Sir Mohammed ZAFRULLAH KHAN expressed the gratitude of his delegation to the Government and people of France for the gracious welcome and hospitality extended to the United Nations during the present session of the General Assembly. It was fitting and a matter for deep satisfaction that the present session, convened at a time when the chances of the maintenance of international peace appeared to be so precariously and delicately balanced, should be held in the city of Paris which would always be associated with the doctrines of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. If the practical application of those doctrines could be achieved throughout the international sphere, the principal ills with which distracted humanity was at present afflicted would find a speedy cure. He hoped that before the General Assembly concluded its labours in Paris, a substantial advance in that direction would have been made.
His delegation wished to endorse the appreciation already expressed by so many delegations of the work of the United Nations in the social, humanitarian and economic fields. He would refrain from submitting further observations with reference to the work of the United Nations in those fields, not because he undervalued the importance of that work, but because, after the elaborate and admirable review given by the representative of Lebanon, further observations would be at best but needless repetition.
The Pakistan delegation also shared the disappointment expressed by several representatives at the slow pace of progress in securing and maintaining international peace. His delegation recognized that the ideals of the United Nations would always have to be ahead of its achievements but it was equally essential that the advance towards those ideals should be maintained at a vigorous pace. He wished at the outset of his statement to recall the purposes of the United Nations as set out in Article 1 of the Charter.
He would endeavour to focus the attention of the General Assembly on those purposes with reference to the concrete problems before it, and would begin by inviting its attention to the duty of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security by taking effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace. Among the nations represented at the Assembly and even among those not yet represented in the United Nations, there was not one that wanted war. All nations desired peace, yet there was no peace, and if peace were not securely established, war would surely, inevitably and speedily ensue.
Human society had to move forward. When conditions requiring adjustment arose and were neglected, the elements of a conflict began to accumulate, and, unless the causes were removed or remedied in time, conflict became inevitable. It might take the form of social, economic or political upheaval, or revolution within national boundaries, or it might extend beyond those boundaries and assume the shape of armed conflict between two or more nations. Past experience had shown that once the flames had burst out it was impossible to avoid a general conflagration.
That being so, it was the plain duty of the United Nations to be constantly on the. alert to uncover abuses likely to culminate in armed conflict and to seek, by whatever means were open to it, to remedy such abuses, or at least to insist upon their correction in good time. For instance by the end of the first decade of the present century, it was becoming more and more clear that the so-called colonial system, which had as its ultimate basis notions of race superiority, and as its object the exploitation of backward areas and what were regarded as inferior or primitive races, had outlived even such doubtful beneficence as it might ever have been supposed to possess and was serving no purpose beyond intensifying rivalry and hostility among European powers. Yet no positive step had been taken towards liquidating a system which was fast becoming a menace to the peace of the world.
The First World War should have brought that lesson home to the colonial Powers; yet each of them, even after so fearful a lesson, continued to cling to the illusion that, in its own case, that which had been demonstrated to be evil would continue to yield good and beneficial results. During the period between the two world wars very little progress had been made towards the practical repudiation of the doctrine of race superiority and its corollary, race domination. One consequence had been that that very doctrine had become the basis of Nazi ideology and had plunged the nations — exploiter and exploited alike — into the seething cauldron of the Second World War.
If Pakistan, India, Burma, Ceylon, Malaya, Indonesia, Viet Nam and the Philippines had been stable independent States by the late ’twenties or early ’thirties of the century, the greater part of the temptation that inspired the aggressive designs of Nazi Germany and Japan would doubtless never have existed. If war had come nevertheless, it would, at least in South East Asia, certainly have worn an aspect very different from that which it actually assumed.
Japan had struck at the Philippines Viet Nam, Indonesia, Malaya and Burma — the peoples of which had no motive or incentive to offer any very desperate resistance to the invaders — because by so doing it could conveniently strike at the United States of America, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Many of the colonial peoples had, no doubt mistakenly, considered the invasion as an attempted liberation; at the worst it had appeared to them as a possible change of masters. How sadly mistaken they were had appeared only later but it could not be denied that such had been their impression at the time.
