quoted, and from my re-affirmation of the position today, it should he obvious that the allegations made in paragraph 3 of the letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan [5/2119] and in the statement the Counèil has just heard from the representative of Pakist~n, are completely negatived. 42. That concludes the statement which l have ta make, and l reserve the right ta reply, if necessary, ta any other points that may he brought up in the course of the consideration of this matter by the Council.

My Govermllent great1y regrets that it should have been necessary for the Council to reSUl11e its discussion of the India-Pal~istan question at a time when the United Nations Representative, Mr. Graham, ig shortly ta leave for the Indi:;1.11 sub-continent ta seek, in negotiations with India and Pakistan, a solution of the differences between them, which have hithert0 prevented the completion of :il huce agreement and the demilitarization of the State ~fJammu and Kashmir. 45. The Council will, however, have heard with satisfaction the assurances which the representative of India has just given us and it will, l am sure, interpret them as meaning that the Government of India has no intention of allawing its own undertaking to determine the future accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted t1l1der ,the auspices of the United Nations ta be prejudiced by the Kashmir State authorities, and also as meaning that the Government of India woulc1 agree that any action taken by the Kashmir constituent assemby in the sense suggested by Sheikh Abdulla in his speech of 4 May, could not be reg-arded by the Security Council as having any validity. 46. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Government of Pakistan, in his letter of 4 May, asked the Council ta take certain measures. The m.ain concern of my Government at the present time is to do everything possible to promote a successful outcome for Mr. Graham's mission to the sub-continent. l would therefore suggest, inview of the assurances given by the representative of India and of all the circumstances, that the best course would be for the President of the Security Council, himself, ta communicate with the Governments of India and Pakistan on behalf of the Council, drawing attention t() the apprehensions expressed, if l anticipate the views of my colleagues correctly, by members of the Council, taking note of the assurances which have been given by the representative of India, and expressing the hope that the two Governments will do everyt11ing in their power ta prevent the authorities in Kashmir from acting in a manner prejudicial ta the authority of the United Nations and ta the determination of the affiliation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the procedures provided for in the resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan.

