1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

Content

Foreign Affairs Record 1959Volume V JANUARY No. 1

CONTENTS

FOREIGN AND HOME AFFAIRS

President's Republic Day Broadcast 1 President's Message to Indian Nationals Abroad 2

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C. S. Jha's Statement on Economic Development in Under- Developed Countries 2

INDIA AND GHANA

Dr. Nkrumah's Speech 4 Prime Minister's Reply 5 Press Communique 6

INDONESIA

Trade Agreement Extended 7

MONGOLIAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC

Promotion of Trade 7

SWEDEN

lnstruments of Ratification Exchanged 7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Indo-U.S. Co-operation Programme Extended 8

UNITED KINGDOM

Air Services Agreement Reviewed 8

UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC

Instruments of Ratification Exchanged 9

WEST GERMANY

Loan Agreement Signed 9

YUGOSLAVIA

Marshal Tito's Visit 10 Marshal Tito's Speech 11 Press Communique 12

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS : EXTERNAL PUBLICITY DIVISION GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

INDIA GHANA INDONESIA MONGOLIA SWEDEN USA GERMANY YUGOSLAVIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

FOREIGN AND HOME AFFAIRS

President's Republic Day Broadcast

The President of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasadmade the following Republic Day broadcast tothe nation on January 25, 1959 :

I take this opportunity once again to talk tomy countrymen, to greet them and offer them mybest wishes on the eve of our Republic Day. itis the ninth Republic Day that we are celebratingand it is well to remember that our Republic isstill young, but it is growing at a pace which fillsour hearts with pride and gives not only to us but

to our friends outside as well a sense ofsatisfaction.

In these recent years we have seen thespectacle of a gigantic effort to mobilise the wholenation to develop its resources and to reconstructits economic life. Despite handicaps andnumerous difficulties, which planning in sucha vast country as India of necessity involves, wehave gone on and intend to go on from plan toplan till we have made sure that every citizen of theIndian Republic can have a reasonable standardof living and enjoys a measure of social security.On the progress that we have made in this directionso far, we have been the recipients of complimentsfrom many a foreign visitor and impartial critic.While this naturally makes us happy, we are onlytoo conscious of the difficulties we have to contendagainst and the shortcomings we have to get over.whenever, therefore, we allow our minds towander and bring the affairs of the State withinthe purview of thought, both the sides of thepicture emerge to view. Let us see how thesituation stands.

During the year that is ending today I havehad occasion to visit a few foreign countries. Itpleases me a great deal to see that India is held inhigh esteem by the peoples and leaders of thosecountries. There is admiration for the mannerin which we have conducted ourselves since thedawn of freedom. There may be several factorslike our ancient heritage and our tremendousefforts in tackling the problems of economicreconstruction and industrialisation that havehelped others to formulate their views about India,but I have no doubt in my mind that the biggestsingle factor that has been responsible for elicitingthis appreciation abroad is our foreign policy. Bymany India is looked upon as a bulwark of peaceand as, a nation which stands for the progress andfreedom of all nations, which recognises diversityin the pattern of ideologies and administrationsand which at the same time believes that givenmutual goodwill and tolerance, all these diversepatterns can co-exist. The fact that we are tryingto solve our problems by well recognised demo-cratic methods adds to that appreciation.

I feel happy to say that this policy has wonus friends and well-wishers in foreign lands. Butat the same time it casts a heavy responsibilityon all Indians at home and on those of our

nationals living in foreign lands. We must seethat in our thinking and our day-to-day behaviourwe refrain from doing anything which may notconform to this policy of tolerance and co-existence. A nation's ideology and policiesare often judged from the behaviour of itsnationals.

Coming to things nearer home, it is well-known and easily understandable that plannedeconomy imposes great stresses and strains on thepeople. A nation in this respect is not fardifferent from a family unit. In order to plan abetter future and to build up a happier life,both have to make sacrifices, undergo some strainand possibly some suffering. It may well meandislocations and deprivations. but the idea ofultimate achievement sustains them, helpingthem to endure those sufferings willingly. if,therefore, our planning has imposed anysuch hardships on certain sections of ourpeople, it is expected that in the larger interestof the nation and a brighter and happier future,these will be faced without demur.

What is of utmost importance is the spirit ofsacrifice, the willingness to give voluntarily in thepresent in order to have more in the futurethrough our own efforts. It would be wrongto imagine that austerity as a virtue belongedonly to the past or that the spirit of sacrifice is notneeded to build up a free nation. If anything,there is greater need for this spirit today than itwas before when we were engaged in the strugglefor freedom. It is my earnest request to all mycountrymen, to all my brothers and sisters-wherever they live, whether in towns or in thecountry-side, to ponder over the situation andask themselves whether they have made or arewilling to make their share of the sacrifice for thebuilding of the India of our dreams.

The problem of food is a basic problem forall and especially for us. With our great traditionsof agriculture going back to centuries and thecapacity for work and shrewdness and intelligence

1

of our people it is really a matter of shame andhumiliation that we should have to look to othercountries for food and spend hundreds of croresof rupees on importing it. Let every agriculturist

realise that in increasing production and enhanc-ing the yield per acre of land he is not onlydoing a great national service but also improvinghis own standard and thus combining and identify-ing national interest with his own. Once thisrealisation comes it should not be difficult byintensive cultivation and the use of improvedmethods to raise the yield twofold and solve thisdifficult problem and become free from theeverpresent ghost of hunger.

Brothers and sisters, I would ask you topause and think of the great opportunity thathas come your way and the responsibility thathas devolved upon you. The task of raisinga new edifice has been entrusted by Fate to you,for you are the builders of a new India. Canany sacrifice be too great to see that you havedone your duty and helped your nation, that hastasted the fruit of freedom after a long spell offoreign domination, to reach its destiny?

In the midst of national rejoicings, I haveperhaps struck a different note, but truly speaking,the two are not at variance with each other.Rejoicings which flow from a sense of responsibi-lity are truly rich and abiding. I wish you all thebest of luck and prosperity in the coming year.

INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

FOREIGN AND HOME AFFAIRS

President's Message to Indian Nationals Abroad

The President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad broadcastthe following message to Indian nationals abroadon the occasion of the Republic Day, January 26,1959 :

I send my greetings to all my countrymen inforeign lands on the happy occasion of the 9th

anniversary of our Republic. It was my privilegeto have met many of them during the last yearwhen I happened to visit Japan, Malaya andIndonesia. Meeting them, talking to them fromclose and hearing about them from others gaveme much satisfaction and pleasure. I had also anopportunity of meeting large numbers of theIndian community in Hong Kong and on theairports in Rangoon, Bangkok and Singapore.

What I told these brothers and sisters of ourcountry whom I happened to meet, I would liketo say to Indian nationals living in other landsalso. First of all, let me tell them somethingabout the pace of progress at home. We arepursuing relentlessly our goal to achieve socialand economic reconstruction in a planned mannerand in stipulated stages. In all parts of India bigand small projects and good many communitydevelopment schemes in our rural areas are inprogress. If and when you are able to visit India,I can assure you of at least a few pleasant sur-prises. The countrywide awakening and thefeeling of consciousness have begun to bear fruit.

There is something which I would like youalso to bear in mind. The people of the countriesin which you are now living are bound to judgeIndia through you and from your day-to-daybehaviour. For this reason you do not have toact in an artificial manner. You are only tokeep in mind the fact that you are the citizens offree India and that all that you do and the wayin which you conduct yourselves have somethingto do with other people's assessment of themother country. I must compliment you all onthe good things that I heard about many of youduring my recent State visits to Japan, Malayaand Indonesia.

Once again I send you all my greetings andhearty good wishes for a happy and pros-perous New Year.

INDIA JAPAN INDONESIA HONG KONG REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C.S. Jha's Statement on Economic Development in Under-DevelopedCountries

Shri C.S. Jha, Permanent Representative ofIndia to the United Nations, made a statementin the Governing Council of the SpecialUnited Nations Fund for Economic Deve-lopment in Under-Developed Countries onJanuary 27, 1959.

The following is the full text of hisstatement :

The establishment of the Special Fund isanother milestone in the progress of the UnitedNations. In the creation of this fund lies the

2

fulfilment of one of the major objectives set outin the preamble to the Charter and the mandatein Article 55 of the Charter to promote "higherstandards of living, full employment, and condi-tions of economic and social progress anddevelopment". I need hardly say that throughoutthe years my country has laid the greatest emphasison this and we believe that prosperity, like peaceis indivisible and that it would be a sad andunharmonious-even dangerous-world if it werepart prosperous, part wealthy and part poor.suffering from the ills associated with poverty.The creation of the Fund has other significancetoo. It is the realisation by the United Nationsthat common effort is necessary to contributetowards the amelioration of the conditions inwhat are now called 'under-developed' areas.Secondly, it is the beginning of a co-operativestep by the nations of the world to solve one ofthe world's oldest and most pressing problems.We know by experience that co-operative methodsin national affairs produce the best results for thegood of the community; likewise such efforts ininternational field promise much good forthe under-developed countries and the inter-national community as a whole. Thirdly, it issignificant that the Special Fund brings together bigpowers whom recent developments have often led

into competitive conflicts in various fields, includingfields of economic assistance to under-developedcountries, in a joint effort to aid the economy ofunder-developed countries. The creation of theSpecial Fund is thus very satisfying to mydelegation and it is fully in consonance with thepolicies of my Government and the spirit that hasanimated its discussions here. If I may say so,it is a very good augury for the future. In ourview the Special Fund is important more for thefuture than for what it promises immediately. Thelarger the area of the co-operative efforts as areembodied in the creation of the Fund, the betterit will be for all concerned and for the UnitedNations.

Having said all this, Mr. Chairman, permitme to say a few words about the basic realities.I think I am merely reiterating the well-knownfacts, but it is better that at this initial stage weshould recall them to our mind. The populationof the under-developed countries covers 2/3 of theworld's population. The gap between the percapita income of the most developed country inthe world to-day, i.e. the USA, $2,500 and anAsian country at $70-$80 gives some measure ofthe vastness and complexity of the problem.When I mention the figures I do so with alladmiration for the tremendous achievementaccomplished by the US. The problem is thuscolossal and the beginnings represented by theUnited Nations expanded technical assistance andthe Special Fund are really small. Much more isto be done by the United Nations if it is to fulfilthe mandate conferred by the Charter.

The Special Fund is welcome, nevertheless.It is the greatest common measure of under-standing and agreement. It is a long delayedstep in the right direction. It is our hope that allcountries, including the big powers, will contributemore and more resources to the Fund to permitexpansion of its scope and activity. In thisconnection I would entirely agree with thedistinguished delegate of Yugoslavia. It would,I think, not be out of place to bring to theattention of the members of the Council twoaspects of the Fund to which my delegationattaches importance. May I invite attention topara 3 of the U.N. General Assembly resolution1219 of 14 December 1957 which was reaffirmedin part C of the resolution 1240 of the last sessionof the General Assembly and paragraph 56 of the

resolution which set up the Fund ? It is clearfrom these that the Special Fund is a kind of astage in a larger and more extended goal, and itis the view of my delegation that our deliberationsand our discussions should always keep in viewthe larger objectives which the U.N. itselfhas laid down. In the resolution, for reasonswith which we are all familiar, we were not able toachieve too much. It is also relevant to note inthis connection that under-developed countries arereally crying for technological development. Itwill not do to over-emphasise the agriculturalaspect. Under-developed countries are convincedthat without a balanced agricultural and techno-logical development they cannot really reach anystandards of improvement or succeed in augment-ing the standards of living. Therefore, as ageneral comment I would say that in our projectswe should be careful not to over-emphasise thoseaspects which relate to agriculture, livestock andother related developments.

I was deeply impressed by the words of theManaging Director that we must not be contentwith the old concepts of how the interests of thepeople of the world can best be advanced or therate at which they can be advanced. In this dayof startling scientific achievements and rapidlyadvancing technology old standards are not goodenough. We dare not be pedestrian either in ourthinking or in our actions. We entirely agree.I think we shall justify ourselves and the hopes,however feeble, of the under-developed countries,in the Special Fund, if our discussions, delibera-tions and decisions are animated by these broadconcepts and imagination is brought to bear onhis question. We think that it should be the3

purpose of the U.N. Special Fund and of theGoverning Council to act harmoniously so thatmore and more capital should be available fromthe big powers and other capital-rich countries.We hope that even if they have not been able tocontribute much this year, there will be larger con-tributions from them in the future, and that thesecountries will be encouraged and justified by thework that we put in. With the Managing Directorand his able Deputy this should not be difficult.A good beginning has already been madeand we are confident that better things are tocome.

As regards the projects, may I suggest, on asomewhat different note from what the ManagingDirector said, that the Fund should not be contentin treating itself as a purely service organisation.It is true that the initiation of projects must liewith the under-developed countries themselves,but I believe that the Fund can safely play auseful part in suggesting and helping many under-developed countries to take proposals. Manycountries have not the equipment, technical know-ledge and personnel, etc. for the formulation ofthese projects and assessment of their needs andwe feel that the Fund should not fight shy oftaking the initiative even if it is likely to beslightly misunderstood. We feel that assistancesuch as that will be very welcome in many count-ries. I can certainly say that in my country suchan initiative will always be welcome, although weourselves have the equipment and the per-sonnel necessary to formulate and initiate theprojects.

The classification of projects as indicated inthe Managing Director's report appears to begenerally sound, but at this stage we should becareful not to adopt too rigid a classification,either as regards the amounts or the category ofproposals. After all, we are chartering unex-plored territory and we have first to get themaximum of information, the maximum ofproposals from different countries, and I wouldsupport the suggestion made by the Yugoslavdelegation that there should be a preliminaryphase followed by subsequent phases of pro-gramme. I think this is very essential in the initialstage. We know that it is not very easy, but weleave it to the Managing Director to consider thismatter and let the Special Fund have programmeson that basis.

Mr. Chairman, these are the general remarksthat I wish to make. I would like to conclude bywishing the Fund the maximum of success. Ihope that our deliberations will be animated bythe larger considerations and that we do notconvert ourselves merely into a body dispensing acertain amount of money, fifty million or ahundred million dollars. We should, I think,keep our objectives in view with the faith whichhas inspired this Fund. It really is a materialisa-tion of the desires of large numbers of people allover the world that the United Nations is thebest forum of channelling economic assistance.

The Special Fund is a very humble effort, but letus make it a bigger affair through ourdeliberations.

INDIA USA YUGOSLAVIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA AND GHANA

Dr. Nkrumah's Speech

At the invitation of the Government of India,Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, Prime Minister of Ghana,paid a visit to India from December 22, 1958to January 8, 1959. On January 2, Dr. Nkrumahgave a Banquet in honour of Prime MinisterNehru in New Delhi. Speaking on the occasionDr. Nkrumah said:

My dear Prime Minister, Your excellencies,Ladies and Gentlemen,

I thank you for the welcome accorded to us,Mr. Prime Minister, and I want to take thisopportunity to thank you personally for makingit possible for me through your invitation tovisit India. And secondly I want to thank onbehalf of myself and my party the Governmentand the people of India for the warm welcomeand the spontaneous reception which has beenaccorded to me and my party wherever we havebeen since our arrival in India a fortnight ago.We have enjoyed ourselves immensely and wecarry back with us to Ghana, and for that matterAfrica, sweet memories of our visit. We havelearned a lot and as I said somewhere else wehave in many other ways followed the footstepsof India, except in one thing. We have not asyet been able to declare Ghana a Republicwithin the Commonwealth, but I hope thatit will not be long when we shall take thatstep to declare Ghana a Republic within theCommonwealth.

4

Since our arrival here we have been aroundand we have seen many things and we go backI won't say sad-and I know how sad it is topart in circumstances such as these, but I hopewhat we have observed and what we have seenwill go with us, so that it would be the basisfor continuing the cement which, we hope, willbe established between the people of Ghana, andIndia. There exists friendship and goodwill, butI hope that my visit here would strengthen thatfriendship and that goodwill, so that that alsoran be a basis for further development in Africawhich would bring India closer to Ghana andto Africa and for that matter Africa and Asia. Itis in this spirit, Mr. Prime Minister, that we leaveyou and I hope that other opportunities alsowill come for us to come this way. Before Ileave, I do not want to solicit any promise fromyou, but I hope it will not be long before youwill make it possible to visit Ghana and someother parts of the African continent.

So, with these few words, Your Excellencies,let us all get up and drink the toast to myesteemed friend, Mr. Prime Minister, and theGovernment and the people of India.

GHANA INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA AND GHANA

Prime Minister's Reply

Replying to Dr. Nkrumah Shri Nehru said:

Mr. Prime Minister, Excellencies, Ladies andGentlemen: Some days ago we welcomed youhere, and today we are in a sense bidding you

good-bye from Delhi at least. I am very gladthat you are spending some more days in Indiaand going to the southern part of this big country.I am glad of that, because I hope you will havesome good rest there as you intend having, andsecondly because any person who comes to Indiaand does not go to the south of India has notseen India. South of India is of course anessential part of India, but it is a particular partof India with its own charm, and therefore toform some idea of India it is necessary to seeboth the north and the south. But even so, youwill have seen only a small part of this country,and during the last many years I have seen onlya part of this country in spite of efforts and agood deal of travelling.

We welcomed you and you came here for avariety of reasons, personally as a great leader ofyour people and of Africa and also as the symbolof the African people who are emerging intofreedom. That freedom will have no doubtcome to them. But perhaps almost the firstessential of that freedom is not the politicalchange that comes but the inner freedom of thespirit that comes to a people when they resolveto be free. I remember how our great leaderGandhiji used to tell us that you will be freewhen you feel free and that the rest will follow.I think that there is a great deal of truth in that.Any kind of freedom that comes by some changeof circumstances without that inner feeling isnot a very firm freedom. What one observes inAfrica from a distance is that inner spirit offreedom rising among the people, and if that isthere, the rest of course follows. Unfortunatelywe live in a world full of quarrel and trouble,struggle and tension, and often enough theproblem is looked at, the struggle is looked at asbetween two parties involving the victoryof one party and possibly the defeat of an-other which is unfortunate. If it could be soarranged that the victory of one party is alsothe victory of the other, how good it would beI remember some words said by a very great sonof India who lived long long ago, and hesaid : the true victory is one in which everybodyis victorious and none is defeated. I do notknow if that is feasible or possible in this worldof ours wholly, but certainly it might be partlypossible. At any rate it would be a good thingif we tried to gain our victories in this way eventhough we do not wholly succeed in conveying

the sense of victory to all concerned. Probably weare arriving at a stage in the world's affairs whenthere really cannot be an ultimate victory ofone or the defeat of one without involving thedefeat of so many, and so I hope that in thisfreedom of the people of Africa to which weall look forward so much, in this freedom therewill be a sense of victory to all people or nearlyall and not a feeling that some one has beendefeated.

Well, that is a hope which when, I do notknow, will be wholly realised, but, at any rate,if we approach the question in this way,it does tone down the bitterness of struggle.And what is more important still, when thestruggle is ended, it leads to reconciliation muchmore easily than otherwise. You know, Mr. PrimeMinister, and you have seen for yourself theamount of fellow feeling that there is here inIndia for your country and for the people ofAfrica as a whole, and your coming here hasbeen very welcome. It would have been welcomein any event, but this helps not merely us, thefew gathered here around this table or a selectfew in thinking of these matters, but it brings

5

the question more vividly to the great masses ofpeople and the individual brings it who comesand with you, in a sense, comes a whiff of theair of Africa here and the beliefs and the longingsand the hopes and aspirations of those people,and the masses of India, who had also struggledand had those hopes and aspirations and had ameasure of satisfaction in reaching their goal forthe time being, can easily understand that and caneasily put themselves in the place of others, and soyour coming here has been helpful in creatingthat feeling and sensation in larger numbers ofour people that vivid realisation of somethingthat was known to them, about which they readand intellectually appreciated, but now it issomething more than intellectual appreciation ;it is an emotional appreciation and that is adeeper understanding and appreciation thanmerely an intellectual one. So, in the largercauses that you and we have at heart, your cominghas been of help, and I am sure it will lead tothat greater understanding, sympathy and affec-tionate following of events as they unravelthemselves than what merely thinking of distant

events might have done.

You know that you will go back from herewith all our goodwill and affection, if I may sayso, and that goodwill and affection will be withyou even when you are far away from us.

You referred to the possibility of my goingto your country. I cannot at the present momentsay when I will be fortunate enough to be ableto go there, but I can tell you this that I amanxious and eager to go there and I hope to gothere.

And now may I ask Your Excellencies, ladiesand gentlemen, to drink to the good health andto the good fortune of the Prime Minister ofGhana and the people of Ghana ?

GHANA INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA AND GHANA

Press Communique

Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. Prime Minister ofGhana, paid a visit to India from December 22,1958 to January 8, 1959. The Ghana PrimeMinister had talks with Prime Minister Nehru inDelhi on various subjects. On the conclusion ofthe talks a Press Communique was issued by theMinistry of External Affairs on January 3, 1959.The Communique says :

During his stay in Delhi, the Prime Ministerof Ghana had many informal and friendly talkswith the Prime Minister of India on currentinternational problems and other matters ofmutual interest. In particular, the two PrimeMinisters discussed recent developments on theAfrican continent and welcomed the awakeningamongst the people of Africa and their great desirefor freedom and independence. They expressed the

hope that the countries of Africa, which are notfree at present, will gain their independencethrough constructive and peaceful methods. Theywelcomed the closer association of Ghana andGuinea, and hoped that other countries in Africawill also develop closer cooperation for theirmutual benefit and in the cause of world peace.

The two Prime Ministers deplored the policiesof racial discrimination and the denial of funda-mental human rights in some parts of Africa,which were opposed to the basic conceptions ofthe Charter of the United Nations as well asfriendly relations between nations.

The two Prime Ministers agreed that, in thepresent context, international problems cannot besolved by war, and it is only through peacefulmethods and mutual tolerance and understandingthat satisfactory settlements can be arrived at.It is therefore towards the lessening of interna-tional tensions, the removal of colonial domina-tion and the promotion of understanding amongnations, that their Governments will address theirefforts.

The most urgent tasks for both their countries,as well as for other countries in Asia and Africa,are to give economic and social content topolitical freedom, thus ensuring a fuller andricher life for their peoples. Advances inscience and technology have opened out wonderfulopportunities for the betterment of mankind. Itis a tragedy that these scientific and technologicaladvances are being largely used for increasingarmaments and, in particular, for the manufactureof nuclear and thermonuclear weapons. Effectivesteps towards disarmament are, therefore, essentialin order to reduce the tensions that afflict theworld. An immediate step should be the stoppageof all nuclear tests.

The two Prime Ministers are happy at thefriendly relations existing between their twocountries, which have been further strengthenedby the visit of the Prime Minister of Ghana toIndia.

6

GHANA INDIA USA GUINEA RUSSIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDONESIA

Trade Agreement Extended,

Letters were exchanged in Jakarta on January10, 1959 between the Ambassador of India toIndonesia on behalf of the Government of Indiaand the Secretary-General of the Ministry ofForeign Affairs, on behalf of the Government ofthe Republic of Indonesia, extending upto June 30,1959, the validity of the Trade Agreement betweenthe two countries.

The principal commodities listed for exportsfrom India to Indonesia under the Agreementare : cotton textiles and yarn, jute goods, tobacco,linseed oil, hardware, pharmaceutical productsand chemical preparations, tea chests, sportsgoods, rubber tyres and tubes, porcelainware,paper and boards, machinery including agricul-tural implements, diesel engines, sugarcane cru-shers, textile machinery, electrical equipmentsincluding motors and batteries, sewing machines,hurricane lanterns and household utensils.

Among the items listed for exports fromIndonesia to India are copra and cocoanut oil,palm kernels and oil, essential oils, spices includ-ing betel nuts, timber, tin, rubber, hides andskins, canes and rattans, gums, and resins,tanning materials, sisal fibre and tobaccowrappers.

INDONESIA INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

MONGOLIAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC

Promotion of Trade

Letters were exchanged in New Delhi onJanuary 14, 1959 between Shri B.B. Saksena,Director of the State Trading Corporation ofIndia, and Mr. Chimdin Avirmit, Vice-Ministerof Foreign Trade, Mongolia, on behalf of theMongolian foreign trade organisations for thepurpose of promoting trade between the twocountries.

It was affirmed by both parties that all com-mercial and non-commercial payments betweenthem would be effected in non-transferableIndian rupees. The sale and purchase of goodsbetween the two countries would be by meansof contracts entered into by the foreign tradeorganisations of the Mongolian People'sRepublic on the one hand and the State TradingCorporation of India as well as private partiesin India on the other.

Lists of goods available for export from eithercountry were exchanged. Goods available forexport from India include such traditional itemsas jute goods, tea, coffee, mica, shellac, manganeseore, coir and coir manufactures, tobacco, carpetsand also such comparatively new items as leathermanufactures, handloom products, light engineer-ing goods and electrical appliances. The mainitems available for export from Mongolia arewool, hides and skins, furs, meat and butter, liveanimals and minerals.

It is hoped that the arrangement between thetwo organisations will lead to development oftrade between the two countries and the eventualconclusion of a trade agreement.

MONGOLIA INDIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC RUSSIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

SWEDEN

Instruments of Ratification Exchanged

Instruments ratifying the Agreement forAvoidance of Double Taxation between India andSweden which had been initialled at official levelduring the Indian Tax Delegation's visit toStockholm in July, 1958, were exchanged in NewDelhi on January 23, 1959 between Her ExcellencyMrs. Alva Myrdal, Ambassador Extraordinaryand Plenipotentiary of Sweden and Shri E.S.Krishnamoorthy, Chairman, Central Board ofRevenue, Ministry of Finance. A notificationunder the Income-tax Act has been issued in aGazette of India Extraordinary. With the comple-tion of these formalities, the Agreement will comeinto force in both countries.

7

The Agreement provides for taxation of in-dustrial and commercial profits, dividends, interest,royalties and pensions only by the country inwhich the source of the income is located. Relieffrom double taxation is thus provided for by anab initio segregation of the areas of taxation.

The Agreement will be effective in India forand from the assessment year beginning onApril 1, 1959.

SWEDEN INDIA MALI USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Indo-U.S. Cooperation Programme Extended

The Indo-U.S. Technical Cooperation Pro-gramme, under which 5 Land Grant colleges ofthe U.S.A. are cooperating with Indian institutionsengaged in agricultural education and research,is to be extended for a period of two years-from1960 to 1962.

Also, it is proposed to constitute a new jointIndo-American team to suggest measures for theimprovement of facilities in the field of agri-cultural education and research in India. Thefirst team was constituted in 1954.

The new joint Indo-American team proposedto be constituted by the Government of India willevaluate the progress made in the last five years,make recommendations with special reference tothe Third Five Year Plan and measure the extentto which the inter-institutional arrangements havehelped in the development of agricultural edu-cation, research and extension programmes in thecountry and the need for continuing the arrange-ment during the Third Five Year Plan.

The agreement concluded with the U.S.Technical Cooperation Mission in March 1955provided for the deputation of experienced staffmembers from the American Universities forteaching and research work in India, fellowshipsfor advanced training of Indian staff members inselected subjects in the U.S.A. and supply oflaboratory equipment and books not ordinarilyavailable in India. The five U.S. Land Grantcolleges participating in the programme are(1) Illinois University, (2) Ohio University,(3) Missouri University, (4) Kansas State Collegeand (5) Tennessee University.

Under the agreement, 43 American technicianswere assigned to various Indian institutions andof these 24 are still working in India. Of the148 Indian participants to receive advancedtraining in the U.S.A., 36 have completed theirtraining while 82 are at present undergoing train-ing. The remaining 30 are likely to leave forU.S.A. during the next three months.

The programme, which is at present confinedto 40 State agricultural veterinary colleges andtwo Central research institutes-the IndianVeterinary Research Institute and the NationalDairy Research Institute-is to be extended to

three more institutions in the country. These arethe Veterinary College, Nagpur, the Avinashilin-gham Home Science College, Coimbatore, andMysore Veterinary College, Bangalore.

The programme was reviewed at a recent meet-ing in Delhi of the officials of the Union Ministryof Food and Agriculture, the Indian Council ofAgricultural Research and the U.S. Technical Co-operation Mission and American University teachers.

The meeting, which was presided over byShri K.R. Damle, Secretary, Union Ministry ofFood and Agriculture, Department of Agriculture,also considered suggestions for the development oflibrary services, integration of teaching, researchand extension, delegation of greater powers tocollege principals by the State Governments andthe need to replace the existing external examina-tions by internal examinations.

USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED KINGDOM

Air Services Agreement Reviewed

The Government of India issued the follow-ing Press Communique on January 29, 1959 onthe conclusion of the civil air transport talksbetween officials of the Governments of India and

8

the United Kingdom :

The civil air transport discussions betweenofficials of the Indian and the U.K. Governmentswhich have been taking place in Delhi sinceJanuary 12, 1959, concluded on January 28.

The inter-Governmental Air Services Agree-

merit provides for these periodical reviews, of whichthe most recent was in London in 1956. The presentreview has taken place in an atmosphere of theutmost cordiality and no difficulty has been foundin extending: with mutually acceptable adjust-ments, the arrangements agreed in 1956.

A further inter-governmental meeting will benecessary later, when talks between A.I.I andBOAC, which have been in progress for sometime, on the possibility of commercial pooling ofoperations, have been concluded.

INDIA USA UNITED KINGDOM

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC

Instruments of Ratification Exchanged

The Instruments of Ratification of theCultural Agreement between the Governments ofIndia and the United Arab Republic wereexchanged in New Delhi on January 13, 1959.

The Instruments were exchanged betweenProf. M.S. Thacker, Secretary, Ministry of Scienti-fic Research and Cultural Affairs, on behalf ofIndia and His Excellency Prof. Omar Abou-Richeh, Ambassador Extraordinary and Pleni-potentiary for the United Arab Republic in India,on behalf of his country.

Welcoming the agreement, Prof. Thackerexpressed the hope that it "will renew the ancientcultural ties between us and pave the way forcloser understanding and cooperation between thepeoples of our countries and promote therebyinternational cooperation and peace."

Reciprocating the sentiments, His ExcellencyProf. Omar Abou-Richeh said "the agreement willhelp link our past with our present and establish a

nobler and richer heritage for our future generations."

The Cultural Agreement between India andthe U.A.R., which consists of twelve articles,declares that the two Governments desire toestablish and strengthen the bonds of friendship,promote cultural relations and develop mutualcooperation in scientific, educational and culturalfields between the two countries.

Under the Agreement, the two governmentsdesire to exchange teachers at appropriate levelsand members of scientific and cultural institutionsof the two countries, grant scholarships to enablestudents to pursue higher study in the scientificand technical fields etc., mutual recognitionof the degrees and diplomas awarded by univer-sities and educational authorities in the two countries. The two Governments shall also consider thequestion of establishing cultural institutes in theircountries.

The two countries, according to theAgreement, will also promote exchange in the fieldof sports and scout organisations.

The Agreement further contemplates trainingof employees or other nationals of one govern-ment in scientific, technical and industrialinstitutions maintained by the other government.

It also envisages the setting up of a Committeeconsisting of representatives of the two govern-ments which will meet in New Delhi and Cairoby rotation for watching the working of theAgreement in either country.

The Agreement will remain in force for aperiod of ten years and will come into force15 days after the exchange of Instruments ofRatification.

INDIA USA EGYPT

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

WEST GERMANY

Loan Agreement Signed

An agreement was signed in Bonn on January6, 1959 making available a credit of 168 million

9

deutsche marks (forty million dollars) to theGovernment of India through the GermanReconstruction Loan Corporation.

Shri B. F. H. T. Tyabji, India's Ambassadorto West Germany, and Dr. Von Brentano, WestGerman Foreign Minister, signed the agreementon behalf of their respective governments.

The agreement is based on the results of theconference held under the auspices of the Interna-tional Bank for Reconstruction and Developmentin Washington in August, 1958 and on the nego-tiations conducted between the representativeofficials of both the governments in Bonn andNew Delhi during the visit of Prof. Ludwig Erhard,West German Economics Minister and Vice-Chancellor, to India in October, 1958.

The object of the agreement is to assistIndia in the implementation of her second five-year plan and to ease her foreign exchangesituation. It is intended that the credit will beutilised in meeting the commitments in respect ofimport of goods from the Federal Republic. Boththe governments hope that the assistance thusprovided will further the implementation of India'ssecond five-year plan and pave the way forfurther economic co-operation between the twocountries.

GERMANY INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

YUGOSLAVIA

Marshal Tito's Visit

At the invitation of the Government of IndiaHis Excellency Marshal Josip Broz Tito, Presidentof the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia,paid a visit to India. He arrived in New Delhion January 14, 1959 and on the same day aState Banquet was held in his honour by thePresident, Dr. Rajendra Prasad. WelcomingMarshal Tito, the President said :

Mr. President and Madame Broz, YourExcellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

You, Mr. President, have been to India asour distinguished guest before, but we areparticularly happy that you are accompanied thistime by Madame Broz. Mr. President, sinceyour last visit to India, our two countries havecome so much closer that you are no longer astranger in this country. Your last visit wasremarkable for the results it achieved. A greatreserve of goodwill and understanding towards eachother was built up and our two countries haveco-operated in various ways since then. In thefields of trade and commerce, technical assistance,culture and education, this close co-operation isparticularly noticeable. In the United Nationsthe delegation of India and of Yugoslavia haveon numerous occasions proposed jointly solutionsto many complicated problems.

No problem is more urgent or more difficultto solve today than the problem of disarmamentand it is a matter of gratification to me personallyand to my Government that our commonaspirations are likely to be fulfilled to a degreeif the progress made at Geneva recently is con-tinued and agreement on the question ofsuspension of nuclear and thermonuclear testsis achieved. We sincerely hope that the effortsby the powers at Geneva will succeed. Oncethis important agreement is reached, it would bepossible to move to the next stages. Theagreement itself will reduce tension and createthat atmosphere in which co-existence, to whichboth Yugoslavia and India are firmly committed,will be a reality and cold war will graduallydisappear.

It is not necessary for me to recount hereon this occasion all the common factors thatbring our two countries closer. I should, however,briefly mention that neither of our two countriesis affiliated to any military blocs, and this factalone makes it easier for us to understand eachother better and to work together for thefurthering of peace.

We regret that it has not been possible foryou, Mr. President and Madame Broz to spendmore time in India during your present visit.At the same time, we appreciate the friendlygesture and the sacrifice you have made inspending a few days with us in the middle of yourseveral engagements. When you return home,you will have visited several Asian countries,and I am confident that your experience of thosecountries as also your knowledge of their affairswill greatly stimulate that appreciation of eachother's interests and culture which is so essentialif the world is to move towards peace, not onlyin the military sense, but also, if I may use theword, in a spiritual sense as well. The ancient

10

civilisations of Asia and Europe have much incommon and it is well to remember these commonfactors in these anxious days rather than stressonly the differences.

Madame Broz, as an able and constantcompanion of the distinguished leader of the peopleof Yugoslavia, you have contributed a great deal,not only to your country's welfare, but to thegreater international understanding. All ofus here, I am sure, are happy to see you inIndia.

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,I have great pleasure in offering a toast ofwelcome and of good health to our honouredand distinguished guests, Mr. President Tito andMadame Broz.

YUGOSLAVIA INDIA USA SWITZERLAND

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

YUGOSLAVIA

Marshal Tito's Speech

Mr. President,

Dear Friends,

Allow me first of all to thank you mostcordially for the extraordinary warm welcome youand the members of the Government of India,headed by Prime Minister Shri Nehru haveaccorded to us. I must also say that we wereparticularly moved by the friendship and sympathyyour citizens have expressed towards us andtowards our country.

We are on an informal visit this time andtherefore the cordial reception which has beenextended to us demonstrates even more and toa full extent the friendship and mutual under-standing between the peoples of our countries.This is only too natural as we know that we havethe same aspirations, that we share the samedesire of safeguarding peace, that we wantmankind to be free of the constant fear for itsdestiny, still threatened by a permanent possibilityof war. We are particularly concerned by thefact that the greatest discovery of the humangenius, the atomic and thermonuclear power isstill being used as a deterrent and means ofdestruction, not as means of peaceful progress,nor as means to secure a happier life for humanbeings on earth.

We do have much in common. Commonare our efforts to safeguard our independenceand to attain the stage at which our peoples willhave a better and happier life. Common arealso our endeavours in the international field,primarily those concerning the peaceful andactive co-existence among nations and states withdifferent social systems. We both equallyresolutely condemn war as a way of settling

international disputes. We have been taught byhistory that wars do not only bring destructionto human achievements and annihilate the resultsof the efforts of mankind in general but alsocreate new, even more difficult problems. Weresolutely stand for the settlement of disputes bypeaceful means, by constructive negotiations,because this is the way to assure better and morelasting results.

I should like to emphasize on this occasionthat experience hitherto has shown that peace-loving countries which do not belong to blocshave achieved success. They take an active partin international affairs, in the United NationsOrganization and outside of it, and contributeto the allaying and decreasing of internationaltension. In some cases they help to arrestaggression, i.e. war conflicts.

Our country is persistent in the implementationof her policy of peace. The substance of thispolicy is embodied also in the principles of theBandung Conference, and that is what firmly linksus together in our activities.

Now, I am not a pessimist. I believe in thefulfilment of the great aspiration of mankind-the victory of peace. The international situationis still clouded and does not allow for com-placency. And yet, I think that there are signswhich foretell the easing of tension. It is onlynecessary that all the peace-loving forcesstrengthen their activity and their persistentefforts for the preservation of peace, for peacefulco-operation among nations on the basis ofequality, that they intensify their struggle againstcolonial oppression and against interference ininternal affairs of other nations.

I say that it will not be possible to strengthenpeace if all nations are not allowed to decidetheir destiny, if the tendencies of interfering inthe internal affairs of other countries furtherpersist. There are many elements which have tobe eliminated from the present internationalpractice in the relations between big and smallStates. If that is done, it will be possible toavert an increase of tension and the danger ofwar. If that is done, the way will be clearedfor constructive international co-operation. Theseare the problems the responsible leaders of the

11

big powers should always bear in mind, and,obviously, all of us too.

In our bilateral relations, in economic, culturaland other fields, very good results have beenachieved so far. I sincerely believe that ourcountries have great possibilities to expand anddeepen even more their co-operation to the benefitof our peoples.

As to the international situation, althoughwe still have causes for concern, I do believe thatthe peace-loving forces, with Yugoslavia andIndia among them, will succeed to save mankindfrom the disaster of a new war. I believe thatthey will succeed to preserving the peace soirresistably striven for by mankind.

With this great desire in mind, and wishingthe realisation of an even closer all-round co-Operation between our two countries in the future,I propose this toast to your health, Mr. President,to the happiness and prosperity of your greatcountry and to the well-being of the Indian people.

YUGOSLAVIA INDIA USA INDONESIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

YUGOSLAVIA

Press Communique

His Excellency Marshal Josip Broz Tito,President of the Federal People's Republic ofYugoslavia, paid a visit to India in January, 1959.During his stay in the capital Marshal Tito hada series of talks with Prime Minister Nehru onsubjects of mutual interest. On the conclusionof their talks, a Press Communique was issuedin New Delhi on January 16, 1959.

Following is the text of the Communique

During President Josip Broz Tito's briefvisit to Delhi, opportunity was taken byPrime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to have dis-cussions with him on a number of subjects ofmutual interest.

Talks were held between the two leaders onthree different occasions and lasted several hours.The discussion covered current international pro-blems in Europe and Asia. President Tito gavea brief account and impression of his recent visitto several countries.

The exchanges were conducted in anatmosphere of complete frankness and intimatecordiality. Both the leaders expressed theirdetermination to continue to do their utmost forthe preservation of peace and the solution ofinternational problems by peaceful methods andnegotiations in accordance with the principlesof co-existence and the policy of non-alignment toany blocs.

Both the President and the Prime Ministerexpressed the hope that the present negotiationsat Geneva for the cessation of nuclear tests wouldmeet with success at an early date.

The President and the Prime Minister notedwith satisfaction that the relations between Indiaand Yugoslavia continued to grow in all spheresand were confident that this trend would bemaintained and further strengthened.

Prime Minister Nehru expressed his gratitudeand satisfaction for President Tito's visit to Indiaand President Tito conveyed to the Governmentand people of India his sincere thanks for thecordial welcome given to him.

12

YUGOSLAVIA INDIA USA SWITZERLAND

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

AFGHANISTAN

Afghan Prime Minister's Visit:

His Royal Highness Limer-E-Ali SardarMohammad Daud, Prime Minister of Afghanistan,paid a visit to India in February, 1959. Hearrived in New Delhi on February 5, 1959 andon the same day Prime Minister Nehru gave abanquet in his honour. Welcoming the AfghanPrime Minister, Shri Nehru said:

Your Royal Highness, Excellencies, Ladiesand Gentlemen, when I was waiting at our airporttoday eagerly expecting your Highness's arrival,my mind went back to the long past of ourcountries. When your Highness arrived, I sawthe word Ariana inscribed on your Highness'saircraft. I was again reminded of the long agesduring which we were connected. It was inevitablethat we should be so connected because we wereneighbours, and geography is a powerful thingwhich cannot be ignored. But apart from that,these long ages of contact, sometimes of conflicttoo, but nevertheless, trade, cultural and othercontacts which affected each other so much,came to my mind. Then I thought of the periodrelatively short in our long history when wewere rather cut off from each other, because wewere under foreign rule and your Highness'scountry was also faced with many difficulties, andother great countries from the far were pressingin on your Highness's country. Then cameanother change when we became independent;not only we, but the change came all over Asiaand in Africa also. Now we live in this periodof change, and any one can see that one of themajor aspects of the modern world, apart fromthe tremendous discoveries of science which arechanging it, has been this re-awakening of thehundreds of millions of people in Asia and thenew life that is coursing from the veins of thepeople of Africa. I am not quite clear if peoplein other continents have fully realised thestrength and the vigour of this new life and also,of course, the tremendous difficulties that haveto be faced by these countries of Asia. Webecame independent, and as a result of that

other things happened which separated our twocountries. The partition of India separateddirect boundaries and direct contacts. But thatmade little difference to our age long communityof interests, and our old friendship survived.And ever since then we have grown closer toeach other for a variety of reasons, among thembeing mutual interest which is always a Powerfulreason. The long memory of our past contactswas there and the moment it was possible torenew them, we renewed them. And then came,as I said, mutual interest. Ever since then in themany important matters that affect the worldthere has been a very great community of interestsbetween our two countries. Both our countriesdecided that we should not in the modern inter-national conflicts become a part of them, becomeassociated with what has been known as thecold war, and military alliances and blocs ofgreat and respected countries. And so therewas this basic identity of views in regard to theseunfortunate developments of the modern world.That also brought us nearer to each other andso we have followed these policies in spite ofdifficulties and pressures, and whether at theUnited Nations or elsewhere, we have often seeneye to eye with each other. For all these reasonsit has always been a pleasure to us to welcomedistinguished visitors from Afghanistan.

Last year we had the privilege of welcomingHis Majesty the King of Afghanistan who duringhis brief stay here won all the people who methim with his charm and with his friendly feelingstowards India. Today we have you, your RoyalHighness here and we are happy to have youas our distinguished and honoured guest, andif I may say so, our friend. Your visit here hasbeen long awaited. You have been here in thepast, rather many years ago, to Delhi, as yourRoyal Highness was telling me, when the firstfoundations of this New Delhi were being laidand the rest was a wilderness, well, thatwilderness has been encroached upon now andNew Delhi has grown up into a big city and thecentre of this Republic of ours. But even thoughthat might be the nerve centre, the country isbig and is not like New Delhi. It is a country ofsmall villages, small towns and a few big towns,and we have to struggle against the burden ofages, the burden of poverty of our people, andbecause of that we labour to remove it. Wehave our plans, the Five-Year Plans and the

like, and your Royal Highness knows very wellthat when such problems face a nation, evenprogress itself brings difficulties and greaterproblems. The moment one solves one problem,others appear on the scene. So we are struggling,struggling with good heart and with faith andconfidence in our country and in our people, andif I may say so, in the friendship and co-operationof our friends elsewhere, and more especiallyyour country. We have seen in the past decadethis growing friendship between the countriesof Asia, even though sometimes they differ fromeach other. As between Afghanistan and India

13

I cannot remember any point of real differenceand it is odd that when two countries have noparticular points of difference, they take eachother for granted. There is not much to argue,because we agree more or less. And that hasbeen the case with India and Afghanistan inthese ten or twelve years. We may have dis-cussed occasionally matters of trade or someother minor matters, but broadly speaking, wehave always been in agreement, and this has beena great satisfaction to us. So when your RoyalHighness comes here today, we should like youto feel that you are among friends, amongpeople who not only wish your country well,but who wish your country and our country toco-operate with each other, to help each otherand to march together to the many commongoals that we have together with othercountries.

Today, the biggest thing is peace in the world,because without that no country is going to pro-gress, and indeed, every country might meet withdisaster. And after that comes the advancementand progress of the countries of Asia, of yourcountry and our country. In this work to whichyour Royal Highness is devoted in your countryand we are devoted in our country, we may be ofhelp to each other. And certainly our friendshipitself gives us strength, and so, we welcome youhere with all goodwill and friendship, and wehope that after your brief stay in India when yourRoyal Highness goes back to Afghanistan, youwill carry our good wishes to His Majesty theKing and to the people of Afghanistan.

May I ask Your Excellencies, Ladies and

Gentlemen, to drink to the good health of hisRoyal Highness.

AFGHANISTAN INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

AFGHANISTAN

Sardar Mohammad Daud's Reply

Your Excellency, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am very happy to extend my thanks toYour Excellency for your kind words and amicablesentiments.

Ever since our arrival in your great andbeautiful country the hospitality and the cordialwelcome extended to me and to my com-panions have reaffirmed to me a fact whichtakes its inspirations from the friendship andgoodwill which the people of Afghanistan andthe people of India entertain for each other.These ties of friendship are not new ; they can betraced back through numerous eras in the historyof this part of the world, during which periodadversities have placed our peoples under test,and they have gone together through brighter ordarker days. The history of this region whichwitnesses the mutual goodwill of our peoples formin reality the foundation of the friendship betweenAfghanistan and India. While mentioning thistruth I am happy, indeed, to represent the peopleof Afghanistan in their sincere desire for further-ance and consolidation of these ties with thepeople of this great country.

Throughout its various periods the historyof this region stands a witness to the commonstruggles of the peoples of Afghanistan, Indiaand other countries in this part of the world, fortheir deliverance from colonialism. The sympa-

thies of the people of Afghanistan have alwaysbeen with the people of India in their trying days,and likewise, the sympathy and moral supportwhich the people of India have offered to ourpeople during our fight for freedom remainpleasant memories with the people of Afghanistanwhich they cherish and always appreciate.

Today when this ancient land enjoys in theworld a worthy position as a free, young andvigorous country, a mention of that fact gives mesincere pleasure.

The troubled condition of the world todayimposes upon nations, large and small alike, theobligation to seek, more than ever before, thepromotion of understanding, consolidation ofgood relations on the basis of mutual confidenceand esteem, and creation of an atmosphere ofgoodwill and close co-operation amongst them-selves. If our efforts are not directed towardsattainment of this objective, the primary concernof which is the consolidation of peace-this peacewhich is being threatened today-then our res-ponsibilities are great. This responsibility is toourselves, to our descendants and to the world inwhich we live in the hope of a better future. Webelieve that in our concern for a brighter tomorrowwe should take lesson from our past unpleasant ex-periences. A secure future embodying the peaceand security of the world may well be guaranteedby promoting among all nations a spirit of sincerecooperation based on mutual confidence andesteem in economic, social and cultural fields.

The military pacts and armament races are notonly creating additional strain and tension, butthey are preparing as well the ground for thespirit of lack of confidence which is a great sourceof concern. We believe that for us the nations

14

of the East, from whom greater efforts are requiredto meet our necessities of life, a better path exists,and that is to assign our national resources, anddirect the energies of our peoples to promotionof better economic conditions and attainment ofa higher standard of living, for we know thathappier and more prosperous peoples are in betterpositions to retain and to safeguard their indivi-dualities as free and independent nations.

I am happy indeed that I see clearly that thetireless efforts of the Government and the peopleof this great country for reconstruction of theirland convey the promise of a prosperous futurefor the people of India.

Afghanistan's domestic and foreign policiesare inspired by our desire to serve the cause ofpeace in the world. We are fully aware that ourneeds will be met only in an atmosphere ofpeace and tranquility. On international issuesAfghanistan has always and on every occasionfollowed a policy of neutrality based on freejudgment. This stand based on the aspirationsof our people forms the foundation of our policy.In following this policy, which by now has takenthe force of a tradition, Afghanistan wishes to seethe furtherance of friendly relations and coopera-tion with all peoples and nations of the world.

It should be mentioned that the existingharmony in the stand of our two countries inthe sphere of international affairs, stemming fromAfghanistan's policy of neutrality and the policyof neutrality followed by India, is another factorin bringing closer together our respective countries.

I wish to extend my thanks to Your Excellencyonce again for the opportunity offered me throughthis kind invitation to get better acquainted withyour great country and to convey on behalf of thepeople of Afghanistan their message of friendshipand goodwill to the people of India.

Expressing once more my sincere wishes forgreater success of the people of India in theirmarch towards prosperity, I pray for YourExcellency's personal well-being and happiness.

AFGHANISTAN INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

AFGHANISTAN

Press Communique

Sardar Mohammad Daud, Prime Ministerof Afghanistan, visited India from February 5to February 8, 1959. During his stay in Delhi,the Afghan Prime Minister had talks with PrimeMinister Nehru on various subjects of mutualinterest. On the conclusion of the talks, a PressCommunique was issued by the Ministry ofExternal Affairs on February 8, 1959.

Following is the text of the Communique:

At the invitation of the Government of India,Sardar Mohammad Daud, Prime Minister ofAfghanistan, accompanied by Dr. MohamadYusuf, Minister of Mines and Industries, andother members of his party. Is now on a visitto India. During his stay in Delhi, SardarMohammad Daud had talks with the PrimeMinister of India. The discussions which werefrank and cordial, covered a variety of subjectsof mutual interest, including the current inter-national situation with particular reference tothe neighbouring countries. Both the PrimeMinisters expressed satisfaction at the close andfriendly relations existing between the two coun-tries which are of great help to them both in meet-ing difficult problems in the present day world.

The talks have disclosed a similarity ofoutlook on many matters of importance, parti-cularly in the firm rejection by the Governmentsof India and Afghanistan of military agreementsand in their reliance on co-operation and goodneighbourly relations between all nations as asurer basis for the maintenance of world peace.The two leaders looked to the recent trendtowards a shift in the conflict between the bigpowers from military to economic compositionas an encouraging development.

The two Prime Ministers re-affirmed thecommon aim of their Governments to strengthenthe close and friendly relations which alreadyexist between the two countries.

AFGHANISTAN INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

FOREIGN AND HOME AFFAIRS

President's Address to Parliament

The President, Dr. Rajendra Parsad, deliveredan address to Parliament on February 9, 1959.15

Following is the full text of his address

Members of Parliament,-

I welcome you once again to your labours ina new session of Parliament.

We are near the end of the third year of theSecond Five Year Plan. In my address to youlast February I drew your attention to the stressesand strains to which our economy is subject. Iexpressed the concern of my Government thatour temporary difficulties should not lead us inthe direction of retarding development andprogress. Difficulties should be overcome byreconsideration and revision of methods and byplanned mobilisation of resources.

In May, and again in November 1958, theNational Development Council took into consi-deration the problems of resources, of productionand of phasing relevant to the Second Plan anddecided that the Plan outley should be Rs. 4,500crores and this total should be reached byconservation of and addition to resources.

The economic policy of my Government hasthis end in view. Measures have been adopted tolimit and phase foreign exchange commitments andexpenditure, to arrest rise in internal prices andto increase foreign earnings. Export duties ona number of commodities lave been reduced orabolished and export quotas have been liberalised.In August 1958, as a result of comprehensive

review of regulations, export control was removedfrom as many as 200 commodities and the numberof commodities subject to quota restrictionsseverely curtailed.

My Government have made successful attempts,to secure foreign assistance by way of aid andloans to tide us over our temporary difficulties.Negotiations for further aid are in progress.Aid or loans from foreign countries for whichmy Government and our people are duly gratefulare not governed by the attachment of anypolitical conditions to them. Negotiations inregard to future assistance will also be on thesame basis.

Our Second Plan is only part of the wholeprocess of planned development of our economy.The steps we now take are but stages along thelong and arduous road to planned prosperity andmy Government, through the Planning Commis-sion, have already initiated consideration andstudies of the Third Plan. It is hoped that bythe end of the Third Plan, a sound foundation willhave been laid for future progress in regard toour basic industries, agricultural production andrural development, thus leading to self-reliant andself-generating economy.

Planning is a national undertaking requiring theefforts of the whole nation and the co-operationof all at every stage. My Government havetherefore called for, and look forward to a con-structive, even if critical, approach by all andcontribution in ideas from the different shades ofopinion in Parliament and outside. To this end,my Prime Minister and the Planning Commissionare seeking the co-operation of all parties.

It is proposed to prepare a preliminary DraftOutline or Plan Frame for the Third Plan by theend of this year. After the preliminary DraftOutline has been discussed and approved, detailedconsideration of Central and State Plans willcommence. The principal objectives which wehave accepted are : a substantial increase innational income, rapid industrialisation, expansionof employment on a sufficient scale, and a reduc-tion in inequalities of income and wealth. TheGovernment will continue to aid and supportsmall and cottage industries. The tempo ofdevelopment already attained must be maintainedand accelerated.

Food and food prices are the most importantfactors in the regulation of our ecomomy. Onthese largely depend other factors vital to ourplanning and progress, such as availability offoreign resources for development, the balanceof payments position, the maintenance of internalprice levels and the arrest of inflation, if andwhen it tends to set in.

To check the rise in prices of foodgrains, inearly 1958, following failure of rains and wide-spread damage to crops, my Government imported2.74 million tons of foodgrains in the first elevenmonths of 1958, regulated internal movementof foodgrains and made supplies available to theconsumer through fair price shops. The ReserveBank enforced its policy of restraint on avail-ability of Bank credit for buying up of foodgrainsby private parties.

In this respect self-sufficiency in food alonecan provide a satisfactory solution. Increasedyields by greater and sustained efforts and theadoption of improved methods in agriculturecombined with the necessary agrarian reforms,which would make agriculture both gainful andeconomic, are imperative. To this end, my Gov-ernment will seek to promote agrarian reforms,cooperation and devolution of functions tovillage units.

16

The crop prospects for 1959-60 are in refreshingcontrast to our plight the previous year. Natureis being kinder to us this year, and the outlookboth in regard to food and commercial crops ispromising. We have a very good rice crop andprices of rice have already recorded a markedfall. It is intended to build up considerablestocks and to widen the scope of State trading.Wheat and. gram prices have risen but, accordingto present indications, the Rabi crop will be good.Our developmental efforts, in regard to the majorcrops, by intensive production campaigns, greaterstress on minor irrigation projects, properutilisation and maintenance of existing works,increased momentum in the establishment of seedfarms, more promising tendencies to adopt bettermethods, and extension of soil conservationprogrammes, account in a considerable measurefor the more hopeful horizon in agriculture.

The Community Development programme,on which largely depend the effective extensionand implementation of democracy in meaningfulterms to the large masses of our people, nowcovers 300,000 villages roughly a rural populationof 165 millions. Measures for more effectiveparticipation of the people in this vital develop-ment are being implemented. The basic unit ofour democracy, the Panchayat, is being providedwith increased resources and functions. VillageCo-operatives are being organised and developedso as ultimately to cover the entire rural area.

Industrial production, as a whole, showedprogress, but some industries, notably textiles, havesuffered a set-back. Among the industries, both inthe public and private sectors, which achieved asubstantial increase in output were machinetools, penicillin, insecticides, paper and board,diesel engines, electric motors, sulphuric acid,caustic soda, tyres, sewing machines, bicycles andelectric fans. New schemes of development andexpansion in the public sector, which are inprogress, cover machine building, fertilizers anddrugs. Plants to build heavy electrical equipment,heavy industrial machinery and mining machineryare being set up at Bhopal, Ranchi and Durgapur.New fertilizer plants are being established atNangal, Rourkela and Neyveli, while Sindri hasbeen expanded. Projects for the manufacture ofdrugs and antibiotics are also among the newdevelopment schemes in progress.

I had the pleasure of inaugurating the twolarge steel plants at Rourkela and Bhilai lastweek, where production of pig iron has nowstarted. It is expected that steel will be producedin these plants before the end of the year. It isalso expected that the first blast furnace atDurgapur will begin to function before the end ofthe year. The programme of expansion of thesteel plant at Jamshedpure has been almostcompleted and full production will be achievedwithin a few months. The steel works at Burnpurwill complete their expansion programme by theend of the year.

Coal production has increased. Further stepshave been taken towards implementing theNeyveli Lignite Project. The Project Report ofNeyveli Thermal Power Station has been acceptedand action for construction initiated.

There have been advances in the developmentof mineralogy by way of intensive surveys andexploration, and the National Mineral Develop-ment Corporation has been established. Newdeposits of coal, copper and gypsum have beendiscovered.

The search for oil and natural gas wasintensified and has yielded promising results.Drilling for oil has been continued at Jwalamukhiand Hoshiarpur in the Punjab, and will be startedsoon in the Shibsagar area in Assam. The mostsignificant development has been in the Cambayarea of Bombay where oil under considerablepressure has been discovered, and there are indi-cations of several promising oil horizons. It ishoped that by an intensive programme of testdrilling, the extent of the potential oil reserves ofthe Cambay area will be established during thisyear. Considerable reserves of natural gas havealso been found in Naharkatiya Oil Fields.

An agreement has been concluded with theGovernment of Rumania for the supply of equip-ment and assistance in the construction of an oilrefinery in Assam.

The National Laboratories have played animportant part in the plans of industrialisation.They have harnessed the results of their researchto production by erection of pilot plants, parti-cularly for the development of coal resources forthe steel plants, raw materials for refractories,and in assisting the private sector in certainproblems. The Laboratories have in a numberof cases made possible the use of indigenous inplace of imported material, and also assisted inthe utilisation of low grade ores.

My Government have taken steps in severaldirections to implement the purposes containedin the Scientific Policy Resolution of the 4th ofMarch 1958. Close liaison exists between theNational Laboratories and Industry. Laboratorytraining courses, and grants-in-aid schemes for

17

research promote these relations as well as thescientific approach and the availability of scientific-cally skilled manpower. It has been decided toestablish National Laboratories for research and

development in Mechanical Engineering atDurgapur and Public Health Engineering atNagpur.

Two more Higher Technological institutes willbe opened this year, one in Bombay with the aidof the U.S.S.R. and UNESCO, and the other inMadras with the aid of the Federal Republic ofGermany. A College of Engineering is beingestablished in Delhi with United Kingdom aid.The foundation-stone of this institution was laidby His Royal Highness Prince Philip, The Dukeof Edinburgh, during his recent visit.

A new Atomic Energy Commission, withexecutive and financial powers, within the limitsof the expenditure sanctioned by Parliament, hasbeen established. Considerable advance andexpansion in the field of atomic energy, andexclusively for peaceful purposes, has been madeand continues satisfactorily. The aim of planningin this field is the production of all the basicmaterials required for the utilisation of atomicenergy for power. While large-scale achievementin this field of nuclear power must await the laterstages of the Third Plan, my Government havedecided to install nuclear powered plants toproduce electricity of a minimun capacity of 250thousand kilowatts.

In my address to you last year I said thaturanium metal of atomic purity and fuel elementsfor the reactors will be in production before theend of the current year. I am glad to say thatthe construction of the uranium metal plant hasbeen completed and has undergone trial runssuccessfully. The first ingot of atomically pureuranium metal was produced on January 30,1959. The construction of the facility forproducing fuel elements is also far advanced.

The work on the River Valley Multi-PurposeSchemes has progressed during the year accordingto schedule. The Report of the High LevelCommittee on Flood Control is under considera-tion of my Government.

The ports of Calcutta and Madras are to beimproved at a cost of 20 crores of rupees, forwhich the Port authorities have entered intofinancial agreements with the World Bank.

My Government have met with success in their

endeavours to promote industrial relations on avoluntary and agreed basis. A Code ofDiscipline", which stresses the need for recog-nition by employers and workers of both therights and responsibilities of either side, has beenratified by all Central Organisations of employersand workers. This Code also prescribes certainnorms of behaviour. It provides that unilateralaction by either side should not be taken, lock-outs and strikes should be avoided and themachinery for the settlement of disputes shouldbe utilised expeditiously. The Code alsoprescribes sanctions to be invoked by the workersand employers organisations in regard to theirrespective defaulting members. A TripartiteCommittee has been constituted to assess theextent of the non-implementation of LabourEnactments and Awards and also to secure theirproper implementation. The Employees' StateInsurance Scheme, which already covers nearlyfourteen lakhs of workers, is being further extend-ed. A beginning has been made in workers'participation in management and Joint Councilshave been set up in several industrial undertakings,both in the public and private sectors.

There has been a substantial increase in theoutput of the Ordnance Factories which hasenabled my Government to effect appreciablesavings in foreign exchange. There have alsobeen advances in scientific and industrial researchand development, and the expansion of facilitiesin this respect. This has enabled progress in theindigenous production of the materials requiredfor the manufacture of Defence equipment.

The Committee of Members of Parliamentconstituted in accordance with Article 344 of theConstitution to examine the recommendationsof the Official Language Commission hassubmitted its report. You will have the opportu-nity of considering it during the current session.

The situation in the Naga Hills showsappreciable improvement. Cases of violence andlawlessness have markedly declined. The Nagas,generally, have appreciated the policy of myGovernment. In May 1958 the All-TribalConvention reinforced the decisions of theKohima. Convention of August 1957. Largenumbers of Naps who were previously hostile andhad gone underground are now pursuing normaland peaceful avocations.

The Sikkim Development Plan, which isfinanced by India, is making good progress.The road from Gangtok to Nathu La has beencompleted and is open to vehicular traffic. Thisroad passes through a very difficult mountainterrain and our engineers are to be congratulatedon the success of this undertaking. A tripartite

18

agreement to which Nepal, the United States ofAmerica and India are parties for the constructionof 900 miles of road was signed in January lastyear. An agreement for the construction of theTrisuli Hydro-Electric Project has been concludedand work begun. This Project will generate12,000 kilowatts of electricity for the KathmanduValley.

Considerable progress has been achieved inthe rehabilitation of displaced persons fromPakistan. So far as the displaced persons fromWest Pakistan are concerned, it is hoped that thelast stage of rehabilitation, that is, payment ofcompensation, will be completed during this year.In regard to displaced persons from East Pakistan,about sixty thousand have moved from camps torehabilitation sites-during the past year. It hasbeen decided to close the camps in West Bengalbefore the end of July this year. It is expectedthat the remaining thirty-five thousand displacedfamilies will have moved by that time from thecamps either for work and rehabilitation inDandakaranya, or to rehabilitation sites in otherStates.

My Government have recently made certainimportant changes in regard to arrangements forbudgeting and financial control over expenditurefrom the Civil estimates. In order to securea speedier implemenation of our developmentplans, the administrative Ministries have beengiven wider financial powers to issue expendituresanctions to schemes which have been included inthe Budget Estimates after scrutiny by the FinanceMinistry.

An Ordinance, namely, "The Indian Income-Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959", has beenpromulgated since the last session of Parliament.A Bill dealing with this Ordinance will be placedbefore Parliament.

Forty-nine Bills were passed by Parliamentduring the year 1958. Thirteen Bills are pendingbefore you. My Government intend to introducea number of legislative proposals both by way ofnew Bills and amendments. Such proposals willinclude :-

(1) The Companies (Amendment) Bill.

(2) Estate Duty (Amendment) Bill.

(3) The State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Bill.

(4) The Coal Mines Labour Welfare Fund (Amendment) Bill.

(5) The All-India Maternity Benefit Bill.

(6) Bill to provide for compulsory notifica- tion of vacancies by employers to Employment Exchanges.

(7) The Geneva Convention Bill. (8) The Savings Bank (Amendment) Bill.

(9) The Banaras Hindu University (Amend- ment) Bill.

(10) The Children Bill.

(11) A Bill for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

A statement of the estimated receipts andthe expenditure of the Government of Indiafor the financial year, 1959-60, will be laidbefore you.

My Government note with concern thecontinuance of world tensions and that basicimprovements in the world situation are not yeton the horizon. My Government, however,continue to pursue their policy of non-alignmentwith the great Power Blocs and of making theircontribution wherever possible for the relaxationof tensions.

The vast advances in science and technologyhave enabled man to dare to explore inter-planetary space and have opened up before himgreat vistas which are full of possibilities for

human progress. My Government share withothers the concern that these great scientificdevelopments have hitherto been used principallyfor the making of weapons of mass destructionwhich threaten the world with annihilation.

My Government note with regret that whilesome progress has been made at Geneva in regardto the termination of nuclear and thermonuclearexplosions, neither in this nor in the more funda-mental problem of the prohibition of these wea-pons of mass destruction or in the general field ofdisarmament, real progress, much less a settlement,is in sight.

In September last year, my Prime Ministerreached agreements with the then Prime Ministerof Pakistan in regard to certain border disputesand border problems. These included an agree-ment for the exchange of Cooch-Behar enclaves inPakistan with Pakistan enclaves in India. MyGovernment will place before you legislation toimplement these agreements.

19

Our own relations with the countries far andnear have continued to be friendly.

On the invitation of the Emperor of Japan,I visited Japan at the end of September 1958 andreceived a warm welcome from the Emperor andthe people of Japan.

In December 1958 I paid visits to Indonesiaand Malaya on the invitation of the President ofIndonesia and the Paramount Ruler of Malaya.In both these countries I was accorded a generouswelcome by the Government and the people.

My Prime Minister, in September last year,visited Bhutan with which country we are in specialTreaty relationship. He met with an affectionatewelcome from the Ruler and the people of Bhutan.He has assured' them of our deep and abidingfriendship and our determination not to interferein their internal affairs. We may hope thatimproved communications between Bhutan andIndia will provide closer links between our twopeoples.

My Government accorded diplomaticrecognition to the new regimes in Sudan, Iraq,

Guinea and Cuba soon after they wereestablished.

We had the privilege of welcoming in thiscountry as our honoured guests during the year :His Majesty the King of Afghanistan; TheirMajesties the King and Queen of Nepal; thePresident of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam;the President of Yugoslavia ; the Prime Ministersof New Zealand, Turkey, Cambodia, Pakistan,Canada, Ghana, Norway, Rumania andAfghanistan ; the German Federal Minister ofEconomics; Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, Head ofthe U.S. Delegation to the United Nations, andthe Duke of Edinburgh.

The International Commission for Supervisionand Control in Vietnam and Cambodia continuedduring the year. In Laos, however, the Com-mission adjourned sine die with the provisionthat it may be reconvened in accordance withnormal procedures. My Government deeplyregret that the situation in Laos has worsenedand that the hopes to which I gave expressionlast year of a welcome development in thatcountry have not been justified by events. MyGovernment continue, however, to believe thatthe peace established by the Geneva Agreementswill continue to endure and that the members ofthe International Commission will co-operatefully with one another and obtain the co-operation of the Laotian Government in themaintenance of peace.

India participated in the United NationsObservation Group in the Lebanon and was ableto make its modest contribution in the terminationof a potentially grave situation in that area. The happenings inside the Union of SouthAfrica, resulting from the policy of Apartheidrelentlessly pursued by the Government of theUnion, inflicting suffering and indignity on themajority of the people of that country andinvolving the violation of human rights underthe United Nations Charter, is of deep concernto us. We may, however, note with some grati-fication that these policies have been met withoverwhelming disapproval by the United Nations.We continue to nurse the hope that the UnionGovernment will respond to the call of worldopinion and also recognise that such policies ina resurgent Africa will lead to increased racialbitterness and ultimately to conflicts which may

become widespread.

My Government have welcomed the openingof the Office of the High Commissioner of NewZealand in India last year.

A number of International Conferences havebeen held in this country in the past year. MyGovernment have been happy to accord thehospitality and welcome of our land and peopleto our visitors and to contribute in a smallmeasure to world understanding and the mutualexchanges that arise from such meetings.

Members of Parliament, I have placed beforeyou some of the main events and achievementsof the past year. We have reason to congratulateourselves to some extent in regard to our nationaldevelopment and progress. We have, however,even more than ever before, the duty and theopportunity to endeavour with greater determina-tion, discipline and sense of purpose to makeour democracy a reality in terms of the masses ofour people.

It is the policy, and it will continue to bethe endeavour of my Government, to seek inall possible ways to uphold the dignity andindependence of our land and people and topromote our unity and social well-being and tobuild a democratic and socialist society, in whichprogress is sought and attained by peaceful meansand by consent.

Members of Parliament, I bid you to yourlabours and wish you success. May yourendeavours, your unity of ultimate purpose and

20

your high sense of public duty bring increasingprosperity and contentment to our people, stabilityand security to our motherland, and assist topromote peace and co-operation in the world.

USA LATVIA RUSSIA UNITED KINGDOM INDIA GERMANY NEPAL PAKISTAN SENEGALSWITZERLAND JAPAN INDONESIA BHUTAN IRAQ SUDAN CUBA GUINEA AFGHANISTAN VIETNAMYUGOSLAVIA CAMBODIA NEW ZEALAND TURKEY CANADA GHANA NORWAY LAOS LEBANON

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Prime Minister's Statement in Rajya Sabha

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made astatement in the Rajya Sabha on February 12,1959 on the President's Address to Parliament.

In the course of his statement the PrimeMinister referred to various subjects, bothnational and international, and said, "It is thepolicy, and it will continue to be the endeavourof my Government to seek in all possible waysto uphold the dignity and independence of ourland and people and to promote our unity andsocial well-being and to build a democratic andsocialist society, in which progress is sought andattained by peaceful means and by consent".

Speaking of Goa Shri Nehru said:

Our policy in regard to Goa is absolutelyclear. We can never agree to, or tolerate, theidea of any foreign foothold in India, and byIndia I mean not the Union of India as it istoday, but that Union of India plus Goa whichis part of India whosoever may, at the presentmoment, be there.

At the same time we have said that we shalltry to achieve our end through peaceful methodsnot only as a matter of principle but as amatter of practical politics. In the world, as itis today, it is dangerous to try to solve problemsby military methods. No one knows where itmay lead. And if we try to do it, it would bea negation of the policy that we have proclaimedand try to act up to through all these years.I realise that is distressing. I realise, above all,that it is exasperating. Sometimes we find-evennow-that in spite of this policy of ours largenumbers of political prisoners exist in Goa-some of them still Indian nationals, others maybe technically Portuguese nationals, but they

belong as much to India as anyone else. It isdistressing that they should be kept there, andkept there under very bad conditions. Now, Ido not like to criticise other countries, but thisHouse knows that this problem of Goa, well, isconnected obviously with Portugal itself, andthe conditions in Portugal are not of a brightand shining example of freedom, liberty, demo-cracy or anything. In fact, it is the exactopposite of that and it becomes tied up withother problems in the world. So, while Goa maybe a small piece of territory in India, but notat present belonging to India, it is tied up withall kinds of major problems in the world andto seek a solution of it by military methods inthe wider context of the world would be toignore all this wider context and to give upthe policy we have sought to pursue. That policyhas, I believe, been more and more understoodby other countries. That fact that in Portugalitself things have happened which have elicitedthe strong disapproval of most countries itselfindicates the state of affairs in Goa. If in theso-called mother or father country, i.e. Portugal,this kind of thing happens what can you expectin a colonial territory which belongs to it hereor in Africa.

Then, about Pakistan. There are variousamendments expressing displeasure because weare continually, it is said, trying to appeasePakistan, because we do not hold up the honourof India with sufficient force and claim. Well,Sir, I do not quite know what to say about it,about this matter, because the Pakistan problemor the problems of Indo-Pakistan relations arealways with us. We are constantly dealing withthem-whether in the shape of questions andanswers in this House or in many other ways.We can never forget it. It is too near a problem,near not only geographically but in so manyother ways that we just cannot getaway fromit even if we want to.

But when we are charged with appeasingPakistan-on the other hand, other people, ofcourse in Pakistan, charge us with something thevery opposite of this-what exactly are the facts or,at any rate, the policy we seek to pursue ? Whatdoes appeasement mean ? If appeasement meanstrying to win over Pakistan, trying to be friendlywith Pakistan, trying to create an atmosphereof friendliness between us and help the solution

of problems then certainly we appease Pakistanand we will continue to appease Pakistan. Ifappeasement means giving up any right of ours,giving up any principle of ours or surrenderingto any threat then we are entirely opposed to

21

that and we shall always be opposed to that.So, these words do not have any particularmeaning ; it depends on how you approach aproblem. Sometimes something happens whichexasperates us, irritates us and we react for themoment strongly ; Sometimes something happenswhich on the whole has a more favourablereception. Well, we react accordingly but, thebasic policy is something higher than that.

Now, talking about immediate issues, acertain announcement the other day by thePakistan Government has been welcome to usand that was an announcement giving directionsto the broadcasting stations in Pakistan that theyshould not indulge in anti-Indian propagandaand, to some extent, as far as I know, thatdirection has been observed thus far. Well, wewelcome it and we always try to avoid this kindof mutual recriminations. These are all reac-tions, expressions from time to time but thebasic questions are deeper, as the House knows.The most basic question is this: India andPakistan, being what they are, geographically,historically, culturally and all that, shouldobviously have a common policy of co-operatingwith each other, to be friends with each other ;they may go their different ways that they likepolitically or economically but they should notbe hostile to each other all the time. We suffer,both of us. It is now a dozen years sincepartition and the passions of those days havecooled down to some extent and we can viewthe problem with a measure of objectiveness butthat does not and cannot mean any questionof surrendering the basic right or interest ofIndia or surrendering to threats from the otherside. We have to find some kind of balancebetween these and, at any rate, whatever wemay say or feel, I believe that in the relationsof India and Pakistan, as I hope in the relationsof other countries, there should always be anattempt at a friendly approach and we shouldavoid recrimination and condemnation. I realisethat we cannot always do that. Sometimes truth

compels us to say something which is not ofliking to the other party but even the bitteresttruth could be expressed in non-bitter languageat least. To some extent we learnt that in ourapprenticeship under Gandhiji and, in this connec-tion, may I say this ? Many of the amendmentshere protest against the address not having saidthis or that, not having said, let us say, aboutthe Baghdad Pact or the attempts at a bilateraltreaty between Pakistan and the United Statesof America or something that has happened inAfrica or in Western Asia. All these amendmentsare in terms of condemnation, recrimination andbrave words and gestures. I would hope thatwe would grow out of this somewhat immaturereferences to difficult problems. I can understandstrong feelings sometimes about things that arehappening but the major thing is that we do nothelp even in solving the problem or even helpgoing towards a solution. Either we realise thatwe must solve problems, whether they are worldproblems or internal problems or we feel thata conflict is inevitable and, therefore, we shouldkeep our swords shining and bright and shouldbe up and about all the time. We must decidewhich kind of approach we should make. Now,I am not discussing the problem. I am not forgiving up of any principle which we considerimportant but what I am discussing is the mannerof approach, either holding to our principlesyet not being offensive and trying to soothen,or, the other way of using threatening languageand threatening gestures which has become socommon in the world today. I would beg ofthis House and our country in this matter, quiteapart from anything else, to at least rememberthe way in which Gandhiji dealt with his declaredopponents of the time, against whom he wasstruggling.

Having said this, I dispose of, if I may sayso with respect, the various amendments dealingwith what the President has not said in hisAddress. They do not like many of the thingsthat are happening in the world. We also donot approve of the Baghdad Pact; we neverapproved of it and we have expressed that manytimes. We do not approve of all these militaryalliances and we have viewed with apprehensionthe military aid that has been given by the UnitedStates to Pakistan because we have felt thatthat was something which had an unsettlingeffect. We believe that all these military pacts

instead of ensuring security wherever they hadcome-perhaps I will not make that sweepingremark, but certainly I would say that most ofthese military pacts to the East or to the Westof India have had an unsettling effect and eventhe existing security such as it was has beenlessened and not increased. We have expressedthat. So far as the Baghdad Pact is concernedand this military aid that has been given toPakistan, it has been our firm opinion that thishas not been good for anybody concerned, tono one I say, not to India, not for Pakistanand not for the United States. We have express-ed that very clearly but there is no good ourcondemning anybody about it. I believe, in factI am certain, that our views are felt in the UnitedStates and further that they have had someconsiderable influence. We are, if you look atthis wide world, in a curious state todayregard to international problems and all the

22

minor problems, whether it is the military aidto Pakistan, whether it is the Baghdad Pact orthe NATO or the SEATO or the Warsaw Pact,are all offshoots of the basic struggle, of thebasic tug of war that goes on between the twomajor groups. I do not propose at this stageto discuss this matter except again to affirm thatthe policy that India has followed in this matter,that is the policy of non-alignment has, I believe,not only justified itself completely but has beenappreciated by many people who used to criticiseit previously and it has won recognition evenwhere people did not like it. I do believe thatit is along those lines that we can render someservice not only to ourselves but to the worldand we propose to continue it fully. It is onlywhen we are in some matters rather friendly toanother country, the country opposed to itimagines that we are weakening in our policyof non-alignment, while it is our declared policy,intention and objective to try to be friendly allthe time to all the countries.

Again, I repeat, friendliness does not meangiving up a principle or an interest, because acountry that is friendly through fear is notfriendly at all. That is not friendliness, if youare afraid of the other party and you shapeyour policy because of fear. Just if I may quote,in another context, even Gandhiji who was such

an apostle of 'Ahimsa' said he did not believe,he did not accept a man calling himself a'satyagrahi', who was a coward or who wasafraid. That is not 'satyagraha". In fact hewent further. He said if you have a sword inyour heart, it is better to take it out and use itthan talk softly outside and keep the sword inyour heart and be false to yourself and to others.So, it is not through fear that way, I hope, wehave these policies or that we are trying to befriendly with others but because we do believethat that is the best way of putting across ourown ideas to others, because that opens themind of others, make them receptive to what wehave to say. When two countries are hatingeach other, minds are closed and no one caninfluence the other, and you have a basis of fearthan which there can be no worse companionfor an individual or a country.

The situation is pretty serious all over theworld. Nevertheless, there are some signs, someray of hope. And may I say that I welcome thefact that the Prime Minister of the UnitedKingdom, Mr. Macmillan, will soon be goingto the Soviet Union for talks there ? I donot mean to say that some sudden settlementis going to emerge from that. Problems are muchtoo intricate and difficult, but all these visits, evenif they tend to lessen tensions somewhat, evenif they encourage just talks with each other, arehelpful and, therefore, are to be welcomed.

USA INDIA PORTUGAL PAKISTAN IRAQ POLAND

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C.S. Jha's Statement in Trusteeship Council on Tanganyika

Shri C.S. Jha, Permanent Representative ofIndia in the United Nations, made a statement inthe Trusteeship Council on February 9, 1959 on

Tanganyika. He said :

During the past week the Council has beenengaged in examining the Report of the Adminis-tering Authority on Tanganyika for the year 1957.We have had the advantage of the able and lucidpresentation by the Special Representative forTanganyika, Mr. Fletcher-Cooke, which has help-ed us to understand the conditions in Tanganyikaand to bring our knowledge up-to-date. Mydelegation would like to pay a special tribute toMr. Fletcher-Cooke for his forthrightness andpatience and for the wealth of information hehas provided to the Council in answer to themany questions put to him.

For this Council, Mr. President, Tanganyikain many ways has special importance. It is thelargest of the territories which came under thetrusteeship system of the United Nations. It isone of the last remaining Trust Territories whichhave still to attain freedom or independence whichis the goal of the trusteeship system. More thanthese, it covers a considerable part of the greatContinent of Africa where the current of freedom,in spite of the suppressions, iniquities anddiscriminations prevailing in many parts of theContinent against the indigenous and Asianpopulations, is more and more assuming the formof a mighty irresistible stream. The mostsignificant fact of our times is the resurgence ofAsia and Africa. Asia perhaps led the way inthis resurgence. The Continent of Africa is nowon the march. The fact that Tanganyika is anAfrican territory inhabited predominantly by theAfrican people is a fact of major significance ofwhich the Trusteeship Council cannot afford to

23

lose sight It is at once the noble burden andprivilege of the Government of the UnitedKingdom as the Administering Authority toprepare the peoples of Tanganyika to join in theprocession of free countries in Africa.

I had the privilege of visiting Tanganyikaover 12 years ago as a member of an IndianMission to East Africa. We were impressed bythe efficiency of the civil administration ofTanganyika. Even more than that, we got thefeeling that unlike many of its neighbouringterritories at that time, Tanganyika had a largely

congenial racial atmosphere. It seemed thatTanganyika might be able to achieve the harmo-nious adjustment of relations between theindigenous people, the Africans, and the Europeansand the Asians who had made Tanganyikatheir home. It seemed to us then that Tanganyikamight well show the way to a solution of the mostmomentous question on the Continent of Africa.

Mr. President, I am happy to say that despiteups and downs which were inevitable in theintervening years the latest Report of theAdministering Authority and the statement madeby the Special Representative, by and large,confirm the impressions that I then formed inTanganyika. The political situation, in so faras it concerns the development of relationsbetween the Africans, Europeans and Asians,seems to be developing in a harmonious way.We are happy to note that the TanganyikaAfrican National Union, which is now the largestAfrican political party in the Territory, and itsable President, Mr. Nyerere, are imbued with abroad and statesmanlike approach towards thepeoples and political organizations of the othertwo races. Mr. Nyerere's statement on theGovernor's address at the October meeting of theLegislative Council was in our view mostappropriate in this connection, namely that oncethe onus of responsibility is thrown on theAfricans, as indeed it should be theirs because oftheir overwhelming majority in Tanganyika, theyshould take the necessary responsible attitudetowards other races. Likewise the Governor'sstatement in his address to the October meetingof the Legislative Council that "it is intended, andhas always been intended, that the fact that whenself-government is eventually attained, both theLegislature and the Government are likely to bepredominantly African" is a significant step in theright direction. I will have more to say on thissubject a little later in my statement, but hereI would only like to express the approbation ofmy delegation to such statements on behalf of theAdministering Authority and of the predominantelement of the Tanganyika population. We hopethat these ideas are further developed with speedand given practical shape, both by the Adminis-tering Authority and the TANU and otherAfrican political organizations, since the truefoundations of the future independent democraticTanganyika, progressing in inter-racial harmony,can only be laid on the basis of these principles.

We are also happy to note, Mr. President, thatthe relations between the Government and thepolitical parties in general are harmonious. Thetrue function of an Administering Authority in aTrust Territory should be to help the people toreach the trusteeship system's goal of independence-in fact to be the people's guide, philosopher andfriend. We feel sure that in the coming years,which in many ways will be the vital preparatoryyears for the Territory, the Government will per-form its role of facilitating the development ofsound political organizations, of impartially dealingwith such organizations, and of helping publicopinion to develop in the right direction.

We have to remember, however. that goodgovernment is no substitute for self-governmentand it is self-government or independence whichis the ultimate goal of the trusteeship system.Policies and measures in a trust territory must beaimed at the speedy attainment of this goal. In ourview the speed of the attainment of independence isto be determined not on the basis of any narrow orstatic concepts ; it has to be decided in thecontext of a variety of factors. The mostsignificant of these are often not internal factors,important as they are, but external ones. It isthese latter that have a powerful impact andusually stimulate political developments of aprofound character. We mention this, Mr.President, to draw attention again to thetremendous forces that are convulsing theAfrican Continent today. We have no doubtthat these are known to, and well understood by,the Administering Authority, but I think it willbear repetition to say that unless they are takeninto account and the speed of preparation anddevelopment is attuned thereto, Tanganyika islikely to be left far behind-out of tune and astraggler on the African Continent.

Bearing in mind the considerations whichI have just stated, the objectives of the trusteeshipsystem and the obligations the AdministeringAuthority has undertaken thereunder, it should bethe pre-eminent task of the AdministeringAuthority to prepare the peoples of the Territoryfor the grave responsibilities, which will be theirswhen the Territory becomes independent, in theshortest possible time. Such preparation has tobe on comprehensive basis, namely with a view

24

to the balanced and integrated development in thepolitical, social and economic fields. There shouldbe detailed planning of various measures andpolicies to enable smooth and orderly transfer ofpower to the people of Tanganyika, whose privilegeand responsibility it would be thereafter to carrythe torch of freedom forward in conditions ofsocial and economic progress.

The General Assembly in its Resolution 558(VI) of 18 January 1952 and subsequent resolutionson the same subject culminating in Resolution1274 (XIII) has time and again emphasized theimportance of such planning and has invited theAdministering Authorities to fix early successiveintermediate targets and dates in the fields ofpolitical, economic, social and educationaldevelopment in trust territories; so as to create, assoon as possible, the pre-conditions for the attain-ment of self-government or independence. Mydelegation feels that in the case of Tanganyika thetime has come when the determination of suchtargets should no longer be postponed. We wouldrecommend once again that in consultation withthe elected representatives of Tanganyika theAdministering Authority should proceed with thefixation of targets for the introduction of universalsuffrage, abolition of official representatives in theLegislature and the executive government and inother spheres.

In 1957, when two African representativesmade statements before the Council, they touchedupon the question of the date when Tanganyikacould become independent. Mr. NyererePresident of the Tanganyika African NationalUnion, said: "How long did I think our countrywas going to take to be independent? I said tento twelve years. Is that not believing in gradual-ness? I could have said 'self-government now' ";and the Chief Marcalle estimated the period as tento fifteen years.

Though only two years have elapsed sincethen, events and ideas have moved fast not onlyin Africa where one territory after another hasattained or is about to attain independence, but ifI may be permitted to refer to this, the world out-side has moved from the atomic age into the newage of space. The estimates made in 1957 arealready far out of date and the period before

attainment of independence for Tanganyika hasto be a very much shorter one.

In the light of these general observations,Mr. President, I would like to make somecomments on the political, economic and socialconditions in the Territory. There is no doubtthat the elections to the Legislative Council whichpartly took place in five constituencies lastSeptember and are due in another five todayrepresent a political advance, but it will be admitt-ed that the measure of political progress represent-ed by these elections is very small. It has to beremembered that out of eight and a half millionAfrican and 123,000 non-Africans according to1957 census the total electorate was only about58,000. This is indeed like a drop in the ocean andno elective system in which the franchise is solimited as to confer voting rights only on .007%of the total population can be viewed with anysatisfaction. We are aware that a large numberof those who were eligible failed to register asvoters. Nevertheless, the main conclusion isnot affected thereby.

On another matter of detail we would like toobserve that the existing constituencies aretoo large ; each of the ten provinces is aconstituency. It is well known that these areasare not highly developed and lack adequatecommunications. In the circumstances bothcontacts by candidates with the voters and theexercise of votes by the electors must inevitablybe difficult. The most satisfactory system ofcourse is to have single-member constituencies,and the constituencies themselves should not betoo large and unmanageable. In particular theobligation on the voter to record his vote for allthe seats even if he does not know all the candi-dates seems curious and somewhat anachronistic.It is important, in our view, if the democraticexperiment which the Administering Authorityhas started is to have much meaning and sub-stance, that these reforms should be seriouslyconsidered and introduced as early as possible.

Mr. President, we know by experience thatthe democratic system is expensive and theholding of nationwide elections on the basis ofuniversal adult suffrage needs considerableorganization. Experience elsewhere, however,shows that the exercise of universal adult suffragehas neither been administratively so difficult nor

has it produced the consequences feared by thosewho have had to take a decision in that regard.On the other hand the conferment of the exerciseof universal adult franchise is the best means ofcreating political consciousness and politicaleducation of masses of people, which in the finalresort are the cornerstones of a free democraticsociety. It is also the experience of manycountries, including India, that illiteracy is no barto intelligent voting. Indeed if one were to waitfor a high literacy rate before the introductionof adult suffrage, the development of real demo-cracy in many countries would be postponed formany generations. We believe that it should not

25

be administratively difficult to introduce adultsuffrage immediately. On the basis that theadult voting population is usually a little under50 per cent of the total, Tanganyika should haveabout four million voters, the average number ofvoters in each province being no more than500,000 which the machinery of administrationand elections in Tanganyika should, we feel, beeasily able to handle. We would therefore urgeon the Administering Authority to give seriousconsideration to the question of introduction ofadult suffrage.

I would now like to take up a somewhatlarger question, namely the manner and patternof race relationship in Tanganyika. As I haveobserved earlier, the conditions for the evolutionof a harmonious multi-racial society are favour-able in the Trust Territory. The AdministeringAuthority is itself showing commendable under-standing of the problem despite criticism of detailthat may sometimes be levelled against theadministration of the Territory. It is, however,important to visualise the ultimate pattern andto work towards it with sincerity and singlenessof purpose. In our view, the ultimate patternshould be, and indeed can be none other than, asociety in which different racial elements in theTerritory are bound together in a singleTanganyikan nationhood, an egalitarian societyin which members of all races enjoy equal rightsand privileges without discrimination of any kind.It is only in that kind of society that freedom anddemocracy can grow and flourish. In the viewof our delegation, as a natural corollary to this,the Africans who form an overwhelming popula-

tion of the Territory must have an overwhelmingshare in the government and administration ofthe Territory and in other spheres of nationallife. Any principle of parity of racial representa-tion is inconsistent with the development of sucha society and thus with the development of sounddemocratic institutions in a free Tanganyika. Itis gratifying to note that the AdministeringAuthority, as indicated in the speech of theGovernor of the Territory before the LegislativeCouncil in October, does not now consider parityto be a permanent feature of the Tanganyikascene and that in the final picture both theLegislature and the Government are likely to bepredominantly African. This principle needs tobe more categorically stated and applied inpractice. At the same time, the minority races,who have made their home in Tanganyika shouldhave the feeling and assurance that they wouldenjoy equal rights under the law with the entirepopulation. We are happy to see an implicitrecognition of this in Mr. Nyerere's speech in thedebate on the Governor's address. We feel thatthis principle also needs to be more explicitlystated and emphasized especially by the represen-tatives of the African political organizations. Wehope that African leaders will recognize the needfor reorientating the people in these salutaryprinciples.

Recently elections were held in the Territoryfor the Legislative Assembly for the first time andthough the range of elections was unnecessarilyrestricted, we are happy to see that the resultsachieved have been entirely satisfactory. Thelargest political party, namely the TanganyikaAfrican National Union, has now emerged on theconstitutional scene of the Territory, and perhapsof greater significance is the fact that Tanganyikahas now a leader in the person of Mr. JuliusNyerere, who is acclaimed by all to be endowedwith vision, wisdom and moderation. This is amatter of great good fortune for the Territory.Nothing is more important for a newly emergingcountry than the calibre of its leaders. We hopethat under leaders like Mr. Nyerere political lifein Tanganyika will be moulded on lines whichaugur well for the future of the Territory and forinter-racial harmony.

My delegation hopes that now that there willbe thirty elected members in the LegislativeCouncil, steps will be taken to have non-official

Ministers chosen from the elected representatives.As the Special Representative has stated, thingshave moved rapidly since the time when well overeighteen months ago some non-officials werebrought into the Executive Council at theAssistant Ministers' level. We were glad to hearfrom the Special Representative that theAdministering Authority was now thinkingin terms of appointment of non-officialMinisters.

We learn from the Special Representative thatthe best way of associating the Chiefs with theCentral Government of the Territory was beingconsidered through the establishment of aTerritorial Council composed largely, but notexclusively, of Chiefs. We were glad to havethe Special Representative's assurance that "thatbody would not be a second Chamber in theaccepted sense of the term, but rather an advisoryorgan which would consider controversial matterswithout the authority to have the right of decisionof the Legislative Council". We are aware of theimportant position occupied by Chiefs in Africansociety, but we feel that the contemplatedTerritorial Council should be complementary andin no way an impediment to the development ofparliamentary institutions and of a democraticsociety in Tanganyika.

26

My delegation, Mr. President, is glad to notethat the Administering Authority has takensubstantial steps in the direction of organizationof local government. At present there are 10Town Councils, I Municipality, namely at Dar-es-Salaam, 9 District Councils and a local Councilat Newala. We welcome the setting up of theseCouncils as a political and administrative trainingground for the Africans. Since these bodies areentrusted with many nation-building activities,they can also do much for the rural developmentof Tanganyika. All these will be useful prepara-tions for the transfer of power at the time of theindependence of the Territory. We note thatthere have been instances of some of these bodiesnot functioning satisfactorily. But this is nocause for discouragement. The AdministeringAuthority can do much through advice, encour-agement and assistance towards the healthydevelopment of local self-governing institutions.The election system has already been introduced

in Town Councils. We see no reason whyDistrict Councils also should not be electivebodies.

It is unnecessary for me to emphasise thatthe backbone of any administration or governmentmust be the civil services. Efficiency in thecivil services is necessary not only for the purposeof administering Tanganyika, but for givingthe territory the right start when it becomesindependent. In recent times many newlyindependent states have found themselves inserious difficulties owing to the inadequacy oftheir trained civil cadres. We note that theAdministering Authority is aware of this and isincreasing the number of Africans in higherservices. The increase, however, is not fastenough, even though we may recognise practicaldifficulties. We cannot too strongly emphasisethat Africanisation of the services should proceedat an accelerated pace and that the aim shouldbe to have all posts of District Officers and belowmanned by the inhabitants of the territory inthe next two or three years. To say that noqualified Africans were available for a particularpost or that there are only nine African doctors inTanganyika is hardly complimentary to theAdministering Authority after so many decadesof mandate or trusteeship for Tanganyika. Whilewe note with satisfaction the availability ofbursaries and other training facilities, we wouldlike the Administering Authority to engage ina determined and more extensive programme fortraining more and more Africans for the higherranks of the civil services. The AdministeringAuthority should, in this connection, avail ofsuch training facilities in public administrationas may be available in the United Nations.

Finally, while I am dealing with the politicaldevelopments in the territory, I should like toexpress the hope, on behalf of my Delegation, thatthere will be no avoidable delay in the formationof the Committee on Constitutional Reforms.We attach the greatest importance to the taskbefore this Committee. The time is now appro-priate for the Constitutional Committee to gointo the whole question of the future ofTanganyika, lay down sound future lines ofpolitical development, e.g. by giving up theprinciple of parity, revising the machinery ofgovernment so as to give just and adequateAfrican representation thereon etc., etc.

It would be well to remember that freedomitself is of illusory value if it is accompanied byeconomic weakness. If, therefore, Tanganyikais to be prepared for independence, it is obviousthat its economic strength should be developedto the fullest extent. Experience shows thatthe development of the economic strength of anunder-developed country is a tremendous task.It is now generally accepted that integrated andlong-range economic planning are necessary. Inour view, the Administering Authority shoulddevote the greatest efforts to this end. Balancedschemes of development of agriculture andindustry are necessary and the industrial potentialof the territory needs to be developed. It isalso necessary that in these developments theAfricans should have full and adequate share.The Administering Authority appear to be fullyaware of the need for economic development andhave a revised five-year development plan1956-61 totalling 32 million pounds. Planning,however, seems at present to be compartmental.Integrated planning with priorities carefully laiddown in full co-operation and discussion withthe main political parties and associations seemscalled for.

The foundation of such a plan must be acareful survey of the resources of the territory.It is understood that some occasional surveyshave been made, but it is desirable to have morecomprehensive and integrated surveys thanhitherto. It would be appropriate for theAdministering Authority to increasingly call uponthe assistance of the United Nations bodies andSpecialised Agencies to help them in suchsurveys. We are happy to note the assistancegiven by the FAO in regard to the Rufiji basinscheme, and we are sure that more such assistancewill be forthcoming from them and from otherU.N. Agencies.

The availability of finance for development isof course a matter of great difficulty. The

27

Administering Authority appear already to havemade a good beginning by instituting a develop-ment plan reserve into which moneys from revenueand other sources are credited for developmentpurposes. It is also satisfactory to note that the

Administering Authority have been able to raisemoney on the commercial market for financingdevelopment projects. We trust that they willfind ways and means of augmenting the develop-ment funds both at the Central Government andthe local authority level. It is of the utmostimportance that in the financial stringency causedby the fall in commodity prices, which we hopeis only temporary, development expenditure willnot be curtailed.

The report of the Administering Authorityshows a healthy expansion of the co-operativemovement. At the end of 1957, there were 474Registered Societies with a total membership of300,279. Co-operative Societies now operate inall the eight provinces and their services includebulk marketing facilities, bulk purchase of tradegoods, distribution of consumer goods, seeds andplanting material, agricultural requisites, loans,finance saving facilities and education. It is ofthe utmost importance that the co-operative move-ment should be expanded and that not merelymarketing societies but multi-purpose co-operativesocieties be established throughout the territory.In our view, in an under-developed country withinefficient agriculture, village co-operatives canplay the most important part in building up theeconomy and in preparing the people for theireconomic responsibilities as a free nation.

It seems necessary that immediate stepsshould be taken to encourage capital-formation,to whatever extent possible, through the ac-cumulation of co-operative capital, developmentloans and compulsory and voluntary savings,both small and big. The Administering Author-ity's efforts towards the establishment of co-operatives have been sufficiently successful tojustify more accelerated progress in that direction.The large majority of existing co-operatives seemto be functioning well. We wish to suggest thatGovernment should further encourage, to themaximum possible extent, the inhabitants of theterritory to organise themselves freely into co-operative societies of various kinds.

Tanganyika is an agricultural country withbut few industries. Agriculture forms theprincipal wealth and occupation of the people.Therefore, if the national wealth of Tanganyikais to be increased, its agriculture must needs beimproved. For the improvement of agriculture,

the first essential condition is the establishmentof a satisfactory system of land tenure. The bestguarantee for maximum agricultural productionis that the farmer must have security of tenureand occupancy, should be free from impositionsby the State or by the landlord, and should haveall the incentive in the world to increase produc-tion. We note that the Tanganyika Governmenthave the formulation of a new land tenure policyunder consideration.

Mr. President, the Administering Authority'sReport deals with the subject of land alienation.This is an important subject in a territory wherethere is perpetual land hunger among the Africansand there have been allegations-and with justice-of mal-distribution of land as between thevarious races. Members of the TrusteeshipCouncil also have commented on this subject atprevious meetings of the Council. We note thatout of ten new grants during 1958, six went toAfricans and two to public or semi-public bodies.We take note with satisfaction of this improve-ment which meets to some extent the criticismthat has been made in the past. We hope thatthis trend will continue.

The statistical appendices to the Report reveala chronic food deficit which has persisted overthe last four or five years. Consequently, foodworth over two million pounds has been importedannually, and to that extent the territory'sfinancial resources continue to suffer a set back.The formation of capital for development pur-poses in agricultural countries depends to a largeextent on the availability or otherwise of export-able surpluses of food. The elimination of thisfood deficit should, therefore, receive the highestpriority, and the burden of the attack should fallon the tsetse fly. Attention should then be paidto the development of water resources. Rainfallin the territory seems somewhat haphazard andunpredictable. Large dams of high capacity are,of course, the final answer to this problem, buta profitable beginning could be made with thebuilding of small dams, water-collecting artificiallakes and pools in the villages. In our viewadequate attention has not been paid in the pastto the development of the territory's agriculturewhich should receive priority attention. On theaverage, expenditure on agriculture has amount-ed to less than 3 per cent of the total annualexpenditure.

Nearly two-thirds of land in Tanganyika issaid to be covered with bushes infested with tsetsefly. If the land at present under the tsetse flymenace was made available for cultivation, thatwould mean a vast increase in the agriculturalwealth of the territory. According to the Special

28

Representative the average holding of an Africanfarmer in the moderately to intensively cultivatedareas is no more than two acres. This indeedexplains his poverty. If more land were availableto him, if more working capital were at his dis-posal, if arrangements could be made for supplyof water to his fields, if the farmer could, getbetter seeds and if possible fertilisers, he wouldno doubt emerge from his abject state of poverty-the average per capita income per year is said tobe not more than 18 to 20 pounds-to a state ofcomparative wealth and prosperity. He wouldthen himself find the means for his social andeducational advancement and the burden on theState would be correspondingly diminished. Weare of course fully aware that these conditionsare difficult of attainment without a great deal offinance and capital and many years of organi-sation, which at present are not at the disposalof the Government of Tanganyika. Neverthelessthe goal of planned and extensive as well as inten-sive agricultural development should, in our view,be kept in mind, and, to start with the campaignagainst the tsetse fly should be intensified. Wefeel sure that in any project towards this end, theAdministering Authority can count on the helpof the U.N. organs and its Specialised Agenciesand of charitable foundations.

