TeaOn 16 January, he made a statement in this council by the representative of Pakistan, it is true, with a brief mention of the partition of India. After this it went to the post that India accepted the “spectacular offering of the reception of the Kashmir state”, and it seems that whatever was to be expressed was that we are in relation to the dispute about the region here.
Mr. President, I believe that you and all but one or two members of the Security Council are new people for this subject. It is quite true that it is not a person, but it shows that governments represent here. And even in relation to the Security Council, most of them, if not all of them, are new people for the subject. I have the duty for the Security Council and my government, as well as international peace and safety, to present this problem, even at the risk of trying the patience of the council in detail, in this way, such a duty to make the picture competent in this way.
It would be remembered that the last time the Security Council considered the matter, it was on 23 December 1952, which is more than four years, a fact that is not without importance, because at the subsequent stage in their comments, the Representative of Pakistan tried to realize the council that a crisis was developing in the case. I will mention that factor in a moment.
It was the Government of India which came here in the first example. The Government of India came here on 1 January 1948. This is not normal for the government of average capacity and intelligence, as mine is, to come before the Security Council and to draw your attention to the mistakes made by you. It has not done anything wrong in this particular case, and in any case the matter is clear in itself.
Preparing conflict as aggression, no dispute
We felt, as my predecessor actually told the council on this chair, that there is no dispute about the region. If this was a dispute about the region, I say with great respect that the Security Council would be incapable of dealing with either a political or judicial question, and the Security Council under Chapter VI or Chapter VII will deal with only international peace and security questions. So we brought a situation here and there is no dispute.
Therefore, our initial point is that we came here to ask for redressal on charges of aggression, to file a complaint. If Pakistan does not mention this initial point, then we have to explain why we were so worried about it. After all, sometimes there are difficulties. Even today we have raided in a way or in some other way. But then why did we ask the Security Council to deal with the matter? If Pakistan does not do this, it is to say, preventing aggression, the Government of India can be forced into self-defense-and I projuze that self-defense is not only a right of the UN member states, but it is a responsibility that the member states have a obligation to maintain the compilation of their own countries. The region, which we did not do, to take military action against the invaders. Therefore, there is excessive urge and call for immediate action by the Security Council to avoid violation of international peace.
As the delimitation of this picture is more complete, it will be clear that the efforts of the India and the Security Council and similarly in the earlier stages were addressed to prevent hostility.
Therefore, our country was faced by the situation that part of its area was attacked, and that attack was to be opposed; Had to push it back. The general practice of war will have to be defended by attacking the invader. But it was in 1947, and it was a fact, which is true for us at any rate today, that these were the same people who were part of our country but ten years ago. January 1947 … and what is more between October, when these things started, our two countries had only gone through the holocaust of Fratricide, that is, the Indians who killed Indians and killed Indians. We had seen a orgy of violence, and it was our government’s wish that nothing should be done to re -awakened these embers that were still burning at that time.
This was the original situation, and I will keep coming back. We are here on the complaint of aggression. That aggression has not been solved; It did not get rid of it. So as long as there is a place in other countries where they have no rights despite our rights, I think the Security Council is called under the provisions of the charter, to work accordingly.
In this context, so many trees have grown, and a very small amount of underground, that it is impossible to see the wood properly, and it will be my endeavor to present it in the best way. We will try to help the Security Council to see this picture. As I said, five years ago we argued it, and in five years – even nine years apart from – there are many things. It is part of the unavoidable exercises of nations that changes in circumstances about time and which can go to the root of a question should also be taken into consideration.
This is part of Theprint Great speech series. It has speech and debate which shapes modern India.