The Security Council now finds it necessary to consider the India-Pakistan question once more, notwithstanding the fact that as recently as 30 March it adopted a reso~ 111tion which decided to send a new United Nations Representative to the sub-continent, with the hope and expectation that the Representative, Mr. Graham, would be able to effect the demi1itarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir after consultation with the parties and on the basis of the agreed United Nations Commission resolutions of 13 August 1948 and of 5 January 1949. 49. At the time of our debates leading to the adoption of that resolution, l am sure that all members of the Counci1 were gratified by the.fact that these older resoll1tions of the United Nations Conmlission were so strongly reaffirmed by the Governments of India and of Pakistan through their representatives at this table. 50. Now that Mr. Frank Graham has been appointed United Nations Representative - and l understand he intends to leave for the sub-continent within a few weeks - it is the earnest hope of the United States Governl11ent, a hope and an expectation which l am sure is shared by all the other members of the Council, that he will be able to achieve success in his mission. It seems not only right but perhaps necessary that he shot1ld arrive in an atl110sphere clear and free of some of the donbts and suspicions which have engendered this meeting. 51. The task of the United Nations Representative, we all recognize, is a very difficult one. l do not l11ean to minimize the difficulties he will face. Some may question whether it is now appropriate to consider the matter we are discussing here in view of the difficulty and delicacy of Mr. Graham's mission, but our feeling is that assurances by the Govermnent of India are, if l may say sa, quite necessary at this stage. The proclamation of the Yuvaraja of Kashmir in convoking the constituent assembly, when coupled with the reported statel11ent by Sheikh Abdu11a, Prime Minister of the State of ICashmir, indicates that the intention is ta convene a constituent assembly which will purport ta make a definitive decision with regard to the question of accession; and, since that is a reasonable inference to be drawn from the reports which have been received, we do feel that an issue is presented here with which the Secnrity Council must deal at this stage. 52. The United States Government understands that one of the provisions of the Yuvaraja's proclamation declares that the constituent assembly sha11 have power to act notwithstanding any vacancy in the membership of the assembly - Qbviously, by reason of the fact that 53. The assurances which were given at previous meetings of the Security Council by Sir Benegal Rau, and to which reference has been made today, do state, it is true, that there is no intention to prejudice issues before the Security Council or to come in the way of the Secnrity Counèil's jurisdiction in this case by reason {lf any action which is contemplated. It is gratilying to have reassurances again today that such is not the intention. 54. Again, the representative of India said some time ago - and the statement has been repeated here today - that while the assembly, if convened, may express an opinion, it may not make a decision. These are also important assurances. But 1 should like to point out again that in Sheikh Abdulla's statement, he does not appear, if reported correctly, to agree with the limitations which have been placed upon the matter by the spokesman for the Government of India in the Security Council itself. 55. 1 therefore consider it appropriate to refer in partieular t{l one statement in the resolution adopted by the Secllrity Council on 30 March {lf this year. In that statement, which appears in the preamble, the Security Council recorded its views that "the convening of a constituent assembly ... and any action that assembly mig-ht attempt to take to c1etermine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State Dr any part thereof would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with" the commitment of the parties under the resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. These resolutions state, as one principle fully and cO~lsistently reaffirmed by the Governments of India and Pakistan, that the final disposition of the State will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under United Nations auspices. 56. We believe that it would be weil to recall that paragraph 8 of the Security Council resolution of 30 March 1951 requested the Governments of India and Pakistan "to take al1 possible mea:sures to ensure the creation and maintenance 0f an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations" and that it aiso called upon them "to refrain from any action likely to prejudice a just and peaceful settlement". "The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree ta appeal to their respective people to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations." 58. This particular resolution has not only been accepted by the Governments of both parties, but they have themselves insisted upon the importance of adhering closely ta the tenus of this resolution and the subsequent resolution of 5 Jant1ary 1949. 59. It would appear ta my Government that, if the Government of India permits the convening of this constituent assembly at this time, it would not be adhering fully to the spirit of its commitment as accepted in the resolution of 13 August 1948, so finnly proc1aimec1 as a foul1dation of India's position by Sir Benegal Rau in the Security Council meetings on this matter, and ag-ain reaffirmed by the representative of India at the meeting today. .. 60. As l have said, the Security Council has just appointed a new United Nations Representative to bring about a demilitarization under the terms of the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. The United States Government sincerely hopes that bath parties and the Security Council will conccntrate on the primary objective of helping the new United Nations Representative to accomplish his mission. 61. We believe, as l had the honour to state ta the Council on 21 February of this year [532nd meeting], that there can be no real and lasting settlement of the Kashmir dispute which is not acceptable to both parties. Any attempt to decide the issue withollt the consent of ~~h par!ies would o!lly leave a constant and explosive IrrItant l11 the relatIOns between these two Governm:nt~, an irritant which would efiectively prevent the bnnglllg about of peace and security in South Asia. l take the !iberty of repeating that statement today bec~tlse .of. ItS direct application to the present situation, smce lt IS almast impossible toconceive that agreement ?f both parties could be obtained and brought to fruition 111 an atmosphere; which we are afraid would be engender~d by the actIOn fore shadowed by the statement of Shelkh Abdulla and the proclamation of the Yuvaraja.