We are happy to note that considerable pro-gress has been made during the last year in thedevelopment of natural resources in thefield of agriculture. Coming from a country,Mr. President, with some of the most extensive ir-rigation systems in the world and where many largeschemes of irrigation are now in progress, we viewwith great admiration and hope the Rufiji BasinScheme, in respect of which surveys have alreadybeen completed and initial work started. Thescheme is expected to confer benefits to an area ofseveral hundred square miles. This certainly isimaginative planning, and it is planning such asthis that is needed for under-developed areas. We

wish this scheme every success and we hope thatsimilar imaginative schemes will be undertaken inother areas and in other fields too, with the helpof international organisations.

Side by side with agricultural development,industrial development should not be neglected ifTanganyika is to be prepared adequately for itsfuture responsibilities as an independent nation.It is obvious that the territory at present cannotafford the capital and the financial resources tobuild up organised industries on a large scale.But a start has to be made. Conditions have tobe created in the territory to facilitate investmentfrom outside on a non-political basis. In thisdirection African national organisations can playa very useful part. It is they who will have toextend the assurances of fair treatment so as toattract foreign capital and investment in theterritory.

The Special Representative has given usdetailed information about the financial situationin the territory. While we appreciate the diffi-culties caused by the fall in prices of the primarycommodities which are exported from Tanganyika,namely sisal, coffee, etc., it is our view that theprobable deficit of nearly over a million and ahalf sterling for the current financial year shouldnot be allowed to deter the AdministeringAuthority from economic and social planning.We hope, as the Special Representative envisages,that much of the deficit which indeed is not ofa very high order will be eliminated througheconomies in departmental expenditure.

We feel, Mr. President, that the economy ofthe territory is basically sound, and if persistentand well thought out measures are taken, it shouldbe possible to raise higher revenues. Sources ofincome-tax revenue can perhaps be tapped afresh,and a more extensive exploration and exploitationof the territory's mineral wealth offers attractiveprospects.

We believe that Government have so far notoffered adequate facilities to Asian and Africanprospectors. It should also be possible forGovernment to set up industries utilising thesisal, cotton, etc., which are grown in the territoryas raw materials. In any case, We feel that thereshould be no inroads into the social services onaccount of the expected budgetary deficit.

To put it in a nutshell, Mr. President, thevast gap between the per capita income of themore advanced countries and that of the Africanshas to be substantially bridged. For no free anddemocratic institutions can flourish in the soil ofpoverty, illiteracy and disease. The AdministeringAuthority should give attention to this all-important task and tap all resources not onlywithin the territory but also all sources ofinternational finance and capital. We believethat since Tanganyika is a Trust Territory and itis the noble aim of the Trusteeship System toprepare the people of Tanganyika for indepen-dence, the Administering Authority will find agreat deal of sympathy in many quarters for itseconomic plans.

I would now like to touch, Mr. President, onthe question of education. It is obvious thatthere is a great urge for education among theAfricans. We are glad to note the progress that

29

has been made during the last two years. TheSpecial Representative's statement in which hegives the details of students at the various highertechnical and other institutions in Makerere,Nairobi and outside Africa is impressive. It isalso satisfactory to know that large numbers ofteachers are being systematically trained at theTeacher Training Centres, and facilities forvocational and technical training are beingexpanded. However, the Administering Authoritywill, we hope, take careful note of the commentsmade by the UNESCO. It is obvious that eventhough efforts have been intensified during thelast few years, the problem of education, especiallyAfrican education, is a vast one and requires alarge organisation and financial expenditure.The UNESCO has commented on the lowpercentage of appropriations from generalrevenues for recurrent educational expenditure.We hope that it will be possible to increase theappropriations.

It was disquieting to learn from the SpecialRepresentative's statement that in spite of theappalling illiteracy in the Territory there were14,000 places unfilled in Standard I in primaryschools and more than 91,000 unfilled in StandardsII, III and IV of the same schools. In the middle

schools likewise there were 5,000 unfilled places.We realise that part of the apathy or inability toutilise the vacancies is probably traceable toeconomic reasons, that is to say, the need for afamily to draft their children to work at a veryearly age to aid in the income of the family. Butit is important, if education is to make progressin the Territory, that this initial formidableobstacle should be overcome. We trust that theAdministering Anthority will give their earnestconsideration to this problem and popularizeeducation through local government bodies andsocial welfare organisations among the people.In this connection adult education, the beginningsof which have already been undertaken in theterritory, is of great importance. If parentsthemselves become literate and acquire thekeenness to learn, they are better able toappreciate the need for their children's education.Thus, measures for adult education, apart frombeing intrinsically important, may also assist inremoving the apathy towards elementary andsecondary education of children.

There are two other aspects of education inthe territory that my delegation would like tocomment on. First there is the question ofintegration of schools. This, as we all know, is aburning question not only in Tanganyika but inmany other parts of the world where the problemof education of children of different races exists.The intensity of the problem and its potentialitiesfor causing racial tension are not admitted on allhands. It is our view that there should be noseparate schools for racial or religious groups.Education should be integrated at all levels as afundamental policy.

We note that the Administering Authorityhave shown awareness of the problem by appoint-ing a Committee to go into the whole question ofintegration of schools. We trust that theCommittee will make significant recom-mendations.

In a territory, especially in a Trust Territory.the population of which comprises groups ofdifferent religious faiths and beliefs, it is appro-priate and desirable that government shoulddevelop an educational policy which is completelysecular. We are not opposed to denominationaleducation, but we feel that this should be left tothe organisations and the communities concerned.

In Tanganyika, as the Special Representative haspointed out, there are financial difficulties andfunds available for the promotion of educationare limited. It is therefore necessary that publicfunds should be devoted to the spread of educa-tion which will benefit the community as a wholeand not for any theological or denominationaleducation.

I am sorry, Mr. President, to have spoken atsuch length. My reason for doing so is that mydelegation has always followed developments inTanganyika with great interest. I hope myremarks, even if critical, will be taken in theconstructive spirit in which they were made. Anycomments we have made do not detract from ourappreciation of the work which is being done inTanganyika. The United Kingdom have a tradi-tion of good government and the recent historyof Africa and of many countries in Asia bearstestimony to their statesmanship and farsighted-ness. Under their trusteeship we look forward tothe emergence of Tanganyika in the near future asan independent country taking an honoured placeat the United Nations.

INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC FIJI LATVIA KENYA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C. S. Jha's Statement in Trusteeship Council on Cameroons

Shri C. S. Jha, Permanent Representative ofIndia in the United Nations, made the followingstatement in the Trusteeship Council on February16, 1959 on the Cameroons under French

30

Administration :

For about a week now, the TrusteeshipCouncil has been considering the question of thefuture of the Cameroons under French adminis-tration. This task has been laid before us by theGeneral Assembly's resolution 1282 adopted atits last session. The Assembly asked the Trustee-ship Council to examine the report of the VisitingMission to the Trust Territories in West Africain 1958, and to transmit the same with its obser-vations and recommendations to the GeneralAssembly not later than 20 February, 1959.

We had the advantage, Mr. President, ofstudying the Visiting Mission's report and ofhearing the Special Representative from the TrustTerritory. Many questions have been asked ofthe delegate of France and of the Special Repre-sentative. We are thankful to them for havingreplied with candour. We have also listenedcarefully to the observations made by manymembers in the Council.

At the outset, I may be permitted to expressthe appreciation of my delegation for the workof the Visiting Mission under the able chairman-ship of Mr. Benjamin Gerig. Their report bearseloquent testimony to the great pains that theyhave taken for ascertaining the facts, evaluatingthem and for making balanced and soundrecommendations. We regard the VisitingMission's report as a valuable contribution andof great importance in the examination of thequestion referred to the Trusteeship Council bythe General Assembly.

Before proceeding to express our views onthe specific conclusions and recommendations ofthe Visiting Mission, I would like to make somegeneral observations. In the first place, theprospect before us-and indeed it is our privilegeto be associated with such a prospect-is thebirth of a new nation. The moments in historywhen nations arise in full freedom and indepen-dence are not too many, and such moments whenthey come are always moving and of great signifi-cance to mankind. The Trusteeship Councilhave by their labours during the past few yearscontributed in no small measure to the earlyattainment of freedom by many countries inAfrica. My delegation is happy to have had theprivilege of being associated with the work ofthe Trusteeship Council. We have always urgedthe Administering Authorities to prepare the

territories under their trust for independence atthe earliest date. Our constant advocacy offreedom for dependent peoples has been not onlyin the territorial sense but in the sense of enjoy-ment of fundamental freedoms and liberties bythe peoples of the countries concerned.

In the view of my delegation the question ofthe future of the Cameroons is one of the mostimportant on which the Council has been calledupon to pronounce an opinion. We are dealingwith nothing less than the freedom and future offive million people in the Cameroons of whomover three million are in French Cameroons andFrench administration in respect of whom myremarks will be confined this morning. And thequestion, Mr. President, has to be considered inthe context of the provisions of the Charterrelating to trusteeship and the terms of thetrusteeship agreement.

Article 76 of the Charter lays down the basicobjectives of the Trusteeship system. These areprogressive development towards self-governmentor independence as may be appropriate to theparticular circumstances of each territory and itspeoples and the freely expressed wishes of thepeoples concerned, and as may be provided bythe terms of each trusteeship agreement. UnderArticle 76 (c) it is among the objectives of thetrusteeship system to "encourage respect forhuman Tights and for fundamental freedoms forall without distinction as to race, sex, languageor religion ......". Article 76 thus provides thesoil in which trust territories are to grow anddevelop towards independence. What the UNCharter envisages is the eventual emergence oftrust territories into independent nations accor-ding to the freely expressed wishes of the peoplesand enjoying fundamental freedoms and respectfor human rights. It would be against the spiritof the Charter if the UN General Assembly wereto become a party to the creation of a Statepreviously under the trusteeship system in whichthe people did not enjoy fundamental freedomsand human rights and there was no equalityunder the law.

The principle of consultations, which isembodied in Article 76 (b) of the Charter is thusan important one. Trusteeship agreements providefor consultations with populations concerned atthe termination of agreements and this is also

contemplated in Article 5 of the TrusteeshipAgreement for the Cameroons under the Frenchadministration.

In regard to Cameroons under Frenchadministration, we find that there has beenprogressive development of democratic institutions-even though in the opinion of some thedevelopment has been tardy to the point whenthere is a Legislative Assembly elected on universal

31

adult suffrage. The present Assembly waselected in December 1956 on this basis. Therewas a very high degree of participation in thevoting. It is claimed that this was extremelyhigh for Africa and higher than is sometimes thecase in old established democracies. Suchelections were held for all but two seats inSanaga-Maritime area where unfortunately therewere disturbances. Another two seats in thesame area were disputed and elections to thesewere set aside. Consequently there are fourseats unfilled in the Legislative Assembly out of70. The fact that no elections could be held fortwo constituencies was indeed deplorable. How-ever, these disturbances and the fact that fourseats are vacant do not in our opinion affect themain question of the independence of theCameroons nor are they in themselves validreasons for delaying it.

My delegation is impressed by what hasbeen stated in paragraphs 134 and 135 of thereport. To quote from the latter "the Mission didnot find any evidence of any desire in theTerritory for an objective short of independence.All the Cameroonians with whom the Missionspoke stated, often emphatically, that they desiredindependence. The Mission did not hear asingle dissenting voice on that subject, nor wasany alternative to independence proposed to it.It accordingly considers itself justified in conclu-ding that the overwhelming majority of thepopulation desires independence. There is somedifference of opinion among the populationregarding the date of the proclamation ofindependence. Some approve the date of I January1960, which was the Government's choice, whileothers advocate an earlier date. But on the basisof the information the Mission was able toobtain in the Territory, it seems safe to suggest

that the latter constitute only a small minority".

To my delegation the position appears to beas follows :-

The people of the Cameroons under Frenchadministration have been clamouring for indepen-dence for a long time. The urge for independenceis deep among all sections of the people andmany consider that freedom has already beenlong delayed. There is no disposition amongany section of the people to delay independencebeyond I January 1960. There are, indeed, somewho would like the Territory to become indepen-dent earlier. The Legislative Assembly of theTerritory which was elected on the basis ofuniversal adult franchise adopted a resolutionon 24 October 1958 solemnly proclaiming thewill of the Cameroonian people that the Stateof the Cameroons should attain national indepen-dence on 1 January 1960. The LegislativeAssembly, as the Visiting Mission has pointedout in paras 140 and 141 of its report, is represen-tative in character. The Administering Authorityhave declared their intention of granting fullindependence to the Cameroons under Frenchadministration on the same date. The VisitingMission found that this is the desire of the over-whelming majority of the population. To quotethe words of the Mission's report, "the requestthat the Territory should become independent onI January 1960 which was approved by theLegislative Assembly of the Cameroons by alarge majority is also supported by a largemajority of the population."

We have, therefore, come to the conclusionthat the desire for independence in the TrustTerritory is universal. We believe that this is thenoble aspiration of the people of the FrenchCameroons. We also feel that after many initialhesitations the Administering Authority has itselfcome to believe in the independence of the FrenchCameroons, and has responded magnanimously tothe aspirations of the Territory.

My delegation is of the view that while theprinciple of popular consultation is essential, andin the normal course we would have consideredit more appropriate if consultation had beenmade under the auspices of the United Nations,in the circumstances of the Cameroons underFrench administration we should nevertheless

agree with the Visiting Mission's conclusions,that no further consultation of the population isnecessary on the subject of their independence.All concerned are agreed on the independence ofthe Territory on I January 1960 and there is noneed for going through the time taking formalityof specific consultation under UN auspices, whichcould not give any other result.

We now address ourselves to the question-

(a) whether the Cameroons under French administration that is likely to emerge as an independent country on I January 1960 will have all the attributes of independence and sovereignty-and

(b) whether the people of the Territory enjoy at present and will enjoy on I January 1960 all the fundamental free- doms and respect for human rights with- out any distinction as envisaged in Article 76 (c) of the Charter.

On the question of sovereignty we find that

32

in Ordinance 58-1375 of 30 December 1958 theGovernment of France has transferred to theGovernment of the Cameroons all the powers ofinternal legislation and administration includingjudiciary, retaining to itself the responsibility formonetary and foreign exchange policy, foreignpolicy, frontier security and defence of the Stateof Cameroons. We take note of the declarationof the representative of France to the effect thatit constitutes the last stage of the evolution of theCameroons' institutions before independenceand the ending of trusteeship as outlined in thepreamble to the Statute. The Government ofFrance have also stated in the preamble to theOrdinance that it is their desire to comply withthe wishes of the Legislative Assembly of theCameroons that they should attain full indepen-dence on 1 January 1960. In the same connectionwe take note again of the statement of therepresentative of France that "on I January 1960autonomy will step aside for independence andthe final external powers will pass into the handsof the Cameroons authorities". We also notethe statement of the Special Representative thatthe existing conventions governing the relations

between France and the Cameroons which areannexed to the Statute of 30 December 1958 willautomatically end on 31 December 1959 andindependent Cameroons will thus be free tonegotiate and enter into new conventions withFrance or any other State.

My delegation wants particularly-and indeedthere is an obligation on the UN to that effect-that fundamental freedoms prevail in the Territoryand that the State that emerges on I January 1960is one in which democratic forms of Governmentand democratic liberties flourish. This recalls tous at once the disturbances that took place incertain parts of the Territory in 1955 and later in1957 and which have sporadically continuedduring 1958. We have also to take note of thefact that one of the several political parties inthe Territory is banned and does not as suchenjoy liberty of speech and association. It isnot our intention to go into the sequence of eventswhich led to these unfortunate happenings norto justify or condemn the alleged organisedviolence by that party and the alleged repressionby Government. The lesson of these disturbancesis that where freedom is delayed, it inevitablycauses deep frustrations which often lead toviolence and bitter conflicts. We deplore thesehappenings as much as anyone else. It is ourearnest wish that the bitterness and conflicts thattook place some time ago should becomematters of the past and should not be carriedover into the new era that is dawning for theTerritory.

States born in violence, internal bitternessand conflict do not lay sound foundations fortheir future. It would be the path of wisdom forthe Government of the Cameroons to takemeasures so that the new State comes into beingin harmony and internal goodwill. We wouldstrongly recommend the immediate grant ofamnesty on the widest possible basis. In fact, itwould be an act of statesmanship to grant un-conditional amnesty. Amnesty is based on theprinciple of forgiveness ; and forgiveness itself, ifungenerous or hesitating, loses its value. Weare constrained to observe that the furthermeasure of political amnesty proposed in theLegislative Assembly, a summary of which wasgiven to us by the Special Representative, doesnot go far enough. We hope that further detailsof the amnesty measures will be made available

to the members of the General Assembly. Atthe same time, with the principles and traditionsof non-violence, which have governed the thinkingof the Indian people, we cannot approve of anymethods of violence to attain political ends, andI hope our appeal to the political parties andindividuals in the Territory to eschew violencewill not be misunderstood. To the extent thatthe people of the Cameroons are able to eliminateviolence, bitterness and conflict, to that extentwill the future happiness of the Cameroonianpeople be assured.

It is also our fervent hope that electionswill be held very soon to the four vacant seats inthe Legislative Assembly allocated to Sanaga-Maritime area. These elections should be heldin conditions of maximum freedom and politicalamnesty. My delegation was glad to have theassurance of the representative of the Adminis-tering Authority that French troops are beingwithdrawn and will be totally withdrawn fromthis area well before the elections. We commendto the Government of the Cameroons that elec-tions be held in these conditions at the earliestpossible date.

We were happy to receive the assurance thatthose who are at present out of the Cameroonswill have complete freedom to return without fearof reprisal and that political amnesty will beapplicable to them.

The Trusteeship Council is not competent totake a decision concerning the termination of theTrusteeship Agreement. As the Representativeof France pointed out the other day, we are hereto pave the way, as it were, for the work and thejudgment of the General Assembly. We would,therefore, recommend that the General Assemblyshould take a decision in the light of the Visiting

33

Mission's report and after hearing such parties asmay choose to appear before it, to terminate theTrusteeship Agreement with effect from January1, 1960, upon the attainment by the FrenchCameroons of full national independence.

My delegation, Mr. President, will lend itssupport to any resolution in the Council, which isin consonance with the views that I have

expressed.

Before concluding, I should like to expresson behalf of my delegation, our great joy at theprospect of the emergence of the Cameroons asan independent State. We wish the people of theCameroons every happiness and success in theiradventure as an independent nation. In theirstruggle for freedom and independence during thelast decade of trusteeship, the people of theCameroons have shown strength and courage. Wefeel sure that when the General Assembly termi-nates the Trusteeship Agreement and freedomcomes these will be valuable assets to the peopleof the Cameroons in solving their internalproblems and in playing their full part in thecomity of nations.

INDIA CAMEROON USA FRANCE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC MALI

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

JAPAN

Pre-War Claims Settled

Letters were exchanged in Tokyo in Februarybetween the Government of Japan and the IndianEmbassy at Tokyo recording the conclusion ofnegotiations initiated in April 1958 for settlementof outstanding Indian pre-war claims againstJapan.

The total amount of claims thus determinedand paid by the Government of Japan is aboutRs. 20.7 lakhs. The Government of Japan had,in addition, settled certain claims before thecommencement of these negotiations, amountingto about Rs. 15.3 lakhs.

The Japanese pre-war assets situated in Indiaat the outbreak of war with Japan and taken overby the Indian Custodian of Enemy Property were

returned to their pre-war owners in terms ofletters exchanged in New Delhi on July 15, 1958between the Governments of India and Japan.The total value of assets thus returned is aboutRs. 2 crores.

JAPAN INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

KOREA

Prisoners of War

In reply to a question Shrimati Lakshmi N.Menon, Deputy Minister for External Affairs, saidin the Rajya Sabha on February 17, 1959 that therewere eleven ex-Korean prisoners of war still in India.

She added:

"Five of them were originally optees forIndia and employment suitable to their traininghas been found for them. The remaining sixwere originally optees for other neutral countries.None of the neutral countries to which theseprisoners desired to settle have yet accepted them.The Government is at present awaiting repliesfrom one neutral country and is also consideringother methods of rehabilitating them. For thetime being they live in a Government camp wherelodging is free and a monthly pocket allowance ofRs. 50/- is paid to each one of them in additionto a ration allowance of Rs. 50/- per month."

KOREA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

NORWAY

Indo-Norwegian Agreement Signed

As a result of talks held in Delhi for a fewdays between a two-member Norwegian delegation

34

and officials of the Central Board of Revenue, adraft Agreement for the Avoidance of DoubleTaxation of Income between India and Norwaywas initialled in February, 1959.

Upon ratification of the Agreement by therespective Governments, it will become effectivein India for and from the assessment year com-mencing on 1st April, 1959.

NORWAY INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

NETHERLANDS

Memorandum Signed

Technical and financial assistance from theGovernment of the Netherlands for acceleratingthe reclamation of saline soils in the Bhal areaalong the Saurashtra coast of Bombay State willshortly be available.

Agreement was reached on a Memorandum,setting out details of the assistance to be providedby the Government of the Netherlands and

contributions to be made by the Government ofIndia and the Bombay State, in New Delhi onFebruary 17, 1959 between Shri K.R. Damle,Secretary, Ministry of Food and Agriculture,Department of Agriculture, and Mr. D.W.R. Los,Acting Agricultural Attache of the RoyalNetherlands Embassy. The agreement reached willbe formalized by an exchange of Letters ofUnderstanding between the two Governmentsand be subject to Dutch parliamentary approval.

The total project, which aims at raising thestandard of living of the local population byincreasing the productivity of local soils, isexpected to benefit ultimately a net area of 55,800acres and yield produce worth about Rs. 75 lakhsa year.

The Netherlands Government will pay forthe construction of a pilot polder (reclamation oflow-lying land) of 6,520 acres and providetechnical assistance for its running and manage-ment, besides carrying out a number of tests andmeasurements at various stages of desalinization.

Work on the pilot polder-the execution ofwhich will be entrusted by the NetherlandsGovernment to a firm, Netherlands EngineeringConsultants (NEDECO), who will co-operatewith their Indian counterparts-will start duringthe current year and is expected to be completedin 1960.

The Netherlands assistance will be continuedtill 1963, by which time the pilot polder is expect-ed to be brought progressively under cultivation.The Government of India and the State Govern-ment of Bombay will provide funds and necessarystaff for the successful execution of the scheme.

The Bombay Government have agreed to setup a "Coordination Committee" on which will berepresented the Departments of Public Works,Agriculture, Revenue, Community Development,Civil Administration and Co-operation. A re-presentative of the NEDECO will be associatedwith this Committee in an advisory capacity.The Committee's functions will be : developmentof the reclaimed land and settlement of farmerson it, organisation of social and economic acti-vities including research required for the attain-ment of these objectives.

The Bhal Reclamation Scheme is includedin the Second Five Year Plan.

THE NETHERLANDS INDIA MALI CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Canal Water Dues

Replying to a question on canal water duesfrom Pakistan, Shri Hafiz Mohd. Ibrahim, UnionMinister of Irrigation and Power, said in theLok Sabha on February 16, 1959 that the wholesubject relating to the disputed as well as thebalance outstanding towards undisputed chargeswas under correspondence between the Govern-ments of India and Pakistan.

He said : "In regard to the 'disputed' charges,the latest position is that the Government ofPakistan have intimated that they have depositeda sum of Rs. 97,19,980/- in the State Bank ofPakistan as a credit in favour of the Reserve Bank

35

of India with a suggestion that an agreement shouldbe reached between the Governments of India andPakistan before August 16, 1959, for a decisionas to the respective rights of the parties in respectof this amount and the amount of Rs. 29,36,485/-previously deposited by them with the ReserveBank of India.

"The Government of India are of the viewthat they would be willing to discuss with theGovernment of Pakistan arrangements, includingreference to arbitration if necessary, for a finalsettlement of the entire amount of the disputedcharges as soon as the Government of Pakistanhave complied with their obligations under the

Agreement of 4th May, 1948 and deposited with theReserve Bank of India, all the disputed chargesintimated to them from time to time by thePrime Minister of India.

"As the Government of Pakistan have notdone this as yet, the matter is under further cor-respondence.

"As to the 'undisputed' charges, the Gov-ernment of Pakistan have so far paid a sum ofRs. 3,11,60,874 for the period ending 30thSeptember, 1957 and discontinued payment there-after. As such a sum of Rs. 25,97,931 is still duefrom them for the period up to 31st March, 1959."

PAKISTAN LATVIA INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Joint Communique

The Indo-Pakistan talks on the borderdisputes in the western region held in Karachi atthe Secretary-level from February 23 to 25, 1959ended without any agreement.

Shri M.J. Desai, Commonwealth Secretaryof India, and Mr. M.S.A. Baig, Foreign Secretaryof Pakistan, led the delegations of their respectiveGovernments.

After the talks a Joint Communique wasissued simultaneously in New Delhi and Karachion February 25, 1959.

Following is the text of the Communique

At the meeting between the two PrimeMinisters of Pakistan and India held in NewDelhi from the 9th to the 11th September, 1958, it

was decided that, in regard to Hussainiwala andSuleimanke disputes, the Foreign Secretary of theGovernment of Pakistan and the CommonwealthSecretary of the Government of India, will, inconsultation with their engineers, submit proposalsto the Prime Ministers.

In accordance with this decision, a furtherConference on Indo-Pakistan border problemswas held at Karachi from the 23rd to the 25thFebruary, 1959. The Delegations were ledrespectively by Mr. M.S.A. Baig, ForeignSecretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Com-monwealth Relations (Pakistan) and Shri M.J.Desai, Commonwealth Secretary of the Ministryof External Affairs (India). Prior to their meeting,the leaders of the two Delegations had visited thesites of the disputes.

The discussions, which were frank andfriendly, resulted in a free exchange of viewsregarding the respective positions of the twoDelegations oil these disputes. The twoSecretaries will now report report to their respectiveGovernments.

PAKISTAN INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Occupation of Charland

In a written reply to a question ShriJawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister and Ministerof External Affairs, said in the Rajya Sabhaon February 17, 1959 that on the 14thDecember, 1958, twenty-five Pakistani nationalsencroached upon the Teesta-Payesti Char-land in Village Jharsingheswar, P. S. Haldi-bari, Dist. Cooch-Behar. They left the area whenIndian Police arrived.

He said : "On the 29th December about 200Pakistani nationals along with 25 members of thePakistan Armed Forces collected on the Pakistanside of the border and shouted slogans like "Alaho-Akbar". The Pakistan forces were also reportedto be digging trenches and taking positions."

"On the 31st December, the Deputy Commis-sioner of Cooch-Behar and the District Magistrateof Rangpur, agreed to withdraw all forces otherthan normal patrol from the border area."

Replying to another part of the question ShriNehru said :

"There is no dispute about this charland bet-ween India and Pakistan ; therefore, the questionof an agreement with Pakistan does not arise".

36

PAKISTAN INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Unidentified Planes

Replying to a question in the Lok Sabha onFebruary 26, 1959 Prime Minister Nehru saidthat some unidentified aircraft were seen flyingover Jammu area on January 13, 14, 16 and 17.1959. In three cases the aircraft were seen flyingin the direction of Sialkot.

The Prime Minister said : "No enquirieswere made from the Pakistan Government in thismatter, but a complaint was lodged with the UNChief Military Observer, who said that it was notpossible to fix the identity of the aircraft. Headded, however, that in regard to two of

our complaints, aircraft did fly as stated byus. It was, however, very difficult to identifyjet aircraft flying at very high altitudes andany enquiry was not likely to produce practicalresults commensurate with the time and expenseinvolved.

It might be added that where an aircraftis flying at 30,000 ft. or more above ground-level, national boundaries cannot easily beascertained. The speed of jet aircraft beingseveral hundred miles per hour, even a veryslight error or mis-judgement might take anaircraft 30 or 40 miles across the border.Thus the border might be crossed un-intentionally as of course it might also becrossed intentionally. The safe course wouldbe for aircraft not to go anywhere near theborder."

PAKISTAN USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

T.C.M. Grant For Productivity Project

India's national productivity project willreceive grant assistance this year from the U.S.Technical Cooperation Mission totalling morethan Rs. 48 lakhs ($1 million).

Under an agreement signed in New Delhi, onFebruary 10, 1959 by Shri N. C. Sen Gupta, JointSecretary, Union Ministry of Finance, andMr. Ralph L. Trisko, Acting Director of the U.S.Technical Cooperation Mission, a sum ofRs. 25 lakhs ($534,000) was made availableimmediately.

Under this project, the Government of Indiahave established a National Productivity Council

in New Delhi and four regional branches. It isthe intention to establish thirty local productivitycouncils by 1961.

The purpose of the Council is toensure efficient utilization of the availableresources of men, machines, materials, powerand capital to propagate technical know-howand management skills, to increase agricul-tural and industrial production, to reduceprices and improve the standard of livingand reduce the burden on India's foreignexchange expenditure. The U.S. assistance for this project willtake the form of technicians, consultants,commodities, and training opportunitiesabroad in this specialised field for Indianparticipants.

Under the grant, T.C.M. will makeavailable $134,000 to procure automotiveand audio-visual equipment, product samplesfor productivity analysis, publications, andother commodities. $400,000 has been ear-marked for the services of eight techniciansfor three years each, three technicians forone year each, and a team of three short-termconsultants.

Later in the year, a further grant of$487,000 will be made available to providefour additional technicians and training oppor-tunities for seven Indian productivity teams of10 persons each and 40 one-year participants tostudy abroad.

Last year, under T.C.M. auspices, the Ex-ecutive Director and 10 members of the NationalProductivity Council undertook a study tour ofproductivity centres and industries of Europe, theU.K. and the U.S.A.

T.C.M. provided a total of $56,000 to theproject last year.

37

USA INDIA UNITED KINGDOM

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

VIET NAM

Prime Minister's Reply in Lok Sabha

In reply to a question in the Lok Sabha onFebruary 18, 1959, Prime Minister Nehru saidthat the International Commission for Super-visionand Control in Viet Nam, under Indian Chair-manship "continues its efforts to maintain peacein the area".

The Prime Minister was replying to an Hon.Member of the House, who had asked whetherany further efforts had been made by India toend the deadlock in Indo-China and if so withwhat results.

Shri Nehru added : "It is presumed that theMember refers to the deadlock over the reunifica-tion of Viet Nam. No tangible progress hasbeen made towards reunification. The primaryresponsibility for the execution of the GenevaAgreement rests with the parties to theAgreement".

INDIA USA CHINA SWITZERLAND

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

WEST GERMANY

Balance of Payments

According to the latest available data,

there was a current account deficit ofRs. 50.7 crores in India's balance of paymentswith West Germany during April-Septem-ber 1958, as compared to that of Rs. 72.5crores during the corresponding period of 1957,said the Deputy Minister of Finance, ShriB.R. Bhagat, in the Lok Sabha on February 20,1959 in reply to a question by an Hon. Memberof the House.

The Deputy Minister explained that adeficit with one country or a group of countriesdid not matter if resources were available tofinance the over-all gap in the balance of payments.For bridging this gap, the measures adoptedwere severe restrictions on imports, export pro-motion and securing additional foreign assistance.

38

GERMANY INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

CAMBODIA

President's Speech at State Banquet

During his visit to Cambodia the President,Dr. Rajendra Prasad made a speech at a StateBanquet given in his honour by the King andQueen of Cambodia on March 15, 1959.

Following is the text of his speech :

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, YourExcellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I wish to thank Your Majesty for the graciouswords you have spoken about me and my countryand the generous hospitality you have extendedto me and to my party.

In the brief period that I have been here Ihave been greatly touched by the many expres-

sions of affection and friendship that the peopleof Cambodia have shown towards me and mycountry. On account of our old historic relationsno less than on account of the similarity in somerespects in the situations in both our countriesarising out of attainment of independence, we areable to understand each other's aspirations andeach other's problems because they are basicallythe same. We are both full of the existingresponsibilities that freedom has brought us. Wehave also realised that in order to be masters ofour country we have to be true servants of thecountry. I understand that your great PrimeMinister participates with all sections of hispeople in manual labour on the land. It is afortunate country where every citizen seizes theopportunity to serve.

Many among us must have thought at onetime that once freedom was won our troubleswould be over. When freedom came we foundthat it was only the first if not also the easieststep forward. The harder task lies ahead-thetask of developing the land, of giving economiccontent to political freedom, of providing forevery citizen an adequate standard of life. Fortu-nately, we are living in an age of co-operation,when people in many countries realise this needand do actually take a hand according to theirability in developing other countries besides theirown. Exchange of technical knowledge andtraining facilities, gifts and loans of money andequipment, cultural exchanges-all these makethe load of each a little lighter and the relationsbetween countries kindlier and healthier. This isthe kind of relationship that is worth sustaining.Our two countries are fortunately among thosewho realise that these relationships should not beinterfered with by political considerations orideological differences ; hence our policy offriendship with all countries which in our viewis the greatest insurance of peace. This like anyother great step is not without its difficulties andsetbacks. We cannot do better than meet suchsituations with fortitude and faith, preparednessand determination. We should count upon thegood sense and public opinion of the world atlarge and depend upon the rightness of our causeand the efficacy of settlement of disputes bynegotiation of ironing out and smoothening allsuch awkward problems and situations.

Ladies and Gentleman, we in India value

greatly the friendship of Cambodia and her leadersand I am privileged to give you today the toastof my great and good friend, His Majesty theKing.

CAMBODIA USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

CAMBODIA

Speech by King of Cambodia

Welcoming President Prasad, the King ofCambodia said

Mr. President,

It is difficult for us to express all the happinessand satisfaction which your presence brings ustonight.

We are honoured, and our people with us,that the first visit, since our Independence, ofthe Head of a Foreign State, should be that ofthe venerated President of the Great FriendlyRepublic.

Our greatest wish would have been to honouryour stay with the pomp worthy of the highestranking Indian Leader. But we have supplementedthe simplicity of our welcome with the warmthand sincerity of our feelings towards Your Personand the Indian Nation.

India and Cambodia are bound by the links ofa prodigious past in which their civilizations wereblended. A community of thought and a searchfor the same high ideals have led our two peoplesto the same struggles and the same victories.

This solidarity which has withstood the test

39

of time still finds expression in our own timesthrough the active and generous part whichyour country took in the winning of our in-dependence.

Today, we have no stronger support and nokeener understanding than yours of the policy ofneutrality which the Royal Government follows,and of its scrupulous respect of the principlesof the Panch Sheela.

This is, therefore, the occasion for us torenew the expression of the deep gratitude of ourpeople and to assure your country that we shallalways be at its side to defend our common ideal,of peace and liberty.

We raise our glass to your health, Mr. Presi-dent, to the prosperity of the Indian Republicand to the eternal friendship between India andCambodia.

CAMBODIA USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

CAMBODIA

President's Speech at Farewell Banquet

On the conclusion of his visit to CambodiaPresident Prasad gave a Banquet in honour ofthe King and Queen of Cambodia on March 18,1959. Speaking on the occasion, the Presidentsaid :

I am grateful to you for honouring me byyour presence here this evening and giving methis opportunity to express my esteem and affectionfor you and the people of Cambodia.

My sojourn here has meant for me adeepening emphasis on the ties of old kindred

civilizations that bind our two countries.

Our ties are much more substantial and ofa more enduring character than mere brick andstone can make them. I do not minimize thegreat monuments of art and architecture, everybrick and stone of which proclaims our affinity,and is reminiscent of those glorious days whenpeople on both sides defied the elements andestablished those unbreakable links which havesubsisted through centuries. But as I believethat ideas and spiritual values are even more lastingand powerful than the strongest links whichhuman endeavour and enterprise can forge on themere physical plane, I hold that we are even moreintimately associated and more inviolably linkedby the message of the great Buddha, the funda-mentals of whose teachings are and have everremained the basic principles of our life, religionand culture, and are living symbols of the faiththat inspires the people of Kamboja in their day-to-day life.

In that great teaching we have the 'Mantram'or the master key for solution of the evils fromwhich the world is suffering today. In this ageof unimaginable advance of science and technologywhich have posed the great problem of life anddeath before the world, non-violence based ontruth offers the one solution which can preserveand conserve all that is worth preserving in humansociety. That was the essence of the message ofthe great Buddha, reinforced by practical applica-tion to modern conditions by Mahatma Gandhi.I have no doubt in my mind, and my belief isreinforced and strengthened by what I have seenin your country and hope to see in others similarlysituated, that spiritual and cultural ties are ofinfinitely greater value and of incredibly longerdurability than a mere political or territorialconquest can establish.

Yesterday I was at your famed temple cityof Angkor seeing the eloquent monuments ofKhmer civilisation. Hundreds of people ofdiverse nationalities and diverse creeds visitAngkor. It must give all these people, as it gaveme, a stirring sense of history and a consciousnessof the growing closeness of the countries of theworld which they can visit so conveniently andso comfortably and stand before and admiremonuments belonging to an age when people ofdifferent lands knew so little about each other

and travel was so difficult and so rare.

In a world now so tightly knit, peace and warcan no longer be localised. Both now tend tobe global phenomena. Hence it is that thoughour own countries have neither nuclear weaponsnor military strength of any other kind nor theambition to acquire such strength, we look withanxiety and concern at the accumulation ofarmaments anywhere in the world and plead fordisarmament and the suspension of nuclear tests.Through the United Nations and every otheravailable forum we repeat our appeal that nuclearenergy should be harnessed solely for peacefulpurpose and for the benefit of mankind.

We know that the friendship of our twocountries is based on a kinship of interests-interest in peace and in the Panch Sheela, interestin the permanence of freedom. We know toothat friendship based on such kindred interestsis bound to endure.

I recall with special pleasure the coincidence

40

that today, the 18th of March, 1959, sees thecompletion of four years when the distinguishedPrime Minister of your country and mineproclaimed their and their countries faith inPanch Sheela on the 18th March, 1955.

Let me hope that we shall find more andmore opportunities to renew facilities and re-inforce that faith and have better and wideropportunities for exchange of ideas and goodsand for being of service in whatever way possibleto each other.

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen-I give you the toast of my great and good friend,His Majesty the King.

CAMBODIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

CAMBODIA

Reply by King of Cambodia

Replying to the President's speech, H. M.the Queen made the following speech in the nameof H. M. the King of Cambodia;

Mr. President,

You have expressed, in very eloquent words,the delicate feelings prompted by our mutualfriendship.

You can rest assured that your kind wordswill long ring in our hearts and conscience.

As for us, we wish to express how happywe feel to take part this evening in this newmanifestation of the solidarity between our twocountries.

It was indeed with a true emotion that wehave been listening to the words you used torecall the ties that bind our two countries, thecommon ideal that actuates them, and also thegreat principles without which the world would,of a certainty, be doomed to catastrophe.

We know how much we are indebted to Indiaand to her old culture. Even today, in thisshaken world of ours, India remains the indispen-sable mediator whose judgment constitutes thesurest guarantees of world peace.

We, for our part, believe, more than everbefore, in the necessity of a true co-operationbetween nations.

The example of India and Cambodia clearlyillustrates the fact that a loyal collaboration canbe promoted not only for the material and moralbenefit of two peoples, but also for the maintenanceand preservation of collective security.

Mr. President,

In expressing again our feelings of thanks,

we raise our glass to your health.

CAMBODIA USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM (North Vietnam)

President's Speech at State Banquet

The President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad made aspeech at the State Banquet given in his honour onMarch 22, 1959 by the President of NorthVietnam, Dr. Ho Chi Minh, during his visit toNorth Vietnam. Dr. Prasad said :

Thank you Mr. President, for your charmingwords of welcome.

When you visited our country, the people ofIndia had a very special opportunity of welcomingyou to our ancient soil and of coming to knowyou. Visiting you now in your country withits gracious traditions of hospitality is a verytreasured experience. I have noted with deepfeeling your people's spontaneous welcome of mewhich is an expression of their regard for mycountry and its people.

The memory of our fight for freedom is stillfresh in our minds and we are always interestedto know how other countries who were insubjection, like ours, find this expansive universewithout fetters. Speaking for ourselves, I canconfidently say that to realise the fullness offreedom involves a great deal more than justthe attainment of political emancipation. Itdemands the highest in us without letting up foran instant. The highest is more easily describedthan practically achieved and in reaching up to it,there seems to be an eternity of pitiful todays tobe reckoned with for one potential ideal tomorrow.The human predicament has always been the same.

The mind can rise to great heights in a moment

41

but the weak bodies that have to be fed, clothedand tolerably sheltered, have to pass through slowhours and days and weeks and years of toil beforethe shining moment can be realised. It wasMahatma Gandhi who taught us to transfigure thecommon and the local and to give significance tothe very toil. I do not know that we have quitelearnt it, but at least we know that it is possible.With a magic of his own, Gandhiji touched offthe leaven in everyone who came to his neighbour-hood and kept him indefinitely in a state ofdedication. Even now despite the lapse of years,the syllables of his name conjure up an atmosphereof single-mindedness and selfless service, and itwould, I am sure, not be wrong to say, that hislife and message had a similar impact in othercountries than our own.

The Buddha, many centuries ago, spoke of'Mahakaruna' or compassion and brought to allthe kingdoms of Asia a powerful reservoir ofenergy and perception. Our countries havegained in heritage by this message that still softlyechoes in our blood and makes us often pause toconsider, in the midst of the stress and strain ofour daily life.

In this age which is witnessing the tremendousresurgence of Asiatic and African countries intoa growing and irresistible power determined tofree themselves from foreign domination andinternal weaknesses, we owe it to generations yetunknown to fashion the affairs in a manner that aglobal catastrophe in the form of a world war doesnot come about. Fortunately signs are visible ofgreater and greater appreciation of the inevitabilityof peace for the mere survival of mankind and inthat lies the hope of the future. We as a people,have consciously and purposely adopted the courseof purposeful peace, and shall be devoting ourbest energies to its cause. May the days that lieahead see one after another the solution of theproblems which face us as nations and countries,and may peace with contentment ail round growand prosper is our heartfelt desire, and may wehave the strength to make our humble contributionis our prayer. Mr. President, your people new-born tofreedom like ours, have before them problem as

complex, work as strenuous, as our own. Theyare fortunate to have in you an example of atireless worker of great courage and devotion.

Friends, I propose a toast to President HoChi Minh.

VIETNAM INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM (North Vietnam)

Dr. Ho Chi Minh's Speech

Welcoming the President, Dr. Ho Chi Minhsaid :

Dear Mr., President, Ladies and Gentlemen,Dear Friends,

It is a great pleasure for me to receive todayHis Excellency the President of the Republic ofIndia.

His Excellency the President of the Republicof India is a man who during his whole life hasbeen fighting for the cause of national liberationof the Indian people. He is an old combatantwith great experience, who has continuallystruggled for peace in the world and friendshipamong nations. His virtues set a brilliant examplefor us to follow.

His Excellency, although of old age andhaving heavy responsibilities in his country, hasnot minded the long distance and, for the sake ofpeace and friendship among nations, haspersonally come to us to bring to the Vietnamesepeople the friendship of the Indian people.

At present, in the international situation,there are many developments favourable to peace

the forces of peace and democracy in the worldhave gained new strength and achieved un-precedented progress.

In the task of safeguarding peace againstwar, of strengthening friendship among nations,the Republic of India, under the leadership ofHis Excellency the President, has made veryvaluable contributions.

Between the Democratic Republic of Vietnamand the Republic of India, friendly relationshave been developing with every passing-day onthe basis of Panch Sheela. The Vietnamesepeople are very grateful to the Indian people fortheir sympathy and support for their nationalliberation struggle. At present, the entire Viet-namese people, from North to South, arestruggling for national reunification. A reunifiedVietnam is the most ardent aspiration of theVietnamese people and also a factor contributingto the preservation of peace in South-East Asiaand in the world. The Vietnamese people greatlyappreciate the contribution made by India to thedefence of peace in the world, and especially inIndo-China where India assumes a heavy respon-

42

sibility as Chairman of the Inetrnational Com-mission for Supervision and Control. TheVietnamese people hope that the Geneva Agree-ments on Indo-China will be fully implemented.I am sure that His Excellency the President's visitto our country will further strengthen and developthe friendship between the peoples of our twocountries.

May I propose a toast

-to the health of His Excellency the Presidentof India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad.

-to the health of all the Ladies and Gentle-men here present.

-to the prosperity of the Republic ofIndia

-to the increasingly strengthened friendshipbetween the Vietnamese and Indian peoples.

-Long live peace in the world.

VIETNAM INDIA USA CHINA SWITZERLAND

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM (North Vietnam)

President's Speech at Dinner

The President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad made thefollowing Speech at a Dinner given in his honouron March 23, 1959 by the Prime Minister ofNorth Vietnam, Mr. Pham Van Dong, during hisState visit to North Vietnam

Mr. Prime Minister,

I warmly appreciate your kind sentimentsfor me and my country. I am grateful to youfor the words of welcome and good cheer youhave spoken.

I need hardly assure you, Mr. Prime Minister,that we are deeply interested in peace. We knowthat in the present stage of scientific and techno-logical development which has annihilated distanceand devised arms which may well annihilatehumanity, if war breaks out, any serious conflictin any corner of the world may well spread likewild fire in tropical jungles and cover within itsdevastating flames continents across the wide seas.We are therefore firmly convinced that alldifferences between country and country andpeople and people should be settled and resolvedby the method of discussion and negotiation. Wehave therefore regarded it not only as a greathonour but also a heavy and serious responsibilityto do whatever is possible for us to do to help insuch discussion and negotiation. Shall I say thatany such noble effort is always beset withdifficulties and patience and perseverance arerequired not only by parties to a dispute but alsoon the part of those engaged in helping such

negotiations. In howsoever humble a way it maybe. As an Indian I am proud that our serviceswere requisitioned here and our representativeshave had the privilege of receiving co-operationand enjoying the confidence of all ; and I mustthank you Mr. Prime Minister and your country,for your trust in us. That trust sterns from ourcommon belief in, and acceptance of the principlesof Panch Sheela, which in itself is a modemversion in a political and international form ofwhat has been the common heritage of mankindof centuries, and especially of countries like yoursand mine.

Please accept my thanks for all the hospitalityand kindness I have received from His Excellencythe President and the Government of the Demo-cratic Republic of Vietnam, and the masses ofmen and women who have assembled in theirthousands at all hours and all places to showtheir affection to me and to my country. I pro-pose, Ladies and Gentlemen, the toast of HisExcellency the President Ho Chi Minh of Viet-nam, the toast of the Government of the Demo-cratic Republic of Vietnam, and the men andwomen of Vietnam.

VIETNAM USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM (North Vietnam)

Prime Minister Dong's Speech

Welcoming President Prasad, the PrimeMinister of North Vietnam, Mr. Pham Van Dongsaid :

Your Excellency Mr. President, Ladies andGentlemen, Dear Friends,

I feel honoured and very happy, on behalf of

the Government of the Democratic Republic ofVietnam to welcome His Excellency Dr. RajendraPrasad, President of the great Republic of India,the beloved and respected leader of the Indianpeople who is visiting our country, bringing to theVietnamese people the warm friendship of thefour hundred million-strong Indian people.

With its magnificent centuries old culture,India has made great contributions to the cultureof Asia and the world. For many centuries the

43

Indian people have heroically and tenaciouslystruggled for their own liberation and for thebuilding of a free and happy life. The MahatmaGandhi, symbol of the struggle for the liberationof India, enjoys a most profound respect fromthe Indian people and a great admiration fromthe people the world over. Since their indepen-dence, the people of India have scored manygreat achievements in the building of their countryunder the guidance of their respected leaders,President Rajendra Prasad and Prime MinisterJawaharlal Nehru. The Indian Government andpeople have greatly contributed to one of the mostnoble causes of mankind. That is to safeguardworld peace, to promote international co-operationand to strengthen the friendship among nations.The five principles of Panch Sheela have becomewidely accepted, and more and more supportedby the people the world over, and have happyeffects on international relations.

The Indian people are determined to defendtheir own interests, they also have at heart theinterests of the oppressed peoples in Asia. InAfrica and in the world. The Indian people havealways manifested their sympathy and supportto the struggle for independence and nationalsovereignty of the Vietnamese people and haveactively contributed to the re-establishment ofpeace in Indo-China. Since the restoration ofpeace, India has consistently sympathised withand supported the Vietnamese people's strugglefor the consolidation of peace and for nationalreunification on the basis of the Geneva Agree-ments. The Government and people of theDemocratic Republic of Vietnam are sincerelygrateful for the sympathy and support shown bythe Indian people and welcome the efforts ofIndia, the country which assumes the Chairman-

ship of he international Commission for Super-vision and Control in Vietnam.

Your Excellency Mr. President,

Bound together by an ever-growing friendshipbased on the five principles of peaceful co-existence, our two countries are consolidatingand developing day after day friendly relationsand cooperation in the economic, cultural andother fields. The visit to our country in 1954immediately after the restoration of peace ofPrime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, the greatleader of the Indian people, the visit of Vice-President Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan to Vietnamin 1957, the visit to the Republic of India earlyin 1958 of our President Ho Chi Minh who wassolemnly and warmly welcomed by the Indianpeople and Government, and the present visit toour country of President Rajendra Prasad who iswelcomed by the Vietnamese people with all theirdeep friendship towards the Indian people andtheir respect to a veteran leader of the Indianpeople, all those visits are important politicalevents in the friendly relations between the twocountries and are at the same time importantcontributions to the cause of peace and thestrengthening of friendship among the nations ofthe great family of Asia and Africa.

On the basis of the five principles of peacefulco-existence, the Democratic Republic of Vietnamsincerely wishes to develop friendly relations withall countries in the world, first and foremost withthe neighbouring countries, with the countriesin Asia and Africa. We sincerely wish tosolve all disputes through peaceful negotiations.At present, peace in Indo-China is beingthreatened. The people and Government ofthe Democratic Republic of Vietnam are ofthe view that the Geneva Agreements should berespected and correctly implemented and aredetermined to fulfil their responsibilities towardsthese international agreements. Vietnam is oneand the Vietnamese people are one. The Viet-namese people are determined to unite andstruggle for national reunification on the basis ofindependence and democracy through peacefulmeans, in keeping with the spirit of the GenevaAgreements.

The Vietnamese people are firmly confidentthat, with the sympathy and support of the

Indian people and the peoples the worldover, their just struggle will certainly bevictorious.

Dear and respected President RajendraPrasad,

Today, the Government of the DemocraticRepublic of Vietnam are very happy indeed towelcome Your Excellency. I propose to bring atoast,

-to the health and longevity of His Excellency President Rajendra Prasad, the respected leader of the great Indian people.

-to the health and longevity of President Ho Chi Minh.

-to the ever-lasting friendship between the peoples of Vietnam and India.

-to the safeguarding and consolidation of peace in Indo-China, in South-East Asia and in the world.

44

VIETNAM INDIA USA CHINA SWITZERLAND

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

DEMOCRATC REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM (North Vietnam)

President's Speech at Farewell Banquet

The President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad gave aFarewell Banquet on March 24, 1959 in honourof President Ho Chi Minh. Speaking on theoccasion, Dr. Prasad said :

Mr. President, Your Excellencies and Friends,

It is an occasion for much rejoicing for meto have you here tonight. As a man of indomi-table courage and selflessness, you, Mr. President,have a special place in the hearts of manymillions of Indians. During your visit to Indialast year, many Indians have got to know youand the kindliness and the affection whichwere part of your personality have endeared youto them.

Our heritage Bowed into a very enrichingchannel 2,000 years ago through a message thattranscended the barriers of geography and cameto your land and to other countries of Asia fromIndia. The echoes of that message still vibratewithin us and will continue to colour and shapeour lives for all time.

In your personal achievement, Mr. President,you have symbolised the force and power ofdedicated vitality and have, by your half centuryof struggle and final success, become a part of thehistory of Asia. Generations yet in the futurewill draw inspiration and intellectual solace fromyour story and the part you played in the eventsof your time. There are bound to be problems atall stages of the history of a nation and everyrising generation would be seized with theirsolutions. In their ordeals your example will bea guiding light to Your people not necessarily inpresenting contingent solutions but in showing amanner, and above all, an example of thosepersonal qualities of the human mind withoutwhich no achievement, however trifling, can berealised.

Our interest in the maintenance of peace in theworld and in the principles of Panch Sheela isdeep and abiding, and is backed by the determi-nation of the people to do what they cantofurther them- It is only by a practical applicationon a vast global scale of the principles of peacethat humanity can be saved from utter ruinationwhich scientific advance and technologicaldevelopment have made inevitable, if humanitydoes not see the wisdom and does not adopt thecourse of action for maintaining it at all costs.Let us hope that we all, each in our own way,make our contribution. You have your ownproblems just as we have ours, and my earnestplea to you as to all others including ourselves, isthat whatever differences we have should be settled

by negotiation and discussion. Given goodwilland a determination, no problem should beintractable and insoluble. It is given to us tofurther and strengthen that goodwill and thatdetermination, and my hope is that the sheernecessity of survival will make itself too insistentto brook any deviation from the straight narrowpath of peace and integrity, material prosperityand spiritual uplift.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the toast ofmy great and good friend, President Ho ChiMinh.

VIETNAM INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM (North Vietnam)

Dr. Ho Chi Minh's Reply

Replying to the speech delivered by PresidentRajendra Prasad at the farewell banquet, PresidentHo Chi Minh said:

Dear Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,Dear Friends,

I am very grateful to His Excellency for hiskind words about the Vietnamese people.

His Excellency President Rajendra Prasadhas made great contributions to the revolutionfor national liberation, to the work of streng-thening friendship among Asian and Africancountries and to the cause of safeguarding placein the world. The Vietnamese people and theGovernment of the Democratic Republic ofVietnam are very grateful to His Excellency, tothe Government and the people of India for theirsympathy and support for the Vietnamese peoplein their past struggle for national liberation and

in their present struggle for national reunification.His Excellency's life which has been devoted to aselfless struggle for national independence, peaceand friendship, and His Excellency's great virtues,have set a shining example for all patriots and allpeace-loving people to follow.

On this occasion of His Excellency thePresident's visit to our country, the Vietnamesepeople welcome in the person of His Excellencythe great symbol of the patriotic virtues, theindustriousness and the courage of the brotherlyIndian people. In spite of his too short stay in

45

our country, His Excellency has left in theheart of every Vietnamese the most cherishedMemory.

I am sure that this visit of His Excellency toour country still further strengthens the existingfriendship between our two peoples. With thesolidarity between the Vietnamese and Indianpeoples, that of the Asian and African, nationsand of the peace-loving people the world over, ourtwo countries will certainly overcome all diffi-culties and will be successful in their respectivetask of building a prosperous country and ofcontributing to the defence of peace in Asia andin the world.

I wish to propose a toast :

-to the health of His Excellency President Rajendra Prasad.

-to the health of all members of the Presi- dent's party.

-Long live friendship between Vietnam and India !

-Long live peace in the world !

VIETNAM USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Indo-German Tax Agreement Signed

An Agreement for the avoidance of doubletaxation between India and Federal Republicof Germany was signed in New Delhi onMarch 18, 1959. Dr. William Melchers, Ambas-sador of West Germany to India and Dr. B.Gopala Reddi, Minister for Revenue and CivilExpenditure, signed the agreement on behalf oftheir respective Governments. The agreementnow requires to be ratified after which it willbe effective in India for and from the assessmentyear commencing from April 1, 1958.

The Agreement was initialled in Bonn inJune 1958 during the visit of an Indian TaxDelegation which visited several Europeancountries.

GERMANY INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Prime Minister's Reply to Lok Sabha Debate

Prime Minister Nehru made a statement inLok Sabha on March 17, 1959 in reply to thedebate on the demands of grants for the Ministryof External Affairs.

Following is the text of his statement

Mr. Speaker, Sir, just before the House rose

last evening, I ventured to point out that thedebate had largely dealt with wider matters ofpolicy and not so much with the organisationof the Foreign Service or the Ministry of ExternalAffairs, except for a few remarks made hem andthere. I shall, therefore, deal presently withsome of these wider aspects which were referredto by Hon. Members.

But, before that, I should just like to saya few words about our foreign service. I pointedout in my initial remarks in opening the debatethat the demand under the head of ExternalAffairs includes really many items which, normal-ly, have nothing to do with External Affairs, alsomany items which are fixed, items which wecannot touch, the fixed items being large sumsof money which we pay to the United Nationsas our annual contribution, some subsidies whichwe pay to governments and the other itemsbeing like the Tuengsang, Naga Hills Division,NEFA and the State of Pondicherry. These arereally, to a large extent, in the domain of mycolleague, the Home Minister ; but, for a varietyof reasons it is decided to include them in theExternal Affairs Ministry. In fact, the sumsinclude, I believe, considerable sums of moneyfor the Assam Rifles, so that these sums swellup in this way. The actual sums spent on theexternal services of India are-I have not gotthe exact figure, but I think it is-in the regionof between Rs. 6 and Rs. 7 crores. While weshould always try to economise and we continueto do so, I should like to point out that it

46

compares very favourably with the expendituresof other countries-I am not talking of very bigcountries like the United States or the SovietUnion or the United Kingdom--of even othercountries.

The work of the foreign office and the foreignservices can be judged broadly by the way itserves the country's interests and the interestof the cause the country has at heart and abroad.It is often said that our publicity is criticised.Sometimes people make certain rather remarkablestatements which are far removed from the truthas anything can be. For instance, the statementsthat we have no friend in the world and allcountries are against us and so on so forth,

are perfectly remarkable and show an amazingcapacity for not knowing what is happening inthe world and what the world is thinking aboutIndia. I do not pretend-and I cannot pretend-to say that we do not make mistakes. We makemistakes so often enough. Our publicity, certainly,is not ideal, and can be improved. Neverthelessthe basic fact remains that,--whether it is publi-city, whether it is some other work of ourMinistry or of the Government of India-thebasic fact remains that the name of India standshigh in the world and that is, after all, the test.

The bonafides of India stand high. Therespect for India stands high because of itspolicy, because of what we have done. Thecriticism about our publicity, as I said, may bejustified as all these other criticisms are partlyjustified because improvement can take place.But the reaction of a country to another country'spolicy does not depend so much on the publicitythat is done.

There are plenty of foreign newspaper corres-pondents in India reporting about India. Theymould the opinion in their countries, probably,more than any official work that we may do.But the real thing is whether the policy we pursuefits in with the outlook and the mentality of theother country or not. If it does not, then, allthe publicity that we may do will not help much.

What is happening in our case is thatoriginally there was always a certain respect forIndia, I am glad to say ; but a certain amountof resentment, and a certain feeling in foreigncountries that because we considered ourselvesrather above the milling crowd and adopted ahigh and pious attitude of not being with thisor that-we, really, under cover of that exploitthe situation to our advantage, that it is not ahigh moral attitude but something much lowerthan that ;-and thought we took shelter underhigh moral phrases.

I do not wish to seek any shelter under highmoral phrases. I am not a person who is atall conditioned to speak in high moral terms. But,what we have sought to do is to follow a policywhich seems to us to be correct. both in regardto our own interests, short-range and long-range,but also which helps, somewhat, in servingthe very broad cause we have in the world, the

cause of peace etc.

And, so what happened was this. Originallythere was this doubt that the way India func-tioned was somewhat different from the wayother countries functioned not became we didnot join these big military blocs-other countriesalso did not join military blocs-bat becausethere was a slight but significant difference inour approach to problems or rather in the waywe expressed ourselves in regard to problems,a difference which was no great virtue in us butwhich came to us because we had rather inheritedit to some extent in the course of our nationalmovement for freedom etc; how we even dealtwith the British in India whom we were opposinghow we dealt with them courteously, politelyand with the door open and all that, though wedid not bend before them. All that wasconditioned by ourselves not only on the side ofthe House but the Hon. Members on everyside of the House. And there was this basicdifference which did not affect other people andpeople talking about neutrality. I do not likethe word 'neutrality' in this connection, butnon-alignment and the like. There are manyother countries in the world but the othercountries did not fight all through with thatexperience. Therefore, it is because of his thatpeople are taken aback when we talk about apurer than thou attitude. It is all wrong; itis not a question of purer than thou attitude orhigh morality.

We know our faults very well and we knowthe virtues of others, sometimes even thosewhom we criticise. But, gradually, in the courseof years, people came to realise that we werenot posing that we were not moralising butthat we were following a certain policy in allgood faith and that policy while being onedeliberately of friendship to other cauntries wasyet one not only of non-alignment as such butsomething deeper than that, of doing somethingthat we thought right, in the circumstances, ofcourse.

I am perfectly prepared to admit mat it isnot easy for any government as for any individual

47

to follow a 100 per cent policy of rightness

because it is conditioned by factors, by othercountries' policies. But broadly speaking, wefollowed our policy even though it was displeasingto others. And it is this realisation of othercountries that we endeavour to the best of ourability to follow a policy, an independent policywithout trying to displease others that hasgradually brought in a certain respect for whatwe do, even though there is a difference ofopinion.

There can be no doubt-and I try to submitthat with all humility-that India's voice andIndia herself is looked upon with very consider-able respect in international assemblies, whereveryou may go in the wide world and among greatnations and small nations alike, although wehave no military power which is supposed to bethe principal reason why countries are, respected,nor do we have any financial power. Thatis to say, we try to look at things through ourown eyes, even though, sometimes, our eyesmay be rather dim. We do not try to lookthrough other people's eyes or minds or throughcoloured glasses which affect our own sight andsometimes distort or colour the vision.

I should like this House to judge ouractivities from that point of view, certainly notrefraining from criticism but always thinkingof this basic thing, the basic approach, whichis not even that of policy, although policy isimportant, but the basic approach of how tointerpret a policy, how to approach the othercountries and how to deal with any problem.

The Hon. Members sometimes accuse, asindeed the Hon. Lady Member did yesterday,about our complacence in regard to the US-Pakistan Pact, that we have toned down our.opposition to these things and broadly hintedthat this might be due to our desire to getAmerican dollars for our development and notto say or do anything which might perhaps comein the way of that. Well, we have not beenashamed to get help from the United States,from the Soviet Union and we propose to getthat help from any country which gives aid onthe fair, terms and expressly on terms that hasnothing to do with our policy. I am reallygrieved at this idea being put out that ourpolicy is governed by the lure of dollars orwhatever it may be. We are liable to error but

one thing, I think, might be taken for granted.That is where the honour and interests of Indiaare concerned, we are not going to give in whateverthe consequences may be not only in terms offinancial help, even other consequences.

In the old days when the United Nationsor elsewhere we adopted an attitude in supportof some proposition, if that proposition was,let us say, supported also by the Soviet Group,then it was suggested : these people undercover of their non-alignment and the so-calledneutrality are secretly assisting the Soviet Group'.If we voted for the other group led by theUnited States then it was said: 'There you are,in search of dollars ; they are doing this in searchof something else. People did not seem torealise that a country can act just on the meritsof a question and not under pressures and fears.I do believe that in spite of our numerousproblems and numerous difficulties, India is acountry today in the wide world which is leastafraid of the other countries, whatever they maybe. Certainly today the greatest and thebiggest powers are the most afraid just like theman of property is afraid lest some thieves mightsteal it. So, the bigger the power, the biggerthe interests it has to protect, the more theapprehension of somebody else overtopping, thatstrength and creating difficulties. I do not knowwhat will happen to us when India becomesmuch more prosperous, whether we would also,with prosperity, begin to be afraid. I do notknow. It is an odd thing that fear has nothingto do with weakness ; it comes with strength.It is almost an extraordinary proposition I amputting forward because then there is theantagonism of various strengths going againsteach other.

However, the position is this, that ourapproach has all along been, apart from policies,not to condemn as far as possible, not to irritateas far as possible any country, not to say anyword which comes in the way of a calm con-sideration of the problem, or which comes inthe way of moving towards a peaceful settlementof any problem. I do not say that we havealways been able to act up to this. We lose ourtempers; we get angry. That may be so. Butanyhow the attempt is to do this because in theworld today the most painful thing is not thereal difficulty of the problems-they are very

difficult-but the manner of approach which Isfull of abuses and condemnation of the otherparty. Now, there are plenty of things happeningin the world today which, according to ourjudgment, and probably the judgment of thisHouse, ought to be condemned. But Surely itis not wise always to throw about your weightcondemning people. There are plenty of thingsthat are happening in India which can equallybe condemned by others outside. It is a badhabit ; it does not help you to reach the otherpersons' mind. This habit of condemnation

48

and vituperation simply closes the door to anypossibility of real discussion. Ultimately it maycome of course. Especially when the dangeris so great, the danger of war, everybody knowswhat a war means today and one has to beparticularly careful, persons in responsibleposition in Governments are not worthy , ofthe job they do unless they can restrain theirlanguage and sometimes restrain their actions.

Today there are many problems. Yet fromthe world point of view the biggest problem,judged from the point of view of war or peace,is still the problem of Berlin in Germany. Iam not going into that. I have always avoidedgoing into that because one cannot make oneselfresponsible for the big problems of the world.Naturally, because it is an important problem,we have given thought to it; we have discussedit with other people; we have in our own waymade some minor suggestions as to what shouldbe done. But all those, even the suggestionsthat we have made are also not on what policiesshould be pursued but that any policy shouldbe pursued with a measure of gentleness and notabuse. That, I submit, is a slightly distinctivefeature of India, not from today but certainlyfrom Buddha and Asoka's time and right downto Gandhi's time and it makes all the differencehow you do a thing. If you do a right thingwith abuse that right thing becomes a wrongthing and it does not lead to results while evena wrong thing may become a right thing if itis done gently and in a friendly way. Pleasejudge our actions from that point of view andcondemn us if we fail and lose our tempers anddo not praise us for wielding the big stick orshowing our fists to other countries and saying

how brave we are. It is easy to show big fistsfrom here to another country and for the othercountry to show the big fist. Nothing happensto the man who shows the big fist; he isquite safe there. But by that he creates anatmosphere which is bad at any time and moreso in the world today.

I said about Berlin and Germany. It is avery big problem, a tremendous problem. Onthat depends the future of war and peace-maybe this very year, may be six months or threemonths' time. What is the good of my sittingdown and according to my thinking logically,condemning this person or that nation ? Maybeeverybody is wrong. Nobody can say thateverybody is right; then every thing wouldhappen rightly. But here we sit on the verge ofa precipice all the time and we get used to itbecause the thing is a continuing affair. Butyou never know when the world may toppleover the abyss.

Therefore, when we have met the representa-tives of one side over this problem or the otherand it has been our privilege to discuss with both,we have found, and I say so quite honestly, goodvalid arguments advanced by either party or bothparties, both based essentially and ultimately onthe fear of the other. It is fear that is the worstcompanion. We have agreed with them largelybecause we try to understand them. We do notabuse them or shut our minds to them. And wehave ventured to suggest that the matter should beproceeded with by friendly consultations eventhough they might differ completely from eachother. It is not for us to suggest that you shoulddo this or that, you should give in or not give in.It is not for us to do so. It would bepresumptuous on our part to do so. But all thatwe could suggest was that we should pursue thepath of consultation and discussion as much aspossible, because it is realised by every responsibleand even irresponsible man in the world that warmust be avoided.

I think that in spite of our unhappy utterancesfrom time to time we are moving in that directionof consultation-'we' meaning not India, butthose great countries-and attempts are beingmade to find some way out.

I am glad to learn, only this morning, that

President Eisenhower has accepted the idea ofhaving a summit conference; that is to say, he hassuggested, I believe, first of all, that a meeting offoreign ministers might take place and later asummit conference this summer-that is, in the nexttwo or three months. So I do think that thepressure of events and the general feeling amongpeople in all countries is driving governments andthe leaders of countries towards this approach ofconsultation. I do not know what the resultwould be when this takes place, because itbecomes so tied up with people's passions,prejudices and fears, and yet there is the over-whelming fear of possibility of war. So, betweenthe two fears some kind of a course isfollowed. Let us hope it will take them out ofthis dangerous zone.

Now, take another. In the last month ortwo, or more perhaps, the developments in theMiddle-Eastern region have been unfortunate-Conflicts and, again, recriminations are going onbetween the new Iraq Republic and the UnitedArab Republic. These things have been unfor-tunate and most deplorable. I am not going intothese things. I have my views but I do not wantto express those views unless I can be helpful.

49

What is the point in burdening myself like somesuperior person and air my views on the worldat large and say who is in the right and who isin the wrong ? First of all, I do not think I amcompetent to do so, and even if I was competentto do so it would be the uttermost folly for me toendeavour to do so. It is my business as a ForeignMinister to win people, to win countries andleaders to our side, not to estrange them stillfurther. I can say that I am distressed with thedevelopments that are happening in the MiddleEast amongst our own friends.

Then, take Africa. Africa stands on a some-what separate footing. So are the countrieswhich are not free, which are still under colonialdomination. They do stand on a separate footingfrom other type of countries. We are committedby our history, by our thinking, for a generationpast or more, by our policy, by our sentiments,everything, towards sympathising with thecountries under colonial domination seekingfor freedom. That, indeed, is supposed to be the

policy of the United Nations. The UnitedNations has this in its Charter. But for us itis not only an intellectual exercise of policy, butthere is an emotional feeling too about it;because having gone through the same mill wereact constantly to something happeningelsewhere.

In the last several years much has happenedin Africa which has been very painful, much hashappened recently in Africa which has been fullof hope and we have seen several countries ofAfrica gaining freedom and independent status.And, we have congratulated the United Kingdombecause of following a policy which has led tothis progressive widening of the sphere of freedomin Africa-may be, we thought that the processshould be faster ; anyhow, it was in the rightdirection.

Now, of course, even so there was alwaysthat amazing survival in the realm of, well, policyand administration,-that is, the Union of SouthAfrica-a survival, I say, from a remote past withall kinds of atavistic activities of emotion andfeeling which has no place today and it can onlylead to utmost disaster in Africa and elsewhere.We have come pretty near to that disaster unlesspolicies are changed, the policies of racialsuppression and racial discrimination.

The House knows how in the United Nations,as matters come up again and again, the SouthAfrican Union has ignored the advice and theresolutions of the United Nations. The onlygood aspect of it is that progressively, in spiteof all kinds of pressures, the countries in theUnited Nations, barring a very few, have comeround to dissociating themselves in variousways from South African policy. I am sorrythat when in spite of other associationssome countries of the Commonwealth havevoted in the United Nations against SouthAfrican policies, but I regret that the UnitedKingdom did not do so. I do not mean thatthey agree with that policy ; but for some pressuresand pulls they could not do so,-because it wouldmake a difference if the United Kingdom alsofunctioned in accordance with its own declaredpolicy in this matter as in others. Of course,when they did so they always said that they didnot always vote on the merits of the question butfor some other reason like the question of

jurisdiction. However, the United Kingdom hasfollowed a policy, broadly speaking, in the lasttwo or three years which has resulted in thefreedom of Ghana, which will result in thefreedom of the Nigeria, and them are movementsafoot in the Eastern Africa also, in that direction.

Now, we have outburst in Nyasaland and,to some extent, in the entire Central AfricanFederation. Well, it need rot be said by any ofus here in this House that all our sympathies arewith the people of Nyasaland in this matter,and I trust that in spite of the fact that theAfricans there in their excitement have looted anumber of Indian shops and done them consi-derable damage, in property I mean, nevertheless,I hope that the Indians there will alwaysremember the policy that we have pursued andthe advice that we have always given. And thatadvice is that they must, if they live there,naturally, sympathise with the legitimate demandsof the people. They must play friends with themand in fact they must only remain friends withthem. We do not wish to impose our will onothers; at this rather very difficult moment whenthe people of Nyasaland and other parts of theCentral African Federation are facing a crisis, itis particularly necessary that Indians should notdo anything which is against the interests or thefeelings of the African people.

Every person who is at all watching thedevelopment of the African situation will haveseen that the whole continent is in a ferment.I have repeatedly said in this House and elsewherethat unless this matter is dealt with someforesight now we might have to face a mostterrible catastrophe, a catastrophe not only of acolonial war but racial war and the bitternessthat comes out of long suppression suddenlyfinding an outlet and violence and then thesuppression of violence. We are always near this

50

kind or thing and unless great care is taken, wemight overshoot the mark and that will be aterrible tragedy for Africa, just when the peoplewere coming on the verge of freedom to have toface this conflict.

But I have no doubt that it is too late for anypower to suppress these feelings that are passing

through Africa. One bright spot recently hasbeen the agreement about Cyprus. Again, it isnot for me to sit down and examine the agreementand say that it is "Oh, this might be better, orworse". It is rather an odd agreement. I mightsay, but the point is that the people concernedhave agreed to it and got out of that terriblemess in which they were and in which they hadsuffered so much.

In talking about Africa, I think the Hon. LadyMember spoke at some length about theCameroons. I shall just briefly say that thepolicy we have adopted in the Cameroons hasbeen, according to our thinking, the policy thatthe people of the Cameroons want; the greatmajority of them want. And what is more, thatis a policy which has been accepted by a verylarge majority in the United Nations, in factincluding most of the Asio-African countriesand others. I have, a vague idea, though Ispeak with some diffidence-I do not quiteremember-that at one stage or part of thisvoting, practically nobody was against; onlysome abstained. So, it is rather difficult for anycountry like us to go about throwing our weightin another country. On general principles, yes,but when the representatives of that country, agreat majority of them-their neighbours andothers-want something done, for us to say, "No,you must not do it", it is very difficult. Also,according to our thinking, if this psychologicalmoment in the Cameroons had not been takenadvantage of, there was a danger of its slippingaway and the independence of the Cameroonswould have been postponed and one does notknow what might have happened. The wholeargument has been about the plebiscite orsomething in the nature of a plebiscite beforeindependence. Now, it is admitted that electionsmust take place and will take place before orafter. It is admitted that there should be an open,free voting : that the people imprisoned, etc.,should be released and no suppression. It is alsoadmitted that although there have been noelections there has been a Commission whichhas gone over the Cameroons, eliciting publicopinion, and it has reported in favour of thatPolicy. It is suggested that we must reject allthis. present demand of the great majority of theCameroon people and insist on election, notrealising the risk that if we did that, the electionis going to take place and probably, I imagine,

and I think, it is better if it takes place in a freecountry than before-that would be at the risk ofendangering the coming of independence, bemuseother countries are involved. France is involved.We cannot control them and then we can later sitdown and merely condemn other countries,saying, "Oh, you have done this thing and that,or miss an opportunity".

An Hon. Member: I want to know whetherthis independence will be within the FrenchUnion and Whether it will be guided by the FrenchConstitution, because we were worried because ofthe Algerican election.

The Prime Minister : It has nothing to dowith the Algerian example. I cannot go into thedetails. It is going to be, as far as I know, fullindependence. It may have certain associationswith France like the French language; let us say,like Ghana, as the English language; it may besome other thing, may be some laws. But Algeriais completely different. As the House knows,there is a big conflict going on and all kinds ofrestrictions. But here as far as I know, it is goingto be as complete an independence as any of theAfrican countries possess.

Some brief reference from various parts of theHouse has been made about Tibet. I have seldomreferred to Tibet except in answer to somecriticism. Again, it is rather, embarrassing todiscuss events happening in a neighbouringcountry about which we know something of course,but naturally what we know is limited. It isnot easy to get a full picture, and something whichby our expression of opinion might really makea difficult position more difficult-criticism of thisand that.

Right from the beginning, eight or nine yearsago, when a kind of change came over theTibetan scene by the Chinese Government exer-cising its authority there, and coming to anagreement with the leaders of Tibet includingthe Dalai Lama. May be it was that theagreement itself under stress of circumstances,but there was an agreement. Even previous tothat, we had always, not only our Governmentbut the previous Governments in the world, youmight say, recognised the suzerainty of Chinaover Tibet. That had varied ; when the ChineseGovernment was strong it exercised it and when

weak it did not exercise it. That was for thelast several hundred years. But so far as I knowno country had ever recognised the independenceof Tibet. We certainly did not ; and it was

51

inevitable, therefore, for us to recognise thesuzerainty ; call it suzerainty, call it sovereignty-these things are fine distinctions and they aredetermined on the power of the State how farit goes.

Now, I think that agreement was a 17-pointagreement which basically was an agreement forthe autonomy of Tibet, for the maintenance of itsreligion, institutions, etc., under the broadumbrella of the Chinese State. There have beendifficulties and conflicts, sometimes on a smallscale and sometimes on a somewhat bigger scale.They are continuing, and creating new situations.I do not know that it will help at all for me togo into the details--such details as we know atpresent-except to say that the situation is adifficult one. I do not mean to say that at presentthere is no large scale violence there-here andthere, there has been-but it is a difficultsituation. It is mere a clash of wills than,at present, a clash of arm or a clash ofphysical bodies.

In this connection, I believe, some referencewas made to a newspaper correspondent of thename of Paterson who lives in Kalimpong orDarjeeling-I forget exactly where-and we hadto issue a warning to him. That is a kind ofthing which we hestitate to do. The House knowsvery well the kind of stuff so often has beenwritten about India, about our neighbours, fromIndia to outside countries. By the kind of stuffI do not mean the opinions but the false senseexpressed. Yet, we have put up with them,because we do firmly believe that it is betterto put up with the wrong statements, even themischievous statements, than we have to suppressthe freedom of the press. But the only thingis that if only we were concerned, we might putup a very great deal, as we have done , butwhere the activities of a certain individual maytend to worsen the situation then we have toconsider it again. Now, Mr. Paterson sent anumber of messages which were so full ofexaggerations, no doubt honest messages because

possibly he believed them, but he accepted everyhazard and rumour and put them in his messageas a fact with the result that we were astoundedto see some of the messages which are likely tocreate a great deal of misunderstanding. So wehad to tell him-and we told him even then-send good factual messages, we will not come inthe way ; this kind if sensational messageswithout any factual basis, only hazard basis, isnot good.

I have referred to various matters but thedebate yesterday was largely concerned with onematter, and that was the United States Pact ofmutual aid with Pakistan. Almost every memberof the House, whatever side or party he belongedto, referred to it-and referred to it in one way,although the stress or emphasis was different,-that is, referred to it with disapproval, with con-cern. That itself indicates the amount of concernand disapproval that that arrangement has elicitedthroughout the country.

The Hon. Lady Member thought we weretrying to play down. I do not know why shethought so. Because we have not used stronglanguage, because we have not, according to her,condemned the United States of America ? Istart by saying that we do not think condemnationis the right approach. I do believe that theUnited States of America has the friendliestfeelings for us, by and large. It may be that itspolicies, moved by other considerations, push itin other directions ; that is a different matter; justas I do believe that the Soviet Union has thefriendliest feelings for us. It is a matter of greatsatisfaction to us that we can follow a policy, apolicy which I say is a straightforward policy,which yet gets to us friendly feelings from greatand small countries which are hostile and antago-nistic to each other. And this is not due to anycleverness on our part or any wonderful feat ofthe policy. It is due basically, as I said right atthe beginning, to that little touch-a very littletouch, I am sorry to say, but still a touch-of theGandhian in us that still functions. Therefore,there can be no doubt that from the point of viewof any Pact, these military alliance pacts, wedisapprove of them. We think they do not bringsecurity ; they bring insecurity.

You could not think a more vivid exampleof this than the consequences of the Baghdad Pact

in Western Asia during the last few years. Eversince that Pact has come it has been a symbol ofdisturbance, insecurity, disunity and trouble. Itdoes not matter what the other views may be butthis fact is patent. All those countries there havebecome disunited and troubled. SEATO has notbecome so obvious because SEATO has notfunctioned very much though it has been on papervery much. Therefore, when I have seen this, itsurprised me that in spite of this a certain policy ofmilitary pacts and alliances should be followed.That is a general consideration.

So far as this particular matter is concerned,this bilateral pact, naturally we have other con-siderations also, because it affects India. It affectsIndia even though the United States Governmentdoes not want it to affect India. I believe,honestly I believe, that they do not want it to

52

affect India for other reasons. But though theydo not want it to affect India, it does affect India.It is a fact that it does affect India, because in thenature of things such a development has to affectIndia, because of Indo-Pakistan relations, becausePakistan being our neighbour country and notbeing in very good terms with us ; apart from thenature of things, the declarations of the Pakistanleaders. They go on repeating this that they aregoing to use this against India. But apart fromthe actual use. the fact is that the type of men-tality which we have had to face in Pakistanduring the last, well, ever since partition practi-cally, that type of mentality has come in the wayof every peaceful settlement. And I would addrather emphatically that I do not think we arepure and guileless and blameless in these matters.We have committed mistakes, we have mademistakes, we have become angry. But, by andlarge, we have tried to settle disputes with thempeacefully. We are interested in devoting our-selves to the development of our country and notgetting entangled in border troubles and othertroubles. Therefore, by and large, we have beenconditioned by other factors which have condi-tioned the leaders of Pakistan. But in spite ofevery effort which has been criticised by someHon. Members in this House or outside the Houseas some measure of appeasement with Pakistan orsomething like that, nevertheless we have followedthat policy, and we have met rebuff after rebuff,

and naturally we are very unhappy about it.

Now, with all this background of thismentality which faces us in Pakistan, any help ofthe type given by the United States, military help,tends, and inevitably tends, whatever the beliefor wishes of the United States might be, to increasethe intransigence of the Pakistan Government.That is an automatic consequence and thereby itcomes in the way of the solution of Indo-Pakistanproblems. That is a fact, and we have said thatrepeatedly in mild, friendly but firm language ; ofcourse, because that is a statement of fact. I dobelieve that this is well appreciated, this aspect,by many people in the United States of America,even the leaders. But they have got themselvesinto this tangle of alliances and they find it verydifficult to get out of this tangle.

The Baghdad Pact failing, practically ceasingto function soon after the revolution of Iraq,assurances were given that something else will takeits place and now it is this that has taken place.Now, I do not understand; the Hon. Lady Membersaid we have been quiet. I do not understandwhat we are supposed to do about this.

Delivery of fiery speeches in this House or inthe market place or send aggressive notes to othercountries ? I hope not. Firmness, there shouldalways be. But, if we are at all true to what wehave inherited, there should be friendliness,politeness and a certain faith in the other peoplesbonafides. It is a little difficult, perhaps, tobalance all these things. But, it has to be done,if you want to live in this complicated world andplay a friendly role of bringing people togetherrather than separating them.

I need not refer to the border troublesbecause we have spoken about them on severaloccasions in this House. It is a part of thatmentality of Pakistan that goes on leading to theseborder troubles. We have to face it, I entirelyagree, by checking every step to protect our borderand give security to our people. Here we live inthis rather dangerous world with dangerousproblems. But I hope that, in spite of that, weshall not forget that approach to these questions,that calm, peaceful and pacific approach, thatfriendly approach, a friendly approach even toa deliberately hostile country to us and that weshall avoid saying things which add to the already

large fund of bitterness and ill-will in this world.

Before I finish, I should just like to say a fewwords that I intended to say at the beginning,about our Foreign Service. Something was saidon this. It is always easy to criticise any service.I can myself criticise some things that happenedin our Foreign Service. But, knowing many ofthem myself and their work and also throughother people who have known them from theirreports, I can say that our Foreign Service, byand large, is a fine service and it can comparevery favourably with any Foreign Service of anycountry in the world. It has been in existencenow for well 10 years or so. It has graduallyspread, becoming bigger and wider. It has had toface many difficult problems, many difficultsituations all over the world and it is largely dueto the activities of that Foreign Service as well asour own policies that this respect for India hasgrown in all the countries. An Ambassador ofours or a Minister of ours is frequentlyapproached by other countries for advice justbecause he is considered to represent, in a littledegree, what is said to be the wisdom of India.

It was stated by one Hon. Member that thereis discontent in the Foreign Service because theyare not promoted rapidly enough. There may besomething in it ; not much. And also that non-Foreign Service men are imported into the serviceeither from public life or from other services.Such persons are normally in service as Heads ofMissions because other people are not brought in.

53

I should like to make it perfectly clear thatI do not believe in the rules and ordersof seniority in any service. Seniority cannotbe ignored. But this kind of automaticpreferment because a person is senior, thesooner it is done away with, the better. I amafraid, not having ever been in service of thattype myself, I am totally unable to comprehendthe service mind. I can understand, of course,security and all that. Let us take this. In theArmy, if your Commander-in-Chief and yourprincipal officers at the top automatically came totheir posts by virtue of seniority, you will have adud army, I can tell you. It becomes essential thatthis rule of seniority should be tempered as soon asyou reach a certain stage-in the lower stages it

does not matter-by merit. At a little higherstage, it should be given up altogether, completely,100 per cent, and only merit should prevail. Iknow, the difficulty of this is that when you talkabout merit, merit may often have the cover ofnepotism or nepotism may be covered by the so-called merit. True, that is so. We will avoid it.But, to talk about automatic preferment to higherposts in any service is only bringing that servicedown to the level of mediocrity. Obviously, themediocre survives in a rule of seniority.Of course, all these matters have to be considered.

I think that in the Embassies, Heads ofMissions, we should have, we shall continue tohave some public men and we will. Some placesmay be very important ; some places may be lessimportant. We should balance these things.Sometimes, some senior men in other Serviceshave been made Heads of Missions : not many;a few have been made.

Somebody referred to our Foreign OfficeInspector's reports and demanded why they shouldnot be placed on the Table of the House. If Imay respectfully say so, that was a most remark-able demand. The moment we did that, thesereports would cease to have the slightest value inthem. The moment you place confidential talksor reports and opinions of one Member of theService about another, senior Member aboutothers, the result will be, there will be no con-fidential talks, no confidential opinions expressedbut some bald statements, just bald statement.Of course, if there is some major misdemeanourthat would be noted. But, these reports haveseldom major misdemeanours. They refer to allkinds of idiosyncracies of the person concerned,his temperament, his virtues, his failings. Thesethings are not even seen by every member, by allthe people in my Ministry. I do not know-letus venture to say, if it is decided to appoint aCommittee to inspect the lives of all our Membershere and want the reports to be placed on theTable of the House, it would be rather an em-barrassing position. That, of course, has nomeaning. In fact, so far as these Inspectionreports are concerned, I have a feeling that theseinspections tended to become rather inquisitorial,petty things, petty matters and rather exasperatingto some of our senior Ambassadors. We havenow, in fact, lessened somewhat the inquisitorialnature of these inspections.

An Hon. Member : What are the terms ofreference of these inspection teams ?

The Prime Minister : This is not an officialcommittee of enquiry with terms of reference, but,of course, they have to go into all kinds of things,naturally into the general accounts, what is spent,how much, the relations of the people with eachother, with the public there, with the Governmentthere, what is the amount of entertainment given,what is spent-so many odd things ; and whenour inspectors go about asking for a detailedaccount of, let us say, every meal provided in thelast six months, it is difficult ; the poorAmbassador has to spend all his time in keepingaccounts of his meals, how many guests lie hasgot, instead of doing his job. It is far better,after some enquiry, fixing a sum-spent so much onentertainment than asking him an account forevery meal, and how many courses he gave inevery meal. An impossible situation. It wasbecoming that, and we stopped it, but the generalinspections do good work, and do give usinformation. That will, of course, continue.

When we talk about the foreign service, theHon. Member who referred to this matter saidthat people were not so anxious, so keen, to gointo the foreign service as they used to. That ispartly true. I think that, although we cannotcompare our terms with the big, rich countries,compared to other things in India, we pay themadequately. Even though it is adequate, some-times it is not enough,-it depends on the family,this, that and other of the Ambassador-some-times it becomes very difficult for him to makeboth ends meet, in the lower grades especially.

Then again, the normal idea of an Embassyis sitting in a great city-London, Washington,Moscow, Paris-but out of the sixty-odd foreignmissions that we have got, most of them areterribly dull places. Some of them are sitting inthe middle of a desert almost, with no contactsor anything.

May I give you an example of a peculiarlydifficult post, our post in Tibet-not in regard to

54

the political situation, but just the physical diffi-

culties of the place? And it requires a man,and even more so, a woman, of great courage toendure that life there. Either the woman herselfis the head of the mission, or is the wife, and thewife has to suffer more.

My recent visit to Bhutan-and I spent a dayat Yatung-gave me some insight into these con-ditions of our missions in Tibet. Of course,one thing has happened in Gyantse, about fouryears back a tremendous flood came and it sweptaway the whole of our mission with 50 or 60persons. That flood came because somethingbroke down, some lake etc., some burst tookplace ; it came overnight and 50 or 60 of our mendied, and since then we have had no buildingthere. Previously there was a building. Therehas been talk of putting up a building, but thingsmove slowly. In order to put up a building, onehas to think of putting up some kind of protect-ive work, so that the river might not overflow.Things, I am afraid, move slowly in India, butsometimes-sometimes I say, not always-thingsmove even more slowly in China. We have gotour plans, we have sent our engineers, but wecannot get the requisite permission to build thisor that from the Chinese Government. They areconsidering it. And meanwhile, it is a very hardlife for our people.

It is a terrible climate, I mean to say terriblycold, and if you have no proper houses, properheating, it can be an almost unbearable climate.It has an altitude of 11,000 feet ; that itself isdifficult enough. At that altitude, it is a terriblecold climate, huge, long, dark nights in the winter,no companionship, no social fife ; it really is avery hard life, and I am full of admiration forthese people who work there, and even more sofor their wives.

I am sorry I have taken up so much time.I beg to move these Demands be adopted.

USA INDIA PAKISTAN CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC GERMANY IRAQ SOUTH AFRICA GHANANIGER NIGERIA CYPRUS CAMEROON FRANCE ALGERIA CHINA UNITED KINGDOM RUSSIA OMANBHUTAN PERU

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C.S. Jha's Statement in Trusteeship Council on Cameroons

Shri C.S. Jha, India's Permanent Represen-tative to the United Nations, made the followingstatement in the Trusteeship Council onMarch 3, 1959 on the future of the Cameroons :

The subject matter of our discussions is animportant one. It concerns not only the future ofnearly five million people of the Cameroons-over three million under the French trusteeship andover a million and a half under UK trusteeship-but the birth of a new nation in Africa.

We have had the advantage of hearing thePrime Ministers of both parts of the Cameroonsas well as leaders of Opposition in the LegislativeAssemblies of these Territories. We have alsoheard the Minister for Northern CameroonsAffairs in the Nigerian Government who spoke onbehalf of the Northern Cameroons under theBritish administration, and we have had thebenefit of hearing and questioning a large numberof petitioners representing various shades ofopinion in the Territories. We have also beforeus the resolution of the Trusteeship Council andthe records of discussions in the Council relatingto the Cameroons under French administrationand those under the UK administration. Andlast but not least important, we have the detailedand comprehensive report of the Visiting Missionto the Cameroons. Various issues have beenraised before us, and it is now time to pronounceon the future of the Cameroons.

It is important, in our opinion, that we shouldbe clear as to the objectives and purposes of theUnited Nations in regard to Trust Territories andwe should, in the light of the wealth of materialbefore us-including of course the oral andwritten representations by petitioners-sort outthe issues, and evaluate the available evidence with

care in so far as it bears on the task before us.Indeed, it seems to us that the task of theTrusteeship Committee is quasi-judicial in theevaluation and determination of the variouspoints of view placed before it.

I would like, first of all Mr. Chairman, toexplain the fundamental approach of myGovernment to problems concerning the freedomof Africa. If I may recall the speech of thePrime Minister of India, Mr. Nehru, at the closingsession of the Asian-African Conference atBandung on 24th April 1955, he said:

We have passed many resolutions about this country and that country, but I think there is nothing more terrible, there has been nothing more horrible

55

than the infinite tragedy of Africa in the past few hundred years. When I think of it, everything else pales into insignifi- cance, that infinite tragedy of Africa ever since the days when millions of Africans were carried away as galley slaves to America and elsewhere, the way they were treated, the way they were taken away, half of them dying in the galleys. We must accept the responsibility for all this, all of us, even though we ourselves were not directly involved. But unfortu- nately in a different sense, even now the tragedy of Africa is greater than that of any other continent. Whether it is racial, whether it is political, it is there, and it is up to Asia to help Africa to the best of her ability because we are sister continents.

That was in 1955. Today four years later.the picture is much brighter. One country afteranother in Africa has gained independence. Thecurrent of African freedom is no longer a trickle ;it is a mighty raging irresistible stream. We havesince rejoiced at the independence of Tunisia andMorocco, of Sudan, of Ghana and of Guinea,and we are proud to have them sitting beside usin the United Nations. Next year we hope tohave the Cameroons, Nigeria, Togoland andSomalia in the United Nations as independentnations ; and if I may say so here, it is the fervent

wish of all peoples of Asia and Africa to have thepeople of Algeria represented in their own rightas fellow members of the United Nations in thevery very near future. It is not only the nobleprivilege of the countries of Asia and Africa butindeed it is for all of us to help in the consum-mation of the processes leading to the freedomof the African people and to do nothing whichmight impede or complicate them.

The Trusteeship system of the United Nations,under the supervision of the Trusteeship Council,has made a significant contribution to the attain-ment of freedom by many countries in Africa.My delegation is happy to have had the privilege ofbeing associated with the work of the TrusteeshipCouncil. We have always urged the independenceof the territories under trust at the earliestpossible date. It is in this spirit Mr. Chairmanthat we approach the question of the forthcomingindependence of the Cameroons.

Article 76 of the Charter lays down the basicobjectives of the Trusteeship System. These areprogressive development towards self-governmentor independence as may be appropriate to theparticular circumstances of each Territory and itspeoples and the freely expressed wishes of thepeoples concerned and as may be provided by theterms of each Trusteeship Agreement. UnderArticle 76 (c), it is among the objectives of theTrusteeship System to encourage respect forhuman rights and for fundamental freedoms for allwithout distinction as to race, sex, language orreligion. Article 76 thus provides the soil inwhich the Trust Territories are to grow and blos-som into independence. Thus what the UnitedNations has to ensure is the eventual emergenceof Trust Territories into independent nations withall the attributes of sovereignty, according to thefreely expressed wishes of the peoples, and enjoy-ing fundamental freedoms and respect for humanrights.

Consistently with the principles I haveindicated, Mr. Chairman, we have to examine inrespect of the French Cameroons, with which myobservations will be concerned in the firstinstance-

(1) whether the Cameroons are ready for independence ;

(2) whether the desire for independence is supported by the people ;

(3) whether the Cameroons under French administration are likely to emerge as an independent country on 1 January 1960, having all the attributes of independence and sovereignty ;

(4) whether the people of the Territory enjoy at present and will enjoy on 1 January 1960 fundamental free- doms and respect of human rights without any distinction as envisaged under Article 76 (c) of the Charter.

As to the first question, namely thereadiness for independence, there is no doubt inour mind, after reading the Visiting Mission'sreport and after hearing the Prime Minister of theGovernment of the Territory, as indeed afterhearing the leader of the Opposition and otherpetitioners who are opposed to the presentGovernment, that Cameroons under Frenchadministration are fully ready for independence ;in fact, if anything, independence has been toolong delayed; and it was perhaps as a result ofsuch delay that the frustrations of the peoplefound expression in the violence that erupted inthe Territory.

The Cameroons under French administration

56

enjoy representative institutions. Paragraphs 13and 14 of the Visiting Mission's report showthat the Territory has highly developed localgovernment based on the elective system anduniversal suffrage. There has been progressivedevelopment of democratic institutions--eventhough in the opinion of some the developmenthas been tardy to the point when there is aLegislative Assembly elected on universal adultsuffrage. My delegation is impressed by thecalibre of the leaders in the French Cameroons,both those who are at present in the Governmentand those who are in the Opposition and mightwell form a Government in the future. We aresatisfied that there will be no dearth of peopleeither in the administration or in the Servicecadres fully competent to undertake and discharge

the responsibilities failing upon the Cameroons,as a free and independent nation. We acceptthe conclusion of the Visiting Mission's reportin paragraph 134 that the Cameroonians havethe capacity to assume the responsibilities ofindependence.

As for the good question, the desire forindependence on 1 January 1960 appears to usto be fully supported by the people. My dele-gation is impressed by what has been stated inparagraphs 134 and 135 of the Visiting Mission'sreport :

"All the Cameroonians with whom the Mission spoke stated, often emphatically, that they desired independence. The Mission did not hear a single dissenting voice on that subject, nor was any alternative to independence proposed to it. It accordingly considers itself justified in concluding that the overwhelming majority of the population desires in- dependence. There is some difference of opinion among the population regard- ing the date of the proclamation of independence; some approve the date of 1 January 1960, which was the Government's choice, while others advocate an earlier date. But, on the basis of the information the Mission was able to obtain in the Territory, it seems safe to suggest that the latter constitute only a small minority."

The Mission goes on to say in paragraph 136: "For the reasons given, the Mission has concluded that the request that the Territory should become independent on 1 January 1960, which was approved in the Legislative Assembly of the Cameroons by a large majority, is also- supported by the great majority of the population".

The people of the Cameroons under Frenchadministration, Mr. Chairman, have beenclamouring for independence for a long time.The urge for independence is deep among allsections of the people and many consider thatfreedom has already been long delayed. TheLegislative Assembly of the Territory, which waselected on the basis of universal adult franchise,

adopted a resolution on 24 October 1958declaring that it "solemnly proclaims the will ofthe Cameroonian people that the State of theCameroons should attain national independenceon 1 January 1960".

The Visiting Mission, in paragraph 141 ofits report, has come to the conclusion that theLegislative Assembly is representative in character.In the hearings before this Committee therepresentative character of the Assembly has beenquestioned by some petitioners. This is animportant point and requires close examination.The first ground taken is that the Assembly waselected as a Territorial Assembly to considerthe draft Statute of December 1956 and that itis not therefore competent to pronounce itselfon the question of independence. The electionsof 1956 were held on the basis of universalsuffrage and single electoral college. Thecandidates were returned by direct election.According to a brochure issued by the Directo-rate of External Relations of the High Commissionof the French Republic in the Cameroons, outof 1,740,000 registered voters, 940,000 came tothe polls. Elections could not be held in theSanaga-Maritime area because of disorders andparticipation was low in other two areas. Ex-cluding these areas, the participation of votersranged between 80 per cent in the area of highestpoll to a minimum of 60 per cent, which isadmittedly a high rate of participation evenaccording to the standards of advanced demo-cratic countries. The Assembly so electedconsidered a draft Statute prepared by theFrench Government. The very fact that theAssembly of 1956 was elected on universalsuffrage shows that the intention was to extendto it legislative powers. It is for this reasonthat the Government of France presented to ita draft Statute. The Assembly was successfulin securing several important amendments tothis draft, which finally became law in April1957. Thus under the new law, a few monthsafter the elections the Territorial Assembly wasconverted into a Legislative Assembly and theCameroons ceased to be an associated Territory

57

in the French Union. Cameroonian citizenshipwas created and subsequently the Cameroonschose its flag, its hymn and its motto. The

same Legislative Assembly on 12 June 1958requested the French Government "to recognisethe option of the State of the Cameroons forindependence upon the termination of trusteeshipand transfer to the State of the Cameroons allpowers relating to the conduct of its domesticaffairs". The resolution also invited theCameroonian Government to negotiate ongeneral lines the Statute of the new State of theCameroons, which should be submitted to itand which would constitute the stage of transitionto independence.

The Government undertook negotiations withthe Administering Authority in accordance withthe June 12 resolution and the LegislativeAssembly on 24 October adopted a resolutionproclaiming the wish of the Cameroonian peopleto attain full national independence on 1 January1960.

This sequence of developments shows thatthe Assembly was successful within a compara-tively short time in negotiating with the FrenchGovernment the various stages of independence.This, Mr. Chairman, should not be held toderogate from its representative character or itsresponsibilities. On the contrary the fact thatthe Government responsible to this Assemblywas able to secure successive stages of politicaladvancement culminating in independence throughpeaceful, constitutional procedures in conformitywith the concept of the Trusteeship System asopposed to the methods of violence attemptedby some political parties in the territory entitlesit to the confidence of the United Nations. Itis the experience of many countries, includingmy own, that legislatures constituted on thebasis of limited franchise and often with limitedpowers tended, as a consequence of the calibreof their members, the vigour of their peoplesand the strength of their nationalist movements,to assume larger and larger powers and functionsand the colonial or administering powers werecompelled to yield further responsibilities to suchbodies. The fact that the Legislative Assemblyof the French Cameroons was within a spaceof two years able to secure complete domesticautonomy under the international trusteeshipsystem and a promise of independence on1 January 1960 only goes to show the strengthand vigour of the movement for independence inthe Cameroons and the success of its endeavours.

The aim of the Trusteeship System is theprogressive development of self-government orindependence. It seems to us, Mr. Chairman,that the proposition that every stage of theadvance towards independence should be precededby general elections to secure a specificmandate from the electors is neither practicablenor warranted by the experience in othercountries. The elections of 1956 were on thebasis of universal adult franchise. As reportedby the Visiting Mission, all parties at the 1956elections were talking of early independence, thenationalist movement was strong and theelectoral campaign was entirely concerned withthe future of the Cameroons and the theme ofindependence. In our view, Mr. Chairman, therewas nothing improper for a Legislative Assemblyconstituted as a result of such elections topronounce itself in favour of independence.