He wondered how far the lesson taught by the two world wars had been taken to heart. Pakistan, India, Burma, the Philippines and Ceylon had become free nations and the first four of them were Members of the United Nations. He hoped that it would soon be possible to welcome Ceylon also as a Member. Malaya, Indonesia and Viet Nam were still struggling to achieve their freedom. That struggle could have only one issue, but if the United Nations could speed forward that struggle to a peaceful and successful conclusion, it would have made a direct contribution towards the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security by the removed of threats to the peace.
In that sphere, the United Nations had a continuing and an ever more vigorous role to play. There wore vast areas and numerous peoples eagerly awaiting the attainment of their freedom. For the fulfilment of that hope, they would have to depend chiefly upon their own constructive efforts. But they had also been invited and encouraged to put their trust in the United Nations, and that trust should not be betrayed.
It should not for one moment be forgotten that, so long as exploitation and the opportunities for exploitation were tolerated, there would be competitors for exploitation, and international peace would not be secure.
It was the duty of the United Nations to take effective collective measure for the suppression of acts of aggression and other breaches of the peace. In that connexion he wished to invite the attention of the Assembly to the case of Hyderabad, which had recently been submitted to the Security Council and was at present under consideration. The State of Hyderabad had been over-run by the military forces of a powerful neighbour. That had happened while Hyderabad was pleading for the settlement by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, of the situation which had arisen between Hyderabad and India, a situation which had threatened to lead to a breach of the peace and had since led to such a breach. That was an instance of aggression, lacking even the shadow of an excuse, presented as it were as a challenge to the United Nations on the very eve of the convening of the present session of the General Assembly. He wondered how that challenge would be met.
Hyderabad was an independent State comprising 82,692 square miles of territory and had a population of 17 millions. Before the British domination of the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent, Hyderabad had been an independent State and had established treaty relations with some of the European Powers, including Great Britain and France. As a consequence of the interplay of the colonial policies of European Powers, Great Britain had established by treaty political suzerainty and paramountcy over Hyderabad, but that suzerainty had been expressly relinquished by virtue of section 7(b) of the Indian Independence Act of 1947.
The sovereignty of Hyderabad, which during that period had been subject to British paramountcy, reassumed its full proportions on the passing of that Act and Hyderabad again became a fully sovereign and independent State. That had not only been clearly stated in the British Parliament by the British Prime Minister, among others, but had also been expressly confirmed by the representative of India before the Security Council in the course of the discussion of the Indo-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir.
Sir Mohammed referred in that connexion to two declarations made by Mr. Ayyangar, the representative of India, before the Security Council.
On 15 January 1948, the Indian representative had said: «... when the Indian Independence Act came into force, Jammu and Kashmir, like other States, became free to decide whether it would accede to the one or the other of the two Dominions or remain independent. »
The second declaration was as follows: « The question of the future status of Kashmir vis-a-vis its neighbours and the world at large, and the further question, namely, whether it should withdraw from its accession to India and either accede to Pakistan or remain independent, with a right to claim admission as a Member of the United Nations — all this we have recognized to be a matter for unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir after normal life is restored to them.»
After 15 August 1947, when Hyderabad had become fully sovereign and independent, India had attempted through every form of pressure, coercion, intimidation and a war of nerves, to force Hyderabad into accession to India. Among the measures of coercion to which Hyderabad had been subjected was a rigid economic blockade, which prevented the entry into Hyderabad of foodstuffs, clothing, paper, stationery, petrol, motor cars and their spare parts, chemicals and fertilizers, cutlery, drugs and medical supplies, and oils of all kinds. It should be remembered that the only means Hyderabad had of obtaining those and other articles necessary even for the bare continuance of human existence was through and across India, since Hyderabad was surrounded on all sides by India. Those measures had also included the freezing of Hyderabad’s securities and a complete financial blockade so far as foreign trade was concerned. The Prime Minister of India and other Ministers, statesmen and leaders of India had repeatedly threatened Hyderabad with war and armed aggression.