When on 30 March 1951 the Council adopted the resollltion appointing a United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan and instructing him to effect the demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of two previous resolutions, the provisions of which have been accepted both by India and Pakistan, the principle governing the approach to the problem seemed ta be very c1ear. Demilitarization was to create the most favourable and fair conditions for a truly free plebiscite by the population of the contested territory. There might be differences of opinion in regard to the interpretation and execution of the agreed provisions concerning such demilitarization. In the event of such differences the parties were called upon to accept arbitration. But there could be - and, to my knowledge, there was - no difference of opinion with regard to the desire of the parties that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. 64. It is clear that the question of the affiliation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir must be decided without pressure of any kind from interested neighbours or from governments .or authorities set up {Jr existing in Jammu and Kashmir before the free plebiscite by the people has taken place, whether these governments or authorities are sympathetic towards India or Pakistan, or whether they control the contested territory in whole or in part. For, as l have said on previous occasions, the issue should be decided, in the last analysis, by the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir themselves and not by the rulers heretofore placed over them. l add now: not by these rulers or their instruments; and l repeat that no prearranged political organization in part {Jf the contested State set up tmder the auspices of authorities which have already made their choice shollid interfere with this complete freedom of."choice. For that reason my Government welcomed the affirmation, in the preamble of the resolution which the Counciladopted on 30 March to which the representative of the United States also referred just now, that the convening of a constituent assembly, as recommended on 27 October 1950 by the General Cotmcil of the All- Jam111u and Kashmir National Conference, for the pur- ]X)se of deterl11ining the future shape and affiliations of the State of Jammu and Kashmir would, in the words of the Council's resolution, "not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the accepted principle that such final disposition must be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations". "We have decided after long deliberations to convene the constituent assembly to decide the future shape and affiliation" ----' l repeat, and affiliation - "of Kashmir, and no power can veto its decision." 66. If these utterances and intentions and decisions have been correct1y reported, there would be occasion for apprehension on our part. For it is clear that such action would l'un counter to the 1etter and the spirit of the equitab1e solution which the Security Council's resolution of 30 March endeavours to. prepare under conditions of fairness and free from any form of intimidation, and it wou1d a1so l'un counter to the statement which the representative of India made before the Couneil on 1 March 1951, when he said [533rd m,eeting] : "1 have already explained the purpose of the constituent assembly - namely to frame a constitution for Kashmir and, in particular, to provide an elected legislature to which the executive could be made responsib1e. It is not meant to come in the way of the Security Council." 67. This afternoon we heard a reaffirmation of this attitude by the representative of India. His Government, l think he has said, believes that the constituent assemb1y in Kashmir cannot decide on the matter of accession. l think the Security Council should confirm that belief, for as far as the question of affiliation is concerned, the one and only authoritative voice is that of the unconstrained people of Jammu and Kashmir. That voice should be heard on this particular issue under impartial management and not hampered by organizations whose leaders have already made up their minds in one way or another. 68. l do not wish to enter here into the problem of the present status of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. As far as the plebiscite is concerned; that status is, l believe, irrelevant since Pakistan) and also, India, have accepted as a superseding prineiple that the future of the State should be decided through a {ree and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations. 69.. On this point the Security Council should, in my opinion, leave no doubts in the minds of the Govern- 70. 1 earnestly hope that this renewed expression of the requü-ements of fairness and respect for agreed principles for a just solution will be heeded by all those whom it may concern, and may be understood in their fundamental purpose, namely to promote the happiness of the people of Jammu and Kashmir and, by doing so, to restore the harmonious co-operation between the great nations of India and Pakistan.

The French delegation considers that the statement made at Srinagar on 4 May 1951 by the Prime Minister of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdulla, is incompatihle with the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan dated 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 to whieh India and Pakistan have each formally expressed their agreement. The statement is also, in the opinion of my delegation, incompatible with the resolution adopted by the Council on 30 Mareh 1951. 72. In the circumstances, the despateh of a letter by the President of the United Nations Security Council, in his capacity as sueh, to the heads of the Governments of India and Pakistan, as proposed to us today by the representative of the United Kingdom, in order to place on record the various statements made before the Council recently and again today by the representative of India is, in the opinion of my delegation, justified. 73. The despatch of this letter is, in the view of my delegation, the more time1y because a new United Nations Representative - as the representative of the United States has just reminded us - is about to leave for Kashmir to undertake a mission the success of which is of the highest importance to the future welfare of that country, to good relations between India and Pakistan and to the maintenance of peace in that part of the wodd.