The next ground urged to impugn therepresentative character of the Assembly is thatthe elections of December 1956 were not popularsince they were conducted without the participationof the UPC and two other associated groups whichhad been banned by the Government. Somepetitioners have made large claims about the UPCenjoying the majority support of the people ;others have repudiated this claim and it has beenstated that many members of the UPC haverenounced the party and joined other groups. TheVisiting Mission has observed that whatever thestrength of the UPC in the beginning the partyhas lost popular support owing to its violentactivities. We deeply regret the outlawing ofany political party in a democratic society. TheUPC is said to have been banned because itresorted to violence. Both the Visiting Missionsto the Cameroons which were sent in 1955 andthe last one whose report is before us, haveobserved that the UPC unfortunately became aviolent revolutionary party. The question whetherresort to violence is permissible by a political partyto gain its ends, albeit this is independence, isone which is open to considerable dialecticaldiscussion. It is, however, obvious that theGeneral Assembly cannot get involved in such adiscussion ; nor can it Jay down that a governmentor an authority charged with the administrationof a Trust Territory should ignore violence. Inthis connection I would like to correct a misquo-tation by one of the petitioners, of Mahatma

Gandhi in favour of resort to violence for theachievement of freedom. We, in India, Mr.Chairman, ought to know what Gandhi preached.What he said was that death was preferable toslavery, but as far as I am aware, he never advo-cated or condoned violence as a political methodfor attaining independence. Indeed, this wasentirely opposed to his whole philosophy whichwas summed up in the maxim that means were

58

more important than the ends ; if the end is good,the means adopted for it must also be good ; andif wrong means am adopted for right ends, theresult is bound to be evil. It is a matter of historynow that he called off the mighty movement ofcivil disobedience in India in 1921 because of asingle instance of mob violence in the later stagesof the movement. As I have said, Mr. Chairman,,we regret the dissolution of the UPC by theGovernment but at the same time we regret theviolence that preceded its dissolution. The factthat the UPC was banned and that in consequenceof the disturbances in the elections of December1956 four seats remained unfilled cannot, in ouropinion, be allowed to invalidate the elections.

In regard to the UPC suggestions have beenmade that it should be legalised. This is of coursea matter for the Government of the Cameroonsto decide taking all factors, including the need forreconciliation, into consideration. In Resolution1211 (XII) adopted by the General Assemblyon 13 December 1957, the General Assemblyexpressed the hope "that as a result of the appli-cation of appropriate measures in particular, theearly promulgation of the amnesty law by theAdministering Authority and the renunciation ofthe use of violence by all political parties it willbe possible to achieve in the Cameroons underFrench administration conditions conducive tothe early restoration of a normal situation in thedisturbed area and to the furtherance of democraticprogress and political activities in the Territory".It is noteworthy, Mr. Chairman, that the GeneralAssembly contemplated the renunciation ofviolence as essential to normalisation of conditionsin the French Cameroons. We waited in vain fora statement by the many representatives of theUPC and of their associate groups before thisCommittee for a clear and sincere declaration ofrenunciation of violence. We were disappointed

that instead of such a declaration there have beenthreats veiled, and sometimes not so veiled, ofresort to violence if the UPC was not legalisedand elections were not held before 1 January 1960.

Another point raised by a group of petitio-ners is that the Legislative Assembly as at presentconstituted consists of 8 persons who are Franco-Africans and that, therefore, the Assembly isnot representative in character. This fact is notdenied by the Government but it has beenstated on behalf of the Administering Authorityand the Cameroons; Government that on 31December 1959 the membership of these, personswill automatically lapse as no one other thana Cameroonian citizen can sit thereafter in theLegislature of an independent Cameroons. It hasto be remembered that what the LegislativeAssembly has demanded is full and completeindependence from 1 January 1960 and noAssembly, whatever its composition, could haveasked for anything more. Therefore, the presenceof the 8 Franco-Africans in the LegislativeAssembly does not, in our opinion, vitiate thedemand for independence or its representativecharacter for this purpose. In the same context it has been suggestedthat fresh general elections should be held inthe Territory before 1 January 1960 when itattains independence. The demand for freshgeneral elections has mainly come from partiesin Opposition to the Government, which is theusual experience of all elected legislatures. TheCharter of the United Nations, Article 76(b)enjoins consultation with the people on thesubject of self-government or independence. Suchconsultation is also contemplated in Article 5of the Trusteeship Agreement. Normally thereshould be such a consultation and it is opento the United Nations, if they should so desireto institute a consultation through a referendumor a plebiscite on the subject of independence andthe possible date of independence despite theunanimous wish of everyone concerned forindependence on January 1, 1960. Such a con-sultation, however, would not affect the continu-ance of the existing Legislative Assembly. Generalelections as such are related to the compositionof the Legislative Assembly. In the absence of afinding that the Legislative Assembly has notbeen legally and properly constituted, to insiston general elections for a new Assembly would,in our view, be not justified.

With regard to general elections, I should liketo make it clear, on behalf of my delegation, thatwe are not opposed to general elections as such. Ifthe Government of the French Cameroons were todecide to dissolve the present Assembly and holdgeneral elections forthwith, such a decision wouldmeet with our commendation. But we find noreason for forcing general elections and for mak-ing the holding of such elections a conditionprecedent to independence, when the issue ofindependence itself is so clear, enjoys the fullsupport of all sections of the people and will onI January 1960 be full and complete. Thereseems to us much force in the statement made bythe Prime Minister : "It would be illogical totake the position that the Assembly which wasconsidered fit to ask for independence was nownot considered suitable to receive it".

What seems important in the present caseis not the holding of general elections beforeindependence but one soon after independence.

59

On 1 January 1960 the Cameroons will emergeas an independent State. The whole context ofits internal constitution and external relationswill change. Final decisions in such mattersshould be taken by a new Governmentformed after independence. We note withapproval what the Prime Minister has said,namely that after independence, there will begeneral elections since, as he says, these will benecessary and useful in order to settle variousconstitutional and other questions and in estab-lishing in their final form the institutions offree and independent Cameroons. It is desirablein our opinion that elections are held with theleast possible delay after 1 January 1960. Wehope that as in other newly independent countriesa Constituent Assembly will be created to preparea constitution of free and independent Cameroonsand to determine the pattern of its foreign relationsand association with other countries, includingits neighbours.

It is our hope that elections will be held tothe vacant seats in the Legislative Assemblyallocated to Sanaga Maritime area, under condi-tions of complete political freedom and amnesty.We note with satisfaction the statement made by

the Prime Minister of French Cameroons thathis Government had issued a Decree settling12 April as the date of bye-elections both inSanaga-Maritime where there are four vacantseats, and in the Mbouda sub-division, wherethere are two other vacant seats.

In regard to sovereignty, we find that byOrdinance 58-1375 of 30 December 1958 theGovernment of France has transferred to theGovernment of the Cameroons all the powers ofinternal legislation and administration, includingjudiciary, retaining to itself the responsibility formonetary and foreign exchange policy, foreignpolicy, frontier security and defence of the Stateof the Cameroons. It is clear from the declarationof the representative of France and of the PrimeMinister of the Cameroons that this constitutesthe last stage in the evolution of the Cameroonianinstitutions before independence and the endingof trusteeship as outlined in the preamble to theStatute. The Government of France have alsostated in the preamble to the Ordinance that it istheir desire to comply with the wishes of theLegislative Assembly of the Cameroons that theyshould attain full independence on I January1960. We note with pleasure the statement ofthe distinguished representative of France, M.Jacquinot, in answer to a question put by me,that on 1 January 1960 the State of the Cameroonswould possess the full attributes of a sovereignState and enjoy the same freedom as any Statemember of the U.N. and that, France as theAdministering Anthority, would sponsor its applica-tion for admission to the United Nations. Thecategorical statement of the Prime Minister of theCameroons that after 1 January 1960, theCameroons will have complete internationalpersonality confirms the declaration made onbehalf of the Republic of France. We take note of the statement made on behalfof the Administering Authority and the Govern-meet of the Cameroons that the nine Conventionswhich am annexed to the Statute of 30 December1958 will automatically end on 31 December 1959and that thereafter independent Cameroons will befree to negotiate and enter into new Conventionswith France or any other State. My delegationMr. Chairman, has looked into these Conventions.Some of these are of a technical nature and donot detract from the sovereign responsibility of theGovernment of the Cameroons. The Conventionsrelating to Defence, the judicial system, inter-

governmental cooperation, foreign relations andCommerce and External Trade which reserve tothe Government of France varying degrees ofresponsibility during the period of trusteeship arenecessarily a reflection of the position which theGovernment of France occupies and will occupytill the end of this year as Administering Authority.Similar Conventions are appended to the state-t concerning Togoland under the FrenchAdministration which under resolution 1253 (XIII)of the General Assembly will be independent on adate in 1960 to be decided between France andTogoland. It will be for the Government of theCameroons during the period between now and1 January 1960 to take measures to eliminatetheir dependence on France, especially in the fieldof Defence. We are satisfied that the State ofCameroons which will emerge on 1 January 1960will have all the attributes of a fully independentand sovereign State, competent to take its placein the United Nations, and to enter into suchrelationships with other countries as it may con-sider best in its interests.

A doubt has been expressed in the Committeethat the independence of the Cameroons after 1January will be nominal and illusory and theGovernment will form part of the French Union.Insinuations have been made about the existenceof some secret agreements between the presentGovernment and the Government of France tothat effect. Not a single fact elicited in answerto questions put in this Committee to the repre-sentative of France and the Prime Minister of theCameroons by several delegations goes to sub-stantiate such doubts and insinuations. On theother hand, the Prime Minister of the Cameroons

60

has made a categorical statement : "With regardto the possibility of subsequent association withanother country, I wish to make it clear that nosuch undertaking has been made by either side.The Cameroons intends to negotiate freely withthe friendly countries and the neighbouring coun-tries alike. Once more it will do so under thecontrol of its own Assembly after accession toindependence." As to the possibility that indepen-dent Cameroons might be integrated into the FrenchCommunity, the Prime Minister has this to say :"It would be illogical to imagine that the Came-roons which since 1 January 1959 has had a statute

conferring more privileges than the statutes of anyof those States that have joined the French Com-munity would, when it had achieved independence,take the backward step of asking for any kind ofintegration into the French Community." Ourdelegation accepts these assurances which havebeen given in all sincerity.

We may now address ourselves to the ques-tion whether the people of the Territory enjoy atpresent and will enjoy on and after 1 January1960 all fundamental freedoms and respect forhuman rights without any distinction as envisagedunder Article 76 (c) of the Charter. This recallsto us the disturbances that took place in certainparts of the Territory in 1955 and later in 1957and which sporadically continued during 1958.The question of amnesty for offences alleged tohave been committed in the course of the distur-bances is an important one. In the TrusteeshipCouncil the Administering Authority and theSpecial Representative assured us that the draftof the Amnesty Law was then being consideredby the Legislative Assembly. My delegationpointed out that it would be the path of wisdomfor the Government of the Cameroons to takemeasures so that the new State came into beingin harmony and internal goodwill. We recom-mended the immediate grant of amnesty on thewidest possible basis and suggested that it wouldbe an act of statesmanship to grant unconditionalamnesty. Our position, Mr. Chairman, remainsthe same. We have seen the Amnesty Law whichhas been passed by the Legislative Assembly ofthe Cameroons on 14 February. As far as wecan understand, this means complete politicalamnesty for all execept those who have beenactually sentenced by a court of law for an offenceof murder or manslaughter, in whose cases thesentences will be commuted and reduced. Wenote in this connection the statement of thedistinguished Prime Minister of the FrenchCameroons who said with reference to the am-nesty : "Our pardon is commensurate with thewrongs done; it is great, very great and I canwithout fear of being proved wrong say that sucha liberal Amnesty Act has never been promulgatedin any country or in any other circumstances."The sincerity behind his statement on amnestyand reconciliation impressed us. The statementmade by him this morning that all but 56 politicaloffenders out of well over 2,000 such persons havebeen amnestied further confirms his previous

statement. All leading UPC party members havebeen amenstied and are invited back to theCameroons in full freedom.

My delegation would have been happier ifunconditional amnesty had been granted, but atthe same time we recognise that the AmnestyLaw just adopted by the Cameroons LegislativeAssembly grants amnesty on a very liberal basisand we doubt if we would be justified in askingthe Government to release unconditionally personsconvicted and sentenced by a court of justice forheinous acts of violence like murder.

The Prime Minister of the Cameroons has,in this Committee, confirmed the statement madeby the Special Representative in the TrusteeshipCouncil that there is complete freedom of speech,freedom of the press and freedom of association.We welcome his statement.

It is also to be noted that elective systemprevails in the Territory on the basis of universaladult suffrage, both for elections to the LegislativeAssembly and for those to local bodies.

In the circumstances, my delegation is satis-fied that the necessary fundamental freedoms andrespect for human rights are enjoyed in theTerritory and the new State will emerge on IJanuary 1960 under these conditions.

As regards unification, it is obvious thatthere is a unanimous demand in the FrenchCameroons for unification of both parts of theCameroons. The desire for unification has natu-rally to be taken full account of. We do notconsider that any decision with regard to thetermination of the Trusteeship Agreement for theCameroons under the French administration from1 January 1960 is likely to prejudice this issue.In our view any delay in the ascertainment of thewishes of the people in the Cameroons underthe United Kingdom administration should notdelay the independence of the Cameroons underthe French administration. Because of an arbi-trary historical process, the Cameroons originallyheld by the Germans came partly under BritishMandate and partly under French Mandate andthe two parts of the Cameroons were continuedTrust Territories under the United Kingdomand France. So far as the United Nations are

61

concerned they have to deal with two TrusteeshipAgreements, and in respect of the Territory undereach of the two Agreements, the ascertainment ofthe wishes of the people in accordance with Article76(b) of the Charter is necessary. The wishes ofthe people of the Cameroons under the Frenchadministration are already known to be in favourof unification. It is now for the people ofthe Cameroons under the United Kingdomadministration to pronounce on the question ofunification.

I have taken some considerable time, Mr.Chairman, in analysing the various points at issuethat have been raised before the Committee.We are not in favour of this party or that ; wecannot get involved in the internal politics of theCameroons. Our concern is that the Cameroonsunder French administration which is ready forindependence should emerge as another free andindependent State in Africa with the least possibledelay. It is for the people of the Cameroons tofind their internal unity. We earnestly hope that thepresent Government will live up to its promisesin the field of reconciliation and we equally hopethat the troubles and difficulties and internaldissensions which the Territory has suffered duringthe last two or three years will become mattersof the past. While the Government has to playa liberal part in this reconciliation it is equallythe duty of those who are in the Oppositionnow to take a broad view of the future of theCameroons and of their own responsibilities andturn their thoughts and efforts sincerely to-wards amicable reconciliation. My delegationis impressed by the quality of the Cameroonsleaders and their patriotic fervour, both amongmembers of the Government and those in theOpposition. They have it in them to forge unityand goodwill. We hope that no more will theTerritory of the Cameroons see the eruptions ofviolence which have disfigured its history duringthe last two or three years, for violence can neverbe a sound foundation for freedom and for allthe benefits that go with it. I hope our appealto the political parties and others in the Territoryto eschew violence will not be misunderstood.To the extent that the people of the Cameroonsare able to eliminate violence, bitterness andconflict, to that extent will the future happinessof the Cameroons people be assured. The birth

of a new nation is an event of profound signi-ficance. We rejoice at the prospect of the newCameroonian nation and we look forward to theState of Cameroons among us next year, as fellowmembers of the United Nations, contributing toour common task of trying to create a better world.

I will now turn to the question of theCameroons under British administration. TheVisiting Mission has also made a detailed andcomprehensive report on the situation in both theNorthern and, Southern Cameroons. We havegiven careful consideration to the initial statementsas well as answers subsequently given to questionsby the Prime Minister of the Southern CameroonsMr. Foncha, by the Leader of the OppositionDr. Endeley and Mr. Mallam Abdullahi DanBuram Jada, Minister for Northern CameroonsAffairs in the Nigerian Parliament, all of whomhave presented their points of view with abilityand moderation. We have also had the benefitof hearing some petitioners on the question ofthe future of the Cameroons under the Britishadministration, who have expressed sentimentsin favour of unification of the Cameroons underthe British administration with the Cameroonsunder the French administration into a singleState of the Cameroons.

It is quite clear from all the material beforeus, in the first place, that the Northern Cameroonsstand on a different footing from the SouthernCameroons even though they come under thesame Trusteeship Agreement. The course ofadministration of the Northern and SouthernCameroons has been different ; the NorthernCameroons has ever since it came under theUnited Kingdom mandate been administered asan integral part of Nigeria, closely linked withthe northern region of Nigeria. The Southern.Cameroons has had a more chequered history.Initially administered as an integral part ofEastern Nigeria, since 1954 it has been administeredas an autonomous unit with its own legislatureand executive bodies. This was the consummationof the desire for autonomy in Southern Cameroonswhich has been great. In the Northern Cameroonssuch a desire has not been manifest. The politicaland administrative developments of the Northernand Southern Cameroons have therefore been onsubstantially different lines. The statementsmade before us by the Prime Minister and theLeader of the Opposition in the Northern

Cameroons and their answers to the questionsput to them in the Committee clearly show thattheir thinking about the future mainly concernsthe Southern Cameroons. It seems to us thatthey themselves recognise a distinction betweenthe Northern and the Southern Cameroons. Wewould agree with the report of the Visiting Missionthat the two parts of the Cameroons, namely, theSouthern and the Northern Cameroons should betreated to some extent differently in the considera-tion of the future of the Cameroons under theUnited Kingdom administration.

Secondly, there is the question of consultation.

62

In our view, Mr. Chairman, consultation with aview to ascertaining the wishes of the people inthe Cameroons under British administration isessential, because what we are dealing with is notmerely the termination of a Trusteeship Agreementin favour of independence but the possible mergerof the territory at present under trust with eitherof the neighbouring countries of Nigeria or ofthe French Cameroons. In this view of thematter my delegation feels that consultationwhich is enjoined by Article 76 (b) of the Charteris not only essential but unavoidable. We takenote of what the Visiting Mission has said inregard to the Northern Cameroons, namely, thatall sections of opinion were in favour of integrationwith Nigeria. In paragraph 181 of their reporton the Cameroons under the British administration,the Mission reports :

"The Mission believes it to be manifestly the opinion of the northern population as a whole as far as it can be expressed at present and in the foreseeable future that they should become permanently a part of the northern region of the Federation of Nigeria when the latter attains independence. The Mission accordingly recommends that if the General Assembly accepts such a union as the basis for the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement no further consultation need be held".

Although we give due weight to therecommendation of the Visiting Mission, never-theless we are of the opinion that the desire for

integration with Nigeria needs ratification througha formal consultation with the people. Suchconsultation is all the more necessary as NorthernCameroons possesses no representative institutionsof its own.

As regards the Southern Cameroons, it isclear that consultation through a plebiscite toascertain the wishes of the people is necessary.Opinions in favour of association or secessionfrom Nigeria and unification with the FrenchCameroons are fairly evenly divided. Both thePrime Minister of the Cameroons and the Leaderof the Opposition favour such a consultation.Consultation will therefore have to be undertakenat an appropriate time. The question of thetiming of a plebiscite and the questions to beasked at the plebiscite are, however, complicatedby a variety of factors which have been presentedto us by the Prime Minister and the Leader ofthe Opposition. The Government which is nowin power was elected just a month ago. Somefurther crystallisation of the political situationand of political opinions in the Territory is neces-sary before a plebiscite can be held. Even moreimportant are the factors governing a possibleunification with the French Cameroons under theFrench administration after the latter becomesindependent on 1 January 1960. The final shapeof Nigerian independence is not yet clear becausesuch independence is due only in October 1960and has to be preceded by constitutional procedurein the British Parliament and further consultationson various matters between the Nigerian andBritish Governments. Taking all these factorsinto consideration, we feel that it is not easy todetermine the timing of the consultation and thequestions that are to be asked.

On these matters, Mr. Chairman, I shall begrateful if I am given the opportunity of speakinglater in the debate.

Mr. Chairman, we would examine the variousresolutions before us in the light of the principlesand views expressed above.

On March 9, Shri Jha said :

In my statement on the 3rd March I expressedcertain views on behalf of my delegation indicatingour approach to the question of the future of theNorthern and Southern Cameroons under United

Kingdom administration. We expressed the viewthat the two parts of the Cameroons under theUnited Kingdom administration should be dealtwith separately. In both parts of the Cameroonsunder United Kingdom administration we favour-ed a consultation through a plebiscite on thequestion of their future. As to the timingand the choice of questions I reserved the positionof my delegation for a later intervention.

We have since a seven-power resolution(Document A/C4/L582) which while recommend-ing the holding of a plebiscite in the SouthernCameroons between December 1959 and the endof April 1960, seeks to postpone the choice ofalternatives to be put to the people in the plebisciteto be determined at the 14th session of the GeneralAssembly, and as regards Northern Cameroonsrecommends a plebiscite to be held in November1959 the question to be put being whether thepeople of Northern Cameroons wish to remainpart of the northern region of an independentFederation of Nigeria.

We have given the most careful considera-tion to the proposals set forth in this resolution.We are in agreement with its recommendationsregarding the Southern Cameroons under theUnited Kingdom administration. As regards the

63

Northern Cameroons, in our view, the moststraightforward question to be put would havebeen whether the people of Northern Cameroonsdesire association with Nigeria or unification withthe French Cameroons. In our Committeewe have heard strong views in favour of unifica-tion of all Cameroons and some petitioners haveadvocated the union equally strongly both inregard to Southern and Northern Cameroons.We feel, however, that the stage has not beenreached for a formulation of such a precise natureat the present time. With regard to SouthernCameroons it is admitted-and both PrimeMinister Foncha and Mr. Endeley the Leader ofthe Opposition have emphasised this in theirstatements-that the appropriate time has notyet arrived for asking the people to choose betweenunion with Nigeria and unification with theFrench Cameroons. Mr. Foncha has said that hewould have to negotiate with the govern-ment of the French Cameroons as to the

nature and details of unification. If theSouthern Cameroons is not yet ready for answer-ing the question as regards unification it is ourview that the Northern Cameroons is even lessready to answer such a question. It would not,therefore, seem altogether timely to put beforethe electorate of the Northern Cameroons thechoice of association with Nigeria or unification.at this stage. At the same time, the mere questionwhether the people of Northern Cameroons wishto remain part of the northern region of anindependent Federation of Nigeria is in our viewnot suitable. In the first place, the use of theexpression 'remain part of the northern region'has the implication that the Northern Cameroonsis at present a part of the Northern region ofNigeria, which it is not. It is a Trust Territoryadministered for the sake of convenience as anintegral part of the Northern region of theFederation of Nigeria. Secondly, the proposedquestion, the alternative to which is purelynegative, seems to ignore even the existence ofany issue or unification. This to our mind, becauseof the reasons I have already indicated, wouldnot be appropriate. All this would appear topoint out to the desirability of postponing theplebiscite in the Northern Cameroons until a laterdate. We would have preferred this but if itshould be decided to hold a plebiscite inNovember 1959 in deference to the views of theVisiting Mission, which my delegation has accept-ed, that the two parts of the British Cameroonsshould be treated separately for the purposes ofthe plebiscite and those of the representative fromthe Northern Cameroons and the AdministeringAuthority that the plebiscite should be held beforethe federal elections of Northern Nigeria inDecember 1959, we would be agreeable to thisProposal. We feel, however, that formulationof the alternative questions should be as followsfor the Northern Cameroons

Question I : Are you in favour of being part of Nigeria when Nigeria becomes independent?

Question 2 : Are you in favour of decid- ing the future of Northern Cameroons at a later date ?

We believe that a formulation of this naturewill be the most suitable in all the circumstancesof the case. It does not oblige the people at this

stage to pronounce on unification, the precisedetails of which cannot be foreseen by them, norintegration with Nigeria, the independence ofwhich, though a certainty, does not materialiseuntil late in 1960 and the final stages of whichhave still to be worked out through furtherconstitutional talks between the United Kingdomand Nigerian Governments. If the VisitingMission's finding that all sections of publicopinion in the Northern Cameroons favour asso-ciation with Nigeria is correct, it is more thanpossible that the plebiscite might go in favour ofNorthern Cameroons becoming a part of Nigeriawhen the latter became independent, but in theevent of the majority favouring the other alternat-ive, that is to say, deciding the future of theNorthern Cameroons at a later date, it would bepossible for the people of Northern Cameroons totake part in any subsequent plebiscite in whichunification of Cameroons would naturally haveto be an issue alongside union with Nigeria.

The situation of Northern Cameroons vis-a-vis Nigeria is very much like that of Togolandunder British Administration vis-a-vis the thenGold Coast. In the case of British Togoland, itwill be recalled that Resolution 944(X) of the10th Session, the General Assembly decided onthe following formulation :

"(a) The union of the Territory with an independent Gold Coast ; or

(b) Separation of Togoland under British administration from the Gold Coast and its continuance under trusteeship pending the ultimate determination of its political future,"

The formulation we have suggested in regardto Northern Cameroons is similar to that decidedupon by the General Assembly in the case ofBritish Togoland with this difference that thequestion of continued trusteeship as in British

64

Togoland is not raised. In the case of theNorthern Cameroons the same precise formula-tion in that respect is not necessary as the North-ern Cameroon is part of the Trust Territory of theCameroons. under United Kingdom administra-tion and in the event of the people deciding

against association with Nigeria, it will automati-cally continue as part of the same Trust until suchtime as the Trusteeship Agreement for the entireCameroons under the British administration ismodified or terminated after such further pro-cesses as the General Assembly may decide upon.

My intervention in the debate at this stageon the subject of the Cameroons under Frenchadministration will only be brief. I would liketo reply to some points raised in the debate inregard to the statement I made on 3 March.

Both the distinguished representatives ofGhana and of Iraq, whose statements I listenedto with great respect, and attention, did me thehonour of mentioning me and my delegation. Thedistinguished representative of Iraq read out astatement in the Fourth Committee during the firstpart of this session of the General Assembly andimplied that we had changed our basic stand on thequestion of Cameroons in so far as it related togeneral elections before the attainment of independ-ence. Mr. Pachachi quoted from the summaryrecord of Mr. Rao's statement in the Fourth Com-mittee on 24 November 1958 to show that theGovernment of the Cameroons under French ad-ministration owed to itself and to its electorate toseek a fresh mandate separately because the elec-tions of December 1956 were held at a time whencertain political parties were declared illegal andcould not participate in the elections. While itis true that the Indian representative, Mr. Raoexpressed these views he expressed other viewsalso. I presume that Mr. Pachachi did not havethe full statement of Mr. Rao before him.Mr. Rao also stated and I quote from the sum-mary record itself :-

"The Indian delegation would agree to consider any recommendation by the Visiting Mission regarding the holding of new elections in Cameroons under the French administration".

I would like also to draw attention to thefollowing portion of Mr. Rao's statement of24 November :-

"We have also to bear in mind that at the moment a Visiting Mission of the United Nations charged with the task of reporting on the methods of consultation

to be adopted to ascertain the wishes of the people of the two Trust Territories concerning their future, is in the Came- roons. We should naturally like to study its reports and the comments and observations that the Trusteeship Council may wish to make on the report before the General Assembly approves of measures necessary for the two Trust Territories to attain the final objectives of the International Trusteeship System".

Mr. Rao further went on to say and I quoteagain from the text of his statement :-

"We recognise that till such time as the report of the Visiting Mission becomes available, it would be inadvisable to reach final conclusions on these ques- tions of the elections, or a plebiscite, or a referendum, or on the more vital questions of the reunification of the two Territories, or the merger of apart of the Territory with another State. These are precisely matters in the consideration of which the first-hand knowledge of the Visiting Mission concerning the actual conditions in the Trust Territories, should be of great value and assistance to the General Assembly."

It is thus clear, Mr. Chairman, that ourdelegation while on principle favouring consulta-tion and new elections, attached the greatestimportance to the report of the Visiting Missionwhich was at that time already in the Territoryand the recommendation of the TrusteeshipCouncil in this regard. There is therefore noinconsistency in our position. The signal factthat has intervened between November 1958 andnow is the report of the Visiting Mission andthe views now expressed by my delegation havenaturally taken the views of the Visiting Missioninto full account.

The distinguished representative of Iraqalso made the point that the recommendationfor general elections before independence in theeight-power resolution (Document A/C4/L581)was only an appeal and a recommendation andthat general elections were not a conditionprecedent to independence being achieved on1 January 1960. If that were so, Mr. Chairman,

the difference between the five-power resolution(Document A/C4/L580) and the eight-powerresolution would indeed be greatly narroweddown.

But in fact this is not so. In the first place

65

the eight-power resolution, the substance ofwhich has now been incorporated in an amend-ment, talks of a decision being taken as to theappointment forthwith of a Plebiscite Commis-sioner to supervise the general elections, who shallbe assisted by observers and staff to be appointedby the Secretary-General or in consultationwith him. The distinguished representative ofGuinea,who is one of the co-sponsors of theeigh-power resolution, has in the concludingportion of his statement which my delegationlistened to with the greatest interest and attention,laid down the five propositions which he con-siders indispensable for the harmonious solutionof the questions before the Committee. Hisfirst four points are-Amnesty, total andunconditional; abrogation of the Decree whichdeclared illegal certain political parties andorganisations in the Territory ; reunification basedon a popular consultation under the control ofthe United Nations; and general elections underthe control of the United Nations before IJanuary 1960. Then comes the last stage,namely, proclamation of independence and thetermination of the Trusteeship Agreement from1 January 1960. It is thus quite clear that whatthe sponsors of the eight-power resolution con-template is the legalisation of the banned politicalparties and the holding of general elections before1 January 1960 as an indispensable priorcondition to the attainment of independence onthat date. For the reasons already given in myearlier statement, which have been supplementedand amplified by several other speakers, we areunable to support this position.

Mr. Chairman, I need not deal in detail withthe substantive points in favour of holding generalelections before independence. The only sub-stantial ground urged in favour of generalelections before independence is the need forreconciliation. We all agree on the need forreconciliation. That is why my delegation hascarefully analysed the question of amnesty and

the provisions of the amnesty law and soughtthe clearest assurances of the existence of funda-mental freedoms and respect for human rights.We must be reassured about these. But are wesure that general elections before independence,with the legally constituted government of theTerritory unwilling to hold them, and someparties who are in opposition still not havingrenounced violence, are the best means ofeffecting reconciliation ? Are we certain that anatmosphere of harmony will be brought aboutmerely by elections on the eve of independence ?Are we sure that the cloud of bitterness andhatred will be suddenly dissipated by the magicof general elections? The distinguished repre-sentatives of Burma, Ceylon and Norway havedealt with this question thoroughly in their veryable statements and have pointed out the dangersof elections surcharged with passions, at a timewhen the Government ought to be preparing forindependence. In my statement I gave thereasons which influenced us to decide against theadvisability or necessity of general electionsbefore independence, contrary to the wishes ofthe present government and as a conditionprecedent to independence. We do not wish toelaborate further on these points. I would onlysay that my delegation is convinced that thebest way to reconciliation would be to ensure thatthe future constitution of the new State ofCameroons and its relations with its neighboursand other countries are determined not by thepresent Legislative Assembly but by a newAssembly constituted as a result of elections atthe earliest possible date after independence underconditions of amnesty and full freedom of speechand political action by everyone concerned,including those now in the opposition who arefree to return to the territory. The representativeof Ghana has alleged in his statement that thepresent Assembly was going to be converted intoa Constituent Assembly. There seems nowarrant for this in the statement of the PrimeMinister. We are of the view that not thepresent Legislative Assembly but a new Assemblyformed after independence should have the taskand responsibility for taking decisions in thesematters. The Prime Minister of the Cameroonshas stated his intention to have such electionssoon after independence and the amendmentwhich my delegation has co-sponsored with thedelegations of Burma, Ceylon, Federation ofMalaya, Guatemala, Japan seeks to consecrate

in the body of the preamble this declaration ofthe Prime Minister and by expressing ourconfidence that this will be done seeks to makeour intention and that of the Government ofthe Cameroons clear beyond doubt in thisregard.

On March 12 Shri Jha said :

I had not intended to intervene in this debateat this final stage of the examination of the pro-blem of the future of the Cameroons, but certainobservations and suggestions made in the state-ments of delegations who spoke on their attitudetowards the draft resolutions make it necessaryfor my delegation to clarify our own position withregard to the resolutions and the amendmentsbefore us.

We have co-sponsored draft resolution A./C.4/L.580-Rev.1 on the French Cameroons.

66

Obviously that resolution embodies our consideredviews and we shall vote for it.

Suggestions have been made time and againin the debates that a vote for draft resolutionA/C. 4/L. 580 is a vote in favour of colonialism.Mr. Chairman, we consider this a strange inter-pretation. What we are voting for is notcolonialism but the end of colonialism. What weare voting for is independence, total and complete,which is the very anti-thesis of colonialism and thehighest aim of the Charter. Our resolution isintended to bring about nothing less than the exitof France and end of French authority in theCameroons, without any reservations, without anyarriere-pensee. This will make the people of theCameroons the master of their destiny. To callthis colonialism is a travesty of facts. It isunthinkable that my delegation should supportanything which is even remotely connected withcolonialism. The Bandung Declaration whichproclaimed itself against colonialism in all itsmanifestations is our motto and guide.

In the general debate, our point of viewregarding the general elections has been made clear.Nothing that we have heard since has caused us toalter our views. We do not consider it justifiableto insist on general elections before independence,

the purpose of which is not to ascertain the wishesof the people regarding self-government or inde-pendence, which are indeed well-known and needno kind of consultation to determine, but merelyto change the composition of a lawfully constitutedLegislative Assembly whose representative charac-ter is not doubted-not even by many of thosewho co-sponsored draft resolution A/C. 4/L. 581.To my delegation, the plain meaning of thisresolution and the statements made by thesponsors is that the advent of independence is tobe preceded by the fulfilment of certain conditions,one of which is the holding of general electionsbefore 1 January 1960. If the Government of theTerritory in the exercise of its powers decides onthis step, we shall be happy, but in the absenceof any such indication, we cannot be a party toput pressure on them to do so.

In the draft resolution 581 there is a re-commendation for the legislation of the politicalparties, namely, the UPC and two other associatedgroups, which were prohibited in July, 1955.The Trusteeship Council, the 4th Committee andthe General Assembly have been seized of thismatter since 1955, and in 1957 the General Assem-bly, in their resolution No. 1211, expressed thehope that "as a result of the application ofappropriate measures in particular, the earlypromulgation of the amnesty law by the Adminis-tering Authority and the renunciation of the useof violence by all political parties it will be possibleto achieve in the Cameroons under French Ad-ministration conditions conducive to the early re-storation of a normal situation in the disturbedarea and to the furtherance of democratic progressand political activities in the Territory".

This resolution stands. There has been norenunciation of violence by the parties concerned.In the circumstances, we regret it will not bepossible for us to support amendment No. 2 ofdraft 584-Rev. 1.

Having said this, I would like to add that thefuture of independent Cameroons depends on theextent to which internal harmony and goodwillcan be restored. This cannot be done suddenlyby the magic of elections, which, as indeed severalspeakers have very ably pointed out, couldconceivably rekindle the strife and disturbancein a violent atmosphere, it is necessary that boththe Government and the parties in opposition

should work for reconciliation, forgetting thebitterness of the past. The Government hasinvited all those outside the territory to come backin freedom and without any fear of reprisal.Categorical declarations have been made on behalfof the Government of the Cameroons, guarantee-ing all fundamental rights. We think that thoseof the opposition who are now outside theterritory should go back, renounce violence as acreed for attaining political power, and restarttheir political activities peacefully.

If they have given evidence of all this theGovernment should have no hesitation in evenlegalising the abandoned parties. Reconciliationmust necessarily be a slow and time-takingprocess. The next few months will be a testingtime for the statesmanship of the Governmentleaders, and I would, in this connection, parti-cularly appeal to Mr. Ahidjo. He has made anexcellent impression on all of us as a moderatestatesman. He will be increasing his politicalstature and show his real statesmanship if hetakes note of all that has been said in the Com-mittee and works in all sincerity during theremaining months before independence to ensurethat true reconciliation is achieved.

We would also appeal to distinguished leaderslike Dr. Bebey-Eyidi-whose moderation and cate-gorical denunciation of violence have greatlyimpressed us in this Committee, and those likeDr. Moumie, who are outside the territory, to goback to their country. The barren path ofviolence and obstruction should be abandonedand they should prepare themselves peacefully for

67

the task that may well be theirs in the near future,of running the government of an independentCameroons.

As to draft resolution 580 Rev. 1 which mydelegation has co-sponsored, it has been said bysome distinguished representatives that the para-graphs in the preamble and in the operative partreferring to elections after independence, amountto interference with the sovereignty ofthe future independent State of the Came-roons. Mr. Chairman, we do not thinkthere is any real substance in this view. Allthat the resolution does is to reproduce. In the

preamble the statement of the Prime Minister ofthe French Cameroons, like many of his otherstatements that are reproduced there. This wesubmit cannot be called interference. Then at theend the resolution expresses its confidence in thestatement of the Prime Minister of the Cameroons.Nothing new is said therein ; this last paragraphmerely paraphrases what the Prime Minister ofthe Cameroons has himself said. There is norecommendation-not even a suggestion. Taken inisolation there could perhaps be some doubt aboutits validity. But the resolution has to be viewedas a whole. The part of the resolution expressingconfidence forms part of the whole compositepicture. In the context of the discussions in theCommittee, it is our view that it is most appro-priate, and it seeks to set at rest the viewsexpressed by some delegations that the Govern-ment of the Cameroons intended to transformthe present legislative assembly into a constituentassembly after independence. Mr. Chairman, ourdelegation is of the view that to embody theassurance of the Prime Minister of the Cameroonsand to express confidence in his declaration aremost appropriate in the context of the discussionsthat we have had in the Committee, and do notin the slightest degree affect or seek to impingethe sovereignty of the future State of theCameroons.

Now I would like to say a few words about theresolution about British Cameroons. An amend-ment has been suggested in document 589 A/C.4.L.585-"Do you wish to unite with an indepen-dent Cameroons", as the second alternativequestion to integration with Nigeria. Mydelegation has already explained that unificationshould be one of the issues in any eventualplebiscite. But for three reasons we are not ableto support it in the forthcoming plebiscite in theNorthern Cameroons. First, to do so would beto go against the entire current of authenticopinion in the Northern Cameroons. Mr. MallamAbdullahi, whose representative character to speakfor his people cannot be questioned since he istheir elected representative, and who is certainlybetter qualified to speak for his people than someof the petitioners from outside Northern Came-roons who have advocated unification of NorthernCameroons with the rest of the Cameroons, isopposed to such a question being put. The PrimeMinister of the Southern Cameroons is opposedto a straight question like this being put at this

stage. The Leader of the Opposition, Dr.Endeley, has not concerned himself much with theNorthern Cameroons and has not advocated sucha question for that territory either. Are we justi-fied then in insisting on imposing a question ofunification at this stage ? Secondly, as the Visit-ing Mission has shown and Mr. Abdullahi hashimself said, the Northern Cameroons have had adifferent historical development from the rest ofthe Cameroons. There is no ethnic group like'Cameroon'. In fact I understand that the wordCameroons itself in Portuguese means shrimps andthis name was given to a part of Africa occupiedby them from the fact that the rivers teemed withshrimps ! There is no question of partition of ahomogenous land nor of violence to any sense ofnationhood if the Northern Cameroons is treatedseparately from the rest of the Cameroons. AsPrime Minister Foncha has said the unificationof Cameroons cannot be put as a question in theSouthern Cameroons until the nature and detailsof possible unification are known with someprecision after negotiations with the Governmentof the French Cameroons. As I said in my state-ment of 9th March, if the Southern Cameroonsare not yet ready for a question to be put aboutunification, the Northern Cameroons where thereis no visible indication yet of any desire for uni-fication, are even less ready for it. To put thequestion "Do you wish to unite with independentCameroons" would be to put those who seekunification at an unfair advantage and would beweighing the scales in favour of union withNigeria.

For these reasons we consider the formulationin the draft resolution, Document A/C.4/L. 582Rev. 1 most suitable. It leaves the question ofunification open for future consideration andgives the voters the chance to say that they wouldprefer to wait until a later date, which later dateshould normally be the date of the plebiscite inthe Southern Cameroons. The report of thePlebiscite Commissioner will of course have to betaken into account in determining the subsequentdate. My delegation, therefore, is unable tosupport the amendment and will vote against it.

The other amendment is that of the verydistinguished representative of Liberia. Here, weare placed in some difficulty. We would have

68

preferred to vote for it, but the practical effect ofthe adoption of the amendment would be to givethe Plebiscite Commissioner a mandate which hecannot carry out. As I explained in an earlierstatement, if there is to be a plebiscite in theforeseeable future we have, to accept the existingsituation. Much as the United Nations wouldwish, we are powerless to alter the electoral quali-fications and customs and deep-rooted prejudicesamong the people, which result in the fixation ofsuch qualifications even in countries which aresubject to the international trusteeship system.While, therefore, agreeing with the sentimentsthat have prompted the amendment, for sheerpractical reasons we shall have to vote againstit.

INDIA CAMEROON USA UNITED KINGDOM NIGER NIGERIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLICINDONESIA TUNISIA GHANA GUINEA MOROCCO SUDAN MALI SOMALIA ALGERIA FRANCE IRAQBURMA NORWAY GUATEMALA JAPAN LIBERIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C.S. Jha's Statement in General Assembly on Cameroons

Shri C.S. Jha, India's Permanent Representa-tive to the United Nations, made a statement in theGeneral Assembly on March 13, 1959 on thefuture of the Cameroons. He said :

The thirteenth session of the GeneralAssembly which is now moving to a close hassometimes been described as an African session.It was our privilege in the concluding stage ofthe first part of this session to welcome Guineaas a Member of this Organization. On this, thelast day of the session, which is the last day ofthe second part of the thirteenth session, we havetaken a decision which will result in the birthof another African nation, and its eventual

admission as a Member of the United Nations.

Since the resolutions which we have todayadopted with respect to the Trust Territories ofthe Cameroons, both under French and Britishadministrations, have received the fullest con-sideration in the Fourth Committee of thisAssembly, and earlier in the Trusteeship Council,it seems unnecessary for my delegation to restatethe questions and to restate our own position inany great detail.

The resolution relating to the Cameroonsunder French administration, which we had theprivilege to co-sponsor in the Fourth Committee,incorporates the assurance that on the attainmentof independence on 1 January 1960, electionswill be held for the formation of a new Assemblywhich should take decisions regarding theestablishment of the institutions of free andindependent Cameroons in their final form.

In this arduous task the delegation of Indiadesires it to be known that the people of theCameroons have the greatest goodwill of theGovernment and people of India. We have nodoubt that the patriotic efforts of the leadersof the Cameroonian nation will be crowned withsuccess and that another bright page will beadded to the annals of African independence.

With respect to the Cameroons under Britishadministration, the resolution we have adoptedrequires consultation with the people througha plebiscite. My delegation is confident that inthe implementation of the procedures outlinedin the relevant resolutions, the Governments andparties concerned will bring to bear imaginationand the constructive statesmanship.

We are very happy that the Assembly hasselected Ambassador Abdoh as Plebiscite Com-missioner. His task is very important and itwill involve heavy responsibilities. He has thegoodwill of the Assembly as indeed its over-whelming confidence. We are sure that no betterchoice could have been made in the selectionof a Plebiscite Commissioner.

For three weeks we have-worked hard toconsider the future of the Cameroons. Wehave learned much about it. We havecome to know the leaders of the Cameroons,

both members of the Government and those ofthe opposition. We have come to know theirviews, their hopes and their aspirations and,if I may say so, we have come to respect themgreatly. We are sure that the destiny of thenew State of Cameroons is safe in their hands.We are confident that the leaders of theCameroons under United Kingdom administra-tion will prove their wisdom and statesmanshipand, in the very near future, decide on theirright destiny.

For three weeks we have engaged in theFourth Committee in serious debate, often some-what acrimonious. We have often differed fromone another. But I believe that the area ofagreement was always much, much larger thanthe area of our differences. We were all ofone opinion-that the new State of Cameroonsshould be born and soon. Its birth should notbe delayed beyond 1 January 1960. In theCommittee, we all expressed confidence in thatGovernment of the Cameroons under Frenchadministration and in its very distinguished andable Prime Minister. We have all been actuatedand motivated by the good of the Cameroonian

69

people. We have all had the single desire toadvance the freedom of the African peoples andto add one more independent State to that greatcontinent of Africa where the peoples areyearning for freedom and have long been undersuppression.

Now that the storm and fury of the debateis over, we can look to the future. Perhaps wecan share with the leaders of the Cameroonsunder French administration and those underUnited Kingdom administration their hopes andaspirations. My delegation will watch with thegreatest interest, fraternal interest if I may sayso, the developments in the Cameroons.

In regard to the Cameroons under Frenchadministration, the Government will have manythings to do. It has an arduous task beforeindependence dawns on 1 January 1960. But inour opinion its greatest and most worthy taskwill be to secure reconciliation, to bring aboutgoodwill and unity among its own people. Thattask is well worthwhile. It is our sincere hope

that the leaders of the Cameroons will graspthis great opportunity for making a united andgreat nation.

In the Cameroons under United Kingdomadministration, we hope that the PlebisciteCommissioner will have all the co-operationnecessary for him to carry on his task and thatthe Administering Authority, the political partiesand the Government on their part will bring tohis task a great understanding. We hope thatthe plebiscite, which is due in November 1959,for the Northern Cameroons will be undertakensmoothly and successfully.

Before I conclude I should like to pay thetribute of our delegation to the Government ofFrance. It has good reason to be proud of thefact that the first Trust Territory to attainindependence is one which was under its adminis-tration. That certainly is in keeping with thefinest traditions of France.

I conclude by offering our respects and oursalutations to the new nation of Cameroons andby wishing it all success and assuring it of theco-operation of my Government and my peoplefor all time in the future.

INDIA CAMEROON GUINEA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC FRANCE

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C. S. Jha's Letters to President of the Security Council

Shri C. S. Jha, India's Permanent Representa-tive to the United Nations, addressed two letters tothe President of the Security Council during themonth of March, 1959. The letter which he wroteon March 4, 1959, refers to Pakistan Representa-tive's letter to the Security Council President

dated December 17, 1958.

Following is the text of the letter:

The Government of India deplore the practiceadopted by the Permanent Representative ofPakistan to avail himself of the forum of the Secur-ity Council to make baseless allegations againstIndia. We regret that his letter dated 17 Decem-ber 1958 (S/4139) is yet another instance in point.

I do not wish to deal with extraneous andunrelated matters in the letter of my colleague, thePermanent Representative of Pakistan. My pre-decessor's letter dated 24 October 1958 (S/4107)states the true position. Pakistan has no locusstandi in Jammu and Kashmir which is Indianterritory. This has been made indisputably clearnot only in the three resolutions mentioned in mypredecessor's letter but also in the various assur-ances which the United Nations Commis-sion gave to the Prime Minister of India. Theseassurances are recorded in Annex V on pages 57-63of Security Council Official Records for the TwelfthYear, Supplement for January, February andMarch, 1957.

The right to maintain an army for the securityof the territory is an essential attribute of sover-eignty. Has Pakistan been authorized to maintainany armed force in Kashmir under the SecurityCouncil resolution of 17 January 1948 or theU. N. C. I. P. resolutions of 13 August 1948 and5 January 1949? On the other hand, have theseresolutions and the United Nations Commissionnot recognized India's right to maintain its armyin Kashmir for its security and the maintenanceof law and order ? These are among the tests ofsovereignty and the members of the SecurityCouncil are well aware of the replies to thesequestions given by them in the past. Inparagraph 228 of its third interim report (S/1430),the United Nations Commission places the matterbeyond doubt :

"Four principles were agreed to by the Governments of India and Pakistan in connection with the withdrawal of forces from the State: by Pakistan, that (a) its troops are to withdraw from the State; and that (b) it will use its best endeavours to secure the withdrawal of tribesmen

70

and Pakistan nationals not normally resident in the State who entered for the purpose of fighting; by India, that (a) it will begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission once the Commission has notified it that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals have withdrawn; and that (b) the Government of India will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of the cease fire such forces as are consi- dered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order."

The members of the Council are aware thatthe issue of Kashmir is not a territorial disputebetween India and Pakistan. It is a "situation"which has arisen out of Pakistan's aggression again-st which India complained to the Security Councilunder Chapter VI of the Charter. The Councildescribed it as such in its resolution of 17 January1948. The preamble of this resolution states

"The Security Council having heard state- ments on the situation in Kashmir from representatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan;-

(underlined by us)

The United Nations Commission adopted thesame description in its resolution of 13 August1948, the preamble of which states:

"The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan having given careful consideration to the points of view ex- pressed by the representatives of India and Pakistan regarding the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir .........

(underlined by us)

There is nothing in the quotations given inthe Pakistan Permanent Representative's letter toshow that Sir Owen Dixon ever revised his opinionabout Pakistan's breach of international law whenit committed aggression against the Indian territoryin Kashmir. The arguments which he has putforward in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his letter requireno further comment. As for the view of the

representative of Argentina at the 245th meetingof the Security Council, which he has quoted, it isat variance with the views expressed by some othermembers of the Security Council from time totime, for example:

The representative of Netherlands at the 611thmeeting:

"We know of course that in 1947 the then ruler of the State of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India by an instrument which was accepted by the then Governor- General of India, Lord Mountbatten. We also heard what the Foreign Minister of Pakistan had to say on that subject. "We know that this act of accession has bad an influence on the position which the Government of India has so far taken on the problem of demilitarization and on India's responsibilities as regards the security of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

"The final disposition of the armed forces remaining in the State of Jammu and Kashmir after the implementation of the truce agreement was to be left to the impartial Plebiscite Administrator, in consultation with the Indian Govern- ment on the one side of the cease-fire line and with the local authorities-not the Pakistan Government-on the other side. In this, India's special position in view of the historical development of the case found a certain degree of recognition."

The representative of Colombia at the 768thmeeting:

"Secondly the Commission never re- cognized the legality of the presence of Pakistani troops in Kashmir".

I request that this letter be circulated to themembers of the Security Council as a SecurityCouncil document.

On March 31, 1959 Shri Jha wrote anotherletter to the President of the Security Council inreply to Pakistan Representative's letter datedDecember 30, 1958. The letter says :

The Permanent Representative of Pakistanin his letter dated 30 December 1958 (S/4143) hasmade allegations which are baseless. Theseconstitute a further attempt to use the forum ofthe United Nations for tendentious propaganda.In the present instance Pakistan also seeks onceagain to interfere in the internal affairs of Jammuand Kashmir. However, in deference to theUnited Nations, I have the honour to set forththe following facts :

The Government of Jammu and Kashmirhave, in the discharge of their normal responsi-bility for law and order, dealt with these matters

71

which are the subject of these baseless allegationsand there has been a judicial inquiry. Thefollowing findings of the judicial inquiry regardingthe death of Mr. Ghulam Mohammed Sheikhwere published by the Government of Jammu andKashmir on 3 January 1959 :

"The death was due to heart failure. The deceased did not show any signs of ailment on any previous occasion. Only a few days earlier he had been examined by a Medical Board in connection with the disposal of certain bail applications and he was found to be enjoying sound health".

I request that this letter be circulated to themembers of the Security Council as a SecurityCouncil document.

INDIA PAKISTAN USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ARGENTINA COLOMBIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

LAOS

President's Speech at State Banquet

The President, Dr. Rajendra. Prasad made thefollowing speech at a State Banquet given in hishonour on March 25, 1959 by the Crown Princeof Laos, Mr. Savana Vattang, during his visitto Laos:

Your Royal Highness, Excellencies andFriends,

I thank Your Highness for the kind words youhave spoken about me and my country and foryour lavish hospitality.

Our being here together today is a symboland an emphasis of the growing closeness betweenour two countries. The bonds, cultural andspiritual, between our two peoples have in the fewyears since independence been accentuated by theclose similarity in our objectives and our endea-vour. We have to accomplish in a breathlessburry what has taken better-equipped countriesseveral decades to achieve and we have also toensure that in this hurried economic effort we donot lose sight of the spiritual and cultural valuesthat distinguish our peoples. Thus, with us peaceis not only an ideal but a necessity-peace notmerely in the sense of an absence of armedconflicts, but a conscious direction of nationaland individual energy to what is positively andpowerfully good. The power that science hasplaced in the hands of man has made thisdirection an urgent necessity.

'Apsara' in Sanskrit means water-nymph, aliquid thing of light and fairy life, and when weset up our Atomic Reactor in Bombay and calledit "Apsara", I was touched by the sweetness ofthe name, and at once could not help thinkingthat this watermaiden can also be, if used for thewrong ends, a horrible gorgon many-headed, andwearing a skirt of serpents. When atomic fissionbegan first to be studied in a small way in India,we had at once symbolically committed ourselvesto be among the modem States, and since namescontribute greatly to the picture of the object inthe minds of people, 'Apsara' made it delicate andbeneficent. And so it is bound to be, for we area peaceful people and for our neighbours we haveonly sentiments of affection and regard. Weknow that it is the same with Laos. We, neitherof us, have the power nor desire to dictate to anyone. The only power we have or hope we have,

is the power of persuasion and appeal. Henceloving and needing peace as we do, we persist inour appeal that the Great Powers do not armthemselves with weapons of global destructionbut turn the power and force of the atom intoaccount in the only war worth fighting-the waragainst want, poverty and disease. This is thewar, exciting and full of rewards which countrieslike ours are engaged in fighting and Laosis fortunate to be so ably led in this endeavour.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the toast ofHis Majesty the King.

LAOS USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

LAOS

President's Speech at Farewell Banquet

At the conclusion of his State visit to LaosPresident Rajendra Prasad gave a farewellbanquet on March 26, 1959 in honour of H.M.the King and H.R.H. the Crown Prince of Laos.

Speaking on the occasion Dr. Prasad said :

I am grateful to Your Royal Highness for thehonour you have done me by accepting myinvitation. I have said on a previous occasionhow happy and grateful I am for the kind recep-tion given to me by Your Royal Highness, theGovernment and the people of Laos. My visit to

72

these countries was intended-and I ventureto think it has been successful-for makingme acquainted with the people and Govern-ment and for ensuring the strengthening ofthe good relations which subsist between my

country and Laos as well as other countries ofIndo-China. I venture to think that the largerthe extent of contact between nation andnation, the greater the chances of harmoniousexistence, and it is in that hope that we inIndia have been trying not only to establishsuch contacts, but also to give such supportas we can to everything that is calculated to helpthe cause of peace.

One of the disturbing factors hasbeen the low level of living standards andunder-development of many countries, inparticular those which have been under foreigndomination. We ourselves are faced withsuch problems. We are trying in our ownway to build up our economy in the bestway we can principally within our own re-sources, but also gratefully accepting suchaids as come to us from countries which aregenerous enough to give them. We have success-fully implemented the First 5-Year Plan andare in the middle of the Second 5-Year Planwhich we trust, God willing, we shall im-plement equally successfully. Some difficultywhich we have been experiencing has been remov-ed for the time being by the liberal helpof other countries. We are already engagedin drawing up the outlines of the Third Planafter the implementation of which alone,we may, with some confidence, look forwardto a steady and growing economy. We feelthat peace is essential for the implementa-tion of our Plans and we believe that itis equally essential for similar plans andprogrammes of other countries similarlysituated.

When therefore we talk of peace and wishto make our contribution to its maintenanceit is not merely a sentimental cry, but isbased on solid material requirements of thepresent day. At the same time this attitudecomes to us easily and naturally because we havehad along tradition which goes back to manycenturies. We have always admitted the absoluteright not only of every nation but every individual,to have its or his own view of life and liveaccording to it. The only limitation of thisprinciple, which is really not a limitation buta logical extension of it is that no one shouldthink of forcing his views or beliefs or policiesand programmes on anyone else, be it a nation or

an individual.

It is this feeling of tolerance for the viewsof others which flowered in our country intothe various systems of thought and philosophywhich were not always in conformity with oneanother, but logically and directly opposed toone another in many respects. Not only did werecognize the founders of these various schools,as rishis, but sometimes we apotheosized them.The people of Laos can easily understand theillustration of Buddhism and its relation to thethen prevalent Hinduism. It was undoubtedlya very strong protest against the then existingbelief and practice. The Buddha, after his attain-ment of enlightenment, continued preaching hisown doctrine for more than forty years withoutany hindrance or obstruction from the leaders ofthe then prevalent belief who were rulingpotentates. He was welcomed in every household,down from that of a poor prostitute right up toroyal palaces even when his teachings were notaccepted by the host and later on, after hehad attained Parinirvan, Hindus have actuallyaccepted him as an incarnation of Vishnu, andthe present age is known as the age of Buddha'sincarnation. It is a practice for religious cere-monies, in many parts of the country at least,to describe the date, the month, etc. when theceremony is held, and in so doing, it is alwaysmentioned that this is the age of Buddha'sincarnation.

We have therefore a marvellous exampleof a synthesis when Buddhism as a church isnot to be found in modem India, but theLord's teaching has become a part and parcelof the life and make-up of every Hindu. Ourpresent-day political Panch Sheel is a naturalgrowth from this historic and cultural back-ground and with us, it is not a mere formulabut an item of active faith as also an essen-tial of our present-day interest, which allcombine to dictate to us the doctrine of co-existence.

It is therefore understandable that a visitto these countries, with which our old culturallinks from the Great Buddha still subsistand are active, has given me genuine pleasureand satisfaction. With the greatest pleasureand most genuine desire for the streng-thening of our relations, I propose the

toast of His Majesty the King and His RoyalHighness the Crown Prince, and the people ofLaos.

73

LAOS USA CHINA INDIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Prime Minister's statement in Lok Sabha on U.S.-Pak Bilateral Pact

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in the Lok Sabhaon March 6, 1959 on the bilateral defence agree-ment between Pakistan and the U.S.A. signed atAnkara on March 5, 1959

I can well understand the concern of Membersabout this news about the culmination of theselong series of talks in the signing of a newmilitary pact between the United States ofAmerica and the Pakistan Governments. Thismatter has been before us in various forms inthe last few weeks or more. In fact, it was as aresult of the revolution in Iraq in July last thatthis question arose before the countries of theBaghdad Pact. They saw that the Baghdad Pacthad been dealt a mortal blow by Baghdad goingout of it and hence they had meetings, I believe,in London. Then, soon after, certain provisionalor other decisions were taken to have bilateralpacts to replace in effect the Baghdad Pact whichthough continuing in form, had lost substance.We were concerned naturally and we followedthese proceedings in so far as we could. Wewere not in, of course. On many occasions wehave expressed our concern about it to the UnitedStates Government because new accounts wereappearing in the world's Press about this and onmany occasions we were assured that this was

merely some past commitment being carried onand there was no question of any special oradditional military aid and certainly it was notaimed against India and it was confined to theprevious purpose of the Baghdad Pact. So faras we were concerned, we were not enamouredby Baghdad Pact at any time. In fact we didnot like any military pact, more especially, suchas concerned us or concerned our safety. We didnot like it. But anyhow, we were given thisassurance that this was a repetition of some oldcommitment and nothing new and the nature ofit would not change even in the bilateral pact.That has been the position. I have stated that-as the Hon. Lady Member stated just now-aboutthese assurances.

Now, a reference has been made to this pactin this morning's papers. We have not seen thefull text of it. It is possible that the text may bemade public because I think-it is said-that itwould be registered at the United Nations; if itis so, then it would be made public and if it ismade public, we shall examine it and if the Houseso desires, I can place a copy on the Table of theHouse.

But I should like to add that last evening theAmbassador of the United States visited ourForeign Office-not me but the Foreign Secretary--presumably after the signature of this bilateraltreaty at Ankara and he told the Foreign Secretary,be repeated in fact, what he had said previouslythat this was not anything special or additional,this was an old commitment about military aid,etc. and he specially repeated that this wasgoverned by the Congressional resolutionwhich is often called the EisenhowerDoctrine. That is to say, that it onlyapplied to communist aggression and to noneother.

Now, I am, as I said, repeating what theyhave said. I do not personally think that anykind of aggression is likely to be prevented or anysecurity to be added to by such pacts. That ismy personal view. But anyhow, this is theassurance he gave last evening.

This morning's newspapers stated that theForeign Secretary of the Pakistan Governmenthas put a different interpretation to it. There isapparently a conflict between the interpretation

put by the United States Government and thePakistan Government. We propose to point thisout to the United States Government or theirrepresentatives and to enquire which is the correctinterpretation ; in fact, find out what the factsare as far as we can. That is all we can do,Sir, at this stage. But I thought it would bedesirable for me to place these facts before theHouse.

PAKISTAN USA TURKEY IRAQ UNITED KINGDOM CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Prime Minister's Address to Parliament on U.S.-Pak Bilateral Pact

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehrutold both Houses of Parliament on March 13,1959 that the U.S. Government had "specific-ally assured" India that the Bilateral DefencePact with Pakistan "cannot be used againstIndia".

This assurance had been given in response tothe Indian request for clarification of the Agree-ment in view of the interpretion given on behalfof Pakistan and the doubts that had arisen.

Shri Nehru added : "we have also been

74

assured by the U.S. authorities that there are nosecret clauses of this Agreement nor is there anyseparate secret supplementary agreement".

The Prime Minister said that India had nowasked the United States of America for furtherclarification of the Pact.

Shri Nehru read out from a prepared

statement and also laid on the table of theHouses, copies of the U.S. Bilateral Defence Pactwith Pakistan, the joint declaration made inLondon in July, 1958 at the time of theBaghdad Pact meeting, and the U.S. Congressionalresolution known as the Eisenhower Doctrine.

The Prime Minister said that a perusal of allthe documents would show that under the latestagreement, the U.S. Government had undertakenthat it would not only continue to give economicand military assistance to Pakistan but would also,on request, "use the armed forces of the U.S.A.,in order to assist the Government of Pakistan, incase of armed aggression against Pakistan from anycountry controlled by International Communism".

Following is the text of the PrimeMinister's statement to the two Houses ofParliament on the U.S. military aid pacts withPakistan, Iran and Turkey :

This statement relates to the three agreementsfor military aid signed recently between the U.S.A.and Turkey, Iran and Pakistan.

A meeting of the Baghdad Pact Council washeld in London on the 29th July, 1958. Thismeeting was held soon after the revolution inIraq. At this meeting, a Declaration was issuedon behalf of the Prime Ministers of Iran, Pakistan,Turkey and the United Kingdom and Mr. JohnFoster Dulles, Secretary of State, U.S.A. A copyof this Declaration is attached to this statement.The concluding paragraph of the Declarationcontains an understanding, given on behalf ofthe U.S.A. This paragraph runs as follows :-

"Article I of the Pact of Mutual Cooperation signed at Baghdad on February 24, 1955 provides that the parties will cooperate for their security and defense and that such measures as they agree to take to give effect to this cooperation may form the subject of special agreements. Similarly, the United States, in the interest of world peace, and pursuant to existing Congressional authorisation, agrees to cooperate with the nations making this Declaration for their security and defense, and will promptly enter into agreements designed to give effect to this cooperation."

In pursuance of this undertaking given onbehalf of the U.S.A., consultations took place atAnkara early in March 1959, and three agreementswere signed on March 5, 1959, between theU.S.A. on the one hand and Turkey, Iran andPakistan on the other. These three agreementssigned on March 5, 1959, are identical. A copyof the Agreement between the U.S.A. andPakistan is attached to this statement.

Article I of this Agreement of March 5,1959, runs as follows :

"The Government of Pakistan is determined to resist aggression. In case of aggression against Pakistan, the Government of the United States of America, in accordance with the Constitu- tion of the United States of America will take such appropriate action, including the use of armed forces, as may be mutually agreed upon and is envisaged in the Joint Resolution to promote peace and stability in the Middle East, in order to assist the Government of Pakistan at its request."

It will be seen from this Article I that theUnited States of America agreed to assist theGovernment of Pakistan, at their request, in caseof aggression aganist Pakistan by such appropriateaction, including the use of. armed forces, aswould be :

(i) in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America ; and

(ii) as envisaged in the Joint Resolution to promote peace and stability in the Middle East. (This is commonly known as the Eisenhower Doctrine for the Middle East).

Under the Constitution of the United Statesof America, U.S. armed forces cannot be used toassist any other country without the specificauthority of the United States Congress. TheMutual Security Act authorises the U.S. Govern-ment to give military and economic aid toforeign countries but does not authorize the useof United States forces in support of any othercountry. The use of the U.S. armed forces in

support of any other country without specificsanction of the United States Congress, is how-ever, possible under the authority given by the

75

Joint Resolution of the Congress of March 9,1957. (A copy of the Joint Resolution, generallyknown as the Eisenhower Doctrine for theMiddle East, is attached to this statement).

Section 2 of this Joint Resolution reads asfollows

"The President is authorized to under- take, in the general area of the Middle East, military assistance programmes with any nation or group of nations of that area desiring such assistance. Furthermore, the United States regards as vital to the national interest and world peace the preservation of the independence and integrity of the nations of the Middle East. To this end, if the President determines the necessity there- of, the United States is prepared to use armed forces to assist any such nation or group of such nations requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism : provided, that such em- ployment shall be consonant with the treaty obligations of the United States and with the Constitution of the United States."

A study of the documents attached to thestatement and, particularly, the portions to whichattention has been drawn above, shows thatunder the latest Agreement signed between theUnited States of America and Pakistan, theGovernment of the United States have undertakenthat they will not only continue to give economicand military assistance to Pakistan, but will also,on request, use the armed forces of the UnitedStates in order to assist the Government ofPakistan, in case of armed aggression againstPakistan from any country controlled by inter-national communism.

The spokesmen of the Government ofPakistan have, however, given a wider interpreta-tion to the latest Agreement.

In view of this interpretation on the part ofPakistan and the doubts that had arisen becauseof this Agreement, a request was made to theUnited States authorities for clarification. Wehave been assured by the U.S. authorities thattheir latest bilateral agreement with Pakistan hasno effect other than the extension of theEisenhower Doctrine to cover Pakistan and thatthe Eisenhower Doctrine restricts the use ofUnited States armed forces to cases of armedaggression from any country controlled byinternational communism. We have been speci-fically assured that this Agreement cannot beused against India. We have also been assuredby the United States authorities that there are nosecret clauses oh this Agreement nor is there anyseparate secret supplementary agreement.

Spokesmen of the Pakistan Government haveon various occasions stated that their objective inentering into a defence aid agreement with theU.S.A. and in joining military pacts and alliancesis to strengthen Pakistan against India. We haverepeatedly pointed this out and emphasised thatthe United States defence aid to Pakistan encour-ages the Pakistan authorities in their aggressivenessand increases tension and conflict between Indiaand Pakistan. We have known for some timethat in cases of attempted sabotage in Jammu &Kashmir, Pakistanis have used some militaryequipment of United States origin. It is notpossible to say whether this equipment is part ofthe United States defence aid equipment toPakistan or whether it has been purchased throughnormal commercial channels. The wider inter-pretation given by the Pakistan authorities to thelatest Agreement is, therefore, a matter of graveconcern to us, particularly in the context of ourpast experience of repeated and increasing aggres-sive action on the part of Pakistan.

We welcome the assurance given to us by theUnited States authorities, but aggression is difficultto define, and Pakistan authorities have in thepast committed aggression and denied it. In thecontext of this past experience, the continuingthreats held out by Pakistan, and Pakistan'sinterpretation of the latest Agreement with theU.S.A., it is difficult for us to ignore the possi-bility of Pakistan utilising the aid received by itfrom other countries against India, even thoughthose other countries have given us clear assurance

to the contrary. We have, therefore, requestedthe United States authorities to clarify this posi-tion still further.

We have repeatedly stated and it is our firmpolicy that we will not take any military actionagainst Pakistan or any other country except inself-defence. We are sure that the Governmentand the people of the United States have nothingbut goodwill for us and that they will not beparties to any arrangement, formal or informal,open or secret, which may threaten the securityof India.

Following is the text of the U.S.-Pakistanbilateral agreement :

Agreement of cooperation between the

76

Government of the United States of America andthe Government of Pakistan.

The Government of the United States ofAmerica and the Government of Pakistan ;

Desiring to implement the declaration inwhich they associated themselves at London onJuly 28, 1958 ;

Considering that under Article I of the Pactof Mutual Cooperation signed at Baghdad onFebruary 24, 1955, the parties signatory thereto.agree to cooperate for their security and defence,and that similarly, as stated in the above-men-tioned declaration, the Government of the UnitedStates of America, in the interest of world peace,agreed to cooperate with the governments makingthat declaration for their security and defense;

Recalling that, in the above-mentioneddeclaration, the members of the Pact of MutualCooperation making that declaration affirmedtheir determination to maintain their collectivesecurity and to resist aggression, direct orindirect ;

Considering further that the Government ofthe United States of America is associated withthe work of the major committees of the Pact ofMutual Cooperation signed at Baghdad onFebruary 24, 1955

Desiring to strengthen peace in accordancewith the principles of the Charter of the UnitedNations;

Affirming their right to cooperate for theirsecurity and defense in accordance with Article51 of the Charter of the United Nations ;

Considering that the Government of theUnited States of America regards as vital to itsnational interest and to world peace thepreservation of the independence and integrity ofPakistan ;

Recognizing the authorization to furnishappropriate assistance granted to the President ofthe United States of America by the Congress ofthe United States of America in the MutualSecurity Act of 1954, as amended, and in theJoint Resolution to promote peace and stability inthe Middle East ; and

Considering that similar agreements are beingentered into by the Government of the UnitedStates of America and the Governments of Iranand Turkey, respectively

Have agreed as follows:

Article I

The Government of Pakistan is determinedto resist aggression. In case of aggression againstPakistan, the Government of the United States ofAmerica, in accordance with the Constitution ofthe United States of America, will take suchappropriate action, including the use of armedforces, as may be mutually agreed upon and isenvisaged in the Joint Resolution to promotepeace and stability in the Middle East, in orderto assist the Government of Pakistan at itsrequest.

Article II

The Government of the United States ofAmerica, in accordance with the Mutual SecurityAct of 1954, as amended and related laws of theUnited States of America, and with applicableagreements heretofore or hereafter entered intobetween the Government of the United States ofAmerica and the Government of Pakistan, re-

affirms that it will continue to furnish theGovernment of Pakistan such military andeconomic assistance as may be mutually agreedupon between the Government of the UnitedStates of America and the Government ofPakistan in order to assist the Government ofPakistan in the preservation of its national inde-pendence and integrity and to the effectivepromotion of its economic development.

Article III

The Government of Pakistan undertakes toutilize such military and economic assistance asmay be provided by the Government of theUnited States of America in a manner consonantwith the aims and purposes set forth by the govern-ment associated in the declaration signedat London on July 28, 1958 ; and forthe purpose of effectively promoting theeconomic development of Pakistan and ofpreserving its national independence andintegrity.

Article IV

The Government of the United States ofAmerica and the Government of Pakistan willcooperate with the other governments associatedin the declaration signed at London on July 28,1958 in order to prepare and participate in suchdefensive arrangements as may be mutually agreedto be desirable, subject to the other applicableprovisions of this agreement.

77

Article V

The provisions of the present agreement donot affect the cooperation between the twogovernments as envisaged in other internationalagreements or arrangements.

Article VI

This agreement shall enter into force uponthe date of its signature and shall continue inforce until one year after the receipt by eithergovernment of written notice of the intention ofthe other government to terminate the agreement."

Done in duplicate at Ankara, this fifth day

of March, 1959.

For the Government For the Governmentof the United States of Pakistan;of America;

Fletcher Warren. Sayid M. Hassan.

Text of U. S. Congress Joint Resolution toPromote Peace and Stability in the Middle East :

Resolved by the Senate and House ofRepresentatives of the United States of Americain Congress assembled.

That the President be and hereby is authorizedto cooperate with and assist any nation or groupof nations in the general area of the Middle Eastdesiring such assistance in the development ofeconomic strength dedicated to the maintenanceof national independence.

SEC. 2. The President is authorized toundertake, in the general area of the MiddleEast, military assistance programmes with anynation or group of nations of that area desiringsuch assistance. Furthermore, the United Statesregards as vital to the national interest and worldpeace the preservation of the independence andintegrity of the nations of the Middle East.To this end, if the President determines thenecessity thereof, the United States is preparedto use armed forces to assist any such nation orgroup of such nations requesting assistanceagainst armed aggression from any countrycontrolled by International Communism; Provided,that such employment shall be consonant withthe treaty obligations of the United States andwith the Constitution of the United States.

SEC. 3. The President is hereby authorizedto use during the balance of fiscal year 1957 foreconomic and military assistance under this Jointresolution not to exceed $ 200,000,000 from anyappropriation now available for carrying out theprovisions of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, asamended, in accord with the provisions of suchAct : Provided, that, whenever the Presidentdetermines it to be important to the security ofthe United States, such use may be under theauthority of Section 401 (a) of the MutualSecurity Act of 1954, as amended (except thatthe provisions of section 105 (a) thereof shall not

be waived), and without regard to the provisionsof Section 105 of the Mutual Security Appro-priation Act, 1957 : Provided further, thatobligations incurred in carrying out the purposesof the first sentence of Section 2 of this jointresolution shall be paid only out of appropriationsfor military assistance, and obligations incurredin carrying out the purposes of the first section ofthis joint resolution shall be paid only out of appro-priations other than those for military assistance.This authorization is in addition to other existingauthorizations with respect to the use of suchappropriations. None of the additional authoriz-ation contained in this section shall be used untilfifteen days after the Committee on ForeignRelations of the Senate, the Committee on ForeignAffairs of the House of Representatives, theCommittees on Appropriations of the Senate andthe House of Representatives and, when militaryassistance is involved, the Committees on ArmedServices of the Senate and the House of Represen-tatives have been furnished a report showing theobject of the proposed use, the country for thebenefit of which such use is intended, and the par-ticular appropriation or appropriations for carryingout the provisions of the Mutual Security Act of1954, as amended from which the funds are propo-sed to be derived : Provided, that funds availableunder this section during the balance of fiscalyear 1957 shall, in the case of any such reportsubmitted during the last fifteen days of the fiscalyear, remain available for use under this sectionfor the purposes stated in such report for aperiod of twenty days, following the date ofsubmission of such report. Nothing contained inthis joint resolution shall be construed as itselfauthorizing the appropriation of additional fundsfor the purpose of carrying out the provisions ofthe first section or of the first sentence of section2 of this joint resolution.

SEC. 4. The President should continue tofurnish facilities and military assistance, withinthe provisions of applicable law and establishedpolicies, to the United Nations Emergency Forcein the Middle East, with a view to maintainingthe truce in that region.

SEC. 5. The President shall within the

78

months of January and July of each year report

to the Congress his actions hereunder.

SEC. 6. This joint resolution shall expirewhen the President shall determine that the peaceand security of the nations in the general area ofthe Middle East are reasonably assured byinternational conditions created by action of theUnited Nations or otherwise except that it may beterminated earlier by a concurrent resolution ofthe two Houses of Congress.

Text of a Declaration issued by the nationsattending the ministerial meeting of the BaghdadPact at London, July 28, 1958 :

The members of the Baghdad Pact attendingthe ministerial meeting in London have re-examined their position in the light of recentevents and conclude that the need which called.the Pact into being is greater than ever. Thesemembers declare their determination to maintaintheir collective security and to resist aggression,direct or indirect.

Under the Pact collective security arrange-ments have been instituted. Joint military planninghas been advanced and area economic projects havebeen promoted. Relationships are being establish-ed with other free world nations associated forcollective security.

The question of whether substantive altera-tions should be made in the Pact and itsorganization or whether the Pact will be continuedin its present form is under consideration by theGovernments concerned. However, the nationsrepresented at the meeting in London reaffirmedtheir determination to strengthen further theirunited defence posture in the area.

Article I of the Pact of Mutual Cooperationsigned at Baghdad on February 24, 1955 providesthat the parties will cooperate for their securityand defense and that such measures as they agreeto take to give effect to this cooperation mayform the subject of special agreements. Similarly,the United States, in the interest of world peace,and pursuant to existing Congressional authoriza-tion, agrees to cooperate with the nations makingthis Declaration for their security and defense,and will promptly enter into agreements designedto give effect to this cooperation.

Manouchehr Eghbal Prime Minister of Iran

Malik Firoz Khan Noon Prime Minister of Pakistan

Adnan Menderes Prime Minister of Turkey

Harold Macmillan Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

John Foster Duties Secretary of State, United States of America.

PAKISTAN USA INDIA UNITED KINGDOM IRAQ PERU IRAN TURKEY CENTRAL AFRICANREPUBLIC MALI

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Prime Minister's Statement on Border Firing

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made a statement in Lok Sabha on March 12,1959 when replying to a discussion on anadjournment motion moved by Shri Tridib KumarChaudhury on the reported heavy firing resortedto by armed Pakistani troops across the WestBengal-East Pakistan border against threevillages in Murshidabad District on March 11,1959. He said:

Mr. Speaker, Sir, you were pleased to admitthis motion on a specific issue, but it has tendedto be discussed on much broader lines. Evenin regard to the border issues reference has beenmade to a large number of past issues on theAssam border etc. and some other border con-siderations have been brought in also.

It is true of course, that every issue involves

a background, involves considerations that bringit about. Obviously, a border issue betweenIndia and Pakistan involves the fact that Pakistanwas partitioned from India and certain conse-quences followed, consequences which, in spiteof every effort, seem to pursue us still andcreate not only insecurity on the border regionsbut a great deal of ill-will and bitterness.

You know, Sir, and the House knows, thatwe have tried our utmost, keeping in view thesecurity of India, to deal with these matters soas to put an end to these troubles, to solvethese problems as they arise, and not to doanything which was likely to create bitterness.I have often spoken about this in this House.And yet, has been our misfortune to see thesebig and small issues going on day today andyear after year. I must confess to a feeling,a sense, of great disappointment. I do not meanthe big issues now, for the big issues could hardlybe dealt with when the two Prime Ministersmet, and they are in a different category. But

79

we thought, and I thought that the smaller borderissues at any rate could be tackled and if allof them cannot be settled immediately we canat least settle them one by one or in certaingroups. But I confess to a feeling of grievousdisappointment that it has not led to that peacein the border which I hoped for.

I can very well understand the concern andthe anxiety of all the Members in this Houseabout this continuous situation. This is nota matter which can be considered from a partypoint of view because we are all concerned withthe safety of our border and the security of ourfellow-citizens in that border.

Now, I can, in so far as this narrow issueis concerned, read out a statement of the factswhich have been supplied to me by the authoritiesin West Bengal, in fact by the District Magistrateof Murshidabad who was concerned with thisand who was enquiring into it. I shall do soif the House so wishes. I gave some broad ideaabout it this morning.

There are two other matters to which I wouldlike to refer ; although perhaps they are slightly

outside the scope of the motion before theHouse there has been some indirect referenceto them. There are many Members in thisHouse or some of them who connect theseborders issues or border troubles, firing, etc., insome way or other, with the recent military aidpact between the United States and Pakistanand some other countries. Now, on the lastoccasion when I spoke about this matter, I saidthat we would enquire further into this. Wehave had some further enquiries made. In fact,we are still continuing it. By enquiries I meanexplanations. I hope tomorrow morning toplace a paper before this House on this subject,giving the text of the assurances and the othermatters connected with that. Perhaps even thatmay have to be followed up, because we arepursuing this line of action. So, I shall not sayanything more about that except to say thatthat paper will be placed before the House,which will contain, if I may say so, nothing verynew but it will, in a connected form, give the textof these pacts as well as the other papers whichmay help Hon. Members to see the whole thingin the right perspective.

I can only say this now in regard to itthat on further enquiry from the United StatesGovernment we have been given categoricalassurances that the aid pact has absolutely nothingto do with any idea of Pakistan attacking India.In fact, the assurances in that respect are ascategorical as they can be. Of course, as anHon. Member pointed out, the assurances, thoughsatisfactory to the extent as they may be, cannotbe wholly satisfactory, because the other partyconcerned, instead of giving any assurances,makes statements to the contrary-statementsmade by Pakistan repeatedly. However, I shallnot deal with the matter any more. Secondly, reference has been made once byme in a general way and subsequently by someother Members, about the military equipmentfrom the United States which is said to have beenused by Pakistani forces.

I think that I should place the exact facts aswe know them, before the House, so as to preventmisapprehensions from arising. I have nothingto say about the item of news appearing in theStatesman newspaper, which was quoted thismorning. I have no particular information. Butwhen I previously said about this equipment I

was referring to certain types of equipment whichcame into our possession on the Cease-Fire line inJammu and Kashmir State and which undoubtedlywere of American manufacture. In fact, theycould not have come from anywhere else. Again,I cannot say of course, that they formed part ofthe Aid Programme or were bought in the openmarket. We have no evidence of American armsbeing used in border incidents in the East. Butsome equipment of American manufacture hasbeen found in cases of attempted sabotage acrossthe Cease Fire line in Jammu and Kashmir. Thedetails are :

Radiosonde transmitters have been recovered.On the 6th of October, 1958, one apparatusmarked "U. S. Army Signal Corps, RadiosondeModulator", number so-and-so, Johnson service-full particulars.

On the 9th October, another apparatusmarked "U. S. Army Singal Corps, Radiosondetransmitter and Radiosonde modulator".-Imight add, Sir, that I do not know what thesethings are. That is to say, I do not know exactlywhat they are, in detail; I know broadly what theyare.

Then, two plastic explosive charges withAmerican fuse, recovered from the premises of thePanchayatgarh in village Banwat, P. S. Poonch on21st December, 1958.

Then again, one U. S. A. made wireless setrecovered from a place about 9 1/2 miles south-westof Rajouri and about 5 miles on our side on theCease-Fire line on the 16th February 1959.

80

Now, this American equipment cannotnecessarily be related to the Defence Aid pro-gramme, as they could have been easily bought bythe Pakistanis. A large number of such recoveries,if made, of course, would put a somewhat differentcomplexion. On many earlier occasions thismatter had been taken up with the United StatesAmbassador as to the question of the plasticbombs used by the Pakistani saboteurs in Kashmir.The Ambassador had categorically denied thatthey were of USA manufacture and had suggestedthat the Pakistanis must have bought them fromthe United Kingdom. This was on the 7th June,

1958.

That is, Sir, in so far as U. S. equipment isconcerned.

Then there is one small matter. An Hon.Member referred to our Area Commander in thatregion being a foreign national, a UK national.I am sorry he made that reference, because he is agallant and loyal officer. He is an Englishman,but he is not a UK national. He became anIndian national a long time ago and as such hasbeen serving our Army for a long time. He servedin Delhi and various places. As a matter of fact,quite apart from all these recent happenings, inthe normal course, he is being transferred toanother area.

An Hon. Member: I think, Sir, about acouple of months ago, when he was given fouryears' extension, the question whether he was anIndian national or not yet an Indian national wastalked about here, and I think he has not yetopted for Indian nationality.

The Prime Minister : Sir, the Defence Minis-ter tells me that he is an Indian national.

An Hon. Member : He is an Anglo-Indiangentleman who holds office in the Indian Army,but he has not opted for Indian nationality.About that I am definite. If the Government hasany papers, then, of course, I shall standcorrected.

The Prime Minister : That is a matter whereif I am incorrect I shall be glad to correct myselfBut normally speaking, every Anglo-Indian isconsidered automatically an Indian national unlesshe does something to opt out. His home is India;he has no other home, hut.

Another matter. The overall ultimate re-sponsibility for international border protection lieswith the army. But, it depends how a particularborder is dealt with. If a border situation issupposed to be potentially a war situation, then, itis dealt with more from the military point of view.Otherwise, it is dealt with from the police point ofview, the military, of course, being in the back-ground which could be summoned by the civilauthorities whenever needed. On a great manyoccasions, mention has been made in this House

of border troubles between East Pakistan andIndia. The House will remember that a greatmajority of these incidents took place on theAssam border. Generally speaking, West Bengal-Pakistan border was quieter. I say generallyspeaking, not wholly. The incidents there consist-ed chiefly of cattle lifting and a little trouble incharlands occasionally. Lately there has beena change and there has been much greater activityon the West Bengal side. Because of the re-currence of many of these instances on the Assam-East Pakistan border, it was arranged to put thearmy more definitely in charge of that area. Thatwas not so in the West Bengal-Pakistan borderalthough the army was, as I said, in overallresponsibility and could be summoned whennecessary. But, actually, in the normal way itwas the armed police that dealt with it. That hasbeen the position. But, certainly in view of thesedevelopments this matter has to be reviewed andwe are going to discuss this matter with the WestBengal Government as to how to take moreeffective measures to give security to our peoplethere.

The difficulty has been that, normally, thearmy is not brought in in petty cases of assaulthowever bad they may be. It may be distressing.But, if there is a case of theft or dacoity orkidnapping, it is bad, we should protect him, ofcourse, but the whole army movement is normallynot indulged in on such occasions. However,this matter is recurring and the incidents dorequire a reconsideration of the manner in whichwe should give such more effective protection infuture.

In regard to this particular incident aboutwhich this motion was originally moved, on the6th March, at about 11.00 hours, one Rati KantaMondal along with four of his employees (allChaimandals) of Char Rajanagar and adjoiningareas under Raninagar p.s. J.L. No. 91, whileharvesting linseeds from their field at CharRajanagar bordering Pakistan were challenged bythe E.P.R. men of Diar Khidirpur Pak B.O.Pwho fired two rounds from their rifles from adistance of about 200 yards. None was injured.Three Pak nationals armed with lathis followedby 4 Pak E.P.R. armed personnel came there andclaimed the plot of land in question to be inPakistan. The Pak nationals caught hold of one

81

Makhan Mondal of Char Rajanagar passing bythat way on a charge of harvesting linseed fromthe Pak territory "and took him away to PakB.O.P. at Diar Khidirpur and severely assaultedhim on the way. Rati Kanta Mondal was alsoassaulted by the E.P.R. personnel who trespassedinto the Indian territory. He sustained swellinginjury on his arm.

Necessary steps were taken to guard the bor-der and the police force in the area was reinforced.

On 9th March, our District Magistrate atMurshidabad lodged a protest with the PakistanDistrict Magistrate of Rajshahi against thistrespass and firing into Indian territory. Hesuggested a joint enquiry on the spot by the twoDistrict Magistrates and also asked for stemaction against the Pakistan border police andPakistan nationals responsible for this incidentand for immediate return of Shri MakhanMondal, who had been kidnapped and forcompensation for assaulting Indian nationals.

On 10th March, heavy and incessant firingby Pakistani border forces continued and ourborder police returned the fire in self-defence.Two Indian nationals of Char Rajapur wereinjured by the Pakistan firing.

Our District Magistrate of Murshidabad gotinto contact with the Pakistan District Magistrateof Rajshahi on the telephone and the latteragreed to stop firing and to a meeting of the twoDistrict Magistrates.

Our District Magistrate of Murshidabadwent to the place fixed on the border at 4 p.m.to meet the Pakistani District Magistrate,Rajshahi. The Rajshahi District Magistrate,however, did not turn up at the appointed placeand the Pakistanis continued to fire and even firedat the messenger sent across to tell the PakistanDistrict Magistrate of Rajshahi that the DistrictMagistrate of Murshidabad was waiting forhim.

On 11th March, Pakistanis stopped firing at06.00 hours but resumed heavy and intermittentfiring on Char Rajanagar later in the day.Adequate measures have been taken to deal with

the situation.

I have nothing further to say on this matter,except that we are very much concerned aboutthese developments, not only the incidents inthemselves, but the whole background behindthem, and we certainly hope to take effectivemeasures.

PAKISTAN USA INDIA RUSSIA UNITED KINGDOM BANGLADESH

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Shrimati Lakshmi Menon's Statement on Secretary-level Conference

Shrimati Lakshmi N. Menon, Deputy Ministerfor External Affairs, made a statement in the LokSabha on March 3, 1959 on the outcome of theSecretary-level talks held in Karachi fromFebruary 23 to 25, 1959 between India and Pakistanon the outstanding border disputes between thetwo countries.

Following is the text of the statement

A meeting at the level of Secretaries was heldin Karachi from the 23rd to the 25th February,1959. This meeting was held as a consequenceof the meeting of the Prime Ministers of Indiaand Pakistan in Delhi in September 1958. Atthis Prime Ministers' meeting, a reference to theunsettled disputes and their further considerationwas made in the following terms :-

"Some of the border disputes, namely, two regarding the Radcliffe and Bagge Awards in the eastern region, and five in the western region, require further consideration.

The Prime Ministers agreed to issue

necessary instructions to their survey staff to expedite demarcation in the light of the settlements arrived at and to consider further methods of settling the disputes that are still unresolved. In regard to the Hussainiwala and Suleimanke disputes, the Foreign Secretary of the Government of Pakistan and the Commonwealth Secretary of the Government of India will, in consultation with their engineers, submit proposals to the Prime Ministers."

Our Commonwealth Secretary had visited theHussainiwala and Suleimanke areas in November1958 and had then discussed technical and otherdetails with the engineers and the local officerson the spot. The Karachi meeting in February1959 discussed these two disputes relating toHussainiwala and Suleimanke areas. The IndianDelegation consisted of engineers and otherexperts and was headed by our CommonwealthSecretary.

The discussions at Karachi disclosed adivergence of views between the two Delegations.

82

Both sides stated the position of their Governmentsregarding these disputes, and no agreed proposalsfor settlement emerged as a result of thesediscussions.

During his talks with the Pakistan ForeignMinister in Karachi, the Commonwealth Secretaryreferred to the serious increase in the number ofincidents on the eastern border which have beencaused by irresponsible and aggressive firing byPakistan authorities. Representations in thisconnection have been made repeatedly to theGovernment of Pakistan at various levels andthrough our High Commissioner in Karachi.

It is our policy to endeavour to settle borderdisputes peacefully and to restore normal condi-tions in border areas. At the same time, anyaggressive action or pressure on the part ofPakistan authorities and any violation of ourterritory has to be resisted. Measures necessaryfor the protection of the life and property of ourcitizens living in the border areas have beentaken.

PAKISTAN INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Shrimati Lakshmi Menon's Statement on Border Trade

Shrimati Lakshmi N. Menon, DeputyMinister for External Affairs, made a statementin the Lok Sabha on March 23, 1959 in replyto a "calling attention" notice regarding refusalby Pakistan to hold a meeting for revival orborder trade with India.

Following is the text of the statement:

Border trade between West Bengal, Assamand Tripura on the one hand and East Pakistanon the other is governed by Article VIII of theIndo-Pakistan Trade Agreement (1957-60).

Pakistan had put various obstacles byrestricting visas etc. and by harassment of thoseengaged in border trade. This was pointed outto the Pakistan Delegation at the 1957 TradeAgreement Review Conference held at Karachiin December. Since then, however, this bordertrade has come to a complete standstill as, aresult of "Operation Close Door" started by theGovernment of East Pakistan since the beginningof 1958.

The High Commissioner for Pakistan in Indiaduring his visit to Assam in November, 1958,told Rev. Nichols Roy, M.L.A. and an ex-Minister, that the Government of Pakistan wereanxious to improve trade, particularly bordertrade, with India and suggested that the ChiefSecretaries of Assam and East Pakistan meet todiscuss border trade without waiting for theIndo-Pakistan Trade Review Conference betweenthe Governments of India and Pakistan. The

State Government not sure whether the HighCommissioner meant business particularly inview of the exactly opposite policy followed byhis Government, referred the High Commissioner'ssuggestion to us. After consulting the Ministryof Commerce & Industry, we request the Govern-ment of Assam to accept the High Commissioner'ssuggestion for a Chief Secretaries Conferenceon border trade provided the Chief Secretariesof West Bengal and Tripura also participated inthe proposed conference. After the Govern-ments of West Bengal and Tripura had agreedto our suggestion, the Chief Secretary, Govern-ment of Assam, wrote to the Government ofEast Pakistan on 5th December, 1958, welcomingthe High Commissioner's suggestion in a formalmanner and leaving it to the Government of EastPakistan to suggest the date and venue for themeeting. No reply from the Government of EastPakistan was received to this letter for over twomonths although there were periodical reports inthe Pakistani Press that Pakistan was anxious toimprove trade relations with India. On 9thFebruary, 1959, the Chief Secretary, Governmentof East Pakistan, however, informed theGovernment of Assam that a meeting of ChiefSecretaries to discuss the question of bordertrade was not necessary and that border tradewas a part of the general trade agreement betweenPakistan and India.

Apart from the above, there were news itemsin the East Pakistani Press during December,1958, and January, 1959, that Pakistan intendedto send a delegation consisting of three repre-sentatives of the Local Chamber of Commerce inEast Pakistan to neighbouring States in India.On attempts by the First Secretary (Commercial)at Karachi to verify the truth of these newspapers'stories, it was invariably discovered that theGovernment of Pakistan had no such proposalsbefore them.

According to Article IX of the Indo-PakistanTrade Agreement (1957-60), there has to be a sixmonthly review of the working of the TradeAgreement. The last review took place in aConference at Karachi in December 1957. Sincethen, several approaches have been made to theGovernment of Pakistan for a Trade AgreementReview Conference at Delhi but no such Con-

83

ference has yet been held. Our Ministry ofCommerce and Industry have been anxious to holdthe Review Conference which has been overduesince July, 1958.

The Government of East Pakistan whoshowed great keenness to have a Chief Secretaries'meeting to discuss border trade arrangements haveobviously not been able to convince the PakistanGovernment at Karachi about the urgency of thisproblem and the latter do not seem to be keen tohave an early conference to review the TradeAgreement of which the border trade arrangementsare a part.

PAKISTAN USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

U. S. Military Bases

In reply to a question whether the recentpublication of a map in the Sunday Times,a leading London Newspaper, showing the exis-tence of U.S. Military bases in West Pakistan,have been brought to the notice of Government,Shrimati Lakshmi N. Menon, Deputy Ministerfor External Affairs, said in Lok Sabha on March16, 1959 : "Yes, Sir. The map shows threeU.S. air bases in West Pakistan-one nearKarachi, another in the North-West FrontierProvince and a third possibly somewhere in thePunjab (Pakistan)".

Replying to another question Shrimati Menonsaid : The U.S. Ambassador has sent a com-munication to the Ministry of External Affairswhich states :

"Despite public clarification by my

Government, there seems still to be a misapprehension current regarding the nature of an American communications facility in Pakistan. I wish, therefore, to recall to you, as of possible interest to your Government, that the United States Government has publicly stated that this facility is part of a world-wide communications system. It is not a missile base and I am authorised to deny categorically that the United States Government has any missile base or bases in Pakistan".

PAKISTAN UNITED KINGDOM USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Violation of Cease-Fire Line

Shrimati Lakshmi Menon, Deputy Ministerfor External Affairs, said in the Lok Sabha onMarch 3, 1959 that the Government of Indiahad received a reply from the United Nation'sChief Military Observer at the cease-fire lineon the Jammu and Kashmir border to theircomplaints about the flights of Pakistan aircraftover Indian Territory on November 21, 1958.

Shrimati Menon, who was replying to aquestion by an Hon. Member of the Lok Sabha,said

"The U.N. Chief Military Observer has givenhis findings in respect of five flights between12.45 and 14.05 hours on November 21, 1958against which we had lodged complaints withhim." She added : "The Chief Military Obser-ver has held that aircraft did fly over our areaon all the occasions mentioned in our complaints,adding, however, that it had not been possible to

fix the identity of the aircraft".

PAKISTAN INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

SOUTH VIETNAM

President's Speech at Dinner

The President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad madea speech at the dinner given in his honourby President Ngo-dinh-Diem during his Statevisit to South Vietnam. The dinner washeld at the Independence Palace on March 19,1959.

Following is the text of President Prasad'sspeech :

Mr. President, Your Excellencies and Friends,

I am deeply honoured by your invitation tome to visit you in your home country and by thegracious words of welcome that you, Mr. President,have just spoken. Coming here and enjoyingyour handsome hospitality, I was marvelling atthe speed with which I came to your country--acountry which like our own, has had an ancient

84

and leisurely civilization and which has since theearliest times been imbued with the spirit andteachings of the Buddha.

In those far off times there was leisure enoughto stop and ponder, and pondering, sometimes,glimpse the truth that lies just beneath the surfaceflux and chaos of events. It is harder now toperceive and keep in view the true values andignore the irrelevances and distractions, for at thisstage in the history of our countries, mere survival

and justification lies in our ability to achieve withinthe space of one generation what others haveachieved perhaps in ten.

We are, therefore, going all out for recon-structing and rehabilitating our economy, forraising the standards of living of our people andmaking their lives a little more cheerful andhappier so far as more material prosperity ranmake a man happy. In this high endeavour wehave no ill-will or jealousy and we are inspired bythe noble desire to raise our own people not atthe expense of, or by exploitation of others, butby making them stand on their own legs, at thesame time realising that in doing so, they add tothe sum total of the good of all and not merelyrob Peter to pay Paul. We need in this enterprisethe sympathy and cooperation of all and offerour own unstinted service for what it is worth tothe service of humanity. This attitude of mindarises out of recognition of our duty to serve all,including ourselves, which in its ultimate analysisis nothing but recognition of the freedom of everyindividual and every group or nation to developto its maximum capacity without let or hindrancefrom others and without offering similar hindrancein the way of others. In other words, it is thefundamental fact of the recognition of humandignity and man's destiny. Let us hope that yourcountry and mine will each contribute what it canto this great human endeavour.

The great speed and tempo which is necessaryfor success in it is bound to strain the texture ofour national life to its utmost, and in the hurryand bustle of rehabilitating millions of our peoples,there is always a danger that this heritageof quiet and inwardness, this frequentcontemplation of truth may be lost in the roarand clatter of modern machines. To us as well asto you, such a loss would be a grave one, forviolence would have been done to some of thevital elements of our heritage and temper. Todaymore than ever, therefore, with the power foralmost cosmic good and evil that science hasplaced in human hands, it is necessary for us toremember that we must remain firmly rooted inour tradition and anchored in our deep moral andspiritual values.

On your kindly land warmed by yourwelcome and hospitality, I am filled with asense of gratification that my visit has

re-emphasized the friendship between our twocountries.

Friends, I give you the toast of His Excellency,the President, who in his life exemplifies the energyand the bubbling enthusiasm of the people to befree and to grow and prosper according to theirown genius.

VIETNAM USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

SOUTH VIETNAM

President Diem's Speech

Speeking on the occasion President Ngo-Dinh-Diem said;

Mr. President,

It is a singularly precious opportunity forFree Vietnam to welcome in you the veneratedChief of India and one of the most representativefigures of modern Asia.

You are not only the symbol of Indian unityand independence; you also belong to that race ofmen of thought and action who leave an imprinton history by making your personality felt inour time.

You have not only struggled and suffered inorder to win the battle of Indian independence,you also laboured hard to modernise your countrythrough scientific and industrial development inharmony with the culture of India. You arebuilding a modern economic and social systembased on the moral consciousness of Indian tradi-tion, which is one of non-violence, self-denial,search for turth and justice.

In the confused and brutal world of today,the method of development put forward by Indiais a message of a high human significance, especial-ly when the messenger is a man of such moralstature as Your Excellency. Indeed what forothers is only a matter of pragmatic values, is foryou a principle of truth, which is vital for India, aswell as for the continuous existence of mankind.For this reason, Mr. President, we highly valueyour visit.

Vietnam, which is fundamentally pacific and

85

reveres the sanctity of the human spirit, feels agreat admiration for the intellectual and moralendeavours of the great Indian nation. Moreover,Vietnam is firmly convinced that the success ofthe gigantic efforts of India is our own success.

It is in this conviction that I invite you,

Excellencies ;

Gentlemen,

to raise your glasses to the health of His ExcellencyPresident Rajendra Prasad, and to the prosperityof the Indian people.

VIETNAM USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

SOUTH VIETNAM

President's Speech at Farewell Dinner

On the conclusion of his visit to SouthVietnam, the President Dr. Rajendra Prasad gavea dinner in honour of President Ngo-Dinh-Diemon March 21, 1959.

Proposing toast to President Diem, Dr.Prasad said :

Mr. President,

Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I appreciate your gracious presence heretonight and the opportunity it gives me to thankyou again for the great kindness you have shownme and to my party ever since we arrivedin Saigon.

It is a matter of gratification to us in Indiathat the old bonds of geography and of culturebetween us are being augmented by increasingpresent contacts.

We had the pleasure of receiving yourPresident in our country some years ago andI have the privilege of visiting you now.