On 25 April 1948, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, had said:
«There are two courses now open to Hyderabad — war or accession. We have been trying to solve this problem by negotiation, but that does not mean that we are afraid of following the path of war. »
That remark had subsequently been modified by the Prime Minister on 25 July 1947 at Madras, when he had said: «People talk of our having war with Hyderabad. What do they mean exactly? It is a completely wrong notion. There is no question of any war with Indian States. If there are wars, they are with foreign countries. If and when we consider it necessary, we shall have military operations against Hyderabad. »
In the opinion of representative of Pakistan that was simply a distinction without a difference.
On 24 June, in a speech at Lucknow, the Prime Minister of India had said: «Maybe the time might come when we shall have to send our forces, but before we do so we shall have to examine all interrelated issues arising from such a course. I am not afraid of using the Army, but at the same time it would be appropriate if we realized the reaction to this step in the international sphere. »
The Prime Minister had at least not been unconscious of repercussions in the international sphere if aft armed aggression against Hyderabad was undertaken.
In spite of the blockades, declarations, suspensions of communications and threats of war Hyderabad had always desired a peaceful settlement; such a settlement had first been attempted through negotiations, which had proved ineffective. Hyderabad had then desired to bring the issue before the United Nations, and had asked for facilities for its delegation to travel to the United Nations. It had been necessary to ask for those facilities as the only safe route of communication with India and with the outside world had been by air. Under the then existing circumstances, all air services into and through Hyderabad had been grounded by India. India had refused to grant any facilities by air. It had then been requested that an assurance should at least be given that, if the Hyderabad delegation attempted, at the risk of their lives, to travel as ordinary passengers they would be permitted to carry with them the documents they needed. That facility had also been denied.
Eventually, the case had been presented to the Security Council, but shortly afterwards Indian troops had marched into Hyderabad, and, although the latter had attempted resistance, the attempt had proved futile, and India had successfully carried out a military occupation of the State by its armed forces.
As a justification or excuse for that aggression, it had been alleged that serious disorders had broken out in Hyderabad. The representative of Pakistan questioned whether that would have furnished any justification or excuse for anybody to march into Hyderabad, even if the alleged disorder had really existed. Hyderabad had lacked foodstuffs, clothing, medical supplies, fertilizers, and even chlorine, which was necessary for the purification of drinking water. It had been subjected to a war of nerves by a powerful neighbour. Under those conditions a certain amount of excitement was to be expected, and it was a matter for wonder that serious disorders had not broken out in Hyderabad. The authorities then in charge of the Hyderabad administration deserved the highest credit for preserving order under the circumstances.
Sir Mohammed then quoted extensively from the views of neutral observers contained in Press reports, including the Daily Express and Daily Telegraph of London, dated 16 September 1948 and The Times of London of 23 September 1948.
He also referred to the letter from the Prime Minister of Hyderabad, Mir Laik Ali, to the Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, on the fourth day of the march of the Indian troops into Hyderabad, appealing for a cessation of hostilities. Those words, declared the representative of Pakistan, did not appear to be words of a leader of gangsters who was directing and carrying out acts of murder, loot and rape against the majority of the community.
Finally, Sir Mohammed quoted from the broadcast made by the Prime Minister of Hyderabad when the latter acceded to India’s demand. That broadcast came from the heart of the man who was in the midst of the struggle, who had aimed on the one hand at the peaceful solution of the problem, and who on the other had carried on to the extent of which he was capable the struggle of resisting inexcusable, blatant, open and unashamed aggression. But it showed that there had been no disorder which could have been made the excuse for the armed march of India’s troops into Hyderabad.
Indian spokesmen had said that India had had an army in Secunderabad until recently, and that all it wished to do was to put that army back. That statement betrayed an unconscious confusion of ideas. The army in Secunderabad had been placed there by the paramount Power, under the treaty with Hyderabad. When that treaty came to an end, that army was withdrawn and the Government of India had no right to post any army in Secunderabad at all. India was a Member State of the United Nations and was therefore pledged to bring any dispute which might arise before the appropriate organ of the United Nations, and, in the meantime, to live with Hyderabad as a good neighbour.