The Brazilian delegation, havingvoted for the adoption of the resolution of the Security Council of 30 March 1951, cannot fail to view with concern the proclamation of the Yuvaraja of Jammu and Kashmir wherein the details of procedure are contained for convening a constituent assembly in the State. The resolution of 30 March 1951 explicit1y affirms that the convening of the constituent assembly recommenc1ed by the General Council of the All- Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and any action that the assembly might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, would not constitute a valid disposition of the State. Both India and Pakistan have accepted the United Nations Commission for India and 75. Furthermore, paragraph 8 of the operative part of the Security Council resolution of 30 March 1951 cal1s upon the Governments of India and Pakistan "to take ail possible measures to ensttre the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations and to refrain from any action likely to prejudice a just and peaceful settlement" of the matter. J 76. We still think that the Security Council resolution of 30 March 1951, containing adequate machinery for negotiation and emphasizing the need for arbitration in the event that the United Nations Representative fails to reconcile the divergent views of India and Pakistan, is fair and equitable to both parties directly concerned. It does not do 111uch more than ta reaffirm a course of action ta which India and Pakistan were already formally committed, and it is wide enough in scope and in terms to provide a basis for the settlement of the outstanding differences between the two Member States. 77. The unilateral action now contemplated runs counter to the various resolutions of the Security Council on the India-Pakistan question and would certainly constitute another deterrent to a permanent solution of this particnlar problem. Any action taken or decisions which might be reached by the constituent assembly should not be construed or interpreted as implying a le~itimate disposition of the State of Jammu and KashmIr. 78. I therefore dare to express the hope that the Govermllents of India and Pakistan, taking cognizance through the President of the Security Council of the concern expressed at this meeting by various members of the Coullcil, will do theil' best to assure in Kashmir conditions likely to faci1itate the de1icate task entrusted to Ml'. Frank Graham, and will refrain from taking any action which might add to the difficulties of bringing about a satisfactory solution of this problem. 79. Ml'. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (translated fram Spanish): The determination of the future political affiliation or al1egiance of Jammu and Kashmir by the constituent assembly which is to be convened would be a violation or an attemped violation of the international agreement between India and Pakistan whereby the question is to be settled by means of a plebiscite. It would also be a failure ta recognize the authority of the Security Council, and finally, it rnight prevent a peaceful settlement of the question. "If there is any criticism to be made of the draft resolution, 1 think it is that its operative part, seeking not to depart from the area of agreement already reached by the parties so that implementation may be achieved, is not explicit enough in its statement of the requirements which seem in the present situation to be just, necessary and indispensable to the holding of a truly free and impartial plebiscite to express the desire of the people of Jammu and Kashmir." 81. 1 then added: "Inasmuch as India and Pakistan have agreed that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir should be decided by a free and impartial plebsicite, that must be our point of departure and the legal and political basis for the Council's action. "Upon this basis, in our opinion," 1 said, "it can only be inferred that: ... the constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be considered as representing the people as a whole or as a free manifestation of the people's will, and the decisions of sucb an assembly can neither change nor deprive of their effect the international undertakings entered into by India and Pakistan in respect of the plebiscite." 82. l added that a free and impartial plebiscite presupposes that the electors shall be free from pressure, threats, intimidation or compulsion in any form by the local authorities, or by military or police forces (whiehever they are called) in the territory dtlring the preparation and holding of the plebiscite. 83. If, therefore, the constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir were to do what is suggested in the speech of Sheikh Abdulla quoted by the delegation of Pakistan and made on 4 May, that is, convene the assembly in • order to decide the future allegiance of this State, on the assumptioiJ. that no one can veto its decision, it seems to me that the Security Council, which has today taken note of the statement made by the representative of India, should state beforehand categorically that any such decision by the constituent assembly could not be regarded asvalid and would not therefore be recognized as a settlement of the problem, and should call upon the two Governments to abstain from taking or permitting any action which would prevent the holding .of the plebiscite and the peaceful settlement of the problem.

At the 539th meeting of the Security Council held on 30 March 1951, l had the occasion ta express my delegation's apprehension at the convoking of a national or constituent assembly in the State. Our apprehension has increased as a result of the latest development. Such a constituent assembly, we are afraid, might adopt a resolution in favour of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India, or it might write into the proposed constitution some dec1aration to that effect. That would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the resolutions adopted by this Council and by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. 86. The primary purpose, l presume, of the constituent assembly is to frame a constitution for the State. To set up any constitution now, before the plebiscite, would unavoidably formalize or solidify the re1ationship of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India and thus prejudice the whole concept and outcome of a fair and free plebiscite. 87. It is the considered view of my delegation that the proclamation of the Yuvaraja of 30 April 1951 for convoking a constituent assembly is at variance with the resolutions of this Council, and the convoking at this time of the assembly, the avowed pUl'pose of which is to decide the shape and affiliation of Kashmir, would arouse so much passion and misunderstanding as to make the solution of the Kashmir problem much more difficult, if not impossible. 88. In conclusion, l wish also ta associate myself with the suggestion made by the representative of the United Kingdom, that the President of the Security Council should address a letter ta the parties concerned, transmitting and reaffirming the views of this Council.