Trade and commerce between our twocountries are on the increase, and so is technicalco-operation. A Delegation from your countryvisited India to see the "INDIA 1958" Exhibition.A few weeks ago a gift of cattle arrived inSaigon from India under the Colombo Plan(Technical Co-operation). The Cow, as thesymbol of agricultural prosperity, has been theobject of reverence in India through the ages,and in the early years wealth was reckonedin terms of cattle. It is therefore a happy augurythat our major gift to South Vietnam wasin cattle.

It is our attempt at development and adap-tation that is chronicled in India's Five YearPlans. The experience of setting up a targetof achievement was new to the nation and it wasan exciting experience to put it all down inso many words and transmit its message to thefarthermost comers of the land and watchthrough the years some vital parts of it beingachieved and slowly coming to fruition. Indiais avast land, there are many kinds of needsin it and its problems are many. To think ofthe times with a sense of crisis and urgency andto make four hundred million people think inthese terms unremittingly for many years is noeasy task. And when our steel plants are comingup and fertiliser plants beginning to gladden

the fields and the great irrigation and powerprojects are holding out some hope of a gradualrebirth, it all seems worthwhile. We have notmuch yet to boast of. Our achievements weighedagainst our minimal requirements have still along way to go. But it is good to feel that weare moving and the men and women too in thecountry have begun to feel in the same way.To give these many millions reasonable safety,internally in a planned and ordered existence,externally in an effort to ensure that the nationsof the world may continue in peace and friendshipare the tasks before us.

The years of our struggle for freedom wereheroic years and living as we did under the greatand inspiring leadership of Mahatma Gandhi,all of life seemed charged with a strange powerand an inexhaustible source of energy and vigourseemed to be ours. Perhaps many imagined inthose days that once the foreigners left our soil,there would be an instantaneous millennium ofprosperity and contentment. But when we becamefree and were left with our destinies in our ownhands, there came with it problems, diverse andmultiform from every side. We have had toface these problems frontally and with judiciouscare and circumspaction. We have now gonesome way in solving some of these problems,just as you no doubt have done in solving yoursand if in the world at large, all would strivefor peace and for the compassion and wisdomto use science and technology for the commongood, we can continue the work and hope forthe promised land.

Much useful experience gained by differentcountries in solving their respective problemscan be pooled to the advantage of all, and there

86

vast room for co-operation and mutual helpbetween our two countries, of which we shouldbe wise to take advantage. South Vietnam isfortunate in her leadership who realise the impor-tance of development and reconstruction at homeand friendly co-operation with neighbouringcountries.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the toast ofmy friend, President Ngo-Dinh-Diem.

VIETNAM USA INDIA SRI LANKA LATVIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

SOUTH VIETNAM

President Diem's Reply

Replying to President Rajendra Prasad,President Diem said :

Mr. President,

I thank you for having spoken so kindly ofme. I consider it a personal honour. Youhave also recalled the bonds which have unitedour two peoples and which have left a strongimprint on the soul and the soil of Vietnam,and which still happily unite our two countriesat present. I can only evoke in return the cordialand fraternal welcome extended to me by YourExcellency, by the Indian Government and yourpeople during my last visit to India. The visitwas a wonderful pilgrimage through ancient andmodem India.

In fact, what we feel so endearing aboutmodern India is that it is not built on abstractionsbut on the realities which are always rooted inthe past. From this prodigious past India drawsthe principles of its present development. Indeed,it is no easy task to maintain traditions whichhave partly become incompatible with the modemcurrents and to adapt science and technology tothe solution of pressing problems, for technologi-cal progress in its narrowest sense can affectadversely the human being and the traditionalvalues.

Yet it is this difficult path that India andVietnam have chosen to tread.

The intellectual and moral support indispen-

sable to the pursuit of such a path must befound in the humanism of Mahatma Gandhi,a humanism based on the teachings of Gandhi,which causes man to sacrifice himself, in love andin joy, in the interest of the common good.

I think that it is in the spirit of suchhumanism that we can find both the courageto persist in our efforts and the sacrifices requiredby the creation of our present industrial structure.Perhaps we shall also find the intellectual stimulusto break the present technological rigidity in orderto make it more flexible and adapt it to the needsof man instead of adapting man to technology.

If in the world of to-day there is an impera-tive appeal to social justice and equality, thereexists also among the people, bewildered anduprooted by the rapid pace of technologicaldevelopments, a keen desire for spiritual inter-change. The intellectual and moral endeavoursof India, like its present experiment, which YourExcellency has just given us an outline, is, to agreat extent, an answer to that desire.

It is in this conviction that I invite you,

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

to join me in a toast to the health of my noblefriend, President Rajendra Prasad, and to thesuccess of his high mission.

VIETNAM INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

TIBET

Prime Minister's Statements in Lok Sabha on Tibet

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made two statements in the Lok Sabha on Tibet.

Following is the text of the statement hemade on March 23, 1959 :

Recent reports about happenings in the Tibetregion of China have naturally aroused a greatdeal of interest in the country. The sequence ofevents is not quite clear to us. But I should liketo make a brief statement on the principal factsin so far as we know them. Last week, on the17th March, in the course of the discussion on theDemands for the Ministry of External Affairs,I referred briefly to the tense situation there. Imentioned that there had been a clash of willsalthough no major violence had occurredrecently.

87

We have since received fuller informationfrom our Consul General in Lhasa. It appearsthat various rumours in regard to the Dalai Lamacaused excitement in Lhasa. About two weeksago, a large crowd of Tibetans entered the pre-mises of the Indian Consulate General. Theyspoke to our Consul General about the rumoursand their apprehensions. Three days later, a largenumber of Tibetan women came to our ConsulateGeneral and requested our Consul General toaccompany them to the Chinese Foreign Bureauand be a witness to their presenting certaindemands. The Consul General told them thatthis was not proper and he could not accompanythem or associate himself with any demonstration.The Consul General brought these incidents tothe notice of the Chinese Foreign Bureau atLhasa. He had rightly decided not to interferein those internal affairs.

On the 20th March, fighting suddenly brokeout between the Chinese troops and Tibetanelements. There was firing in the vicinity of ourConsulate General and some stray bullets hit ourbuilding. For some time it was not possible forthe Consul General to go out of the premises.All our staff and their families are safe and nosignificant damage to property has been reported.Apparently, the situation in Lhasa has somewhatquietened down.

There are about thirty members of our staffin the Consulate General at Lhasa. Together withtheir families, the number is about 100. There

are also sixteen other Indian nationals in theLhasa region about whom we have no fullinformation at present.

As soon as the fighting broke out in Lhasa,we requested the Chinese Government, throughour Ambassador in Peking and the ChineseAmbassador here, to ensure the fullest protectionto our personnel and properties in Lhasa and theypromised to do so. On the 21st March, arepresentative of the Chinese Foreign Bureau inLhasa called on our Consul General and suggestedto him that for the better protection of himselfand his staff, they should move into the ForeignBureau. We have instructed our Consul Generalto inform the Foreign Bureau that it will not beright or proper for our Consul General to leavethe premises. A large number of Indian nationalsare involved, including the families of our per-sonnel, and there are valuable preperties andrecords within our premises. In accordance withinternational law and usage, our Consul Generaland his staff and our records and properties areentitled to the fullest protection and we have nodoubt that the Chinese Government will see thereasonableness of our request.

This outbreak of violence in Lhasa itself is anew development. Previously there had beenconflicts in various parts of Southern Tibetbetween the Khampas and the Chinese forces.But the Lhasa region had remained quiet.

The House will appreciate that this is adifficult and delicate situation and we shouldavoid doing anything which will worsen it. Wehave no intention of interfering in the internalaffairs of China with whom we have friendlyrelations. In 1954 the Sino-Indian Agreementwas concluded. It was in this that, for the firsttime, the principle of Panch Sheel was stated.

There is a long tradition of cultural andreligious ties between India and the Tibet regionof China. In this region lie many places ofpilgrimage which are considered holy by bothHindus and Buddhists and large numbers of ourpeople visit them every year. The Dalai Lama,whom we had the honour and pleasure of receivingin our country in 1956-57, is held in high venera-tion by our people and we hope he is safe. Weearnestly trust that the present troubles will beresolved peacefully.

Our Consul General at Lhasa and his staffare in difficult situation for reasons beyond theircontrol. I have no doubt that the House willwish me to send our best wishes on this occasionto him and to our other representatives in thisTibet region.

Following is the text of the statement thePrime Minister made in Lok Sabha on March30, 1959 :

The Speaker : It is clear that there is noquestion of censure involved in this. All Hon.Members are anxious to know as to what exactlyis the matter.

The Prime Minister : These adjournmentmotions as adjournment motions, if I may say so,can hardly arise. But so far as I am concerned,I do not wish to take shelter under any technicalplea of not giving any information that I thinkought to be given. Indeed subject to certain verybroad considerations to which Shri Tyagi referredI wish to place all the information that we getbefore the House as it comes in and I propose todo so in the future too. It is not necessary forHon. Members to demand a statement from mebut I shall do so whenever any important piece ofinformation comes. I shall place it before theHouse.

88

At the present moment we have a mass ofstatements in the Press, rumours, allegations,statements of the Chinese Government from whichit is a little difficult to sort out exactly the truthof what is happening. We have one thing onwhich you can certainly say that there it is.There are Press communiques issued by theGovernment of the People's Republic of China.I do not understand why Hon. Members bringin the news agency in this matter. It is a Govern-ment communique and the news agency did acompletely right thing in placing the official com-munique before us and before the public. Youmay not like the wording of the communique orthe content of it. That is a different matter.But it is the duty of a news agency to deal withsuch an important matter and not to suppress itbut to place it before the public.

May I also refer to what for instance, anHon. Member has talked about the massing oftroops. Now, I am completely unaware of this.In fact, I have not heard a rumour to that effect,leave out the facts. And he wants an adjournmentmotion because there is massing of troops on theIndian border.

The Prime Minister said : All kind ofthings are appearing in the Press which again arebased sometimes presumably on reports not fromwithin Tibet but from outside Tibet, whether it isHong Kong or whether it is any other place. Ido not say that any such rumour must necessarilybe wrong. How can I say that ? But, normallyspeaking, they are not correct. Any how, myinformation is that there is no massing of troopson the Indian border, so far as I know. Howcan I discuss it when I do not accept that fact ?

But, the major things that we have to considerare, as I said on the last occasion, the contacts ofIndia with Tibet are very old, geographical, ofcourse, trade, but much more so, culturaland religious. Vast numbers of pilgrimsgo from here and some come from Tibet to India.So that, this contact, this relationship is some-thing deeper than the changing political scene.Naturally we are affected by it. Apart from that,as I said on the last occasion, large numbers ofpeople in India venerate the Dalai Lama, respecthim very greatly and he was our honouredguest some time ago. Because of these contactsour reaction to anything that happens in Tibet isbound to be very deep, as we see it. It is not forme to object to those reactions. But, we have tobear them in mind.

May I say that all these questions that havebeen recently put about giving political asylumare, probably, of no service at all to the peoplewho might seek political asylum in India ? It isno good. One has to see the difficult situationas it is and not merely create conditions whichmake it more difficult to deal with the situationor deal with the persons seeking political asylum.There it is. Whatever I say in regard to that willmake it more difficult for these people, I say. Sothat, on the one side there is this feeling of acertain kinship, if I may use that word, culturalkinship between the people of India and the peopleof Tibet.

That, of course, does not mean that weinterfere in Tibet, in any way. We did interfere,not we, I mean, but the previous Government ofIndia took an expedition to Lhasa under Col.Younghusband, 55 years ago. It very muchinterfered, imperialist intervention. They satdown there and imposed the British Government'swill, acting through the then Government of Indiaon Tibet and imposed our troops there in Tibet,in Yatung, Gyantse. All kinds of extra-territorialprivileges were imposed on Tibet because Tibetwas weak and there was the British Empire.With some variations, we inherited these specialextra-territorial privileges when India becameindependent.

Regardless of what happened in Tibet orChina or anywhere, we could not, according toour own policy, maintain our forces in a foreigncountry, even if there had been no change inTibet. That was a relic of British Imperialismwhich we did not wish to continue. We had towithdraw them back. It so happened that soonafter this change in the Government in China-about that time, soon after-their armies marchedinto Tibet. What I am venturing to say is thatthe policy we adopted towards Tibet would havebeen adopted regardless of what China did andwe would have withdrawn our forces, etc. Thatwas the main thing we did.

The Prime Minister said : Apparently peopleseem to imagine that we surrendered someprivileges in Tibet. The privileges which wesurrendered in Tibet were privileges which we donot seek to have in any other country in the world,Tibet or any other. it was patent from thestrictly practical point of view, even apart fromsentiment, that we could not do anything in Tibeteither in law, constitutionally or practically.

Our attitude and historically, previously-I am not going to the past history of 500 years-the position of all previous Governments in Indiaand elsewhere has been the recognition of somekind of suzerainty or sovereignty of China over

89

Tibet and Tibetan autonomy. That was normallythe basis of approach. The measure of the auto-nomy has varied, because the strength of China, orthe weakness of China, the strength of Tibet, and

the weakness of Tibet has varied in the course ofthe last hundreds of years. But, that is the position.Every Government in China has claimed that.Many Governments in Tibet have repudiatedthat. So, there it is. Anyhow, we could notbecome judges or interfere or intervene either inlaw, or in fact, or in the circumstances, we coulddo nothing. That is just past history.

May I say one thing to the House ? Whenthe Premier of the Chinese Government camehere 3 or 4 years ago or 2 1/2 years ago, be discussedthis question of situation in Tibet with me at hisown instance. I did not raise it so far as Iremember. He told me then that Tibet hadalways been, according to him and according tothe Chinese position, a part of the Chinese State;that is, they have always claimed it and they havehad it, according to him ; but yet, Tibet was notChina. Tibet is not China ; Tibet is not aprovince of China. Tibet is an autonomousregion which has been a part of the Chinese State.That was, as I remember, his words. Therefore,we want to treat it as an autonomous region andgive it full autonomy. That is how he explainedthe Chinese Government's attitude to Tibet. AllI can say was that we had to recognise Chinesesovereignty over Tibet. But, I was glad to hearMr. Chou En-lai laying such stress on Tibetanautonomy. I said, if this was fully acted uponand was well known to Tibetans, possibly thedifficulties would be much less, because, Iremember, difficulties had arisen already, threeyears ago.

For nearly three years, there has been whatis called the Khampa revolt in China. Khamparegion, although it consists of people of Tibetanorigin, is not technically Tibet now. About 50or 60 years ago, the Khampa region in EasternTibet was incorporated in China. It was neverreally adequately controlled or ruled by anyauthority, Tibetan or Chinese, because Khampasare mountain people, rather tough people, notliking anybody ruling them.

When the new Chinese Government came in,quite apart from Tibet proper, the Khampa regionwas in China proper. They started introducingtheir new reforms or changes, whatever they didin land or otherwise in the Khampa region. Thatbrought them into trouble with the Khampas inTibet-not actually in Tibet, but the Tibetans in

China, you may say. That trouble started 2 or3 years ago or more than that-about three yearsago, locally confined there. Then it spread andit spread to the south and south-east chiefly.Naturally one does not have details. But, it wasa kind of guerilla activities which went on causingmuch trouble to both the parties and damage andall that. That has been continuing. When thePremier Chou En-lai talked to me, this Khampatrouble had started. It is not a kind of troublewhich is of great military importance to everyGovernment: not that; it is a nuisance and itprevents things from settling down.

That has been continuing. Nothing new hashappened except that in some border some convoyhas been attacked or taken away or somethinghas been happening. The new thing, what hashappened in Lhasa, may I say, has not flown fromthat; it is really a completely new development.The very matter was mentioned by me in thisHouse and to the Press here the moment we heardof fighting there. Previous to that, only a fewdays previously, I had spoken in this House andtalked about the conflict of wills there. I thoughtthat expression was a good expression to describewhat was happening there because there was noviolence at that stage. Nobody had hit anybody.But, this conflict had come out in the open in thesense of people talking in the open. It lasted 3, 4or 5 days when actual firing began. I cannot saywho began it, but it began. Normally, one wouldsay that where it is a question of military might, theChinese Government is much stronger than somekind of local recruits of the Tibetan Army. It isobvious. So, that has been the backgroundof it.

Now, it is unfortunate that all this damage isdone. I do not know what damage has beendone, but some considerable damage has beendone to some of the old monasteries in Lhasa,and may be, some valued manuscripts havesuffered thereby ; and all that has happened, andour sympathies go out very much to the Tibetans.

The Prime Minister ;........ quite apart fromthe actual incidents, what happened, who was toblame and who was not to blame.

In the press today, the Chinese News Agencyhas published some letters, which, it is said, havebeen written by the Dalai Lama to the Chinese

Governor, the military Governor of Lhasa, just inthis month. I would not like to say anythingabout those letters. I should like to have a littlegreater confirmation about them, about what theyare, in what circumstances they were written,whether they were written at all. It is verydifficult; because all these things are being said byvarious parties, it is exceedingly difficult to sift the

90

truth out of this lot of chaff. And whatever Imay say, whatever my Government may do, mayhave far-reaching consequences.

We talk about Tibet, and we want to havefriendly relations with the people of Tibet, and wewant them to progress in freedom and all that.At the same time, it is important for us to havefriendly relations with this great country ofChina. That does not mean that I or thisGovernment or this Parliament or anyone elseshould submit to any kind of dictation from anycountry, however great or big it may be.

The Prime Minister said: That is not thepoint. But it also does mean that in a difficultsituation, we should exercise a certain measure ofrestraint and wisdom in dealing with her, andnot in an excited moment do something whichmay lead our country into difficulties. (Interrup-tions).

Today is the 30th of this month. It was onthe 20th, the early morning of the 20th, thatfiring began-it is now ten days-in a countryfrom which no news comes, except rumour. Theonly news that has come to us or to the wideworld-I am leaving out China ; they might havesome special-ways of getting news-the only newsthat came was from our Consul-General's tele-grams to us. We got them pretty rapidly.

But what can the Consul-General report ?Remember that too. The Consul-General reportsby and large what he sees from the window ofhis consulate. Obviously, he cannot tell us whatis happening all over Tibet. He does not know.He is in touch with Lhasa, and more or less Lhasais what he can see from his consulate, just roundabout what buildings firing took place, and he canreport it. He cannot even tell us what is happeningin Lhasa itself. He cannot tell us precisely and

definitely what has happened to our nationals whoare spread out. He can tell us definitely thatour staff in our consulate is safe. He can tellus also that so far as he knows our other Indiannationals are safe, but he is not certain, becausehe just cannot reach them, so that all news hasbeen cut off, and it comes to us in extremely smalldriblets, news that we can rely upon. And itbecomes difficult for me to make statements orto say that we shall take some action, because ofvague rumours which are obviously not alwaysreliable.

Now, may I just say one word-I think Ihave answered it-about the people from Ladakh?It has been the old custom of people from Ladakhto go to Lhasa, and they do not take any travelpapers or anything. They go for courses ofinstruction. Lhasa is in a sense their spiritualcentre, their educational centre, from the Buddhistpoint of view. So, plenty of people go there. Atthe present moment, I have been informed thatfour head abbots from Leh are there, as well as-I forgot the number,-about 30, or 40 or 50-orit may be somewhere about a hundred-monksand others who have gone there. We have notgot them on our register there, because they simplycome and go, and do not report to us. But assoon as I heard about this two days ago, we aremaking inquiries about them.

Now, I come to the statements issued presum-ably by the Chinese Government. Now, thosestatements give a narrative of facts according tothem, and I have nothing to say to that. I canneither confirm it nor deny it, because it is notin my, knowledge to make a firm statement ; if itwas, I would make it.

As I said, so far as the letters which are saidto have been written by the Dalai Lama areconcerned, they are rather surprising letters. Butmore I cannot say ; I should like to know moreabout them before I say.

There are two things mentioned in this state-ment of the Chinese authorities. One is aboutKalimpong. About that, as soon as that appeared,the External Affairs Ministry, through a spokes-man, contradicted that statement or corrected it. Isuppose Hon. Members have seen it, but I shallread it out or part of it, if they have not,

"Asked for his comments on the descrip- tion of Kalimpong as 'the commanding centre of the rebellion' in the news communique released ... an official spokes- man of the Ministry of External Affairs emphatically repudiated the suggestion. He said that a number of people from Tibet have been residing in Kalimpong for many years..."

-many years meaning twenty, thirty, forty, fiftyand more-

"...and among them are some who arri- ved during the last three or four years."

It is not many, it may be in dozens, perhaps.

"The Government of India have repea- tedly made it clear to them that they should not indulge in any propaganda activities against a friendly Government on Indian soil. The last warning was91

given about six months ago and since then these persons have remained quiet. There have been no unlawful activities in Kalimpong or elsewhere either by these people or others. It is, therefore, entirely incorrect to say that Kalimpong is the centre of any rebellious activities. The check-posts on the India-Tibet border are adequately manned and the strictest watch is always maintained on movements between India and Tibet."

Now, an Hon. Member wanted precise infor-mation as to whether the Chinese Governmenthad complained to us about Kalimpong. I shalltell him, so far as I can remember, in the last fewmonths, maybe, a year, there has been nocomplaint ; but there were on two occasionsperhaps, two or may be three in the last three orfour years, references to Kalimpong, to somepeople in Kalimpong carrying on propagandaand like activities. Our position has always been,and we have made it quite clear to people whocame from Tibet, important people, that 'Youare welcome to come here, but we cannot allowIndian soil to be used for subversive activities oreven aggressively propagandist activities againstfriendly Governments'. That general policy of

ours applies to every Embassy that is here ; maybe sometimes, they overstep the mark or we donot object when we might have objected. Thatapplies to every Embassy here or every foreignerhere. So that was the rule that we followed. And ontwo or three occasions, some leaflet came out inKalimpong, which we thought was undesirable,and we drew the attention of the people who hadbrought it out, saying 'You should not do this,this kind of thing from Indian soil'. And ourinstructions and warnings bad effect, so far as weknow we are not aware, in fact, in the last manymonths, of any activity in Kalimpong ; it may bein people's minds there ; naturally, they mayhave feelings ; they may have sentiments. But Iam merely saying that it is wrong to say thatKalimpong was a kind of centre from whichactivities were organised.

An Hon. Member: Has the Prime Ministerread Elizabeth Partridge's article which has comein one of the papers where she says that she hascontacted the rebels ? It has come out in thepapers.

The Prime Minister : I have not read thatparticular article. I do not know to which articlethe Hon. Lady Member is referring. In one ortwo cases, foreign correspondents have gone andtalked to people there in Kalimpong or whereverit is ; I do not know where, it may be Kalimpongor it may be elsewhere, but they have notmentioned names or the place or the individualscontacted. And they have given an account fromthe point of view, more or less, of those peoplein Tibet, who were on the site of the revolt. ThatI cannot catch, I cannot get it, but broadly speak-ing, it is wrong to say that Kalimpong has been thecentre. Certainly, we have very good control ofour check-posts, of people coming and going fromTibet to India, and nobody in Kalimpong caneasily come or go, and you cannot control some-thing where the movement is not easy.

I am told that when we enquired aboutElizabeth Partridge's article, we found she hadnot gone anywhere near the border; she badwritten it from far away.

The second point to which reference hasbeen made by Hon. Members is to what is said inthose press statements about our discussions here.It is not necessary for me to say that it is open

to this House, this Parliament, and it is completelyfree to say or do what it chooses, to discuss anymatter it chooses, subject always to the necessitiesof good sense and wisdom of which you, Sir, arethe best judge. Nobody else outside this Houseis going to judge.

Unfortunately, the methods of governmentand the way legislatures and organisations functionin China are different from ours. Perhaps it isnot quite realised there, the background or theway of our functioning. Quite apart from whatwe do, or whether what any Hon. Member saysis right or wrong, he has the right to say it; he hasthe right to say the wrong thing, as many Hon.Members on the opposite side know very well.

The Prime Minister said : It is, I suppose,a little difficult for people trained in a differenttradition for a long time to understand the normalways in which a parliamentary system of Govern-ment functions, and we should not be over-eagerto find fault with somebody who does not agreewith us, who describes our system in a differentway, but certainly it should be made perfectlyclear to all concerned that this Parliament is notgoing to be limited in the exercise of its right ofdiscussion, saying or action or anything, by anyexternal or internal authority, whoever it may be.Having said that, obviously that right has to beexercised always with wisdom and always thinkingof the consequences, and how that right should beexercised.

92

CHINA USA INDIA HONG KONG CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS

Joint Communique

A five-man official delegation of the SovietUnion led by Mr. A.A. Andreyev, a member of thePresidium of the Supreme Soviet, U.S.S.R., paid,a visit to India from February 24 to March19, 1959.

The delegation held a series of talks in NewDelhi with Prime Minister Nehru and otherIndian leaders.

At the conclusion of the delegation's visitto this country a Joint communique was issued inNew Delhi on March 19,1959.

The following is the text of the communique:

On the invitation of the Government ofIndia, a Government Delegation of the SovietUnion consisting of Member of the Presidiumof the Supreme Soviet, U.S.S.R., Mr. A.A.Andreyev (Leader of the Delegation), Chairmanof the Foreign Affairs Commission of theSupreme Soviet, U.S.S.R., Mr. N.A. Mukhitdinov,as also First Chairman of the Council ofMinisters of the Georgian S.S.R. and Ministerof Foreign Affairs, Mr. M.I. Kuchava, Memberof the State Committee of the Council ofMinisters, U.S.S.R., for Foreign Economic Rela-tions, Mr. A.G. Sheremetiev, and the Chief ofthe South-East Asia Department of the Ministryof External Affairs, U.S.S.R., Mr. V.I. Likhachev,made an official State visit to India from the24th of February to the 19th of March, 1959.

During their travel in India, the Delegationwere accompanied by the Ambassador of U.S.S.R.in India, Mr. P.K. Ponomarenko, and theAmbassador of India in U.S.S.R., Mr.K.P.S. Menon.

The Delegation visited different parts ofthe country and had talks with leaders in Delhias well as in other parts of India. The Delegationhad the opportunity to visit different enterprisesand new constructions such as the multipurposeproject at Bhakra Nangal, the ChittaranjanLocomotive Factory, the Cable Factory atChittaranjan, the Chemical Factory in Sindri, thewagon Building Factory in Perambur and otherenterprises. The Delegation visited the steelmill which is being put up in Bhilai with theassistance of the Soviet Union and also was

present at the opening of the Indian TechnologicalInstitute in Bombay in the setting up of whichconsiderable help has been extended by theSoviet Union directly as also through the UnitedNations. The Delegation saw a number ofagricultural farms, visited many villages, ScientificResearch Institute schools and hospitals. Theyalso saw several historical monuments.

On arrival in India, the Delegation handedover to the Prime Minister, Shri JawaharlalNehru, a letter from the Chairman of the Councilof Ministers. U.S.S.R., Mr. N.S. Khrushchev.This letter underlines the international significanceof the Seven-Year Plan of the economic develop-ment of the U.S.S.R. and expresses the convictionthat at present there are considerable possibilitiesfor further develepment of all-round co-operationbetween India and the Soviet Union for thebenefit of the peoples of both the countries andin the interest of permanent peace in the wholeworld. The letter also conveyed the agreementof the Soviet Union to extend to India assistancein the construction of the Oil Refinery Factoryin Barauni and cooperation in the developmentof the Pharmaceutical Industry of India.

The Delegation had a number of talks withthe Prime Minister of India, Mr. Nehru, andwith other leading personalities. During thesetalks a number of important international prob-lems such as disarmament, the question of apeace treaty with Germany, the Berlin problem,the creation of areas of peace free from atomicweapons in South-East Asia and in thePacific ocean area, the cessation of the tests ofnuclear weapons, the recently concluded bilateralmilitary agreements between the U.S.A. andPakistan, Turkey and Iran were discussed. Inthe course of these talks, both sides agreed tocontinue their efforts for the reduction of inter-national tension and to assist the cause of peace andalso expressed themselves in favour of the speedyconclusion of an agreement between the greatpowers possessing atomic weapons for theimmediate suspension of the tests of suchweapons. Both sides noted with great satisfactionthat the visit of the Soviet Government Delegationto India made a valuable contribution to thefurther strengthening of friendly relations betweenboth countries.

Wherever the Delegation went, they were

given a cordial welcome. From their side, theDelegation were happy to have the opportunityto convey to the Government and the peopleof India the feelings of sincere friendship whichthe Government and the people of the Soviet

93

Union have towards them. The Delegation ex-pressed deep thanks for the warm and cordialwelcome extended to them.

The Government of India were happy toreceive the Soviet Government Delegation and tohave the opportunity to exchange with them viewson a number of important problems. The Gov-ernment of India and the Soviet GovernmentDelegation trust that the exchange of viewswill be continued and contribute towards thefurther development of Soviet-Indian cooperationin the economic, cultural and scientific fieldsas also in the task of ensuring peace in the world.

USA INDIA UNITED KINGDOM GEORGIA GERMANY IRAN PAKISTAN TURKEY

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Indo-U.S. Agreements Signed

Agreements covering more than Rs. 100crores lying in the account of the Government ofU.S.A., on account of the sale of agriculturalcommodities imported under U.S. Public Laws480 and 665 were signed in New Delhi onMarch 18, 1959.

The major portion of these funds arose outof the PL-480 agreement signed on August 29,1956 for the sale of U.S. surplus wheat, rice,cotton, dairy products and tobacco to Indiaagainst rupee payments. The amounts are being

made available to India for meeting the rupeeexpenditure for the balance of the Second FiveYear Plan period on 14 public sector river valleydevelopment projects. The agreements were signed by Shri N.C.Sen Gupta, I.C.S., Joint Secretary, Ministry ofFinance, for the Government of India and byAmbassador Ellsworth Bunker, for the UnitedStates Government.

The agreements signed today are on a 40-yearrepayment basis. Of the Rs. 1,00,90,00,000involved in today's agreements, the loanportion is Rs. 94,96,00,000; the balance is agrant.

These U.S. Technical Co-operation Mission(TCM)-aided projects are in the States ofBombay, Rajasthan, Mysore, Madras, Andhra,Orissa, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradeshand West Bengal. Some of the projects whichbenefit by these agreements are : Chambal,Damodar Valley Corporation, Kosi, Rihand,Nagarjunasagar and Sharavati.

The aim of these projects is to boost India'sfood output through irrigation and raise the powerpotential by harnessing the rivers for hydro-electricpower generators. Flood control and soil con-servation are other important benefits.

The Rihand project on completion in 1961 willnot only step up electricity for eastern UttarPradesh but also bring under irrigation 14,00,000acres of agricultural land by energising 4,000 tube-wells in U.P. and Bihar, thus raising food outputby about 3,25,000 tons. Nagarjunasagar when com-pleted will irrigate some 20,00,000 acres of land.

Previous TCM assistance to River Valleyprojects in India, largely in heavy constructionequipment and technical assistance, amounts toRs. 14 crores, which consisted of both dollar andrupee funds.

USA INDIA LATVIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Avoidance of Double Taxation of Incomes

Following negotiations first in Washingtonand later in New Delhi, agreement has beenreached between the Tax Delegations of theGovernments of the United States and India attechnical level on the draft of a Convention for the avoidance of Double Taxation of Income betweenthe two countries. The Convention now-requiresto be approved by the respective Governments andratified.

The United States Delegation was led byProf. Dan Throp Smith, Special Adviser to theSecretary of the U.S. Treasury and includedMr. Nathan G. Gordon, Mr. Eldon P. King andMr. Thomas R. Favell of the U.S. Governmentand the Indian Delegation by Shri V.V. Chari,Member, Central Board of Revenue and includedShri N.H. Naqvi and Shri N.S. Sivaramakrishnanof the Central Board of Revenue.

94

USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehrumade the following statement in the Lok Sabhaon April 2, 1959:

Mr. speaker, Sir, I must express my deepregret for my absence yesterday from the House asI had gone out of Delhi. Since My return thismorning, I have tried to get myself acquaintedwith what happened in the House by reading theofficial reports. I have not read any newspaper yet.I do not know what the newspapers say. I think theofficial reports would naturally be more reliable. Imust say, reading them, although I got a gist ofwhat happened, I sensed that much of whathappened yesterday was-shall I say-I wish to saynothing disrespectful but there was an exhibition ofa certain lack of restraint, if I may say so, andcertain strong feelings which came in the way ofthe consideration of the matter that was placedbefore you and before the House.

Now, the matter is important and I can verywell understand the strong feelings and the matteris important not because of the one or two or moreadjournment motions that were moved here butbecause of what lies behind those motions. It is thatwhich has led to strong feelings in the House andin the country. The actual motions were perhapsnot very important but the other thing is important.Because the other thing is important, it is all themore necessary that we should not be led away byrelatively extraneous or minor matters into doingor saying things which affect the other major thingsat issue. They are big things at issue and in thatmatter I cannot say that every Member of thisHouse is of identical opinion. But I do think thatnearly all the Members of this House will broadlyagree. I imagine so and anyhow whether large ornot, we have to realise the importance of whatis happening and the consequences of what ishappening. We have to shape our policy keepingfull regard naturally, the first thing for the honourand dignity and the interests of India ; secondly,the honour and dignity of the causes for which westand. Also, we must remember that when conflictsarise which lead to this certain degree of passionon various sides one has to be particularly careful,especially this Honourable House whose word goout to the ends of the earth. We have to beparticularly careful at a moment of difficulty suchas this, that we function and we say whatever wehave to say with dignity and, as I ventured to saylast time, wisdom, That does not mean moderatingany policy. We follow the policy which the Housewill ultimately agree to.

Now, Sir, the two matters, as far as I can

gather, that were raised yesterday in two adjourn-ment motions were a statement issued by theCommunist Party of India and the circulation of anarticle in the People's Daily of Peking, circulationpresumably by an agency attached to the ChineseEmbassy here. These were the two matters, if I amnot mistaken.

Before I deal with them, may I, Sir, mentionone thing. Perhaps you have another adjournmentmotion today. I have received notice of it and I donot know whether you have been pleased toconsider it, but I might also deal with thatadjournment motion. There is an adjournmentmotion-there am two in fact-asking me, first ofall, as to whether them is any truth that the Chineseauthorities have expressed a wish to search thepremises of Indian Missions in Tibet or asked usto vacate those premises. Now, here is an instanceof every rumour, which is appearing in news-papers in great abundance, affecting the peoplebeing brought into the House by way of anadjournment motion or some other motion. Thereis no truth in this at all. Nobody has asked us tovacate our premises. Nobody has asked us tosearch our Missions abroad. But everything comesin in the shape of an adjournment motion orasking me to make a statement. It is very difficultto keep pace with the amount of statements whichare appearing in the Press now, coming chiefly fromKalimpong or Hongkong-those appear to be thetwo sources of information. Anyhow, there is notruth in that.

Then, again, there was another adjournmentmotion asking me whether it is true that the ChineseEmbassy sent for a top leader of the CommunistParty of India to discuss various matters with them.Now, how am I to know, Sir? I do not. I have noinformation on the subject. I can say nothing.

Another matter-it is not the subject of anadjournment motion, I think I was asked to makea statement on it-is the visit, as it is said, ofa group of Tibetans to me a day or two ago.Now, day before yesterday a large number, about125 people came to visit me. Normally speaking,Sir, every morning in my house a few hundredpeople come. It is an open door more or less.Large numbers of peasants, students and otherscome because, unfortunately, I am supposed to beone of the sights of Delhi.

Anyhow, about these 125 people, they said

95

they had come to Delhi and wanted to pay theirrespects to me. I said, certainly come. Thegreat majority of them were Indian nationals,chiefly from Darjeeling, Kalimpong and thosenorthern areas. Some were from Calcutta, thatis to say, Indian nationals of Tibetan originrepresenting some association in Calcutta, Banaras,Kalimpong and others. There were a few, Iforget how many people from Tibet proper whohad gathered here some days ago. They came.We had no discussion. They did give me a paper,a kind of a memorandum which I took, and thenI bid good-bye to them. That is all that happened.

Coming to the two matters which were referr-ed to yesterday, one was the statement of theCommunist Party of India. Now, I have, natural-ly, endeavoured to get a copy of that statementand read it carefully. I presume that it is acorrect copy that I have. I have no reason todoubt its correctness, but I cannot guarantee that.

I have read it carefully and, if I may expressmy own opinion about it, the whole backgroundof the statement is not one with which I wouldagree. I do not agree with it. There are certainslants with which I do not agree. But thequestion before us, I take it, is not whether weagree with the statement or not slant given inthat statement or not, but, rather, if any greatimpropriety has been committed by the issue ofthat statement. I am not myself quite clear how,normally speaking, if a statement is issued by apolitical party outside that statement becomes thesubject matter of an adjournment motion in thisHouse. It is not clear to me. Of course, eachcase depends upon the content but, broadlyspeaking,-whether one agrees with the statementor disagrees is a completely different matter-political parties sometimes attack each other,criticise each other, or say something whichanother party may consider very objectionable.But, nevertheless, it is not clear to me how thismatter can be raised by way of an adjournmentmotion.

Now, it has been stated that it was raisedbecause this statement challenged the bona fidesof what I had said two days before about

Kalimpong. I have read the statement carefully.What I would say is this, that it does notprecisely and explicitly do that. But it doescertainly throw a hint that what I might have saidwhether through mis-information or otherwise,might not be correct, so that I do not quite knowwhat to do about it.

I shall repeat and, perhaps, a little more fullywhat I did previously, what I said about Kalim-pong. You will remember, Sir, that in certainstatements issued by the Chinese GovernmentKalimpong was referred to as the CommandingCentre of the Tibetan rebellion, and I said this isnot true at all, and the External Affairs Ministryhad also denied this. At the same time, I hadsaid that I have often said that Kalimpong hasbeen a centre of trouble. Kalimpong, Sir, has been often described asa nest of spies, spies of innumerable nationalities,not one, spies from Asia, spies from Europe,spies from America, spies of Communists, spiesof anti-Communists, red spies, white spies, bluespies, pink spies and so on. Once a knowledge-able person who knew something about thismatter and was in Kalimpong actually said tome, though no doubt it was a figure of speech,that there were probably more spies in Kalim-pong than the rest of the inhabitants puttogether. That is an exaggeration. But it hasbecome in the last few years, especially in thelast seven or eight years. As Kalimpong is moreor less perched near the borders of India, andsince the developments in Tibet some years agosince a change took place there, it became ofa great interest to all kinds of people outsideIndia, and many people have come there invarious guises, sometimes a technical people,sometimes as bird watchers, sometimes as geolo-gists, sometimes as journalists and sometimeswith some other purpose, just to admire thenatural scenery, and so they all seem to find aninterest ; the main object of their interest, whetherit is bird watching or something else, was roundabout Kalimpong.

Naturally we have taken interest in this.We have to. While we cannot say that weknow exactly everything that took placethere, broadly we do know and we haverepeatedly taken objection to those personsconcerned or to their embassies. We have pointedthis out and we have in the past even hinted

that some people better remove themselves fromthere, and they have removed themselves. Thishas been going on for the last few years. So thereis no doubt that so far as Kalimpong is concernedthere has been a deal of espionage and counter-espionage and a complicated game of chess byvarious members of spies and counter-spies there.No doubt a person with the ability to write fictionof this kind will find Kalimpong an interestingplace for some novel of that type.

An Hon. Member: What is the Home Ministrydoing about it? It seems to be absolutely ineffective.

The Prime Minister : The Home Ministry or

96

the External Affairs Ministry are not at all worriedabout the situation.

An Hon. Member : They allow the spiesto espionage ?

The Prime Minister: Absolutely yes, firstof all, because when we suspect a person of espio-nage we keep a watch over him. If he does some-thing patently wrong we take action, but thereare certain limitations in the law, as the Housevery well knows and we cannot function merelybecause we suspect somebody, and we have takenaction in the past in regard to some people.

Now, about this particular matter, the state-ment by the Chinese Government, please rememberthe statement, "this was the commanding centre ofTibetan rebellion". I cannot say--how can I--thatnobody in Kalimpong has indulged in espionageagainst the Chinese Government or against anyother Government. I cannot say. Somebodywhispers something to somebody else's car.But I did repudiate and I repudiate today that tosay Kalimpong has been the commanding centrehas given it a place in this matter which is, I think,completely untrue.

Now, in the past several years-and I saidso on the last occasion-the Chinese Governmenthas drawn our attention to what they said wereactivities in the Kalimpong area, that is, activitiesaimed against them. And repeatedly we havemade enquiries; apart from our normal enquirieswe have made special enquiries. I say this because

I find that in the Communist party's statementwe are asked to have an investigation. In sofar as espionage activities are concerned we haveinvestigated them several times. One cannotinvestigate those activities in any other way exceptthrough intelligence methods. That is beingdone. We have fairly full reports about it. Ihave got-I need not go into it-a fairly fullnote as to when the protest came from theChinese Government. Three or four years agoit was mentioned to me and it was mentioned toour Ambassador some years ago, and we enquiredand we took action. Sometimes we found thattheir protests or the facts that they stated didnot have any particular basis. They would say,for instance, that an Organisation in Kalimpongwas doing something or other. We found therewas no such Organisation in Kalimpong at all.There were organisations there ; they were ofcourse people in Kalimpong. Everybody knowsthat. There are some emigrants from Tibet.There are old Tibetans, that is to say, who havebeen there for a generation or more, but whosefeelings may be against the Chinese Government.That is so ; there is no doubt about it, and we can-not do anything about it but we did make it per-fectly clear to them in accordance with our normalPolicy that they must not indulge in any propa-gandist activities and much less, of course, in anysubversive activities.

In the nature of things they could not domuch even if they wanted to intimate exceptperhaps-I cannot guarantee that-occasionallysend it message or receive a message. It is verydifficult to stop that but that is on a very smallscale. They could not do very much in Indiaexcept again to whisper something in somebody'scars. That I cannot stop. They may havewhispered something here and there. But it isobvious to me that they could not do much andthey did not. Once or twice a certain leafletor certain document was issued ; somebodyissued it. The moment it was issued we tookaction. We tried to trace it and we told themthat they must not have been done. This hashappened in three or four occasions. Again Irepeat,--we were charged with-it was said thatKalimpong was a commanding centre of theTibetan rebellion. I denied that statement and Ifurther said that apart from the last few yearswhen there has occasionally been a paper ora leaflet or occasionally somebody in Kalim-

pong has perhaps met somebody else, privatelyand not publicly-that can always take place-and more particularly in the last five or six monthsmore particularly I might say since we receivedthe last protest from the Chinese Government-I think the last was early in August last year-we took particular care to enquire again and wehad no complaints since then. So, even if someactivities took place there by some peoplethere previously they were of a relativelysmall nature except of course contacts, and whatcan we say about contacts, in a place which, asI said, is so full of spies-there may be contacts,somebody meeting somebody. But in the lastsix months, we have taken particular care, andwe have had no cause to think that any suchaction or activities had taken place there. Icannot conceive that Kalimpong could be--ithas been described by the Chinese Governmentas the commanding centre--a commanding centrewith the Indian Government not knowing aboutit. It is quite inconceivable to me. Some oddmessage can go or come and that is possible,but it cannot be, and to imagine that the Tibetanrebellion was organised from Kalimpong doesseem to me a statement which cannot bejustified.

An Hon'ble Member : Did the Chinese Gov-ernment in August complain that somebody was

97

organising a rebellion from there ?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Not that.They did not talk about rebellion. But so faras our records go, the first mention of it wasmade informally to us in 1956-57, whenPremier Chou En-lai came here and it was men-tioned tome and I replied that our policy wasthat we did not wish our soil-Indian soil-to beused for any subversive activities against a friendlycountry. But I also pointed out that there wereobvious limitations under our law to take actionon the basis of suspicion, and I requested hisGovernment to supply me with special cases andthat we would immediately enquire and takeaction, if necessary. Then a year and a half later,the same matter was mentioned to our Ambas-sador in Peking. At that time a photostat copyof a pamphlet which has been circulated inKalimpong was sent to us. This was about

15 or 16 months ago, i.e. in January, 1958 ; Thereis no doubt about it that that pamphlet was anti-Chinese. But on enquiry and examination, wefound that there was no such association as hadbeen described in that pamphlet and the pamphletitself, as a matter of fact, was two years old and hadbeen issued in autumn of 1956-some of ancientpamphlet which they have got. That pamphlet wasa bad one from our point of view, too, but somebogus name was given and somebody had issuedit there.

There were, in fact, two associations in Kalim-pong-one Tibetan Association, which has beenin existence for 255 years and odd and the other,the Indo-Tibetan Association brought into beingin 1954. The office-bearers of either of theseassociations were prominent emigrants, but neitherof these associations was supposed to be engagedin political activities. In July, 1958, the ForeignOffice in Peking presented a memorandum pro-testing against the use of Kalimpong area as abase for subversive and disruptive activities andfive points were mentioned. Some names ofpersons were given. We immediately enquiredinto the activities of all these persons and wemade detailed reports. We found that no doubtthese persons held views which might be saidto be anti-Chinese, but we could not get anyinformation of any activity, propagandist orsubversive.

The charge was made that they were incollusion with the United States and with theKuomintang authorities of Formosa or their repre-sentatives. Some of the prominent emigrantsin Kalimpong had previously been in the UnitedStates and lived there for some time. And, nodoubt they had their contacts there. We hadno doubt about their views about it. But wehave made it clear to them, even when they settleddown in India, that we do not want Indian soil tobe used for any subversive activities. Once whensome letter or something was sent, we particularlylooked into it and all those six persons who hadbeen named in the Chinese Government's notewere given specific warnings on the 14th ofAugust through the Deputy Commissioner ofDarjeeling and to our knowledge, since that date,they have not done so. But as I said, I cannotguarantee any secret thing.

There are three organisations mentioned in

the Chinese note, viz., the Tibetan FreedomLeague, the Kalimpong-Tibetan Welfare Con-ference and the Buddhist Association which werealleged to be engaged in collecting intelligencefrom Tibet. We could not trace any of thesethree organisations and so far as we know, theyare not in existence. Two other ones which Ihave mentioned previously were in existence andso far as we know, engaged in non-politicalactivities.

The third objection in the Chinese note wasto the reactionary views of a monthly called theTibetan Mirror, which is edited by an Indiannational of Ladakhi origin. As a matter of fact,we issued a warning to the editor, but we pointedout to the Chinese that many newspapers in Indiawere far more anti-Government, i.e. anti-Govern-ment of India, and we could not and did nottake any legal action against them.

Shri Nehru said : A statement was furthermade in the Chinese note that agents and sabo-teurs were sent into Tibet and arms weresmuggled and despatched to the rebels. But noevidence was given and we are not aware of asingle case. It is not an easy matter to crossthe border between India and Tibet. No bodycan guarantee an individual perhaps going across,but to take arms, etc., was exceedingly difficult,practically impossible, without our knowledge.

Then the Chinese Government protestedagainst agents of the Kuomintang operating inKalimpong, particularly one gentleman whosename was given. We enquired into thismatter.

In reply to a question whether all thesedetails are necessary, the Prime Minister said :I thought they were not necessary; I agree withthe Hon. Member. But this matter has beendiscussed at such considerable length and warmth.We found that this gentleman who had beennamed had been in Calcutta two years earlier and

98

had presumably returned, because we could nottrace him.

Another note was presented to us by theChinese Ambassador on the 4th August-that

was in July, the previous month-drawing ourattention to the setting up of a committeein Kalimpong for giving support to resistanceagainst violence by the Tibetan reactionaries andthat this committee was forcing people intosupport of the signature campaign, and alsodrawing attention to the alleged meeting of 15aristocrats wanting to make an appeal forsupport for Tibet We enquired into this matterand we gave him our reply that so far as theleaders were concerned, we had already warnedthem.

The House will see that all this took placein August and there has been to our knowledgenothing which we could have called objectionable,except private expression of opinion-that wecannot guarantee-during this period. Therefore,I venture to say that, in spite of the presenceof people in Kalimpong to whom the ChineseGovernment might object because they wereopposed to Chinese-Government's policy andall kinds could be made into the basis of astatement that Kalimpong was the commandingcentre of the Tibetan rebellion.

An Hon. Member : I would like to know onething. We have heard so many notes that wehave received regarding Kalimpong from ChineseGovernment. As he mentioned, in 1956, whenChou-En-lai was here and when, fortunatelyor unfortunately, Dalai Lama was here, he wasreluctant to leave this country and asked for asanctuary. Through the intervention of our PrimeMinister an assurance was given that no repressivemeasures would be taken by the local ChineseCommand and on that specific assurance, hereturned. The Prime Minister promised that hewould pay a visit soon to see that that assurancewas carried out.

The Prime Minister : What the Hon. Memberhas said is not at all correct, not at all, Thereis no question of my getting an assurance fromPremier Chou-En-lai or his giving it or myasking for it. No such question arose at all.There was a question whether Dalai Lama shouldvisit Kalimpong or not. It was in that connectionthat that was said. Naturally, we were anxiousabout Dalai Lama's security when he went toKalimpong or anywhere. We discussed this withPremier Chou-En-lai and ultimately Dalai Lamadecided to go there. We had informed the

people-the Tibetans and people of Tibetan originin Kalimpong that they will have to behave whenthe Dalai Lama went there.

They did it when he went there. So, thereis no question of assurance and all that.

About the article in the Peoples' Daily ofPeking, first of all, it is not for us to object toany article that appears in a newspaper in Peking.Obviously, if we started objecting we may disagreewith them; there are many articles in the worldpress with which we are not in agreement; someare even very consorious of India or Indianpolicy-we can answer them. The only point iswhether the circulation of that article here wasproper or improper. That is it. Now I shouldlike to point out that article appeared in Pekingwell before they could have had any report ofmy statement here. I took two days to comeacross here. But when it appeared in Peking ithad no relation to my statement. It appeared,I cannot say the exact time but probably some-time or a few hours before. They could nothave bad it. But even if they had it, they haveevery right to do what they like.

Now about the Embassy circulating papers, aquestion was raised here of, shall I say, breach ofdiplomatic privilege. There is no such thing. Itdepends, of course, on how it is done. Butreproducing a newspaper article in their owncountry can certainly not bethought of in thatlight. It may be an impropriety, it may not be theright thing to do. It is very difficult to draw theline. We have throughout been trying to impresson the various Embassies here that we do notapprove of the cold war being brought into India.That is, articles being circulated here, attackingapart from India other countries, in that sense.And, on the whole, I would say we have suc-ceeded, not completely; but I must say the foreignEmbassies here have been good enough to avoiddoing many things which I find they are doing inother countries in regard to the cold war attitude.Now, I do not wish to mention countries, butI may mention one country. If the articles thathave often appeared in the Pakistan newspaperswere circulated here frequently, well, we wouldnot approve of it, and in fact we have not in thepast approved it, because sometimes we considerthese articles very objectionable. We cannotstop them. But surely they should not be circu-

lated by an Embassy here. I have given oneinstance. I can give many other instances. Thisis an instance of the very regrettable cold warbetween Pakistan and India. But in the biggersphere of the cold war in the world many articlesappear which. use the strongest language in attack-ing the other country. We try not to have them

99

circulated here. Well, the foreign Embassies havebeen good enough to co-operate with us in thismatter. In this particular matter, as I said, it isanybody's opinion whether this was a very properthing to do or an improper thing to do, althoughI would like to draw attention to the actualphrase of it to which objection has perhaps beentaken. It is slightly different from the phraseo-logy in the Chinese Government's reference toKalimpong. Here it says the reactionaries inTibet etc. "utilising Kalimpong, which is in aforeign land, as a centre for collusion with impe-rialism", slightly different from saying thatKalimpong is the commanding centre of acollusion. May be, that may be explained bysaying that somebody met somebody andwhispered and, as such, that is collusioncertainly.

I am merely putting various aspects of thismatter. It is an unsavoury matter altogether.But I want the House to deal with this matterwith dignity and restraint, because behind allthese minor matters lie much bigger matters whichwe have to face today, tomorrow and the dayafter, and we should not allow ourselves to bediverted from that major and difficult issue byrelatively minor issues.

USA INDIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC PAKISTAN

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C. S. Jha's Statement on Non-Self-Governing Territories

Shri C.S. Jha, India's Permanent Represen-tative to the United Nations, made a statement inthe general debate in the Committee on infor-mation from Non-Self-Governing Territories, onApril 27,1959.

Following is the full text of his statement.

Mr. Chairman,

In its report to the Tenth Session of the Gene-ral Assembly, this Committee had summed up oneof the directive principles of policy to be adoptedin Non-Self-Governing Territories in the followingwords :

"To bring to every community a vision of a better way of life which, by their own efforts, they could build for themselves."

The Committee had defined this principle in rela-tion to the policies and programmes of Administer-ing Powers in Non-Self-Governing Territories inthe field of their social advancement. Educationbeing the most important and effective means ofthe advancement of a society, this aim is equallyapplicable to educational policies.

The objectives of educational activities in Non-Self-Governing Territories as summed up in Reso-lution 743 (VIll) of the General Assembly areclosely related to this directive principle of policyenunciated by the Committee on Information fromNon-Self-Governing Territories. It is in the light ofthese objectives that their advancement in theeducational field must necessarily be determined.Furthermore, the evaluation of advancement in theeducational field of the inhabitants of the Non-Self--Governing Territories must be made in the lightof the goals defined by Chapter XI of the Charterof the United Nations.

After a study of the many volumes of sum-maries and analyses of information and the greatvariety of documentation prepared for the Comm-ittee by the Secretariat, by the UNESCO and otherSpecialised Agencies of the United Nations Orga-nisation, we have formed the view that while pro-gress in the dissemination of education in Non-

Self-Governing Territories over the last three yearshas continued, the pace and the scope of such pro-gress have been limited in relation to the needs ofthose territories. If the orderly development ofthese territories towards independence and self-government is to continue unhindered, educationalactivities in these territories will need to be consi-derably expanded and intensified almost immedia-tely. We are not unaware of the difficulties, bothfinancial and administrative, faced by those whoare responsible for the formulation and implemen-tation of educational policies in Non-Self-Govern-ing Territories. We have been, and are now, faceto face with these difficulties in our own country.We appreciate the efforts that the AdministeringPowers are making to achieve the objectives ofeducation in Non-Self-Governing Territories enun-ciated by the General Assembly in its Resolutionto which I have already referred. Nevertheless,despite notable progress in some individual territo-ries, the progress on the whole in the sphere ofeducation has fallen far short of the needs of thepeople, of their passionate desire for educationand of the pace with which Non-Self-GoverningTerritories are moving towards the realisation of

100

the goal of self-government under the impact ormodern world conditions.

In some of the Non-Self-Governing Territo-ries, particularly those under the administration ofthe United States of America, educational progresshas been truly spectacular. A few decades ago therewas nothing in these territories to distinguish themfrom the rest of the Non-Self-Governing Territo-ries in the matter of educational advancement. To-day in these territories primary education is freeand compulsory; secondary education, technicaland vocational education are available to the in-habitants free of cost and in adequate measures; andhigher education not only in the academic fieldbut also in the professional fields, such as medicine,technology and engineering, has made rapidstrides.

Impressive progress has been achieved,especially in the field of primary education, inthe Australian Territory of Papua, where localenvironment and the backwardness of the in-habitants constitute special difficulties comparedto other territories. Papua is, perhaps, the only

territory where not only education imparted bythe State but also by Missionary organisations. Iscompletely free. This is an example whichdeserves special mention and emulation.

In terms of numbers, comparatively speaking,the task was easier in the territories under NewZealand administration, but we are impressed bythe zeal and success with which the AdministeringAuthority has tackled this task, and we are happyto note that educational policies and programmesof the Administering Authority in the CookIslands, in the Nieu Islands and the TokelauIslands have evoked the enthusiasm and thesupport of the people for whose benefit they wereintended.

Since this Committee examined educationalconditions in Non-Self-Governing Territories indetail in 1956, some considerable progress in thespread of primary and secondary education, andin the "vertical" expansion of educational facili-ties in French West Africa, has been achieved.For these achievements the Administering Autho-rities deserve our warm praise and commendation.

My delegation is not unconscious of thegenuine, sustained and well-intentioned effortswhich the United Kingdom is making for theexpansion and development of educational facili-ties, especially primary education, in territoriesunder its administration and control. Theseefforts are bearing fruit in Nigeria, where theformulation and implementation of educationalpolicies are now largely in the hands of indigenousauthorities. But on the whole, governmentalprogrammes and plans for the dissemination ofeducation are only now beginning to assumetangible proportions, and it is rather early toevaluate and assess their magnitude and theirimpact on the needs of the peoples concerned.In these territories and in the Congo underBelgian administration there are both bright anddark facets to the educational policies underimplementation. Of these, I shall speak later.

My delegation deeply regrets that thiscommittee is deprived of the presence of aBelgian Representative in our midst. While theGovernment of Belgium submits information tothe Secretary-General, they seem to maintain thatthis information is merely intended for the benefitof the Secretary-General and that the United

Nations or this Committee have no business toanalyse and study and pass judgement on it. Weentirely disagree with this view. Ten years havepassed since the stand of the Belgian Governmentwas first taken. Much has happened during theseyears. If there is one thing which characterisesthe last decade, it is that colonial regimes aredisappearing sometimes in an orderly mannerthrough, wise and peaceful transfer of power andsometimes as a result of unfortunate violent up-heavals. And the valuable harmonising role ofthe United Nations in this process through theexercise of its functions through this Committeeunder Article XI of the Charter and otherwisecannot now be denied or questioned., We hopethat the Government of Belgium will reconsidertheir attitude and, like many other AdministeringAuthorities whose representatives are with usto-day, decide to participate in the deliberationsof this Committee. I need hardly add that theactive co-operation of Belgium in the work ofthis Committee will be in full accord both withthe letter and spirit of the principles and purposesof Chapter XI of the Charter and, while benefitingthis Committee, will also prove of some benefitto them.

Mr. Chairman, it is one of the greatesttragedies of our time that two of the largestAfrican territories, namely, Angola and Mozam-bique, and a few smaller territories, which areNon-Self-Governing Territories in every sense ofthe phrase, are not so regarded by the colonialpower that administers them and by a few like-minded friends of that power. They are regardedas part of Portugal itself. In spite of all thelegalism and tenacity with which this view ismaintained, our Delegation consider that themyth of such territories forming part of themetropolitan country cannot obscure the real fact

101

of their being no different from a colony. In theabsence of the information which ought to be sub-mitted to the United Nations under Article 73 ofthe Charter by a colonial power which is a memberof the United Nations, we can only extend oursympathies to the peoples of these territories whoin this latter half of the Twentieth Centurycontinue to bear the yoke of colonialism and tosuffer exploitation in speechless sorrow. MyDelegation endorses the view expressed by the

delegation of Ghana that the General Assemblyshould take urgent measures to ensure the imple-mentation of Article 73 in respect of territoriesunder Portuguese administration.

Article 73 recognises the principle that theinterests of the inhabitants of Non-Self-GoverningTerritories are paramount and that it is the sacredduty of the administering powers to promote. to theutmost, these interests. This Article proceeds todefine these interests as advancement in political,economic, social and educational fields. Appro-priately, the pride of place is given by the Charterto the political interests of the inhabitants.namely, their development towards self-govern-ment in accordance with their political aspirationsand according to their particular circumstances.The promotion of economic, social and educa-tional interests of these inhabitants is regarded,as if it were, not an end in itself, but as a meansto a much larger end, namely, the political eman-cipation of these peoples. The relationshipbetween education and self-government, as was soaptly and so forcefully pointed out by the re-presentative of Ghana the other day, is real anddecisive. There cannot be any real promotion ofthe economic and social interests of a people,self-governing or non-self-governing, without thespread of education. Moreover, as I stated theother day during my intervention in the debateon sub-item (a) of item 4, an), Non-Self-Govern-ing Territory in which education has advanced toany tangible degree, the goal of independencecannot be far. In the reverse it is also true thatwhen self-government approaches and the inhabi-tants of a territory are in a position to lead activeand extensive participation in the formulationand implementation of educational policies, thespread of education assumes new and unforeseenproportions. It was therefore, that in my secondintervention in the deliberations of this CommitteeI emphasised the necessity of increasing, in allNon-Self-Governing Territories and by all meanspossible, the active participation of inhabitantsthemselves in the preparation and implementationof plans for educational development. In theterritories where such participation has been realand effective, educational progress has beenremarkable: and where such participation hasbeen permitted grudgingly or has not beengranted at an education is in a sad state. Wesincerely hope that in such territories as Kenya,Uganda, Bechualand and others renewed and

more vigorous efforts win be made in theimmediate future to transfer the control andimplementation of educational policies to thepeoples concerned, and that participation shall notbe limited to merely an advisory role eitherthrough parent-teacher associations or throughvillage, district or tribal councils.

Mr. Chairman, if, as I pointed out the otherday, the ends of education are to enable a man orwoman to cam his or her living, to equip him toplay his part as a useful citizen of a free and demo-cratic society and to enable him to develop all thelatent powers and faculties of his nature and soenjoy a good life, the education of adults is asimportant as the education of children of school-going age. We recognise that in a territory likePapua under Australian administration the bestmeans to the eradication of illiteracy might be theextensive promotion of primary education so thatthe literate and educated children of to-day willbecome the adults of tomorrow. But in most otherterritories, where the goal of self-government orindependence is near, the mass of adult popula-tion cannot be allowed to live in ignorance. Weare glad to note that adult literacy programmes areunder way in a large number of territories, andthat these programmes, as the report of theUNESCO points out, are attempting to attackconditions of illiteracy on a broad front andsimultaneously. The best form of adult educationis functional education which relates to the day-to-day life of an adult whom it is intended to educate.There has been some considerable discussion ofthe methods, including audio-visual methods forthe spread of such education. Interesting experi-ments concerning the use of mass media such asradio are being successfully made in Papua andseveral territories under the United Kingdomadministration. These methods have to be cons-tantly examined and improved, changed or modi-fied as may be necessary. Naturally, Mr. Chairman,in discussing these subjects I have to draw uponour own experiences in India, and if I do so ratherfreely and frequently in my statement, it is onlybecause we ourselves have passed through the samephase as Non-Self-Governing Territories; and oursocial conditions and problems being similar, ourexperience may be of some interest to administer-ing authorities and people of Non--Self-GoverningTerritories. In addition to what I have said earlieron this subject, I would like to say that we havefound in South India that where an illiterate

community has to be instructed in certain aspectsof life, drama based on simple themes related to

102

those aspects of life staged by members of thecommunity, sometimes illiterate members hasproved of tremendous value. It occurs to me thatthis method of audiovisual education, not dis-similar to the showing of films which are so fre-quently and successfully undertaken, might proveof special value in African territories. Africanshave displayed tremendous dramatic talent; theyare comparatively km inhibited, and we should beinterested to see the organisation of some drama-tic clubs engaged in experimentation with thismethod of adult-education.

The other day, I touched upon the problemrelating to the Preparation of literature of a suit-able quality for adult literates. This is a problemwhich haunts all those who are engaged in thepromotion of adult-literacy in all parts of theworld. It seems to us that the theme of the lifeand work of the United Nations could form auseful subject in the preparation of such literature.From time to time the General Assembly hasadopted resolutions concerning the disseminationabout the United Nations in Non-Self-GoverningTerritories and in Trust Territories. Literature ofthis kind in our view will evoke interest amongthe inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories.It will certainly help spread greater understandingof the principles and purposes of the UnitedNations, and perhaps also of the role of theadministering authorities themselves in thisOrganisation.

Another experiment in the field of adulteducation we are beginning to make in India mighthe of interest to some Non-Self-Governing Terri-tories. Workers education, as distinct from othertypes of adult-education, in order to help himsolve his problems not as an individual but as amember of his class, is of the highest importanceto any country in which workers form, as they doin many African and Asian territories, anorganised component of the population.

Opportunities for workers to be educated in order to enable them to participate more effectively in various workers' movements and to fulfil more adequate-

ly their trade-union and related functions. The workers' education in this sense benefits the society as a whole, not only by helping the worker to equip himself for his job and for dealing with common social problems, but also by creating a potential channel for better labour management relations.

Recently, in co-operation with the FordFoundation, the Government of India appointeda team of experts, which his recommended thatthe education of union representatives in thetechniques of trade-union organisation, manage-ment and financing and the education of union-members for intelligent participation in unionaffairs, should be undertaken. A machinerycomprising a Central Board with semi-autonomousauthority and Regional Education Boards of localworkers is now being developed. A scheme oftraining teachers for workers' education is beingimplemented. The whole programme is to befinanced through Central and State Governmentgrants, trade union contributions, employers'contributions, contributions in kind in the shapeof classrooms, libraries and teachers etc., fromeducational institutions and grants from fundsconsisting of unpaid wager, fines and canteenprofits etc. Turning now to free and compulsory educa-tion we note, with appreciation, the substantialprogress that has been achieved in a large numberof Non-Self-Governing Territories during theperiod under review. In Article 26 of the Univer-sal Declaration of Human Rights it is stated that"everyone has the right to education; that educa-tion should be free, at least in the elementary andfundamental stages; and that elementary educationshall be compulsory". It is in but few territoriesthat primary education is either free or compul-sory. In most of the territories under the UnitedKingdom administration, education is neither freenor compulsory. In some territories primaryeducation is, in fact, exorbitantly expensive as inthe territory of Fiji. Situated in the Pacific area,which the UNESCO describes as "in general afree tuition area", Fiji constitutes a special, and ifI may say so an anomalous case. The report ofthe Department of Education of this territory forthe year 1957 states that "Tuition fees in Govern-ment schools are designed to recover 25 per centof tuition costs, and during the period underreview have been levied at the following rates

Fijian and Indian primary schools 2-5-Od perannum, and Fijian intermediate schools which wepresume are in nature of higher primary schools6-15-Od per annum". A comparatively smallmeasure of primary education is administered byGovernment schools; and the World Survey ofEducation 1956 tells us that "fees in privateschools vary, but are usually higher than in corres-ponding Government schools". We agree withthe UNESCO that "if the levy of fees is intended tobe permanent, it will mean that fees will continueto rise as tuition costs will almost certainly doso". We hope with the UNESCO that this state-merit of policy with regard to the percentagerecovery only describes an interim policy. Wewould welcome to have a reassurance to this effect

103

from the representative of the United Kingdom asthis policy runs counter to that of most otherNon-Self-Governing Territories which are heading,however slowly, in the direction of total abolitionof tuition fees in respect of primary education.

A heartening factor in the field of primaryeducation is the percentage of girl students. In anumber of territories this percentage exceeds 50,and with the exception of Uganda, Cambia,French West America, French Equatorial Africa,Aden and Somaliland where it is rather too low,it varies from 30 to 50. High as these percentagesare, in total numbers they are less significant astotal enrolment of pupils in relation to the totalnumber of boys and girls of school-going age israther low. Mr. Chairman India is one of thosecountries which has from time immemorial believ-ed in the essential equality of women with men,and has regarded the basic education of women inreligious and domestic matters as of the highestimportance. In the context of to-day's conditions,paradoxical though it may seem, we have perhapsthe longest record of famous women in mythologyand history. We have had great women thinkers,religious teachers, mathematicians and rulers.Even to-day women are playing a leading role inour public life in several capacities. Unfortunate-ly, however, the education of women, for certainhistorical reasons, has suffered serious neglect inthe last few centuries. In 1931 the percentage offemale literacy was 2.4, and in 1947, when wetook over the administration of our country, itwas no more than about 3%. In 1951, at the

beginning of the First Five-Year Plan period, thispercentage was 4, and it rose to 11.4 at the end ofthis first development plan in 1956. Progress hascontinued since then, and it is a professed aim ofour policy to ensure that in the not too distantfuture every woman of India like every youngmale will be liter-ate and educated.

We are aware of the difficulties in the spreadof literacy and education among women. Certaindeep-rooted prejudices have to be fought againstand there are the usual problems of finance andthe non-availability of trained teachers. But it isour considered view that no country can continueits forward march if its women are not educated.We can hardly over-emphasise the need for payinggreater attention in Non-Self-Governing Territo-ries especially those of Africa to the promotion ofeducation of women. In a growing literatesociety the literate mother performs a most impor-tant function. If parents are interested in educa-tion and know the value of it, they are then morewilling to send their children to school. Withoutgoing into great detail at this stage, I would mere-ly draw this Committee's attention to the measuresrecommended in its 1953 report for the rapiddevelopment of educational facilities for women.The Committee will do well to reiterate those re-commendations at this Session.

A discouraging feature of primary educationis the average number of pupils per teacher. Ourown experience shows that 30 pupils per teacheris on the average not an unsatisfactory number.But an examination of the tables prepared by theUNESCO shows that in Basutoland, Tokelau,Bahamas, Jamaica, Dominica, Comoros, a teacheris required to teach more than 50 pupils on theaverage. Only in about 20 territories is theaverage number of pupils per teacher near orbelow 30. This is unsatisfactory, and we hopethat as teacher-training programmes materialiseand expand in these territories, a more satisfac-tory average will be obtained.

The last report of this Committee on Educa-tion in Non-Self-Governing Territories summed upthe position concerning Secondary Education asfollows :

"The number of schools providing advan- ced and wider instructions after the pri- mary stages is increasing. Even so, in

most of the Non-Self-Governing Terri- tories, there is not enough secondary edu- cation."

Although during these last three years thenumber of institutions of secondary education hasbeen steadily increasing, the acceleration of gene-ral political and social consciousness has, happily,continued to stimulate the demand for educationof the secondary type. Generally speaking, there-fore, the conclusion reached by this Committeeconcerning the provision of secondary educationin 1956 remains true in the context of the condi-tions prevailing today. In 1956 this committeehad expressed the view that the concept of second-ary education as an intermediate stage betweenprimary and higher education has often led toformalism and rigidity. Secondary education hasto provide a broad education and training of suffi-cient content in itself without necessarily leadingto higher education.

The need for the expansion and the demandof the people for such expansion, so well recognis-ed in policy-statements and development plans ofAdministering Authorities, has not often beenmatched by practical measures. There are, nodoubt, practical difficulties, such as difficulties ofstaffing, the paucity of financial resources and thepoverty of the pupils or their parents who are un-able to provide the cost of tuition.

104

A perusal of the information tabulated by theSecretariat, the UNESCO and the World HealthOrganisation reveals that the familiar complaintthat adequate number of pupils for institutions ofsecondary education is not forth-coming is not trueof the territories in which secondary education isprovided free of cost. We have already pointedout that popular participation resulting often in theprovision of free education tends to contributesignificantly to the more rapid expansion andpopularisation of education. Another means ofpopularisation of secondary education, which hasbeen successfully used in some of the territories, isthat of relating it to the functional fields of life.In our view, priority should be given to the inte-gration of secondary education with systems ofvocational and technical education. Schemes ofsecondary education should be planned in relationto the overall prospects and to the actual and poten-

tial requirements for skilled and professional posi-tions available to the peoples of the territory.

In some of the territories diversification ofeducation at the secondary stage is being carriedout with success. Nigeria is one such example.The Committee on Secondary Education appointedby the Government of India in 1952 recommendedthat secondary schools should be of the multi-purpose type. They should seek to provide variedtypes of courses for students with diverse aims,interests and abilities, so as to use and developtheir natural aptitudes and inclinations in the spe-cial courses of studies chosen by them. The inten-tion should be to cater to the requirements of boysand girls in the age group of 14-17 in such a waythat they will be trained in their respective fieldsof work, so that when they leave school they willbe prepared either to join professional colleges oruniversities, or to get settled in practical profes-sions after a further short period of intensivetraining, instead of swelling the ranks of educatedunemployed. The preparation of syllabuses for multi-pur-pose schools should, if I may venture an opinionbased on our own experience, have, besides thediversified courses, a certain number of core-sub-jects common to all students, such as languages,general science, social studies and crafts.

In India in schools of this kind in the core-subjects group we are teaching as many as threelanguages, namely English. Hindi and the RegionalLanguage of the pupil. The secondary educationin a large number of Non-Self-Governing Territo-ries is mostly in the metropolitan languages. This,in our view, is not the correct policy. While wecommend the teaching of the metropolitan langu-age, which is likely to broaden the horizon oflearning and culture the teaching in that languagealone can only result in the gradual elimination ofthe trainee's closeness to the environment in whichhe subsequently will have to work.

The conversion of purely academic secondaryeducation into diversified education can be attemp-ted in two ways : Firstly, by creating new faci-lities for diversified education; and secondly, bysystematic and planned conversion of at least someof the existing high and higher secondary schoolsinto multipurpose schools. The second methodis comparatively less expensive and will result in thefull utilisation of existing facilities which may not

be sufficiently attractive to the pupils of secondaryschool age being far removed from the functionalaspects of their lives. This, in our view, is thesurest way of avoiding wastage in the existingfacilities.

To emphasise the importance of highereducation in various fields, Mr. Chairman, Icannot do better than quote paragraph 67 ofthe Secretariat paper on higher education inNon-Self-Governing Territories (Doc. L. 302),which reads :

"Education as the key to progress finds its ultimate consumption in the product of the university and technical institu- tions. That product depends, in quality and quantity, on the whole process of education from the primary level up- wards ; and, in reverse, the process of education as a whole depends, for its tea- chers and administrators. on the product of higher education."

As we have found from our experience inIndia, the universities should aim at doing twothings :

1. To provide the country the personnel it needs to man its civil services, its schools and colleges ; and

2. To turn out the requisite number of technicians, doctors, engineers and specialists of all kinds.

The aim of university education should be toproduce, more or less, the exactly adequate num-ber of educated persons for each profession, andnot to produce any particular type of graduate inexcess of the number required in the country. Thelatter leads to unemployment and the frustrationof the unemployed, which marks the developmentof university education in many countries, includ-ing my own.

105

Fortunately, the Non-Self-Governing Terri-tories in Africa and Asia, particularly of the for-mer continent, are not in any danger of havinggraduates or undergraduates of any description inexcess of their requirements for some years to

come. On the contrary, these territories fall farshort of their requirements in the provision ofuniversity education, academic and technical, andit is necessary to accelerate the pace of develop-ment of higher education, especially in Africanterritories.

It does no credit to the United Kingdom thattoday when its territories in Africa cannot con-ceivably be far from the day beyond which theirindependence cannot be delayed, they cannot boastof even one university providing education in allthe various professional fields. There are a fewcolleges of various kinds in these territories andsome of them like the Makarere College are excel-lent institutions, but their syllabuses and examina-tions are controlled by Metropolitan institutions,or the Metropolitan governments themselves.These features divorce university education andthe graduates it produces from their countries andthe needs of those countries. The aim in theseterritories, at least in some of them, should be toestablish national universities, the educationalpolicies and products of which will be linked close-ly with the culture and the requirements of thenation concerned. The institutes of higher learn-ing that exist are performing a useful role buttheir remoulding in the years to come will benecessary to attune them to perform higher rolesin the new age of freedom that is dawning for-Non-Self-Governing Territories, and their expan-sion will also be necessary.

The observations which I have just made,Mr. Chairman, also apply to the Non-Self-Govern-ing Territories under the administration of France,where the determination of standards, syllabusesand educational policies in the matter of highereducation, including university, still rest with theMetropolitan Government.

We here constantly of the shortage of indigen-ous administrators in many of these Non-Self-Governing Territories; we are told that metropoli-tan personnel is there because indigenous personnelis not available. This itself, in our view, iseloquent proof of the need for the expansion offacilities for higher education in these territories.When we come to think of the requirements ofthese territories in terms of number of doctors,engineers and technicians of various kinds, thesituation is much worse. For example, there is atotal of 12 institutes of higher learning in African

Territories out of which only four teach medicineup to some standard, with a capacity to turn outabout 200 graduates per year for a population ofover a hundred million in an area which suffersfrom all kinds of diseases and epidemics.

While we appreciate that a number of Africanstudents are persuing higher studies abroad onscholarships and otherwise, we do not think thatthe right kind of policy is the one which dependsfor higher education primarily on the facilitiesavailable to Metropolitan universities and institu-tions of higher learning. This Committee hasnoted in the past that students going abroad forhigher studies do not always become available tothe country of origin. In Nigeria for example, in1955, 60 medical students were studying abroad ongovernment scholarship. 20 of them receivedqualifying degrees or diplomas in the United King-dom, but only seven returned to Nigeria for activework in the service of their country.

The general aim of policy with respect to uni-versity education should, therefore, be to developthe requisite facilities in at least some of the largerterritories of Africa and other areas. Overseaseducation should be restricted only to fields wherespecialisation and final practical experience isrequired. Expenditure on such education shouldbe met, as far as possible through the scholarshipschemes and other schemes of international assis-tance and co-operation which are now available tothe inhabitants of the Non-Self-Governing Terri-tories. The funds available from the Metropolitanand indigenous authorities should be devoted entirlyto the development of higher education in theTerritories.

In Resolution 743 (VIII) in which the GeneralAssembly enumerated the objectives of educationin Non-Self-Governing Territories, it also reaffirmedthat "in accordance with these objectives the pro-cesses of education should be designed to familia-rise the inhabitants with and train them in the useof the tools of economic, social and politicalprogress, with a view to the attainment of a fullmeasure of self-government". The ILO, the FAOand the WHO have prepared most useful reportson the subject of vocational and technical educationfor the use of this Committee. These studies high-light the fact that the greatest impediment to thedevelopment of technical and vocational educationin the territories is the lack of adequately trained

teachers. During the Seventh Session of thisCommittee my delegation had urged that this situ-ation should be rectified by making the teachingprofession more lucrative and more attractive.We had also pointed out that teachers as a classare entitled to Government protection as other-wise it would be difficult to attract personnel of

106

good quality against the competition offered byother more lucrative forms of employment. Weurged the Administering Authorities to createunified cadres of teachers with adequate prospectsof advancement and promotion. We are gratifiedto note that in one of the documents before thisCommittee the FAO has brought this last pointout clearly. At this stage we wish merely toreiterate the suggestions and recommendations wemade in the Seventh Session of this Committee.

It is our experience that vocational training insuch fields as health and sanitation, nursing, preli-minary agriculture, farming, etc., can be mosteffectively imparted as part and parcel of an all-embracing programme of community developmentto which I have referred in my other statements be-fore the Committee. According to the informationconcerning the dissemination of vocational andtechnical education, there is a lack of enrolmentin existing institutions specially in agriculturalinstitutions. This is a somewhat paradoxicalposition as most of these Non-Self-GoverningTerritories are predominantly agricultural. Weare inclined to agree with the view expressed bythe representative of Ghana that the difficultyexperienced in persuading the youths to enter insti-tutes of agricultural training may be due to thedeficiencies in the school curriculum and to thefailure of the educational systems in general tocreate respect for manual work. Both the ILOand the FAO support this view. The FAO hasstated that agriculture often occupies a very lowplace in the scale of values. Another difficulty inthe expansion of technical education is the lack offinance. We are often told of the investmentsmade by colonial powers in projects in colonialterritories for the betterment of the people undertheir protection. A cardinal fact to be remember-ed is that the basic resources of most of theseterritories have been and continue to be exploitedby colonial powers. Therefore till such time asthe subject peoples of Non-Self-Governing Terri-

tories come to manage their own financial andother resources, it is the responsibility of the ad-ministering powers to find the finances necessaryfor their educational development, which can nolonger be neglected or postponed. The SeventhSession of this Committee recognised, and we hopethat the present session will reiterate, that "Fromthe point of principle it is a responsibility of theadministering members to assist in the provisionof adequate resources for the development of edu-cation, which forms an important part of thefoundation of the new societies in the Non-Self-Governing Territories."

There may be some initial apathy towardstechnical and vocational education, but our ownexperience shows that if a proper climate is created,and the benefits of such education are made knownto the populations concerned, people develop apreference for this kind of education over educa-tion of the purely academic type. A basic reasonfor the alleged unpopularity of vocational andtechnical education in these territories is the factthat general education itself at primary and inter-mediary level is unduly restricted. The statisticalappendices to the various studies available to thisCommittee confirm this view, which has beenendorsed by the ILO.

The organisation of education on racial linesalso has tended to develop prejudices againsttechnical and vocational education. When aEuropean community is given education of theacademic type aiming at turning out qualifiedpersonnel for high administrative jobs, the impres-sion is created that the technical and vocationaleducation offered to an indigenous community fordifferent purposes is intended to exclude thatcommunity from professions of greater importance,and is therefore an education of an inferior type.The situation is aggravated when an agriculturalinstitution like the Egerton Agricultural Collegeof Kenya, where a superior type of agriculturaleducation is imparted is reserved exclusively forEuropeans. The prejudices are further perpetuatedwhen an indigenous person with qualificationsequal to a European counterpart is called by adifferent name and designation in the same pro-fessional field. The FAO has pointed out thatwhile a European officer with certain training isdesignated an Assistant Agricultural Officer, anAfrican with equal training is referred to as aField Officer. It is FAO's view that this is a minor

point, but it is our conviction that this is a pointof major psychological importance since discrimi-nation between two persons of same qualificationsbut different races cannot but aggravate prejudice.

Mr. Chairman, it is our considered view thaton no ground whatsoever can the principle ofracial education be justified. Racial discriminationresults from and, in turn, creates political discrimi-nation. It serves to keep the communities andraces apart by solidifying the barriers to the under-standing which should result from membership ofcommon educational institutions and providingequal opportunities to all. History has provedthat no one race is nearer to God than any otherand that no race as a whole is superior or inferiorto the other. Discrimination on the grounds ofrace in any matter can only precipitate strife.Racial discrimination in the field of education canonly perpetuate racial division, and thereby aggra-vate such strife. And yet in the Congo, as in theCentral African Federation, in Kenya and in

107

Uganda and in numerous other territories, educa-tion continues to be organised on raical lines.

As the 1950 report of this Committee conclud-ed: "In the field of education no principle ismore important than that of equality of opportu-nity for all racial, religious and cultural groups ofthe population." We hope that the present sessionof the Committee will reiterate the conclusionreached in 1950 which is as valid to-day as it wasthen. It is our view that any discrimination ongrounds of race in the matter of educational pro-motion is contrary to the Declaration of HumanRights and indeed to the Charter of the UnitedNations and the very principles and purposes ofthat organisation which ought to govern the think-ing of member States. Resolution 644 of the 7thSession recommended to the administering powersthe abolition in Non-Self-Governing Territories oflaws and practices contrary to the principle of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights. Wemust regret that racial descrimination in educationstill persists in Non-Self-Governing Territories.We hope that the practice of maintaining at thepublic expense and of encouraging different schoolswith different levels of facilities for different racialgroups will disappear without further delay.

Mr. Chairman, my delegation has time andagain in the General Assembly and in thisCommittee suggested that the AdministeringAuthorities concerned should endeavour to estab-lish comprehensive plans in all fields of educationwith stages and tentative time-tables for theaccomplishment of these stages duly specified.We are glad that the delegation of Ghana has nowjoined its voice to ours in this connection. Whilein some territories there are five-year and ten-yeareducation plans or plans of general developmentin which the implementation of educationalmeasures is taken care of, in most territoriesmeasures for the expansion of primary, secondary,technical, vocational and higher education areadopted on an ad hoc basis. Our own experiencein India has confirmed the view that we have sooften expressed that progress is much more satis-factory and much more easily achieved in any fieldwhen it is systematically planned ahead. The aimof educational policies in most territories is theintroduction of free and compulsory primary edu-cation. While the progress in the various fieldsof education in the Non-Self-Governing Territoriesis characterised by a remarkable variety, thereseems to be general agreement on this point,namely, the introduction of free and compulsoryeducation. We would therefore strongly urge thatthe Committee's report should recommend theadoption by all Administering Authorities concern-ed of time-tables for the attainment of each parti-cular stage on the path towards free and compul-sory primary education both for men and womenin all Non-Self-Governing Territories.

Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I feel thatI should again stress on behalf of my delegationthe important mutual link between education andpolitical responsibility. More education and bettereducation mean better base for political advanceand greater acceleration towards self-government.At the same time, the larger the responsibility onthe people, the greater the stimulus for educationand the more accelerated will the spread of educa-tion become. The processes of devolution ofpolitical responsibility on the people and thedevelopment of education must, therefore, go handin hand. It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman,that the increased participation of the peopleleading to an early entrustment of responsibilityfor education on elected Ministers is a necessaryand urgent further step in all Non-Self-GoverningTerritories. Side by side with this, there should

be no relaxation of efforts - indeed in many terri-torries the efforts have to be much more seriousand intensive than they have been hitherto - increating a literate and educated society whichwill understand its responsibilities and prepareitself in a peaceful and orderly way for self-government.

INDIA USA AUSTRALIA NIGER NIGERIA CONGO BELGIUM ANGOLA PORTUGAL GHANA KENYAUGANDA OMAN FIJI MALI MALDIVES BAHAMAS COMOROS DOMINICA JAMAICA PERU CENTRALAFRICAN REPUBLIC FRANCE

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Shri Krishna Menon's Statements in Lok Sabha on Shooting Down of IAFCanberra

Shri V.K. Krishna Menon, Defence Minister,made the following statement in the Lok Sabhaon April 11, 1959 on the shooting down of anIAF Canberra near Rawalpindi by the PakistanAir Force on April 10, 1959 :

Government deeply regret to report to theHouse the loss of one Indian Air Force CanberraAircraft on the morning of April 10, 1959.

In view of the circumstances in which thisevent occurred and in view of the various reportsthat have appeared in the Press and the concernof the House itself, Government would like to

108

place all the available facts before the House.

In the normal flying programme of the day,one Canberra Aircraft, equipped for surveyphotography and not for bombing or hostilepurposes, took off from an IAF airfield on themorning of April 10 at 6 a.m. It, however, failedto return within the expected time.

The mission of this Aircraft was to takeaerial photographs, for the Survey of India, ofthe territory of the Union in the areas ofHimachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir.The lost Aircraft was scheduled to complete itstask within a period of four or five hours, andshould, therefore, have returned to its base notlater than 11 o'clock on the morning of April 10.

The Aircraft. however, failed to return andwas awaited until mid-day. Thereafter, the AirForce authorities, in accordance with the usualpractice, ordered a search in the area which wasto be surveyed by the missing plane.

News reached Air Headquarters, and, Ibelieve, the public generally after mid-day.Pakistan Radio had announced that "an un-identified" Aircraft had been intercepted bySabre jet fighters of the Pakistan Air Force andhad been shot down. Similar reports later inthe day stated that the aircrew of the plane thathad-been shot down had been picked up andtaken to Rawalpindi.

Later, sometime on the evening of April 10,similar reports and the papers printed in theevening mentioned the incident and that anIAF Canberra was the Aircraft shot down. Aboutthis time, a Press Trust of India report alsostated that two Indian Air Force men who werethe crew of the shot-down Aircraft mentionedby them also as an IAF Canberra were takento Rawalpindi. The House should be informedthat no communication had reached either theGovernment through Diplomatic channels orAir Headquarters through Pakistan Air Forcechannels at the time of the incident or later inthe day at any time.

This morning, Air Headquarters, as iscustomary in such contexts, communicated withPakistan Air Headquarters, and were informedthat the lost aircraft was a Canberra of theIndian Air Force. They were also informedthat the Pilot and the Navigator who were thesole crew of the Aircraft had been injured andwere in Rawalpindi. Air Headquarters were alsoinformed by the Pakistan Air authorities thatthese two men would be returned to India. Theyare now on their way home in a Pakistan AirForce Freighter Aircraft. Government regret to

say that both the airmen had been injured butfortunately not grievously. The House shouldbe informed that this type of Canberra carriesno arms or weapons. From the fact that theaeroplane was shot down in Pakistan territory,it is obvious that owing to operational and navi-gational difficulties the plane must have gone offcourse into Pakistan air space.

The crew had been briefed to fly at a heightof between 47 to 48 thousand feet.

The House will understand that at the speedat which a Canberra operates and the shortdistance between our Frontier and Rawalpindi,which is about three minutes in flying time, itwould be nothing unusual for such an aircraftto go off course into foreign air space. Govern-ment have seen reports in the Press that it wassaid to Pakistan that their Air Force hadrepeatedly radioed the Canberra and ordered itto land and that such instruction was disobeyedby the crew and in consequence the plane wasshot at.

It is most unlikely and Government cannotbelieve that such a warning, if it had been given,would have been ignored by our airmen. Thecrew had knowledge that they were unarmed.They also knew full well that the consequencesof ignoring any such warning would be grievous.

The cases of violation of our air space acrossthe cease-fire line in Kashmir, over the Inter-national Frontier with Pakistan and on theborders of our territory in Bombay near Goa areby no means uncommon. Indeed their frequencycan be judged by the fact that, to give oneinstance, there were 17 violations of our airspace across the cease-fire line alone in Jammuand Kashmir in three months, from October 1958to January 1959. The custom that has beenfollowed in such cases is to record a protestto the United Nations Observer Group, whothereafter make an enquiry. In no case has ourAir Force sought to initiate hostile action againstPakistan Aircraft which have periodically andwant only violated our air space even afterrepeated protests. The House may also beinformed that even during the hostilities in Jammuand Kashmir, one Pakistan Air Force Aircraftwhich crossed into our territory and was inter-cepted by our fighter aircraft was only warned.

It was allowed to proceed to its base.

The shooting of our plane yesterday, asannounced by the Pakistan Radio and confirmed109

to Air Headquarters this morning by the PakistanAir Force, is unwarranted and contrary to Inter-national Law and Custom. The House will notethat the Pakistan authorities have repeatedlyreferred to an "unidentified plane". It is in-conceivable that when an attacking plane ableto shoot and hit could not and did not see theclear markings on its target or what type ofplane it was, this action of Pakistan furthermore reflects no reciprocity of treatment on the,part of the Pakistan Government.

Government, however, regret that in thecourse of a routine flight, even though probablydue to defective navigational aids, our aircraftstrayed into Pakistan air space. Governmentdesire to make it clear to the world that thestraying of our plane from our space was notand could not, therefore, be part of any hostiledesign or policy.

Government are taking all such steps asare appropriate to the circumstances and throughnormal diplomatic channels.

On April 21, 1959 the Defence Minister madeanother statement in the Lok Sabha on theshooting down of the Canberra. He said

It may be recalled that on the 11th April last,Government reported to this House, with regret,the loss of one Indian Air Force Canberraaircraft and also the circumstances in which thatevent occurred so far as the latter were thenknown to Government. The House was alsopromised a fuller report on the occurrence whenmore became known about the circumstancesthat led to it and are otherwise relevant. Inpursuance of that undertaking, and because ofthe concern in the public mind about this incidentand in view of the large number of misstatementsof facts, official and otherwise, that continue toemanate from Pakistan, Government is nowplacing before the House further relevant andknown facts.

The Pilot and the Navigator, the sole crew

of the shot-down aircraft, who had becomecasualties as a result of the incident have nowbeen returned to us. They have been hospitalised.While there is no reason to think that they willnot fully recover, their progress is slow and theinjuries and shock sustained by them areconsiderable.

The House may also recall that I had men-tioned in my earlier statement that at the verytime I was making it these officers were on theirway home. Pakistan Authorities had earlier thatday promised to return them and they werescheduled to reach India that afternoon. Theydid not however arrive. Pakistan Authoritiesinformed Air Headquarters later that eveningthat the Airmen would not be returned asPakistan Medical Specialists had advised thatthe men were not fit to travel. Pakistan Autho-rities, therefore, were not prepared to take theresponsibility for moving them. They alsoinformed our Air Headquarters that if we wishedto move the Airmen and bring them back weshould send our own Doctor, who would have toaccept full responsibility for whatever mighthappen in consequence of their being somoved.

The House will no doubt feel concerned asthe Government do that these injured men whowere according to Pakistan Medical Specialiststhemselves in such a bad way were being subjectedat that very time to interrogation, harassmentand threats.

Air Headquarters immediately sent an AirForce Doctor to Lahore. He was taken by thePakistan Air Force to Rawalpindi where he reachedat 1.00 A.M. on the 12th of April. The Doctordecided to bring back the Airmen forthwith andunder his own care. Pakistan authorities, however,demanded and obtained from our Doctor anassurance in writing that he was taking thecasualties away on his own responsibility and atour risk and also in the face of the contraryadvice given by the Pakistan Medical Specialists.Our Doctor and the injured men left Rawalpindifor Lahore in a Pakistan Air Force Plane atabout 3.30 A.M. From there they were tran-shipped into the Indian Air Force Plane whichbrought them to Delhi at 7.00 A. M. Theywere immediately hospitalised.

Forty-eight hours had passed since they hadbeen shot down. The two officers were stillsuffering from severe shock, the Pilot more thanthe Navigator, and they had to be kept in totalquiet and rest. The Hospital authorities reportedthat the Airmen were found to be suffering fromthe following injuries and effects of ejection fromextreme altitude :

"(a) Sqn. Ldr. J.C. Sengupta (3657) G.D. (P)

(i) Compound fracture with Laceration of the right lower leg (operated on in C.M.H. Rawalpindi).

(ii) Fracture left ankle (Discovered in M.H. Delhi).

(iii) Severe sprain left knee.

110

(iv) Fracture right lower arm.

(v) Fracture spine (Discovered in M.H. Delhi).

(vi) Injuries, to pelvis and shoulder.

(vii) Shock and disorientation.

(viii) Contusions and Lacerations.

(b) Flt. Lt. S.N. Rampal (4218) G.D. (N).

(i) Fracture right lower leg.

(ii) Multiple contusions and lacerations

(iii) Shock and disorientation."

The Hospital authorities prohibited visitorsand ordered that the patients should not bedisturbed. Interrogation of them by Air Head-quarters was, therefore, not possible until the 9thof April. Our Air Headquarters, in accordancewith usual procedures, have interrogated themfor brief periods at a time, as permitted byDoctors, from the 19th April till this morning.

Both the Pilot and the Navigator have beenclosely examined. They have stated categoricallyand repeatedly that their flying over Pakistanterritory was the result of Navigational error.

Owing to the extreme importance of thisfactor not only with regard to this particularincident but to the Air Force generally in respectof discipline, morale and efficiency, the Air Forceauthorities have done the interrogation on thismatter with particular thoroughness and care.I will read some of the questions and answers :

Q. What was the reason for your going off track ?

A. My Compass must have given wrong readings.

Q. How is it that your ground position indicator confirm your position as over Pathankot ?

A. As it was hazy, I could not pin point myself visually and I had no reason to doubt the accuracy of my instruments.

Q. How then do you explain the error in navigation ?

A. I over-relied on my navigational aid and

could not verify the accuracy of my compass by visual pin pointing and bemuse of haze.

The Pilot has stated that he took off fromAgra on the 10th April at 0645 hours and set hiscourse to Pathankot expecting to arrive there at0740 hours. When he crossed the Sutlej theweather was hazy and he could not see the ground.He continued flying and a little later he read hisinstruments as indicating that he was overPathankot. The House should be informed,however, that when he believed himself to be overPathankot it is now known that he was in factover Pakistan territory. Believing as he did thathe was over Pathankot, he turned his Aircraftslightly to the left towards his task am which was25 miles north of Jammu. Thereafter, he flew for10 minutes in that direction. He saw ahead ofhim two airfields close to each other and a town.Seeing this he began to feel uncertain of hisposition. He felt he must have drifted off histrack and that he was probably over Pakistanterritory, as he knew there were not two airfields

close to each other in his task area.

He decided to check his position and thereforetried to establish radio contact with Srinagar. Hefailed to receive any response. Fearing that hewas over Pakistan territory, he at once turnedright towards India. It was at this moment whenhe was turning Indiaward that he felt a 'thud' inhis plane. He saw the red warning lights in theplane indicating to him that the under carriagehad been hit. His hydraulic pressure gauge hadalso dropped to zero. Within moments of this,the Canberra received a second and longer burstof fire shaking her up and as a result she wentcompletely out of control. The Aircraft courseddown a steep spiral dive and the Pilot had toorder his Navigator to eject and did so himself.Since, however, the plane was hurtling down in asteep dive at the time of ejection the Pilot receivedsevere injuries in his legs and right arm. Theinjuries to his arm incapacitated him from mani-pulating his parachute while descending and theinjuries to his legs prevented him from landing onthe ground in the normal posture. He fell in agorge and in the fall received further injuries.

The Navigator, however, was more fortunate.His injuries were fewer and less severe, bad asthey were. Fortunately he could manipulate hisparachute, and he landed near a village. Thevillagers who had seen also the Pilot descendingthrough the air and falling farther away, laterbrought him also to the village. These villagerswere kind and hospitable. After sometime theyput the Navigator on a pony and the Pilot on a

111charpoy and moved them towards Rawalpindi.This kind of journey did not, however, improvetheir condition. When they bad travelled abouttwo miles, an ambulance met them and both theAirmen were taken to the Military Hospital,Rawalpindi.

When they reached the Hospital the Pilot hadalready lost consciousness. The Navigator wasin extreme pain and was given pills and injectionsby Pakistan Hospital authorities. Despite this hehad a restless night. The next day starting frommidday he was interrogated by Pakistan Officerscontinuously until late in the evening of the 11thApril. The Pilot regained some consciousness bythe afternoon of the 11th April, but even then he

was only semi-conscious, in fact at no time, tilltwo or three days ago, was he in any reasonablepossession of his faculties. During the interroga-tion of both the Airmen, the Pakistan Officersconcerned appear to have subjected them to muchpressure and harassment. They appear to havetold their victims that they were in Pakistan andnot in India, that it was better for their health ifthey confessed that they had deliberately violatedPakistan territory for aerial reconnaissance andphotography.

The Pilot has only hazy recollections of thewhole of this period. He remembers people con-tinuously shouting at him. He remembers feelingthreatened and harassed. He has no recollectionwhatsoever of speaking himself or signing anystatement at all or as alleged. He vaguely re-members being moved a number of times and ofbeing in Aircraft.

The Navigator has stated that he was separa-ted from the Pilot from the moment they reachedthe Hospital and that the Pakistan Officers in-terrogated him separately and not with the Pilot.He was told that it was no use his saying he wasoff track and was over Pakistan territory owing tofaulty navigation since the Prime Minister andthe Government of India had already admittedthat they had been sent out on a mission to flyover Pakistan and to take photographs. TheNavigator was further told that his Pilot had con-fessed to deliberate violation of Pakistan territoryand that he would do no good to his health if hepersisted in his story of faulty navigation and theCanberra going off track. His interrogationcame to an end near about the midnight of the11th only when he was totally exhausted. A shorttime later, however, Pakistan Officers saw theNavigator again and asked him to sign a paperwhich, those officers asserted, contained no morethan what he had said to them. The statementwas not read by him ; indeed he was in such acondition of physical and mental exhaustion that hecould neither read nor appreciate the contents ofanything read out to him. The Pakistan Officersrepeatedly assured him that the statement wasonly to the effect that they had come over Pakis-tan territory as a result of navigational error. Hewas also told that he had to sign the statementwhich was a formality which he bad to complywith before he could return. In his completelyexhausted physical condition he signed a paper

which he was told said that they had come overPakistan because of faulty navigation. It is signi-ficant that neither the Pakistan authorities nor thePakistan Press has so far said anything about astatement of the Navigator.

Pakistan has referred to a confession made bythe Pilot. Government in their answer to a ques-tion on the 14th April expressed doubts about theveracity of the alleged confession because at thattime Government were aware that the Pilot hadbeen badly injured. He was unconscious most ofthe time he was in Pakistan and not in possessionof his faculties. He could not, therefore, havesigned anything knowing what he was doing.

The Pilot under interrogation has repeatedlyaffirmed that he has no recollection whatsoever ofsaying anything or signing anything. If, therefore,his signature, or what purports to be his signature,appears on any paper it cannot be regarded as ofany value.

Government regret to say that further exami-nation in the Hospital has revealed that the injuriesand shock suffered by those men are more thanoriginally believed. It now transpires that theNavigator has also fractured his spine. The effectof the shock from the fall from that great heighthas been grievous and to some extent still sub-sists. Both these Airmen have confirmed that theyflew at a height of 47,500 ft. The height of theplane given by Pakistan at first was 50,000 ft. Itwas later changed to 45,000 ft. This is no doubtintended to cover up the fact that at the height of50,000 ft. the Canberra could not have been chasedby a Sabre Jet but could only have been shot atby the Fighters lying in wait for her quite deliber-ately. Even at 45,000 ft. this is the only way itcould have happened. It is absurd to suggestthat the Sabre Jets could have chased the Canberrafor over 100 miles and still keep her under theircontrol.

No warning of any kind by radio or by firingtracer bullets as alleged by Pakistan was at allgiven. Both the Pilot and the Navigator whohave been very closely questioned by our AirAuthorities on this matter are quite clear on this

112point. The Pilot was asked :

"Are you positive you did not receive any warning of any kind before being shot down ?". to which he has answered, "Absolutely positive

The shooting of the plane was calculated andwanton.