The representative of India had said the previous day in the Assembly that India honoured the spirit of the Charter as contrasted with its letter. It was not in accordance with the spirit of the Charter that a Member State, a powerful State as compared with Hyderabad, should have tried during the past months to bring about a settlement by pressure, by coercion, by economic and financial blockade, by threat of war and by armed force.
The victim had, on the other hand, been doing all in its power to bring the matter before the United Nations. If there had been a dispute with regard to the independence of Hyderabad, if India had genuinely believed that there was an issue in doubt, that could easily have been resolved by reference to the International Court of Justice. Any political differences could easily have been resolved or adjusted by bringing the matter before the United Nations. It was now said that the Indian troops had gone in merely for the purpose of restoring order — though such meagre news as had since filtered through from Hyderabad indicated that their purpose went very much further than that — and that their only object was to allow the people of Hyderabad to exercise their free and unfettered views with regard to the place their State should take among the nations of the world, whether it would decide to remain independent or to accede to India.
In support of his argument, the representative of Pakistan quoted from observations made in The Times of London dated 21 September 1948.
Both the letter and the spirit of the Charter were absolutely clear as far as the problem of Hyderabad was concerned. Wanton aggression had been committed, and was continuing. If the United Nations did not intervene effectively it would become stultified as the League of Nations had done in the face of Japan’s aggression in China and Italy’s aggression in Abyssinia, and would be reduced to the level of a political debating society.
Its plain duty was to suppress aggression under the terms of its Charter. The representative of India had expressed (143rd meeting) her indignation at the application of the word «aggression» to the conduct of her Government towards Hyderabad, but the question was not one of epithets. The independence of a sovereign State which, according to the representative of India, itself was entitled to apply for and be admitted to membership of the United Nations, had been subordinated to the will and designs of the Government of India by means of military action. The designs of the Government of India were proclaimed to be benevolent, but that was beside the point.
Governments had always sought to justify aggression on similar grounds. As one representative had remarked in the course of the recent discussions in the Security Council, Italy had sought to justify its intervention in Abyssinia on similar grounds of a humanitarian and civilizing character.
The representative of India had also announced that India had nothing to hide, but India had imposed the strictest censorship with regard to events in Hyderabad so that the outside world, including the United Nations, had no means of ascertaining what had happened in Hyderabad since its military occupation by the armed forces of India except for the news which the Government of India might choose to give out. If India had nothing to hide such censorship was surely unnecessary.
It was the plain duty of the United Nations to establish immediately its own system of observers in Hyderabad so that authentic and full information with regard to events in Hyderabad and the activities of the armed forces and agents of the Government of India could be made available to the United Nations and the rest of the world.
Its next duty would be to take effective steps to remove every trace of the aggression and all its effects and to restore Hyderabad to a position in which it would be able to make its own decision with regard to the place it desired to occupy among the nations of the world without any suspicion of pressure, coercion or intimidation from any quarter. It should be borne in mind that the greater the disparity between the strengths and resources of the aggressor and the victim, the more obnoxious and condemnable was the aggression. The speed with which an aggressor was able to accomplish his design did not in any way extenuate but aggravated the aggression. Speedy and effective action was required if the suppression of acts of aggression and other breaches of the peace by means of effective collective measures, as provided in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Charter, was not to be rendered a farce.
In the same context Sir Mohammed then wished to refer to the steps hitherto taken in connexion with threats to the independence and political integrity of Greece, unfortunately, those threats had not yet been completely eliminated. He hoped that every effort would be made to place the independence and integrity of Greece beyond any danger from such threats as early as possible.