l submit, for the appraval of the Security Council, a proposed text of the letter which variotls delegations have suggested should be sent by the President of the Security Council ta the Governments of Inc1ia and Pakistan: "1 have the honour ta call your attention to the important principles regarding the India-Pakistan question restated in the Security Council resolution of 30 March 1951 (Sj2017jRev.l). "Members of the Security Council, at its 548th meeting held on 29 May 1951, have heard with satisfaction the assurances of therepresentative of India that any constituent assembly that may be established in Srinagar is not intenclecl to prejudice the issues before the Security Council orto come in its way. "It is the sense of the Security Cot1l1cil that these reports, if correct, would involve procedures which are in conflict with the commitments of the parties to determine the future accession of the State by a fair and impartial plebiscite conducted under United Nations auspices. "rt seems appropriate to recall the request contained in the resolution of 30 March that the parties create and maintain 'an atmosphere favourable ta the promotion of further negotiations and to refrain from any action likely to prejudice a just and peaceful settlement'. The Council trusts that the Governments of ·India and Pakistan will do everythingin their power to ensure that the authorities in Kashmir do not disregard the Council or act in a manner which wou1d prejudice the determination of the future accession of the State in accordance with the procedures provided for in the resolutions of the Cot1l1cil and of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. "As President of the Security Council, l have attempted to summarize the general line of the Security Council's discussion on this matter, a full record of which 1S attached." 90. This i5 the text l propose to send, in accordance with the suggestions of members of the Security Council, to the Governments of India and Pakistan in my capacity as President of the Security Council. Is that text acceptable ta the Council? 91. If the letter, when accepted by the Council, will have to be sent by cable, there will probably be a slight modification in the last sentence which would then read: Ha full record of which is being forwarded by air-mail". S

l have only a purely formaI suggestion to make regarding the last paragraph of the letter. l wonder whether it would not be better to indicate that it refers ta the Security Council's discussions at its 548th meeting, as there is no indication that it does in fClct refer to today's meeting.

l would draw the attention of the representative of France to the fact that the second paragraph of the letter - which he does not have before him, since l amended the text myself a few moments aga - begins as follows: . "~embers of the Security Council, at its 548th meetll1g held on 29 May 1951 ..."

If the Council does not have to vote on the letter, the statement of the representative of the Soviet Union will go on the record as it was made.

l should like to explain the position of my delegation in regard to the course of action which it is proposed that the Council should take. If the proposai had been put to the vote, my delegation, as a party to the dispute, would have abstained under Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter.

Unless l hear any objections, l consider the letter as l have read it out to the COllncil to be approved with the reservations expressed by the representatives of the Soviet Union and India.

It might be better to state that the text of the letter has been approved by nine votes, with two abstentions. That would be clearer.