The first indication to the crew that anythingunusual was happening was not any warningby radio or by tracer bullets as claimed by Pakis-tan but the rude shock of a 'thud' in the plane.They became aware of the attacking planes onlyafter they had been hit, when after having seentwo airfields on the ground and realised that theywere probably over Pakistan they had alreadyturned towards India. Pakistan authorities haveadmitted that the Canberra was attacked by morethan one Pakistan Fighter plane. It is thereforeobvious to the House that the Fighters were armedand the guns loaded contrary to the practice ofAir Force planes in Peace-time. The attack onthe Canberra was deliberate, planned and preparedand was made not to prevent her from furtherpenetration into Pakistan because she was alreadyturning Indiaward. It is to be noted that even thePakistan version of the concocted confession ofour pilot contains no reference to these allegedwarnings.

The House would also be interested to knowthat it is the practice to give all such warnings ona wave length accepted for this purpose by allnations. All stations, Civil and Military, in everycountry, are turned to this wave length. Suchmessages would, therefore, be received not onlyby the warned Aircraft but also by all air stations.They should certainly have been heard in Jammuand Amritsar. No air station anywhere heard anysuch message. It must be clear therefore thatPakistan's claim in regard to warnings is untrue.

It will be further noted that neither the Pakis-tan Air Command, nor the Pakistan Governmentmade any communication to our Government orto our Air Headquarters about this incident. Whatis more, they referred to an "unidentified" aircrafteven though they claim to have been trailing theCanberra for over a hundred miles. It is onlyafter our Air Headquarters got in touch withPakistan Air Headquarters the next morning toseek information since the news had come to usthrough press and radio reports from Pakistan

sources that they even mentioned the incident.

In addition to various allegations and state-merits, official or otherwise, Pakistan Press hasprinted a photostat which purports to be thephotograph of a map giving the flight of ourCanberra as tracked by their radar. This mightgive the impression to the layman that the photo-stat is a photograph of the track as it appearedon the radar screen. This is not and what ismore, cannot be the case. The photostat isthe photograph of merely a map with lines onit which could be drawn at any time withoutany reference whatever to any radar tracking.According to the photostat which has appearedin the Pakistan Press, our plane entered Pakistannear Lahore and flew for about 160 miles inPakistan territory. According to the facts whichhave come to light as a result of interrogationof the Pilot and the Navigator, the Canberracould have been over Pakistan territory only lessthan half this distance. It is inconceivable thata Canberra on a deliberate mission of reconnais-sance and photography as alleged would know-ingly expose itself even for 80 miles in Pakistanterritory. If taking photographs in that areawas the intention, the Canberra could reach thesame areas by 3 or 4 minutes flight across theborder. I may however add for the informationof the House that our Air Force has strict ins-tructions not to engage themselves in any missionsor exercises which involve violation of Pakistanor any foreign territory. I have no doubt in mymind that these instructions are strictly observed.

Several short notice questions in regardto this incident have been tabled since the 11thof April. Mr. Speaker, Government submittedto you that the subject-matter of these questionsmaybe dealt with in the Statement which theyhad undertaken to make. You were good enoughto concur.

Most of the issues raised by such questionshave already been covered by what Governmenthave stated hitherto including what has beensaid so far today.

There is, however, one issue on whichMembers of the House have sought information.It is also a matter which has been challenged byPakistan and this is in regard to Government'sview of the legality of the conduct of Pakistan

in shooting down the Canberra. Mr. Speaker,with your permission, therefore, I shall dealwith this matter as fully as I can.

It is true there is no universally recognisedand absolute rule of international law which regu-lates the conduct of a Territorial Sovereign ifits air space is violated. This may be well saidof most matters relating to international beha-viour. They are to be regulated having due

113regard to the general principles of law recognisedby civilised nations. Article 38 (c) of the Statuteof the International Court of Justice lays downthat that body will apply among others.."general principles of law recognised by civilisednations". The conduct of a Territorial Sovereignin all circumstances should also be regulatedby his own municipal law, the multilateral con-ventions to which he is a party as well as Reason,Morality and Humanity. These are well under-stood and accepted by civilised nations today.The practice of the United States, the UnitedKingdom, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia andother countries in recent years in respect ofintruding Aircraft may be examined.

The view held in the United States is thatall efforts should be made to have the plane landif it shows determination to cross over nationalterritory. Fighter plane would be under ordersto withhold firing until it seems certain that theintruding plane was actually attacking. Suchevidence might be the opening of bomb bay doorsor the plane's taking a flight attitude indicatinga bombing run. The U. S. Government alsoexpects the foreign Government to advise themin advance that in case a U.S. plane strayed intotheir territory because of mechanical trouble, itwould be fired at.

The United States holds that the intruding Air-craft should be given warning, and further, request-ed or directed to land. Secondly it should be led bythe interceptor to an appropriate landing field orsuch a landing field should be pointed. The intrudingAircraft should be given warning of the intentionto fire. To fire, even warning shots, at an unarmedAircraft in time of peace, wherever such Aircraftmay be, is regarded as entirely inadmissible andcontrary to all standards of civilised behaviour.The flight of such a plane in no way constitutes

a threat to sovereignty.

The United Kingdom regards firing asjustified only to compel compliances in the caseof an Aircraft which has declined to obey signalsrequiring it to land at the nearest aerodromeand this also only in cases where such Aircrafthas been flying over a "Restricted" area sodeclared and made known by the TerritorialSovereign beforehand. In all other cases theUnited Kingdom regards the usual method ofprotests and enquiry alone as applicable. Thisis the normal practice of nations in peace time.

The Soviet Union regards the resort to firingas appropriate in cases where foreign Aircraftafter penetrating into the air space of the terri-tonal sovereign refuses to land.

Intrusions arising from faulty navigation,it is said, "give no cause whatsoever for confusionwith international frontier violations", and suchaircraft should not be fired upon.

No right of the territorial sovereign toinitiate an attack is admitted in cases of deviationby foreign aircraft of the prescribed corridors. The Swedish regulations expressly providethat foreign aircraft should be sought to be turnedaway by warnings, that it should not be firedupon if it changes its course and seeks to flyaway. They further provide that if the intrudingaircraft commits an act of violence againsttargets within Swedish territory, it shall be metwith force of arms.

Yugoslavia lays down that no unarmedaircraft should be fired upon, even if the intru-sion is intentional. If there is non-complianceof instructions given by the territorial sovereignto the intruder to land, the proper procedure,according to Yugoslavia, is to inform the foreignGovernment concerned and to take action throughappropriate channels.

It is clear, therefore, that in cases of intru-sions as a result of faulty navigation, intrudingplanes may not be fired upon at all. In othercam it should be communicated in advanceto the foreign country concerned that anyintrusion would be met by fire. The exemptionof application of this rule, however, in regard toplanes straying into territories due to faulty

navigation is well accepted.

There are no known regulations or anyPakistan Law, either in regard to civil or militaryplanes, which either justifies, much less prescribes,the conduct to which Pakistan has, in fact,resorted to.

There are some provisions in her law inregard to "prohibited" areas. This is also referredto in the United Kingdom Regulations: "Pro-hibited" areas in Pakistan are set out inparagraph 7 of "General Information in connec-tion with flights to or within Pakistan by foreignaviators (No. 10 of 1949)." No part of theterritory over which the Canberra either flew oris even alleged to have flown is either a prohibi-ted area or anywhere near such area.

Over and above all these considerations, Mr.Speaker, Pakistan, as a Member of the UnitedNations, has obligations to observe the provisionsof the Charter. She has an obligation not touse force except in self-defence as provided in

114Article 51 against an armed attack. Her conduct,therefore, considered from any point of view,is in disregard of the canons, the principlespractices of international behaviour as well asthe Charter of the United Nations. It also isin total disregard of the principle of reciprocity inrelation to India.

There is another aspect in regard to theconduct of Pakistan which is totally againstaccepted principles of international behaviour.This is in regard to the treatment to which ourmen were subjected. They were not prisonersof war but citizens of a friendly and neighbouringcountry. Even assuming, for argument, thatthey were prisoners of war or could be treatedas such, how far does the conduct of Pakistanconform to the law and the practice on the sub-ject. The Geneva Convention of 1949 whichdeals with the treatment of prisoners of war inArticle 17 sets out that "every prisoner of war,when questioned on the subject, is bound to giveonly his surname, first names and rank, date ofbirth, and army, regimental, personal or serialnumber, or falling this, equivalent information."Thus the only additional information that canbe obtained from intruding personnel is what

they may volunteer themselves. In the presentcase not only did our men not volunteer informa-tion, but were subjected to pressures andintimidation to extort information which suitedthe interrogators. Even then, the Navigatorwho alone remembers what was said is quiteclear on the fact that he informed them that theplane had strayed over the skies into Pakistanby faulty navigation. What happened thereafterby way of long interrogation under threat andpressure and the misleading statements and othertechnique used to extort statements is againstthe Geneva Convention or international practice.Article 17 again lays down that "no physicalor mental torture, nor any other form of coercionmay be inflicted on prisoners of war to securefrom them information of any kind whatever.Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may notbe threatened, insulted, or exposed to any un-pleasant or disadvantageous treatment of anykind".

"Prisoners of war who, owing to their physicalor mental condition, are unable to state theiridentity, shall be handed over to the medicalservice. The identity of such prisoners shall beestablished by all possible means, subject to theprovisions of the preceding paragraph."

The House may be somewhat concerned ifthere were any element of truth in the allegationsmade by Pakistan that the Canberra displayeda "defiant and hostile" attitude. The allegationis Dot only fantastic but totally unrelated to fact.It tells a story which cannot be true of any unarm-ed aircraft. Wherein is the hostile attitude ? Shecarried no arms and no weapons. Is it suggestedthat a lone Canberra in broad day-light was ona bombing mission ? What is more, the Pakistanisthemselves admit that the Canberra was on asteep climb and was shot. No bomber withhostile intentions would be on a steep climb.Not even Pakistan can believe that Indian Air-craft would fly over their skies with such anintention. It is too ridiculous even to contradict.The allegation is as fantastic as untrue.

In their statement of the 11th of April,Government informed the House of the largenumber of violations across the cease-fire linein Kashmir. Counter allegations have been madeby Pakistan that more numerous violations havebeen made by us. This is not correct. Apart

from the incidents over the cease-fire line attribu-ted to Pakistan or to India to which specialconsiderations apply, such as the presence of theU.N. Observer Corps, Government would likethe House to be seized of the fact that the viola-tions by Pakistan of our territory are bothfrequent and numerous. In the seven-monthperiod between July 1958 and January 1959 theGovernment of India have protested in writingto Pakistan in regard to 27 instances of suchviolations giving them all the particulars. Eachof these protests has been acknowledged but nofurther response has been made. In the two-month period between the 26th January 1959and the 26th March 1959 there have been further21 violations in respect of which the Governmentof India have made written protests to Pakistan.As against this Pakistan has complained andprotested to us in regard to three violations oftheir territory this year. We have investigatedthem. In two cases our aircraft are not concernedat all and the third refers to civil aircraft strayinginto their Air space.

The House should also be informed that inrespect of the above mentioned violations asmany as 3, 4 and 6 Pakistan Fighters have beeninvolved at a time. The intrusions have extend-ed from such border areas as Suleimanki andHusseniwala to distances far into the interior nearMeerut.

During the current month several violationsof an even more sinister character have takenplace. On the 9th of April a Pakistan aircraftpenetrated 90 miles into Indian territory. Onthe 14th a Sabre Jet penetrated into a depth of100 miles into our territory. On the same day

115another aircraft, also a Fighter, penetrated 30miles within our border. Yesterday, the 20thApril, a Pakistan Aircraft penetrated some 85miles into our territory in the neighbouring dis-trict of Hissar, not far away from Delhi. IndianAircraft have not resorted to any hostile action inspite of the provocation in respect of the Canberra.

As reported to the House the Governmenthave already made an oral protest to Pakistanabout the Canberra incident. With a due senseof responsibility and having regard to the serious-ness of the incident Government have deliberately

refrained from making any further communicationto Pakistan or taking any other action in regardto this incident until the full facts have beeninvestigated and our Airmen interrogated andParliament fully informed. Government willtake all such steps as are legitimate and opento them according to the practice of civilizednations to secure the cessation of these violationsof our territory and to obtain redress for thepre-meditated and wanton attack on ouraircraft.

PAKISTAN AUSTRALIA INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC MALI YUGOSLAVIA ITALYSWITZERLAND

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Shri Hafiz Mohd. Ibrahim's Statement in Lok Sabha on Canal Waters

Shri Hafiz Mohd. Ibrahim, Union Minister forirrigation and Power, said in the Lok Sabha onApril 6, 1959 that discussions had just concludedin Washington on proposals for ad hoc transitionalarrangements for continuance of supplies from thethree eastern rivers, Sutlej, Beas, and Ravi, toPakistan for period April 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960.

This, the Minister added, was in accordancewith the Inter-Dominion Agreement of May 4,1948, and the principles of the World Bank pro-posals. Although the Pakistan Government didnot enter into an agreement for the period afterApril 1, 1957, India continued to give suppliesto Pakistan.

The draft agreement, now under considera-tion, the Minister continued, followed broadlythe lines of the agreement for Kharif 1956, exceptthat India would get for her use a somewhat largerproportion of the waters hitherto supplied toPakistan.

The Minister was making a statement in theLok Sabha on a motion, calling attention to thereported interim agreement between India andPakistan about the use of the Indus river and itsmain tributaries for irrigation purposes.

Following is the text of the statement:

As the House is aware, the Inter-DominionAgreement of May 4, 1948 between India andPakistan provided for the progressive diminutionof supplies to Pakistan canals from the easternrivers in order to give time to Pakistan to tapalternative sources. In pursuance of the agree-ment Pakistan started the construction of a fewlink canals to transfer supplies from the westernrivers to canals fed by the eastern rivers.

In February 1954, the International Bankfor Reconstruction and Development put forwarda proposal according to which the entire flow ofthe western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab),except for the insignificant volume of Jhelum flowpresently used in Kashmir, has been allocatedto Pakistan and that of the eastern rivers (Ravi,Beas and Sutlej) to India, save that for a speci-fied transition period India would continue tosupply the historic withdrawals from these riversin Pakistan. The proposal also envisaged thatduring the transition period Pakistan would con-struct certain other link canals for replacing thesupplies received from the eastern rivers.

Three link canals, viz., Bambanwala-Ravi-Bedian-Dipalpur Link, Merala-Ravi Link andBalloki-Suleimanke Link, the construction ofwhich was started in Pakistan after the Inter-Dominion Agreement of May 1948, have sincebeen completed. The withdrawal of waters byIndia is related to the capacity of these link canalsto replace supplies hitherto received from theeastern rivers. For various reasons Pakistan hasnot been running these canals to full capacity. Ifso run, the link canals are capable of replacingnearly half of the supplies which the canals inPakistan have been getting from our rivers. Indiacannot wait indefinitely and will gradually with-draw more and more supplies as and when morereplacement works are built by Pakistan.

In the course of the talks under the aegis ofthe World Bank, which commenced in 1952, the

Governments of India and Pakistan entered intoad hoc transitional arrangements for the supplyof water on three occasions: for Kharif 1955,Rabi 1955-56 and for the period from April 1,1956 to March 31, 1957. Copies of these agree-ments have already been placed in the ParliamentLibrary. Although the Pakistan Government didnot enter into an agreement for the period afterApril 1, 1957, we continued to give supplies toPakistan in accordance with the agreement ofMay 4, 1948, and the principles of the Bank

116proposal. Discussions have just concluded inWashington on proposals for ad hoc transitionalarrangements for the period from April 1, 1959to March 31, 1960. The draft agreement nowunder consideration follows broadly the lines ofthe agreement for Kharif 1956, except that westand to get a somewhat larger proportionof the waters hitherto supplied by us to Pakistan.The indications are that the agreement will besigned in Washington shortly. A copy of theagreement, after it is signed, will be placed inthe Parliament Library.

PAKISTAN LATVIA USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Ad Hoc Agreement on Canal Waters

The Government of India and the Govern-ment of Pakistan, with the good offices of theInternational Bank for Reconstruction and Deve-lopment, have entered into another inter-govern-mental agreement in connection with the IndusWater discussion.

This inter-governmental agreement makesprovision for transitional arrangements for the

period April 1, 1959 to March 31, 1960, and.after taking into account Pakistan's ability totransfer water in replacement from the westernrivers, establishes agreed amounts for additionalwithdrawals by India from the three easternrivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej) during the periodcovered by the agreement.

The agreement was signed in Washingtonon April 17,1959, on behalf of Pakistan by HisExcellency Aziz Ahmed, the Ambassador ofPakistan to the United States of America, and onbehalf of India by Mr. N. D. Gulhati, AdditionalSecretary to the Government of India in theMinistry of Irrigation and Power.

PAKISTAN INDIA USA LATVIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

India's Concern at Supply of U.S. Bombers

India's 'Great Concern' at the supply of jetbombers and jet fighters by the United States ofAmerica to Pakistan had been brought to thenotice of the U.S. Government on several occa-sions and in various ways, Prime Minister Nehrutold the Rajya Sabha on April 29,1959.

Shri Nehru, who was replying to a questionsaid: "The fact of the U.S. Government supply-ing jet bombers to Pakistan, as is well-known,has led to considerable feeling concern and re-sentment in India, which have progressively grownas shown in the recent Canberra incident whenone of our planes was shot down by the jet planes.This fact of our great concern has been broughtto the notice of the U.S. Government on severaloccasions in various ways".

The Prime Minister said that the U.S. autho-

rities in reply had repeated their earlier statementsthat this was no new agreement but only acontinuation of the old and that "in factthey have avoided expending it and tried tolimit".

Earlier Mrs. Lakshmi N. Menon, DeputyMinister for External Affairs, told an Hon.Member of the Rajya Sabha that the Govern-ment of India had brought it to the notice of theU.S. authorities that their supply of militaryequipment and aircraft to Pakistan had producedstrong adverse reactions in India.

PAKISTAN INDIA USA AUSTRALIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Violation of Cease-fire Agreements

In reply to a question in the Rajya Sabhaon April 29, 1959, Shrimati Lakshmi N. Menon,Deputy Minister for External Affairs, said thateleven cease-fire agreements were violated byPakistan during the years 1957-58 and 1958-59,each agreement several times.

PAKISTAN

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Violation of Air Space

In a written reply to a question the PrimeMinister and Minister of External Affairs, ShriJawaharlal Nehru said in the Rajya Sabha on April29, 1959 :

"Pakistan aircraft, in formations of three orfour, violated Indian air space in Jammu& Kashmir on January 13, 14. 16 and 17, 1959.

The Prime Minister replied in the affirmativewhen he was asked by an Hon. Member as towhether the matter was reported to the U.N.

117Observers Team.

Shri Nehru added: The U.N. Chief Mili-tary Observer has held that aircraft did fly asalleged by India in all the four cases but thattheir identification was impossible. He has,therefore, given an award of 'No Violation'against Pakistan in these cases."

PAKISTAN INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

TIBET

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on Dalai Lama's entry intoIndia

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made a statement in the Lok Sabha about theDalai Lama on April 3, 1959. He said :

The other day, three days ago, I think, whenI was speaking about recent happenings in Tibet,I mentioned that I would keep the House in-

formed of every fresh development. In the lasttwo days, day before yesterday and yester-day, we have been receiving a number ofmessages. They were often delayed becausethey had to come through a rather devious route.

Yesterday I was thinking of informing theHouse of a certain development, but then Ihesitated to do so, because I wanted it to be fullyconfirmed; I was waiting for some details. Wereceived them last evening. We could haveissued this news to the Press last evening, but Ithought I should inform the House first and thenthe Press can have it.

The facts are that on the 1st April, i.e. daybefore yesterday morning, we received a messagevia Shillong dated 31st March evening that anemissary with a message from the Dalai Lamahad arrived at our border check-post at Chutang-mu in the North-East Frontier Agency. He hadarrived there on the 29th March stating that theDalai Lama requested us for political asylum andthat he expected to reach the border on the30th March, i.e. soon after he himself had come.We received the message on the 1st. The sameevening, i.e. 1st April evening, a message wasreceived by us again via Shillong dated 1st Aprilthat the Dalai Lama with his small party of 8had crossed into our territory on the evening ofthe 31st March.

Expecting that some such developmentmight occur, we had instructed the various check-posts round about there what to do in case sucha development takes place. So, when he crossedover into our territory, he was received by ourAssistant Political Officer of the Tawang sub-division, which is a part of the Kameng FrontierDivision of the North-East Frontier Agency.A little later, the rest of his party, the entourage,came in. The total number who have come withhim or after him is 80. From the second eveningi.e. yesterday, we learn that this party in twogroups is moving towards Tawang, which is theheadquarters of that sub-division and that he isexpected to reach Tawang the day after tomorrow,Sunday, 5th evening.

An Hon. Member: There is a news in thePress that the New China News Agency has publi-shed the very same news yesterday. How is itthat the Government of India here did not get

this confirmation even till the last evening? ThePrime Minister himself said that he knew theinformation when he was making a statement hereyesterday, but he could get the confirmation onlylast evening. May I know whether we are goingto give political asylum to the Dalai Lama?

Another Hon. Member: I want a clarifica-tion. The Dalai Lama is the temporal and spiritualhead of Tibet. Does the asylum confer the sameright on him and will he be functioning in thesame capacity on the Indian soil ? That is avery serious method.

The Prime Minister : So, far as the Hon.Member's question is concerned, about spiritualrights, etc., I cannot answer it. It is a complicatedmatter which will have to be considered. Butthere is no doubt that he will receive respectfultreatment.

As for the other question, I myself statedthat we knew it day before yesterday evening-infact, if I may say so I was not here then, butwe knew about his having crossed the frontier,but we wanted certain confirmation about details,whether the whole party had crossed over, wherethey were, etc., before I mentioned it to thisHouse. Yesterday morning, I was not in aposition to do so, although I knew that he hadcrossed the border. In the evening I was, butI wanted to wait for the meeting of the LokSabha today to say so, instead of giving the newsto the Press.

118

INDIA USA CHINA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

TIBET

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on Tibet

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehrumade a statement in the Lok Sabha on April 27,1959 on the situation in Tibet.

Following is the text of his statement:

I have made several statements in the Housein regard to the developments in Tibet. The laststatement was made on April 3, in which I in-formed the House that the Dalai Lama hadentered the territory of the Indian Union with alarge entourage. I should like to bring thisinformation up-to-date and to place such addi-tional facts as we have before the House.

A few days ago, the Dalai Lama, and hisparty reached Mussoorie, where Government hadmade arrangements for their stay. I have hadoccasion to visit Mussoorie since then and havehad a long talk with the Dalai Lama.

In the course of the last few days, reportshave reached us that considerable numbers ofTibetans, numbering some thousands, haverecently crossed into the Kameng Frontier Divi-sion of the North-East Frontier Agency andsome hundreds have also entered the territory ofBhutan. They sought asylum, and we haveagreed to this. Such of them as carried armswere disarmed. We do not know the exactnumber yet. Temporary arrangements are beingmade in a Camp for their maintenance until theycan be dispersed in accordance with their wishesand necessities governing such cases. We could notleave these refugees to their own resources. Apartfrom the humanitarian considerations involved,there was also the law and order problem to beconsidered. We are grateful to the Government ofAssam for their help and cooperation in thismatter.

So far as the Dalai Lama and his party areconcerned, we had to take adequate measures ongrounds of security and also to protect themfrom large numbers of newspaper correspondentsboth Indian and foreign, who, in their anxietyto obtain first-hand information in regard to amatter of world importance, were likely to harassand almost overwhelm the Dalai Lama and hisparty. While we were anxious to give protectionto the Dalai Lama and his party, we were agree-

able to giving these newspapermen suitableopportunities to see him. I had received anappeal from nearly 75 representatives of newsagencies and newspapers from Tezpur requestingme to give them such opportunities. A seniorofficer of the External Affairs Ministry was,therefore, deputed to proceed to Tezpur inadvance to deal with the press representativesand photographers who had assembled in thatsmall town of Assam. This officer made thenecessary administrative arrangements to meet,as far as possible, the wishes of the newspapermento see the Dalai Lama and to photograph him.Soon after entering India, the Dalai Lamaindicated his wish to make a statement. Wewere later informed that this statement wouldbe released at Tezpur. Our officer made arrange-ments for the distribution of a translation ofthe statement to the newspaper correspondents.

In view of certain irresponsible chargesmade, I should like to make it clear that the DalaiLama was entirely responsible for this statementas well as a subsequent briefer statement than wasmade by him from Mussoorie. Our officershad nothing to do with the drafting or prepara-tion of these statements.

I need not tell the House that the DalaiLama entered India entirely of his own volition.At no time had we suggested that he should cometo India. We had naturally given thought tothe possibility of his seeking asylum in Indiaand when such a request came, we readily grantedit. His entry with a large party in a remotecorner of our country created special problemsof transport, organization and security. Wedeputed an officer to meet the Dalai Lama andhis party at Bomdila and to escort them toMussoorie. The particular officer was selectedbecause he had served as Consul-General inLhasa and therefore was to some extent knownto the Dalai Lama and his officials. The selectionof Mussoorie for the Dalai Lama's stay wasnot finalised till his own wishes were ascertainedin the matter and he agreed to it. There wasno desire on our part to put any undue restrictionson him, but in the special circumstances, certainarrangements had necessarily to be made toprevent any mishap. It should be rememberedthat the various events in Tibet, culminating in theDalai Lama's departure from Lhasa and entryinto India had created tremendous interest among

the people of India and in the world press. Afterarrival in Mussoorie, steps were taken to preventthe Dalai Lama from being harassed by crowdsof people trying to see him as well as by news-papermen. Apart from this, no restrictions aboutmovement were placed on him. He has beentold that he and his party can move aboutMussoorie according to their wishes. It shouldbe remembered that the Dalai Lama has recentlynot only had a long strenuous journey, but has

119also had harrowing experiences which must affectthe nerves of even a hardened person. He isonly just 24 years of age.

These are some bare facts, but behind thesefacts lie serious developments which may havefar-reaching consequences. Tragedy has been andis being enacted in Tibet, passions have been letloose, charges made and language used which can-not but worsen the situation and our relationswith our northern neighbour. I am sure that theHouse will agree with me that in consideringmatters of such high import, we should exerciserestraint and wisdom and use language which ismoderate and precise. In these days of cold war,there has been a tendency to use unrestrainedlanguage and often to make wild charges withoutany justification. We have fortunately kept out ofthe cold war and I hope that on this as on anyother occasion, we shall not use the language ofcold war. The matter is too serious to be dealtwith in a trivial or excited way. I would, there-fore, appeal to the press and the public to exerciserestraint in language. I regret that occasionallythere have been lapses from this on our side. Inparticular, I regret that grave discourtesy wasshown some days ago to a picture of the head ofthe Chinese State, Chairman Mao Tse-tung. Thiswas done by a small group of irresponsible peoplein Bombay. In the excitement of the moment,we cannot allow ourselves to be swept away intowrong courses.

It is not for me to make any similar appeal tothe leaders, the press and the people of China.All I can say is that I have been greatly distressedat the tone of the comments and the charges madeagainst India by responsible people in China. Theyhave used the language of cold war regardless oftruth and propriety. This is peculiarly distressingin a great nation with thousands of years of cul-

ture behind it, noted for its restrained and politebehaviour. The charges made against India are sofantastic that I find it difficult to deal with them.There is the charge of our keeping the Dalai Lamaunder duress. The Chinese authorities shouldsurely know how we function in this country andwhat our laws and Constitution are. Even if wewere so inclined, we could not keep the DalaiLama under some kind of detention against hiswill, and there can be no question of our wishingto do so. We can gain nothing by it except theburden of difficult problems. In any event, thismatter can be easily cleared. It is open to theDalai Lama at any time to go back to Tibet orwherever he wants to. As the Panchen Lama hasmade himself responsible specially for some strangestatements, I have stated that we would welcomehim to come to India and meet the Dalai Lamahimself. Should he choose to do so, every courtesywill be extended to him. I have further said thatthe Chinese Ambassador or any other emissary ofthe Chinese Government can come to India forthis purpose and meet the Dalai Lama. There isno barrier for anyone to come peacefully to India,and whether we agree with him or not, we shalltreat him with courtesy due to a guest.

Another and an even stranger allegation hasbeen made about "Indian expansionists" who, itis alleged, are inheriters of the British tradition ofimperialism and expansion. It is perfectly truethat British policy was one of expansion into Tibetand that they carried this out by force of armsearly in this country. That was, in our opinion,an unjustified and cruel adventure which broughtmuch harm to the Tibetans. As a result of that,the then British Government in India establishedcertain extra territorial rights in Tibet. WhenIndia became independent, we inherited some ofthese rights. Being entirely opposed to any suchextra territorial rights in another country, we didnot wish to retain them. But in the early daysafter Independence and partition, our hands werefull, as this House well knows, and we had to facevery difficult situations in our own country. Weignored, if I may say so, Tibet. Not being ableto find a suitable person to act as our representa-tive at Lhasa, we allowed for some time the exist-ing British representative to continue at Lhasa.Later an Indian took his place. Soon after theChinese armies entered Tibet, the question ofthese extra territorial rights was raised and wereadily agreed to give them up. We would have

given them up anyhow, whatever developmentsmight have taken place in Tibet. We withdrewour army detachments from some places in Tibetand handed over Indian postal and telegraph ins-tallations and rest houses. We laid down the FivePrinciples of the Panchsheel and placed our rela-tionship with the Tibet region on a new footing.What we were anxious about was to preserve thetraditional connections between India and Tibetin regard to pilgrim traffic and trade. Our actionin this matter and whatever we have done subse-quently in regard to Tibet is proof enough of ourpolicy and that India had no political or ulteriorambitions in Tibet. Indeed, even from the narrow-est practical point of view, any other policywould have been wrong and futile. Ever sincethen we have endeavoured not only to act up tothe agreement we made, but to cultivate the friend-ship of the Chinese State and people.

It is therefore a matter of the deepest regretand surprise to us that charges should be madewhich are both unbecoming and entirely void ofsubstance. We have conveyed this deep feeling

120of regret to the Chinese Government, more espe-cially at the speeches delivered recently in thecurrent session of the National People's Congressin Peking.

I stated some time ago that our broad policywas governed by three factors ; (1) the preserva-tion of the security and integrity of India ; (2) ourdesire to maintain friendly relations with China ;and (3) our deep sympathy for the people of Tibet.That policy we shall continue to follow, becausewe think that a correct policy not only for thepresent but even more so for the future. it wouldbe a tragedy if the two great countries of Asia,India and China, which have been peaceful neigh-bours for ages past, should develop feelings of hos-tility against each other. We for our part will followthis policy, but we hope that China also will dolikewise and that nothing will be said or donewhich endangers the friendly relations of the twocountries which are so important from the widerpoint of view of the peace of Asia and the world.The Five Principles have laid down, inter alia,mutual respect for each other. Such mutual res-pect is gravely impaired if unfounded charges aremade and the language of cold war used.

I have already made it clear previously thatthe charge that Kalimpong was a centre of theTibetan rebellion, is wholly unjustified. We havea large number of people of Tibetan stock livingin India as Indian nationals. We have also someTibetan emigres in India. All of these deeplyrespect the Dalai Lama. Some of these have beenexceedingly unhappy at developments in Tibet ;some no doubt have anti-Chinese sentiments. Wehave made it clear to them that they will not bepermitted to carry on any subversive activitiesfrom India and I should like to say that by andlarge they have acted in accordance with the direc-tions of the Government of India. I cannot ob-viously say that someone has not done somethingsecretly, but to imagine or say that a small groupof persons sitting in Kalimpong organised a majorupheaval in Tibet seems to me to make a largedraft on imagination and to slur over obviousfacts.

The Khampa revolt started in an area ofChina proper adjoining Tibet, more than threeyears ago. Is Kalimpong supposed to be respon-sible for that ? This revolt gradually spread andno doubt created a powerful impression on theminds of large numbers of Tibetans, who had keptaway from the revolt. Fears and apprehensionsabout their future gripped their minds and thenationalist upsurge swayed their feelings. Theirfears may have been unjustified, but surely theycannot be denied. Such feelings can only be dealtwith adequately by gentler methods than war-fare.

When Premier Chou En-lai came here two orthree years ago, he was good enough to discussTibet with me at considerable length. We had afrank and full talk. He told me that while Tibethad long been a part of the Chinese State, theydid not consider Tibet as a province of China. Thepeople were different from the people of Chinaproper, just as in other autonomous regions of theChinese State the people were different, eventhough they formed part of that State. Therefore,they considered Tibet an autonomous region whichwould enjoy autonomy. He told me further thatit was absurd for anyone to imagine that Chinawas going to force Communism on Tibet. Com-munism could not be enforced in this way on avery backward country and they had no wish todo so even though they would like reforms tocome in progressively. Even these reforms they

proposed to postpone for a considerable time.

About that time, the Dalai Lama was alsohere and I had long talks with him then. I told himof Premier Chou En-lai's friendly approach andof his assurance that he would respect the auto-nomy of Tibet. I suggested to him that be shouldaccept these assurances in good faith and co-ope-rate in maintaining that autonomy and bringingabout certain reforms in Tibet. The Dalai lamaagreed that his country, though, according to him,advanced spiritually, was very backward sociallyand economically and reforms were needed.

It is not for us to say how far these friendlyintentions and approaches materialised. The cir-cumstances were undoubtedly difficult. On theone side there was a dynamic, rapidly movingsociety ; on the other, a static, unchanging societyfearful of what might be done to it in the name ofreforms. The distance between the two was greatand there appeared to be hardly any meeting point.Meanwhile changes in some forms inevitable cameto Tibet. Communications developed rapidly andthe long isolation of Tibet was partly brokenthrough. Though physical barriers were progres-sively removed, mental and emotional barriersincreased. Apparently, the attempt to cross thesemental and emotional barriers was either not madeor did not succeed.

To say that a number of "upper strata reac-tionaries" in Tibet were solely responsible for thisappears to be an extraordinary simplification of acomplicated situation. Even according to theaccounts received through Chinese sources, therevolt in Tibet was of considerable magnitude andthe basis of it must have been a strong feeling of

121nationalism which affects not only Upper classpeople but others also. No doubt, vested interestsjoined it and sought to profit by it. The attemptto explain a situation by the use of rather worn-out words, phrases and slogans, is seldomhelpful.

When the news of these unhappy develop-ments came to India, there was immediately astrong and widespread reaction. The Governmentdid not bring about this reaction, nor was thisreaction essentially political. It as largely one ofsympathy based on sentiment and humanitarian

reasons. Also on a certain feeling of kinship withthe Tibetan people derived from long-establishedreligious and cultural contacts. It was an instinc-tive reaction. It is true that some people in Indiasought to profit by it by turning it in an undesir-able direction. But the fact of that reaction ofthe Indian people was there. If that was the reac-tion here, one may well imagine the reactionamong the Tibetans themselves. Probably thisreaction is shared in the other Buddhist countriesof Asia. When there are such strong feelings,which are essentially not political, they cannot bedealt with by political methods alone, much less bymilitary methods. We have no desire whatever tointerfere in Tibet ; we have every desire to main-tain the friendship between India and China ; butat the same time we have every sympathy for thepeople of Tibet, and we are greatly distressed attheir helpless plight. We hope still that the autho-rities of China, in their wisdom, will not use theirgreat strength against the Tibetans but will winthem to friendly co-operation in accordance withthe assurance they have themselves given about theautonomy of the Tibet region. Above all, we hopethat the present fighting and killing will cease.

As I have said above, I had a long talk withthe Dalai Lama three days ago at Mussoorie. Hetold me of the difficulties he had to face, of thegrowing resentment of his people at the conditionsexisting there and how he sought to restrain them,of his feelings that the religion of the Buddha,which was more to him than life itself, was beingendangered. He said that up to the last momenthe did not wish to leave Lhasa. It was only onthe afternoon of the 17th March, when, accordingto him, some shells were fired at his palace andfell in a pond nearby, that the sudden decision wastaken to leave Lhasa. Within a few hours thesame day he and his party left Lhasa and took theperilous journey to the Indian frontier. The depar-ture was so hurried that even an adequate supplyof clothes etc. could not be brought. When I metthe Dalai Lama, no member of his entourage waspresent. Even the interpreter was our own. TheDalai Lama told me that the two statementswhich had been issued were entirely his own andthere was no question of anybody coercing him tomake them. Even though he is young, I couldnot easily imagine that he could be coerced intodoing something he did not wish. All my sym-pathy goes out to this young man who at an earlyage has had to shoulder heavy burdens and to face

tremendous responsibilities. During the last fewweeks he has suffered great physical and mentalstrain. I advised him to rest for a while and notto take any hurried decisions. He felt very un-happy at conditions in Tibet and was especiallyanxious that fighting should stop.

122

USA INDIA BHUTAN CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC CHINA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C.S. Jha's Statement in Governing Council of U.N. Special Fund

Shri C.S. Jha, India's Permanent Representa-tive to the United Nations, made the followingstatement in the Governing Council of the UnitedNations Special Fund on May 27, 1959

Mr. Chairman :

We now come to what might be regarded asthe most important subject before us, namelythe consideration of the projects recommended bythe Managing Director, the documentation in res-pect of which is contained in L/12 and several ad-denda. These in themselves are an eloquent testi-mony to the sincerity of purpose, vigour, initiativeand dynamism which the Managing Director, assist.ed by his able lieutenants, has brought to bearwithin a brief period of four months. We havebefore us a large number of projects coveringdifferent geographical areas on which we have totake decision. This is a proof of the happy co-operation and rapport which have been establish-ed between the Managing Director and his staffand the Secretariat of the UN, SpecialisedAgencies, and the Governments concerned. Thisindeed augurs very well for the future of the Fund.My delegation wishes too pay a tribute to the

Managing Director, Mr. Lewis, and his other assist-ants for the excellent start they have given theFund.

That the Managing Director within a spaceof a few months has received 75 requests coveringa total expenditure of over 80 million dollars-and I believe further additional requests have beenreceived since-is a sign of the tremendousinterest and expectation created among nationsby the Special Fund. Indeed, this is a vindicationof the establishment of the Fund and justificationfor the prolonged discussions preceding it. Thepersistence of many delegations, including ourown, which at times may have jarred on certainears, was, it seems to me, amply justified and well-rewarded.

It is reasonable to hope and expect that thisinterest should be matched by the volume ofcontributions, However, this is not the case atpresent. The total pledges, as the ManagingDirector told us, made by various countriesamount to a little over fourteen million dollars-and the actual payments received so far have notexceeded two and a half million. It can, therefore,be said that this is far short of the expected 100million entertained at the time of the adoptionof the resolution by the General Assembly. Eventhat amount would have been a trickle comparedto the vast and urgent needs of the under-develop-ed areas laid down by the General Assemblyresolution as appropriate for the activities of theFund. It is obvious that the countries which arein the fortunate position of being "haves" need tobe more generous in their contributions. We hopethat these will be forthcoming in increasingamounts.

There is, however, it seems to me, a concurrentresponsibility on the Special Fund to stimulatesuch response by the wisdom and objectivityof its decisions, by laying down sound principlesgoverning the relationship, the nature, extentand scope of the executing agencies, the properselection of projects and allocation of funds, there-fore, as between the Special Fund and Gov-ernments, etc. We believe that the Special Fundshould not be a mere repetition or a projection oran extension of the Technical Assistance Board.What we should aim at and this is somethingwhich my delegation has repeated in the past,and would like to say again, should be the estab-

lishment of a comprehensive and large capitalfund through the UN, and we regard the SpecialFund as an interim and successful attempt inthat direction. We would like the Special Fundto prove itself as an appropriate and successfulstage in the journey towards the establishmentof a capital fund dispensed by the UN. Thatis why this first substantial meeting of the Councilhas a special importance. We have really to laysound foundations for the future. We have toprove by our decisions, by our actions, by theresults shown in different countries that the Funddeserves substantial support, much more substan-tial than hitherto, from governments and alsofrom private contributors, if they should beforthcoming.

Having said this, perhaps you will permitme to make some general comments-and Iwould like to make it clear that we do so notwith an intention to criticise but with the objectof hoping in the realisation of the objectives ofthe Fund. Because of the slenderness of ourresources, the expenditure should be incurred onprojects which produce the maximum results, arefairly evenly geographically distributed andconform to what General Assembly itself hasstated, which is that the urgency of the require-ments should be an important consideration.These principles have to be borne in mind.The Managing Director has himself in his very

123able statement at the last session given the typesof projects on which expenditure should beincurred, and here I would like to read out therelevant portion :

"We do not believe that the Fund should be called upon to defray expenditures which are a normal part of a Govern- ment's budget. In order to prevent this diversion of our resources we might in the formative period of our work be guided by the following general rules :

(a) We would prefer to limit the Fund to financing projects for which there is a definite terminal point to the Fund's commitments, an agreed point at which either Governments or other agencies would take over. In other words, the fund would not embark on projects.

which would commit its resources for an indefinite period;

(b) We would make subventions to operating expenditures only in respect of new or experimental programmes. Any project which merely extends a programme which already exists in one part of a country to other parts, should be met from the Government's budget ;

(c) Our annual subventions to operating expenditures would, therefore, not be large and should not normally be carried beyond a maximum period of, say, five years."

These are very sound principles, and it willbe recalled that at the last session we gave ourgeneral approval to the statement of the ManagingDirector. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, thatwe should bear in mind these principles. Weshould aim at incurring expenditure from the Fundwhich should be self-generating in its nature, scopeand development, that is to say, the slender re-sources that we have should be spent over projectsin the different fields which have been laid downby us and which may be decided later and whichwill really bring about a snowball effect by stimula-ting further development in different fields. TheFund should be careful not to adopt any particularproject or types of projects in specific countriesand extend its sources on recurring assistance orsubventions of a nature which should be the dayto day operation expenditure by governmentsconcerned and which should be their responsibility.Where an education or technical or vocationalinstitution has been helped or is proposed to behelped by the Fund-and it would be quitejustified to set it on its foot-the Fund shouldensure that particular training institutions ortypes of institutions in a particular country arenot too frequently assisted because that wouldbe rather contrary to the purpose of the Fund,and to what I have just emphasised, the self-generating power of the assistance that we renderin the various fields.

I should also like to point out that in manyunder-developed countries which are in asomewhat higher stage of development thanothers, research institutions are equally, if notmore, important, than training institutions.Successful research in the context of local

conditions might open up possibilities ofdevelopment and investment from outside. Imention this with reference to my own countrywhich is advancing fairly rapidly on the roadfrom an underdeveloped to a developed or semi-developed country. Indeed, that is the reason whyin the projects submitted by my Government theManaging Director has not been able to acceptthem, because of the slenderness of the resourcesand other reasons-there are certain projectsof a very important nature, the establishmentof certain research institutions, which will nodoubt receive due consideration by him.

I would like to confess in connection withthese projects to our feeling that perhaps theexpenditure on what we might call the non-substantive aspects of the projects is rather high.For example, in Doc. SF/L/12 add. 16, theexecuting agency costs range from 12.7% to afigure as low as 0-we might omit that and takethe minimum at 2.5%-the average being 8.6%.Add to this 15% which has been asked by theManaging Director on contingencies, which inthe course of the discussion, subject to certaincomments that have been made, we have agreedto ; and there are other additions which havealso been requested by some Specialized Agenciesand agreed to by the Managing Director. I referin this connection to para 2 of SF/L/16. Apartfrom this we also find in para 19 of L/12-

"Also to be allocated to each project are the identifiable costs of the Managing Director's office, of which the most important are the cost of sending consultants to evaluate a project request, before deciding whether to recommend the project to the Council, and the cost of sending Special Fund staff to inspect the project during its operation."

I refer to these because it gives us the feelingthat the non-substantive aspects of the costsinvolved in these projects are high. If I understand

124para 19 of Doc. L/12 correctly, there may befurther additions to the estimates regarding theagency. This is a matter which I do not wantto emphasise too much. I am sure the ManagingDirector has already in mind these aspects. Whatwe would like, however, is an accurate estimate

of the costs of the different projects. We feelalso that the executive agency costs plus conting-encies which might form about 22 to 23 per cent ofthe total costs is rather high. We hope that theseamounts will be substantially reduced, especially,as I am going to suggest a little later, if we are tochange our conception slightly as to the mannerof execution of these projects.

In all these projects, there has been a mentionof the executive agency. In the draft agreementwith governments, there is a paragraph whichsays-

1. The Parties hereby agree that eachproject shall be executed by an Executing Agencyto which the sums referred to in Article I aboveshall be disbursed by agreement between theSpecial Fund and such Executing Agency.

2. The government agrees that an ExecutingAgency, in carrying out a project, shall have thestatus, vis-a-vis the Special Fund, of an indepen-dent contractor. Accordingly, the Special Fundshall not be liable for the acts or omissions of theExecuting Agency or of persons performingservices on its behalf. The Executing Agencyshall not be liable for the acts or omissions of theSpecial Fund on of persons performing serviceson behalf of the Special Fund.

3. Any agreement between the Governmentand an Executing Agency concerning the executionof a Special Fund project shall be subject to theprovisions of this Agreement and shall require theprior concurrence of the Managing Director.

4. Any equipment, materials, supplies andother property belonging to the Special Fund or anExecuting Agency which may be utilised orprovided by either or both in the execution of aproject shall remain their property unless anduntil such time as title thereto may be transferredto the Government on terms and conditionsmutually agreed upon between the Governmentand the Special Fund or the Executing Agencyconcerned.

Also for each project an executing agency hasbeen designated. Now, while we are in accordwith the views that many of these projects haveto be executed by outside agencies, specializedagencies of UN, etc., and other agencies it seems

to us that there is a slight over-emphasis on theexecution of these projects by other than govern-ments. We have to be careful not to give theimpression. that the Special Fund is just a kindof managing agency which sends out a privatefirm or another agency to do a certain work there,calls upon the government to give subsidiary aid.That would be an unfortunate impression tocreate. We should like projects to be aimed atstimulating public enthusiasm and also provide akind of training to governments in the executionof such projects. So far as our own country isconcerned which is regarded as an under-developedcountry, we have statutory executive agencies-theCentral Water & Power Commission for powerprojects, the Council of Scientific and IndustrialResearch for Technical research, etc. Normallythese should be the executing agencies. Likewisein other countries there may be similar nationalagencies which are used to executing certain typesof work. Of course the participation of outsideagencies is not barred, but that should be byagreement with the governments concerned.

There is another point about the executingagency ; if we employ a government agency, thecost is likely to be less. In this way we mightmake the slender resources of the Fund go muchfarther. In this connection I would like to referto para 39/40 of General Assembly Resolution1240 where the words used are "wheneverpossible".

"39. Projects shall be executed, when- ever possible, by the United Nations, by the specialized agencies concerned, or by the International Atomic Energy Agency it being understood that the Managing Director shall also be authorized to contract for the services of other agencies, private firms or individual experts in the cases mentioned in paragraph 34 above."

Now, there is no obligation on the Fund thatall projects should be executed through thevarious bodies which have been mentioned inArticle 39. The emphasis should be thatthe Agencies should be utilised to the maximumextent. It is for the Managing Director to decideon all these matters which can be discussed anddecided in consultation and negotiation withgovernments. We feel that where the project is

of a type for which there already exists anadequate or near adequate machinery for execu-tion in the country, the government concernedshould be the executing agency with the assistanceof the Special Fund and specialized agencies,provision of experts, etc.

125 Before I conclude my remarks I should liketo make some observations on the draft agreementbetween the Special Fund and governments.There are many features of the draft agreementwhich are not agreeable to us. In the first place,I would say that the provision which strikes oneas rather odd is the proposal for extension ofdiplomatic and other privileges of the samenature, to the personnel of private firms workingin connection with the projects. Most govern-ments I am sure will hesitate to go as far as that.As regards the Government of India their view isthat, that would be a provision which it would bedifficult to accept. These privileges can be extendedonly to the personnel of the United Nations andspecialized agencies and not to others.

The agreement in its present form, weapprehend, would cause a lot of difficulties, andour suggestion would be that we should not bein a hurry to frame any kind of a model agree-ment. We should leave over this matter to bediscussed at a further session of the Council afterwe have had more experience, after governmentshave thought over it, and after the ManagingDirector, in consultation with various governmentswill enter into negotiation and submit a report tous on the broad aspects which are not at presentagreeable to us-and many other governments-this matter can be decided. It will be enough forour purpose to authorise the Managing Directorto enter into agreements with governments inrespect of whose projects are approved, bearing inmind the comments that are made by themembers of the Council and keeping in view theagreements entered into by the United NationsTechnical Assistance Board with governments.Naturally, the agreements will not be in the sameform with each government.

These are the observations I wish to makenow and if there be occasion in the future, Ihope you will grant me indulgence to speakagain.

INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SUPERVISION AND CONTROL IN VIETNAM

Interim Report

The Ministry of External Affiairs, Governmentof India, issued on May 13, 1959 the followingsummary of the 9th Interim Report of the Inter-national Commission for Supervision and Controlin Vietnam :

The report is a brief survey of the activitiesof the Commission from May 1958 to January 31,1959 and a review of the progress made by theparties concerned in the implementation of theGeneva Agreement on Vietnam. During the 8-month period under review, theCommission had 39 meetings and sent out 6mobile teams for investigation, reconnaissanceand control. The Commission's headquarterswere transferred from Hanoi to Saigon in April 1,1958.

The Commission received from the Cambo-dian Commission the report of the ad hoc investi-gation team on the Stung Treng border violationand certain fresh complaints of border troublenotified by the Government of Cambodia.The report and the further complaints wereforwarded to the Government of Vietnam withthe suggestion that border problems may besettled by negotiations between the twoGovernments.

The Commission has, under consideration,the request of the Cambodian Government totake charge of 90 escapees into Cambodia fromSouth Vietnam who wish to go to North Vietnam.

The position regarding the administration of

the Demilitarized Zone between the DemocraticRepublic of Vietnam and the Republic of Vietnamhas shown no improvement. The Commission'steam reported several instances of persons enter-ing the Southern part of the Zone with the permitsissued by the Chief of the Quang Tri Province.In many of these cases the Commission has de-clared that there was a violation by the Republicof Vietnam of article 7 of the Geneva Agreement.The Commission received 49 complaints fromthe PAVN High Command and 14 complaints fromthe Government of the Republic of Vietnam, eachparty charging the other with violation of theDemilitarized Zone and acts of provocation.Some of these cases are still under inquiry whileothers have been closed after explanations werereceived from the parties concerned.

On April 15, 1958 the French Mission waswithdrawn from the Joint Commission establishedunder article 30 of the Geneva Agreement forpurposes of joint action by the two parties. TheGovernment or the Republic of Vietnam informed

126the Commission that, not being a signatory to theGeneva Agreement it could not take part in theactivities of the Joint Commission. The Com-mission drew the attention of both the parties tothis situation and emphasised that prompt actionby the parties through the Joint Commission tosettle complaints of alleged violation of articles 7,8 and 9 is of great importance for the preservationof a Demilitarized Zone created to act as a bufferand to prevent any incidents which might lead toresumption of hostilities. The Commission alsostated that it would report to the Co-Chairmenthe situation arising from the attitude of theRepublic of Vietnam for such action as may beconsidered necessary. A special mobile teammaintained by the Commission continued to per-form, as far as possible, the duties of supervisionand control in the Zone. The Government of theRepublic of Vietnam has in spite of the requestfrom the Commission failed to provide telephonecommunications between this mobile team andHien Nuong Bridge. The Commission has in-formed them that this failure constituted lack ofco-operation under article 23 of the Agreement.

The question of solving the problem of borderraids with the assistance of Red Cross Societiesof the two sides is being pursued by the Secretary

General. Some fresh complaints were receivedon this subject from the PAVN High Commandparticularly in respect of the proposal by theGovernment of the Republic of Vietnam to trans-fer to another location the cemetery at Qui Nhon.The reply of the Government of Republic ofVietnam to these complaints is under consideration.

The Government of the Republic of Vietnampersisted in its uncooperative attitude in regardto supervision by the Commission of the imple-mentation of article 14 (c) under which the partieshad undertaken to refrain from any reprisalsagainst persons or organisations on account oftheir activities during the hostilities. They haveneither replied to the complaints forwarded tothem nor permitted the Commission's mobileteams to investigate these complaints. The Com-mission stated that the Government of the Repub-lic of Vietnam had not observed article 25 of theGeneva Agreement.

64 fresh complaints under article 14 (c)received from the PAVN High Command betweenOctober 1957 and August 1958 were forwarded tothe Republic of Vietnam for comments. TheCommission decided to review the situation afterfour months. Two complaints were subsequentlyreceived, one alleging food poisoning and shoutingof persons in Phu Loi Concentration Camp andthe other alleging arrest and torture of Miss TranLy. communications were received from theSouth Vietnam Government denying these alle-gations. These communications are under con-sideration.

During the period under review the Commis-sion received 41 complaints from the PAVN HighCommand against the Republic of Vietnam butnone from the Republic of Vietnam against thePAVN under article 14(c).

No progress was made during the periodunder review regarding the settlement of casesunder article 14(c) and article 14(d) reported inthe 8th and 7th Interim Reports.

The Commission scrutinized several cases ofviolation under article 21 dealing with prisonersof war and civilian internees.

The Secretary-General continued to explorethe possibility of having requests for search for

missing prisoners of war and civilian interneesdealt with by the Red Cross Societies of the twoZones without prejudice to the duties of the Com-mission in this regard. Information continued to heexchanged by the parties through the Commission.

The PAVN High Command did not agree tothe continuous control at the Phuc Hoa but amobile element of the Dong Dang fixed teamvisited Phuc Hoa frequently. In August 1958,the Government of the Republic of Vietnamagreed to daily control of the Nha Be harbour.

South Vietnam authorities reported the con-struction of a new airfield to replace the formerairfield at Ban Me Thuot. The Commission hasdecided to carry out the necessary reconnaissanceof the new airfield.

On receipt of the complaint from the PAVNHigh Command that the Quang Ngai airfield inSouth Vietnam was being repaired and enlarged,the Commission has requested the Republic ofVietnam to arrange for a team of Air Advisers toreconnoitre this airfield.

The Commission is also awaiting a reply ofthe South Vietnam Government on the suggestionthat Air Advisers should reconnoitre seven otherairfields in South Vietnam. Concurrence of thePAVN High Command has been received for thereconnaissance by the Commission of the LaiChau Nam Coum Road. Concurrence is awaitedfor the reconnaissance of the off-shore islands.The Commission has also told the PAVN HighCommand that it wished to send a team of AirAdvisers to reconnoitre the Bach Mai airfield.

127The PAVN High Command has stated that atpresent the airfield is being used as barracks butthey would advise the Commission if it is recon-verted into an airfield. The Air Advisers' teamvisited South Vietnam's Bien Hoa airfield and theVietnam Government has been asked to furnishall the documents required by the team.

The Commission was unable to exercisecontrol and supervision in terms of article 36(d)at several places through mobile teams as theGovernment of the Republic of Vietnam placedvarious restrictions on them. The Commissionhas informed the Republic of Vietnam that it

would report the matter to the members of theGeneva Conference (as required by article 43).

Regarding the complaint of the PAVN con-cerning the presence as observers of representa-tives of the Republic of Vietnam at the SEATOConference at Manila in March 1958, the Republicof Vietnam affirmed that they did not send anyrepresentative to this Conference. Four othercomplaints have been received by the Commissionfrom the PAVN alleging the presence of represen-tatives of South Vietnam at a conference and atthe military and naval manoeuvres of the SEATOduring 1957-58.

The Commission has informed the Govern-ment of the Republic of Vietnam that the TERM(Temporary Equipment Recovery Mission) shouldbe able to complete its work by June, 1959 andshould leave South Vietnam thereafter.

The Commission recorded proceduralcontravention by the Republic of Vietnam inseveral cases under article 16 (f) and article 17 (e)requiring that prior intimation should be given bythe Commission in respect of the arrivals ordepartures of military personnel or war material.These cases related to an earlier period. Duringthe period under review further notifications underthese articles were received from the PAVNHigh Command. The PAVN High Commandhas also alleged increase in the strength ofAmerican military personnel in South Vietnam.The Commission examined the team reports forthe period from 7th June 1956 to 28th December1957. On the basis of available information, itwas seen that 2002 American military personnelarrived in South Vietnam and 1243 left the country.Thus arrivals exceeded departures by 759. TheRepublic of South Vietnam has agreed to lookinto these figures. As explained in the 8th InterimReport, the Commission has been receiving claimsfrom the Republic of Vietnam for credit for thereplacement of war material under article 17 (b)and also of the war material exported by theFrench High Command from the cease-fire uptoJune 20, 1956. The Commission has worked outand accepted the principles and procedures underwhich such claims are to be granted, (the PolishCommission dissenting). The PAVN High Com-mand has stated that this decision of the Commis-sion was contrary to the spirit and letter of theGeneva Agreement. The Democratic Republic

of Vietnam also represented their view to theCo-Chairmen. No reply has been received fromthe Co-Chairmen to these communications. TheCommission has pointed out to the DRVN thatthere was no provision in the Agreement for appealagainst any decision of the Commission.

Some of the Commission's teams in NorthVietnam could not go out on their mandatorycontrol duties on Sundays and holidays as thePAVN did not make the necessary arrangements.The Commission expressed its concern over thesedifficulties. Similar difficulties were experiencedby some of the teams of the Commission in SouthVietnam also.

There has been no major incident in theDemilitarized Zone and no outbreak of hostilitiesfrom either side. The Commission has, however,invited attention to the fact that the preservation ofthe demilitarized character of the buffer zone maywell be jeopardized in the absence of the JointCommission or any other machinery for jointsupervision of the Zone by the two parties. TheCommission has preserved in its efforts to maintainpeace in Vietnam in accordance with the GenevaAgreement.

There have been no consultations betweenthe two parties with a view to holding free nation-wide elections for the re-unification of Vietnam asenvisaged in the Agreement. This has maintainedthe prospect of indefinite continuance of theCommission and its activities. The Commissionhas expressed the hope that this problem isengaging the attention of the Co-Chairmen andof the Geneva Powers.

The parties have persisted in giving theirown interpretations which sometimes differ fromthose of the Commission on some of the provisionsof the Agreement. In spite of such difficulties(which the Commission has requested the Co-Chairmen to resolve) the Commission has conti-nued to exercise some measure of supervision andcontrol of the execution by the parties of theGeneva Agreement.

128

VIETNAM INDIA SWITZERLAND CAMBODIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC PHILIPPINES

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

IRAQ

Trade Agreement Ratified

Letters were exchanged between theGovernments of India and Iraq in Baghdad onMay 18, 1959 ratifying the trade agreementbetween the two Governments signed on December29, 1958. The agreement will be valid for aperiod of one year.

The agreement seeks to promote closer tradeand economic relations between India and Iraq tothe mutual benefit of both countries The twocountries have agreed to accord to the trade ofeach other the most favoured nation treatment,subject to the existing or future preferences oradvantages which either party accords to a thirdcountry or countries.

Under the agreement, the two Governmentshave also agreed to help in expanding the trade intraditional items, like Iraqi dates and Indian tea,as well as in extending the trade to a number ofnew products.

Among the items listed as available forimport from Iraq to India are dates and hides andskins. Among the items listed for export fromIndia to Iraq are cotton textiles, tea, jute manu-factures, light engineering products, plastic goods,pharmaceuticals and chemicals.

IRAQ INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Shri Morarji Desai's Statement on Pakistan's Partition Debt to India

The Finance Minister, Shri Morarji Desai,made a statement in the Lok Sabha on May 7,1959 in response to notice by several Members ofthe House calling attention to the reported claimby a spokesman of the Pakistan Finance Ministrythat India owes Pakistan Rs. 180 crores onaccount of partition debt.

Following is the text of his statement

With your permission, Sit, I propose to makea. short statement on the partition debt of Pakistanto India, about which I answered a question inthis House on the 21st of last month and in theRajya Sabha on the 28th, with reference to certaincomments which have appeared in the Press asfrom a spokesman of the Pakistan Governmentand which give a misleading impression. The House will remember that on the 5thSeptember, 1957, Shri T.T. Krishnamachari madea statement on behalf of Government on thefinancial issues between the two countries anddealt at some length with the various outstandingitems. Nothing has since happened necessitatinga change in any of the facts or figures givenby him. In regard to the partition debt, it has beensuggested that there is no basis for the figure ofRs. 300 crores mentioned by us and that thequestion of payment arose only after the debt hadbeen determined. In regard to the size of thedebt, there is nothing new about the figure ofRs. 300 crores. It was an estimate made as farback as 1948 and has been repeated as such manytimes. As pointed out by Shri Krishnamachariin his statement, it gave only the order of the suminvolved. In our view, it may be actually some-what higher. But I was surprised to see thestatement from the Pakistan Government that thisfigure of Rs. 300 crores had no basis. I under-stand that, as far back as 1952, broad details of abalance sheet, which gave a higher figure of thedebt, were supplied to the officers of the Pakistan

Government by our officers. There was somecorrespondence about some of the figuresfurnished by us but, eventually, this corres-pondence, like correspondence on many othermatters, petered out. In view of this, it is hardlycorrect to say that there was no basis for thisfigure.

It is difficult to understand the argument thatpayments fell due only after the debt is deter-mined. On this pretext, no payment need everbe made simply by refusing to accept any figureas the correct figure of the debt. While the finalfigure would take some time to work out, thebroad dimension of the sum involved is, in ourview, quite clear and could easily be settled. Wehave already seven annual instalments overdueunder the partition arrangements and the eighthinstalment will fall due next August. When claimsare made for other payments as due here andnow, the fact that India has already overdue to

129her a large sum on account of the partition debtcannot be brushed aside on the spacious groundthat the debt has not been worked out.

I was equally surprised to see the statementthat a sum of Rs 180 crores was due to be paidto Pakistan. We do not have any details of thisclaim. So far as we know, the highest figurementioned so far has been about Rs. 100 crores.This was a figure which was communicated to usin a letter from the late Mr. Ghulam Mohammedin 1950. This included the sum of Rs. 49 croreson account of currency assets which was specifi-cally mentioned in Shri Krishnamachari's state-ment also. The balance related to a number ofmiscellaneous items the exact figure in regard towhich still remains to be determined. A figureof Rs. 100 crores was also mentioned in thePakistan National Assembly by the Pakistan-Finance Minister on the 28th. August, 1957. Thefigure now put out is much higher but, as I said,we have no details.

I have mentioned certain figures on bothsides. But it is obvious that they only give thebroad dimensions of the picture and that thevarious claims and counter-claims will have to bediscussed and accepted before a settlement isreached. For some years, we have tried to workout the figures and reach a settlement at official

level but, in view of the large sums involved andthe peculiar problems which some of the issuespose, it has not been possible to do so. Themajor issues have, therefore, to be settled atGovernment level. My predecessor had invitedthe Finance Minister of Pakistan for a discussion,but for a variety of reasons, it has not been possi-ble to hold a meeting. It is my intention to renewthe invitation and I hope it will be possible tohold an early meeting, discuss all the outstandingitems and claims on both sides and reach a solutionfair to both the countries. Meanwhile, I ventureto suggest that there is no reason to get undulyconcerned by the mention of an odd figure or anindividual claim, whether in the Press or elsewhere.

PAKISTAN INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Shrimati Lakshmi Menon's Statement on Shooting Down of IAF Canberra

Shrimati Lakshmi N. Menon, DeputyMinister for External Affairs, made a statementin the Rajya Sabha on May 6, 1959 on the shoot-ing down of an I.A.F. Canberra near Rawalpindiby the Pakistan Air Force on April 10, 1959. Shemade this statement in reply to a question by anHon. Member of the House and said that theshooting down of the Canberra was "in flagrantviolation of all norms of international behaviour asalso a deliberate breach of reciprocity of relationsin this regard between Pakistan and India."

Following is the text of the statement :

In a note dated 11th April, 1959, thePakistan High Commission in New Delhi allegedviolations of Pakistan air space by Indian AirForce Canberra bombers at 0730 hours and 0930hours respectively on the 10th April. In regard

to the first allegation it was stated that PakistanAir Force interceptors approached "a twinengined jet aircraft" while it was heading forRawalpindi, and later instructed the pilot toaccompany them and land ; that the aircraftignored these instructions and "manoeuvred asif about to indulge in hostility against the inter-ceptors" ; that one of the interceptors fired awarning burst of tracer bullets, but that the air-craft still continued manoeuvring in a hostilemanner ; and that in the action that followed theaircraft was shot down and that from thewreckage it had been identified as an I.A.F.Canberra bomber.

In a note sent to the Pakistan Government bythe Indian High Commission in Karachi on April30, the Government of India have lodged anemphatic protest against the hostile act of thePakistani authorities in shooting down an un-armed Canberra aircraft of the Indian Air Forcewhich had strayed into Pakistan territory bynavigational error on the 10th April, and incircumstances which prove conclusively that theact was planned and pre-meditated. In this notefull details were given of the circumstancesattending the incident proving beyond any doubtthat no warning was given to the aircraft beforeit was shot down ; that this unarmed aircraftcould not by any stretch of imagination be saidto have taken any hostile action against thePakistani interceptors ; that the Pakistan authori-ties were in no doubt at the time of shooting downthat the aircraft belonged to the Indian AirForce ; and that the alleged confessions by theIndian airmen were fabricated so as tomislead public opinion both at home andabroad.

It was also pointed out that Pakistan's actionwas in flagrant violation of all norms of inter-national behaviour as also a deliberate breach ofreciprocity of relations in this regard betweenPakistan and India.

The Government of India have pointed outthat this hostile act has done incalculable harmto good neighbourly relations between India and

130Pakistan and have pressed upon the Governmentof Pakistan the urgency of taking immediately allremedial measures necessary to undo the harm

done, to express their regret for this act ofgrievous injury and to agree to Me payment offull compensation for the loss of the aircraft andfor the injuries sustained by the Indian airmen.

The Government of Pakistan were alsoinformed that their allegation about a secondI.A.F. Canberra aircraft has been thoroughlyinvestigated and found to be utterly groundless.

PAKISTAN AUSTRALIA USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Incursions into Jammu and Kashmir

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehrumade a statement in the Lok Sabha on May 8,1959 on the incursions into Jammu and Kashmirby armed personnel from Pakistan or Pakistanoccupied Kashmir during 1958-59.

The Prime Minister made this statementin reply to a question by several Hon.Members of the Lok Sabha. The statement,which was laid on the table of the House,says :

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Number of incursions by armed personnel Number of Loss of No. of cases U.N. ChiefMilitary from Pakistan or persons Property reported toObserver's award Pakistan occupied killed U.N. Observers Kashmir

1958 35 1 Nil 35 4 awards ofViolation against

Pakistan.

1 award ofViolation against Pakistanand India.

30 awards of NoViolation againstPakistan.

1959 (uptoApril 15, '59) 18 1 Nil 18 3 awards ofViolation againstPakistan.

15 awards of NoViolation againstPakistan.

PAKISTAN USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Trade Agreement Extended

Letters were exchanged on May 25, 1959between Shri K. B. Lal, Additional Secre-tary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry,and Mr. Tu Yu-yun, Counsellor for Com-mercial Affairs in the Embassy of People'sRepublic of China in New Delhi, extendingtill the end of 1959 the validity of the TradeAgreement between India and China concludedin 1954.

The total trade between the two countries in1957 and 1958 amounted to Rs. 8.6 and Rs. 8.7

crores respectively. In 1957, imports amountedto Rs. 4.9 crores against exports of Rs. 3.7 crores.Imports during 1958 amounted to Rs. 5.3 croresagainst exports of 3.4 crores. The main items of

131imports from China are newsprint, chemicals,steel, cassia and raw silk. Important among theIndian exports to China are tobacco, raw cotton,shellac and jute manufactures.

CHINA USA INDIA RUSSIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

TECHNICAL COOPERATION MISSION

Financial Assistance

Uttar Pradesh will have an agricultural uni-versity on the pattern of the U.S. Land GrantColleges, following an agreement signed in NewDelhi between the Government of India and theU.S. Technical Cooperation Mission.

The agreement provides for Rs. 20.14 lakhs($ 424,000) of technical assistance for the develop-ment and operation of the university which willbe located at the Terai State farm, Rudrapur.Of this, Rs. 14.28 lakhs ($ 300,000 will be usedfor procuring books and scientific equipment fromoutside India and the remaining Rs. 5.86 lakhs($ 124,000) for securing the services of Americanspecialists and consultants and for training in theU.S.A. of 2 Indian teachers.

The agreement was signed by Shri N.C. SenGupta, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, forthe Government of India and Mr. Howard E.Houston, T. C. M. Director, for the TechnicalCooperation Mission.

This agreement supplements the T. C. M.

Technical Assistance of about Rs. 8.5 lakhs($ 147,000) provided last year, when this projectwas initiated. Total T. C. M. assistancefor agricultural education and research sofar has slightly exceeded Rs. 3.5 crores($ 7,500,000).

USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

TIBET

Prime Minister's Reply to Lok Sabha Debate on Tibet

Replying to a debate on the situation in Tibet,the Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru madethe following statement in the Lok Sabha on May8, 1959 :

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, this matter concern-ing the developments in Tibet has come up beforethis House as well as before the other House onseveral occasions in the course of the last fewweeks and I have had occasion to make manystatements on the situation arising from thesedevelopments. I should have thought thatenough had been said for the time being about thebasic facts. So those facts as known werechallenged, in statements from China. Some of thestatements from China, in so far as they relatedto India, were not accepted as facts by us. And Iwondered sometimes whether it would serve anyuseful purpose for us to carry on this argumentwhich could only mean really a repetition of whathad been said. Nevertheless, it is perhaps a goodthing for us to have this brief discussion here.But in the course of this discussion so many basicfacts have been challenged, or basic ideas havebeen challenged, that it raises much wider issuesthan what has happened in Tibet.

The hon. Member who just spoke before me

with warmth said many things which challengedall the basic assumptions of our policy which hasbeen accepted by this House and I think by thecountry as a whole with remarkable unanimity.Nevertheless, he challenged all those basic assump-tions. Either he has never believed in those basicassumptions or what has happened in Tibet hasmade him change his opinion. Now, I do not propose in these few minutes todiscuss all the basic assumptions of our policy.All I would like to say now is that I do not holdwith what the hon. Member has spoken. I donot agree with much that he has said and so faras Government is concerned, we are not going tofollow the policy that he has suggested that weshould follow. I should like to make that per-fectly clear.

I may say in passing that we have laid nolimitations on the Dalai Lama, except the limita-tion of good sense and propriety of which hehimself is the judge. But for the hon. Memberto suggest that we should allow him to do some-thing which he has not himself suggested, that is,

132making India the headquarters of some kind of acampaign and that we should allow the hon.Member and his party to join in this campaign issomething which seems to be so odd, so remark-able of utterance that I cannot imagine how even hecould have made it if he had thought about it. Ineed not say much about it, because it has norelation to what is happening in the world, or inIndia, or in Tibet, or in China or anywhere.

He also laid stress on the 1954 Agreement, theagreement with China with regard to Tibet. Hesaid we should never have done it. Again I donot quite understand what meant by this kindof statement or this kind of view-point. Whatexactly he expects us to do is not clear exceptmay be perhaps to hold public meetings in Ramlilagrounds and deliver speeches. That is not theway that foreign policy of a country is conducted,by public meetings held in various places in India.Public meetings are important no doubt. But wehave to come up against not only basic policiesand assumptions, but hard facts in regard toforeign policy.

I have no doubt in my mind that the agreementwe made with China with regard to Tibet was a

right agreement. It was a correct agreement andwe shall stand by it and it is not correct. even forhim to say that that agreement has been broken.It may be said that he thinks that certain implica-tions of that agreement have not been, accordingto him or according to anybody else, carried out.That is a different matter. But there is no ques-tion of that agreement having been broken. Itlasts ; it functions.

I do not know how many people here knowthe background of all these problems. We havebeen moved naturally, we have had a kind ofemotional upheaval, by recent happenings andit is quite understandable that that should be sobecause of certain intimate emotional and otherbonds with Tibet, with the people of Tibet or theMountains of Tibet, or Kailash or Manas Sarovarand so on, a mixture. We can understand that.And we can respect this emotional response.Nevertheless any policy that we lay down orattempt to lay down cannot be based on anemotional upheaval. They have to bear somerelation to facts.

I do not know how many hon. Membersknow the history, the background of Tibet,of China, of Mangolia, of Bhutan and Sikkim andNepal in the last few hundred years. I wonderhow many have cared to look into them. I donot know whether the hon. Member who justspoke knows anything about it at all. I happento know something about it and I have taken thtrouble to read quite a number of books andhistories, Chinese chronicles, Indian reports, etc.Here is the history of six or seven hundred years,or more, from the moment when Chengiz Khaninvaded Tibet, when Kublai Khan also held Tibetin a peculiar way, considering the then DalaiLama as a spiritual guru. It is a curious combi-nation. Politically he was dominant in Tibet,but Kublai Khan considered the Dalai Lama ashis spiritual leader, so that you see a curiouscombination coming up. And in fact for aconsiderable period the relationship of Tibet withChina was very peculiar; in a sense, I believe I amnot wrong in saying, the Chinese rather lookeddown upon the Tibetans from the Mangol times.The Chinese rather look down upon every countryother than their own. They consider themselvesas the middle kingdom, as the celestial race, agreat country, whether it was the Tang kingdom,or the Ming kingdom or ultimately the Manchus

for a long period. The relations between Chinaand Tibet varied from sovereignty or suzerainty,or half-sovereignty or semi-independence for longperiods like this coming one after the other tillthe Manchu dynasty right up to the beginning ofthe twentieth century held full sway over Tibet,quite a considerable sway. Even in the last daysof the Manchu dynasty, when it fell, it held someconsiderable influence in Tibet.

When the Manchu dynasty fell round aboutforty or fifty years ago it weakened. It weakened,but whoever held China, whether it was theEmperor, or whether it was President Yuan ShihKai, whether it was the war lords after them orwhether it was Marshal Chiang Kai-shek's regime,or whether it was the Peoples Government, theyhad one consistent policy from Emperor to thecommunist of considering themselves as overlordsof Tibet. No doubt, when Tibet was strong, itresisted that from time to time. There have beenoccasions when, twice at least, Tibetan armiesreached the capital of China-It is rather oldhistory-as the Chinese armies came repeatedlyinto Tibet. There have been occasions whenNepalese army went into Tibet and Tibetan armycame into Nepal. There was one occasion atleast when a certain General from Kashmir,Zoravar Singh, who carried out a brilliant cam-paign across the Himalayas in Tibet only, ofcourse, to meet a stouter enemy than Tibetan oranybody, the cold of Tibet. The temperature ofTibet put an end to him and his army there. Allthis is history, mixed history. There is no doubtthat the countries with whom Tibet has been mostintimately connected in the past have been Mongoliaand China, naturally for historical and otherreasons, religious reasons, cultural reasons.

133

But, all these do not count. In consideringthe present-day situation, we have to take thingsas they are and have been recently. We cannotthink of Chengiz Khan's time or Kublai Khan'stime or the Manchu Emperors or Chiang KaiShek or anybody else. In regard to the presentsituation, what exactly are we after ? If we acceptthe hon. Member Shri Vajpayee's statement, weshould, more or less, prepare for an armed conflicton this issue. We cannot pat somebody on theback and tell him to fight and say, we will cheeryou from the background. That is an absurd

situation. We must be clear in our mind whatwe are saying or aiming at. I take it that we aim at.whatever problems may arise, first of all, a peace-ful solution of these problems. Peaceful solutionsare not brought about by warlike speeches andwarlike approaches. It is obvious that if somepeople in China think that by threats and strongspeeches, they can frighten India, that is wrong.It is equally obvious that if some people in Indiathink that by threats and warlike speeches, theycan frighten China, that is equally wrong,Obviously not. Great countries, India or China,are not pushed about in this way. They reactin the opposite direction.

So far as China is concerned,--not with us, butwith other countries, we know very well; with theU.S.A., with other countries-China herself is apart of a military bloc system on the one side andChina herself is intimately concerned with coldwar. Not with us; but because of this bloc system.They have got used to ways of expressing theiropinion which, personally I find, is not the rightway in international parlance.

And now about the cold war technique, wehave recently had some experience of that inregard to India. It is true, we have reactedagainst it. We did not like it. The questionarises whether we should adopt that technique ornot. It is an important thing, because it concernsour policy too. I think that neither that policynor that way of expression which may be calledcold war expression is right for any country :certainly not for us, unless we want to change ourpolicy completely. We do not want to changeit. We think it would be harmful from everypoint of view to change this policy. We should pur-sue that policy. That policy is based not so muchon what the other country does, but on its inherentrightness in so far as we can understand it. Wemay be swept away now and then. It is a differentmatter. We are human beings. But, if we thinkcoolly and calmly, we must realise that we mustadhere to that policy. If so, our expressions ofopinions, our challenges, our threats, etc., shouldnot he made if they do not fit in with that parti-cular policy.

That, I would submit to this House, is not asign of weakness. I do not think any countryin the world thinks that India, in the past fewyears, has adopted a policy of weakness. Sometimes

have accused us of bending backward and ofsiding with this side or that side. I think theyhave begun to realise that if we are sometimessoft of speech, friendly of speech, it does notdenote weakness, but a certain conviction thatthat is the only right way to deal with internation-al problems, or, for the matter of that nationalproblems. Therefore I submit that we must not talkabout these warlike approaches and threats. Wemust not be overcome by anger even though, some-times we may feel a little angry about events thatare happening. We must show by our firm policy,and calm demeanour that we will continue thatfriendly effort that we have always made evenwhen it comes right up to our borders.

There is a great deal of sympathy for thepeople of Tibet undoubtedly. Certainly notbecause the people of Tibet have a feudal regime.They have been cut off and have had a staticsocial system which may have existed in otherparts of the world some hundreds of years ago,but has ceased to exist elsewhere. Nobody wantsthat here. As a matter of fact, I am quite sure,even the Dalai Lama does not want it in Tibet.Here we see a strange thing, a society which hadbeen isolated completely for hundreds of yearssuddenly coming out into the open, events throw-ing at into the mad world of ours, cold wars andall kinds of things happening, dynamic policiesand fericious policies and authoritarian policies.Imagine the contrast in these two. It is a vastgulf. It is inevitable that painful consequencesflow from this type of thing. You can lessenthem. You can try to moderate the effect of thatimpact. You cannot simply wish it away. It wasthe policy, I believe, of the Peoples Governmentof China, who realised that a country like thiscannot be treated in a sudden way; to go slowlyabout the so-called reforms or whatever it maybe. Whether that policy has changed or not, Icannot say. Maybe it has changed somewhat.That is quite possible. Whether other changesare taking place in China, I cannot say. It wasdefinitely a policy and they stated it publicly andprivately that they realised this.

There is another difficulty in my or our dealingwith these matters, and that is, that the words weuse have a different meaning for other people.For instance, we talk of the autonomy of Tibet.So do the Chinese. But, a doubt creeps into mymind as to whether the meaning I attach to it is

134the same as they attach to it. I do not think so.There are so many other words. I am not talkingof any deliberate distortion. That apart.Quite apart from any distortion, the ways ofthinking have changed. They have changedanyhow and the cold war methods have madethem change even more. It is frightfully difficultreally to talk the same language, the same languageof the mind, I mean. That difficulty arisesbecause of that also, and tremendous misunder-standings arise. However, I cannot go into allthese matters.

One thing, I may say. Some reference wasmade, I think by Shri S.A. Dange, to some con-vention on Tibet by a certain Mazumdar. I havenot heard of it except, today. In fact, just whenI came, he heard something about it. In so faras I have seen all the papers-I did see them-Ithink that whatever that convention appears toaim at or whatever it seems to represent, seem tobe very wrong. It is a wrong approach, andapproach which will do no good to anybody atall, and may do a good deal of harm if really itwas the approach of any responsible people inIndia. For we must realise first of all one thing.What do we want ? What are we aiming at? Howcan we get there ? What can we do about it.

I take it that we are sad, we are distressed atevents in Tibet. Why are we distressed ? Presum-ably because we feel that a certain people arebeing set upon, are being oppressed whether thecertain people, according to Shri S.A. Dange, arecertain feudal landlords or some people like thator according to others, they are the commonpeople of Tibet, or whatever it may be there it is.I have no doubt in my mind that it is difficult todraw the line in such cases between the top feudalelements and the others. They all can be mixed to-gether. And as a result, for the moment, they areall uprooted.

Now where a society has existed for hundredsand hundreds of years-it may have outlasted itsutility, but the fact is-uprooting it is a terriblypainful process. It can be uprooted slowly, it canbe changed even with rapidity, but with a measureof co-operation. But any kind of a forcible up-rooting of that must necessarily be painful,whether it is a good society or a bad society.

When we have to deal with such societies anywherein the world, which as a social group may be calledprimitive, it is not an easy matter, how to dealwith it. All these difficult things are happening.They should have happened; they would havehappened, may be a little more slowly but with agreater measure of co-operation because such achange can only take place effectively and withleast harm to the fabric, to those people concernedby themselves they may be helped by others, maybe advised by others, but by themselves. The mo-ment a good thing is done by bad means that goodthing becomes a bad thing. It produces different re-actions. That is, I cannot judge of what is happen-ing in Tibet. I do not have facts, neither doesanybody in this House, except broadly some oddfact here and there. But I am merely venturingto say that all these complicated systems not soeasy to disentangle; anyhow, whatever it maybe, have brought undoubtedly a great deal ofsuffering to the people of Tibet. And I shouldhave liked to avoid it. But what can I do?

People talk in a strange way of a number ofrepresentatives of countries being summoned andorders being issued, this and do that. I amsurprised that they should think on these lines, asif this can be done.

Here is, after years of effort, going to be, Ibelieve, what is called a summit conferencesomewhere in Europe, where the great ones ofthe earth, Russia, and America, and Englandand France, and may be somebody else, Italy orwhatever it may be, would be summoned todecide the fate of the world; it has taken yearsand years. What they will decide, I do notknow. I wish them well. I wish they will cometo some understanding. But the way casuallyhon. Members here say that we should issueorders and decrees, get together and decide or itwill be the worse for you, seems almost - like acomic opera approach; it has no relation toreality.

It is a basic fact that China is a great country,and India is a great country, great in extent, greatin background, great in many things. I am nottalking so much about military power, although,from the point of view of defence or offence, nodoubt, their potentials or actuals are considerable.

Now, looking at the subject from any long

perspective, or even in the short perspective, it isa matter of considerable consequence that Chinaand India should be friends, should be co-opera-tive. It does not mean that they should go thesame path, but they should not come in eachother's way; they should not be hostile to eachother; it is neither good for India nor for China.And China may be a very strong country as it is,and is growing stronger, but even from theChinese point of view, it is not a good thing tohave a hostile India; it makes a great deal ofdifference to have that kind of thing-I am nottalking in military terms, but otherwise. It is tothe interest of both these countries, even though

135they function in different and in many ways, notto be hostile to each other. If China starts tell-ing me what to do, I am likely to be irritated. IfI go about telling China what to do, China islikely to be irritated, even more than I am,because, I am supposed to be a soft person andthe Chinese are not supposed to be very softabout these matters, maybe. So there it is.

Now, maintaining our dignity, maintainingour rights, maintaining our self-respect, and yetnot allowing ourselves to drift into wrong atti-tudes and hostile attitudes, and trying to help inremoving or in solving such problems as they arise,we may help a little-they cannot be solved quick-ly-that is the very utmost that one can do in thecircumstances, or at any rate, creating an atmos-phere which may help in doing this. How far itwill go, I do not know.

So, I venture to say that this should be ourbroad approach in this matter. We cannot goany further. We might possibly help in thatapproach there.

After all, this House and the country haveexpressed in fairly effective language their reac-tions to Tibet developments, to events in Tibet.Nobody doubts them. But I might say, thattalking in fiery and hostile language will not carryconviction but in fact, it will only lead to greatergulf being created and less possibility of any helpbeing rendered in understanding or in finding asolution. Therefore, I would beg to suggest that weshould not allow ourselves to be swept away inthese matters.

One thing which was referred to by two orthree Members was the question of maps. Now,there is no doubt about it that this continuanceof what are called old maps of China, which showcertainly fairly large areas of Indian territory, asif they belong to the Chinese State, has been afactor in creating continual irritation in the mindsof people in this country. It is not some crisisthat has arisen, but it has been difficult for ourpeople, naturally to understand why this kind ofthing continues indefinitely, year after year. It is not,mind you, a question of some odd little pocket hereand there which may be in dispute on which wecan argue there are two or three pockets aboutwhich we have had, and we are going to have,discussions-but this business of issuing thesemaps which are not true to fact, which are fac-tually untrue and which can hardly be justifiedon the ground of history, of Marshal ChiangKai-shek's regime or any previous regime.

I shall just say one word more. I think ShriS.A. Dange talked about the palace of the DalaiLama and all that. I think that is an exaggera-tion. First of 'all, it is not his choice. It is ourchoice. And it is rather slightly bigger than anormal house in Mussoorie. We had to find abiggish house because of the number of peopleinvolved. As I have said, there is no question of sur-veillance on him except for security reasons andwe have not prevented him from meeting anybodyif he wants to meet. He has met, in fact, largenumbers of people, some people go for darshanto him, and some individuals, often Buddhistrepresentatives from Ceylon and other places arecoming to see him; they all go there. Nobodyprevents anyone. Certainly as for the odd news-paper man especially from foreign countries, whocomes here in search of sensation, even him wedo not prevent, but we do not welcome himbecause such persons reduce everything to highsensationalism.

The other day, I said in the other place that allthis business of God-King etc., is not to myliking. He is the Dalai Lama, referred to as theDalai Lama, and if anyone creates sensation-mongering by saying God-King all the time. AndI may say that the Dalai Lama himself does notlike this business.

Therefore, we do not want this whole occur-rence to be reduced or kept up to the sensationallevel. That was why we were not at all anxiousthat so many correspondents should go there andbeseige him; and then there will always be difficul-ties, interpreters and all that; and confusion willarise, and contradictions and all that.

Shri Nehru said : Now, we have to face thelarger problem of these refugees. It is a difficultproblem, and it has been thrust upon us.

If I may say just one word, before the 11thMarch-that is not so long ago, about sevenweeks ago is it ?--we had no inkling of whatmight happen in Tibet. On the 11th March wasthe first word we got of some demonstrations inLhasa by Tibetans, and on the 17th, six days later,came this business of, so it is said, shelling theDalai Lama's palace. Shri Dange said some-thing about bad marksmanship. I am onlysaying what he said. It is not bad marksmanship,but deliberately they were sent there as a kind ofwarning. Anyhow, then the situation developedon the 20th, fighting took place there. Thesituation developed rapidly after that, and theHouse knows what happened afterwards. The

136Dalai Lama left there on the 17th evening, andarrived here at the end of the month, so that wereally were rather overtaken by events. We didnot know that the Dalai Lama was coming heretill about two days before he actually enteredIndia. We had imagined when we knew he wastravelling south that he might come, but it wasonly two days before that that we heard that hewould like to come, so that we were overtaken byevents.

We had decided to accept him; later, whenothers come, we decided to allow them to cometoo, and there they are, all these refugees, apartfrom the Dalai Lama. The present estimates areabout 10,000-and all kinds of refugees, the old,the aged, some young people, some women, andit is obviously going to be a bit of a problem forus. We are not going to keep them in barbedwire enclosures for ever; for the present we arekeeping them in two or three camps. But thesooner we spread them out the better. May besome will have to remain for some time, I donot know.

An. Hon. Member: One thing has intriguedmany observers greatly, that the Dalai Lama hasbeen elected by the People's Congress in Chinaas one of the Vice-Chairmen. Because he is alsoa part of that State, has our Government receivedany request from the Chinese Embassy herethat the Chinese Ambassador or any of hisrepresentatives should see the Vice-Chairmanof the People's Republic?

The Prime Minister : No, Sir. We have receiv-ed no such request. I stated, as you mightremember, that the Chinese Ambassador wouldbe welcome to see him if he so wishes.

An Hon. Member: I want to ask the Hon.Prime Minister if these 10,000 refugees that havecome are all well-to-do feudal lords, or they arethe common people of Tibet.

The Prime Minister: I cannot give any des-cription of all of them. They have not reached,they are on the way, but it is hardly likely thatTibet will produce 10,000 lords.

USA CHINA INDIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC BHUTAN NEPAL MONGOLIA RUSSIA FRANCEITALY

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

TIBET

Prime Minister's Reply to Rajya Sabha Debate on Tibet

Replying to a debate on the situation inTibet, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, made the followingstatement in the Rajya Sabha on May 4, 1959 :

Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Mover of this motionspoke in such dignified and restrained languagethat I feel deeply beholden to him. He set a good

example for all of us. In the course of this discus-sion this example has been more or less followed,not entirely ; but I do not wish to object to any-thing that has been said or the manner of sayingit. Unfortunately in some other countries, andin China more specially, the way we function inour Parliament here or outside is perhaps notfully appreciated ; that is to say that it may notbe quite appreciated that here everyone has a rightto say-here in Parliament and indeed outside Par-liament also and in the Press-everyone has a rightto say whatever he feels like subject to some veryvery broad limitations of libel or slander, and thatwhat he or she may say may indeed be in con-demnation of Government, as it often is ; it doesnot represent Government's policy. I say thisbecause objection is taken, has been taken inChina to remarks made by Hon. Members in Par-liament or outside or the Press. It is differenthere from what it is in China, and I am not sayingthat it is better, or not here or it is different here.Here one can see even in the last few weeks anamazing unanimity and similarity of words, expres-sions and slogans coming from various quarters,which shows an amount of uniformity which istruly formidable, and it has its virtues no doubt,but I am not criticising anything. But what Iwish to say is that things said in Parliament some-times convey a very different impression outside,and people do not realise that in such Parliamentsas these are every viewpoint has the fullest expres-sion and need not necessarily be right or wrong.

In this connection-not by way of againcriticism but because Shri Bhupesh Gupta referredto a very unfortunate incident that happened inBombay where Chairman Ammo Tse-tung's picturewas shown grave discourtesy-I should like torefer to that firstly to express my regret again forit and at the same time to say that the facts ofthis particular incident as we know them, andknow them correctly we are presumed to knowthem a little better than people sitting in Peking-nevertheless oddly enough our version of the factsis not wholly accepted by the Peking Governmenton a small matter, which is surprising. We aresitting here, we ought to know better what takesplace in our country, about facts, whatever otheropinions may be. However, it is very regrettableincident with which obviously Government hadnothing to do. The party which organised it,I believe, is not represented in this House even.But what is not realised is that in the City of

Bombay pictures even of a leader of ours likeMahatma Gandhi have been burnt by some groups

137or others. Two and a half or three years ago myhumble self also has been treated in that way inBombay and elsewhere. Well, we take that inour stride and, as the hon. Member who spokelast mentioned, a few years back President Eisen-hower's effigy had the honour of being burntnear the ochterlony Monument. I regret all thesecases, but what I am mentioning is that thesethings happen in a country like ours because ofour laws, etc. They happen. Quite apart fromlaw, I think it is a grave breach of decency to dothis kind of thing or do anything else. We regretit. But people outside this country. some people,do not realise this and seem to imagine that some-how or other the Government or some Govern-ment officials must have connived at it, otherwiseit could not have taken place, or they think thatwe should take the people who have done this bythe scruff of the neck and throw in the dungeon.

The Prime Minister said : I am saying thatit is rather difficult because it produces misunder-standings as to the way of functioning, our parlia-mentary procedures and the like, and other pro-cedures where a Government does not permitopposition of any kind.

Hon. Members have referred to a statementmade by me a few days ago which was read outin this House also. So far as the major facts areconcerned I have stated them there and I havereally nothing to add even though after that state-ment was made it was not accepted-the facts Imean; even the facts were not fully accepted bythe Chinese authorities and the Chinese Press,which is unfortunate because again I would saythat as to what happens in India I would imaginethat we could be better informed than the Chineseauthorities who presumably can only be informedthrough certain intelligence agents that they mayhave at Kalimpong or elsewhere. But I do notwish to enter into polemical argument about theseminor matters because the issues before us are farmore serious, far deeper, far deeper than Tibet, thewhole of Tibet, although Tibet is important andwe are discussing events which have cast theirshadow round about Tibet too. That shows thatthey are really deeper than that, and therefore wehave to be particularly careful as to what we say

and what we do. Now I accept the limitationsand also the responsibility of what one should sayon such occasions.

First of all, we must be alive to what we areaiming at. We are not, I hope, merely aiming atdenouncing sombody or some government or somephrase. There has been too much of this denun-ciation and slogan-raising. I regret to say, inChina recently, and some of the slogans have beenquite extraordinary. But I do not think we shouldbe so thin-skinned as to get upset by some slogansin the excitement of the moment. We must notbe let off our main path because that is of veryconsiderable consequence in the future.

I should like again to read a few lines ofwhat I said in that previous statement to indicatewhat we aim at. I said this :- "It would be a tragedy if the two great countries of Asia-India and China- which have been peaceful neighbours for ages past should develop feelings of hostil- ity against each other. We for our part will follow this policy, but we hope that China also will do likewise and that nothing will be said or done which endangers the friendly relations of the two countries which are so important from the wider point of view of the peace of Asia and the world. The five principles have laid down, inter alia, mutual respect for each other. Such mutual respect is gravely impaired if unfounded charges are made and the language of cold war used."

Shri Bhupesh Gupta asked rather rhetorically,"Do we stand by Panch Sheel ?" Well, sometimesI wonder if the words we use are used in the samemeaning or with some different meaning in ourminds but-I have no claim to superiority-so faras India is concerned, we have earnestly strivento stand by these principles and I do not think wehave offended any principle. It is not for me tostand up and criticise or justify other countries,but we have tried to do that not because of sometemporary policy, not because these five principleshave been declared in some agreement-that wasmerely a confirmation of what we thought , as towhat we said-but because we have felt, that thatis the only way to function in this world of ours.Some people say, "Oh ! After all that has hap-pened, you still hold by that." It is a curious

question. If these principles are right, we holdby them and we should hold by them, even thoughnobody in the wide world is not holding by them.Naturally, we have to adapt our policies to whathappens in the world ; we cannot live in isolation.But a principle should be acted upon even thoughsomebody else has not acted upon it. One tries.Anyway, we are imperfect beings in an imperfectworld. So I should like to assure the hon. Mem-ber opposite that so far as the Government is con-cerned. I cannot speak for every ordinary indivi-dual in India-we hold by those principles and weshall endeavour to act up to them whatever othercountries may or may not do. Some peoplecertainly-as Shri Bhupesh Gupta said-taking

138advantage of these occurrences in and relating toTibet have raised a cry that India will now haveto consider how far she can adhere to the policyof non-alignment. All that shows a strange mis-understanding of our ways of thinking in our poli-cies. Non-alignment although the word is itselfa kind of negative word-nevertheless has a posi-tive concept, and we do not propose to have amilitary alliance with any country come what may,and I want to be quite clear about it, because themoment we give up that idea of non-alignment, welose every anchor that we hold on to and we sim-ply drift. We may hang on to somebody or somecountry. But we lose our own self-respect, of thecountry's. If one loses one's self-respect, it issomething very precious lost. Therefore this busi-ness of thinking always in terms of getting some-thing from this country or the other country is notdesirable. It is perhaps not very relevant. It issaid often in Pakistan, let us have a common de-fence policy. Now I am all for settling our trou-bles with Pakistan and living a normal, friendly,neighbourly life. We try for that. But I do notunderstand when people say that we have a com-mon defence policy. Against whom ? Immediatelythe question comes up : "Against whom is thiscommon defence policy ?" Are we going to be-come members of the Baghdad Pact or the SEATOor some body ? We do not want to have a com-mon defence policy which is almost another mean-ing of some kind of a military alliance. The wholepolicy that we have pursued is opposed to thisconception. We want friendly relations withPakistan. We hope we shall get them. But weare not going to tie ourselves up, our conceptions,our policies, with other countries involving mili-

tary defence and attacking and all that.

So the present difficulties that we have to facein relation to the happenings in Tibet will, I hope,gradually pass. But it is a tragedy not only forTibet, but a deeper tragedy for many of us thatsomething that we have laboured for for all theseyears which may be said to be enshrined if youlike in the Panch Sheel or in Bandung has sufferedvery considerably in people's minds. I may sayI shall hold on to it, but the fact is in people'sminds there is that crack, there is that suffering,there is that uneasiness, that something theyvalued might slip away. These words like allother words-Bandung, Panch Sheel; it does notmatter what word you use-begin to lose their shineand to be hurled about without meaning, and infact, just like even the word 'Peace' becomesalmost like a thunderbolt or a minor war the wayit is used. Sometimes the manner of using it-it isthe manner-that counts. I have come more andmore to believe that means are even more impor-tant than ends. They show to us that the wayone does things is even more important than whatone does. And that is why I have been aggrievedbeyond measure at these various recent develop-ments and at what is being said in China-thecharges made against India. Shri Bhupesh Guptadid not say a word about all these, not a word.I can understand where these things lead to. Hon.Members of this House being seasoned public menand women may restrain themselves, may notallow themselves to be affected too much. But itis difficult for the general public not to be affectedby such charges and they are charges, I do submit,which do not stand the slightest scrutiny. Whathave we done about this matter, about Tibet,apart from some speeches of things ?

We have received the Dalai Lama and party,and subsequently we have received some thou-sands of refugees. We have given them asylum,and it is admitted-I don't think anybody deniesit-that as a sovereign country we have everyright to do so, and nobody else can be a judge ofthat except ourselves. Now is it suggested thatwe should have refused to give asylum to theDalai Lama when he asked for it ? Well, if it issuggested by someone outside India I can tellthem-I do not know about the handful out ofthe four hundred millions of people of India; Idoubt if even a few thousands would have agreedwith that policy;- I can tell them this that the

hundreds of millions of India would have becomeangry at that action of ours if we had refusedasylum to the Dalai Lama and his party. Almosteverybody in India-a few may not have-approv-ed of our policy, and it would have been animpossible thing, an utterly wrong thing, for us todo otherwise from any point of view, political,humanitarian or whatever you like. So this iswhat we have done. Of course we are chargedwith as having connived at Kalimpong; ofKalimpong being the commanding centre-this isthe word they used, I think-of this rebellion inTibet. Now it is said that the commandingcentre has shifted to Mussoorie-I know wordshave lost their meaning, because I find it verydifficult to deal with these charges. And why has thecommanding centre gone to Mussoorie ? Becausethe Dalai Lama is there and because the brotherof the Dalai Lama who normally lives in Darjee-ling, I think, went to see him, and after seeing himwent back to Darjeeling or Kalimpong. Theseare very serious charges against a country's leadersbeing made irresponsibly in this way by theleaders of a people whom we have not onlyhonoured and respected but whom we haveconsidered particularly advanced in culture andpoliteness and the gentler art of civilisation. Ithas been a shock to me beyond measure because,quite apart from everything else, I have looked up

139to the Chinese and I look up to them still becauseof their great accomplishments, because of theirgreat culture and all that, and it has been a shockto me that this kind of thing should be said anddone in the excitement of the moment. I hopethat excitement will pass.