The representative of India had made a reference to the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir, but had refrained from entering upon a discussion of the subject in view of the fact that the question was under the consideration of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. She had, however, stated that India had offered full co-operation with the United Nations Commission. That observation however was in itself of a somewhat controversial nature, and, divorced from its background, it might be open to question. Whatever India’s attitude toward the proposals of the Commission might be, it had throughout refused to accept the proposals of the Security Council itself regarding Kashmir and the other matters in dispute between Pakistan and India which had been brought to the notice of the Security Council. So far as Pakistan was concerned, it had offered its fullest co-operation to the United Nations Commission and had been at all times prepared to accept any proposal that the Commission might make in conformity with the directives laid down by the Security Council. Pakistan, however, would also refrain from making any further observations on that question at the present stage as it was under consideration by the Security Council.
While it was necessary for the maintenance of international peace that the United Nations should continue to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression and other breaches of the peace, it should, in its efforts to bring about the adjustment and settlement of disputes and situations which might lead to such breaches, be extremely careful to see that any such adjustment or settlement was in strict conformity with the principles of justice and the respect for the principles of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples and in consonance with the provisions and the spirit of the Charter. The United Nations must take care not to initiate or to make itself responsible for anything which was not based on fairness and justice and could not be wholly justified with reference to the provisions of the Charter.
Palestine was a case in point. The so-called State of Israel was the culmination of a course of the most insidious aggression carried on and persisted in during the course of a third of a century, contrary to all the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, including the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. It was now proposed to stamp that culmination with the approval of the United Nations. The Pakistan representative wished to offer a solemn warning that the setting up of the State of Israel in Palestine would mean the introduction of a canker into the body politic of the Middle East, which would eventually either have to be ejected through a surgical operation or else would poison the culture, economic security and policy not only of the Middle East but of vast areas beyond that region. Militant Zionism was the spearhead of a new aggression of the West against the East and it was idle to pretend or to hope that it would not sooner or later exact from both the West and the East the inevitable penalties that always followed upon aggression. He called upon the Assembly to pause and reflect while there was yet time.
He wondered what would be the attitude of the representatives of the nations of the West both in Europe and in America if it were a case of the East seeking to set up in the heart of the West a sovereign independent State for the benefit of the East, however much the establishment of such a State might be supported by the kind of consideration which had been advanced in the case of the so-called State of Israel. He wished in all humility, but in all earnestness, to remind and warn the assembled nations that at no time and under no circumstances would the East ever assimilate or reconcile itself to a sovereign State of Israel. With Jewry as such the East had no quarrel; it had, indeed, deep sympathy with the sufferings of the Jewish race but the proposed State of Israel offered no solution, either economic or political, of the problems facing the Jewish people. The insistence upon the establishment of a sovereign State of Israel in Palestine, which would help to solve none of the problems of the Jewish people, was bound to create and intensify many complicated problems and it might not be possible to solve them through peaceful means. He again urged the Assembly to pause and reflect while there was yet time.
Sir Mohammed expressed the hope that the solution of the racial problem in South Africa would be achieved on the basis of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all the peoples of that great Dominion without distinction as to race, colour or origin.
The world tended to be divided between conflicting ideologies. It should be borne in mind that the approach to human problems would always be made from different angles. Any attempt to impose or enforce uniformity was bound to induce a reaction in the opposite direction. Moreover, diversity of points of view and differences of approach and method were essential conditions of advancement and progress, and they should be encouraged rather than suppressed. The great need was for tolerance to give full scope for ideas to act and react beneficially upon each other.
To that end it was necessary for every nation to be free to develop its social, economic and political systems, organs and institutions along its own lines. The only condition was that no force, violence or compulsion should be employed either inside the nation or outside, and that all should be done openly and in the light of day. It was only when compulsion or sneaking underground methods were employed that dark designs and sinister motives were suspected. It was then that suspicion spread, fear was bred and a vicious circle set up.
Therefore, everything that tended to foster knowledge and to provide accurate information and to facilitate and promote free intercourse and interchanges across national frontiers should be encouraged. In other words, all the activities of the United Nations directed towards the lowering and removal of barriers restricting the free movement of ideas, goods, information and individuals should be intensified.
Pakistan would always be ready to offer the fullest co-operation in the achievement of those ideals along such lines.