l think the representative of the Soviet Union is correct. It would make it more clear. l shaH put the text of the letter to a vote. A vote was tal~en by show of hands, as follows: In fav01t1': Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yugoslavia. Abstaining: India, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The te_'rt of the leUer was adopted by 9 votes in favour) with 2 abstentions. SALES AGENTS FOR UNITED DEPOSITAIRES DES PUBLICATIONS FlNLAND - FINLANDE Akateemlnen KlrJakauppa, katu, Helsinki. FRANCE Editions A. Pedone, Paris V. GREECE- GRECE "Eleftheroudakls," Mie, Place de la GUATEMALA Gouba'ud & Ciao num. 26, 2 do Plso, HAlTI Ma~ Bouchereau, Yelle." Boîte postale Prince. HONDURAS Llbrerla Panamerlcana, Fuente, Tegucigalpa. rCELAND -ISLANDE Bokaverzlun Siglusar Austurstretl 16, INDIA -:. INDE ARGENTINA - ARGENTINE Editorial Sudamerlcana S.A., Calle AI.lna 500, Buenos Aire•• AUSTRALIA - AUSTRALIE H. A. Godd.rd (Pty.>, Ltd., 255. George Street, Sydney, N.S.W. BElGlUM ""- BELGIQUE Agence et Messagerie., de la PreSSCl S.A.. 14·22 rue du Persil, Bruxelles. W. H. Smith & Son 71-75 Boulevard Adolphe-Max, Bruxelles. BOUVIA - BOLIVIE Llbrerla Clentlfica y llterarla, Ave.lda 16 de Julio 216, C.sllia 972, La paz BRAZIL - BRESIL Livr.ria Agir, Rua Mexico 98-8, CalJa' Post.1 3291, Rio de Janeiro. CANADA - CANADA The Ryerson Pre.s, 299 Queen Streêt West, Toronto. CEYLON - CEYLAN, _ The Associated New.papers Clf Cey!OIlo Lld., L.ke Hou.e, Colombo. CHILE - CHILI Llbrerfa Ivens, Calle Moned/l 822, Santiago. CHINA - CHINE The Commercial Press, Ltd., 211 Honan Raad, Shanghai. COLOMBIA - COLOMBIE Llbrerfa Latina ltda., Apartado A',," 4011, BogotA. COSTA RICA - COSTA.RICA TreJo, Hermanos, Apartado 1313, Saa José. CUBA l. Casa Belga, René de Smedt, O'Rellt, 455, L. H.bana. CZECHOSLOVAKIA - TCIlECOSLOVAQUIE ëeskoslovensky 5pisovatel NArodnr 1Ylda 9, Praha 1. . DENMARK- DANEMARK Einar Munksgaard, N~rregade 60 K,benhavn. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC- REPUBLIQUE DOMINICAINE Libre"a DomlnicMa, Calle Mercedes Nil. ';9, Apartado 656, Ciudad TruJillo. ECUADOR,..... EQUATEUR Munoz Hermanos y Cla., P/aza lIei Teatra, Quito. EGYPT- EGYPTE· Librairie "La RenaIssance d'Egypte," 9 SH. Ad Iy Pa.ha, CaIro. El SALVADOR - SALVADOR M.nuel Nava. y Ciao "La Casa dei L1bro B.rato" la Avenlda 'ur num. 37, Sail Salvadol·. ETHIOPIA - ETHIOPIE Agence Ethiopienne de Publicité, Bol( 8. Addis-Abeba. O~ford Book & House, New Delhi. INDONESIA -INDONESIE JaJasan Pembanguna~, 84, Djakarta. IRAQ-IRAK Mackenzle's Bookshop, Statloners, Baghdad. IRAN Ketab-Kh.neh Avenue, Teheran. IRELAND -IRLANDE Hlbernlan General cial Building., Dame ISRAEL Leo Blumsteln, 35 Allenby Road, ITALy -ITALIE Colibri S.A., Via lEBANON - LIliAN Librairie universelle, LIBERIA J. Momolu Kamara, Streets, Monrovia. lUXEM BOURG Librairie J. Schummer, Luxembourg. MEXICO - MEXIQUE Editorial Hermes, cal 41, Mexico, NETHERLANDS N.V. Martlnus 9, 's·Gravenhage. NEW ZEALAND- NOUVELLE'ZELANDE United Nations land, G.P.O. 1011, NICARAGUA Dr. Ramiro Ramlrez Publlcaclones, Managua, Unltecl Nal/ons publlcaflons COlI I.,/Jet he oblalned ',om Ille followlng bOClbel/ets: GERMANY - ALLEMAGNE AUSTRIA - AUTRICHE Buchhandlung Elwert & Meuret', Haupt.' B. WüUerstorlf, Waagplatz, strasse, 101, Bcrlln.Sch6neb.rg. Salzburg. W. E., S.arbach, Frankenstrasse, 14, l(ëln·Junkmdorl. JAPAN - JAPON Alexander Horn, Spiesergasse, 9, Maruzen Co., Ltd., Wlesb.den. NIhonbashl, Tokyo Orde" and Inquiri.. "rorn countrles wh,re sale. e;ents ha,ye not yet boen appolnted may be "nt to: Sole. end Circulation S.cllon. United Netlons, New York. U.5.A.: or 5ales Section, United N~tlons Office, Palai, des Nation., Geneya, SwlherJand.