Now, Sir, I want to tell the House exactlyhow these matters came into our ken. On the11th of March, for the first time we got amessage from our Consul-General in Lhasasaying that there was some excitement in the townand that a large number of people had come andvisited him consisting of representatives of thepublic and some Tibetan officials, monks, headsof monasteries, etc. They had come to him witha series of complaints about the Chinese authoritiesthere and they said that they were very much indistress. Now our Consul-General in Lhasa wasnaturally very embarrassed. What is he to do'?He did not wish to interfere; it was none of hisbusiness to interfere and he told them : "Well,

I cannot do anything for you" and he reportedto us. That was on the 11th-the message datedthe 10th reached us on the 11th. That was thefirst information we had, that something wasafoot there. After that the Consul-General sentus brief reports about the general excitement inthe town, the tense situation and people holdingmeetings, not public meetings but group meetings,and all that. On the 14th he again sent us amessage that a crowd of 5,000 Tibetan womenhad come to the Consulate-General with the samekind of complaints and asked him to accompanythem to the Chinese Foreign Office in Lhasa tobear witness to what they said. At that againthe poor Consul-General was exceedinglyembarrassed. It was none of his business to dothis and he said: "I cannot go" and he asked,"What do you mean by that?" Well, in short hesaid, "I just cannot go." Quite rightly. Hereported it to us. We drafted a message-it waskept ready to be sent-to say: "Don't getentangled in what has happened and was happen-ing in Lhasa." This was on the 14th. So thiskind of thing went on. And it was at this time,when speaking, I think, in the Lok Sabha, I saidthat there was a clash of wills in Lhasa-whetherthat was a correct description, I do not know.The point was there was no actual fighting goingon at this time; that came a few days later. Onthe 20th March when it started, how it started,I do not know, nor did our Consul-General knowsitting in the Consulate, and he could not beexpected to know when it started. And as wenow know, fie did not know it then. On the17th night the Dalai Lama and party left Lhasa,rather secretly. According to them, on the 17thafternoon at 4 o'clock, two shells or bombs,something like that, fell into a lake in the SummerPalace. Well, this made them think "Now thisis the last moment, and now the Palace is goingto be shelled and there is going to be war every-where," and they left Lhasa. As far as I know-I am not sure-even then it was not fullyhis intention to leave Tibet. But as Lhasawas being shelled, subsequently that intentionmust have developed. Anyhow, in the course ofa week, from the 11th to the 20th or the 21st,during these, say, ten days this was the news thatcame to us. We could do nothing about it andbefore the 10th or 11th we knew nothing aboutthe situation except that we naturally knew thatall kinds of cross-currents were at work at Lhasaand in Tibet. Then the question came before us,

of the possibility of the Dalai Lama coming here,and we decided that we should receive him. Hecame. As the House might know I resisted andI was asked repeatedly: "Are you going to throwyour doors open to any number of refugees fromTibet?" I resisted that although in my mind Iknew that I could not very well refuse asylum topeople who were in great difficulty; I could not;but I did not want to say it and invite people toroll into India from all over the place. So thatis the short story of what has happened and whatwe have done. And now we are called expansionistsand imperialists and what not, all kinds of phrases,which I suppose would not make any realdifference to what we are; nevertheless comingfrom those whom we consider friends they dohurt us.

Now I want just to give you a few facts.Again an extra-ordinary thing appeared in thenewspapers in Peking. They go back now towhat had happened in 1950, that is, to somememoranda that we had sent, when Chinesearmies were entering Tibet. Very polite memo-randa they were. The answers were not verypolite, but the point now is that they refer to them,that what we wrote to them was after consultationwith the British Government, that though wecalled ourselves independent we really acted asstooges or tools of the British Government.

It is, of course, completely wrong and un-truthful. There was no question of our consult-ing the British Government. Our view on Tibetwas different from that of the British Government.

Now, one thing about the Panchen Lama'sstatement. I was rather distressed to read it, thata statement should be made, so lacking in genero-sity and dignity, by a person who had been ourhonoured guest. I do not know about the pettythings he says that somewhere his staff was notgiven proper accommodation. I cannot answer

140

that, whether at Aurangabad or some such placethere was some difficulty because the entourage ofthe Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama was sobig-hundreds of people with them. It was notquite so easy to make as much preparation as wewanted.

About the refugees, now the latest position isthat approximately 6,500 refugees are on theirway down through the Kemeng Division of NEFA,1,500 are trekking through Bhutan and 700 havecome to Sikkim-round about 9,000. The BhutanGovernment have asked us to receive the Tibetanrefugees coming through their territories and wehave agreed to do so. Thus we have about 9,000refugees for whom we have made ourselves res-ponsible for some kind of arrangements. A fewof the refugees, when they entered India, werearmed. They were disarmed on entry into India.

The refugees coming through NEFA will beaccommodated temporarily in a camp at Mismariin Assam. Though the Assam Government aremaking arrangements for their shelter, medicalrelief, etc., the West Bengal Government haveagreed to construct temporary camp somewherein Cooch-Behar for the refugees who are comingthrough Bhutan. We are grateful to these twoState Governments.

Special Officers to deal with the refugees havebeen appointed by the External Affairs Ministry.They are proceeding to Assam and West Bengal.It is not proposed to keep these refugees in thesetemporary camps for a long time and otherarrangements will have to be devised for them.I cannot just say at present what or where, but itis obvious we are not going to keep them incamps.

One Hon. Member-I think Dr. Kunzru, maybe Shri Shiva Rao--said something that we shouldallow these refugees to earn their own living andgive them freedom to do many things. Broadlyspeaking of course we intend that. We are notgoing to keep them as prisoners in camps. In fact,our instructions to our officers at the border wereto tell them that we do not assume responsibilityfor their indefinite up-keep. For sometime wewould help them. And naturally to some extentwe are responsible when these people are comingin. We cannot let them loose on India. Again,there is the question that they cannot easily bekept anywhere except in cooler climates-and wecannot send them to the rest of India simply-inmountain regions.

I think Shri Shiva Rao said something aboutChina and the United Nations. I do not supposeit is necessary for me to say so, but obviously our

policy in regard to the entry 'of the People'Government of China into the U.N. remains as iwas. It is not that it is based on certain facts-bthese things; it is not because we get angry withsomething that happens in China that we changeour policy. That would mean that we have nfirm policies that we are deflected by temporaryhappenings in the world. Just one thing more. Shri Bhupesh Guptatalked about national uprising. Again it dependupon how you use that word. I do not knowexactly what happened in Tibet. But as I said imy 'previous statement, according to Chineseaccounts this has been a fairly big affair, a verlarge scale affair. Also looking at the surround-ing circumstances as well as the past history ofTibet, one can very well imagine that apart fromthe so-called people representing vested interests-they would be there-it is a fact that large numberof Tibetan people-I cannot say whether they arin a majority or a minority, but large numberundoubtedly-went to the extent of taking this stewhich they did, which really meant a very dangerous step. Anyhow it is there and one feels stronglyabout it.

Now so far as we are concerned, we have nointerfered either from Kalimpong or Mussoorior otherwise. We have exercised our undoubte,right to give asylum. I have said that Dalai Lamis perfectly a free agent to go where he likes iIndia or go back to Tibet.

Some people-some foreign pressmen-saiabout two days after he had come to Mussoorithat we are keeping him behind barbed wire. Thasounds rather horrible. The fact was that theMussoorie police, to lighten their burden becauseof all kinds of curious people trying to go intothe compound of the house, had put a little barbed wire on that compound before he came, to bable to protect him, for his security and generaprotection. But that was not to keep him in, andhe goes, I believe, round about Mussoorie. Hcan go back to Tibet the moment he likes.

It is no use my going on repeating whathave said earlier that the Dalai Lama is not kepunder duress here, that he did not enter Indiunder any duress, excepting the duress of circums-tances, if you like-compulsion of events. Ancertainly, I can speak from personal knowledgehaving met him and talked to him, that he is stay-

ing there of his own free will in India and eveat Mussoorie. With all respect, I would say thatanyone who denies this fact, well, is totally igno-rant of facts and speaks without knowing.

141 Further, Hon. Members might have seen inthe newspaper headlines-because odd remarks aregiven as headlines that I said that I would behappy if the Dalai Lama went back to Tibet. Idid so. Somebody asked a question and I said,"Naturally I would be happy if he went with dig-nity." But that did not mean at all that I amgoing to push the Dalai Lama out or put him inan embarrassing position. It is entirely for himto decide what to do, when to do it. The onlyadvice I gave him when I was with him was : Youhave had a very hard journey and very harassingexperiences. If I may, as a person very mucholder than you, suggest it you might rest for a fewdays, and calmly think about the events and thendo what you like."

One more matter, if I may say so specially tothe press. I do not particularly fancy this cons-tant sensational way of referring to the DalaiLama as the God-king, and, in fact, I do notthink he likes it either. This is not the Indianway, it is a foreign way of doing things. It soundssensational no doubt. I hope that that word willnot be used. It is good enough to refer to himas the Dalai Lama.

USA CHINA INDIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC PAKISTAN IRAQ INDONESIA BHUTAN PERU

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

TIBET

Indian In Tibet

Shrimati Lakshmi N. Menon, DeputyMinister for External Affairs, said in the Lok

Sabha during Question hour on May 8, 1959 thata number of Indians were in Tibet but no authenticinformation was available of the number of Indiannationals there.

She said : "Apart from traders. a numberof Muslims and Lamas from the Ladak regionhave been in Tibet for some time before the1954 Agreement which prescribed certificates orpermits which need to be carried for travelbetween the Tibet region and India. OurConsulate General is endeavouring to obtaininformation about their names and where-abouts."

Replying to a question Shrimati Menonsaid : "As far as we are aware, no Indian nationalhas been killed or suffered injury during thepresent disturbances. So far we have not receivedany detailed information of any damage sufferedby their properties.

"According to the reports received by theGovernment of India, a Tibetan woman, who wasengaged as a water-carrier in the Indian ConsulateGeneral at Lhasa, died of the wounds receivedduring the firing. The local authorities wereinformed or the death and her body disposed of."

INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC OMAN CHINA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS

Agreement for Supply of Machinery Signed

An agreement for the supply of machinery,equipment and the technical services connectedwith the erection and commissioning of theNeyveli Thermal Power Station based on lignitebetween Messrs. Technoexport, Moscow, and theNeyveli Lignite Corporation was signed in New

Delhi on May 6, 1959.

Shri N. S. Mani, I. C. S., Joint Secretary,Ministry of Steel, Mines & Fuel, signed on behalfof the Neyveli Corporation and Mr. V. A. Sergeev,Counsellor for Economic Affairs, U. S. S. R.Embassy in India on behalf of Messrs. Technoex-port. Mr. N.N. Kryukov, Charge d'affaires ofthe Soviet Embassy. was also present.

The cost of the machinery and equipment tobe supplied under the agreement will be met outof the 500 million rouble credit afforded by theGovernment of U.S.S.R under the Indo-SovietAgreement of November, 1957.

The deliveries of the machinery andequipment will commence from the secondquarter of 1959 and end in last quarter of1961.

The Thermal Powar Station will have aninstalled continuous rated capacity of 250,000K.W. and is one of the schemes included in theIntegrated Neyveli Lignite Project. The first unitof the power station will be commissioned byApril 1961 and the entire power station by aboutthe middle of 1962.

142

RUSSIA INDIA UNITED KINGDOM USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Barter Deal

The Deputy Minister for Commerce & In-dustry, Shri Satish Chandra told the RajyaSabha on May 6, 1959 that a barter agreementhad been entered into with the Government of the

United States of America for supply of foodgrainsin exchange for manganese and ferro-manganese.

Shri Satish Chandra, who was replying to aquestion by an Hon. Member of the Rajya Sabha,said that under the agreement, 1.5 lakh tons ofmanganese ore (42 per cent); 25,000 tons ofmanganese ore (46/48 per cent) and about 75,000tons of ferro-manganese were proposed to beexported to the U.S.A. against the importof 4.5 lakh tons of wheat from thatcountry.

USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Financial Assistance

Two Agreements covering the allocation ofRs. 10 crores each to the Industrial Credit andInvestment Corporation of India (ICICI) and theIndustrial Finance Corporation of India (IFC), outof U.S. P L. 480 rupee funds, were signed in NewDelhi on May 21, 1959 between the Governmentof India and the U.S. Technical CooperationMission. These P.L. 480 funds will help augmentthe resources of the two Financial Corporationsand enable them to render additional assistance toprivate industrial sector in the country during theSecond Plan period.

The New agreements bring the total U.S.local currency assistance to India to Rs. 154 crores.

The agreements were signed by Shri N.C. SenGupta, Joint Secretary, Union Ministry ofFinance, for the Government of India and Mr.Howard E. Houston, Director, for the TechnicalCooperation Mission.

The ICICI, set up in 1955 with a paid-upcapital of Rs. 5 crores held jointly by India, U.S.and U.K. companies, encourages foreign andIndian private participation in the expansion ofIndian private enterprise by providing loans,purchasing equity shares and underwritingof capital funds. The ICICI has received aRs. 7.5 crores interest-free loan from the Govern-ment of India, representing the sale proceeds ofU. S. steel grants to India and a line of credit ofabout Rs. 5 crores ($10 Million) from the Inter-national Bank for Reconstruction and Develop-ment.

The IFC, established by the Government ofIndia in 1948 also furnishes medium and long-termcredits to private Indian Industrial concerns. Itis estimated that the I. F. C. will require additionalfunds of the order of Rs. 20 crores during theremaining part of the Second Plan period forproviding financial assistance to enterprises. Halfof this will be met by this P.L. 480 loan. P. L480 is an Act of Congress which authorises theU. S. Government to sell agricultural commoditieto friendly foreign countries and accept paymentin local currencies, such as rupees. The moneyaccruing from sale proceeds are then reloaned tobe invested in economic development projects.

143

USA INDIA UNITED KINGDOM

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C.S. Jha's Statement in Trusteeship Council on Western Samoa

Shri C.S. Jha, India's Permanent Representativeto the United Nations, made the following statementin the Trusteeship Council on June 10, 1959 onconditions prevailing in Western Samoa, a Trust

Territory under New Zealand Administration

Mr. President :

For the second time this year, the Trustee-ship Council is engaged in the consideration ofthe final stages leading to the emergence of yetanother Trust Territory, Western Samoa into anindependent State. By its resolution 1922 of the8th Special Session, the Trusteeship Council direc-ted the Visiting Mission, which was to visit theTrust Territory of Western Samoa early in 1959,"to examine in consultation with the Administer-ing Authority the extent to which the objectivesof Trusteeship had been attained by the TrustTerritory and the future steps necessary for theirattainment".

The Visiting Mission, led by Mr. A. S. Lall,my predecessor as Leader of India's Delegationsto numerous sessions of this Council has submit-ted a very comprehensive and able report for theCouncil's consideration. We have had the ad-vantage, Mr. President, of studying this reportvery carefully and also of hearing the views of theAdministering Authority on this report and onmany constitutional, political, economic and socialmatters of importance to the Territory from Mr.Mc Intosh, the distinguished representative of NewZealand, and from Mr. Powles, the AdministeringAuthority's Special Representative, with whosefriendliness, ability and sympathy towards Samoanaspirations this Council is well acquainted.

May I be permitted, at the outset, to pay mydelegation's tribute to the Visiting Mission. TheMission's report bears eloquent testimony to thegreat experience of its members in Trusteeshipmatters, to their wisdom and judgment and to thegreat pains that they have taken in ascertainingthe facts of the situation in Western Samoa, inevaluating these facts, and in arriving at balancedand sound conclusions. We regard their reportas a valuable contribution to the work of thisCouncil, and of signal importance to the future ofthis Trust Territory.

Western Samoa with its relatively small geo-graphical size and population has a special impor-tance of its own. Its emergence from internationaltrust will mark the birth of the first sovereignand independent Polynesian State in the Pacific.We hope that many big and small territories in

that area, which are now Trust Territories or Non-Self-Governing Territories, will follow suit in thenear future, thereby widening the area of freedomin that part of the world.

As I said on another occasion, "the momentsin history when nations arise in full freedom andindependence are not too many, and such moments,when they come, are always moving and of greatsignificance to mankind". It is a privilege of thisCouncil, and of us all who are its members, to beassociated once again with the prospect of thebirth of a new nation. That yet another territoryfinds itself on the threshold of independence isthe highest vindication and fulfilment of the Trus-teeship system.

We have never had any doubt as to the inten-tion of the Government of New Zealand to bringthe people of Western Samoa to maturity andindependence in the shortest possible time. Wewere glad to hear reaffirmation of this from thedistinguished representative of New Zealand theother day when in answering certain questionshe said that "in the view of the AdministeringAuthority, self-government and independence aresynonymous terms" and that it is the purposeand the intention of the Government of NewZealand to give full independence to WesternSamoa. Such a view is wholly id consonancewith the Charter.

Indeed, so far as our delegation is concernedwhatever may be the nuances of interpretation ofthe meaning of the expression "self-government,"the assumption that the ultimate result of theTrusteeship system can be something short ofindependence is untenable, either semantically orin the spirit of the times we live in. For theCharter would be static deadwood instead ofthe dynamic and creative instrument that it is orought to be, if it did not respond to the changingconcepts of freedom and relationship betweennations and peoples. I say this, Mr. President,because we wish to go on record as being unableto subscribe to the view that between self-govern-ment and independence there may be a variety ofstages or degrees of freedom, as the end-productof the Trusteeship system.

In the same context and for similar reasons wewelcome the statement on behalf of the Adminis-tering Authority that the mination of the

145Trustiship system and the independence of WesternSamoa are not contingent or conditional upon theconclusion of a Treaty of Friendship with Now-Zealand; and that whether there should be such aTreaty or what its contents should be are mattersentirely for the Samoans to decide in negotiationwith the New Zealand Government.

We were happy, Mr. President, to be toldthat the Administering Authority has no appre-hensions that the intermediate stage in the transferof responsibility to the Samoan people over thenext two years will not be accomplished satis-factorily or Oat the advent of Samoan indepan-dence will be delayed.

The Visiting Mission's report, apart fromconcerning itself with the future of Samoa and thesteps preceding the independence of Samoa, givesus a picture of the existing conditions in thatTrust Territory and the changes that should-beappropriately brought about before the advent ofindependence. The Visiting Mission has generallyendorsed in its broad outline the timetable drawnup by the Administering Authority, which isreproduced in paragraph 174 of its report.Although this timetable is still to be discussed andagreed upon with the Samoan authorities and asthe Mission itself recognises may require somemodification in the future, the drawing up of thistimetable, Mr. President, is fully in accord withthe General Assembly resolution 1274 (XIII)which invites the Administering Authority toestablish targets and dates of the various stages ofdevelopment towards the attainment of theobjectives of the Trusteeship system. Accordingto the timetable the future of Samoa will bedecided at the 15th session of the GeneralAssembly. It would, therefore, be somewhatpremature to discuss the final and definitive formof Samoan independence at this stage or toprejudge the various issues that will arise in thisconnection and will no doubt be discussed in theTrusteeship Council next year, and subsequentlyby the General Assembly. My delegation, Mr.President, will therefore while wholly favouringSamoan independence at the earliest possible dateand generally endorsing the Visiting Mission'sconclusions will refrain at this stage from a detailedanalysis of the timetable and the form and natureof Western Samoa's future association with New

Zealand.

While in the Territory, the Visiting Missionobserved "some hesitation and some outrightopposition to immediate self-government".However, the Mission has also noted that thereis an overwhelming desire in the majority of theSamoan people and its leaders for immediateindependence. The Administering Authority itselfis in favour of the termination of the TrusteeshipAgreement and the grant of independence toWestern Samoa at the earliest date. In thecircumstances, it is clear that the termination ofthe Trusteeship would be in conformity with thewishes of the people of Samoa. The VisitingMission did well to press upon the Samoan peoplethe need for a popular consultation by means ofa plebiscite based on adult suffrage as the onlymeans of ascertaining the true wishes of thepeople. We are happy that notwithstanding someinitial hesitation the Samoan leaders and theSamoan Legislative Assembly were persuaded tothis view.

On the recommendation of the workingcommittee, which is composed entirely of Samoansthe two Fautas and the members, of the LegislativeAssembly have unanimously resolved that a plebis-cite on the basis of universal adult suffrage willbe-held to ascertain the wishes of the Samoanpeople concerning the termination of the Trustee-ship Agreement, and to obtain a popularratification of the Constitution of the new State.In view of the prevailing sentiment in the Territoryin favour of Matai suffrage this decision of theSamoan leaders and the legislature in the Territorywhich reflects their anxiety to comply with therequirements of the United Nations Charter, is atribute to their commonsense and political wisdom.This, in our view is evidence of the respect inwhich the people of Western Samoa hold theCharter, as also of the flexibility of their traditionalmethods and beliefs. We would like to join theVisiting Mission in congratulating them on thisdecision which, as the Mission says, will facilitate'the termination of Trusteeship in Western Samoa.

Now that Western Samoa is on the eve ofindependence, we may be permitted to review theconditions in Western Samoa in the light of thenecessary preparations in that Territory for theresponsibilities that independence would bringto Western Samoa. If Western Samoa is to attain

self-government and independence in 1961, it isnecessary that the time between then and nowshould be used for fully preparing its people forthe final transfer of power. It is obvious that thefirst essential is to produce a large cadre of civilservants capable of shouldering the responsibilitiesof administration. The economic viability of thenew state after independence should be assuredand for that purpose measures should be takenin hand which will result in the maximum develop-ment, both actual and potential, of the resourcesof the Territory.

All this means that a crash programme,

146which is the expression used by the VisitingMission and by the Administering Authority itselfshould be adopted for removing the existingdeficiencies in these fields and for fully preparingthe Samoans for independence. We are glad thatthere is general awareness of the need for thisand indeed many of the proposals of the Adminis-tering Authority are dictated by the recognitionof such a necessity.

As for Western 'Samoa's readiness forindependence in paragraph 168 of its report theVisiting Mission has observed that "whiledeficiencies do exist in the preparation of Samoafor self-government, Samoa has been followingsince 1947 and particularly since the 1954Constitutional convention, a planned programmeof institutional development aimed at the attain-ment of self-government in the near future, andthat the Samoan representatives have achievedsome proficiency in the working of these institu-tions".

Though Samoa is a small territory in manyways it is well placed to live an independent life.Its per capita income compares favourably withthe per capita incomes of many other countrieswhich are now self-governing or independent.Though the population of Samoa is growingat a fast rate, the Territory possesses largeuntapped land-resources which are capable ofdevelopment.

On the political side, the LegislativeAssembly has been functioning satisfactorily forsome time, and the Ministerial system of Govern-ment has been successfully tried out- What is

necessary now is to transfer further responsibility tothe Samoans and to give a fair trial to theCabinet system of Government before the finaltransfer of power.

It is our hope that when Cabinet Govern-ment is introduced in the Territory, Cabinetresponsibility will be real and that the reviewingpowers of the Executive Council or the reservepowers of the High Commissioner or the Councilof State, will be allowed in practice to fall intodesuetude.

The working committee appointed by theAdministering Authority in consultation withSamoan authorities is now engaged in thedrafting of important legislation relating tocitizenship and citizenship rights and of theConstitution of the new State. In the preparationand adoption of a citizenship law, we hope thatthe working committee and the LegislativeAssembly will give due weight to the concern ofthe United Nations that a common domestic statusshould be developed for all inhabitants of Samoaregardless of race.

Our preference as a general rule is for anelectoral system based on universal adult franchisebut we would at the same time be opposed to anyimposition of such a system against the wishes ofthe people. In so far as the Matai system con-forms to the genius and traditions of the peopleof Samoa, we do not feel that it should be hastilycondemned as undemocratic. We believe thatin due time the Matai system will adapt andmodify itself in response to the changing economicand social conditions and outlook. We endorsethe Visiting Mission's suggestions made to theSamoan leaders that in addition to the generalMatai roll, there should be a roll which mightbe called the Non-Matai roll, on which all personswhatever their racial origin, living outside thescope of the Matai system and not enjoying itsprivileges or carrying out its obligations should beentitled to register". While the implementation ofthis suggestion will not offend Samoan tradition,it will bring the electoral legislation of theTerritory in closer conformity to modern electoralpractice and the principles embodied in theDeclaration of Human Rights. We also endorsethe Mission's suggestion that the Constitution ofWestern Samoa, which is now under preparation,should contain "provisions on the lines of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ofthe contributions of other States."

The Administering Authority's annual reportfor the year 1958 states, and the Visiting Missionhas also pointed out, that "the provisions of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights are notmet fully insofar as free and secret ballot and someother matters are concerned". The Visiting Mis-sion has stated that certain provisions in the elec-toral methods whereby a candidate is elected simp-ly because his nomination papers are signed by amajority of the Matai in his constituency "appearsto be open to undue influence and pressure".The Mission appropriately observes that it knowsof no similar provision in any other modernelectoral system. Samoa being a Trust Territory,which is expected to achieve the final objective ofthe Trusteeship System shortly, it seems desirablethat it should remove before the elections to beheld on the eve of independence from its electoralsystem such provisions as are likely to arouse sus-picion or criticism. We trust, therefore, that theSamoan leaders will in this matter of electorallegislation adopt the normal practice of holdingelections under secret ballot whenever two ormore candidates present duly completed nomina-tion papers.

147

Needless to say that an efficient and adequatecivil service is the backbone of any administrationor government. We cannot too strongly emphasisethat the Samoanisation of the Samoan PublicService should be carried out at an acceleratedpace, and that the aim should be to prepareSamoan candidates for a great majority of 80 or soposts which are now manned by seconded non-Samoan officers. While we note with satisfactionthe availability of scholarships and other trainingfacilities provided by the Administering Authorityand the Administering Authority's intention tocontinue to give assistance to Western Samoa inthis as in other fields, we agree with the VisitingMission that there is need for a wider range oftraining to equip the rapidly increasing number ofSamoans to take over positions of importance inthe Territory's public services. In paragraph 89of its report, the Visiting Mission, stressing thegreat importance of this need, suggests that a listof posts for which Samoans ought to be trainedshould be drawn up by Western Samoan authori-

ties as quickly as possible. As soon as that isdone, we hope that generous assistance will beforthcoming from the Administering Authority inthe preparation of an emergency programme forthe training of selected Samoans to fill high ad-ministrative posts The Administering Authorityand the Samoan authorities should also, in thisconnection, consider ways and means of availingthemselves of such training facilities in publicadministration as may be obtainable from theUnited Nations.

The, question of economic viability of theterritory, of paramount importance at all times,assumes special significance in the context of theimpending independence of Samoa. The VisitingMission has commented on the rapid growth ofthe territory's population and the fact that two ofits three principal crops, namely, banana, copraand coco, are subject to severe price fluctuations inthe world market. These are the two most impor-tant factors relevant to the economy of WesternSamoa. It is obvious that the extreme dependenceof Samoan economy on such products should bereduced. The curtailment of the already inade-quate educational, health and social services,which followed the economic crisis caused by thedrop in prices of copra and coco last year, is anugly reminder of the comparatively precariousnature of the territory's economy. We were hear-tened to hear from the Special Representative thatthough the present economic situation cannot beregarded as altogether satisfactory, it is not likelyto worsen considerably in the next 20 to 30 years.Nevertheless, as no doubt the AdministeringAuthority and the Samoan authorities themselvesrecognise and as has been emphasised by the Visi-ting Mission, urgent steps have to be taken forthe diversification of agriculture. Already experi-ments have been carried out and it appears thatthe cultivation of coffee, avocado, spices andmanila hemp is a distinct possibility. Side by sidewith the expansion of agriculture and diversifica-tion of crops, it appears necessary to introducecottage industries, handicrafts and small industriesnot requiring too much capital, which will processthe raw materials produced in the island. To thisend liberal and imaginative credit and financingfacilities such as can be provided by the Bank ofWestern Samoa will be of great assistance.

The observation of a survey team that "Wes-tern Samoa appears to have adequate resources

at its disposal to finance its social services andaccelerate economic development" is significant andhopeful and it is gratifying to note that a begin-ning has now been made in the field of economicplanning. The economy of the territory beingmore or less exclusively agricultural, the first three-year plan appropriately lays emphasis on increase"in the productivity of agricultural resources"on diversification of agriculture through the intro-duction of new commercial crops, such as coffee,rubber, etc. and on the establishment of secondaryindustries based on the territory's produce. Theseare steps in the right direction. It seems to us thatin the field of economic development also therewill have to be a crash programme. In this taskwe are sure that the New Zealand authorities willextend all necessary assistance, as the financialand technical resources for economic develop-ment would hardly be within the capacity of theterritory itself to furnish. We would endorse theMission's recommendations (paragraph 122) that inview of the responsibility of the United Nationstowards Western Samoa, favourable considerationshould be given to any requests for assistanceto Western Samoa by the United Nations Organi-sation such as the Expanded Programme of Tech-nical Assistance, the United Nations Special Fundetc., and by the Specialised Agencies.

Of special importance to the future economicdevelopment of Western Samoa is the WesternSamoa Trust Estates Corporation to whose activi-ties members of the Visiting Mission have paidtribute. It is encouraging to note that the Corpo-ration has started making its financial contributionof the order of œ 30,000 annually to the administra-tion's development resources. In the past theCorporation has been divested of large areas ofits estates for various reasons with the result thatits present possessions amount to some 32,000acres of which only 15,000 are now tinder cultiva-tion. We hope the Corporation will take steps toadd to its land resources and to bring more land

148under cultivation so as to enhance its ability tocontribute to the economic and agricultural deve-lopment of Samoa during the years to come.

In the field of social development includingthe provision of medical and health facilities, itis our impression that despite the set-back dueto the financial stringency of 1957-58, the territory

has made noteworthy progress. A programmefor the control of yaws has been successfullycompleted with . the assistance of the WorldHealth Organisation, and it may be expected thatthe participation of that Organisation in theproposed tuberculosis control project will produceequally noteworthy results. Samoa, perhaps, isthe only Truss Territory where a maternity andchild welfare centre exists in each village. Theseare commendable achievements, but we agreewith the conclusions of the World HealthOrganisation that there is room for furtherexpansion of health facilities, and we hope thatthe appointment of a Minister of Health willstimulate much needed progress in this sphere.

We would commend the observations of theWorld Health Organisation furnished in documentT/1455 to the attention of the AdministeringAuthority and the appropriate authoritiesof Western Samoa. The WHO has statedthat the most appropriate assistance that theterritory may expect from it would be in theform of fellowships for training more and betterqualified Samoan personnel. We are confidentthat the Administering Authority will, in consul-tation with the Samoans, formulate its proposalsfor assistance from the World Health Organisationin the training of indigenous personnel.

As the Visiting Mission has noted in para-graph 125 of its report, the Women's Commit-tees are doing impressive work in combatinginfantile mortality and in ensuring the propercare and nutrition of mothers and young children.

Women's activities need not be confinedmerely to the field of health and health-education. We have no doubt that Samoanwomen will continue to serve their country withdistinction in numerous fields of national activity.We have noted with satisfaction that as against351 male teachers in Samoan primary, secondaryand vocational schools, there are 386 womenteachers. The capacity of the Samoan womento render service to the nation cannot, therefore,be doubted. Last year my delegation hadthe occasion to offer its felicitation to Miss FanafiMa'ai'i,a young Samoan lady who had distin-guished herself in academic studies. This yearthe Special Representative has given us the newsof another young Samaon lady, Miss Teresa Hunter,senior warden of women at the Training College

in Western Samoa, who has performed a notablerole in the biannual South Pacific Conferenceheld at Rabaul recently. We hope that Samoanwomen, with their grace and intelligence willplay an increasingly important role in theirnational life including participation in thepolitical life of the country. The Special Representative informed theCouncil the other day that a "somewhat agonisingre-appraisal of the whole education problem" ofthe territory is now impending. In this particularsphere of the territory's development there areboth bright and dark features which the Councilshould take note of. One commendable featureis that practically the entire adult population ofterritory is literate to some degree. In the fieldof primary education about 80 per cent of thechildren of school-going age are now on the rolls.A good educational basis, therefore. exists in theterritory for the introduction of universal, free andcompulsory education in Western Samoa. Werealise that in view of the territory's financiallimitations, it may not be possible at this stageto introduce universal free and compulsoryeducation all at once. It is gratifying to note,however, that that is the aim ; and that theAdministering Authority and Samoan Governmentintend to introduce universal, free and compulsoryeducation at least in some selected areas onexperimental basis in the very near future.

The immediate need in the field of primaryeducation appears to be the development of aninspectorate and a system of inspection to bringthe large number of Mission schools under anadequate measure of Government control and toensure the requisite amount of uniformity in theinstructions imparted in primary schools ofdifferent kinds and categories. The VisitingMission's observation that the lack of a sense ofcommon effort among the different groups ofeducational workers towards the establishment ofa single public educational system for WesternSamoa, will, we hope, be carefully noted, andmeasures suggested by the Visiting Mission torectify the situation adopted without delay.

The Visiting Mission's impression "that theeducational situation in Samoa is not satisfactoryfor a territory which is soon to be self-governingor independent" would appear to be based onthe fact that development of facilities for vocationaltraining, and for secondary and higher education

has lagged behind with the result that unlessexpeditious measures are now adopted to fill thegap which has been allowed to grow in the recent

149years, independent Samoa will remain dependenton expatriate officials and technicians for anindefinite period. We recognise the force of theviews expressed by the Visiting Mission, and wewholeheartedly support the recommendationsthey have made on the subject.

We appreciate that for several years to comeit will not be financially possible for WesternSamoa to provide all the facilities it needs forvocational and higher education in the territoryitself. The territory should, therefore, beencouraged to develop in consultation and co-operation with other territories in the Pacificregion, higher educational facilities for commonneeds. While it may not be possible to establishnew institutions at this stage, no effort should bespared in the further development of AveleAgricultural College, in raising the standard ofinstruction at the Samoa College, and in improv-ing the existing facilities in the Teachers' TrainingCollege and in the district schools. We note withsatisfaction the assurances given by the SpecialRepresentative that it is the intention of theGovernment of Western Samoa to establish aHigh School in the island of Savi'i before theend of 1960.

Mr. President, if we have ventured to examinesometimes perhaps critically, the existing condi-tions in the territory and to offer suggestionsit is only because of our anxiety to see thatSamoan independence is real and that the prepara-tions preceding such independence are adequateand appropriate. Samoa is a small territory with asmall population and with perhaps not enoughnatural resources. It will need all the Administer-ing Authority's sympathetic care and guidance,in the preparations preceding independence, and,even after independence, there will be need forclose co-operation between New Zealand andWestern Samoa in various fields to the mutualadvantage of both. We were very happy to learnof the assurance given by the Prime Minister ofNew Zealand to the Visiting Mission that hisGovernment would closely and sympatheticallyconsider the possibility of arranging substantialassistance in the implementation of the Visiting

Mission's proposals concerning the improvementand expansion of educational facilities existingin Western Samoa. This is indeed in line with thespirit in which New Zealand has through the yearsapproached its tasks and responsibilities towardsWestern Samoa and is a happy augury for the futurerelations between New Zealand and Western Samoa.

Before I conclude, I would like also to expressour appreciation of the remarkable work whichthe Fautua and other Samoan leaders in and out-side the Government are doing to ensure apropitious and prosperous future for their countryand community in the years of independence,the advent of which is now close at hand. Wehope that as Western Samoa approaches nation-hood and independence, its leaders and those ofNew Zealand, who are closely connected withWestern Samoa, will continue their efforts to placethis island territory in contact with the world atlarge. We have always believed that in thisterritory, and in others in the pacific area surround-ing it, there is a culture and a civilization whichthe world has yet to discover. In his openingstatement the other day, the High Commissionerpointed out that recent research has shown thatthe Samoans have lived in their islands from asearly as 1,000 B. C., though little of their ancienthistory and culture is now known. We hope thatwith the emergence of the first independentPolynesian State and with the continued spreadof education in that State, there will be a newrevival and efflorescence of the culture and civiliza-tion of these peace-loving peoples.

INDIA USA WESTERN SAMOA NEW ZEALAND CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC PHILIPPINESMALDIVES

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C. S. Jha's Statement in Trusteeship Council on Ruanda-Urundi

Shri C.S. Jha, India's Permanent Representa-tive to the United Nations, made a statement inthe Trusteeship Council on June 29, 1959conditions in the Trust Territory of Ruanda-Urundi under Belgian Administration.

Following is the full text of the statement:

Mr. President :

We have had a detailed report from theAdministering Authority on the conditions in theTrust Territory of Ruanda-Urundi. Besides, theSpecial Representative for the Territory and thedistinguished representative of Belgium havefurther enlightened us on various points in thecourse of their patient and painstaking answers tovarious questions asked by members of theCouncil. We are grateful to them. We are nowin a position to make our general observations.

The task, Mr President, of promotion of theeconomic and social welfare and preparation ofthe people of a Trust Territory to independenceis an onerous one. This is primarily the responsi-bility of the Administering Authority but it isalso at the same time a co-operative endeavourof the Administering Authority and the peoples of

150a trust territory acting in mutual confidence andpartnership. The Council can only help by itscomments and commendations, criticisms andsuggestions, made in a helpful and "constructivespirit. It is in this spirit that I would approachthe Administering Authority's Report on Ruanda-Urundi for the year 1957.

We are happy to note that in the last twelveyears, during which. Belgium has administeredRuanda-Urundi as a Trust Territory, considerableprogress has indeed been achieved in many fieldsof the Territory's life.

In the field of health, to begin with, the pro-gress made so far has been striking. As the WorldHealth Organization points out, the administra-tion deserves to be 'congratulated on the successof the 10-Year Development Plan since its formu-lation in 1951, particularly in regard to theexpansion of medical care facilities, training ofindigenous health personnel, control of malaria,

tuberculosis and other infectious diseases, whichwere formerly prevalent in the Territory and inthe improvement of water-supply. The construc-tion of new hospitals and dispensaries hascontinued in the last few years with the resultthat the existing facilities of in-patient accommo-dation amount to one bed for each one-thousandof the Territory's inhabitants. This, in our view,is a major achievement for which the Administer-ing Authority should be given credit. Theincrease in the strength of several categories ofauxiliary health staff has also been satisfactoryand has led to the expansion of health establish-ments. It is my delegation's hope that thetraining facilities that exist in this field willcontinue to be expanded so that indigenous staffcan be trained in all the various fields of health-activity before long.

We note with satisfaction the continuingincrease of qualified medical personnel in Ruanda-Urundi, but we cannot fail to observe that as yetthere is not a single qualified indigenous doctorin the Territory. Fully qualified medical per-sonnel continues to be exclusively expatriate.This shortcoming stems from the fact that in thelast few years secondary and higher educationappear to have been comparatively neglected, andconsequently there has been a dearth of suitablyqualified young people who could be given highertraining in medicine. Of educational facilities inthe Territory, I shall speak later. We would,however, commend to the Administering Autho-rity 'he observations of the World Health Organi-sation that in order "to assist in this evolution,consideration might be given to extending thescope of the pre-university institute recentlyopened at Astrider to include preparation formedical, dental and pharmacy studies".

In education, again, following considerableexpansion and improvement of facilities during1957, further noteworthy progress has been madeduring 1958. For example, as against 5764primary classes or grades in 1957 there were 6033in 1958. The percentage of expenditure on educa-tion in relation to the total budget of the Territoryhas also continued to rise. While these trends aresatisfactory the fact remains that the percentageof children enrolled in primary and secondaryschools to the total population of school-goingage is no more than 21. If one remembers thatthe population of the Territory is itself increasing

at a fast rate thereby adding, year after year, tothe numbers of the children of school-going age,the rate of expansion of the facilities for primaryeducation does not appear to be adequate, and asthe United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization has pointed out in itsobservations (Document T/1442) considerableeffort is needed in the drive to make educationuniversal, and that "energetic steps should betaken to palliate the serious falling off of schoolenrolment, and to provide six years, primaryschooling for the maximum number of children".We are confident that the Administering Authoritywill take the necessary steps with a view toachieving such a goal.

Though the percentage of girl students onthe rolls of primary schools has risen to 29 in1958, the number of girl students is still small.The Special Representative's description of theposition of women in Ruanda-Urundi indicatesthey are very far from occupying the positionthey ought to occupy if Ruanda-Urundi is to havea balanced, dynamic and creative society. It is,therefore, essential that special attention shouldbe devoted to the education of girls with a viewto elevating the position of women in Ruanda-Urundi. We realize the existence of socialprejudices as a bar to progress. But the inertiahas to be broken down. We are aware that theAdministering Authority is conscious of the greatneed for special measures for the promotion ofeducation among women, and it is hearteningto learn that the indigenous authorities are alsoshowing greater consciousness of the specialefforts needed in that direction. It is, therefore,our hope that when we examine the educationalconditions in this Trust Territory next year therepresentative of the Administering Authority willbe in a position to give a more promising pictureof girls' education in Ruanda-Urundi.

The Trusteeship Council has, on several

151occasions, commented on the inadequacy ofgovernment's participation in the operation ofeducational institutions especially in the primaryfield. Out of a total of 2873 schools of theTerritory in 1957 only 15 were governmentschools. While we recognize that the Administra-tion shares a large part of the expenditure onMission and private schools through subventions

and subsidies, we feel that there should be greaterdirect participation and responsibility for primaryeducation on the part of the Government. Sideby side there should be further strengthening ofthe Government inspectorate for education toensure supervision and co-ordination. Our experience in India has shown that rapidincrease in school attendance, specially in theschool attendance of girls, cannot be achieveduntil the parents themselves have been educated.School education must, therefore, be accompaniedby a sustained effort to achieve universal literacythrough extensive programmes of adult education.From the information made available to theCouncil it appears that the activities for thepromotion of adult education are confined largelyto chapel schools. The number of adults attend-ing these schools in 1957 fell to 460,000 from620,000 in 1956. In addition there are six schools,which impart formal instruction in reading andwriting to adults, and the attendance in theseschools in 1957 was as small as 549. it is ourview, and this is supported by UNESCO, that theprogrammes of adult education should be intensi-fied. Sufficient use does not appear to have beenmade of media. of mass education, such as films,the radio and other audio-visual methods. TheUnited Nations Educational, Scientific & CulturalOrganisation should be in a position to lendconsiderable assistance to the Administering Autho-rity in the promotion of adult education, and wewould recommend that the Administering Autho-rity should draw freely upon the resources thatUNESCO may have to offer in this field.

The Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories gave a good deal ofattention to the ways and means of popularisingadult education among illiterate masses. Theeducational conditions in the Trust Territory ofRuanda-Urundi are not very different from thoseprevailing in the neighbouring Non-Self-Govern-ing Territories. The conclusions of the Committeeon Information would. therefore, be relevant tothe Trust Territory of Ruanda-Urundi as indeedin respect of other Trust Territory in Africa. Wewould, therefore, commend a study by theAdministering Authority of the Report of theTenth Session of the Committee on Informationin connection with the spread of education in theTrust Territory.

It seems to us that secondary and vocational

education in the Territory has been given inade-quate attention in the past, and present problemsof the Territory relating to the non-availability ofsuitably qualified personnel for higher training in,administration, in medicine and engineering,largely result from this fact. In normal circums-tances, the percentage of secondary school enrol-ment to primary enrolment should not be below25. However, the percentage of secondary andvocational pupils in the Territory numbering lessthan 3000 to primary pupils numbering 250,000in round figures is just about 1.2. These figureshighlight the necessity of adopting special measuresfor the promotion of secondary education in thenext two or three years. It appears from thereport that while the number of pupils enrolled insecondary and vacational schools registered aslight increase in 1957, there was no appreciableexpansion in the facilities for secondary andvocational education. While some measures wouldappear to have been adopted to improve thesituation, too much emphasis seems to have beenplaced on the academic element in secondary andvocational education. For example, the measuresrecently adopted relate to the establishment of"the upper humanities stream" the introductionof a rhetoric class and of courses of study inGreek and Latin. While the study of humanitieshas great value and should not be neglectedemphasis could, in our view, be better placed atthis stage on the professional, technical andvocational aspects of education. Training inhandicrafts merits special consideration andshould form part of the curricula of secon-dary and vocational schools. We note with someconcern that whereas the 10-Year Plan providedfor the establishment of 30 institutions impartinginstruction in handicrafts, only 13 have so farbeen established. We note the increase in thenumber of students from the Trust Territorystarting or continuing post-secondary and univer-sity education in the Belgian Congo and elsewhere.It must, however, be recognised that for highereducation the inhabitants of the Territory shouldnot have to depend on institutions abroad, butincreasing provision for such education must bemade, to the maximum extent possible, in theTerritory itself. It is necessary that those whoare later to become administrators, doctors andengineers, must as far as possible be trained inthese professions in the territory itself so that theylearn and develop their knowledge and skill inthe milieu in which they are to serve their people.

Greater attention should, therefore, be paid tothe establishment in the near future of institutionsof higher education in the Territory itself.

152

The Council will, no doubt, note with satis-faction the establishment of social and culturalcentres which are doing useful work in theTerritory; and we hope that the number of suchcentres will continue to multiply in the future.The existence and augmentation of the scope ofthe activities of these centres is necessary for thesocial uplift of the Territory's inhabitants.

We note with some regret that the dissemina-tion of information regarding the United Nationsand the Trusteeship Council is not taking placein the Territory on an adequate scale. The 1957Visiting Mission had noted that the people ofRuanda-Urundi knew very little about the statusof their country as a Trust Territory and aboutthe principles and purposes and the work of theUnited Nations. Absence of adult literacy andlimited education would inevitably appear torestrict the spread of such knowledge, but never-theless this matter deserves greater considerationby the Administering Authority. We hope thatin view of the General Assembly's Resolution1276 (XIII) the Administering Authority willgive urgent consideration to the question ofestablishing a United Nations Information Centrein the Trust Territory.

In the economic field the Territory's budgethas continued to increase, the ordinary part of itamounting approximately to twenty-million dollarsin 1958. Even allowing for some difference inthe real value of money, the people's purchas-ing power, and the Territory's total productionwould appear to have increased, despite thetemporary setbacks in the production of mineralsand coffee. The threat of famine has been consi-derably reduced in the last few years. While foodproduction has increased, the Territory's economyhas been further strengthened by the developmentof cash crops, such as coffee and cotton. Thecultivation of tea which is being tried on anexperimental basis might be a new factor ofconsiderable significance to the Territory'seconomic future. These are achievements forwhich we wish to pay a tribute to the Administer-ing Authority and the people of Ruanda-Urundi.

Though progress in the establishment of newindustries and in the expansion of existing industryhas not come up to original expectations, thereis much for which the Administering Authorityneeds to be congratulated. It can be expected thatwith the development of new resources ofelectric power from the Ruzizi the expansion ofindustry will receive a new stimulus in the nearfuture.

The state of the mining industry, however,leaves to be desired: There has as yet been nocomplete survey of the Territory's mineralresources. On the other hand, several mines oftin and tin-bearing ores, which had been workedsatisfactorily, have been closed down for reasons,which are not clear and, at any rate, do notappear to be related to the best economic interestsof the Territory. Tin exports constitute about22% of the total value of the Territory's export-able produce and the production and export oftin to the maximum extent possible is, therefore,of crucial significance to the Territory's balance oftrade and to its economy in general. We, there-fore, hope that the Administering Authority willtake expeditious action to restore operation ofthe mines that have been closed down. But ofthe 292 mines now in operation 182 are those whichyield tin or tin-bearing ores. A large part of thelabour-force engaged in extracting industry isemployed in these mines. We hope that theAdministering Authority will give them allpossible encouragement to organize themselvesinto a trade union. We would also reiterate therecommendation of the 1957 Visiting Missionthat the establishment of a bureau or departmentof mining in the Territory's administration shouldnow be given serious consideration.

May 1, here, in passing mention how muchwe have regretted that the I.L.O. has not beenable to participate actively in our examination orto assist us in the examination of conditionspertaining to labour, labour wages and socialwelfare work in the Territory. Our regret is thegreater as we believe that the I.L.O. with itsspecialised knowledge and expertese in thesefields has the competence to make a signal contri-bution to our deliberations. We hope that we shallnot be deprived of the benefit of the I.L.O.'sassistance in our future work relating to Ruanda-Urundi and other Trust Territories.

Mr. President, the need for increasing theparticipation of the inhabitants of the Territoryin the development and exploitation of itsresources cannot be over-emphasised. So farthere has been no visible evidence of such parti-cipation on the part of the indigenous inhabitantsin any field. Even to-day almost the whole ofthe import and export trade and the wholesaletrade of the Territory remains in the hands ofEuropeans. The FAO, the WHO and theUNESCO have, in their observations of theAdministering Authority's report emphasised thenecessity of allowing the indigenous inhabi-tants of the Territory their proper share in theformulation and implementation of the policiesof the Territorial Government. It is to beregretted that no permits have so far been granted

153to the indigenous inhabitants for the mining ofthe Territory's mineral resources. We wouldsuggest that this situation should be rectified, asits persistence for any length of time may resultin the perpetuation of foreign monopolies on theTerritory's resources, which may not alwayswork in the best interests of the inhabitants towhom these resources belong. No economicadvancement and development of the Territorycan be real and enduring without participation,and what is perhaps even more important, asense of participation by the people of theTerritory.

It is necessary in our view that banking andcredit facilities should be developed in theTerritory to enable the indigenous inhabitantsto take an ever increasing share in the develop-ment and expansion of industries as well as trade.We are glad to note that indigenous participationin retail trade is growing, and we are confidentthat this trend will be strengthened by suitablemeasures on the part of the Government. Thisis a salutary trend which we hope will extend toother fields of the Territory's economic life.

The 10-Year Development Plan, which is nowin its last lap, did not envisage or ensure partici-pation of the indigenous inhabitants of theTerritory. The new Plan, which will, no doubt,follow the previous one should rectify this situation.It will be appropriate at this stage to suggest thata national development council or board to advisethe Administering Authority in the formulation

of the new plan, and later to assist in its imple-mentation, should now be formed. We wouldlook forward to welcoming the establishment ofsuch a body in the course of the next discussionof conditions in Ruanda-Urundi.

Mr. President, on several occasions in thepast we have expressed the view that it isobligatory on the Administering Authority toinform the Council of the way in which theTerritory is associated with the European CommonMarket and of any opinions which representativebodies might express on that question. TheTrusteeship Agreement entities the AdministeringAuthority to constitute Ruanda-Urundi into afiscal union only with adjacent territories. Wedoubt that the Administering Authority is compe-tent to link, irrevocably, the economic future ofof the Trust Territory to any other communityor group of countries far away. Such a measurewould be clearly inconsistent with the objectiveof the international Trusteeship system and with theprovisions of the Agreement in respect of theTerritory, as likely to inhibit or retard theeconomic independence of the Territory, which, inturn, might adversely affect the goal of self-govern-ment or political independence. From the state-ments on behalf of the Administering Authoritybefore this Council it would appear that the oneand the only consequence of the association of theTrust Territory with the European EconomicCommunity is the allocation from the community'sresources to the Territory of an overall credit often-million dollars for five years. This wouldappear to us to be an oversimplification. Thereare larger questions involved such as the directionof the Territory's trade and the exploitation of itsmineral and other resources. These ought to beinvestigated in detail, and we would suggest that theAdministering Authority furnish information tothe Trusteeship Council on all the possibleconsequences of the Territory's association withthe European Economic Community. What theCouncil is interested is to see that the economicinterests in general and the resources in particularof Ruanda-Urundi are not mortgaged to outsideinterests, to the detriment of its own futureeconomic and political independence. In thisconnection we are obliged to note that the opinionof the advisory organs in the Territory was notconsulted before associating the Territory withthe European Common Market.

In the field of agriculture my delegation noteswith appreciation several measures relating towater-conservation, soil-preservation, drainageand cultivation of marshy lands and the resettle-ment schemes. The Council will no doubt takenote with appreciation and commendation of theseand of the improvements introduced in the methodof stock-breeding and in the activities of theveterinary department of the Territory which, inview of the large livestock population of theTerritory, are of special significance.

In its report on the Rural Economic Develop-ment of Trust Territories (Document T/1438)the Food and Agriculture Organization has madeseveral useful observations concerning land-tenureand land-use problems in the Trust Territory ofRuanda-Urundi. We commend these to theAdministering Authority in the hope that it willinvite the co-operation and assistance of the foodand Agriculture Organisation in finding solutionsto the many urgent and complex problems towhich this Organization has drawn attention.We would, in particular, impress upon theAdministering Authority the necessity of provid-ing liberal credit facilities to enable peasants toadopt more modern and more productive agri-cultural methods. Another feature to which theFAO has drawn attention is the absence ofagriculture co-operatives and programmes of com-munity development and the lack of indigenous154participation in the few co-operatives and prog-rammes of this kind which exist under governmentmanagement. We hope that the AdministeringAuthority will give due consideration to theseobservations.

Mr. President, in his opening statement theother day the distinguished representative ofBelgium remarked that "to satisfy hunger is theessential need of man". That is, indeed, truebut the truth of this statement is only partial.There are other essential needs of man, and thedistinguished representative himself referred toat least one other, namely, the hunger of thespirit of man for a faith or belief or religion,and he pointed out how this particular hungeris being satisfied by the spread of the universalprinciples of Christianity. We cannot, however,ignore yet a third kind of hunger-the hunger forfreedom which in its Collective aspect manifestsitself as the desire for national independence.

Mr. President, the Administering Authorityhas done well in the economic field. Much hasbeen done to satisfy the physical needs of theinhabitants of Ruanda-Urundi through extensivedevelopment work at enormous expense fromits own resources, in the fields of agriculture,industry, health and education. We gladlyacknowledge the success achieved hitherto inthese fields. We note, however, that not muchprogress has been made in the last ten or twelveyears towards the political goal of self-governmentor independence-and, as I said on anotheroccasion, these words we regard as synonymous.Political institutions such as they are in theTerritory are in a rudimentary stage and thedevelopments during the last few years-yearswhich have seen revolutionary and historicchanges in Africa and other parts of the world-do not appear to indicate any measurable speedin the development of political institutions and thedevolution of political authority to the people.

The Administering Authority has hithertobeen cautious perhaps more than cautious-in thematter of introducing political reforms with a viewto securing participation of the inhabitants ofRuanda-Urundi in the administration of theTerritory. To some extent, Mr. President, suchcaution is understandable, having regard to thesomewhat peculiar features of Ruanda-Urundi,including the socioeconomic composition of itspopulation. However, the AdministeringAuthority appears to have proceeded on the basisthat education and economic development of theTerritory should come before political reforms,and the introduction of democratic institutions.Such a theory would appear to have the partialbacking of a section of Ruanda-Urundi population.The fact remains, Mr. President, that to treatsocial and economic development as apart anddistinct from political progress is impossible inmodern times; and the recent history of variouscountries which have newly emerged into freedomclearly shows that political progress can be delayedonly at the risk of creating the most unhealthypressures and eruptions. Likewise, politicaladvancement without social and economic progresscreates difficult and complex problems which tendto make political freedom shadowy. It is alsonow recognized as indeed experience has shownthat the fullest participation of the people in thedecisions connected with their social and economic

development is essential. It seems to us, therefore,that social and economic progress, of which thereis ample evidence in Ruanda-Urundi should gohand in hand with political progress and that thepeople of Ruanda-Urundi should increasinglyparticipate in the decisions concerning themselves.In this way alone Ruanda-Urundi would be ableto progress in a balanced and enduring waytowards the attainment of the objectives set forthin the Charter of the United Nations.

This is all the more necessary, Mr. President,because Ruanda-Urundi is in the heart of Africaand cannot remain isolated from the mighty forcesthat are surging around it. The whole of Africais on the march and revolutionary concepts ofsocial and political freedom are sweepingthat great continent. The wave of Africanfreedom can no longer be ignored. The,Administering Authority cannot be unaware ofthe developments in other parts of Africa, parti-cularly in the territories in the neighbourhood ofRuanda-Urundi. It will be the path of wisdomto take note of these movements and forces; other-wise Ruanda-Urundi is likely to be left a straggleron the African continent, out of tune with itssurroundings and with the aspirations and thinkingof newly resurgent fellow Africans.

As early as 1955, my delegation expressed itsappreciation of the measures adopted by theAdministering Authority to establish the pro-totypes of future legislatures in the form of HighCouncils for Ruanda and Urundi, but while doingso we had also expressed the hope that the powersof these forums of discussion would beimmediately extended to give them a representativeand legislative character. In their scope, in thenature of their representation or in the quality ofthe powers these Councils exercise, they are nodifferent today from what they were five yearsago. At the level of High Council or ChiefdomCouncil or Sub-Chiefdom Council the real sourceof authority is still the chief, as it was then.

155

It is true that a General Council of Ruanda-Urundi is now an additional feature of theTerritorial scene; but out of its 45 members, only16 happen to be Africans who are not elected bythe people. In answer to a question the SpecialRepresentative stated that "one of the great

advantages of the General Council of Ruanda-Urundi is that as decisions are not taken by themajority, the opinion of the minority can befollowed and can give rise to changes of decisionsalready taken." I assume that he was suggestingthat the opinions of the African Members, whoare in a minority, carry special weight with theGovernment of the Territory. This is satisfactoryas far as it goes, but it is, in our view, nosubstitute for democratic practices and ademocratically constituted body in the Territory.

In 1957 the Visiting Mission of the UnitedNations had concluded that the Trust Territorywas ready to assimilate an increasing number ofprofound reforms. This conclusion has beenendorsed by the Belgian Government then,but unfortunately apart from introducing anclement of indirect popular participationin elections at the level of Sub-ChiefdomCouncils, little has been done to formulate orintroduce profound reforms of which the VisitingMission spoke in 1957. We would urge on theAdministering Authority to undertake the reformof the General Council so that the African elementshould form a majority of members who areelected and not nominated by the Governor asat present.

Mr. President, the Territory of Ruanda-Urundi might have existed in geographical, eco-nomic and political isolation in the past, buttoday the picture is a very different one. To talkof geographical isolation of one part of Africafrom the rest of the continent or indeed from therest of the world, in this day and age would beanachronistic. The economic isolation has beenbroken down completely by the efforts of theAdministering Authority itself, and the evidenceof this is to be found in the charts tabulating in-formation about the territory's trade with foreigncountries. Even before the establishment of modernmeans of communication, such as roads and air-port facilities, the concept of economic isolationof the Territory from its neighbours would havehad limited validity. For, in centuries past,labourers, peasants and pastoralists have gone intheir hundreds and thousands from Ruanda-Urundi to neighbouring Tanganyika, Uganda andthe Congo. The Special Representative himselfremarked the other day in his answer to one ofthe many questions that were put to him thatemigrants, who go from Ruanda-Urundi to find

work in neighbouring countries bring with themnew political ideas and aspirations from thoseterritories.

Therefore, Mr. President, we are convincedthat the speed of political advance in the territoryneeds considerable acceleration. This we thinkis the supreme task of the Administering Autho-rity in consultation with the people.

The distinguished representative of Belgiumsaid in his opening statement that what is mostimportant is the spread of the democratic spirit,and this will require development in depth. Thisview is unexceptionable but we hope that it doesnot imply a continued slowness of progress in thepolitical field. The "Manifesto of the Bahutu"and the "Statement of Views" of the High Councilof Ruanda, the two documents with which thisCouncil is familiar, give sufficient evidence of the,political maturity of the people of Ruanda-Urundiand of their desire and readiness for democraticassociation with and participation in the Govern-ment of Ruanda-Urundi at various levels.We believe that time has come for the Adminis-tering Authority to guide the people ofRuanda-Urundi towards the establishment ofhealthy and democratic institutions. Forthis purpose it is essential that opportunitiesshould be given for the formation of politicalparties in the territory, of which there has beencomparative absence so far and which the Admi-nistering Authority appears to have frowned uponin the past.

It is in this context that we welcome the visitof the working group constituted by the BelgianGovernment, which has had consultations withvarious people and organizations in the Territory.We understood from the statement of the distin-guished representative of Belgium that thesereforms will deal with (a) the exercise of legislativefunctions by indigenous bodies ; (b) the integrationof the services maintained by the indigenousadministration and the Administering Authorityin the Trust Territory ; (c) the question of thedevelopment of central institutions of the Territory,such as the General Council and of their powers ;and, lastly, with the question of the introductionof universal suffrage in elections to the variousCouncils of the Territory. These will certainlybe steps in the right direction and we hope thatRuanda-Urundi will soon make a measurable

advance towards self-government and indepen-dence-the goals of the Trusteeship system.

It is particularly gratifying to note that theAdministering Authority considers that the timehas now arrived to introduce universal suffrage at

156least in elections to the Sub-Chiefdom Councils.The Trusteeship Council has made recommenda-tions on the subject in the past, and we are of theview that this measure has already been consider-ably delayed. We, therefore, hope that the mea-sures to be adopted in this regard at this late stagewill be liberally conceived and equally liberallyimplemented. We also hope that the introductionof universal suffrage will not be restricted onlyto elections at the sub-chiefdom level. It is equallynecessary to ensure the full participation ofwomen in elections at various levels. No terri-tory or country can go forward if its women,who constitute half the population, are deniedtheir political rights. There are other Trust Terri-tories in Africa where women play an effectiveand valuable role in their political life. There isno reason to believe that women of Ruanda-Urundi are less capable or that the Trust Terri-tory of Ruanda-Urundi is not equally progressivein its outlook or that its male population is lesscharitable towards its women than that of thoseother Trust Territories.

We have had occasion to point out that thedual European-indigenous character of the Terri-tory's administration is likely to raise difficultproblems when the time comes for the final trans-fer of power to the inhabitants of the Territory.We are, therefore, glad to note that the impend-ing reforms will deal with the question of inte-grating the services of the two administrations.Apart from this particular aspect of the questionit seems necessary that special attention shouldnow be paid to the question of training indigenouspersonnel for high administrative posts of theTerritory's government. While the number ofAfricans in the Belgian administration of theTerritory has increased during the last few years,almost all the posts held by them are junior posts,and senior administrative posts continue to beheld exclusively by Belgian personnel. This notonly results in higher expenditure-I had pointedout earlier that about 32% of the entire adminis-tative expenditure is spent on European personnel

-but it also retards the Territory's progress to-wards self-government. In recent times, as iswell-known, newly independent States have ex-perienced serious difficulty owing to the inade-quacy of trained personnel in administrative andother fields. While we note that recently a num-ber of Africans have been promoted to juniorlevels in the Belgian administration, and that alimited number of scholarships for study andtraining abroad are made available to Africans,we feel that these facilities are inadequateand need to be expanded. We hope the Ad-ministering Authority will engage in a deter-mined and extensive programme for the trainingof an ever-increasing number of Africans for thehigher ranks of Ruandi-Urundi's civil service.

Mr. President, the Trusteeship Council has,in the past, shown considerable concern regardingthe fact that a contingent of the "Force Publiquedu Congo Beige" is stationed in the Territory forthe purpose of maintaining law and order. Weregret to say that in our view there is no justifica-tion for the stationing of this Force in the Terri-tory, at the expense of the Territory, amountingto over fourteen million francs per year. What-ever the historical origin of this Force, in ourview it is neither necessary nor desirable to burdenthe Trust Territory, whose financial resources areinadequate, and whose budget suffers from a chro-nic deficit, with the maintenance and upkeep of amilitary or paramilitary force drawn from outside.If the Administering Authority considers it neces-sary to develop such a force to constitute the nuc-leus of the small territorial army, it should becreated over the years from among the Territory'sown inhabitants. It will give the people of Ruanda-Urundi the sense of responsibility for their ownsecurity.

Before I finish I would like to say a few wordsabout the establishment of targets, with tentativedates for their fulfilment in the field of the Terri-tory's political advancement. Both the GeneralAssembly and this Council have on several occa-sions recommended the establishment of suchtargets by the Administering Authorities in consul-tation with the inhabitants of Trust Territories.We are therefore disappointed to hear what thedistinguished representative of Belgium had to sayon this matter. In answer to a question put tohim, he said the following:-

"If, during our consideration of theTerritory's development, it should appear appro-priate to establish certain stages, that will bedone in agreement with the population concerned.But we refuse, as we shall always refuse, tocommit ourselves to setting down timetables inthe abstract."

Mr. President, my delegation has alwaysmade it clear that we do not believe that it isnecessary to establish final timetables or thatfinal time-limits for the achievement by a TrustTerritory of the objectives of the Trusteeshipsystem are essential. But we do believe that theestablishment of intermediate targets with tentativedates for their fulfilment is essential and usefulfor stimulating and accelerating a Territory'sdevelopment and can help the orderly andpeaceful progress of a Territory towards theultimate goal of independence.

157

The Administering Authority has itself drawnup plans and established targets and dates in thespheres of economic and educational development.The success of these plans would indicate thedesirability of proceeding in a similar manner inthe field of the Territory's political development.In his opening statement the distinguished repre-sentative of Belgium himself said that "the timeis coming when this evolution"-I assume he wasreferring to the Territory's political evolution-"an invisible and salutary one, is attaining a levelwhich must be reflected in the organic structures,in which we must readjust to the actual condi-tions." We interpret this to mean that the Terri-tory has now reached a certain stage in its politicaldevelopment where planning ahead, in consulta-tion with the people is not only feasible but highlydesirable. Such planning, in our view, will bewise and will save the Administering Authoritythe painful processes of readjustment under therelentless pressure of circumstances. We would,therefore, earnestly commend the GeneralAssembly's resolutions to the AdministeringAuthority.

We note with some concern, Mr. President,that the people of Ruanda-Urundi do not yetenjoy many of the fundamental freedoms envisagedin the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.We view with satisfaction the partial removal of

regulations and laws relating to compulsorylabour, curfew and the movement of indigenous in-habitants from one area to another in the Territory.But the answers of the Special Representative tosome questions that I put to him the other dayclearly show that considerable restriction still existson the movement of persons from agricultural tonon-agricultural areas. Some formalities have alsoto be gone into in respect of movement ofpersons from one Chiefdom to another. Theseprovisions appear to be contrary to Article 13 (1)of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,according to which "everyone has the right tofreedom of movement and residence within the,borders of each state". Apart from this aspect,it seems to my, delegation that such restrictionsmust inevitably inhibit enterprise and initiative,and affect the social and economic mobility ofthe population, which is essential to progress.Such restrictions are, in modern times, usuallyregarded as archaic and unprogressive. It alsoappears that because of various restrictions in theextra-customary areas, there is little encourage-ment for the formation of political organisationsand the creation of free and healthy public opinion.It is hoped that the Administering Authority willgive serious consideration to the question ofremoval of all such restrictions as early as possible.

Mr. President, I have spoken long and perhaps.in too much detail, but I have done so not onlybecause it is our duty as members of this Councilto subject reports of Administering Authorities tosuch constructive examination as might help inprogress towards the objectives of TrusteeshipSystem, but because we are appreciative of theprogress achieved in Ruanda-Urundi under theAdministering Authority in the social and eco-nomic fields, and we are confident of the capacityof Belgium, with its rich democratic experienceand heritage, to guide and prepare the peoples ofthe Territory rapidly towards self-government andindependence.

To be entrusted with the responsibilities ofAdministering Authority under the TrusteeshipSystem of the United Nations is indeed a high andhistoric privilege. The record of the TrusteeshipCouncil and of the Administering Authoritiesgenerally under this System has been a proud one.We have no doubt that under the impact of thegreat movement of freedom on the continent ofAfrica today, and under the guidance of the

Administering Authority and the TrusteeshipCouncil, the people of Ruanda-Urundi would soonattain their true and rightful political destiny.

INDIA USA BELGIUM CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC CONGO UGANDA MALDIVES MALI

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

President Prasad's Broadcast Message

The President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad broad-cast a message on June 15, 1959 on the occasionof the 40th anniversary of the InternationalLabour Organisation.

Following is the full text of the message :

I am speaking to you today on a specialoccasion. The International Labour Organisationis celebrating this year its 40th anniversary. Indiahas been a member of this Organisation from thevery beginning and it is well that we in India toojoin in the celebrations on this occasion and alsocelebrate the 40th anniversary of our membershipof the I.L.O. Our Postal Department has issueda special stamp to mark this occasion and the

158Indian delegation to the International LabourConference which is now going on will naturallytake part in the celebrations in Geneva.

After the first Great War, three internationalorganisations were set up to help the cause ofworld peace-the League of Nations, the Inter-national Labour Organisation and the InternationalCourt of Justice. The work assigned to the I.L.O.was to help the cause of peace through theestablishment of social justice. The main itemsof this work, then, were to secure improvement inthe conditions of work by the regulation of hours

of work, the prevention of unemployment, theprovision of rest, recreation and social security,freedom to form trade unions and the organisationof technical and vocational education. This workhas been going on continuously during the last40 years and we can say that the people of theworld everywhere have begun to enjoy the fruits'of the I.L.O.'s labours.

There are three main organs of the I.L.O.-the International Labour Conference, whichadopts international 'treaties' known as Conven-tions and Recommendations, the Governing Bodywhich directs its affairs, and the Secretariat atGeneva in which some 800 nationals of nearly60 countries carry on the work of research insocial and economic questions throughout the year.Among these the International Labour Conferenceis perhaps the most important. It has been aptlycalled the World Parliament of Labour. Since1919, representatives of governments, manage-ments and workers have been taking part in thisConference. It has adopted 111 Conventionsand the same number of Recommendations.These Conventions and Recommendations areplaced before our Parliament regularly as soon asthey are adopted and India has accepted so far24 of these Conventions while a number of itslabour laws have been influenced by some otherinternational standards adopted by the Conference.

The I.L.O. has also redoubled its activitiessince 1944 as far as underdeveloped countries likeIndia are concerned. The main features of thisnew work are the provision of technical assistanceand the regional work.

The fact that even when India was underforeign rule, the I.L.O.'s influence could help inimproving the conditions of our workers is agreat tribute to this Organisation and we shouldappreciate it all the more when we realise thatlabour legislation and such other matters are thedomestic affairs of each sovereign state. TheI.L.O. has been gaining ground steadily onlythrough the combined force of facts and inter-national public opinion.

The chief armour of the I.L.O. is the studyof facts. Its principal allies are public opinionand goodwill and its weapons are persistent andslow conversion through published data, negotia-tions and discussions. The major contribution of

this great Organisation is that it has broughtlasting improvements in working conditions, hasenlarged the frontiers of social justice during theforty years of its existence and has given confi-dence to all men everywhere. When the Inter-national Labour Conference declared in Philadelphiain 1944, that "Poverty anywhere constitutes adanger to prosperity everywhere", it gave tohumanity a new vision so that even the droopingand the wilted among mankind could straightentheir backs and march towards the goal ofSarvodaya.

On this auspicious occasion, we pay ourtribute to this great Organisation for all the goodwork it has done for social and economic progress.We are happy that the methods through whichthe I.L.O. functions are so much akin to themeans through which India wishes to achieveSwaraj in the fullest sense. India has been anenthusiastic member of the I.L.O. moreparticularly since 1947, and I hope that themutual co-operation between this country andthe I.L.O. will continue in future. I have nodoubt that this Organisation will achieve evengreater success in the coming decades for theestablishment of social justice. Its success is thesuccess of all men of goodwill everywhere onwhose work depends the future progress ofmankind. It is never too often if we repeat thewords of the founders of the I.L.O. that universaland lasting peace can be established only if itis based upon social justice.

INDIA SWITZERLAND USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION

Prime Minister Nehru's Message

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,

sent the following message to the InternationalLabour Organisation on June 15, 1959 on the occa-sion of the 40th Anniversary of the Organisation :

"I send to the International LabourOrganisation, on the occasion of itsfortieth anniversary, the good wishes ofthe Government and the people of Indiaand our congratulations on the Organi-sation's record of successful endeavourand work in the field of international

159 co-operation. During the forty years of its existence, the world has changed greatly. Formed at the conclusion of the First World War, it saw the changes that came after that war and then it witnessed the Second World War. Since then even greater changes have taken place and new problems have arisen. Many countries, previously dependent on some colonial power, have gained independence and had to face the new problems that independence brought. These problems were essentially economic, for those countries, long suppressed in their economic growth by foreign rule, were anxious to develop rapidly and to raise the living standards of their people. Everyone of them had to face problems of industrial relations and to meet the challenge of new economic and social changes.

"Throughout this period, the I.L.O. has shown remarkable vitality and a capacity to adapt itself to the changing situation. From being an institution setting passive standards, it has developed into one which plays an active role in raising standards and helping the cause of industrial peace."

"I trust that the I.L.O. will continue to play its useful role and will not allow itself to be influenced by the tensions and conflicts in the political field."

INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE

Shri G.L. Nanda's Speech

The Union Minister for Labour and Employ-ment, Shri Gulzarilal Nanda, who led the Indiandelegation to the 43rd Session of the InternationalLabour Conference, made a speech at the Con-ference held in Geneva on June 5, 1959.

Following is the full text of his speech:

I am repeating my visit to I.L.O. after 12 years.It coincides with a landmark in the history ofthe Institution-its fortieth anniversary. Thisis no small satisfaction to me.

When I first came to this place in 1947, theOrganisation had already built up a magnificentrecord of achievement. Millions in many partsof the world had felt the impact of its activitiesin terms of better conditions of life and work.We remember with gratitude the pioneering effortof the I.L.O. during those earlier years.

In course of these 12 years, the I.L.O. haddeveloped a new reach and depth in the concept ofits functions and obligations and new areas havecome within the scope of its activities. It happensthat this period covers the tenure of the presentDirector-General, whom I met here, for the firsttime in 1947 and who himself had come to theI.L.O. scene as a newcomer that year. May I con-gratulate him on the excellent fare he has providedfor us in the Annual Report, which is better everyyear like the work of the institution he represents?

I have spoken of the things done but it isclear that the mission of I.L.O. still remainslargely unfulfilled. We have to recall frequentlythe inspiring words of the preamble to the Consti-tution of the I.L.O., which brings out the basic pur-poses of the Organisation, with the greatest accenton peace and social justice. Without peace we

must lose all our gains of technical and socialprogress and without social justice there can beno peace for any community, small or big, whethera nation or the whole family of nations.

"And whereas conditions of labour exist,involving such injustice, hardship and privationto large numbers of people as to produce unrestso great that the peace and harmony of the worldare imperilled, and an improvement of those condi-tions is urgently required" ....... These wordsoccur in the Preamble. Despite the vast increasein the capacity of mankind to create a world ofplenty, these conditions still persist in large areasof the world. The cry for justice may still beheard from many quarters. In several under-developed and undeveloped countries, the levels ofliving of the bulk of the people are still extremelylow, housing conditions have not improved andthe number of those who suffer as a result ofunemployment and under-employment hasincreased in spite of large efforts to stimulateeconomic growth.

The growth of democratic forces within anation and the promotion of contacts betweenthe nations, by the I.L.O. and other internationalagencies, may well have an unsettling rather than

160a cementing influence, if there is no convincingevidence that the fruits of progress are beingevenly shared within each community and as bet-ween different countries.

Through these years, international cooperationhas developed and the I.L.O. stands pre-eminentin this sphere. but it appears that the acceptanceof international responsibility has not gone farenough to bring about that extent of levelling upin the less fortunate areas of the world as to createan immunity against the forces of social andpolitical disruption. Much more can be doneby the more advanced countries to ensure thattheir policies do not harm or embarrass thosewho are lagging behind, but, on the other hand,enable them to develop and stand on their ownlegs. And if this is not heeded, obstacles will arisefor the survival of democracy and the preservationof world peace. Social justice like peace isindivisible.

The code of international standards which

the I.L.O. has evolved through the decades is aremarkable product of co-operative endeavouramong nations. A large leeway still remains tobe made in the acceptance and implementation ofthese standards. Very often what is lacking isnot the will but the means to ensure minimumstandards of well-being to the bulk of the popula-tion in a country. It is, therefore, only right andproper that the I. L. O. should apply itselfincreasingly to the study of the processes ofeconomic and social change and the basic causesof the present incapacity of certain countries tokeep pace with the rest in respect of the observanceof the standards which have been laid down.

The report of the Director General throws arevealing light on some of the deeper and moreobscure issues concerning the forces of economicand social development. Each Region and eachcountry has its special problems and no generaltheory of development will be of much availto a less developed country in uncovering all itsproblems and furnishing guidance for the type ofsocial action and economic policy which will becapable of producing the best results in each case.It is very welcome therefore that the DirectorGeneral's Report gives evidence of a keen apprecia-tion of the importance of the regional aspect bothfor its deliberative and its operational work. Thisemphasis needs to be greatly strengthened. In the same context may be viewed thegrowing awareness of the importance of theinstitutional setting in which economic programmesare carried out. The success of these programmesand the rate of progress that is achieved in anycountry depend very much on the effectivenessof the institutions that exist or are being createdfor this purpose. In many places, it is the weak-ness in this respect which hinders progress whileother circumstances may be favourable. Thisagain is not a problem of a general kind. It hasa distinctive character related to the situation ineach area. There is a great deal of room andneed for discovery and experimentation. TheI.L.O. can assist in this search and in the task ofreadaptation to the rapidly changing conditions inthe light of international experience. In India,we are constructing a new economic fabric. Weare endeavouring to make the utmost use of theinstitutional arrangements which have their rootsin the history and soil of the country, but we arealso trying to develop a new frame-work whichwhile fully geared to the demands of a complex

and quickly growing economy, would also be inaccord with the temper and traditions of thecountry and the moral and social values whichour people cherish. We have realised that thebest way of securing social peace is to developinstitutions-social, economic and political-towhich the people may become passionately devotedbecause they satisfy their basic needs and urges.

For the purposes of the I.L.O., the machineryof industrial relations in each country has aspecial interest. We in India are engaged in athorough review of the various institutions touchingthe employer-employee relations. We have recentlyintroduced certain innovations to which a referenceoccurs in the Report of the Director-General. TheCode of Discipline which has- won generalacceptance on the part of employers, workers andthe Government, as a voluntary arrangement, isdesigned to create an atmosphere in which industrycan function smoothly and the rights and interestsof workers are fully safeguarded. A Code ofConduct has been accepted by the main sectionsof organised labour to govern their mutualrelations. We are about to enter upon a consi-deration of a Code of Efficiency and Welfare. Tofind a remedy for the recurring complaints aboutbreaches of awards, agreements and legal regula-tions, machinery for implementation and evaluationhas been set up by the Central Government as wellas the State Governments.

A few months ago, a scheme for workers'participation in management was adopted and isbeing applied to a few selected establishmentson a voluntary basis. I am convinced that unlessan effective partnership is established between theworkers and the managements in under-developedcountries, the fullest use of resources of all kindswill not be possible and social tensions will notabate. It is only in day-to-day exercise of the

161obligations and privileges of industrial democracyside by side with a steady advance towards astate of freedom from want and insecurity whichwill bring to the worker a realization of themeaning of freedom, give him a stake in peaceand make him a staunch fighter for the valuesembedded in free institutions. I may mentionhere also certain features of the situation in ourcountry in this context about which I do not feelhappy. Works Committees, which have to be

constituted as a legal obligation, show no signs ofvigorous growth. Apathy of the workers as wellas indifference on the part of the managementsseem to be responsible for this state of affairs.The Trade Union movement in our country isdivided on political lines and trade union rivalriesare affecting adversely the interests of workersas well as industry. In the future economicorganisation of our country, as I visualise it, thetrade union must be one of the most importantcomponents of the new structure, carrying bothhigh responsibility and great privileges. Withoutgenuine unity, trade unions cannot attain thishigh status. And this will be the loss of themost vital element in the building up of a trueand living democracy. We have done somethingalready to remove the worst features of this discord,and we are exploring avenues of fostering internalharmony in the Indian Labour movement. Wecannot, however, be oblivious of the fact that thisproblem is just a reflection of the big conflicts whichhave divided the nations of the world into warringcamps. The attempts to resolve them ontraditional lines have hitherto borne no fruit.We may have to fall back on other techniques ofwhich Gandhiji spoke to us in our country, fortapping the moral reserves of humanity with thehelp of which Peace and Justice can be establishedin the world,

The question of employment figures promi-nently in the Report of the Director-General andI venture to make a few observations on thisaspect. The employment experience of advancedcountries is of limited help in dealing with thespecial features of the problems in underdevelopedcountries. Here the main task is to remove thehindrances in the way of economic growth and toactivise the economy so as to make it move forwardfast enough The utmost that we in our countrycan do in the way of fresh investments would fallfar short of the requirements of absorbing, fromyear to year, the new entrants to the labour forcein non-agricultural operations. There exists nowa large back-log of the unemployed and at thesame time, under-employment, especially in ruralareas, has already assumed serious proportions.It appears that our difficulties in the water arisealso from the fact that a suitable institutional setup has not yet been developed in keeping with thespecial conditions which have emerged in thecountry. In India we are at present devotingintensive thought to the question of how we can

best harness the unutilised energies of our peoplein rural areas. In a democratic community thiscalls for a varied approach. The essence of it isthat village councils and local organisations repre-senting the people have to assume increasingresponsibilities for building community assets, forproviding minimum amenities and for local deve-lopment generally. Everywhere the area ofcommunity operation in rural life has to bestrengthened. it is also essential to arrangethrough local organisations and otherwise forspecial works projects which may reduce under-employment in stack periods and provide largerwork opportunities than may arise in the ordinarycourse.

It is obvious that neither adequate standardsof living nor full employment can be achievedwithout the most intensive effort on the part ofall the people of a country which has to developitself. As I see the problem, the nature of theeffort in the coming years for securing this largerpurpose has to be in the direction of raising thelevel of productivity continuously as also the levelof enlightenment of the mass of workers and thepeople generally. I attach great importance,therefore, to the programmes relating to Produc-tivity and Workers' Education which have beenadded to the armoury of the I L O. To these twoprogrammes, I.L.O. should give increasing atten-tion. In our country, we have taken up both inright earnest.

It is not workers alone who can gain by aprogramme of education. There is need formanagerial development also. In an under-developed country reaching for a socialist horizon,the change in outlook and attitudes required onthe part of persons responsible for running theeconomic machine is little short of a revolution.The way in which those who are in places ofpower and advantage discharge their obligationswill to no small extent also determine the responsesof the working class.

Rural development should claim increasingattention on the part of the I.L.O. in the comingyears. I am glad that the Conference will discussthe subject at its next session. The Director-General's Report has taken notice of the Bhoodanmovement in India which has now developed intoGramdan, i.e., villages in which the sense of per-sonal property in land fades out and the village

community becomes responsible for the well-being of every member. This movement bears

162the seeds of a non violent agrarian revolution. Inessence it is part of the wider aim of transformingthe entire social and economic life of the peopleon the basis of the democratic values of truth andlove. It is being guided by a great disciple ofMahatma Gandhi.

The Regional aspect of the work of the I.L.O.,as I have mentioned earlier, is making a greatappeal. It was only in November 1957 that, atour invitation, the Fourth Asian Regional Con-ference was held in New Delhi. We are gratefulfor this privilege. We expect that on the samelines, arrangements will be made for holding anAfrican Regional Conference for special study ofthe problems of the African Region.

From the point of view of under-developedcountries, I have also to suggest that the I.L.O.'soperational activities should be further broadenedas a part of its regular programme. To give anexample, more of direct operational and researchwork can be undertaken in under-developedcountries, which, on the one hand. will enable theI.L.O. to have more first hand information of theirproblems and difficulties and, on the other, on thebasis of its own rich experience, assist countriestowards gradual attainment of the existing inter-national standards. And may I also add thattechnical assistance to less developed countriesshould absorb much more of the resources at thedisposal of the I.L.O. than has been found possiblehitherto.

The ideological and political conflicts ragingin the world are posing a threat to the very exis-tence of what man has built up over thousandsof years. The ferment and the turmoil may, how-ever, well be a prelude to a new social synthesisand we may be on the eve of a new world situation,offering a broad common way towards worldjustice and world freedom, which all, accordingto their varying needs and experience, may tread.I take the more hopeful view because I believethat the affairs of Man are in his hands, but notin his hands alone.

INDIA SWITZERLAND USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

NEPAL

Prime Minister Nehru's Visit and Joint Communique

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehrupaid a visit to Nepal from June 11 to 13, 1959at the invitation of the Nepal Government. Onthe conclusion of his three-day visit a PressCommunique was issued simultaneously atKathmandu and New Delhi on June 14,1959.

The following is the full text of the commu-nique :

On the invitation of His Majesty the Kingof Nepal, the Prime Minister of India, ShriJawaharlal Nehru. paid a three-day visit to Nepal.The Prime Minister conveyed to Their Majestiesthe greetings and good wishes of the people andthe Government of India. Shri Nehru wasimpressed by His Majesty's solicitude for thewelfare of his people and his desire to strengthenthe friendly relations which already exist betweenNepal and India.

The Prime Minister of India also had severalfriendly and informal talks with the PrimeMinister of Nepal and his colleagues in Govern-ment. In the course of these talks, a variety ofsubjects was discussed, including the presentinternational situation and the recent develop-ments in Tibet, and social and economic problemswhich are common to the two countries. Therewas an identity of views, the policies of the twocountries, both in the international and domesticspheres, being animated by similar ideals andobjectives. Both are convinced or the paramountnecessity of world peace and the removal of thedangers of war, leading to progressive disarma-ment. The ample resources of the world couldthus be diverted to the social and economic

advancement of people all over the world and,more particularly, in the under-developed countries.

The Prime Ministers are further convincedthat in the interests of peace as well as nationaland human progress, no country should be domi-nated over by another and colonial control, inwhatever form, should end.

The Prime Ministers earnestly trust that thetalks at present going on in Geneva will lead tosome steps being taken towards the lessening oftension and a progressive solution of the problemsthat threaten peace. They are convinced thatthey can best serve the cause of world peace aswell as their countries' interests by adhering tothe policy of non-alignment with military group-ings and by maintaining friendly relations withall countries. In particular, they aim at greater

163understanding and co-operation among theAsian countries.

Both Nepal and India are under-developedcountries. India is at present half-way throughher Second Five Year Plan and has had longerexperience in planned development. The PrimeMinister of India assured the Prime Minister ofNepal of his readiness to share this experiencewith Nepal. The two Prime Ministers recognisedthat each country is the best judge of its ownneeds. The geographical contiguity of the twocountries, however, makes it inevitable thatcertain developmental projects can be best plannedand executed by the joint endeavours of the twocountries. The Kosi Project is the first suchendeavour in co-operative development on a bigscale. A similar project on the river Gandak isexpected to provide irrigation facilities and cheappower to large areas at present under-developedin Nepal and India. The two Prime Ministershope that an early beginning will be made withthe execution-of this important project.

The Prime Minister of India was deeply touch-ed by the kindness and courtesy of His Majestythe King and his Government and by the demons-trations of popular affection wherever he went inNepal. He is grateful for this welcome which islargely due to the close bonds that exist betweenthe people of Nepal and the people of India.There is no conflict of interest between the two

countries and they face similar problems andhave common approaches. The two PrimeMinisters are determined to work for thewelfare and advancement of the people intheir respective countries, and to co-operate tothis end.

NEPAL USA INDIA SWITZERLAND LATVIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

NEPAL

Prime Minister Nehru's Speech at Royal Banquet

The Prime Minister of India, ShriJawaharlal Nehru paid a visit to Nepal fromJune 11 to 13, 1959 at the invitation of theGovernment of Nepal. On June 11, TheirMajesties the King and the Queen of Nepalgave a Banquet in honour of Prime MinisterNehru.

On this occasion, Shri Nehru made a speechin Hindi, an English translation of which isgiven below :

Your Majesties and gentlemen,

On this auspicious occasion, I am remindedof my last visit to this city and this country eightor nine years ago, when I came here for thefirst time at the invitation of your reverend father.I have been cherishing the memory of my firstvisit and it often tempted me to come here.You have just said that you invited me to comehere some years ago, but it is only now thatI have been able to be amongst you- I amsorry for this. It has not been simply due tothe pressure of work that I have not beenable to come here. The work is always therebut there is a certain type of work that absorbsyou completely and does not allow you to think

of other things. Such were my engagements.But when you were kind enough to repeat yourinvitation some months back, when I met youat Kosi I was regretfully reminded of my inabilityto comply with your previous invitationand I readily accepted it. And now thatI am here, an old hope seems to have beenfulfilled.

Yours is a beautiful country and so is yourcity. But, whether I am in this country or inmy country, or anywhere else my eyes are onthe people. To look at their faces andinto their eyes beaming with affection, doesnot simply give me a sense of satisfaction andjoy ; it also creates a sort of relationship orbond between them and me. I had a proofof that affection once more here and for thatI want to thank you, and the people ofthis city.

You know the sort of world in which welive. It is a complex and unsteady world; itoften stumbles and sometimes one wonders whyit has not yet met its doom. It has managed tosurvive so far, but the danger is always there.No one can say what will happen tomorrow.Who can take the responsibility of the wholeworld? At least your country or my countrycannot take this big responsibility. There arebigger countries which play a major role in theaffairs of the world and to a certain extent itcan be said, they control the future of the world.But perhaps their power also is limited. It isdifficult to say who controls the world. Eventhen it is hoped that the desire of the people ofthe world, which they have long cherished, willbe fulfilled; that is : there will be peace in theworld and that all countries and their peoplewill flourish. There is no doubt that the peoplein some way or the other have always cherishedthis ideal of peace and progress but two newfactors have appeared in the world of to-day.One of them is that war has become so dangerousthat once it is started it will destroy, or nearly

164destroy the whole of the world; and all civiliza-tion and culture, the achievement of thousandsof years of patient effort, will come to an end.May be, some uncivilised people are left in somecorner of the world. A great scientist perhapsEinstein once said that the war after the next

will be fought with bows and arrows. Perhapshe meant to say that when the next war is fought,all the glorious achievements of the worldwill come to an end and if by chance somemen are left they will sink into the stateof the primitives who fought with bows andarrows.

Another new factor is this that for the firsttime in the history of the world, man has thepower due to science or perhaps due to someother things, to eradicate almost all the wantsand troubles of the world. For the first timeit can be said that no body need live in poverty.It could not be said before because the worlddid not possess the means to feed, clothe andprovide shelter to everybody. But the powerwhich has come through science and throughthe products of science can eradicate all thewants. Of course, it will take some time. Nothinghappens by miracle. Whatever our historiesmay say, it was never possible to provideall the people with the necessities of life andthus raise their standard of living. This thingwhich was beyond our power in the earlier time,has come under our power provided we devotesome time and energy to it. It is a huge workbut it can be done. It, of course, could not bedone by any amount of effort in the earliertimes.

Thus, these are the two new factors in thepresent-day world. On one side, there is thefear of war that will destroy the world, and onthe other, the possibility of providing for allthe people of the world which in a way, has beenthe dream of the people since time immemorial.One thing is good, another is evil. The problembefore us is how to escape from this dangerouswar. If we do not escape then there are no pro-blems left to be solved. And if we do, then theproblem before us is how to harness all ourstrength for eradicating all wants, troubles anddiseases of the people. May be, you can solvethis problem on paper. The time it takes willdepend upon your capability to work. Thisproblem is before us, in India, before you inNepal and before several other countries. Thereare some countries of Europe and America wherethe problem of poverty has almost been solved.Actually nobody is poor there. May be, thereare some poor people but their number is verysmall. They have other problems. But for the

countries of Asia and Africa this is the problemof primary importance.

I mean to say that there may be differentproblems before our countries but the basicproblem before both of us is the same. The first thing that we should understandis that whenever we go to another country weshould represent our own country. Some peopledo represent their country but what is that thingof which they are the representatives. I oftengo out and often I think that if I want torepresent India truly, I must represent the poorfarmer of India and not the well-to-do peopleThe farmer is needed most for India andreally he is India. The well-to-do peopleare not India. The progress of India will begauged by his progress. There is no othermeasuring rod.

This is the problem which constantly engagemy mind, as I told you in the beginning. Igrapples with it, struggles with it, tries to finda way out and sometimes achieves some sort ofsuccess. The problem before you also is thesame. And certainly the same will be yourdifficulties, they may be even greater. The firstthing to be accepted is that no problems aresolved by miracle or trick. They are solved byhard labour and hard thinking. All that isobtained by one's trick is lost by another's trickIt is not lasting. But all that is achieved by hardlabour is lasting. It is only in the achievementof this that the nation progresses. And actuallythe brain and the brawn of the people are thereal wealth of a country.

Thus, the problems that are before your andour country are basically the same, as they arebefore other countries also. We are closelyrelated by history and tradition. Obviously, it isexpected of us that we will help each other andco-operate with each other to the extent we canIt is proper; but the important thing is the feelingbehind it. It is necessary that our hearts shouldbe clear. This does not mean that one acceptall that the other says. This is not the meaningof friendship even between two individuals; howcan it be between two countries. But it isnecessary that our hearts should be clear and thatwe should look at each other with the eyes of loveWe must also trust each other. And it will beeasy to do so if we keep our hearts clear

This will remove any misunderstandingbetween us.

In the present-day world we try, and it isproper to do so, to make friends with other

165countries and if possible with all countries. Wewant to be friends with those countries with whomwe had no relations before. Naturally, ourrelations should be closer and our ties strongerwith those countries which are our old friends andcompanions and neighbours. In order to findnew friends one does not forget the old friends.Otherwise, the new friends also will be forgottenand their friendship will not be stable.

Thus, it is expected of us from all sides and inall ways that, in this difficult time you and I haveto work hard and we should work hard. Wehave to get busy and we should get busy. Maybe, we have to forget the less important things ofthe world for some time. But howsoever wemay forget other things, we must remember thatthe activities of our two countries like our bordersare joined together and they act and react oneach other. We cannot forget this and also thatour relations are old. This has benefited bothof us in the past and shall benefit in future also.Of course, we should have friendly relations withother countries as well. But we must not forgetthat the basis of all relation is an older relation.If we renounce an old relation to form a new onethen neither of the two is stable. All this was inmy mind but above all was the warm andaffectionate welcome which Your Majesties,your Government and your people extendedto me. I am extremely thankful to you forthat.

NEPAL INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

TIBET

Dalai Lama's Status

The Ministry of External Affairs issued thefollowing statement in New Delhi on June 30,1959 on the status of the Dalai Lama inIndia :

A number of statements, allegations and counter-allegations on Tibet have appeared in India during the last three months from various sources. Among these is a statement made by the Dalai Lama during a recent press conference at Mussoorie, in the course of which he sought to answer some of the criticisms made against him. The Government of India do not take responsibility for any of these various statements. So far as the Dalai Lama is concerned, the Prime Minister has made it clear on more than one occasion that, while the Govern- ment of India are glad to give asylum to the Dalai Lama and show him the respect due to his high position, they have no reason to believe that he will do anything which is contrary to international usage and embarrassing to the host country. The Government of India want to make it clear that they do not recognise any separate Government of Tibet and there is, therefore, no question of a Tibetan Government under the Dalai Lama functioning in India.

USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS

Indo-Soviet Agreements Signed

Agreements for the supply of constructionequipment needed in connection with the estab-lishment of Thermal Power Station at Neyveli,were signed in New Delhi between India andU.S.S.R. on June 23, 1959. The contracts, which have been executedunder the Indo-Soviet Trade Agreement, weresigned by Shri N.S. Mani, I.C.S., Joint Secretary,Ministry of Steel, Mines and Fuel, on behalfof the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, andthe representatives of the 'Machinoexport','Stankoimport' and 'Techmachimport' ofMoscow.

The total cost of the equipment to be suppliedunder these agreements will be about Rs. 29lakhs.

166

INDIA USA RUSSIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

WORLD BANK

Agreement on India's Canal Waters Cost

The Government of India issued on June 9,1959 a press communique on the results of thetalks the World Bank officials held in New Delhiand Karachi during the month of May, 1959 forsolution of the Indo-Pakistan Canal Watersdispute.

Following is the full text of the communique

The Government of India have now received

information from the World Bank regarding theresults of recent discussions in Karachi betweenMr. Eugene Black, President, and Mr. W.A.B.Iliff, Vice-President, World Bank, and theGovernment of Pakistan. These discussionsfollowed similar discussions held earlier in Delhiwith the Government of India.

Though there are still several matters to beworked out in detail, these discussions have resul-ted in the formulation of certain generalprinciples which would afford a basis on which itshould be possible to move forward towards asettlement of the Indus Basin Waters question.

The Government of Pakistan have conveyedto President Black their willingness to go forwardon the basis of a system of works proposed by theBank. This system of works would be constructedby Pakistan, and one of its purposes would be thereplacement from the three western rivers of thepre-partition uses on these canals in Pakistan,which were dependent on supplies from the threeeastern rivers.

The Bank has reached an agreement in prin-ciple with the Government of India on the amountof financial contribution to be made by Indiatowards the cost of construction of these works.

The transition period, that is to say, theperiod of time after which India would be entitledto the exclusive use of the waters of the three eas-tern rivers, would be approximately ten years.

In order to meet the full requirements of theRajasthan and other new Indian canals which willbe ready to withdraw water much before the endof this long transition period, the Bank has agreedto attempt to secure for India necessary financialassistance to enable the construction of a storageon the Beas which will be taken up as early aspossible.

The above understandings are contingent onthe Bank's success in obtaining assurances ofadequate financial assistance from friendlyGovernments. Over the next two months, theBank hopes to be able to obtain appropriateassurance in this regard.

A meeting of the representatives of India andPakistan and of the Bank will be held in London

early in August next to work out the Headsof Agreement of a Water Treaty between Indiaand Pakistan, as also various details includingregulation of supplies from the eastern riversbetween India and Pakistan during the transitionperiod.

After a period of 11 years, during which theGovernment of India have been patiently negotia-ting for a peaceful settlement of this problem andin which the World Bank has devoted for the lastseven years considerable time, energy and expense,the Government of India see some prospect of asolution. They hope that, with goodwill on bothsides and the assistance of the World Bank, itwould be possible to reach before long a finalsettlement of the Indus Basin Waters question inthe lasting interests of the people of the IndusBasin in both countries.

167

INDIA PAKISTAN USA UNITED KINGDOM

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Cultural Agreement Signed

A Cultural Agreement between Czechoslo-vakia and India was signed in New Delhi onJuly 7, 1959.

The agreement aims at strengthening tiesof existing friendship and promoting furtherunderstanding and closer cooperation in the fieldsof science, education and culture between thetwo countries.

His Excellency Ing. Jiri Nosek, AmbassadorExtraordinary and Plenipotentiary in India ofthe Czechoslovak Republic, signed the Agreement

on behalf of Czechoslovakia, and Shri HumayunKabir, Union Minister for Scientific Research andCultural Affairs, on behalf of India.

The Cultural Agreement, which consists ofseven articles, will remain in force for a periodof five years. It comes into effect on the dateof exchange of the instruments of ratification,which will take place at Prague.

This is the ninth such agreement signed byIndia since 1951. The earlier agreements weresigned with Turkey, Iraq, Indonesia, Japan, Iran,Poland, Rumania and the United Arab Republic.

The Agreement provides for the promotionof exchange of representatives of education,science, culture and arts between the two countries.They would also train each other's employees andgrant scholarships to students in the scientific,industrial and technical fields.

Under the Agreement, co-operation would bedeveloped between research institutes and artisticand literary associations in the two countries.Exchange of books, scientific and art objects andfilms has been provided.

There would also be exchange between the twocountries in the field of physical education and sports.

The Agreement envisages the setting up, ifnecessary, of an Indo-Czechoslovak Advisory Com-mittee in each country to ensure its implementation.

The following are the Articles of theAgreement :

ARTICLE I

The two High Contracting Parties shallpromote :

(a) exchange of representatives of education,science, culture and arts of the two countries ;

(b) receiving of employees from the otherparty or other delegated persons recommendedby the other party for the purpose of theirtraining in educational, cultural, scientific,technical and industrial institutions of eithercountry ;

(c) grant of scholarships to enable studentsto pursue their studies in the country of theother party in scientific, industrial and technicalfields and other specialities ;

(d) co-operation between scientific andresearch institutes and artistic and literaryassociations ;

(e) organisation of scientific and artisticexhibitions, theatrical performances and filmshows, music concerts and broadcasts on theRadio and Television transmissions.

To this end detailed arrangements will bemade in each case.

(f) exchange and distribution of books,periodicals, scientific and art objects and films etc.of the other party.

ARTICLE II

The two High Contracting Parties shallconsider the question of establishing culturalinstitutes in their countries according to thelaws prevailing in each country.

ARTICLE III

The two parties shall promote so far aspossible exchange between the two countries inthe field of physical education and sports.

ARTICLE IV

The two parties shall offer their good officesto facilitate the mutual recognition by univer-sities and other educational authorities in thetwo countries of the degrees, diplomas andcertificates awarded by them.

ARTICLE V

In order to assist in the implementation of

169the present Agreement and to suggest programmesfor adoption under the Agreement, each HighContracting Party may, if necessary, set up inits own territory, an Indo-Czechoslovak AdvisoryCommittee. Each Committee will be composedof persons designated by the Government in the

country concerned and of representative (s) ofthe Embassy of the other party.

ARTICLE VI

The present Agreement shall be ratified withthe least possible delay.

The present Agreement will come into forceimmediately after the exchange of the instrumentsof ratification which will take place in Prague.

ARTICLE VII

The present Agreement is concluded for aperiod of five years from the date of its cominginto force. The Agreement can be terminatedby either party giving a minimum of six months'notice before the expiry of this period. TheAgreement shall remain in force until either partyterminates it by giving six months' notice.

In witness thereof, the said Plenipotentiarieshave signed the present Agreement in duplicatein Hindi, Czech and English languages, all thetexts being equally authentic, except in case ofdoubt when the English text shall prevail.

Signed at New Delhi this day One ThousandNine Hundred and Fifty-nine.

For the President of the For the President ofCzechoslovak Republic the Republic of India

(ING. JIRI NOSEK) (HUMAYUN KABIR)Ambassador Extraordi- Minister for Scientificnary & Plenipotentiary Research & Cultural Affairs

NORWAY SLOVAKIA INDIA CZECH REPUBLIC INDONESIA IRAN IRAQ JAPAN TURKEY POLANDUSA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C. S. Jha's Statement in Trusteeship Council on Somaliland

Shri C.S. Jha, India's Permanent Representa-tive to the United Nations, made the followingstatement in the Trusteeship Council on July 27,1959 about conditions in the Trust Territory ofSomaliland under Italian administration

Mr. President :

We have now reached the conclusion of ourexamination of the annual report on the TrustTerritory of Somaliland under Italian administra-tion. As evident from the time devoted to thissubject by the Council and the variety of aspectsto which the members of the Council havedirected their questions, great importance attachesto the Council's examination and discussion onSomaliland this year. On 2nd December 1960Somaliland under Italian administration shallbecome an independent and sovereign State, asdecided by the General Assembly in its resolution289 (iv) of 2nd December 1950. This Mr.President, is the cardinal fact in the light of whichwe have to formulate our observations andcomments.

Many illuminating documents and declarationsand much informative material have been placedbefore us. We have had the advantage of thepresence in the Council of the President of theAdvisory Council as well as the Special Repre-sentative of the Administering Authority, asindeed we have been pleased to have with usHis Excellency Haji Farah Ali Omar, Ministerfor Industry and Commerce of the SomaliGovernment. We are grateful to them for soably assisting the Council. I should not fail tomention, Mr. President, the petitioners whoappeared before us. Their presence was in thebest tradition of the Council and has helped tofill in many gaps. We are impressed by theircalibre and the moderation with which theypresented their views. They and the members ofthe Government of Somaliland who have beenassociated with us at this session of the Councilgive us confidence of the high quality of theleaders of Somaliland and their capacity to ordertheir own affairs. Indeed this was strikinglyconfirmed by the joint statement on behalf of allthe Somali parties, including the Somali YouthLeague, which was read before us the other day

by one of the petitioners, Mr. Hussain. Thisstatement, which is a rare example of politicalharmony, augurs well for the future and will, wefeel sure, generate the necessary goodwill in theTerritory which will help in the solution of manyknotty political and constitutional problemswhich remain to be solved before inde-pendence.

170

I said a moment ago, Mr. President, that thesalient fact is the impending emergence of Somali-land to a full-fledged sovereign and independentState entitled to take part and play a worthy rolein the comity of nations. It has been the singulargood fortune of the Council in recent months tohave been called upon to consider the presentconditions and the future of three Trust Territo-ries, namely, the Cameroons, Western Samoa andSomaliland. My delegation is proud to haveassociated with these discussions. We have re-joiced in the coming independence of the Came-roons and Western Samoa. We are especiallyhappy at the prospect of an independent Somali-land. Somaliland is the closest land area in Africato India, and if I may say so, Somaliland is ourclosest African neighbour. I feel, Mr. President,that the use of the word 'neighbour' is particular-ly appropriate in this case, as between Somali-land and India there have existed from timeimmemorial close commercial and cultural ties.There are many Indians in Somaliland and weknow that they have received fair and hospitabletreatment in that country. We are happy toacknowledge this and we look forward to closefriendship and good neighbourly relations betweenindependent Somaliland and India in the future.

Now that Somaliland is going to be indepen-dent in less than 18 months time, it is the futurethat interests us, as indeed it must be exciting tothe Somalis. The past somewhat recedes into thebackground and the examination of the economicand social conditions in the Trust Territory during1958 assumes less than usual significance. Mydelegation would, however, like to observe thatthe year 1958 has been one of steady progress inmany fields, particularly in the field of primaryeducation and public health. The number ofstudents in infant and primary schools increasedby about 18 per cent. In the field of publichealth, the most striking achievement is the

excavation of large numbers of wells which pro-vide better drinking water to people as well asaiding agriculture and livestock. The Somali-sation of Government services has continued at arapid pace and has, expect in some technical field,been completed. The services in the variousDepartments have come entirely under the controlof the Somali Government. The few Italianofficials who remain in the technical departmentswill no doubt be replaced as soon as qualifiedSomalis are available. The Somalisation of theoutlying and central school systems wascompleted in 1958 apart from a very few postswhich will be filled by Somalis as soon as suitablemen are available. These facts not only showthat the conditions appropriate and necessary for'de jure' and 'de facto' transfer of power to theSomalis have been realized, but that the Somalisthemselves have shown remarkable aptitude andadaptability and capacity to learn and to takecontrol of their own affairs. If I may say so,these facts are also an eloquent tribute to thepraiseworthy manner in which the Italian Govern-ment has, during its stewardship, prepared theSomalis for shouldering the responsibilities whichfreedom and independence will bring to them.

Let us turn to the future : The date for theemergence of Somaliland as an independentsovereign state has been fixed by the GeneralAssembly and so far as we are concerned, this dateis irrevocable. It is for the General Assembly whofixed this date for independence to discuss anddecide upon the modalities and circumstancesconnected with the termination of the TrusteeshipAgreement. The Council at this stage is mainlyconcerned to see that in the months precedingindependence there is no setback in the progressand preparations towards independence; that whenthe historic moment arrives, it finds the Somalis wellprepared and capable of undertaking their responsi-bilities under conditions which permit the exerciseof full freedom and the enjoyment of the blessingsof independence in accordance with the will of thepeople; and that democratic processes and institu-tions are established which will enable them totake their destiny in their own hands and play aworthy role in the councils of the world.

It has been indicated by the Special Repre-sentative of the Administering Authority that themunicipal elections and elections for the Legisla-tive Assembly which were held in October 1958

and March 1959 respectively were highlights ofthe past year and absorbed a great deal of atten-tion of the political parties. The municipalelections appear to have been generally peacefuland orderly; but the general elections of Marchthis year were unfortunately preceded by seriousdisturbances in Mogadiscio, which resulted in muchacrimony between the political parties. In theview of our delegation, Mr. President, among themany tasks facing the Government of Somalilandbetween now and the advent of independence,none is more important or worthier than the taskto political reconciliation in the Territory. Thejoint statement to which I have referred earliergives promise of the realization of a harmoniouspolitical atmosphere in the Territory. In this newatmosphere my delegation is confident that theproblem arising from the fact that there is aconsiderable number of political prisoners will beharmoniously resolved.

The Council has, in the past, expressed itselfon the Importance of a census and the preparation

171of an electoral register. To my delegation itseems that the taking of census and the prepare-tion of an electoral register in Somaliland shouldnot be an impossible task. In answer to questionsthe Special Representative informed us that therewas in existence a machinery of administrationwhose authority ran to the remotest areas. Wehave also been informed that political parties, parti-cularly the Somali Youth League, has an extensiveorganisation reaching out to the remote elementsof the population. The administrative machinerybeing so well organised and extensive it should,in our view, not be beyond the bounds of feasi-bility to undertake a census and the preparationof an electoral register based on universal adultfranchise which has been adopted for theTerritory. In saying so, we are not under-esti-mating the difficulties of enumerating the nomadicpopulation. Nomadic people, however, do notchange their residence from day to day; they areusually seasonally nomadic, and as indicated bythe Special Representative, thanks to the excava-tion of increasing numbers of wells for drinkingwater, the nomadic population is tending to getmore and more settled. In any event, Mr. Presi-dent, my delegation believes that the preparationof a census is an essential foundation for amodern State. We hope that the Somali Govern-

ment will give serious consideration to this taskas soon as possible. Once an electoral registeris prepared. the Government will no doubtconsider the question of future elections.

The framing of the new constitution will beamong the most important tasks of the SomaliGovernment. The content of the constitutionis entirely for the Somali people themselves todecide. The Council, however, is naturallyinterested that the processes leading up to theformulation of the Constitution should be such asto give all important elements of the Somalipeople the opportunity, and what is even moreimportant, the sense of having participated in thecreation of their constitution. The PoliticalCommittee which has been established to draftthe Constitution for submission to the ConstituentAssembly and will in the near future consider thereport of the Technical Committee, is at presentcomposed of the President of the LegislativeAssembly, and includes the Prime Minister andthe Members of the Government, the VicePresident of the Legislative Assembly, the headsof the Parliamentary groups, the Deputy Secre-taries and three officials appointed by thePrime Minister and a representative of eachrecognised party represented in the LegislativeAssembly, the latter representatives beingappointed by the parties themselves. In regardto the new Legislative Assembly the situation isthat some of the major political parties did notparticipate in the elections and had no representa-tives in the Legislative Assembly. Even inrespect of some of the Deputies who claim to berepresentatives of two Opposition Parties, thereis some controversy. Whatever may be thereason for the absence of certain political partiesin the Assembly, the fact remains that the PoliticalCommittee as at present constituted does notappear to be representative of all political parties.It seems to us that it would be wise toreconstitute the Political Committee on a broaderbasis. We were happy to hear from the SpecialRepresentative that the Administering Authoritywas agreeable to this and would take the matterup with the Somali Government ; and we notewith satisfaction that it is intended that theConstituent Assembly will consider in what formother interests such as administrative, cultural,regional, trade union and economic should takepart in a consultative capacity in the preparationof the draft constitution. Apart from this, it

would seem to us appropriate that ConstituentAssembly should itself have a broader basedmembership than the present Legislative Assemblyin order to give it completely representativecharacter.

The problem of the frontier between Somalilandand Ethiopia is still awaiting solution. My delega-tion endorses the hope that has repeatedly beenexpressed in this Council that a solution to thisproblem would be reached before the date setfor the independence of Somaliland. There hasbeen some development in this field recently withthe nomination of Mr. Trygve Lie by the King ofNorway in pursuance of the General AssemblyResolution on the subject last year. We hopethat the discussions which are expected to startvery shortly in regard to the preparation of theterms of reference of the Arbitration Tribunalwill be successful.

In the economic sphere, we are happy to notethe substantial progress that the Somali Govern-ment has achieved in agricultural production.The increase in banana, sugar and cotton produc-tion is very encouraging and we should like tocommend the authorities for this progress. Thesignificant increase in the share of direct taxationin the total of Territorial revenues is also com-mendable. We were glad to hear from HisExcellency Haji Farah Ali Omar that about 74per cent of the Seven-Year Plan of EconomicDevelopment, which commenced in 1954 hadalready been realised. Nevertheless, it is obviousthat the territory has a difficult financial periodahead of it. It will first need to have a balancedbudget in relation to normal working expenditure,

172including that to which the Somali Governmentis already committed or which may be regarded asobligatory. It seems to us that for this purposeit will be necessary for the Somali Governmentto tap all internal resources. A newly indepen-dent country, however, cannot be content with astatic economy. Among the most importanttasks of Somaliland and one the fulfilment ofwhich alone can make a reality of their freedom,will be the economic development of the countrywith a view to raising productivity and thestandards of living and social conditions. Forthis purpose, Somaliland will undoubtedly requireoutside assistance in various forms which have

now become a pattern of international relations.We are happy to know that the Governments ofItaly, the USA and the UK have announced theirintention of providing financial assistance toSomaliland after independence. In our view itis for independent Somaliland, in full freedom,and discretion, to seek and receive economicassistance from whatever source it might beavailable, without any prior commitment as tothe source or nature or the conditions of avail-ability of such assistance.

The United Nations Trusteeship Council andthe General Assembly have in the past shownconsiderable interest on the question of economicassistance to Somaliland after independence. Weshare the hope of the Government of Somalilandand of other members of the Council that theagencies of the United Nations and the SpecialisedAgencies will give the most sympathetic considera-tion to the request of the Government of Somali-land. The Administering Authority has alreadysubmitted several excellent projects on behalf ofthe Somali Government to the Special Fund.We have no doubt that these will receive everyreconsideration by the Managing Director andthe Governing Council of the Fund.

In the social and educational fields, we haveobservations to make except to note with satisfac-tion the efforts being made by the Somali Govern-ment to improve the living conditions of theirpeople. In this connection, we would like toexpress our deep appreciation of the assistancegiven to the Territory by the Specialized Agen-cies, and in particular the UNICEF. One verystriking item of progress in the social field hasbeen the granting of suffrage to women. This isindeed a great step forward and we should liketo congratulate the authorities for this significantdevelopment.

We wish the Government and the peopleof Somaliland well. We are confident ofa 'bright future for them. We look forwardto welcoming independent Somaliland inthe United Nations and other world orga-nizations.

INDIA MALI USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC CAMEROON WESTERN SAMOA ETHIOPIANORWAY ITALY UNITED KINGDOM

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri M. Rasgotra's Statement in Trusteeship Council on New Guinea

Shri M. Rasgotra, First Secretary, PermanentMission of India to the United Nations, madethe following statement in the TrusteeshipCouncil on July 14, 1959 on conditions in theTrust Territory of New Guinea under AustralianAdministration

Mr. President :

For some days now the Trusteeship Councilhas been engaged in the examination of political,economic, social and educational conditions inthe Trust Territory of New Guinea. In thisexamination we have had the benefit of the ableassistance of Mr. Jones, the Special Representativeof the Administering Authority. In addition tothe annual report and the information furnishedto the Council by the Special Representative inhis replies to a wide variety of questions put tohim by members of the Council, we have beforeus the report of the Visiting Mission which visitedthe Territory earlier this year. We have perusedall this documentation, especially the report ofthe Visiting Mission, with the care and interestthat they deserve.

I would also like to express my delegation'sappreciation of the observations submitted by theWorld Health Organisation on the AdministeringAuthority's work in the field i of Health. Weregret very much that other Specialised Agencies,who sit here with us in our deliberations, havenot found possible or necessary to let us havethe benefit of their expert knowledge in theirrespective fields. I assume that they share theanxiety and the desire of this Council to be ofassistance to the Administering Authority in thedischarge of its trust towards the people of NewGuinea ; and we look forward to a more active

participation on their part in its work.

May I begin by saying how well the Delega-tion of India realizes the uniqueness of the taskand the responsibility of the Government ofAustralia in the Trust Territory of New Guinea.This task is no less than that of bringing intobeing a new society-a society with its own values,its own internal cohesion and its own inherent

173strength to withstand the pulls and pressures ofmodern life-and to infuse in that new society thecapacity and the vision to gain, uphold andexercise independence. We realize, if I mayborrow the words of the Honourable, Paul HasluckAustralian Minister of State for Territories that"a deep-seated social change, in the sense of achange which leads to the construction of a newsociety, is fundamental to the attainment of everyother objective of the Trusteeship System."

This task that faces the AdministeringAuthority is onerous as it is noble ;and we have confidence in the 'capacity of theAdministering Authority to discharge it. TheVisiting Mission discerned in the Territory somedoubts on the part of certain sections of itsinhabitants concerning the capacity of theAdministering Authority to fulfil the Missionentrusted to it. I am glad to say that we haveno such misgivings. The following passage froma speech of Mr. Hasluck's upon which I havedrawn earlier is a tribute to the AdministeringAuthority's consciousness of the magnitude of itsresponsibility and its good faith in fulfilling itsobligations under the international TrusteeshipSystem. Speaking before the Australian Instituteof Political Science, Mr. Hasluck said :

"We are under an obligation to promote the welfare of the indigenous people of the Territory. We have accepted a trust towards the people of the Territory and intend to discharge it. We recog- nize that for a period we will have to make most of the decisions on what will best promote their welfare, but we have also accepted as a fact of the situation that one day the people of the Territory will wish to decide for themselves their own future, and we have accepted the idea that it is their human right to do

so.

The task before the Administering Authorityis essentially one of development ; and it is akinto what the Government and people of Australiahave accomplished in recent years, in their ownland. For the Administering Authority, thereforethe magnitude and complexity of the problems ofNew Guinea are not an unknown or an unfamiliarchallenge. May I add that we have faith in thedestiny of New Guinea, and we look forward tofruitful co-operation between the AdministeringAuthority and the people of New Guinea in themaking of that destiny.

The bringing into existence of a new societyin New Guinea will involve a well-planned andcoordinated effort of development in all thevarious spheres of the life of the people of theTrust Territory. And yet, if priorities were to bedefined, the top priority, in our view, should begiven to education. For the school, the primaryschool in the village, the secondary school in thedistrict, or a technical and vocational school inan urban centre, must be the threshold of thatnew society. Education, in its broad sense mustbe the light that will illuminate the society thatthe Administering Authority seeks to build inNew Guinea.

I must frankly confess that my delegationhas serious misgivings about the educationaladvancement of the Territory to date. We arenot quite convinced that the people engaged ineducation, administration officers and missionariesalike are quite clear in their minds as to theobjective they are trying to achieve.

To take the Administration's policy concern-ing primary education first, it seems to us thatthe concept of primary education has beenover simplified ; so much so that reading, writingand arithmetic would appear to be almost thewhole of the curriculum. The bulk of some 2,700primary schools run by missions are one-teacherschools. It would, obviously, be impossible toimpart a full six or seven years course of primaryeducation to pupils in these schools. The SpecialRepresentative has himself stated that, in fact,a large number of these schools are two or threegrade schools imparting instruction for two orthree years only. There is, therefore, the inevi-table falling off of attendance in the limited

number of higher grades in existing primaryschools. Since a pupil's education, is not sustainedbeyond the second or third year of primaryinstruction, the whole effort and the expense ofthat instruction would tend to be wasted.

The Council will, no doubt, take note of themeasures that the Administering Authority isadopting to bring mission schools under directgovernmental supervision and to ensure in theseschools a standard of instruction commensuratewith that applicable and prevailing in Govern-ment schools and with the needs of the people.In addition, we would recommend that theAdministering Authority should assume a moredirect and expanding role in the provision of thefacilities of primary education in the Territory.This will require a redoubling of the Administer-ing Authority's efforts in providing trained andcompetent teachers, in building new schools, andin making ever-increasing budgetary provisionsyear after year. It is gratifying to learn thatlocal Government Councils are taking increasing

174interest in the establishment of primary schools,and we hope that the Administering Authoritywill spare no effort in sustaining and in stimulatingfurther this initiative on the part of the people.The greater the participation of the people in theAdministration's educational programmes, thegreater will be their success. We also hope thatthe administration will take all possible steps toeliminate the spirit of competition or of conflictbetween the educational activity of the localGovernment Councils and that of missionaryorganisations, wherever such competition orconflict should come to evidence. While weattach great value to the educational work of themissions, we consider that the initiative of thepeoples themselves should not be subjected tocompetition which may have crippling effects ormay arouse bitterness among the populationtowards the missions themselves.

It is to be regretted, that secondary educationin the Territory has not been given the attentionit deserves in the last ten or twelve years. Atpresent there are only four schools impartingsecondary and technical education with a totalenrolment of 371 pupils. The need for thedevelopment of institutions of secondary educa-tion cannot be over-emphasized. While for

university and higher education the inhabitantsof the Territory will have to depend for some timeto come on facilities provided by the Administra-tion in Australian institutions, complete depen-dence on outside facilities for secondary educationis likely not only to prove exorbitantly expensive,but also the usefulness of such education will belimited. Besides, the scope and magnitude ofprogrammes of this kind must necessarily beinadequate in relation to the Territory's needs.We note that emphasis is now being placed onthe provision of intermediate and secondaryschools in various centres in the territory, andwe hope to be able to welcome at least five-foldincrease in such facilities in the next two or threeyears. We would suggest that special attentionshould be given to the development of vocationalbias in the facilities of secondary education thatmay be provided in the Territory.

There is little or no evidence of adequateconsideration having been given to the educationof illiterate adults in the Territory. This in ourview has been a serious shortcoming of theAdministering Authority's educational policy andprogrammes. If generations of youth are not tobe allowed to live and grow in ignorance, theadministration must develop programmes ofmass-literacy. For the spread of adult educationtoo exclusive a reliance cannot be placed on theshowing of films and on educational broadcasts.We hope that the Administering Authority willgive consideration to the suggestion I madeduring question time that planters and others, whoengage labourers from the interior of the Territoryshould be encouraged to provide educationalfacilities for their employees on the plantationswhere they live and work. Facilities for teachingof the English language to workers would beparticularly useful so that when they go back totheir homes on the expiry of their contracts, theseworkers will take with them some knowledge ofthe language which is intended to become thelingua franca of the Territory. The need foreducating the people of the Territory is so greatthat no opportunity of doing so should bemissed.

We note with satisfaction that the Administra-tion is taking steps to train more and moreteachers. The special course of training conductedby the Department of Education in 1957 has

proved successful, and we hope that the experiencegained thereby will be multiplied. We would alsosuggest that in addition to the intensification ofteacher-training programmes, suitable stepsshould be taken to make the wages and thestatus of teachers more attractive to New Guineans.The absorption into the Auxiliary Division of allindigenous teachers and instructors, whichappears to be contemplated, will, in our view, be astep in the right direction, and we trust that itwill not be delayed too long.

In the field of social advancement, we arehappy to note the long awaited abolition of thecurfew, and the consequent expansion in theenjoyment of human rights and fundamentalfreedoms by New Guineans. We are confidentthat more liberal measures of this kind will followin quick succession, The New Guinean society isshowing signs of awakening. We are inclined toattribute to this awakening the dissatisfaction anddiscontent that the Visiting Mission noted hereand there in the Territory. As social conscious-ness develops among the people of New Guinea,they will naturally demand equality of treatmentand rights with Europeans and others residingin the Territory. The Administration will dowell to anticipate developments in this regardrather than wait for the people to make demands,as they no doubt will, for the liberalization oftheir status and for improvement in the conditionsin which they live.

One of the greatest tasks of the Administra-tion is in health ; and as the World HealthOrganisation has pointed out, noteworthy successhas attended the Administration's efforts inachieving the aim of placing health services within

175reach of the whole population that these facilitieswill need to be expanded goes without saying.It is also clear that the progress that is desired inimproving the health of the population cannotbe achieved until the indigenous people are per-suaded to engage themselves in health work. Hereagain, as in the field of education, increasingreliance and greater initiative should be developedamong the people of the Territory. We would alsosuggest that the Administrating Authority shouldensure that the training and other facilities arenot concentrated in the neighbouring territory ofPapua, and that a greater number of institutions of

medical training and research should, in future, belocated in the Trust Territory itself.

The Visiting Mission has noted in its reportthat it is the Administration's policy to build newhospitals in two stages, one for New Guineansand the other for Europeans, in close proximity toeach other so that common services can be shared.While we commend the Administration's pro-gramme for the construction of base hospitals,regional hospitals, isolation hospitals, and districthospitals, we would state once again our viewthat the provision of separate facilities forEuropeans and New Guineans is not only un-necessarily expensive, but the policy is also likelyto arouse suspicion and misgivings in the mindsof the New Guineans concerning the attitude ofthe Administering Authority towards racialequality and human rights in general. We trust,therefore, that this policy will be reviewed shortlyand that discriminatory considerations of anykind will not be allowed to prejudice theAdministration's accomplishments in this field.

Mr. President, it would not, perhaps, beinappropriate for me to say a word or two aboutthe cargo-cult to which the Visiting Mission hasdevoted some considerable attention in its report.Cults of various kinds are in evidence in the mostprogressive of states and societies. The pheno-menon witnessed in New Guinea is not, therefore,altogether unique, and it should not be allowed tocreate confusion in our thinking. There aremany reasons for its outburst, but it would bemost unfair, in our view, to attribute the manifesta-tion of this phenomenon to some inherent defect orintrinsic short-coming in the mental health of theNew Guineans. Nor is it easy to believe, as theSpecial Representative would have us believe,that it represents a hankering on the part of theNew Guineans for the free distribution of goodsand supplies of various kinds.

It is our feeling that a new awakening isspreading fast among the inhabitants of theTerritory, and that it is approaching a turningpoint in its affairs when the Administration willhave to move progressively and rapidly towardsa whole new method of handling social, economicand political, development. In New Guineato-day there is a progressive and prosperousthough small European community, and inclosejuxtaposition to it there is the vast mass of

illiterate and comparatively poor New Guineanpeople. In circumstances of this kind it is notunusual for the poorer sections of the society tolong for the prosperity, the wealth and riches oftheir more privileged neighbours. What expressionthis longing will find will, naturally, depend onthe state of their educational and culturaladvancement. It is not without reason that thiscargo-cult is most in evidence in those sectionsof the New Guinean community which are morefamiliar, as witnesses, with the prosperity thatwestern civilisation has the capacity to bring topeople. This so-called cult, in our view, isevidence of the eagerness of the people formaterial, social and cultural advancement, and weare inclined to think that something far-reachingshould have to be done before long to increase theirproduction and to accelerate their educational,social, cultural and political development.

The multiplicity of religious missions, andthe competitive, sometimes conflicting nature oftheir activities, may, as the Visiting Missionaptly notes, contribute to the mental confusion inthe Territory. While we appreciate, with the Visit-ing Mission, the delicate position in which theAdministering Authority is placed with regard tothis question, we hope that the Visiting Mission'swarning that this is a situation which may havein it the seeds of future discord and dissensionand where old tribal feuds may well be turnedinto "new moulds" will not go unheeded. Inreferring to this matter the other day, the distin-guished representative of Australia said that inthis Council we should not discourage the com-petitive co-existence of contemporary ideologies."It is another thing", he added, "when theseideologies are seized on by tribal groups for thepurpose of perpetuating old tribal fueds; the criti-cism is then to be directed, not against the ideolo-gies which are exploited for a particular purpose,but against those old tribal fueds". It is not ourintention to "discourage the competitive co-existence of contemporary ideologies"; nor do wewish to contend the better judgment of thedistinguished representative of Australia in mattersrelating to New Guinea. But one finds it hardto overlook the fact-the fact impressed upon ustime and again, by the distinguished representativehimself that the only organisation that exists inthe unadministered parts of the Territory istribal organisation; and that even in those parts

176of the Territory which have been under Adminis-tration's control for some time the memory of theold tribal feuds remains yet unforgotten. Is itnot right then, that instead of laying the blameon old tribal feuds, care should be takenthat contemporary ideologies are presented to theseunsophisticated people in such a way that they donot lend themselves to the revival or perpetuationof those old feuds in new forms?

In the field of economic development theshift of emphasis from concentration on establish-ing a sound foundation of Administration to aquickening of the economic advancement of thepeople is, in our view, a timely and welcomedevelopment. Economic development cannot bedelayed in the hope that Administrative, political,social and educational development should firstreach a point at which economic developmentcan take place at a rapid rate. Progress in allthese fields should go hand in hand if the newsociety is to advance to maturity in conditionsof peace, order and stability. While commend-able work has already been done in the develop-ment of agriculture and in the provision ofagricultural extension services, the VisitingMission correctly points out that the basicframework necessary for the development andsustenance of a modern economy is as yet lackingin the Territory. This shortcoming in our viewresults from the fact that little attention has thusfar been paid to long-term integrated planning ofthe Territory's development in all the variousfields. There are, indeed, plans of educationaldevelopment, of crop-production, of hospital-construction and of the development ofcommunications, but these plans are compart-mental in nature, and they would appear to beconceived in isolation one from another. Thehighest priority, in our view, should now, thereforebe given to the preparation of a five or ten-yearplan of integrated economic development of theTerritory as a whole and to the laying down ofpriorities, not only in each specific field ofdevelopment but in relation to the plan as awhole. In framing such a plan the needs of theareas, which are yet to be brought under adminis-trative control should also be anticipated to theextent possible. Incidentally, I may add herethat we are unable to contribute to the Mission'sview that the uniformity of development of theTerritory as a whole is something impossible to

attain, and therefore the concept should be setaside at least temporarily. With due respect tothe wisdom and judgment of the Visiting Missionwe wish to express our disagreement with itssomewhat oracular conclusion that festina leneis applicable to the opening up of new areas inNew Guinea, as it is to many other humanactivities. The least that may be expected of anAdministering Authority is to bring the whole ofthe area of a Trust Territory under administra-tion as early as possible; for only thereafter canthe functioning of the more positive aspects ofthe Trust, namely, the educational, social,economic and political advancement of inhabitantsbegin. The development of the areas already underAdministrative control should, in our view,proceed simultaneously with the extension ofAdministration to new areas. That alone willwork for the uniform and balanced developmentof all sections of the Territory and its inhabitantsand inculcate among them a spirit of oneness andkinship which is essential to the growth of a newsociety or a new nation. While efforts toestablish closer contact with the people inadministered areas should no doubt be intensified,no effort should, at the same time, be spared inestablishing and in extending contact with thepeople of the areas which still remain outsidethe active control of the Administration.

We feel that while the nucleus of a well-trained and devoted civil service exists in theTerritory, its size is inadequate in relation to theneeds of the Territory as a whole. We note withsatisfaction that recruitment to the public servicesis being expanded, and that steps have beentaken to amalgamate the indigenous employees ofthe Administration into the Territorial cadre. Wewould suggest that the Administration shouldgive consideration to the establishment of aschool of Administrative training in the territory.It is also our view that indigenous members ofthe Auxiliary Division should be encouraged togain experience and to move upwards into moreresponsible positions in the Territory's Administra-tion. The task of bringing the entire territory underadministration which should have the top-mostpriority, will be considerably facilitated if trainedindigenous civil servants could be pressed intoservice to establish contact with their people in theunadministered areas of the Territory. Mr. Presi-dent, I have included these few comments concern-ing the public service in my discussion of economic

conditions in the Territory because it is our ex-perience that no economic development can beeffectively undertaken without an efficient andwell-organised indigenous civil service and that inmodern states civil cadres are as much aninstrument of economic development as ofadministration.

To go back to the economic field, while notablesuccess has attended the development of the ply-wood production in the Territory, even more strik-ing advances are in evidence in the diversificationof the Territory's agriculture. Considerable efforts

177will be needed in the immediate future for theestablishment of both primary and secondaryindustries in the Trust Territory. We agree, how-ever, that the further development of agriculture,especially indigenous agriculture-should, perhaps,for some time to come, continue to claimprior attention. In agriculture while the emphasisis, appropriately, on cash crop production to enablethe Territory to earn its imports of capital invest-ments necessary for the establishment of industry,we hope that cash-cropping will not be allowedto prejudice the production- of food crops. Evenat present the Territory's imports of foodstuffsamount to some 2 million pounds annually, andit will be necessary to cut these down to sizebefore long if the existing balance of trade is tobe improved.

The annual report and the Special Representa-tive's opening statement show that the Adminis-tration is conscious of the problems relating tothe reform of the existing system of land tenure,which must be faced, and I do not, therefore,propose to dwell on them at length here. I wouldhowever like to say that my delegation is notpersuaded to accept, with any certainty, theAdministration's view that there is no shortageof land in the Trust Territory. Our misgivingsare due to several reasons. First, as the VisitingMission has stated, considerable uneasiness existsin the Territory about shortages of land that insome of the valleys these shortages are real, andthat in several other areas, such as the GazellePeninsula, similar shortages are likely to appearsoon. Shifting of populations from areas ofshortage to areas of purplus land is one solution,though it certainly is not the ideal solution, as itbrings new and unforeseen problems in its train.

I believe that it would not be an exaggerationto say that almost to any piece of land there areconflicting claims. Perhaps the rate of acquisitionof land by the Administration in the past hasbeen fast and needs to be slowed down further.Particular care needs to be taken in the leasing ofland to Europeans because though the scale ofEuropean settlement in the Trust Territory hasbeen relatively limited, the signs of bitterness anddissatisfaction among the indigenous populationare already in evidence. The example of FastAfrica should be a sufficient warning against anyliberal interpretation of the words "surplus land"and a too easy assumption that unused land isunowned, vacant, or waste, and can, therefore,be acquired by the government and subsequentlyleased out to non-indigenous settlers.

In our view, there are no reliable censusfigures to enable an accurate prediction of thegrowth of population and its pressure upon landin the years to come, It is also not known howmuch land is really required for a subsistenceeconomy. On the other hand, if the economyin the future is to be based on cash-cropping,the land needs will, again, be different. Since theAdministration, appropriately, encourages indi -genous economic development, and since suchdevelopment must be based on agricultural expan-sion it is probable that the indigenous people willrequire any surplus land that there be for theirown needs. It may be possible to ascertain theirpresent needs by research, and to say that theland 'under cultivation now is enough for thoseneeds, but no forecast can be made of the futureneeds of the indigenous people. The fact thatland is only leased to Europeans and leases expirewould not in itself avert a serious situation suchas we have witnessed in some other parts of theworld. It is for these reasons that we advocatespecial and persistent caution on the part of theAdministering Authority, in this matter of acqui-sition of land and of its leasing to European settlers.

As I said earlier, the Administering Authority'sefforts-successful efforts-to diversify the Terri-tory's agricultural produce are to be commended.We note that research work is being done in theTerritory and in Papua to find a greater diversityof suitable crops which could be introduced inthe Territory. We would recommend in thisconnection the establishment, as an experimental

measure, of at least one government plantationoperated by the Administration in the TrustTerritory on the lines of the coconut plantationat Orangerie Bay in Papua. Such a plantationwill surve as a model to indigenous planterswhile at the same time carrying out experimentsin the mechanisation of agriculture and crop-processing. A plantation of this kind wouldalso serve as a centre for the intensive trainingof indigenous growers of New Guinea and ofstaff for the extension services of the Territory.

New Guinea is a wholly tropical country. Itseems to us that its soil and climate would lendthemselves to sugar-cane production and theremight be a real potential for the development of asugar industry in the Territory. This is borneout by a passage which I came across in a speechmade by the Honourable Ian F. G. Downs,Member of the Legislative Council, which I quote

"In New Guinea and Papua we have never grown sugar on a commercial scale although the Territory is the source of the world's best sugar plant variety".

Mr. Downs went on to mention "the tragic

178effect" which a big sugar industry in Papua andNew Cuinea might have upon the economy ofnorthern New South Wales and Queensland, butwe are confident that the Administering Authoritywill not allow considerations of this kind to standin the way of the full development of the Terri-tory's agricultural and industrial potential.

Before I pass on to the developments in thepolitical field, I express my delegation's apprecia-tion of the progress that has been achieved in theestablishment of new co-operative societies and inthe general expansion of indigenous activity inagricultural and industrial fields. By and large, Mr. President, we would saythat the Administration has made a good logicalstart of political advancement in the fieldof local government. The increase in thenumber of local government councils duringthe year under review is encouraging. Theway in which these councils have been func-tioning is also encouraging, and their success indi-cates the soundness of the Administering Autho-rity's approach. We also hope that the Trustee-

ship Council will not allow the development ofkivungs, which are described as "unofficial villagecouncils covering groups of three or four villagesand acting as advisory bodies to village officialsand administration officers" to pass unnoticed orwithout due commendation. But of particularinterest to this Council is the increase in the num-ber of local government councils from 6 in 1956to 18 in 1959. We have per-used with interestthe exchange of views that took place between theVisiting Mission and some of these Councils, andwe are confident that the Administering Authoritywill do the needful to remove some of the com-plaints and grievances that they placed before theVisiting Mission. The Visiting Mission tells usthat it encountered interest and enthusiasm innew council areas and that there is a demand forthe establishment of councils in the western high-lands and in several other areas of the Trust Terri-tory. In the light of this prevailing sentiment infavour of these organs of local government, wehope that the Administering Authority will notallow its enthusiasm to be diminished by sporadicopposition to councils of this kind here and there.We hope that the Administration will also takesteps to remove whatever causes may be for thecomplaints arising from non-indigenous oppositionto the establishment of local government councils.It is important that even suspicion of such opposi-tion in the minds of the indigenous inhabitantsshould be carefully and assiduously removed.

The Visiting Mission has pointed out thatAdministration officials sometimes tend to be some-what skeptical of the motivations that lead indi-genous people to ask for the establishment of localgovernment councils. There is, in our view, noth-ing wrong in people being motivated by "prideand prestige" in their demands for local govern-ment councils. Motivations of pride and prestigein such matters should not be cast aside lightly.It is in fact a happy augury for the future of thesecouncils that people should view them as some-thing to be proud of ; and their request for morecouncils we hope, will be viewed by administrationofficials with the sympathy and understanding thatthey deserve. We are confident that such mis-conceptions concerning the nature of the councilsas may exist, will be effectively removed by theeducation and benefits that people are bound toderive from their functioning.

We view with considerable satisfaction the

convening, earlier this year, of a conference oflocal government councils in Madanz. We hadhoped to hear about the establishment, in fact, ofan area council at least in the Gazelle Peninsulawhere half a dozen local government councils havebeen functioning well for some time. We feel thatthe Administering Authority has done well in thepast to keep a little ahead of the interest of thepeople and we hope that in the future also it willcontinue to stimulate initiative rather than waitfor initiative or demand to develop on the part ofthe people for the establishment of area-councilsor regional councils or for the expansion in thescope, responsibility and powers of local govern-ment councils.

It is gratifying to note that indigenous mem-bers who were appointed to district advisory coun-cils, have performed their duties ably and well.Steps should now be taken to appoint indigenousmembers to town advisory councils as well. TheSpecial Representative said the other day that thishad not been done so far because in the adminis-tration's view the indigenous inhabitants of townswould not be interested in appointment to towncouncils. We feel that inasmuch as some indigen-ous inhabitants do reside in towns, permanentlyor otherwise, they are entitled to representationon these councils, and their representation on thesecouncils will serve as a useful means of social andpolitical education. We trust, therefore, thatevery encouragement will be given to the indigen-ous inhabitants to take active part in the function-ing of town advisory councils.

I regret to say, Mr. President, that in thisgenerally encouraging picture of developments inthe field of the Territory's political advancementthe character and composition of the LegislativeCouncil continues to remain a depressing feature.

179The Trusteeship Council has so often commentedon this subject in the past and several of itsmembers have made suggestions and recommenda-tions of which the Administering Authority isaware. In the words of Mr. Downs, himself aMember of the Legislative Council : "the presentcouncil is a farce of democracy and a bad examplefor the people". The Visiting Mission has alsostated that some of the Territory's people aredissatisfied with the composition of the counciland with the appointment by the Administration

of indigenous members, They would prefer toelect the persons who are to represent them inthe Legislative Council. This is a natural aspira-tion, and the criticism that the Visiting Missioncame across is in our view, justified. We areglad to be assured that the Administration is con-templating an increase in the number of indigen-ous members in the council. We also note theVisiting Mission's view that there are men in theTerritory who would make effective indigenousrepresentatives on the Legislative Council. Theobservers who have been attending the proceed-ings of the council for some time would nodoubt be among these persons. In reply to aquestion the other day the Special Representativegave an impressive list of men of ability, whohave rendered praiseworthy service onDistrict Advisory Councils. We hope thatthe Administering Authority will not allowdiscontentment to grow in the Territory withregard to the composition of the Council and thenature of the representation of the Territory'sindigenous inhabitants on it. In our view notonly should indigenous representation on thecouncil now be substantially increased, but suchrepresentatives should be elected and should havefull backing and support of the indigenousinhabitants.

During our questioning of the Special Repre-sentative I had pointed to the undesirability ofvesting political representation and the power toinfluence the Territory's administrative and otherpolicies in non-indigenous missionary organism-tions. It emerged from our discussions that notonly do the missionary organizations have intheir own right representation on the Councilequal to the representation granted to the vastmass of indigenous inhabitants, they also have theright to vote in the election of three other non-indigenous members. This results in the grantof undue weightagey to an alien element numberingabout 1200 in the Territory's population, and thecontinuation of this practice cannot be expectedto have a salutary effect on the growth ofdemocratic organs of political power in the TrustTerritory. We would, therefore, hope that theAdministering Authority will take immediatesteps to rectify this situation.

Mr. President, there are two other matterson which I wish to comment briefly before Ifinish. The first of these is the question of the

dissemination of information concerning theUnited Nations in the Trust Territory. Whilewe have no desire to minimise the efforts of theAdministering Authority to spread informationabout the United Nations in the Trust Territory,the fact remains that the Visiting Mission, whosereport is before us, like its predecessors, foundlittle awareness of the United Nations amongstthe majority of New Guineas, or of its role inrelation to the Trust Territory. We recognizethat Melanesian Pidgin is not the best medium toexplain anything except of the simplest nature ;and that consequently, information booklets andposters concerning the United Nations are oflittle value except, perhaps, to the children in theupper classes of schools where social studiesinclude teaching about the United Nations. Duringquestions and answers it became clear that theUnited Nations Information Centre in Sydneyis unable to lend much assistance to the Terri-tory's Administration in this task. We feel thatthe establishment of a United Nations Informa-tion Centre in the Territory itself will facilitatethis task considerably as its staff will be in aposition to establish personal contact with theTerritory's inhabitants by learning their language,and to disseminate information more successfullyabout the United Nations in conjunction withsuch programmes of adult literacy and funda-mental education as the Administration mayadopt in the future. We would therefore suggestthat the Secretary-General might give considera-tion to the establishment of a United NationsInformation Centre in the Territory with theco-operation and agreement of the AdministeringAuthority, which we are confident, will be readilyforthcoming. Not infrequently have we heard the distin-guished representative of Australia raise his elo-quent voice in opposition to any suggestion con-cerning the establishment of intermediate time-tables and targets with dates for their fulfilmentin the economic, social, educational and politicaladvancement of Trust Territories. We are grati-fied to note, however, that while thus maintainingits opposition in theory to the establishment oftargets and dates, the Administering Authorityhas in fact set target dates from time to time onthe advice of the Territorial Administration. TheMinister for Territories informed the Visiting Mis-sion that in response to the wishes mainly of theTrusteeship Council, he had set target dates forbringing the whole of the Territory under control

180as quickly as possible, but he had informed theAdministrator that if sound administration madeit impossible to realize them, he would not criticisethem. May I assure the distinguished representa-tive of Australia that in such a circumstance norwill we of the Indian Delegation criticize him orhis Government for failing in the fulfilment of thisor other targets on the dates fixed for 'theirachievement. Mr. President, we wish to renewour recommendation that the AdministeringAuthority should continue to proceed in its taskof advancing the Territory's development by defin-ing intermediate targets with tentative dates fortheir fulfilment in all fields. We do so not fromany doctrinaire attachment' to targets, but becausewe believe that in any underdeveloped territoryrapid, orderly and peaceful progress can be achie-ved through careful planning of the successivestages of development that it is intended to achieve.And what are intermediate targets, if they are notsuccessive stages of a long-term and well-co-ordi-nated plan ? Targets are sometimes fulfilled, andsometimes progress falls short of them. In eithercase, they act as an incentive to those who planthem, and to those for whose benefit planning isintended. We hope, therefore, that the distinguish.ed representative of Australia will be as flexible inhis opposition to the establishment of inter.mediate targets and dates as we are flexibleeither in our advocacy of targets and dates andunderstanding in our assessment of the resultsachieved.

INDIA GUINEA USA AUSTRALIA PERU CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ANGUILLA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDONESIA

Trade Agreement Extended

Letters were exchanged at Djakarta lastweek between the Ambassador of India toIndonesia, on behalf of the Government ofIndia, and the Secretary General of the Mini-stry of Foreign Affairs, on behalf of theGovernment of the Republic of Indonesia,extending up to the 31st December, 1959, thevalidity of the Trade Agreement between thetwo countries.

The principal items included in the scheduleof commodities for export from India to Indonesiaunder the Agreement are cotton textiles and yarn,jute goods, tobacco, linseed oil, hardware,pharmaceutical products and chemical prepara-tions, tea chests, sports goods, rubber tyres andtubes, porcelainware, paper and boards, machineryincluding agricultural implements, diesel engines,sugarcane crushers, textile machinery, electricalequipments including motors and batteries,sewing machines, hurricane lanterns and house-hold uetnsils.

The main items included in the schedule ofcommodities for export from Indonesia to Indiaare copra and cocoanut oil, palm kernels and oil,essential oils, spices including betelnuts, timber,tin rubber, hides and skins, canes and rattans,gums and resins, tanning materials, sisal fibre andtobacco wrappers.

INDONESIA INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

ITALY

Air Agreement Signed

A bilateral air transport agreement bet-ween the Government of India and the Gov-ernment of Italy was signed on July 16, 1959at Rome. The agreement which was signed by

Shri Khub Chand, Ambassador of India in Italy,on behalf of the Government of India, andby H.E. Hon'ble Alberto Polchi, Under Secre-tary of State for Foreign Affairs, on behalfof the Government of Italy, will come into force assoon as it is ratified by the two Governments.

Under the agreement, the designated airlinesof the two countries will have fair and equalopportunity for the operation of air services onthe following routes :

For an Airline Designated by the Governmentof India : India, Karachi, Kandahar, Jeddah,Behrein, Kuwait, Dharan, Teheran, Basra,Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, Tel Aviv, Cairo,Athens, Istanbul, Sofia, Belgrade, Rome or Milan,Vienna, Geneva, Zurich, Prague, Paris, Brussels,Frankfurt or Dusseldorf or Berlin, Copenhagen,London, Shannon, Gander, Montreal, Ottawa,

181Vancouver, Boston, New York, Chicago, SanFrancisco and Los Angeles.

For an Airline Designated by the Governmentof Italy : Italy, Istanbul, Athens, Cairo, TelAviv, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, Basra, Teheran,Dharan, Kuwait, Bahrein, Jeddah, Kandahar,Karachi, Bombay or Calcutta, Rangoon, Bangkok,and thence to (a) Saigon, Hongkong, Manila,Tokyo, and (b) Singapore, Djakarta, Darwin,Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

The agreement also provides machinery forthe determination of the capacity and the fre-quencies of the services that may be operated onthe above routes.

ITALY INDIA PAKISTAN SAUDI ARABIA KUWAIT EGYPT IRAQ ISRAEL LEBANON SYRIA USABULGARIA GREECE TURKEY YUGOSLAVIA AUSTRIA BELGIUM CZECH REPUBLIC FRANCESWITZERLAND DENMARK GERMANY CANADA UNITED KINGDOM PHILIPPINES INDONESIA JAPANREPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE AUSTRALIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

NORWAY

Indo-Norwegian Agreement Signed

An agreement for the Avoidance of DoubleTaxation of Income between India and Norway wassigned in New Delhi on July 20, 1959. H.E. HansOlav, Ambassador of Norway in India, and Dr. B.Gopala Reddi, Minister of Revenue and Civil Ex-penditure, Government of India, signed on behalfof their respective Governments.

The Agreement, which has to be ratified, willbecome effective in India from the assessmentyear 1959-60.

The Agreement was signed following talks bet-ween the two Governments at official level in Feb-ruary this year when a draft agreement was initialled.

NORWAY INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS

Financial-Assistance

The Soviet Union has made an initial offerof a fresh credit of 1,500 million roubles (Rs. 180crores) for utilisation towards the implementationof the Third Five Year Plan.

A press communique issued in this connectionby the Ministry of Finance on July 30, 1959 says

When Shri Swaran Singh, Minister of Steel,Mines and Fuel, and Shri Manubhai Shah,Minister of Industry, were in Moscow recently,discussions took place between them and members

of the Soviet Government on the question ofexternal assistance for India's economic develop-ment. Following these discussions, and in orderto help in meeting India's needs, the SovietUnion have made an initial offer of a fresh creditof 1500 million roubles about (Rs. 180 crores)to be utilised towards the implementation of theThird Five Year Plan, and the Government ofIndia have gracefully accepted this welcome offerof assistance.

With the latest offer of Rs. 180 crores credit,U.S.S.R. assistance to India to date would totalabout Rs. 313 crores.

In February, 1955, the Soviet Union agreedto supply on credit equipment and structuralsteel works worth Rs. 63.07 crores for the BhilaiSteel Plant. Nearly the whole of this credit hasbeen utilised.

In November 1957, the Soviet Union offeredfurther credits to the tune of about Rs. 60 croresto be availed of from 1959 onwards. Theschemes selected for financing out of this credit,subject to negotiations with the Soviet Govern-ment are (1) Heavy Machine Building Works,(2) Mining Machinery Plant, (3) Power Stationat Neyveli, (4) Optical Glass Factory, and(5) development of Korba Coal Fields.

Under an agreement concluded in May thisyear, the Soviet Union will make available to Indiacredit worth about Rs. 9.6 crores for establishmentof State enterprises which will manufacturedrugs, medicines and surgical instruments in India.

Apart from these credits agricultural machin-ery and equipment valued roughly at Rs. 76 lakhswere offered as gifts at the time of the Soviet PrimeMinister's visit to India towards the end of 1955.

182

RUSSIA USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Indo-U.S. Agreement Signed

The Government of India propose toestablish multichannel wireless telegraph andradio telephone services between India and theU.S.A. and, the Philippines. The plan also providesfor independent telegraph channels to be leasedout to users in India who may want to havetheir own direct radio teleprinter link with theU.S.A.

This is envisaged in an agreement that wassigned in New Delhi on July 25, 1959 between theGovernment of India and the Mackay Radio andTelegraph Company, Inc., of the U.S.A., underwhich the company would supply telecommunica-tion equipment for- the establishment - of wirelesstelegraph and radio-telephone link between theCalcutta Station of the Overseas CommunicationsService and the Mackay Radio Station at Manilaand the U.S.A.

The company will supply all the equipmentrequired by the Overseas Communications Servicefor its Calcutta Station, together with the equip-ment required for leased channels to be rented outby the O.C.S. to subscribers in the country.

The equipment will be supplied on credit.The amount would be repaid by the OverseasCommunications Service from its foreign exchangeearnings from the leased channels. It would befree of interest.

The agreement makes it, possible for theO.C.S. to open up without any initial foreignexchange expenditure a circuit for which it hadbeen planning for long and which would con-siderably augment the communication facilitiesbetween India and the U.S.A. At present, Indiahas a rather weak telecommunication link withthe U.S.A. via Tangier.

The agreement also provides for furtherdollar credit, if required, for very high frequencyequipment to replace the present landline linkbetween Calcutta and the transmitting and re-

ceiving stations of the O.C.S. about 33 miles awayfrom the city.

The negotiations were conducted on behalf ofthe Government of India by Shri D.C. Das, JointSecretary, Ministry of Transport and Communica-tions (Departments of Communications and CivilAviation), and on behalf of Mackay Radio andTelegraph Company by Mr. T.S. Greenish, Vice-President of the Company. The agreement wassigned by the latter and by Shri P.J. Rodgers,Director-General of India's Overseas Communi-cation Service.

USA INDIA PHILIPPINES

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Loan Assistance to India

An additional loan assistance of $ 20 million(Rs. 9.5 crores) has been given to India by the U.S.Development Loan Fund under the terms of anagreement signed in New Delhi on July 27, 1959.

The loan, to be repaid over a period of 15years, will enable India to procure heavy and lightstructural steel, light rails, plates, wires, blacksheets, strips, tool, alloy and special steel andother steel mill end products, required forindustrial projects in the Second Five Year Plan.The significant feature of the loan is that itinvolves no drain on India's foreign exchangeresources because repayment will be in rupees.

With the latest allocation of $ 20 million,the total D.L.F. Loan assistance to India sinceJune 1958 aggregates $ 195 million (Rs. 92.6crores). The Development Loan Fund is anagency of the U.S. Government created in 1957with the specific purpose of assisting free nations

develop their economic resources. Since itsinception, D.L.F. has appropriated $ 850million (Rs. 404 crores). India's share, to date(Rs. 92.6 crores) represents 23 per cent of the total.

The agreement was signed at a brief formalceremony in the Ministry of Finance. Mr. WinthropG. Brown, Charge d'Affaires of the American Em-bassy, signed for D.L.F. and Shri N.C. Sen Gupta,Joint Secretary in the Department of EconomicAffairs, signed for the Government of India.

183

USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

AFGHANISTAN

Trade Agreement Signed

A new trade agreement was signed in Delhion August 11, 1959 between India and Afghanistan.

The Agreement takes effect from July 21,1959, the date on which the old Agreementexpired. It will be valid for a period of one year,but will be automatically extended for a furtherperiod of one year unless either of the contract-ing parties gives notice to the contrary twomonths prior to the expiry of the Agreement.

Letters were exchanged on August 11, 1959between Mr. M. R. Younossi, Leader of theAfghan Delegation and Shri K. B.. Lall, I. C. S.,Additional Secretary, Ministry of Commerce andIndustry, setting out the arrangements agreedupon between the two countries for the develop-ment of trade.

The two Governments have re-affirmed theirdesire to promote trade between India and

Afghanistan, and to take such special steps, interms of the Treaty of Friendship and Commercebetween the two countries, as might be foundpracticable in this regard.

An important feature of the Agreement isthe understanding between the two delegations onthe. measures necessary to achieve, within theframework of their respective import, export andforeign exchange regulations, a balance of tradebetween the two countries.

It has been agreed that facilities will beafforded to registered importers for import intoIndia of dried and fresh fruits, asafoetida, cuminseeds, inedible animal and vegetable crudematerial and medicinal herbs from Afghanistan.These facilities are intended to strengthen andstreamline the traditional trade between the twocountries, which is financed by traders in Indianrupees.

In addition to traditional payment and tradingchannels, it has been agreed that a special self-balancing account will be opened by the DaAfghanistan Bank with the State Bank of India.The import of hides and skins from Afghanistanis proposed to be licensed freely,- and its saleproceeds will be credited to the special accountwhich would be used for financing Afghanistan'sexpenditure in India including that on Afghanpurchases from Indian sources.

The Government of Afghanistan will, ontheir part, afford facilities for import from Indiaof goods such as cotton and woollen textiles, teacoffee, dried fish, vegetable products, agriculturalproducts, chemical products, soaps, engineeringgoods, electrical goods, household and buildingrequirements, hardware, rubber manufacturesleather manufactures and products of handicraftsand cottage industries. It has also been agreed that the Governmentof India will afford facilities for the export ofAfghan goods through India to other countries.

The two Governments will consult each otherperiodically to review these arrangements with aview to improving upon them to the advantage ofthe two countries.

AFGHANISTAN INDIA USA RUSSIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

FRANCE

Technical Assistance

Replying to a question regarding Frenchtechnical assistance for the establishment of aPilot plant for industrial research in India, ShriHumayun Kabir, Union Minister of ScientificResearch and Cultural Affairs, said in the RajyaSabha on August 12, 1959 that the French Govern-ment had agreed to arrange practical training inFrance for a few scientists of the Laboratoriesof the Council of Scientific and IndustrialResearch in their respective fields for pilotplant development. French experts, he said,would later assist in the setting up of a pilotplant development cell in India under theCouncil.

The Minister further said that the entire expen-diture in connection with the deputation of Indianscientists and the assignment of French expertswould be borne by the French Government. Neces-sary action to avail of these facilities was beingtaken by the Council of Scientific and IndustrialResearch.

185

FRANCE INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C.S. Jha's Letter to President of the Security Council

Shri C.S. Jha, India's Permanent Representa-tive to the United Nations, addressed a letter tothe President of the Security Council on August 7,1959 protesting against the construction of ManglaDam by Pakistan.

Following is the text of the Letter

I have been instructed by the Governmentof India to invite Your Excellency's attention tofurther violation by the Government of Pakistanof the sovereignty of the Union of India and ofits territory in Jammu and Kashmir; and of theprovisions of the resolution of the Security Coun-cil of January 17, 1948. The violation was broad-cast in its various transmissions by Radio Pakistanwhich is an official agency, on July 17, 1959 inthe following words:-

'The pace of construction of the Mangla Dam is to be stepped up this year with the capital grant of two crores and twenty lakhs of rupees. The work to be exe- cuted includes the construction of a rail- way line and road links with hinterland. The total cost of the project was origi- nally estimated at 23 crores of rupees but subsequently revised and raised to 140 crores of rupees. The dam will be 365 feet high and nine thousand feet long. Its reservoir will have a capacity of over four million acre feet. Started in August 1955 the project is expected to be ready in 1966. On completion it will provide irrigation facilities to about thirty lakhs acres of land and generate three hundred thousand kilowatts of hydroelectric power.'

Your Excellency will recall that India first protested to the Security Council against the Government of Pakistan's unlawful decision to go ahead with this project as far back as August 21, 1957 (S/3869), and once again on January 20, 1958 (S/3939) when the Government of

Pakistan signed an agreement with cer- tain foreign engineering firms in con- nection with this project.

On its own admission, as recorded by the U.N. Commission in its report and its resolution of August 13, 1948, the Government of Pakistan committed aggression on the Indian Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Under the re- solution of 13th August, 1948, the Government of Pakistan was asked to vacate this aggression and that Govern- ment agreed to do so. The aggression has however, not been vacated so far and, what is worse, the Government of Pakis- tan is, by going ahead with the construc- tion of Mangla Dam in this part of Indian territory which they have occupied by force of arms, changing the topography of the area and exploiting the resources and the people of the area, who are Indian nationals, for the benefit of its own territory and nationals. Pakistan's unlawful occupation of Indian territory is further aggravated by this latest act of exploitation which is not only in violation of the resolutions I have already men- tioned above but also contrary to the categorical assurances which the U.N. Commission gave to the Prime Minister of India on behalf of the Security Council.

The Government of India would like to make it clear that they can not accept a position which implies that all these violations committed by Pakistan and their consequences are to stand condon- ed in total disregard of international law and the practice of civilized nations.

"I request that this communication may kindly be circulated as a Security Council document and be brought to the notice of the members of the Security Council.

INDIA USA PAKISTAN LATVIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Prime Minister's Replies to Questions in Rajya Sabha

The Prime Minister Shri Jawaharlal Nehrugave the following replies, during question hour in

186the Rajya Sabha on August 25, 1959, to questionson alleged Chinese activities against Sikkim andBhutan and Indo-Tibetan trade

An Hon. Member: Will the Hon. Prime-Minister be pleased to state whether Governmentare aware of the Chinese plans regarding theneighbouring areas beyond Tibet such as Sikkim,Bhutan and border areas of Assam as recentlyreported by Shri H.V. Kamath after extensivetour of those areas ; and if so, what preventivemeasures are being adopted by Government inthe matter ?

The Deputy Minister: The Government arenot aware of any such plans and have no valid,reason to think of their existence. The Govern-ment are fully alive to their responsibility for thepreservation of the security of India.

An Hon. Member: Will the Hon. PrimeMinister be pleased to state whether Govern-ment's attention has been drawn to the reportwhich appeared in the Hindustan Times (DelhiEdition) of the 13th August, 1959, to the effectthat the Chinese authorities in Tibet have beguna war of nerves against the people of theHimalayan region bordering on Tibet and, inparticular, against the people of Bhutan andSikkim ; whether Government are aware that, ina pamphlet issued by the Chinese authorities,Indians have been described as inheritors ofBritish regime, and that a cry has been raisedfor the 'liberation' of the Bhutanese, Sikkimeseand Ladakhis from their capitalistic oppressor,namely India; and if the answers to the

Questions above be in the affirmative. what stepsGovernment propose to take in the matter ?

The Deputy Minister: Government haveseen this report ; they have however no infor-mation about the contents of the speech by theGeneral referred to in this report. They havealso no information about the pamphlet to whichreference is made.

Instances of anti-Indian propaganda in theTibetan region have however come to the atten-tion of Government and Government have drawnthe attention of the Chinese authorities to this.

An Hon. Member : As a protest against thefact that our Lhasa Consulate office is being keptunder restraint by the Chinese, are we also goingto put the same sort of restrictions on theChinese Consulate office at Kalimpong ?

The Prime Minister : It is not quite correctto say that our Consulate General is underrestraint. There are some difficulties there inregard to people who want to visit the Consulate-General. Sometimes they do not find easy accessto it. Some of them, more especially thosepeople who are Ladakhi Muslims, who want tocome there are not permitted to do so usually bythe sentry. But the people in the Consulate cango about in Lhasa at any rate, not outside Lhasa;for that they require permit. Asked if there is any truth in the newspaperreports that the Chinese are trying to extend theirinfluence in Bhutan, Sikkim, Ladakh and theborder areas of Nepal, the Prime Minister said :That is the main question. It has been answered'.There are some reports of these things. We have.no information as to their validity or of anyresponsible person having said this. But the factremains that so far as Bhutan and Sikkim areconcerned, they are in treaty relations, with usand we are responsible for their defence. Icannot imagine any foreign authority doing any-thing which is an infringement of their sovereignty.In any event any such infringement would be aninfringement of our undertakings with Sikkimand Bhutan, and we shall certainly resist everysuch intrusion.

Asked further whether the Government arethinking of devising ways and means for encourag-ing our people particularly of the border areas,

so that they may not be cowed down by theaggressive moves of any foreign power, the PrimeMinister said : I do not know what he means.Ways and means to what-shall I say, to raise themorale of the people there ? I hope the moraleof the people in the border areas is good.

Replying to a question whether it is a factthat on the borders of Sikkim and Bhutanmilitary concentration is taking place by theChinese, the Prime Minister said : We do notknow, Sir.

Asked if it is a fact that there is a certainsort of concern in the minds of the people inBhutan and Sikkim with regard to the Chineseactivities, the Prime Minister said : Yes Sir, thatis natural. Ever since the troubles in Tibet, asrefugees are doing it, there has been a measureof anxiety in the minds of the people and theauthorities in Bhutan and Sikkim.

Asked further whether there has been anyproposal from the Prime Minister of Bhutan- tointerview our Prime Minister here, ShriNehru said : It does not require any proposal.Whenever fie comes here, he is our guest, and Isee him frequently. There is no very great for-

187mality about these things, and I believe he iscoming here soon.

An Hon. Member: Will the Hon. Prime Minis-ter kindly state whether the Bhutan Governmenthave asked for any help from the Government ofIndia for defence under the Indo-Bhutan Treatyfor Perpetual Peace and Friendship signed in 1949?*The Prime Minister : The question of theirasking for any specific aid, military aid,does not arise. Yes, in the past Bhutan had some-times taker. or purchased from us somesmall arms and the like. But they, as wellas we, know that if there is any aggressionagainst them, it is our responsibility to helpthem.*

USA BHUTAN INDIA CHINA NEPAL MALI

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Indo-Tibetan Trade

An Hon. Member : Will the Prime Ministerbe pleased to state whether the Indo-Tibetantrade has been affected by the political distur-bance in Tibet; what was the volume of tradebetween India and Tibet prior to the Tibetanupsurge, And what is the latest position ?

The Deputy Minister: Yes, Sir. The Indo-Tibetan trade has suffered considerably duringthe last few months especially since the distur-bances. The total volume of Indo-Tibetan tradeduring the quarter Jan. March, 1959, was Rs. 81.98lakhs approximately. The figure, however, de-clined to Rs. 26.82 lakhs approx. during thequarter April-June, 1959.

An Hon. Member : May I know whetherGovernment have taken any measures for therestoration of normal trade between the twocountries?

The Prime Minister : Well, Sir, I do notrecall all the measures but we certainly wantnormal trade to be restored and we are pointingout to the Chinese authorities in Tibet the diffi-culties that have arisen in regard to it. Forinstance, one of the major difficulties is the questionof payment and the currency. Many of ourtraders cannot deal in the goods there except inChinese currency and they find it difficult todispose of the goods there. All these difficultieshave arisen and we are pointing out these thingsas much as we can because we cannot interferein the internal trade arrangements otherwise.

Asked whether it is a fact that all sorts ofimpediments are being put against the Indiantrade being run smoothly and that particularlythe Indian traders who are engaged in trading inTibet are not allowed to even borrow money from

the local moneylenders, the Prime Minister said :That is what I said, Sir, that there are difficulties.I do not know whether one such relates to thequestion of borrowing money but I imagine it isdifficult to borrow money. An Hon. Member : The question is not onlyof the Indian currency being made legal tenderor not. The Indian traders who have been doingbusiness in Tibet have had to completely suspendtheir business and I would like to know what theGovernment is doing either to restore normalconditions there or to rehabilitate the traders.This is a very serious matter because a very largenumber of people are affected by this.

The Prime Minister : We cannot force tradeon another country. If a country deliberatelywants to stop it, it can do a hundred and onethings over-hand and under-hand to make itdifficult for the trader to function. We cannotdeal with such a matter. If there is any breachof treaty regulations, then we can take up thatmatter.

Replying to a question whether the Govern-ment of India was consulted or at least wasinformed by the Chinese Authorities of theirintention to declare the Indian rupee as not legaltender in Tibet, the Prime Minister said : Thereis no mention of this in the Treaty. All thatthe Treaty says is that customary rules willcontinue to prevail. You can interpret that asyou will but there is no special reference in theTreaty to the rupee being legal tender ornot.

Shri Nehru continued we were not consultedand we can hardly raise an objection to the factwe were not consulted by them before they madechanges. The point is that where such changesare made, they must not in the interestsof the countries concerned, have an immediateupsetting effect on past transactions. It is opento any country to make a change for thefuture so that the traders and others knowwhere they stand but making a change whichapplies to past transactions does create a tremend-ous amount of difficulty because after they havepaid for some goods, then let-us say, 50 per cent,or 75 per cent, of the value suddenly disappears.Therefore, normally it should not apply to pasttransactions.

188 An Hon. Member : It is reported that Indiantraders residing in Tibet are not being allowed toenter the Indian Consulate-General. Is it a factand, if so, have the Government thought itnecessary to take any action in that regard ?

The Prime Minister : I do not think there isany difficulty in regard to the Indian traderscoming to the Consulate-General but some peoplelike the Ladakhi Muslims who claim to be Indiannationals and whom we are prepared to accept assuch but who are not accepted as Indian nationalsby the Chinese authorities at present have difficul-ties in coming to the Consulate-General.

INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

LAOS

International Commission for Supervision and Control

Shrimati Lakshmi N. Menon, Deputy Ministerfor External Affairs, said in the Rajya Sabha onAugust 10, 1959 that the attention of the Govern-ment of India had been drawn to the recentdevelopments in Laos, which had threatened theGeneva Agreements.

The Deputy Minister, who was replying toquestions during question hour said :

"In view of recent developments, India hassuggested that the International Commissionshould be reconvened for the purposes of concilia-tion and mediation. This, however, has not beenpossible owing to the objection of the Governmentof Laos. Some signatories of the Geneva Agree-ments have been in favour of the reconvening ofthe International Commission for Laos.

"The Government of India feel that any steptaken in Laos should be in keeping with theGeneva Agreements. The machinery laid downby these Agreements was that of the two Co-Chair-men and the International Commission. Anyvariation of the procedures laid down should bewithin this framework of the Geneva Agreementsand should have the approval of the partiesconcerned".

LAOS USA INDIA SWITZERLAND

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Shri Morarji Desai's Statement in Lok Sabha on Pakistan's PartitionDebt to India

The Finance Minister, Shri Morarji Desai,made a statement in the Lok Sabha on August 6,1959 on the outcome of the financial talks held inDelhi from July 31 to August 2, 1959 betweenhim and the Finance Minister of Pakistan.

The following is the text of the statement:

The House will remember that I made astatement on the floor of the House on the 7thMay, 1959, in which I gave a short account ofthe various major items in dispute between thetwo countries and the order of the sums involvedin each. At our meeting, we broadly reviewedthe various items in an effort to arrive at an over-all settlement. I believe it was common groundbetween us that these disputes should be settledas soon as possible in the interest of both thecountries, that considering the magnitude of thesums involved in some of the claims it would bedifficult to take individual items separately for settle-ment and that our efforts should be directed towardsthe simultaneous settlement of all the major issues.It was really not a question of holding up onematter because something else was held up.

Ultimately, whatever one country has to pay toanother has now to be paid in foreign exchangeand when claims are outstanding on both sides, asimultaneous settlement of these claims is more orless inescapable.

While on a number of items the sumsinvolved are either easily ascertainable or couldbe estimated with a fair amount of precision, thereal difficulty arises in connection with the parti-tion debt due to India, of which seven annualinstalments are already overdue while a furtherinstalment will fall due on the 15th of this month.It is obvious that some agreed estimate, howevertentative, of this debt is necessary if an overallsettlement of the various items has to be made.Honourable Members will remember that certainfigures of how the debt should be worked outwere sent to Pakistan some years ago. There was

189some correspondence on those figures but matterwas not further pursued. We both realised thatit was essential to get the dimensions of the debtbefore further progress could be made. At thelast meeting, officials of the two Governments gotdown to the real task of getting the figures origi-nally prepared, checked and agreed. Obviously,in the short time available, it was not possible forthem to make more than a good beginning in thisessential process. We both agreed that bothcountries should proceed vigorously with thechecking and finalisation of these figures so thatin the next few months at least a close approxi-mation of the sum involved would be available onthe basis of which a settlement would be reached. Itis our intention to see that this is vigorously pursued.

A number of points of detail also aroseduring the discussions about which further infor-mation had to be obtained by either side. Thiswill all be collected so that when we next meet Weshall have as full a picture as possible of thevarious issues.

I do not think that this House or the publicoutside should feel any sense of disappointmentthat the meeting has not produced immediateresults. Considering the long period over whichthe various claims have been in dispute, I am surethe House will appreciate that it is not easy toreach conclusions without the necessary details.The sums involved are also so large that it would

be unfair to both the countries to take snapdecision. The real gain of the meeting is that theice has been broken and I am looking forward tothe various matters requiring further examinationbeing dealt with expeditiously in both, the countriesso that when the next meeting of the Ministers isheld, it may be possible to reach a satisfactorysettlement. I would in this connection make oneappeal. A settlement will be greatly assisted inmy opinion if in both the countries exaggeratedclaims are not put out and isolated issues givenundue prominence.

PAKISTAN INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Shri Hafiz Mohd. Ibrahim's Statement in Lok Sabha on Canal WatersDispute

Shri Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim, UnionMinister of Irrigation and Power, said in NewDelhi on August 3, 1959 that on the basis of theunderstanding reached by the President of theWorld Bank with the Governments of India andPakistan on the Indo-Pakistan Canal Watersdispute, discussions will be resumed on August 5,1959 in London between the representatives ofIndia, Pakistan and the World Bank, with a viewto working out Heads of Agreement for anInternational Water Treaty.

The talks, the Minister continued, will alsocover matters connected with the regulation ofsupplies from the Eastern rivers during thetransition period and with the uses which must bereserved for India in the upper reaches of thethree Western rivers before they enter Pakistan.

The Minister was making a statement on thelatest position regarding the Indo-Pakistan CanalWaters Dispute in the Lok Sabha on August 3,

1959.

He said : "In my statement of September 1,1958 concerning the negotiations on the Indo-Pakistan Canal Waters question, I brought to thenotice of the House that the plan of replacementworks submitted by Pakistan at the Londonmeeting of July 1958 was under examination.Our comments on the Pakistan plan were convey-ed to the Bank when the talks were resumed inWashington in December 1958. Along with ourcomments the Indian representative put forwardan alternative plan of replacement works.

"An important feature of that plan was thediversion of the waters of the Chenab at Marhuthrough Indian territory for supply to Pakistan atsuitable points. It was much less expensive thanthe Pakistan Plan and had the merit of enablingthe replacement works to be completed in arelatively short period. But it was not acceptableto Pakistan.

"Although in the course of the discussions inWashington, Pakistan signified, for the first time,its unconditional acceptance of the division ofwaters as suggested by the Bank in its proposal of1954, it continued to have reservations on someof the other features of the Bank proposal.

"As there was no prospect of an agreementbetween the parties, the Bank felt that it shouldput forward, for consideration by India andPakistan, its own proposals for a settlement ofthe dispute.

"In May 1959, Mr. Eugene Black, Presidentof the Bank, visited New Delhi and held consul-tations with the Prime Minister and the Ministersfor Irrigation and Power and Finance.

"In the course of the discussions he put for-ward certain general principles as furnishing abasis for the implementation of the Bank proposal

190of 1954 for the division of waters of the IndusBasin. He also visited Karachi and held similarconsultations with the representatives of thePakistan Government.

"The position as it has emergred from Mr.Black's discussions in Delhi and Karachi may be

briefly summarised as follows

(a) The Government of Pakistan have convey-ed to the Bank their willingness to go forwardwith a system of engineering works to beconstructed by Pakistan, one of whose purposeswould be the replacement, from the three Westernrivers, of the pre-partition supplies of those canalsin Pakistan which were dependent on supplies fromthe three Eastern rivers. Particulars of theseworks have not been furnished to India as Indiawill have no concern with their planning construc-tion, costs or operation.

(b) The Bank has reached an agreement, inprincipal, with the Government of India on theamount of financial contribution to be made byIndia.

(c) The transition period, that is to say, thetime required by Pakistan to construct and bringinto operation the works mentioned in (a) aboveand after which India would be entitled to theexclusive use of the waters of the three Easternrivers, will. be approximately 10 years.

(d) These elements of agreement are contin-gent on the Bank being able to secure for Pakistanadequate financial assistance from friendlyGovernments for the construction of these worksin Pakistan.

"The House will recall that the Bankproposal of 1954 provided for a transition periodof 5 years. This estimate was based on a systemof replacement works which consisted mainly oflink canals and did not include any storages.

"It was later felt that this estimate was some-what optimistic and limited storage may benecessary. The engineering works now proposedare materially different from the replacementworks formerly contemplated and, according tothe Bank, they will also provide for replacementof the waters now drawn by Pakistan from theEastern rivers, though it will take about 10,years to construct and bring them intooperation.

"We would not have accepted a transition,period of 10 years as the basis of a settlement ifit was calculated to postpone unduly the date wehad in view for the opening of the Rajasthan canal.,

We have agreed to it on the clear understanding,that the link canals, already constructed inPakistan, would be operated from 1960 onwardsto their full designed capacities.

"We have also been assured that the Bankwould try to obtain the necessary financialassistance for the construction of a dam on theBeas to make available perennial supplies to theRajasthan canal well before the expiry of thetransition period now suggested.

"The running of the link canals in Pakistanto full capacity will enable India to adhere the tar-get date for opening the Rajasthan canal in 1962 or,even earlier, if the canal can be completed earlier,But for the first few years this canal, like theBhakra canal, will have to function largely on anon-perennial basis.

"The Beas dam may take 7 or 8 years tocomplete but limited perennial supplies will beavailable for Rajasthan canal in about 6 yearswhen the dam can be expected to begin impound-ing water, although not to its full capacity."

The Minister also said : "The House willagree that the acceptance by the parties of certainbroad principles as the basis of an agreementconstitutes an advance towards a settlement ofthis difficult question.

"This satisfactory result has been achievedby the unremitting labours of the World Bankand the personal interest of its President whosecontribution to the success of the recent talks itis difficult to over-estimate.

"While there may be reasonable grounds foroptimism, it cannot be said that from now oneverything is smooth sailing and that there areno difficulties ahead. Many hurdles have still tobe crossed before a final settlement of the IndusWaters Question can be reached."

PAKISTAN LATVIA USA INDIA UNITED KINGDOM

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Canal Water Dues

Shri Hafiz Mohd. Ibrahim, Union Minister ofIrrigation and Power, stated in the Lok Sabha onAugust 4, 1959 that, as a result of further corres-pondence on canal water dues against Pakistan,Pakistan Government had made another paymentof Rs. 16,21,370/- representing 'undisputed'

191charged for the period from October 1, 1957 toSeptember 30, 1958.

The Minister was giving a written reply to aquestion by Shri Vidya Charan Shukla and ShriD.C. Sharma regarding the result of furthercorrespondence with the Government of Pakistanon settlement of the disputed as well as thebalance of undisputed charges and the latestposition of outstandings on these accounts.

The Minister also stated that the amountsoutstanding from the Government of Pakistan,both 'disputed' and 'undisputed', up to theperiod ending September 30, 1959, were asfollows

Disputed ... ... Rs. 1,08,92,340/-

Undisputed ... ... Rs. 21,76,561/-

Hafiz Saheb added that the matter wasunder correspondence between the two Govern-ments.

PAKISTAN LATVIA USA UNITED KINGDOM

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Joint Communique on Indo-Pak. Financial Talks

The Finance Minister of India and Pakistanmet in New Delhi from July 31 to August 2, 1959and discussed the various financial issues out-standing between the two countries.

After the meeting was over, a joint communi-que on their financial talks was issued simultaneous-ly in New Delhi and Karachi on August 3, 1959.

The following is the text of the communique:

The Finance Ministers of India and Pakistanassisted by officials of the two Governments, metin New Delhi, from July 31 to August 2, 1959,to discuss various monetary and financial issuesoutstanding between the two countries. Theywent over the whole ground, and, while there was ameeting of minds on many matters, it wasrealised that for an overall settlement it wasnecessary to obtain further details, particularly,in regard to the partition debt before the discus-sions could be carried any further. It wasaccordingly agreed that representatives of boththe countries should meet and discuss details asoften as necessary so as to enable them to obtainan agreed picture before the end of this year.The two Finance Ministers would meet shortlythereafter to take final decisions.

The officials took the opportunity of review-ing certain other outstanding matters and it wasfound possible to clear a number of them. Inparticular, it was agreed that in respect of personswho migrated from one country to another afterJune 30, 1955 but before June 30, 1959, arrange-ments should be made either through therespective High Commissioners or through thenormal banking channels for the payment oftheir pensions. It was further agreed thatprovident Puna moneys of such Governmentservants and employees of Local Funds and semi-Government institutions also should be allowedto be transferred likewise. These arrangementswould also apply to migrants who belong to thepartitioned Provinces.

There was a full and free exchange of viewsin a very cordial atmosphere and it is hoped thatthis will be a prelude to an early and satisfactorysettlement between the two countries.

PAKISTAN INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Construction of Mangla Dam

Replying to a question whether the construc-tion of Mangla Dam in Pakistan-occupiedterritory of Kashmir is being continued in spite ofprotests lodged by India, Shrimati Lakshmi N.Menon, Deputy Minister for External Affairs, saidin the Lok Sabha on August 3, 1959:

"Yes, Sir. According to a recent broadcastby Radio Pakistan, construction work is to bestepped up this year with the help of a capitalgrant of Rupees 2.5 crores."

Replying to another part of the questionShrimati Menon said: "For its own benefit,Pakistan is exploiting the people and resources ofthe territory of the Union of India which itcontinues to occupy by force in defiance 'of theSecurity Council resolution of January 17, 1948and the U. N. Commission's resolutions ofAugust 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949, all of whichhave been accepted by Pakistan.

"In addition to the town of Mirpur, about122 villages will be submerged and about 100,000people, who are Indian nationals, deprived oftheir land and livelihood.

"The project will irrigate 3 million acres of

192land, mostly in West Pakistan and produce 300,000kilowatts of hydroelectric power to be used,again mostly in West Pakistan."

She said : "The Government of 'India havealready lodged two protests with the SecurityCouncil against Pakistan's. violation of thesovereignty of the Union of India and of itsterritory in Jammu & Kashmir. The violationarises from continued Pakistan aggression inJammu & Kashmir against which India's compla-int is already pending before the Security Council."

PAKISTAN INDIA USA LATVIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on Chinese Incursions intoNEFA

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehrumade the following statement in the Lok Sahba onAugust 28, 1959 in reply to an adjournmentmotion:

Sir, I can very well understand the anxietyof the House to have information as fully aspossible about the situation on our border areas.It is rather difficult for me to deal with thesevarious adjournment motions as they are oftenbased on wrong names, wrong areas, wronglocations. So, instead of my endeavouring to dealwith each adjournment motion, I shall give somespecific information.

Shri Hem Barua's motion is completelyupside down-one place here, one place there-and has no connection with the events or anything.He has derived it from some paper (Interruption).Sir, may I continue?

In the course of the last two or three years,sometimes, not very frequently, there have beencases of some kind of petty intrusion on ourborder areas by some platoon or something ofthe Chinese troops, which was nothing very extra-ordinary, because there is no demarcation at alland parties sometimes may cross. We drew theattention of the Chinese Government in 1957-58to this and they withdrew, there the matter ended.

One instance I have already quoted, whichwas a more serious one. In Ladakh last year, asmall police party was apprehended by them, andthat matter is still under dispute or under corres-pondence. Now, in June this year, the ChineseGovernment protested to us that Indian troopshad shelled and intruded into Chinese territoryby occupying a place on the border of Migyitun,and some other place along the frontier-this isin Tibet-NEFA-and they accused us that ourtroops had entered into some kind of collusionwith the Tibetan rebel in forces or "bandits", asthey call them, carrying on illegal activities againstthe People's Government of China. We repliedthat there is no truth in this allegation, and weexpressed surprise that the Chinese Governmentshould give credence to these wrong allegations.Ultimately nothing happened there. We stayedwhere we were, and there was some dispute aboutthe line.

Now, there are two matters that I wouldparticularly like to mention : one, of course, is ofvery considerable importance and it is topical now.I shall come to it later. The first one is that onthe 7th August an armed Chinese patrol, approxi-mately 200 strong, violated our border atKhinzemane north of Chuthangmu in the KamengFrontier Division. When requested to withdraw,they pushed back, actually physically pushed back,our greatly out-numbered patrol to a bridge atDrokung Samba. Our people consisted of ten ora dozen policemen and they were about 200, aboutten times us. They actually physic-ally pushedour men back. There was no firing. Later on.,the Chinese detachment withdrew and our forcesagain established themselves. All this was overa question of about two miles. I might say,according to us, there is an international border.Two miles on this side is this bridge and two mileson that side is our picket or the small force. So,our patrol party was pushed back to the bridgeand two miles away they stood facing each other.

Then both retired. It is not quite clear to mewhy they did so; it is a mountain and perhapsduring night time both the forces retired. What-ever it was, later on the Chinese withdrew and ourpicket went back to the frontier and establisheda small picket there. The Chinese patrol arrivedlater and demanded immediate withdrawal of ourpicket and lowering of our flag there. This re-quest was refused. Then there was some attemptby the Chinese forces to outflank our people,but so far as we know our people remained thereand nothing further happened; that is, on theborder itself. That is one instance which happen-ed about two weeks ago.

The present incident I am talking about is a

193very recent one and, in fact, is a continuing one.On the 25th August, that is three days ago, astrong Chinese detachment crossed into our terri-tory in Subansiri Frontier Division at a placesouth of Migyitun and opened fire. Hon. Memberswill remember, I just mentioned Migyitun inconnection with the Chinese protest that we haveviolated their territory and were in collusion withsome Tibetan rebels. That was their protest madein June last, and there the matter ended. Now,round about that area, a little further away butnot far from it, this Chinese detachment came andmet, some distance away, our forward picket ofabout a dozen persons. It is said that they firedat our forward picket. They were much larger innumbers; it is difficult to say in what numbers,but they were in some hundreds, 200, 300 or maybe, even more They surrounded this forwardpicket which consisted of 12 men-1 N.C.O. andII Riflemen of the Assam Rifles. They apparent-ly apprehended this lot. Later, apparently, 8 ofthese 1I Riflemen managed to escape. Theycame back to our outpost. The outpost is at aplace called Longju. Longju is about 3 or 4 milesfrom our frontier between Tibet and India as weconceive it. Longju is five days' march from an-other post of ours in the interior, a bigger postcalled Limeking. Limeking is about 12 days'march from the next place behind it. So, in away this Longju is about three weeks' march froma road-head. I merely mention this to give theHouse some idea of communications, transport,distance and time taken. I was saying, on the 25ththey captured this forward picket of ours, but 8of them, having been captured, apparently, escaped

and came back on the 26th the next day. TheChinese again came and opened fire and practicallyencircled this picket and the post. In fact, theycame forward and encircled this post, Longju,and although there was firing for a considerabletime, we had no account of any casualties. Ourpeople apparently fired back too. When thesepeople were more or less surrounded at Longjuthey left that picket and withdrew under thisoverwhelming pressure. This has happened onlythe day before yesterday evening. So, we havenot been able to get any exact particulars of whathas happened.

The moment this information came, we im-mediately protested to the Chinese Governmentabout it and took certain other steps in that areato strengthen our various posts, Limeking andothers, as we thought necessary and feasible. wehave, in fact, placed all this border area of NEFAdirectly under our military authorities. That isto say, it was dealt with by the Assam Rifles underthe Assam Rifles Directorate which was function-ing under the Governor and the Governor was theagent of the Government of India in the ExternalAffairs Ministry. The Assam Rifles will of courseremain there and such other forces as will be neces-sary will be sent but they will function now underthe army authorities and their headquarters.

All these have taken a little time. As I pointedout, it takes weeks. In this particular placeLongju, I imagine that this small picket of ours-,it was probably altogether about 38-may haverun short of ammunition because there was nosupply coming in. We tried to send supplies byair. They were dropped but they missed them.It is a mountainous area ; it is not easy. It isslightly risky to send paratroopers there, risky tothe men in these mountainous areas. We do notthink it was desirable or worthwhile to do so atthat place--dangerous. Anyhow, we have takensuch steps as were feasible.

In fact, while I was sitting here, I have heardfrom our Ambassador from Peking. When hehanded over this note to the Chinese authorities,the reply was that their information was different.The Director said that the information the ChineseGovernment had received was contained in thenote handed over to Kannampilly, one of our menthere. Regarding the incident at Migyitun,according to their report, it was the Indians who

fired first ; the Chinese frontier guards hadopened fire only in self-defence. They had receiv-ed no information yet of the clash at Longju onthe 26th August. This is the Chinese answer.The Director said that the situation in this sectorof the border was tense because Indian troopswere continuously pushing forward. We see herethe same kind of language, a repetition of thereports we have, say, between India and Pakistan ;that is, we make a statement and an exactlyopposite, contrary statement is made by the otherside, as to who started firing.

I confess that in these matters I give credenceto our own reports and I believe it is true becauseI would rather believe my own men who are thereand who are trained men, not used to exaggera-tion, and also because the circumstantial evidencealso supports their account. In fact, our Ambas-sador pointed this out to the Chinese people. Sothat is the position. I need not say that, while 1,do not wish to take an alarmist view of the situa-tion, in itself these are minor incidents, but it is alittle difficult to understand what lies behind theseminor incidents. In any event, we have to be vigi-lant and protect our borders as best as we can.

An Hon. Member : Our Prime Minister hasclearly indicated the general attitude of Govern-ment In this matter. We are in a delicate situation

194where, on the one hand, China is a friend of oursand we have a broad foreign policy which has theapproval of every section of the House. I wonderwhether this going into the details will help any-body or the Opposition. Why should we raisethese details and small things here and there ?The problem is a big one. Can we not leavematters to the Government in such big questionsand can we not have one policy on big matters ?In small internal matters, we may have differentpolicies.

The Prime Minister : On the question ofbroad policies, well, broad policies are in ourmind. We have to face here a particular situa-tion. Any country which has to face that situationhas to stand up to it. There can be no doubtabout it. There is no alternative for us but todefend our country's borders and integrity. Hav-ing said that, at the same time, we must not, asoften happens in such cases, become alarmist and

panicky and thereby take wrong action.

Obviously, apart from some past information,I have given the latest information to the House,including the telegram which came to me whileI was sitting here. In this telegram, apart fromother things, our Ambassador has said :

"I pointed out that four persons"-it is really three-"were still missing as a result of the incident of the 25th August and that on the 26th August, Chinese troops had over-run Longju, which the Chinese knew very well to be within Indian territory. I reiterated our Govern- ment's wish that the Chinese Government should take immediate steps to see that there was no assertion of supposed claims by force. Differences should be settled by negotiations."

We have taken the line that minor border inci-dents and border differences should be settled bynegotiations. We must distinguish between thisand that broad approach of the Chinese mapswhich have brush coloured hundreds of miles ofIndian territory. That is totally and manifestlyunacceptable and we have made it clear. Westick to the MacMohan line. But it is quite an-other thing that in this long line there may beminor arguments about a mile here or a mile there.These arguments have been there before theChinese came to Tibet. Even With the Tibetanauthorities, these arguments about a mile ofgrazing ground here or there have been there.We admit that these are differences which existand which should be settled. We think we areright, but let us sit round a conference table andsettle them. We are prepared to take up anymatter like that, but when it comes to hugechunks of territory, it is not a matter for dis-cussion.

The one or two instances that I have statedare, again, according to us clearly intrusion intoour territory. But suppose that there is somequestion of a Tibetan or Chinese case about amile here or there, well, we are prepared to dis-cuss it. But from such information as we havereceived and which I have placed before theHouse, when their forces come, envelop ourcheck-posts and capture them after firing, it isnot the normal peaceful way of approaching these

questions, even if there is a dispute. Therefore,this matter becomes a much more serious onethan some incidental or accidental border affray.

I think an Hon. Member asked about whatlies behind this. I cannot say; it is not fair forme to guess. It will be guess work, of course; Icannot imagine that all this is a precursor to any-thing more serious. It seems to me so foolishfor anybody, including the Chinese Government,to function in that way, and I do not give themthe credit or rather the discredit for folly. There-fore, I do not think they will do it. But so far aswe are concerned, we shall naturally be preparedfor any eventuality and without fuss or shoutingkeep vigilant.

Some Hon. Member, I think, gave me someadvice and gave some advice to our men as tohow they should do, where they should air-dropand where they should not. These are things forthem to consider, not for us, as to where it ispossible, where it is desirable or where it is not.

An Hon. Member suggested a discussion onthis. I am always in favour of a discussion inthis House but I do not see how a discussion inthis ease will serve anyone's purpose. Whenthings are happening, I shall place the facts beforethe House as they take place and if any step is tobe indicated, I shall place that also before theHouse.

CHINA USA INDIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC PAKISTAN

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement in Rajya Sabha on Chinese Incursions intoNEFA

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in the Rajya Sabha .on August 31, 1959 in reply to a short-notice

question :-

195 On August 7, 1959, an armed Chinese patrolentered Indian territory by crossing the border atKhinzemane in Kameng Frontier Division ofN.E.F.A. They pushed back our patrol whichwas greatly out-numbered, a mile or two to asmall bridge at Drokung Samba. Later theChinese detachment withdrew.

On August 14, another Chinese patroltried to out-flank Khinzemane, but did notsucceed and withdrew. We have had nofurther reports from this area since then and itmay, therefore, be assumed that our position atthis border remains undisturbed.

There was another Chinese incursion intoIndian territory in a different area in the N.E.F.A.on August 25. Ibis was in the Subansiri FrontierDivision a little south of Mygitun and slightlybeyond Longju where there was an Indian out.post. This Chinese detachment came up againstan Indian forward picket and opened fire onthem. This Indian picket consisted of I N.C.O.and 10 Riflemen. Our picket was apprehended bythe Chinese, but later eight of the eleven Riflemenmanaged to escape to our outpost at Longju.On August 26, the Chinese troops approachedLongju and opened fire on our post- It appearsthat our men at this post had to abandon theirposition on being encircled. We have had nofurther information of subsequent developmentsin this area.

We protested immediately to the ChineseGovernment about this intrusion of their troopsinto Indian territory and their opening fire on ourmen. The Chinese Government have themselveslodged a protest with us based on the allegationthat our armed troops intruded into their territorysouth of Mygitun and opened fire on their guardsat this place. According to this Chinese note,the Chinese frontier guards fired back in self-defence. In this Chinese note, it is also mentionedthat the dead body of an Indian was recoveredby them.

The Prime Minister continuing said: I mayadd, Sir, that since this reply was drafted, thereply that I have just read out, we have receivedsome little further information from two of our

men from Longju who were contacted andaccording to them, our party had come awayfrom Longju, about two days' march from Longjuand had established a forward post at GALLEN.It is not clear whether the Chinese patrols haveoccupied Longju or are merely moving roundabout it.

An Hon. Member : May I ask whether it isa fact that some more incursions have takenplace recently ? There were some reports in thepress to the effect that some more outpostsbelonging to the Assam Rifles have been occupied.Is that statement correct ?

The Prime Minister: We have no informa-tion on that subject and, on the whole, we getfairly quick information about the N.E.F.A.border and I should imagine that those reportsare not correct.

In reply to a question whether governmentare taking any steps to prevent such incursionsShri Nehru said : 'It is hardly possible for meto tell the House what military or like steps wehave taken in such matters. It is not possible,if I may put it that way, to prevent an incursionover a two thousand mile frontier but it is possibleto take. some steps to repulse that incursionor to strengthen our defences but the Houseshould remember that while it is our duty, ofcourse, to defend our borders and to strengthenthem and thus protect the integrity of India, onedoes not normally, in the case of big countriessuddenly start as if there was a war betweenthem and hit out all round. One considers thesethings and one tries to settle matters by talks,etc. At the same time, one defends oneself atthe time of an attack. It does not obviouslymake very much of a difference physically toChina or to India whether a mile or two in thehigh mountains belongs to them or to us but itdoes matter very much if a treaty is broken oran aggressive attitude is taken. Where thesematters occur, we have to follow a double policyone, of course, of defence, and the other alwaysto settle these matters by conferences.

Asked whether there is any informationabout the eight men who escaped from Longju andhave whether they returned back to our outpost,the Prime Minister replied : I have just said thattwo of them were contacted and they gave us

some information. I do not quite know wherethe remaining six are. It is possible that theymay be with our other men. It is very difficult.We can get information from an outpost butpeople in between two outposts cannot sendmessages.

Replying to a question whether, in regard tothis particular territory where incursions havebeen made by the Chinese, there is any doubtabout the ownership of the territory, or, are wecertain that it belongs to us, Shri Nehru said :Yes, the Chinese not only doubt it out claimownership of that particular strip. I do not knowhow far it is correct but they claim that particular

196strip and they said to our men that that strip be-longs to them. Whether they are justified in doingso or not is another matter.

Replying to another question whether it ispossible for the Prime Minister to indicate thereasons why the Chinese have taken to thisaggressive action against us in these areas at thistime, the Prime Minister said : It is obviouslya matter of conjecture. First of all, I would liketo distinguish between the position in North.east and the position in Ladakh. The position inLadakh is different from the position in theNorth-Eastern Frontier Agency and these borders.All these borders are parts of the so-calledMacMahon Line. If you accept the MacMahonLine you accept all that frontier really fromBurma onwards to a good long way to Nepal.That does not apply. to the Ladakh border whichwas for all these long years under the Jammu andKashmir State and nobody knew exactly - whatwas happening there, although some Britishofficers went a hundred years ago and drew aline and the Chinese did not accept that line.That matter is clearly one for considerationand debate but that does not apply to this area.Here there was a MacMahon Line and un-doubtedly this is in our view a clear case ofaggression. Why they have done so, I can"naturally say exactly. It is a conjecture.

CHINA USA INDIA BURMA NEPAL

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Mnisiter's Statement in Lok Sabha on Occupation of LadakhiTerritory byChinese Forces

The following is the full text of a statementby the Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, inLok Sabha on August 28, in reply to a short-notice question as to whether it was a fact that aportion of the Ladakhi territory had been recentlyoccupied by the Chinese forces, and what actionhad been taken in the matter :

There is a large area in Eastern and North-Eastern Ladakh which is practically uninhabited.It is mountainous, and even the valleys are at ahigh altitude generally exceeding 13,000 ft. Tosome extent, shepherds use it during the summermonths for grazing purposes. The Governmentof India have some police check-posts in this area,but because of the difficulties of terrain most ofthese post are at some distance from the interna-tional border.

Some reports reached us between October,1957 and February, 1958 that a Chinese detach-ment had crossed the international frontier andvisited Khurnak Fort, which is within Indianterritory. The attention of the Chinese Govern-ment was drawn to this, and they were asked todesist from entering our territory. They werealso informed of our intention to send a recon-naissance party in that area. It may be mentionedthat there is no physical demarcation of thefrontier in these mountainous passes, althoughour maps are quite clear on this subject.

Thereafter, at the end of July, 1959, that islast month, a small Indian reconnaissance policeparty was sent to this area. As this partyconsisting of an officer and five others was pro-ceeding towards the Khurnak Fort, it wasapprehended by a stronger Chinese detachmenton July 28, some miles from the border insideour territory. It appeared that the Chinese have

established a camp at a place called Spanggurwell within Indian territory.

On learning of this, a protest was immediatelylodged with the Chinese Government of theviolation of our frontier and the release of ourreconnaissance party was asked for. In theirreply, the Chinese claimed. that that part of theterritory was theirs, but added that they would re-lease the persons who had been apprehended. Wesent a further note to them expressing surprise atthis claim and giving them the exact delineation oftraditional international frontier in this sector.We urged once again that the Chinese party wellwithin our territory should be withdrawn. Noreply has yet been received to this note. Ourparty was released on August 18.

Replying to a question whether this place isabout 15 miles within our territory and alsowhether this is the only place which is underoccupation by the Chinese troops or they haveoccupied some other areas also, the Prime Ministersaid : It is somewhat difficult to deal with thisquestion as an adjunct to the main question. Ofcourse, there have been some frontier troublesin two or three places widely separated; and itwould be hardly correct to say that our area isunder occupation of the Chinese, that is, underany kind of a fixed occupation. But their patrolshave come within our territory two miles or threemiles or thereabouts. That is our knowledge, sofar as we know.

Replying to another question whether theChinese had built a road across this territoryjoining Gartok with Yarkand and whether thisroad which passed through Ladakhi territory hasbeen there for the last year or so, the PrimeMinister said : Yes, that is in northern Ladakh,

197not exactly near this place but anyhow in theLadakhi territory.

About a year or two ago, the Chinese hadbuilt a road from Gartok towards Yarkand, thatis Chinese Turkistan; and the report was that thisroad passed through a corner of our north-easternLadakhi territory. The House will appreciatethat these areas are extraordinarily remote, almostinaccessible, and even if they can be approached,it takes weeks and weeks to march and get there.

In that connection, a reconnaissance party wassent there. I cannot exactly say when, but Ithink it was a little over a year ago, some time lastyear ; I could give the exact date, but that isimmaterial here ; this reconnaissance party wassent there. In fact, two parties were sent; one ofthem did not return and the other returned.

An Hon. Member: What happened to them?

The Prime Minister : When it did not return,we waited for it for two or three weeks, becausethese were remote areas. When it did not returnwe suspected that it might have been apprehendedor captured by Chinese authorities on the border.So we addressed the Chinese authorities ; this wasmore than a year ago. We addressed them about amonth after this incident, and they said, yes, someof our people had violated their border and comeinto their territory, and they had been apprehendedbut because of their relations with us etc. theywere going to release them, and they did releasethem afterwards, that is, after they had been withthem about a month or so.

That is concerning this road about whichthe Hon. Member was enquiring. In all this area,there is no actual demarcation. So far as we areconcerned, our maps are clear that this is withinthe territory of the Union of India. It may bethat some of the parts are not clearly demarcatedor anything like that. But obviously, if there isany dispute over any particular area, that is amatter to be discussed.

I may say that this area has nothing to dowith the MacMahon Line. The MacMahonLine does not extend to the Ladakh area; it isonly on the other side. This was the boundary ofthe old Kashmir State with Tibet and ChineseTurkistan. Nobody had marked it. But aftersome kind of broad surveys, the then Governmenthad laid down that border which we have beenaccepting and acknowledging.

An Hon. Member : Does it mean that inparts of our country which are inaccessible, 'anynation can come and build roads and camp there ?We just send our parties, they apprehend theparties and because of our good relations, theyrelease them. Is that all ? The road remainsthere, the occupation remains there and we donot do anything about it.

The Prime Minister : I do not know if theHon. Member expects me to reply to that. Thereare two or three types of cases here. These areborder and frontier questions. In regard to someparts of the border, there can be no doubt fromany side that it is our border. If anybody vio-lates it, then it is a challenge to us. There areother parts regarding which it is rather difficult tosay where the immediate border is, althoughbroadly it may be known. But it is very difficulteven in a map to indicate it ; if a big line is drawnthat line itself covers three or four miles, onemight say, in a major map. Then there are otherparts still where there has been no demarcationin the past. Nobody was interested in that area.Therefore, it is a matter now--it should be amatter for consideration of the data etc. by thetwo parties concerned and decision taken in anormal way, as and when there is some kind of afrontier dispute. In this particular matter, we havebeen carrying on since then our correspondence,concerning this particular North-East area, andsuggesting that this should be considered bythe two Governments.

An Hon. Member : The Hon. Prime Ministerjust now said that if anyone occupies our territory,it is a challenge. May I know what positivesteps are being taken, or have been taken, toenforce security measures on this border area ?

The Prime Minister : There are thousandsof miles of border. The Hon. Member should bea little more specific in his question. If he isreferring to this particular corner, the Achin area,that is an area about some parts of which, if Imay say so, it is not quite clear what the positionis. It is not at all that particular area. Aboutother area, the position is quite clear. The diffi-culty comes in regarding some places where thereis no absolute certainty about it ; in other places,we are quite clear and certain about it. The bor-der is, I believe, 2,500 miles long.

In reply to a question whether Government'sattention has been drawn to a statement of thePresident, 'Azad Kashmir', blaming India forthe Chinese occupation of Ladakh and urging theSecurity Council to take over the responsibility ofthe frontiers of Jammu and Kashmir, and if so,what is the reaction of Government to that,Shri Nehru said : I believe I did hear about

it. I attach no importance to it.

198 Replying to another question if these troubleson the border are over the same areas of ourterritory which the Chinese had indicated as theirterritory in their maps, and if there is any impli-cation connected with this, the Prime Ministersaid : This particular question that I answeredrelated to one area. There are other areas toowhere we have had, and we are, in fact, havingsome trouble now. I do not want to mix it upwith this. Then there will be confusion in one'smind. This is an area with a frontier of over2,000 miles. I was only venturing to say that byputting two or three places together, there wouldbe confusion in the Members' minds. Let us takethem separately so that they may be separatecompartments. There is no question of defenceor not. For instance, take the Assam Tribune'sstatement. There is utter confusion in the AssamTribune's mind about various territories whichare thousands of miles apart which have nothingto do with each other. It has lumped them upand said-I believe in the statement in the AssamTribune that 1,000 Chinese came over the NathulaPass in the Kameng Frontier Division. It showsutter confusion in the mind of the writer of this.He does not know his geography, although he livesin Assam. It has nothing to do with it. TheNathula Pass is between Sikkim and Tibet andnothing has happened there. Nobody has comeacross there. It is said that a thousand men camethere and put up the Chinese flag. It is com-pletely baseless-I am referring to the statementso far as Nathula Pass is concerned. So far as Iknow, I have not heard of a Chinese flag beinghoisted anywhere there.

As I was saying, there have been cases, andthere are continuing cases in one or two places,of Chinese aggression. Therefore, I want to keepthese separate so as not to produce confusion inthe mind of Hon. Members here. If this questionis over, I shall proceed to the other question anddeal with as they come.

Shri Nehru said : The Chinese Government'smaps are on such a small scale and in broadsplashes that some parts of Ladakh appear to beincluded in them. But they are not accurateenough. What we are discussing, and the questionwhich I have answered, relates to about two or

three miles. Two or three miles are not visiblein these maps. But it is a fact that part of Ladakhis broadly covered by the wide sweep of theirmaps.

CHINA USA ANGUILLA INDIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement in Rajya Sabha on Chinese Construction ofRoad in Ladakh

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in the Rajya Sabha,on August 31, 1959 in reply to a short-noticequestion on the construction of a road in Ladakhby the Chinese According to an announcement made inChina, the Yehcheng-Gartok Road, which is alsocalled the Sinkiang-Tibet Highway, was completedin September, 1957. Our attention was drawnto a very small scale map, about 2 1/4 x 1 3/4 inches,published in a Chinese newspaper, indicating therough alignment of the road. It was not possibleto find out from this small map whether thisroad crossed Indian territory although it lookedas if it did so. It was decided, therefore, to sendreconnaissance parties in the following summerto find out the alignment of this road. Tworeconnaissance parties were accordingly sent lastyear. One of these parties was taken into custodyby a superior Chinese detachment. The otherreturned and gave us some rough indication of thisnewly constructed road in the Aksai Chin area.According to their report, this road enters Indianterritory in the south near Sarigh Jilganang lakeand runs north-west leaving Indian territorynear Hajilangar in the north-west corner ofLadakh.

Representations were made to the Chinese

Government in a note presented to the ChineseAmbassador at New Delhi on the 18th October,1958, drawing their attention to the constructionof the road through Indian territory and thearrest of 15 members of the Indian reconnaissanceparty within the Indian border. The ChineseGovernment in their reply presented on 1stNovember, 1958 notified the release of the partyand claimed that the road ran through Chineseterritory. A further note expressing our surpriseat the Chinese contention was presented to theChinese authorities on the 8th November, 1958.Reminders have been given subsequently. Nofurther answers have been received.

The Aksai Chin area has a general elevationof over 17,000 ft.

The entire Ladakh area including AksaiChin became a part of the Jammu and KashmirState as a result of a treaty signed in 1842 onbehalf of Maharaja Gulab Singh on the one sideand the Lama Gurusahib of Lhasa-this is thename written in the agreement which I amquoting-and the representative of the Emperorof China on the other. Ever, since then this areahas been a part of the Jammu and Kashmir

199State. Various attempts at demarcating theboundary between the Jammu and Kashmir Stateand Tibet' were made subsequently by Britishofficers. The Chinese Government was asked tosend their representatives to cooperate in thiswork. They did not take part. The ChineseCommissioner, however, stated on the 13thJanuary, 1847 as follows

"I beg to. observe that the borders of these territories have been sufficienly and distinctly fixed so that it would be best to adhere this ancient arrangement, and it will prove far more convenient to abstain from any additional measure for fixing them."

The British officers were also of the same opinion.Although no actual demarcation was made on theground, maps were prepared on the basis of oldusage and convention. These maps have beenused in India for the last hundred years or so.They include the Aksai Chin region as part ofLadakh. Since the boundary of the Aksai Chin

region with China-Tibet has not been markedon the ground, once or twice questions have beenraised about the exact alignment of this boundary.Old Chinese maps have shown a differentalignment.

Asked why Parliament was not taken intoconfidence earlier with regard to this matter, thePrime Minister said: There was not much to takeinto confidence about, Sir. This was-I gave thedate-about November last, and we sent then ourprotest and subsequent reminders. This is anarea peculiarly suited obviously for some kind ofconsultations and decision as to the facts, be-cause the facts are very complicated, the Chineseclaiming that area. In fact, without our know-ledge they have made a road in that extremecorner and we have been dealing with it in cor-respondence. No particular occasion arose tobring the matter to the House, because wethought that we might make progress by corres-pondence and when the time was ripe forit we would inform Parliament.

As Hon. Member : In view of the fact thatthe Chinese claim that this admittedly Indianterritory is within their frontier and that ourprotest was lodged as far back as July or August1958, and in view of the fact that the Chineseclaim is unjustified and no reply has been sent tothe Indian Government, do not the Governmentcontemplate ousting the Chinese from this Indianterritory by force ? Will not the Government ofIndia at least consider the advisability of bombingthe road built in our territory out of existence ?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Governmentwill not consider that course, because that is notthe way Government would like to function insuch matters. The Hon. Member started by sayingthat this is admittedly Indian territory, but theChinese would not agree to it. That is a con-tradiction in terms. As a matter of fact, it isIndian territory and we claim it so because wethink that the weight of evidence is in our favour,maps etc. But the Chinese produce their ownmaps, equally old, which are in their favour.And the territory is sterile.

It has been described as a barren, uninhabitedregion without a vestige of grass and 17,000 ft.height. In places like this, decisions can only bemade by conferences, by agreement. Countries

do not, should not go to war without proceedingin these or other ways over such matters.

Asked whether the building of this road hasbeen stopped, the Prime Minister said : Theroad was built. Roads in these areas, Sir, arerather of a peculiar type. In these very highareas the ground is so hard, harder than normalcement and the only thing you have to do tobuild a road is to even the ground a little andremove stones and shrubs. I cannot even nowsay when it was built. But reports about it, asI said, reached us from a small Chinese map twoyears ago. There is also from the Chinese pointof view, another question that arises, i.e. whetherit is part of Chinese Sinkiang or part ofTibet, because according to some Chinese claims,it belongs to Chinese Sinkiang, some old claimswhich were advanced later on.

Replying to a question whether there are anypersons under arrest with the Chinese still, ShriNehru said : No, Sir.

Replying to another question whetherGovernment have received any further reports tosay that the Chinese have extended their occupa-tion and control over larger areas than when wegot information first about this road, the PrimeMinister said : Not about that particular area,Sir, but I think there is another question, I amnot quite sure......That is different. There is noquestion about that. There was a report, thismonth, in August, not about this area, but anarea near Ladakh, a considerable distance awayfrom this area, on the eastern area of Ladakhborder of Tibet, where a Chinese detachmentwas seen by a reconnaissance party, a small Indianpatrol in that area ; and ultimately I think 7, 8 or10 persons-I don't remember the number-wereapprehended by the Chinese and later released.The same claim arises here, they say it is their

200territory and we say it is ours. And the matterarose, as I said, this month and we are carryingon correspondence about that territory. Theseplaces are not demarcated on the land. We goby our maps which the Chinese do not recogniseand they go presumably by their maps, whateverthey have. And this was four five miles accord-ing to our maps, may be seven or eight miles, Iam not sure, where the Chinese patrol came.

And we are told that they have established asmall check post a little within our side of theinternational border there, just on the easternLadakh border of Tibet. This is near a placecalled Chusun near which we have one of ourown check posts.

An Hon. Member : The Prime Ministerstated a little while ago that this portion ofLadakh is absolutely desolate and unfertile andthat not even a blade of grass grows there. Eventhen China is attaching importance to that areaand is building a road there. I would like toknow, when China is attaching so much ofimportance to this desolate bit of land, why whenthe territory is ours or is under dispute even, wedo not attach any importance to this area ?

The Prime Minister : I talked only aboutthe Yehcheng area, not about the whole ofLadakh although the whole of Ladakh, broadlyspeaking, is 11,000 to 17,000 and 20,000 feethigh. Presumably the Chinese attach importanceto this area because of the fact that this routeconnects part of Chinese Turkestan withGartok-Yehcheng. This is an importantconnection.

CHINA USA INDIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on Chinese Propagandaagainst Bhutan and Sikkim

Answering a short-notice question in LokSabha on August 28, 1959 as to whether theGovernment of India had seen reports in thepress about Chinese propaganda in Sikkim thatBhutan and Sikkim were part of Chinese territoryin the past and are bound to return to the Chinesemother land within the next few years ; and if

so, the action to be taken to remove the anxietycreated by these reports among the people ofSikkim and Bhutan and border territories in India,the Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, said

We have seen occasional reports in the pressto the effect mentioned by the Hon'ble Member.It is not possible for us to check up the authenti-city of these reports. Such reports are naturallycausing concern to the people of Sikkim andBhutan and elsewhere in the border regions of India.Our position is quite clear. The Government ofIndia is responsible for the protection of theborders of Sikkim and Bhutan and of the terri-torial integrity of these two States and anyaggression against Bhutan and Sikkim will beconsidered as aggression against India. An Hon. Member : May I know whetherthe Governments of Sikkim and Bhutanhave by now apprised our Government of thesituation obtaining there ? The Prime Ministersaid that he has seen only newspaper reports.

The Prime Minister : We have been in touchwith both the Governments, naturally, I cannotsay exactly whether this particular matter wasreferred to by them. But the fact remains that,if I may use that word, they are not happy aboutthe situation. They are rather nervous aboutwhat is happening round about them.

An Hon. Member: As the reports indicate,the Chinese troops are all along the 500 mileborder of Bhutan and Tibet; and it has alsocome to our notice that the traditional route toBhutan which passes through a portion of Tibethas been closed. In the circumstances, may Iknow what help the Government of India isgoing to render to save Bhutan's economy atpresent ? May I also know whether the DefenceMinistry has studied the entire situation fromthe new position which has been created atpresent ?

The Prime Minister : A big question, Sir.It is true that there have been some recentdifficulties in a person going to Bhutan fromIndia by the normal route which crossed a littlecorner of Tibet below Yatung, a route, in fact, bywhich I went last year this time or a little later.There will be difficulty for Bhutanese people tocross that route. Therefore, they are usingother routes. There are other routes from India,

of course ; only they are longer and sometimesmore difficult and these routes are being improved.In fact, quite apart from recent incidents, there isa programme of road building in Bhutan, roadsfrom India to Bhutan and within Bhutan, andwe are helping them in building those roads.

As for the Hon. Member's enquiry about theDefence Ministry, the Defence Ministry no doubtkeeps all these things in view and it is difficultfor me to discuss what exactly the DefenceMinistry may consider right or proper under acertain set of circumstances.

201

Replying to a question whether Governmenthave received any reports of harassment of Bhutanand Sikkim citizens by the Chinese troops orChinese nationals, the Prime Minister said : Sofar as I know, I do not think there has been anyincursion of Chinese troops into Bhutan orSikkim. The Chinese troops came to thoseborders probably because the refugees were comingthrough that way, possibly to stop them or inpursuit of them. Probably, they were notmore gentle with the refugees. One canimagine that. But I do not think therekind of conflict was any with the Bhutaneseas such. It may be that some threats werethrown out occasionally and some Bhutanesehave heard them.

Replying to another question whether thePrime Minister can give a clear guarantee that inno case the Chinese will be allowed to set upany post in Bhutan or Sikkim as they have donein Ladakh, Shri Nehru said :

That is a very odd question. I do not think,not only this poor Prime Minister, any PrimeMinister can give guarantees of that type.All we can say is that as I have said alreadyany kind of incursion into Bhutan or Sikkimwill be considered incursion into India, thatwe shall abide by the assurances we have givento them. How we shall abide by them andin what manner if circumstances arise is amatter for careful consideration. It is not amatter of a direct statement made in thisMuse or elsewhere but of action, if necessityarises, difficult action, very difficult actionand action the burden of which will have to be

borne by this House. It is not an easy matterin which an easy assurance can be given whichmay rather sound pompous.

CHINA BHUTAN USA INDIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on Chinese Threat to India'sFrontiers

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in the Lok Sabhaon August 13, 1959 in reply to adjournmentmotions :-

I entirely agree with the Hon. Member thatthe integrity of India should be safeguarded at allcosts. There can be no doubt about it ; everyMember in this House agrees.

Now, coming to this particular motion, it isbased apparently on a news item today which itselfis based on some despatch to a London news-paper. In this newspaper reference is made to aspeech that Mr. Chang Kuow-Hua is supposed tohave delivered on a certain day. I have not seenthat report of the speech-I do not know. A reportof that speech was given in the official Chinesepaper called China Today. I have read thatreport. This particular passage is not there. Thatof course does not lead us to believe that it is notpossible, but it is not there. Anyhow, it wouldbe an exceedingly foolish person who would makethe remarks attributed to this gentleman aboutLadakh, Sikkim and Bhutan. We shall try tofind out whether any speech was delivered on thatdate and, in so far as we can, what the contentsof that speech were. We have had no informationfrom any reliable source of such statements beingmade by any person who can be considered relia-ble. Therefore, it is rather difficult for me to

deal with something in the air.

As for the report that there are large forces-Chinese forces-there are Chinese forces, prettylarge forces, I believe, in Tibet. It might even becalled 'very large forces' all over Tibet, whichcame there when this rebellion started there. Wehave no exact information as to the extent ofthese forces. I do not think that any large forcesare concentrated on our frontiers. Some arethere, no doubt. Anyhow, we are quite awakeand alert over this matter, and if we get anyreliable information I shall place it before theHouse. I may say that in one of our last notesto the Chinese Government, which was sent Ithink on the 23rd July, we protested inter aliaagainst the propaganda, in the Chinese officialorgan, describing India and Indian as im-perialists.

In reply to a question whether it is a factthat the Chinese Government have sent somecommunications to our Government, of late,suggesting that the MacMahon Line no longerprescribes or describes the international boundaryas it was not ratified by the Chinese Government,and as it was only a British creation there shouldbe some sort of redrawing of the line, the PrimeMinister said : No, Sir ; we have received nosuch communication now or at any earlier stage.So far as we are concerned, the MacMahon Lineis the firm frontier, firm by treaty, firm by usage,firm by geography. There are minor pockets,small areas in the MacMahon Line or elsewhereon the frontier, where some arguments have occa-sionally arisen, where questions, sometimes of amile or two this way or that way, have arisen inthe past, and discussions have taken place and willcontinue, no doubt. So, sometimes we have these

202arguments about these matters. In fact, we arehaving, I think, about one or two matters evennow but they do not affect the major frontierline called the MacMahon Line.

An Hon. Member : May I know from thePrime Minister that when Mr. Chou-En-lai madea reference to our undefined frontiers with oursouthern neighbours-when he said like that--didhe include India with the southern neighbours ?Did he have that in mind ?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say or inter-pret Premier Chou En-lai's speech and what hehas in mind. But the impression that was givento us by Mr. Chou En-lai some years back was,having regard to all the circumstances, they accep-ted this, what is called MacMahon Line-unfortu-nately, we might have a better name for it ; butstill, they accepted that as the international frontier.

CHINA INDIA USA UNITED KINGDOM BHUTAN

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

TIBET

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on Indian Pilgrims

The Prime. Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in Lok Sabha onAugust 24, 1959 in reply to an adjournmentmotion :

The Hon. Member has said many things justnow for which I do not know what support andevidence he has. So far as this motion for adjourn-ment is concerned, I have read it two or threetimes without being able to understand exactlywhat the Hon. Member means by it. Itsays :

"The grave situation arising out of the hostile attitude of the Chinese Commu- nists towards Indians as evidenced from the warning contained in a recent note..." I take it that the note referred to is the oneissued about intending pilgrims. I do not knowwhy that should be taken to mean a hostileattitude to anybody. It may mean, as he himselfhas hinted, that conditions in certain parts ofTibet are so insecure that pilgrims are not safe. Ishall read out the exact message that we receivedin regard to this matter.

The Chinese Foreign Bureau in Lhasa con-veyed to our Consul-General there the followingmessage. I am giving it as received.

"In view of that, at present the PLA are launching a punitive expedition towards a tiny minority of remnant rebels that are there. The Consul-General would be kind to tell the Indian pilgrims that for the sake of safety it is better for them not to come for pilgrimage or come in as fewer as possible this year. If they insist to come the responsibility of safety should be borne by themselves."

Now, the meaning is quite clear that theyare carrying on expeditionary or another hostileactivities there and conditions are not safe forpeople and for pilgrims and they warn pilgrimsthat they should not come or, if they come, theyshould come as few as possible at their ownrisk.

It is true that under the terms of our agree-ment with China, pilgrims are allowed free access,but where conditions become bad internally, who-ever may be responsible for it, we can hardly goon saying that we will go and you will be respon-sible for it. Technically it may be true. Anyhow,this indicates that conditions are not normalthere and that some kind of conflicts areproceeding.

As regards the date on which that note wasreceived, the Prime Minister said : I shouldimagine-I do not know-about two or three daysago or just in the last few days. It is quite recent.I am not sure of the date but I saw it, I think,about two days ago, probably. As for the refe-rence to Indians being kept within doors, I amnot aware of that at all or of any order to theeffect that Indians should keep within theirhouses.

Asked whether the note appeared in the papersShri Nehru replied : I am sorry that I am notaware of that fact in spite of what the paperssay. In other words, what the papers say, so faras I am concerned, is not correct. I cannotguarantee everything, but we are likely to havemore correct information of the internal condi-tions in Tibet. After all, we do get messages

from our Consulates and Trade Agents. I cannotsay about what happens in the interior, somewhere

203where there is no Consulate or Trade Agent, butwe have not received any such information fromour Consulate or Trade Agents. What has hap-pened is that sometimes, when the disturbancetook place in the cities there, for a few days ormay be two or three weeks, people were not en-couraged to go out from certain areas in the cities,in Lhasa from the Consulate area to other areas.They were not allowed and movement in theseareas was restricted. But that was at that time.So far as I know, no such house arrest businessis taking place and movement is not restrictedexcept outside the city area, that is, probablysome kind of a permit is required to go outsidethe city areas or outside a certain major part ofthe city to certain other part of the city, like atYatung.

An Hon. Member : May I know whether itis a fact that all attempts made by our Ambas-sador in Peking to meet Mr. Chou En-lai todiscuss the position of Indians in Tibet have sofar not succeeded? If it is so, what is theinformation with the Hon. Prime Ministerabout it ?

The Prime Minister : Mr. Chou En-lai isthe Prime Minister of China. Most Prime Minis-ters normally do not discuss these matters withforeign Ambassadors. It is the Foreign Ministerswho discuss these matters. I may discuss themin my capacity as Foreign Minister. Prime Minis-ters are not easily accessible. They are moreaccessible in India than in most other countries.

Replying to a question if it is a fact that thePolice is still posted in front of the office of theIndian Consul-General in Lhasa and the Indianswho go there are being interrogated by the Police,the Prime Minister said: Yes, Sir. I am notquite sure exactly what the position now is, butthere were some sentries posted in front of theConsulate-General, who checked people, withoutpermits, trying to come in. In particular, thereport we got was that some of these LadakhiMuslims, who wanted to come to consultour Consulate-General, were stopped fromcoming.

INDIA USA CHINA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

TIBET

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on India's Trade

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in the Lok Sabhaon August 6, 1959, in regard to an adjournmentmotion on the difficulties experienced in India'strade with Tibet:

I do not think that this is a matter for anadjournment motion. But I can very well under-stand Hon. Members being interested in thesereports and in these developments. It is true thatIndian trade within Ladakh has suffered very con-siderably in the last few months, more especiallysince these disturbances in Tibet. I will givesome figures. In February last our trade withCentral Tibet was Rs. 15 lakhs imports, and.Rs. 10 lakhs exports. By June the correspondingvalues declined to Rs. 2 lakhs imports and Rs. 3lakhs exports. So there is a big fall.

We have received many reports about thedifficulties in the way of Indian traders. Theycannot travel about. They cannot get transport.They cannot send their goods. All these difficul-ties have arisen. About another thing, I do notknow how far it is true, that is, as stated in thisadjournment motion, about the goods of Indiantraders having been frozen, but the fact is thatthey cannot easily be moved for lack of transport.

Also, there has been a recent order-so weare told-declaring Indian currency as well asTibetan currency in Tibet I as illegal. But althoughthe order has been passed, it is not quite clear tous whether it has been enforced or not fully.Anyhow, such an order would not be in keeping

with the agreement-at any rate with the spiritof the 1954 Agreement.

There is no doubt that there are these difficul-ties. In fact, we had many other difficulties tooin regard to other matters in Tibet, for example,regarding the functioning of our trade agencies.We have been communicating with the ChineseGovernment on this subject quite fully andrepeatedly.

An Hon. Member : What has been the resultof those communications? What is the reactionof the Chinese Government?

The Prime Minister : We have received inregard to some minor matters some replies, etc.Of course, there have been local references by ourCounsul-General in Lhasa. The results of thoselocal references have not been satisfactory, andsome little time ago we sent a full memorandumto the Chinese Government in Peking about it.To that we have had no formal reply, except thatthey are considering it.

Replying to a question whether India's TradeAgents are free to move in those areas, or whethercertain restrictions have been placed on their

204movement, Prime Minister Nehru said: I thinkthat normally there is some restriction about thedistance-that is, about two or three miles orbeyond-some restrictions-without a permit theycannot go. Also, there is a difficulty sometimesof transport not being available.

In reply to another question whether there isany discrimination between the Nepalese tradersand the Indian traders, as is reported in the Press,the Prime Minister said : I would not be able tosay that, because there are relatively few Nepalesetraders. Maybe, occasionally they might havebeen shown somewhat different treatment, but Ido not think there is any marked difference.

An Hon. Member : Is it true that our TradeAgent had to change his route on account of adirection from the Chinese Government? Origi-nally be was to go by a different route, but he hadto, take a longer route which meant more delay. The Prime Minister : That is so. Our TradeAgent in West Tibet in Gartok had actually gone

almost to the pass through which he could enterTibet, but then he was told to go across anotherpass, which meant several weeks journey back-wards and forwards.

INDIA USA CHINA NEPAL

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

TIBET

Shrimati Lakshmi Menon's Statement in Lok Sabha on Status of Indiansin Tibet

Shrimati Lakshmi Menon, Deputy Ministerfor External Affairs, made the following statementin the Lok Sabha on August 11, 1959 :

According to our latest information, thereare 97 registered Indian traders in Yatung, Phariand Gyantse and about 2,000 seasonal traderswho are currently visiting Western Tibet. TheGovernment of India, however, have no exactinformation about the number of KashmiriMuslims and Ladakhi Lamas in Tibet. As far aswe have been able to ascertain, there are 124families of Kashmiri Muslims with a total numberof 583 persons in the Lhasa-Shigatse area. Weare also informed by Shri Kushak Bakula thatbefore the recent disturbances nearly 400 Lamastudents from Ladakh were studying in variousmonasteries in Tibet. There were approximately40 Ladakhi Lamas among the refugees whocame to India from Tibet. The rest are presumedto be still there.

The reason for lack of precise informationabout the number of Kashmiri Muslims andLadakhi Lamas in Tibet is that previous to 1954travel between the Ladakh region and the Tibetregion of China was practically free. Traditional-ly hundreds of Ladakhi Buddhists used to visitthe Tibetan region and join the monasteries therefor their religious education. Similarly, Muslims

from Ladakh also visited Tibet for trade inShigatse, Lhasa and elsewhere. Some of theseMuslim families have been resident in Tibet formore than one generation The 1954 Agreementfor the first time provided that traders travellingbetween India and Tibet should possess certificatesissued by the local Government of the country oforigin. Pilgrims were not required to carrydocuments of certification but were to be regis-tered at the border check-post by the other partyand receive permits for pilgrimage. Such check-posts however existed at only a number ofspecified passes. People from Ladakh who travelledto Tibet by the other passes in the Western Tibetarea even after 1954 did not therefore possesseither traders' certificates or pilgrims' permits.There is also no question of those who had beenresiding in the Tibet region before 1954 and havenot since come to India possessing any certificateof identification.

Instructions were issued by us after theconclusion of the 1954 Agreement that KashmiriMuslims and other persons of Indian origin mustbe registered as Indian citizens under Article 8 ofthe Constitution. Registration under this articlewas, however, not obligatory and most of thetraders and Lamas who were accustomed to tradi-tional freedom of movement and privilege of studyin the Tibetan monasteries did not take the troubleof registering themselves as Indian nationals. Infact only 21 persons in Lhasa and Shigatsehave registered their names with the IndianConsulate General. The result is that themajority of the people of these categories did notpossess any valid travel documents or any otherdocument of identification.

When the recent disturbances began, a largenumber of persons of Indian origin expressedtheir desire to register themselves with the IndianConsulate General as Indian citizens. Certain diffi-culties were placed in their way by the local Tibetanauthorities. We, therefore, took up the matterinformally with the Chinese authorities in Lhasaand followed up our representation with a requestin writing both in Lhasa and through ourEmbassy in Peking. We explained to the Chineseauthorities that since these persons came toTibet when there was no obligation on them totake out any travels paper or document ofnationality it would not be fair to draw an adverse

205conclusion against-them that they are not Indiancitizens. We also pointed out that there was noobligation on these- persons to register themselvesas Indian nationals with our Consulate Generalin Lhasa.

In a-note dated July 17, 1959, the ChineseGovernment suggested to us that these personswho had been residing in Tibet for long periodswere to all intents and purposes Chinese nationals.We: have instructed our Embassy in Peking totake up the matter again with the Chinese autho-rities and urge that persons of Indian origin fromLadakh and other parts of India, who considerthemselves Indian nationals and wish to seek- the-advice and protection of our Consul-General,should be permitted to do so, or in the alternativethey should be allowed to return to India. Wehave not yet had any final reply. Meantime,according to our information, two Indians wereregistered with our Consulate General and threeother Indians who were not registered are held, incustody by the Chinese authorities.

The Government of India will continue topress their view on the Chinese Government.

INDIA USA CHINA AZERBAIJAN CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

TIBET

Shrimati Lakshmi Menon's Statement In Lok Sabha on Tibetan Refugees

Shrimati Lakshmi N. Menon, Deputy Minis-ter for External Affairs, made a statement inthe Lok Sabha on August 11, 1959, in replyto questions by several Hon. Members ofthe House.

The following is the text of the statement

The total number of Tibetan refugees whohave come to India is 12,396.

Arrangements have been made for the em-ployment of unskilled refugees on road works inSikkim and NEFA. Those who are old and in-firm have been sent to Dalhousie and will bemaintained at the expense of the Government. Anumber of refugees with relations in India havebeen permitted to join their families in the Darjee-ling district.

Student Lamas are being accommodated atBuxa, where they will pursue their religious Stu-dies. Children below the age of 16 years will besent to schools.

Refugees who are not being maintained byGovernment and who are being dispersed for roadworks are being given a resettlement grant ofRs. 50/- in addition to the cost of transportationand shelter at the worksites. Arrangements havealso been made to give instruction in Hindi inCamps and on the worksites so that refugees canadjust themselves to the conditions in India. Itis also intended to select some refugees fortraining in crafts and vocations after carefulappraisal has been made of their aptitudes.

Since dispersal from Camps has begun re-cently, it is not possible to indicate monthly ex-penditure on the rehabilitation of refugees.

All voluntary relief activities are being co-ordi-nated by the Central Relief Committee for TibetanRefugees presided over by Acharya J. B. Kripalani.The Indian Red Cross Society has associateditself with the Central Committee.

All contributions coming from India orforeign voluntary agencies are received by theCentral Committee. It is understood that contribu-tions have been received from the American Tibe-tan Relief Committee, the Catholic Relief Com-mittee, the Indian National Christian Council andthe Co-operative for American Relief every-where. As most of the contributions are inkind, it has not been possible to estimatetheir value.

The Government have received no communica-tion regarding the return of these refugees to Tibet.

USA INDIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC

Agreement on Payment Arrangements Signed

Letters embodying an agreement betweenIndia and the United- Arab Republic on paymentarrangements were exchanged in New Delhi onAugust 1, 1959

Shri K. R. F. Khilnani, Joint Secretary,Ministry of Commerce & Industry, signed onbehalf of the Government of India, and Mr. T.Labib, Deputy Superintendent of the Central

206Exchange Control Department of the Governmentof UAR, and Mr. Y. S. Abady, CommercialCounsellor in the UAR Embassy in New Delhi,signed on behalf of the UAR Government.

It is expected that as a result of thew newarrangements the stalemate in Indo-UAR tradewhich had developed over the last few weeks wouldbe ended and the tempo of trade between the twocountries would increase.

According to the terms of the agreement, theproceeds of Egyptian cotton imports into Indiawould be utilised for payment for Egypt's importsof tea and jute goods and such other commoditiesas may be further agreed to between the twoGovernments and also for repayment of loan. Forthis purpose, a Special Account will be im-mediately opened in Indian rupees with the StateBank of India in the name of the National Bankof Egypt. Funds in this Account will be fullyutilised for purchases in India or payments inrespect of loans in India.

In view of the new Account being opened, theEgyptian Pound Realization Account would beclosed and all the rights and liabilities of thatAccount transferred to the new Account.

Invoices for cotton will be in Indian rupeesand prices will be those ruling in Alexandriamarket, after being adjusted according to the dis-count ruling on the date of contract and convertedinto Indian rupees according to the official rates.

Regarding exports other than tea and jutegoods from India under the arrangement the listof commodities would be settled from time totime by mutual agreement In respect of thesecommodities purchased from this Account, if Egyp-tian Government desires to charge any premiumfor rupees, it will be subject to mutual agreement.

The present 'H' Account would be continuedon the same terms as before. The proceeds ofEgyptian goods other than cotton could be utilizedfor the purchase of such goods other than tea andjute goods as may be determined by mutual agree-ment from time to time for governmental andnon-governmental purchases and Egyptian Govern-ment will continue to issue licences to personsor Government according to the funds availablein 'H' Account without any delay.

In respect of such licences and purchases nopremiums shall be chargeable for getting Indiancurrency permits for imports. The commoditiesthus agreed to so far are pepper, tobacco, electricfans, diesel engines, dry batteries, centrifugalpumps, other engineering items, spare parts forIndian machines, artificial dentures, chemical andpharmaceutical products, mica, coir hair, coirrope, medicines, medical instruments, surgicalinstruments, sewing machines, sandalwood chips,tamarind, perfume oils, sports goods and turmeric.

Goods entering into trade between both thecountries would not be re-exported by eithercountry. Egyptian importers. who are givensterling licences valid for import on payment ofsterling would be permitted to utilise such licencesfor purchases of goods from India against pay-ment in sterling, provided India could offer suchgoods competitively.

INDIA USA EGYPT

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED KINGDOM

Shri Krishna Menon's Statement in Lok Sabha on Aviation Agreement

Shri V. K. Krishna Menon, Union 'Ministerof Defence, affirmed in Parliament on August 10,1959 that an agreement had been signed withM/s. Hawker Siddley Group of the United King-dom for the manufacture of "Avro 748" in Indiato replace the Dakotas in the Indian Air Force.This statement was made in reply to a questionput on the subject in the Lok Sabha by severalHon. Members of the House.

Regarding the principal terms of the agree-ment the Minister added : "It is not in the publicinterest to disclose details of the agreement; butthe terms are the most favourable which we couldget from any aircraft manufacturer. The broadterms of the agreement, however, are that we paya licence fee spread over eight annual instalments.The first instalment is payable only after the air-craft is certified and we are satisfied that it meetsthe IAF's requirements. No royalty is payableon the first 100 aircraft manufactured. TheGovernment of India will also have the right tosell this aircraft. to other countries subject toagreed conditions.

The maximum all-up weight of the aircraftwill be 33,000 lbs; the weight of the aircraft andfittings is 19,360 lbs; its payload is 9,750 lbs; and

207its maximum fuel capacity is 3,890 lbs. It cancarry 36 passengers. It will be powered by twoRolls Royce Dart Rda 6 engines."

To another question whether the LockheedCompany of the U.S. had also offered to manu-

facture aircrafts in India, the Minister stated: "TheLockheed Aircraft Company have not made anyspecific offer for the manufacture of any particularaircraft. They, however, at a rather latest agein our plans for the manufacture of aircraft toreplace Dakotas, made a general offer to designan aircraft to suit Indian requirements, poweredby Rolls Royce Dart 6 engines. They wanted 90days' time to submit any report which we wouldthen be free to examine. Since the question ofmanufacture in India of an aircraft to replaceDakotas had been under consideration for a longtime and an early decision had to be taken, theGovernment could not wait another three monthsfor new proposals, as it would mean postponinga decision by about 6 months, which would be thetime required to get the Lockheeds' proposals andhave them properly studied and evaluated. Fromtheir preliminary offer, however, it was apparentthat the offers before us were more suitable to us.

USA RUSSIA INDIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

WEST GERMANY

Loan, Assistance

Replying to a question on the utilisation ofthe West German loans of DM 168 million, theDeputy Finance Minister, Shri B. R. Bhagat, saidin the Lok Sabha on August 13, 1959 that a sumof DM 96 million had so far been drawn fromthe loan. Further sums would continue to bedrawn in coming weeks.

Shri Bhagat added that the object of the loanwas to enable the Government of India to obtainthe funds for meeting the payments due on importsfrom West Germany. The actual imports fromWest Germany after the relevant date had been infact more than the total value of the loan. Under

the agreement, the loan however, could be drawnupon only for reimbursement to the Governmentof India of 80% of payments for Indian importsmade to German suppliers after 31 August, 1958and that too, only of those payments that wereunder contracts covered by the German FederalGovernment guarantees of insurance. The rateof drawal of the loan was governed by these limi-tations in regard to its availability, principally bythe condition that only imports covered byGerman Federal Government guarantees wereeligible to be considered.

208

GERMANY USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

AFGHANISTAN

Nehru - Daud Joint Statement

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,paid a visit to Afghanistan from September 14 to18, 1959. During his stay there Shri Nehru hadtalks with the Afghan Prime Minister, SardarMohammad Daud on matters of mutual interest.At the conclusion of their talks the Prime Ministersof India and Afghanistan issued a joint statementin Kabul on September 18, 1959.

The following is the text of the statement

At the invitation of the Government ofAfghanistan the Prime Minister of India, ShriJawaharlal Nehru, paid a visit to Afghanistanlasting from September 14 to 18. During hisstay in Kabul he was received by His Majestythe King and called on the Prime Minister, SardarMohammad Daud. The King had visited Indiain February 1958 and the Prime Minister a yearlater. The present visit of the Prime Minister of

India to Afghanistan thus afforded welcomeopportunity for strengthening the friendly asso-ciations earlier made and further exchange ofviews and impressions on current developmentsin the international situation as well as on mattersof mutual interest. These talks at which theDeputy Prime Minister and acting ForeignMinister of Afghanistan also took part, were heldin an atmosphere of complete cordialityand understanding reflecting the traditionalfriendship and affinities between the twocountries.

In a joint statement issued at the conclusionof the visit of the King of Afghanistan to Indiain February 1958, hope was expressed that ameeting at a high level in which would participatemore particularly the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.would be held to consider international tensionsand the problems of war and peace. It must be amatter of universal gratification that events aremoving towards the realization of that hope.The recent announcement of an exchange of visitsbetween Mr. Eisenhower and of Mr. Khrushchev isa happy augury, and at this moment when Mr.Khrushchev has begun his visit to the United Statesthe two Prime Ministers take pleasure in express-ing the wish that this far-sighted action of theleaders of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. will promotemutual understanding between these countries aswell as assist in lessening world tensions andpave the way for a progressive solution of thegrave problems that continue to pose a threat tothe future of the world and mankind.

While reaffirming the responsibility of theDisarmament Commission the Prime Ministersnoted with satisfaction the step which had beentaken to break the deadlock in disarmament dis-cussions by the appointment of a ten PowerDisarmament Committee. They also noted withsatisfaction the announcement of early resumptionof the work of the Conference on discontinuanceof nuclear weapon tests. While welcoming theseand other favourable trends that were manifestingthemselves in the international scene the PrimeMinisters could not but be conscious of theexistence of some international disputes andtensions and they reiterated their firm convictionthat all international disputes should in the interestof world peace and humanity be settled by peace-ful means alone and not through resort toarms.

The Prime Ministers declared their fullsympathy and continued support for the aspira-tions of peoples still under colonial rule andfor their efforts to attain their independence.Independence alone can ensure for these peoplesopportunities for self-development and progressas well as conditions of national equality whichprovide the fundamental basis for the promotionof peace among nations. It is a matter of continu-ing satisfaction to the Prime Ministers that therelations between their two countries remain ofthe friendliest character. The policy of non-alignment which the two countries have adoptedand actively pursued and their similarity of out-look on many matters of world importance havestrengthened and given further content and realityto the relationship forged by history and tradi-tional contacts through the centuries. The PrimeMinisters agreed that these cordial relations shouldbe sustained and enlarged by increased culturalco-operation and promotion of mutualtrade.

The Prime Minister of India expressed hisappreciation and gratitude for the warm andcordial reception which the Government andthe people of Afghanistan alike had accordedhim. The goodwill that exists between the peoplesof the two countries of which the welcome given tothe Prime Minister of India was a clear demonstra-tion, is the surest guarantee of enduring relationsbetween the two countries.

209

AFGHANISTAN USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri Krishna Menon's Statement on Chinese Representation

Shri V. K. Krishna Menon, Leader of theIndian Delegation to the United Nations, made astatement at the United Nations General Assemblyon September 22, 1959 on the question of Chineserepresentation.

The following is the text of his statement

Mr. President, the debate on this item at thistime in the Assembly gives us the opportunity ofoffering the felicitations of my delegation on yourunanimous election to this high office. It would bepreposterous for me to recount your qualitieswhich fit you to be President of the UnitedNations because there is hardly a representativein this Assembly who has not had personal experi-ence of your kindness and courtesy and your greatwisdom. The Assembly indeed is to be congratulat-ed, as well as yourself, on your election to thishigh office.

My delegation has put down an item on theprovisional agenda on the question of Chineserepresentation. I believe there have been sometwenty-six or twenty-seven speakers engaging theattention of the Assembly for the last eight hourson a question which has continually engaged theattention of the Assembly at, I believe, some tensucceeding sessions and, what is more, in thedebates of every one of its organs. While thequestion is old, the situation cannot be called oldbut still subsisting. This has been among theconsiderations which have moved some of thespeakers to inquire why India has put down thisitem once again, from two points of view, one, thefact that it has been so many times brought for-ward and not been carried; and the other, thereference to particular developments within thelast few weeks or months, or in recent times.

I come to this rostrum at a very late stage inthis debate, not because of any hesitation on thepart of my delegation to put forward its point ofview; nor do we think it can be taken leisurely. Butfortunately for us, our friend from Nepal put downan amendment to the recommendation in the re-port of the General Committee, which is the formin which this matter comes here. That amendment,whatever may be its procedural structure, in effectasks for the rejection of the recommendation ofthe General Committee. The presence of mydelegation here at a late hour only serves to indi-

cate, if anything, that we are anxious to placebefore the Assembly our position as fully as wecan. The Government of' India has never lackedcandour as far as the Assembly is concerned. Wehave never refrained from putting forward ourpoint of view, even if it is unpopular, as it oftenis. We have placed the item of China on theprovisional agenda for the same reason as we havedone so year after year or participated in it from1949 onwards.

Before I go into the history of this question,I should like first of all to deal with the constitu-tional aspects of this matter which concerns us asa Government and as a delegation, not only inregard to this item but to anything else. One ofthe speakers, in quite another context in thecourse of this debate, referred to the standards ofthe United Nations. We are concerned that therules and the law of the United Nations shouldnot be tortured, should not be contaminated, orin any way adversely affected by particular politi-cal considerations.

Last year we raised this point, somewhatbriefly. Under your presidency, Mr. President,once again an unhealthy precedent has beenfollowed. An item is proposed on the provisionalagenda. The General Committee is strictly en-joined not to enter political considerations. Theonly function the General Committee has in thiscontext is either to accept or to reject an item. It,may be argued that the first part of the draftresolution of the General Committee probablydoes it. The only thing that might be said againstit is that it is unnecessary; that a contrary vote issufficient, instead of having a draft resolution.But that is a matter of taste. However, theSecond part is not covered by the item at all,because the item simply says "Question of therepresentation of China in the United Nations".On that there is a draft resolution on a politicalquestion, which is strictly barred by rule 41 ofthe rules of procedure, which states:

"It shall assist the President in the generalconduct of the work of the General Assemblywhich falls within the competence of the President.It shall not, however, decide any political ques-tion".

It may be said that this is not deciding a poli-tical question but is solely making a recommenda-

tion, that is merely a decision to recommendrather than making a political decision. ThereforeI submit-though I know it is not going to carryme any further that the whole posture adoptedby the General Committee in regard to this is

210ultra vires as regards the rules and the purpose ofthe General Committee. This Committee, whichis also called a steering committee, is a businesscommittee to deal with some of the problems of theAssembly beforehand in order that our work maybe facilitated. Instead of that, like many otherorgans of the Assembly-and I will not specifyany-it tries to usurp all the sovereign functionsof this body, and I submit that no such committee,'least of all a steering committee, is qualified topronounce politically.

Having said that, I should now like to referto the fact of our repetitive appearances on thisrostrum on this subject. It has now become anannual subject but it is by no means a hardyannual in the sense that a hardy annual meansthat there is no flexibility about it and nothing haschanged, that it is merely a kind of habit of oursto bring it up. That is not the position.

However, in this connexion, may I refer tothe history of this matter, which directly leads tothe reasons why we are here. When I say "thehistory of this matter" I do not intend to coverthe events in chronological order or even the wholehistory of it. All I say is this. As soon as thepresent Government and regime of China estab-lished itself-and I believe that is what was ex-pected-they applied to be recognized asrepresenting the Chinese people. That was aboutten years ago. They came here then before theSecurity Council, and in no time their applicationwas rejected out of hand. Committees wereappointed and, what is more, as a result of this,the Assembly deliberated and came to a decisionat the fifth session to the effect that, where thereis a dispute as to who should represent a peopleand two parties are claiming the same seat, thematter must be discussed in the Assembly. How-ever, at no time has any decision been reached onthis matter.

The second aspect of it is that year after yearfor the last two years anyway--a resolution hascome here from the General Committee, not from

a delegation but from the General Committee,asking that there should be no consideration ofthis matter for the duration of the session. I sub-mit that many errors are being committed here.First of all, we are putting the Credentials Com-mittee out of court. That is to say, by a resolu-tion we decide that the credentials of a delegationshould not be looked into. I think that is notonly ultra vires ; it is an affront to the dignity ofthis Assembly. No one has the right to say before-hand who shall represent any of us. We shall notbe removed from here, because our credentials aregood, but, legally speaking, we are not here untilthe Credentials Committee has pronouncedupon us.

Secondly, by this draft resolution recommend-ing postponement, those who are the initial authorsand the General Committee itself must not simplysay that the matter will be postponed. That is amatter of discretion. There have been no finaldecisions, as far as the Assembly is concerned, onthis question.

Now reference has been made to recent inci-dents-and I do not want to mince my words-these recent incidents refer to the rebellion inTibet and the handling of it by the ChineseGovernment in ways that have shaken publicopinion in our country and has also stirred peopleelsewhere. This is not the occasion either to gointo the constitutionality or anything of it. I wantto say that there is considerable public feeling inour land on this matter and therefore we are notspeaking without emotion or on strictly legalisticgrounds.

The second is what ? Various speakers havespoken differently as to the invasion of India, orthe incursions in India, or aggression on our fron-tiers, on this or that and the other. We certainlyappreciate the concern of people about the inte-grity of India. I wish this concern had beenexpressed when other violations took place. whenyear after year we voted in the Security Counciland sat there, ten out of the eleven members sup-porting the aggression. Therefore, it is not merelythe concern in that way. But I will put that onone side. Let us look at it this way : the Govern-ment of India cannot accept the position that thedelegations here, all eighty-one of you barring us,are more concerned about the integrity of our soilthan we are. I think it is doing us a disfavour

in suggesting that anyone else could be more con-cerned about the integrity of our country than weare. So far as the Chinese are concerned, we havetold them in plain words that while we were pre-pared to discuss any question, however difficult itis, while we were prepared to make adjustmentsand compromises and while our policy remainsone of continuing friendship and settling mattersby negotiation, we shall not be intimidated, we shallnot yield a square inch of territory, and what ismore, we shall not permit unilateral action withregard to unsettled disputes. That is our position.Therefore, as far as China is concerned, we tellthem that if there are disputes, "you will sit downand talk like civilized people and friendly Govern-ments and these matters are not to be settledunilaterally."

So, on the one hand the Government of India

211is firm in the policy of the maintenance of itssovereignty. What is more, the 2,000 miles ofour frontier-it is our frontier, and we know moreabout it than anyone else. What is more, if thereis a strong country on the other side and it repre-sents a menace or a matter of concern for us, Ithink the Government of India must be regardedas having a sufficient sense of maturity and politi-cal judgement to know its consequences. At thesame time, we are sufficiently mature and suffi-ciently devoted to the purposes of the Charter andthe general orientation of the United Nations notto create a war psychosis. We have no desire toexaggerate events any more than to minimizethem. As my Prime Minister said, it is not aquestion of two mountain tops or some grazingrights of anything of that kind. When peoplefeel that their country has been torn over, there isan emotional uprising among the people, andtherefore we shall resist it. But at the same timewe shall not permit the situation either in ourcountry or elsewhere to be used to become one inwhich the peace of the world is affected more thanotherwise. In other words, the reason why webring this item here is largely not in our selfishinterests.

We are asked, "In view of your disillusionabout China, then why do you bring this itemhere?" There again, I submit, that it is not,shall I say, a very generous way of looking at us.We do not bring the question of China here be-

cause China was our neighbour or because Chinawas on friendly relations with us. We asked coun-tries like the United States, for example, or variousother countries who have hostile feelings, if youlike, quite legitimately perhaps, who are unfriendlywho do not regard China as trustworthy, whoregard China as having committed aggression, wehave asked them in the past, "This may be so,but we do not want to change your opinion; butyou must allow them to come here." Now, if thatis soft, it must be equally soft for us.

We could not come here this year and say,"We have had a little bit of trouble on the fron-tier, so the whole basis of our approach to theUnited Nations on a particular question haschanged." If that is the attitude Governmentstake in this Assembly, then this Assembly cannotafford to make progress. Therefore, I think, ifanything we deserve a decree of appreciation froma large number of people, that even when we werehurt we were willing to bring up this question ofprinciple in the interests of the United Nationsand in the interests of world peace and co-opera-tion. That is our position.

If we thought that we should not bring upthis matter here this year, it could be only becausethere was a change in our foreign policy, in itsfundamentals, I mean, or because we think princi-ples are so elastic that they can be forgotten whenone's own interests are concerned. That is not theposition so far as we are concerned.

Now, on this matter being a serious one ofconsequences not only in the debates here buteverywhere else, I would like to deal with themfrom the point of view of my Government. It isnot as though, as someone suggested, that we haveput down this item before the troubles, that theremay be, occurred, and if otherwise, it would nothave been so. Actually, this item was submittedto this Assembly in June, long after the troublesin Tibet took place-these recent ones, not theolder ones-and after deliberate and due consi-deration we put down this item. So, there is noquestion of our having made a mistake in thismatter, and our explanatory memorandum whichis document A/4139, dated 14 July-not long ago,makes it very clear. I quote :

"It is necessary to consider the question of the representation of China in the

United Nations not only from the point of view of the legitimate rights of the Chinese people and their Government, but also from the point of view of the effectiveness of the organization itself. There is no doubt that only the People's Government of China is in a position to comply with those decisions and recom- mendations of the United Nations which affect the Chinese specifically or which are addressed to all Member States."

The fact that China has behaved towards usungenerously, unfairly, if you like, the fact that itsaction, as we see it, has not been to their benefitor to ours or to that of the world, would not alterour position. The Prime Minister of India whenspeaking on this matter, when he was specificallyquestioned in the Legislature said :

"Our policy in regard to the entry of China into the United Nations remains as it was. It is not that it is based on certain facts by these things; it is not because we get angry with some- thing that happens in China that we change our policy. That would mean that we have no firm policies, that we are deflected by temporary happenings in the world."

A few days later he said ... we have earnestly striven to stand by

212 these principles and I do not think we have offended them ... we have tried to do that not because of some temporary reasons, not because these so-called five principles have been declared in some agreement ... but because we have felt that that is the only way to function in this world."

"We have repeatedly come to this rost- rum, we have repeatedly gone to con- ferences and said that if these principles are right, we hold by them and we should hold by them, even though nobody in the wide world is willing to adopt them. Naturally, we have to adapt our policies to what happens in the world; we cannot live in isolation. But a principle should

be acted upon even though somebody else has not acted upon it."

That is to say, even violations by the otherparty to the original statement of the five princi-ples, namely China, would not justify our goingaway from it without a great deal of consi-deration.

"...we hold by them and we shall endeavour to act up to them whatever other countries may or may not do."

That is our position in regard to this matterand therefore the Assembly should not be leainto some wrong view of things, thinking theyare acting in sympathy with us ; because we arethe people who brought this here and we makeno apologies for it.

"The basic reasons for our foreign policy" -said the Prime Minister-"were not based on merely being friendly to China or to some other country. It is not merely a matter of sentiment or relationship. We wanted to be friendly with other coun- tries-but our approach to it is basic." "These principles" we think "are right, and they do not become unright," as he says, "because somebody does not agree with it. I do not understand what the present situation which has developed, serious as it is, has got to do with put- ting our foreign policy in what is called a melting pot. So far as I am concerned" -says the Prime Minister-"and so far as our Government is concerned, our foreign policy is firm ... and the present Government will hold to non-alignment because it is a matter of principle, not of opportunism or the convenience of the day."

I think it is necessary to declare on thisrostrum that our misfortunes or whatever mayhappen one way or another will not induce ourGovernment to be drawn into "cold war"attitudes or into war blocs. In maintaining ourrights, our dignity and our self-respect, in notallowing ourselves to drift into wrong and hostileattitudes and in trying to help in removing orsolving each problem as it arises, we may helpa little. That is the line we propose to take.

That is the utmost we can do in the circumstancesand in the creation of this atmosphere we haveto play our part. So that is the position so faras we are concerned.

The second is the general atmosphere thathas sought to be created as though there is amajor war developing in our frontiers. WhileI have no intention of speaking about the princi-palities or the territories of Bhutan or Sikkim,references were made on this rostrum about theinvasion of these areas by hostile armies, byforeign elements and so on. Now you may say:Why do you go into this'? It is not in defence ofChinese policy. That is their business. But it isour concern that the world should know theextent of it both ways, large or small.

The Maharajah of Sikkim, who is one ofthe most active political personalities in thatterritory, spoke publicly and to the press only afew days before I left India. There were noforeign elements who had entered the country.There were no concentrations on that side andthe press stories were wrong.

A telegram received to-day said

"Prime Minister of Bhutan Jigme Dorji has said (in Calcutta) there has been no intrusion into Bhutan territory by Chinese troops. Nor does he apprehend any. Dorji was speaking to news- men."

I say this not in order to minimize the natureof unfriendly actions that you have spoken aboutall day. We shall defend our territory if itbecomes necessary to the best of our ability. Butthe main problems we shall seek to solve in theusual way by negotiation. Negotiation does notmean that we shall negotiate on the basis ofgiving up what is our sovereign homeland but byadjustments that are required in what is called theMacMahon Line.

Friendship with China is something that weregard as necessary for them and for us. ThePrime Minister said

213

... we were right in working for their

friendship and, may I repeat and say, we shall continue to work for it. Any person who has the least responsibility for India's future cannot allow himself to be frightened and angered and behave in fright and anger. No country should do that, more especially in a crisis.... we have to think of the future of these two great countries. This idea of setting things by this kind of compulsion and force or by threats and bullying is all wrong and we must accept things as they are.

"I have always thought that it is important even essential if you like, that these two countries of Asia, India and China, should have friendly and, as far as possible, co-operative relations.. It would be a tragedy not only for India, and possibly for China, but for Asia and the world if we develop some kind of permanent hostility ... May I say that in spite of all that has happened and is happening today, that it (friendship of China and India) is still our objective, and we shall continue to work for it."

These are the observations made to theIndian Parliament, and therefore they are verypolitical statements. We shall, therefore, on theone hand, not have a policy of appeasement. Nor,on the other hand, shall we be the victim of warpsychoses of any kind. Nor do we want toexaggerate matters.

But all this does not change the characterof the situation so far as Chinese representationis concerned. One may ask : What has happened ?It is quite true that there have been certainhappenings which changed the position of theworld. The main thing is the development of theworld in the matter of atomic weapons. WhileChina may not be a relevant subject, it is well-known that other Powers have the prospect ofthe explosion of these weapons in different partsof the world. It is also known that scientificadvances have reached the position that mostnations can make use of them. Therefore, ifthere is to be disarmament and suspension or pro-hibition of nuclear weapons, that can be done onlyif the great nations and the small nations of theworld are here. My Government is not parti-

cularly concerned either with going into thestatistics of Chinese industrial or agriculturalproduction or otherwise or the nature of thecommunes or what not. For one thing, they areinternal matters.

Secondly, I say with all respect that is notthe gigantic size of China or its production thatmakes us think it should be here. It is the factof sovereignty, to have as much respect for thesmallest of our members, Iceland, over here, witha population of some 200,000 as for China witha population of some 650 million because theyare countries large and small and for the peoplestherein they are their homelands. Therefore, weare not particularly anxious to reiterate theamount of steel they produce or the amount offood with regard to which they have increasedproduction and so on. That, of course, is amatter of interest and is a matter for the generalproduction of wealth in the world. In our neigh-bour we have an interest, but that is not theargument.

We are not saying that because China is bigand mighty it is therefore dangerous to keep herout. What we are saying is this. If we are tohave a general world settlement, if we are tosettle the affairs of the world, we cannot have agreat part of the world out of it. Here is acountry which is now in diplomatic relations-not necessarily in friendly relations-with somethirty-four countries of the world, carrying ontrade all around. It would be impossible to keepher out of international context.

Now I ask : who would be the greater loser ?China is certainly a loser. It would be idle topretend that she is not because any country thatcannot be here is a loser thereby. But the worldis a loser because it is possible for China to reapthe awards of relationship without having toconform to obligations. It is impossible to thinkof any scheme of disarmament, let alone atomicweapons, where a country reputed to have astanding army of 5 million people and probablyanother 5 or 10 million in reserve is outside theambit of the discussions. I would say that itdoes not seem sound and reasonable, to put itvery mildly. Therefore it is we in the UnitedNations, the world as a whole, that stand to loseby the exclusion of a country. I have said beforethat we cannot just wish away a people or a nation,

great or small. Just because we shut our eyesthe world does not become dark. We remainignorant. Therefore, we have to recognize thesefacts as they stand.

While the voting in this Assembly may followthe traditional patterns, opinions seem to havechanged. I do not like quoting statesmen ofother countries except when absolutely necessary.Probably it is not fair. But even after the begin-ning of all these troubles we have statements bycountries which in the past have voted against

214the discussion of this item or abstained fromdoing so, like, for example, our good friends theCanadians where two former foreign ministerscame out and said that this cannot go on for long;we must do something about it. I could givemany, many instances which have already beenquoted on this platform, but that only goes toshow that people are concerned. They are alsoconcerned about keeping to one's own side, so tosay, and not let their side down. But towhat extent can this go on. I think it wasLester Pearson who said somewhere that wecannot carry this business for a long time. Onlyin February of this year, Lester Pearson, a formerPresident of the Assembly, said:

"...how long are we going to be able to support the United States position, because it is a United States position, that this question, cannot even be talked about at the United Nations. ...How could Peking be asked to accept and carry out any such obligations, take part in control and inspection, which we rightly claim to be essential, and yet be considered as unrecognizable. It does, to say, the least, present a dilemma."

The same applies to the successor, and Iquote this merely to show that there is consider-able development of opinion in this way.

We have therefore brought this item here notat the present moment so far as procedures areconcerned to discuss the merits of this matter.Mr. President, you have been sitting here for somany hours in succession listening to thesedebates. Does it sound to you that this matteris so unimportant? If it is so unimportant, would

twenty-eight people come to speak and speak atgreat length on it, going into the merits of thematter ? So when this subject is mentioned andit is said that the matter should be discussed,people feel concerned. If it is the concern of theAssembly, then is it not right that the mattershould be discussed in full rather than piecemeal?

What happens? Each time we say, "Letthis item be put on the agenda", and you rule thatprocedurally you may not discuss the merits of thequestion. Certainly some representatives dodiscuss the question and therefore what we get isa very incomplete discussion.

We have not at the present moment suggestedeither that anybody should be seated or that any-body should be removed. We have asked for anexamination of this question. We have asked forgoing away from the attitude that just because weprefer to ignore it, therefore it ceases to exist.

Then we are told that there have been sinscommitted which makes it impossible for us toconsider this matter. I have no doubt that sinshave been committed. There are many things inChina of which we disapprove. There have beenactions in regard to us which we have protestedand with regard to which we propose to remainvery firm, and we act to the best of our ability.But I would suggest that there are other countries,other States, who also have deviated, includingours, from the principles of the Charter. Thereis not one of the eighty-two nations here whocould stand up and say that they have not violated,consciously or unconsciously, any provisions ofthe Charter.

When the United Nations was founded, it was1aid down, even before the conclusion of the war,that those who were on the other side fighting theallies should also come into the United Nations atthe proper time. So the founders thought in termsnot merely of having some nice people here, butof having the world as it is. It was the basic ideaof the United Nations that even those who wereengaged in the overthrow of liberty in WorldWar 11, should, after the conclusion of peace, thetermination of hostilities and a passage of time,join the comity of nations in order that the worldmay develop towards a more peaceful and a morewhole family.

Therefore, how can we justify keeping someone else out ? It is said that while governmentsmay change, States do not die. China is aprimary Member of the United Nations.Some of the signatories of the Charter arenow members of the Peking Government,just as some are members of the authoritiesin, Formosa. Secondly, if there are resolutionscondemning aggression in regard to China, thereare resolutions also condemning other people,very firm ones, and repeated not on some occasionwhen there was an excitement but deliberatelythought out, that it was part of the constitutionthat certain countries should not be admitted. Werescinded and we disregarded those resolutions.My country was in the forefront in trying toenlarge the membership of this Organization. Evennow there are some countries standing outside,like Outer Mongolia or the countries that havebeen divided through no fault of their own, whoare not here.

What is more, this is an Organization, withits vast economic, social and other national andinternational functions, from which a large tractof territory like the Chinese continent cannot be

215excluded. Now under our decisions, not evenspecialized agencies can touch the country ofChina.

Therefore, we really, apart from all politicaltheory and legal subtleties, are excluding the650 million people of China from such healthyinfluence or from such impacts that this Organi-zation can make. It has been said of us herethat what we are asking the General Assemblyto do is something very bad. We are told :

"And I must add in all candor that the representative of India, whose Govern- merit admits many of the indisputable facts of Red China's record, when he insists on this item, is in effect insisting that the United Nations modify its standards in order to accommodate the power of lawlessness."

I hope that this was not so meant. I wantto plead not guilty. We do not want the UnitedNations to be lawless. We ask it to conform tolaw, and the law should be equal to everybody.

Then reference has been made to another matter.I do not want to refer to this matter because itwill come up in the United Nations in some otherform. But as the Government of India happensto be the Chairman of the International Commis-sion for the Supervision and Control of Indo-China, it has been stated that there are incursionsinto Indo-China and therefore there is a furtherelement of aggression taking place. This subjectis not under discussion and I have no wish to gointo it in detail. But I think we would be failingin our duty, both to ourselves and to our twocolleagues on the Commission, if we did notpoint out that there is no evidence whatsoever,in the reports of the Commission, or in suchknowledge as we have, that there has beenpenetration of this character. I do not say itwill not take place in the future, but there is noevidence of this kind and we think that if interna-tional authority had been maintained in thatpart of the world, perhaps conditions might havebeen different. Anyway, I have no desire to gointo the details of it. All I am saying is that weshould not create a mentality which would allowan impression to get around that there is a large-scale war brewing somewhere, because Bhutan isinvaded, and Sikkim is invaded, and Laos isinvaded, and somebody else is invaded, and soon. I say, with equal candor, that the ChineseGovernment has behaved in a way, so far as weare concerned, that is both unwise and of noprofit to themselves or to us or to the world.

What is more, so far as our territory is con-cerned, we are as much concerned about it asanybody else at least, and no one can say that wewill be oblivious to whatever dangers there are.But from there to go on and say that in thefoothills of the Himalayas a large war is wagingin inaccessible regions, that is fantastic. I havesome responsibilities in this matter. It is not somuch for the Assembly, but for all those whodesire to know, that I say that we shall not permitunilateral action so far as we are concerned. Wemay be a weak country, we may be economicallybackward, we may have different ideologies, butwe certainly have sufficient sense of our ownhomeland to protect it whatever may be thesacrifices. But we believe that, like all difficultquestions, this is a trying time for us. Instead ofthis being the occasion where we are inviting theUnited Nations to adopt a lawless attitude, Isubmit that if we had, on the occasion of the

first difficulty that came across us, departed fromwhat we have been advocating from this rostrumyear after year, we would have not well deservedfrom the Members of the United Nations eithertheir consideration or their respect.

Since we have put down this item, it is notnecessary for me to say that I support the amend-ment moved by the representative of Nepal. Ihope the Assembly will reject the recommendationof the General Committee and therefore agree tothe amendment as proposed by the representativeof Nepal, and agree to the request of India forthis item to be placed on the agenda. Theneverybody will have an opportunity to discuss it.

I say quite frankly that those who will vote forthe placing of this item on the agenda may beagainst any change in the present position. Thatis a different matter. All that we are saying isthat we should not adopt this ostrich attitude. Iam not saying that it has no political implication.It is not a procedural position. But once a dis-cussion takes place, then we are in the merits of aquestion, and this great body, this world Assemblycannot just afford to ignore realities. We cannotignore the realities either of the poverty or therichness of China, or its army of five or tenmillion, or its great scientific advance, or, what ismore, the fact that it particularly lies in that partof the world where stability can only be maintain-ed by co-operation of the great and small countryin that area.

The last few years have shown that whenevera problem of some importance, as some of the re-presentatives have said, has arisen, then anotherforum, another universe of discourse is to be foundsomewhere and other platforms are to be created.The United Nations will be reduced to a position

216that whenever any important matter comes up, itmust be discussed somewhere else. I am sure thatthis is not your desire and therefore I commendthe admission of this item to the Assembly.

INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC NEPAL CHINA TUNISIA BHUTAN ICELAND MONGOLIALAOS

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C.S. Jha's Statement in Disarmament Commission

Shri C.S. Jha, India's Permanent Representa-tive to the United Nations, made a statement in theDisarmament Commission on September 10, 1959.

The following is the full text of the statement

Mr. Chairman :

May I join with other Representatives inoffering you our heartiest felicitations on your elec-tion as Chairman of this very important Com-mission ? I need hardly say that by the contribu-tions you have personally made to the work ofthe United Nations and by your dedication to thecause of peace and by your able advocacy andexposition of your country's policies, with which,if I may say so, my country has been in agreement,you have deserved richly the post to which we haveunanimously elected you.

I wish you success and I am sure, speakingfor my own delegation and for everybody elsehere, that under your able guidance our work willprogress satisfactorily.

This Disarmament Commission was createdby General Assembly resolution 1252 (XIII) adopt-ed unanimously at the thirteenth session. TheCommission composed of all Members of theUnited Nations had thus universal support andthe strength derived from such universality. Thetasks entrusted to the Commission were indeedonerous and of high significance ; the Commis-sion was asked to submit constructive proposalsand recommendations in the field of disarmament;and disarmament is, from the very preamble ofthe Charter and the provisions of Articles-11 and46, at the very root of the purposes and principlesof the United Nations.

Resolution 1252 itself was, in many respects,the crystallization though on the procedural ratherthan on the substantive aspect, of the discussionsand efforts, and of the hopes and frustrations ofthe United Nations ever since its inception. Theproblem of disarmament has come in one form oranother before the General Assembly ever since1946. The various efforts made to tackle theproblem, the many proposals discussed, the variouskinds of machinery devised to discuss the differentaspects of disarmament, and the lack of successof such efforts in the United Nations are a matterof history, and it is not my intention to recapitu-late them here; indeed, I would not wish to recountour failures because that would only be startingour fresh efforts on a note of pessimism and de-featism. We should look more to the future,and now that there appear to be some hopefulsigns on the horizon of international relations, wemay permit ourselves, without being over optimis-tic, to hope and believe that the efforts of theUnited Nations will be made in more promisingcircumstances; and with a greater possibility of har-monizing differing outlooks and views, particularlyamong the big Powers, which have hitherto beenlacking. Nevertheless, we should not forget that du-ring the last thirteen or fourteen years, the soleforum in which world opinion on disarmament hasfound expression is the United Nations and its vari-ous organs and subsidiary bodies, and the discus-sions in the United Nations have not merely reflectedthe ardent desires and grave anxieties of the peoplesof the world everywhere for peace through thereduction of armaments, elimination of weapons ofmass destruction including of course nuclearweapons, and the diversion of human and economicresources of nations to co-operative internationalefforts towards the social and economic better-ment of the peoples of the world. They have, inturn, educated and stimulated world public opinionand-though rather imperceptibly-have had animpact on the thinking of the big Powers them-selves. It is essential for the fulfilment of thepurposes and principles of our Charter that theUnited Nations should remain continuously seizedof the problem of disarmament through such organsand subsidiary bodies as it may think fit to create.Not only is there no question that the ultimateresponsibility for disarmament rests on the UnitedNations but also that continuous efforts should bemade by the United Nations to this end.

The Disarmament Commission reconstituted

last year and composed of all Members of theUnited Nations, was the unanimous expression ofthe concern and overriding interest of the UnitedNations in the problem of disarmament. It isrecognition that all nations-big and small-should have the opportunity and the privilege tomake a contribution to this problem of problemsof our time, on the wise and successful solutionof which may depend the future of civilizationand of humanity itself.

It will be recalled that such a Commissionwas constituted last year partially on the initiative

217of my delegation. We have, however, alwaysrecognized that while the United Nations has theprimary responsibility for peace and for disarma-ment, which is an essential prerequisite to peace,for practical results to be achieved, it is importantthat agreement should be reached among thePowers which are at present involved in an armsrace. Parallel efforts by these Powers towards dis-armament, in so far as they have the same purposesas those embodied in the Charter, are always wel-come. But these efforts should not and cannot havethe effect of taking away or in any way whittlingdown the responsibilities and initiatives that proper-ly and rightfully belong to the United Nations as awhole. May I, Mr. Chairman, be permitted toquote from the statement of the Chairman of theIndian delegation in the First Committee last yearin reference to the Conference agreed to by thebig Powers in Geneva on the suspension of nucleartests and the negotiations concerning the preven-tion of surprise attacks :

"As soon as possible, we want to see substantive discussions on Disarmament brought back into the United Nations, so that the Organisation may be entitled to begin to discharge its responsibility. I think that any arrangements which we should make should not sort of isolate this problem and take it away and pre- vent the impact of opinion playing upon those concerned. At the same time, it would be fatal that it should prevent direct contacts between those primarily concerned or anyone else who would make a contribution". (A/C. 1/PV. 952 p. 46)

We have seen the communique issued by thefour big Powers who have constituted a ten-nation group to consider disarmament matters.As sovereign States, the countries concerned haveit within their right to form any such group. Itis not for us to either approve or disapprove ofthe creation or composition of such a group, butspeaking for my own delegation, we welcomegenuine and sincere efforts by any group ofPowers, particularly the big Powers and we there-fore welcome the initiative embodied in the Four-Power communique. The communique whichhas been spelt out in the statements by the repre-sentatives of France, the Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates, itself states that the United NationsDisarmament Commission will be kept appro-priately informed of the progress of the delibera-tions of this Committee and for this purpose thefour Governments have agreed that the Committeewill present reports on its work to the UnitedNations Disarmament Commission and throughit to the United Nations General Assembly andthe Security Council. We take this to mean thatthe so-called Disarmament Committee establishedby the four big Powers will submit progressreports from time to time to the DisarmamentCommission. We hope that negotiations in thisbody will make speedy progress and that suchreports will be frequent. My delegation shares thehope that the reports will provide useful basis andpreparatory work for the consideration of dis-armament in the United Nations.

The Disarmament Commission, as at presentconstituted, was formed nearly a year ago. Forvarious reasons, which it is unnecessary to detailhere, the appropriate time for convening it didnot arrive until to-day. The formation of thegroup mentioned in the four-Power communiqueis an earnest of the serious intentions of the bigPowers to reach an understanding on the variousproblems involved in disarmament. It is ourbelief that a turning point has now been reachedin the whole process of discussion and considera-tion of the disarmament question ; and that fromthis point the Disarmament Commission itself cango ahead with greater earnestness and seriousnessand greater possibility of attaining results. in ourview, it is not necessary for the Commission toconfine itself solely and entirely to examiningreports from the Committee established by thefour Powers, when such reports are received ; it

would be open to the Disarmament Commissionitself also to take initiative for studies in variousfields of disarmament. While the Committee'sefforts will no doubt provide an invaluable basisfor the work of the Disarmament Commission,it should also be the aim to help and strengthenthe efforts that are being made outside bydiscussions, deliberations and studies in theCommission.

It is the view of our delegation that theDisarmament Commission, as at present constitu-ted, should be continued under the authorityof the General Assembly, so that it may addressitself seriously to the task entrusted to it underoperative paragraph 3 of the General Assemblyresolution 1252 (XIII). What we envisage isthat the Disarmament Commission, after its termhas been extended, should without delay beconvened for the purpose of electing officebearers and for adopting its rule of procedure andfor ordering its future plan of work.

A draft resolution has just been circulated inthe name of Ceylon, Ecuador, India, Indonesia,Ireland, the United Arab Republic and Yugoslavia.This draft resolution, which I have the honour

218and previlege-and, if I may say so, the pleasure-of moving on behalf of the sponsors, is the resultof informal consultation with a veiw to findingthe greatest common measure of agreement in thisCommission, and we hope that it will proveacceptable to the Commission as a whole.

We are gratified to learn of the support thatwas promised for this draft resolution by therepresentatives of the United States and theUnited Kingdom. I have the honour to formallymove this hraft resolution on behalf of thecountries which I mentioned a little while ago.

INDIA USA SWITZERLAND FRANCE ECUADOR INDONESIA IRELAND YUGOSLAVIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

IRAN

Prime Minister Nehru's Banquet Speech

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,paid a visit to Iran from September 18 to 22, 1959.On September 18, a Banquet was given in honour ofShri Nehru by the Iranian Prime Minister, Dr.Manuchehr Eghbal.

Speaking on the occasion, Prime MinisterNehru said :

Mr. Prime Minister, Excellencies, Ladies andGentlemen,

I am very grateful to you, Mr Prime Ministerfor your kind words and to your warm walcomeand hospitality. I do not know how long ago itwas since when I wanted to come to Iran butsome kind of an evil fate pursued me in thismatter and I could not come; and now that I amhere I feel as one feels when a long-expresseddesire, long-felt wish is fulfilled.

You have referred to the old historical associ-ations of Iran and India. I doubt if there are anytwo countries in the wide world which have thatclose and long past historical contact such as Iranand India. It goes back to the remote past. Oftenlanguages are symbols of contacts of people andit is well-known that the ancient form of thePersian language, Pahalvi and the ancient form ofSanskrit which is our classical language are verynearly the same. In fact our classical Sanskrit ismore different from the earlier Sanskrit than thatSanskrit from Pahlavi. That itself indicates thecommon stock out of which the two languagesarose and the common stock out of which the twopeoples arose and there could have been no closercontact than that common origin. This wasmaintained in later years in spite of troubles, warsand invasions. For many hundreds of years inIndia the Persian language was the court languagebesides other contacts between Iran and India.So, it is perfectly true to say that no two countriesin long terms of years could have had. closercontacts, closer origin, than the people of Indiaand the people of Iran.

It is true that during later years fate put usapart, as many other countries of Asia. When ourcountry was under foreign rule and foreign domina-tion in some form or other came to the other coun-tries of Asia or most of them, the old contacts thatwe had with each other broke or fell into disuse.It is add that our contacts then were more, if Imay say so, through Europe than direct. But eversince we have attained independence in India, andmany other countries of Asia have also done so,almost the first urge was to rebuild those oldcontacts to find again the old ties. And sonaturally we in India look towards Iran as wealso look towards other neighbour countries. Iam therefore happy to be here.

It is well to remember these old contacts andto look at our history in some perspective becauseperhaps that gives us a little clearer picture thanif we were swept away by momentary feelingsand reactions due to present events. Neverthelessit is true that traditional civilisation, such as thatof India, such as that of Iran, have had to faceand are facing today very grave problems, pro-blems which are not often mentioned in the news-paper or even in public speeches. The newspapersdiscuss some crisis of the day which may beimportant for the moment no doubt ; but the basiccrisis of the day, I should imagine, for a countrywith its traditional outlook and civilisation andcontacts with the long past is its reaction to thepresent. How does it react to the present, thenon-traditional present, the present largely basedon science and technology which is creating a newworld different from the old, in other countriesof Europe ? That is the real challenge.

The other countries of Europe have passedthrough one revolution; I am referring to theindustrial revolution, which is a bigger revolutionthan a political revolution can ever be ; and be-cause of the past industrial revolution some of thecountries of Europe have built up a fairly highstandard of living, wealth, production and all thatand think in terms of what they call a welfare

219state. They define it in various ways. But thereis a common feature and the most importantfeature that they accept i.e. the industrial revolu-tion. Now broadly speaking the countries thathave not gone through the industrial revolution

are under-developed and poverty-stricken. No-body in the world wants to be poor today (thouthmen have wanted it in the past) because todaypeople feel that it is not necessary to be poor(previously it was perhaps inevitable) because ofscience and technology and with all the means tocreate a welfare state for all people. So this isthe problem for all our countries : We think interms of our industrial revolution that is producingsomething in our country which took place inEurope a 100 years ago or more. Another beggerrevolution has come to Europe and America that isthe revolution of the nuclear age. I am not for themoment talking in terms of war, I am merelytalking in terms of energy and power which hasbeen placed in the hands of humanity for goodof for evil. So that we countries of Asia desiringto better our lot have to face this double challengeof a double revolution and there is no gettingaway from it. It is not really a choice that isoffered, there is no choice in such matters in theworld. People may imagine that they choose butwe are conditioned to go a certain way or we fail.

So when thinking of the yesterdays of ourpast, Mr. Prime Minister, and taking pride forthat great past which is that of your country andof mine, when we had close contacts, we haveinevitably to come to the present and peep intothe future for which we work and labour and Itrust that in that present and in that future weshall also work together for the good of ourcountries, for the good of our peoples and thusthe contacts of the past will have to be renewedand freshened and new contacts built for thepresent and the future.

I thank you again, Mr. Prime Minister, foryour warm words of welcome. May I ask you,Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen to drink tothe good health of His Imperial Majesty theShahinshah and His Excellency the Prime Ministerand the prosperity of the people of Iran.

IRAN INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

IRAN

Dr. Eghbal's Welcome Speech

Welcoming Prime Minister Nehru, Dr. Eghbalsaid :

It is indeed a great honour for me to conveyto Your, Excellencey, on behalf of the Governmentof Iran and the people of Iran, our most heartywelcome on your arrival in our country. Friendsof Iran and India in their millions, who will hearof this happy occasion from afar, will, I am surelike those who are present here to-night-recog-nise this occasion as a symbol of the very cordialrelations which have existed between our twocountries for the last 1,000 years and more. In the course of their long histories, Iran andIndia have experienced the vicissitudes of gloryand adversity, but happy relations between thetwo nations have remained constant throughoutbased as they are on the solid ground of mutualrespect and spiritual and cultural affinity.

Our two neighbour nations are of the sameethnic origin, cherished the same ideals of justiceand peace and share the same convictions con-cerning mans's dignity and his moral principles.They are thus destioned to understand and appre-ciate one another's way of life.

In most recent times we have witnessed withadmiration the struggle of your people to attainindependence under the inspired and farsightedleadership of the great Mahatma Gandhi. Thecontribution of Your Excellency and the sacrificesyou yourself made in the attainment of the objec-tive are well-known to us all. We know fully wellhow much you are attached to the cause of peaceand we are well aware of your efforts and indefatig-able labour -- in the midst of grave problems of to-day to secure progress and prosperity for yourpeople. We, therefore salute you not only as thesuccessor of the spiritual and illustrious leader, wholaid the foundation of modern India, but also asthe statesman who is directing the destiny of thisgreat nation.

We are glad and proud to say that althoughthere is no grave problem between Iran and India,I am sure, your journey to Iran just as the visitof his Imperial Majesty, the Shahin-Shah of Iranto your country, a few years ago, will contributeto better understanding and still closer rela-tionship between our Governments and ourpeoples.

We pray to Almighty God that the greatnation whose destiny you direct shall continue toflourish and shall take long strides on the road toprogress and prosperity under Your Excellency'sable and enlightened leadership and you clearunderstanding of the problems of to-day and thatyour great influence will contribute to the main-tenance and safeguarding of peace.

220

It is with these hopes that I raise my glass tothe health of H.E. the President of the Republicof India, to the great and ancient Indian nation,our friends for thousands of years and to the healthof Your Excellency and once again heartily wishyou a happy sojourn in Iran.

IRAN INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

IRAN

Prime Minister Nehru's Reply

Prime Minister Nehru made the follow-ing reply to the toast proposed by the ForeignMinister of Iran to the health of PresidentRajendra Prasad and the progress and prosperityof the people of India at a banquet given inhonour of Shri Nehru in the Ministry of ForeignAffairs on September 19, 1959 :

Mr. Minister, Madame Sadr, Mr. PrimeMinister, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:

I confess I have been taken by surprise. I didnot know that our host was going to make a speechand propose a toast--so I have had to do somerapid thinking in the last minute and a half.

It would be easy to speak about a subjectnear to our hearts and minds, namely, the old andintimate relations between India and Iran, spe-cially our cultural contacts, but many of you mayfeel that this subject is being overdone, necessaryand important as it is for us to remember it. Avery eminent art critic once described the TajMahal of Agra as "the soul of Iran incarnate inthe body of India". It shows how the two cultureintermingled. But my mind is more taken upwith the present and the future because I amstill, like most of you, living a life of action. Thetime may come when I may retire and become aProfessor at a University-I doubt it-but eventhen I would not be concerned about thevisions of the past. The Professor's view is un-affected by what is happening or might happenunlike the politicians. I have to think very muchof the present and the future.

Already I realise that I am somewhat advan-ced in age. It surprises me, but it is true and inthis period of my life I have seen many changesin India, Asia, Europe and the world. And Iwonder what the next 25 or 30 years might bring,because the pace of change is becoming quickerand quicker. No one is forcing the pace, but theconditions and circumstances themselves change.Europe was changed most by the industrial age.Now Asia is undergoing that process. More thanthat, in the next 20 or 30 years, nuclear energywill produce greater changes-for the moment Iforget the war like effect of nuclear energy andremember only its peaceful purposes. We musttherefore see that my country, and if I may sayso, your country, are not left behind againlike we were left behind in the past. There-fore, we have to think more and more of thepresent and the future. Sometimes I indulge inreveries of the past because I have no responsibi-lity for it. The thought of the present and thefuture, sometimes brings feelings of pleasure aswell as pain; but when we think of Iran and India,let us hope that our future relations will be as

pleasant and even pleasanter as those of the pastand the present. I request you, Excellencies,Ladies and Gentlemen, to raise your glasses to thehealth of His Imperial Majesty the Shahinshahand to the peace and prosperity of the peopleof Iran.

IRAN INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

IRAN

Nehru-Shah Joint Statement

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehrupaid a visit to Iran from September 18 to 22,1959.During his stay there, Shri Nehru had friendlytalks with this Imperial Majesty and the PrimeMinister of Iran on problems of mutual interest.On the conclusion of their talks Prime MinisterNehru and his Imperial Majesty, the Shahinshahof Iran issued the following joint statement inTehran on September 22, 1959:

The Prime Minister of India, Shri JawaharlalNehru, was the guest of the Imperial Governmentof Iran for four days from the 18th to the 22ndSeptember, 1959. During these four days, hevisited various sites of historical, cultural, socialand economic importance in the country, such asthe Razi Institute, the Karaj Dam, the KarajAgricultural College, the Iran Bastan Museum,beautiful Shiraz, Nemazi Hospital and Persepolis.He witnessed the progress being made in Iran inthe social, educational and economic fields underthe inspiring and able guidance of His ImperialMajesty the Shahinshah.

The Prime Minister of India had cordial andfriendly discussions with His Imperial Majesty aswell as the Prime Minister of Iran about problems ofmutual interest to the two countries and, in parti-

cular, cooperation in the economic and culturalfields. They noted with satisfaction the existence

221of close ancient ties of race, culture and friendshipbetween the two countries and peoples. Theyalso noted with satisfaction the revival and streng-thening of these contacts since the independenceof India and agreed to further strengthen themin the future.

India and Iran are both in need of peace inorder to reconstruct their economy and providea better standard of living for the masses. Thepolicy of both Governments is based on respectfor the principles of the UN Charter, non-aggres-sion, and non-interference in the internal affairsof any country and good neighbourly relationsbetween all countries in the world. The twoGovernments note with satisfaction the effortsbeing made by the leaders of the world, and espe-cially by the leaders of big Powers to case tensionin the international atmosphere. They hope thatthese efforts will continue and lead to greaterfriendship, understanding and cooperation betweenthe various Governments and peoples.

IRAN USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Nehru-Ayub Talks at Palam-Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in the Lok Sabhaon September 4, 1959 on his talks with the Presi-dent of Pakistan :

The President of Pakistan reached Palamairport on the 1st September, 1959, soon after11 o' clock in the morning. He was received by

the Prime Minister and stayed at Palam about anhour and a half. For the greater part of thistime, the President and the Prime Minister metby themselves and discussed various matters.Towards the end of this meeting, the ForeignMinister of Pakistan, the High Commissioner ofPakistan in India, the High Commissioner ofIndia in Pakistan and the CommonwealthSecretary of India were also invited to join inthese talks. At the conclusion of this meeting, ajoint statement was issued.

The talks between the President and thePrime Minister were informal in nature and werevery friendly throughout. The President ofPakistan expressed his strong desire for neigh-bourly relations between the two countries andsaid that there was no problem between themwhich could not be solved in a friendly way.The Prime Minister entirely agreed. No parti-cular subject was discussed in detail. Casualreference was made to some of the problemsbetween the two countries and the Presidentpointed out that- if friendly relations could beestablished between the two countries and fearsand apprehensions of both of them removed, thiscould result in a reduction, on both sides, ofexpenditure on armament and thus help in releas-ing monies for economic development. ThePrime Minister agreed and added that in India theprimary objective that they had before them wassocial and economic development and they haveembodied their programmes in their Five YearPlans. They felt that from every point of viewthis social and economic development, resultingin the betterment of the people of the country asa whole, was an essential and urgent task. Thisinvolved necessarily a very heavy burden and anysaving on Defence expenditure would be welcomeindeed.

Some reference was made to the discussionsgoing on on the Canal Waters issue with the assis-tance of the representatives of the World Bankand the hope was expressed that these would leadto a satisfactory settlement.

Both the President and the Prime Ministerexpressed their great concern at the continuationof disputes and incidents on the eastern border.These incidents, often resulting in firing, hadabsolutely no justification and could do no goodto anyone. They only harassed the local people

concerned and vitiated the atmosphere betweenthe two countries. It was agreed that everythingshould be done to put an end to these disputesand a procedure should be evolved for thispurpose. Recently a Chief Secretaries' Con-ference had been held and the statement issuedafter this conference was a good one. Thedifficulty was not so much in laying down goodprinciples, but in implementing them. ThePresident suggested that a high level conferenceshould be held for this purpose. This conferenceshould be at Ministerial level and senior ArmyCommanders and Chief Secretaries as well asrepresentatives of the State Governments con-cerned should attend this conference. Attemptshould be made to remove the causes of disputeswherever possible and demarcation of boundariesshould be expedited. A procedure should alsobe evolved to deal immediately with any incident

222that might arise on the borders in the easternregion. The Prime Minister entirely agreed withthis proposal and it was decided that steps shouldbe taken to have such a conference.

Reference was also made to the India OfficeLibrary in London and it was agreed that a jointapproach should be made on behalf of India andPakistan in regard to this Library.

A similar approach should be made about theold Embassy and Consulate buildings which hadbeen financed from the revenues of the undividedGovernment of India, but which are stillin the possession of the United KingdomGovernment.

PAKISTAN USA INDIA UNITED KINGDOM

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Joint Statement on Nehru-Ayub Talks at Palam

The following is the text of a joint statementissued on conclusion of the talks between thePresident of Pakistan and the Prime Minister ofIndia at Palam airport on September 1, 1959 :-

The President of Pakistan and the PrimeMinister of India met informally in a very cordialatmosphere at' Palam airport this morning(September 1).

Matters of mutual interest were discussed.They agreed that there was need to conduct theirrelations with each other on a rational andplanned basis, and not according to the day today exigencies as they arose, and that their out-standing issues and other problems should, inmutual interest, be settled in accordance withjustice and fairplay in a spirit of friendliness,co-operation and good neighbourliness.

They were glad to have had this opportunityof an informal exchange of views and they agreedto keep in touch with each other to further theircommon objectives.

PAKISTAN USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Joint Communique on Chief Secretaries' Conference

At the conclusion of the conference of theChief Secretaries of East Pakistan, West Bengaland Assam and the Chief Commissioner ofTripura, in Calcutta, the following jointcommunique as issued on August 19, 1959 :-

The 33rd Chief Secretaries' Conference was

held at Calcutta on the 17th and 18th August,1959. The Chief Secretaries of East Pakistan,West Bengal and Assam and the ChiefCommissioner of Tripura, assisted by theiradvisers, attended the Conference. The DeputyHigh Commissioner for Pakistan in Calcuttaand the Deputy High Commissioner forIndia in East Pakistan were present at theConference.

There were full and frank discussions in aspirit of cordiality and on certain points satis-factory agreements were reached.

Prevention of border incidents was one of theimportant topics discussed at the Conference. itwas decided that where the International Boundaryhad been demarcated on firm land by boundarypillars, the Governments concerned would takeadequate steps to prevent violations of the borderfor the purpose of commission of crimes, such as,kidnapping, arson, dacoity and cattle lifting.Attempts by nationals of one country to cross theborder to commit such crimes should not have thesupport of the police force of their country. TheConference decided that the Superintendents ofPolice of border districts should meet theiropposite numbers once a month to discuss thecrime situation and to help each other ininvestigating and preventing crimes committedacross the border. Where the InternationalBoundary had not yet been demarcated on firmland by placement of boundary pillars, theGovernments concerned would endeavour to seethat peaceful de facto possession was not disturbed.Where temporary demarcation marks of landboundaries over river beds became covered bywater during the rainy season and new charsformed when the water level went down with theadvent of winter, it was decided that all theGovernments concerned would provide adequatenumber of survey parties for joint seasonaldemarcation of the International Boundary at theearliest possible moment after such chars appeared.Attempts by Indian or Pakistani cultivators tocultivate the chars before the seasonal demarca-tion was completed should be discouraged andshould not be supported by the police force ofeither country. Once the temporary seasonaldemarcation was complete, no one should havethe claim to reap any crops that might have beengrown on his own initiative on portions of thechar failing within the other country. Where the

International Boundary was a fluid boundary,e.g. mid-stream of a river or where, although the

223boundary was a fixed line, it got covered by waterduring the rainy season, disputes arose because ofboats transgressing the boundary. A suggestionthat nationals of both countries should have theright to navigate the entire width of the riverwithout touching the banks belonging to the othercountry was discussed but left over for decisionby the Central Governments who were believed tobe in correspondence with each other on thissubject.

The Conference decided that whenever borderincidents did occur District Magistrates concernedon either side of the boundary should meetpromptly for joint inspection of the locality. Itwas also decided that District Magistrates andSub-Divisional Officers of border districts shouldmeet their opposite numbers once every threemonths to discuss administrative difficulties overborder matters. It was also decided that sinceabsence of clearly defined borders with boundarypillars led to border incidents, the work 'ofdemarcation and construction of pillars should beexpedited as much as possible and that if anydifficulties arose they should be referred to therespective Chief Secretaries at the earliest possibletime.

The difficulties experienced by travellers inregard to Customs and Currency Regulationswere discussed. As both these matters could besettled only by the two Central Governments, thediscussions remained inconclusive but it wasdecided that complaints of harassment of travellersby unnecessary searches and difficulties created byminor defects in visa papers would be dealt withpromptly so that nothing was done by the staffat the border outposts which was not required byauthorised regulations.

It was decided that West Bengal would sendfull details of a scheme for increasing the tradein fish, poultry, eggs and vegetables between thetwo countries to the Chief Secretary, EastPakistan, for consideration. As this also involvedexpenditure of foreign exchange, the matter wouldhave to be ultimately taken up at the centrallevel.

The difficulties felt by migrants in regard toremittance of their Provident Fund dues, securitydeposits, etc. were also discussed. It was noted'that the recent Conference of the FinanceMinisters of India and Pakistan had alreadyreached decisions to allow such remittances.

Detailed discussions took place between theChief Secretary, East Pakistan and Chief Secretary,Assam, in regard to special problems arising outof the last meeting of the Prime Ministers of Indiaand Pakistan at Delhi.

The items discussed regarding the Assam-East Pakistan border included the question ofhanding over possession to Assam of Boroibarivillage of Goalpara district which was in theadverse possession of Pakistan although demarca-tion in this sector had already been completed.The Chief Secretary, East Pakistan, promised torefer this matter to his Government and send anearly reply.

In the Dawki area it was agreed that theborder forces would withdraw from the forwardpositions back to their original border outpostsand forward trenches and bunkers would befilled up.

The provisional demarcation in the PathariaReserve Forest and evacuation of Tukergramwere also discussed but no conclusions werereached. It was decided to examine the matterfurther by exchange of information between thetwo governments.

PAKISTAN USA INDIA UNITED KINGDOM

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Reply to Lok Sabha Debate on India-China Relations

In reply to a debate on India-China relationsin the Lok Sabha on September 12, 1959, thePrime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru said :_

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, Sir, this debate hasbrought out a large number of points and I shouldlike to deal with many of them, but I feel that itwould perhaps be better to lay stress on the high-lights of this debate, if I may say so, rather thanlose myself in a lot of detail.

The recent letter which I received from Pre-mier Chou En-lai raises many points and naturallywe shall have to reply to it after full considerationand not in a hurry, and that consideration is be-ing given to it. I do not propose to deal withthat letter here in this discussion, partly becausethis House does not require to be convinced of

224many of the things that perhaps Premier ChouEn-lai might require to be told, and partly alsobecause that would mean losing myself in a greatdeal of detail.

Now, first of all, let me take up one simplebut very basic point that Shri Karni Singhji hasraised. He made a rather remarkable state-merit that he believed in Panch sheel providedthat it was with people whom you agreed with.That is really, if I may say so, a perfectly remark-able statement. "I believe in being tolerant pro-vided you agree with me. Otherwise, I will knockyour head" -This is his idea of toleration andtolerance. This is his idea of Panch sheel. SomeHon. Members said "We must stand on our ownfeet." Some other Hon. Members said : "Youmust seek the help of others." Well, people whosay this seem to be, in spite of all their gallantlanguage and, brave behaviour, weak, timid,panicky and alarmist. That is not how a nation.meets the challenge : looking around, seeing "Howcan any body help me ? Who is going to help me ?How is anybody going to help you, if you are notstrong enough to face the challenge ? I say, letthis be clearly understood. 1, as Prime Minister,and my Government, stand on it-that we willstick to our policy of non-alignment. We willstick to our policy, call it what you like. It is notmy policy, it is an axiomatic truth-the Panch sheel-whether we agree, or Chinese do not agree, it isimmaterial, it is an axiomatic position, I say. And

I challenge anyone to show it is a wrong position.You may say, "If somebody lies, you break hishead." That is a different matter. You maysay "Oh, dont't tell the truth because the otherfellow lies. Is that your position ?

Some of the observations made this afternoonhere, I venture to say, were quite extraordinary,even in excitement. I can understand a measureof excitement, even warm feeling and a desire thatno one should touch or sully the honour of India,the integrity of India, the self-respect of India-Ican understand all that. But Dr. Ram SubhagSingh's talk about bombing hillsmen in the moun-tains seems to show that he has lost his balanceand there is no balance left. He neither under-stands bombing, nor mountains, nor human beingsnor anything. It is only an exhibition of petu-lant excitement and anger. And if this countryis going to behave in petulant excitement andanger, how would it face a crisis ? Is this Parlia-ment going to behave in this way ? It is a mostextraordinary thing and I am wondering whatwould happen if we took some of the suggestionsmade here. Exactly where would we land our-selves if everybody is to break the other's head ?And many Hon. Members said : "Not an inch ofour territory, not an inch of our territory." Allthese brave gestures, if you would permit me tosay so, have very little meaning. Certainly, notan inch of our territory or anything, if somebodyforces or compels me, because we must never sub-mit to compulsion or force in a matter of thiskind. It is not a question of an inch or ayard or a mile; 'it is a question of submittingto compulsion, submitting to force, and we willnever submit to force, whatever happens to ourcountry.

But what do these gestures mean ? I dislikethis flamboyant language of an inch of territoryand all that, sitting here in Parliament, not realis-ing what it means. I dislike this business of goingabout bombing everybody, because you dislike hisface or what he has said or done. There are manythings said or done which one dislikes. AcharyaKripalani has accused me of some things. Hemaybe right in his accusation. But I do hopehe is not right when he accuses me of over-politeness. I am not normally accused of that I Hetalked about Gandhiji. Whatever Gandhiji mighthave said, he did not shout, as some of us do. Hisaction was strong undoubtedly and firm, but his

voice was gentle, gentle to the opponent, gentle tothe enemy, gentle to everybody, always trying towin over the other person. We do not pretendto be Gandhis, because we are hardly fit to be evendistant followers of his. But I do believe thatat any time, in international affairs, it is the gentleand firm voice that should be raised, not thisshouting voice that we have got accustomed to,this cold war voice, this just cursing each other,closing everybody's mind, where nothing countsbut the bomb of Dr. Ram Subhag Singh. Dr.Ram Subhag forgets ......

It is a small matter. But I would submitthat we are dealing with very serious issues, andsuch issues are not solved by mere exhibition ofexcitement. Certainly and obviously, at anytime, more especially in such moments, we haveto be firm. And we have to be firm, realisingwhere one has to be firm. It is not being firmin the air or being firm about everything, good,bad or indifferent. There are important thingsand unimportant 'things. One has to be firmabout important things and one sticks to them,come what may.

But if one tries to be firm about everythingit means, one is not firm at all. That is onlytalking firmly which is not acting firmly, becausethere are certain physical and actual disabilities,which you cannot survive. Nobody can. Agreat country, the United States of America, agreat country like the Soviet Union-they are

225the super-powers-know the limitations of firm-ness. They are very firm countries but they knowthe limitations of firmness and they step at acertain limit ; otherwise they would have gonein for a war by this time and would have destroyedthe world. We talk loosely. This kind of talk,namely, let us be firm, let us do this, let us fightand let us shed every drop of blood-this kind ofthing, may I say, rather takes us away fromthe main questions that we are discussing, whichare difficult. The position is a serious one.

Now I say that Premier Chou En-lai's lastletter in some parts is worded in relatively softlanguage and in some parts he talks about thestatus quo being kept, talks, negotiations etc.But basically that letter arises some issues whichare very serious and which have been raised in

that form officially almost for the first time.

As I was sitting here, I was reading certainreports of discussions in Peking in some Congressthat is being held there where Premier Chou En-laispoke more or less on the lines of this letter andwhere other people spoke. Of course, it does notrequire any particular brilliance to know thateveryone spoke on those same lines supportingPremier Chou En-lai, namely,-

"express their great surprise to find Mr. Nehru defending British Imperialism." So-and-so asked, Mr. Nehru : On whose behalf was he speaking in defending British imperialism? Now Prime Minister Nehru and the Indian Government treat the aggressive plot of British Imperial- ism against China in the last century as an accomplished fact. Does this accord with the five principles advocated by Mr. Nehru..."

and so on and so forth. There is plenty of it.Just as many Hon. Members have said somethingabout the McMahon Line strongly saying : stickto it; do not budge an inch etc.-I forget whosaid it, but I seem to have read it somewhere-they were equally strong against the McMahonLine there. So, here we are.

Obviously a question like this cannot besolved by resolutions in Delhi and in Peking orby strong language hurled at each other. Otherways have to be found-either peaceful or warlike. Every sensible person here and elsewherewants to avoid war in such matters or in anymatter. It is quite clear. The most powerfulnations in the world are trying their utmost todayto find a way outside war, and for us to thinkand talk of war seems rather ridiculous in thiscontext of things.

It is perfectly different for us to say and forthe weakest and the smallest nation to say and foran individual to say : I will not submit to evil,come what may. It is quite a different thing. I willnot submit to it. I will not submit to coercion.I will not submit to dishonour. That is quite a dif-ferent thing. Even a single individual can say that,according to Gandhiji's teachings or any teaching.Any country can say that. That is different from acountry in the pride- of its might saying, "Oh!

we shall do this or that with or without armiesand bombs etc." It is a very different thing.The two approaches are completely different.

Now, what is happening in China today?And I say so, I do not wish to use strong words,but it is the pride and arrogance of might thatis showing, in their language, in their behaviour tous and in so many things that they have done.It is that.

And it is not a question of this mile on thisside of the McMahon Line or that mile on thatside. They are small matters, I say again. Butit is not a small matter, the other thing, that theyshowed in their maps a large tract of Indianterritory and called it Chinese territory. That isnot a small matter. Because-you may say thatyou will not give an inch of the MacMahon Line ;I will give it if I find that it is wrongly there ;what is the good of saying these things-theMcMahon Line is a broad line between Bhutanand the Burma border and it goes on to Burma.In some places it is quite definite, it is not markedin some places. And you have to go by otherindications. The broad approach of the manwho drew that line was that it should be throughwater-sheds. It was a good approach: But wehave deliberately left the water-sheds in one ortwo places. Therefore, when I say I stick to theMcMahon Line, what I mean is that I stick tothat broad approach. But if by evidence or factswhatever it is, a slight deviation in the alignmentis necessary, it is not a major matter. And thathas to be decided by facts and not by anybody'scoercion.

And when I talked about so-called mediationand conciliation-and I even used the word arbi-tration-what did it mean ? I meant that in theseminor alignments, etc. or in these minor questionsthat have arisen, whatever they may be, whatever itis-I forget the names of these places; Longju andHoti and other places, these are the alignments;Hoti is not of course on the McMahon Line, itis on the U.P. side-these alignments can always betalked about in a peaceful way, in a friendly way,

226and slightly altered here and there if there isenough evidence.

But that is not what we are considering today.

We have always been ready for that. We are consi-dering something much bigger, and that is a claimthe claim laid down in the Chinese maps which forthe first time, mind you, now in this last letter ofPremier Chou-En-lai and the speeches deliverednow in their Congress is taking shape moredefinitely. At first, whenever the maps werereferred to, it was said, "Oh, these are old maps,we will revise them". It was a totally inadequateanswer. Well, it was some kind of an answer,postponement of an answer if you like. But nowthe thing is that this is held out as somethingmore definite. They hold by it-not the exactline, we do not know exactly where their line is,and it is impossible to discover large tracts ofIndian territory. That kind of treatment orbehaviour does seem to me, if I may use the word,very improper for one nation to treat another,even much more so when the nations have beenfriendly. And that is the point that has arisen.

The question is, again I repeat, for the mo-ment do not worry about these petty spots. Apetty spot is important if coercively and aggres-sively even a yard of territory is taken from, us.Because, it is not a yard of territory that countsbut the coercion. Because, it makes no differenceto China or India whether a few yards of territoryin the mountain are on this side or on that side.But it makes a great deal of difference if that isdone in an insulting, aggressive, offensive, violentmanner, by us or by them. All that counts.

Now, I have. been accused, with some jutifi-cation, that I have kept matter from Parliament,these important matters. I beg of you-you haveread this White Paper, point out to mewhat exactly I have kept. I shall tell you whatI have kept.

It is only one thing that I have kept, that is,last November, December, when we were dealingwith the Aksai Chin area and the road there.That had come to our knowledge apart from ourletters about Bara Hoti, about this and that. Wecannot come here for every little thing. But, thatcertainly is an important matter: the road throughthe Aksai Chin area. We felt its importance.We did not come here at that time.

Hon. