SHEIKH MOHAMMED ABDULLAH AT UN SECURITY COUNCIL :Lalit k kaul
SHEIKH MOHAMMED ABDULLAH AT UN
SECURITY COUNCIL
Excerpts of Sheikh Abdullah's
February 5, 1948, speech in the UN Security Council
Following India’s complaint to
the United Nations, the issue of Jammu and Kashmir was discussed extensively by
the UN’s General Assembly and Security Council. Participating in these
discussions, the then Prime Minister of the State’s emergency government,
Sheikh Abdullah made a speech in the Security Council on February 5, 1948,
criticizing the Pakistan-sponsored tribal invasion of the State. Following are
excerpts from the statement.
I have heard with patience,
attention and respect the statements made by the representatives of Pakistan
and members of the Security Council, as well as the statements made on various
occasions by the members of my own delegation... I have heard patiently to the
debate in the Security Council, but I feel that I am rather confused. After
all, what is the point in dispute? The point in dispute is not that the
sovereignty of the Prince is in question, as the representative of Pakistan
stated yesterday.....
The subject of the dispute before
the Security Council is not the maladministration of the Princely State of
Kashmir... the dispute revolves around the fact that Kashmir acceded legally
and constitutionally to the Dominion of India... the tribesmen across the
border have poured into my country. They have been helped and are being helped
by the Pakistan Government, with the result that there is the possibility of a
greater conflagration between India and Pakistan. But (the representative of
Pakistan) completely denied that any support was being given by the Government
of Pakistan to either the tribesmen or those who are in revolt within the State
against the constituted authority...
But then this simple issue has
been confused... Today Pakistan has become the champion of our liberty. I know
very well that in 1946, when I raised the cry of "Quit Kashmir," the
leader of the Pakistan Government, who is the Governor-General now, Mr.Mohammad
Ali Jinnah, opposed my Government, declaring that this movement was a movement
of a few renegades and that Muslims as such had nothing to do with the
movement.
The Muslim Conference, which has
been talked about so much, opposed my movement and declared its loyalty to the
Prince. The representative of Pakistan now says that Sheikh Abdullah, once the
supporter of "Quit Kashmir," has joined hands with the Maharaja of
Kashmir....side..... But the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and its people, kept
calm....
Why was that so? It was because I
and my organization never believed in the formula that Muslims and Hindus form
separate nations. We do not believe in the two-nation theory, nor in communal
hatred or communalism itself. We believed that religion had no place in
politics. Therefore, when we launched our movement of "Quit Kashmir"
it was not only Muslims who suffered, but our Hindu and Sikh comrades as
well....
The situation was worsening day
by day and the minority in our State was feeling very nervous. As a result
tremendous pressure was brought to bear upon the State administration to
release me and my colleagues. The situation outside demanded the release of
workers of National Conference, along with its leader, and we were accordingly
set free.
Immediately we were liberated from
the prison we were faced with the important question of whether Kashmir should
accede to Pakistan, accede to India, or remain independent... We could not
decide this all important issue before achieving our own liberation, and our
slogan became "Freedom before accession." Some friends from Pakistan
met me in Srinagar. I have a heart-to-heart discussion with them and explained
my point of view....
While I was engaged in these
conversations and negotiations with friends from Pakistan, I sent one of my colleagues
to Lahore, where he met the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr.Liaquat Ali Khan,
and other high dignitaries of the West Punjab Government. He placed the same
point of view before them and requested that they should allow us time to
consider this vital question, first helping us to achieve our liberation
instead of forcing us to declare our decision one way or the other. Then, one
fine morning while these negotiations were proceeding, I received news that a
full-fledged attack had been carried out by the raiders on Muzaffarabad,
frontier town in the Kashmir Province....
While the raiders came to our
land, massacred thousands of people -- mostly Hindus and Sikhs, but Muslims too
-- abducted thousands of girls, Hindu, Sikhs and Muslims alike, looted our property
and almost reached the gates of our summer capital, Srinagar, the result was
that the civil, military and police administration failed. The Maharaja, in the
dead of the night, left the capital along with his courtiers, and the result
was absolute panic. There was no one to take over control. In that hour of
crisis, the National Conference came forward with 10,000 volunteers and took
over the administration of the country. They started guarding the banks, the
offices and houses of every person in the capital. This is the manner in which
the administration changed hands. We were de facto in charge of the
administration. The Maharaja, later on, gave it a legal form....
I was explaining how the dispute
arose -- how Pakistan wanted to force this position of slavery upon us.
Pakistan had no interest in our liberation or it would not have opposed our
freedom movement. Pakistan would have supported us when thousands of my
countrymen were behind bars and hundreds were shot to death. The Pakistani
leaders and Pakistani papers were heaping abuse upon the people of Kashmir who
were suffering these tortures.
Then, suddenly, Pakistan comes
before the bar of the world as the champion of liberty of the people of Jammu
and Kashmir....
I had thought all along that the
world had got rid of Hitlers and Goebbels, but, from what has happened and what
is happening in my poor country, I am convinced that they have only
transmigrated their souls into Pakistan...
If Pakistan comes forward and
says, "We question the legality of the accession," I am prepared to
discuss whether or not the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India was legal.
However, now they say, "We want a plebiscite; we want to obtain the free
and unfettered opinion of the people of Kashmir. There should be no pressure
exerted on the people and they should make the free choice as to the State to
which they wish to accede."
Not only is this the offer that
was made by the people of Kashmir to Pakistan long, long ago, but it is the
offer made by Prime Minister of India at a time when, I think, he had not the
slightest need for making it, as Kashmir was in distress.
We realized that Pakistan would
not allow us any time, that we had either to suffer the fate of our kith and
kin of Muzaffarabad, Baramula, Srinagar and other towns and villages, or to
seek help from some outside authority.
Under those circumstances, both
the Maharaja and the people of Kashmir requested the Government of India to
accept our accession. The Government of India could easily have accepted the
accession and could have said, "All right, we accept your accession and we
shall render this help." There was no necessity for the Prime Minister of
India to add the proviso, when accepting the accession, that "India does
not want to take advantage of the difficult situation in Kashmir. We will
accept this accession because, without Kashmir's acceding to the Indian
dominion, we are not in a position to render any military help. But once the
country is free from the raiders, marauders and looters, this accession will be
subject to ratification by the people." That was the offer made by the
Prime Minister of India.
That was the same offer which was
made by the people of Kashmir to the Government of Pakistan, but it was refused
because at that time Pakistan felt that it could, within a week, conquer the
entire Jammu and Kashmir State and then place fait accompali before the world,
just as happened some time ago in Europe....
After all, we have been
discussing the situation in Kashmir. I should say we have been playing the
drama of Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark....
The Security Council should not
confuse the issue. The question is not that we want internal freedom; the
question is not how the Maharaja got his State, or whether or not he is
sovereign. These points are not before the Security Council. Whether Kashmir
has lawfully acceded to India -- complaints on that score have been brought
before the Security Council on behalf of Pakistan -- is not the point at issue.
If that were the point at issue then we should discuss that subject. We should
prove before the Security Council that Kashmir and the people of Kashmir have
lawfully and constitutionally acceded to the Dominion of India, and Pakistan
has no right to question that accession. However, that is not the discussion
before the Security Council....
Pakistan, the Security Council
must send a commission to the spot to see whether the complaint brought before
the Security Council is valid or invalid.... Therefore, somebody must go to the
spot. Then at that time it would be for us to prove that the charges we have
brought before the Security Council are correct to the last word. That is the
only help, we want, and no other help.
Source: United Nations
Comments
Post a Comment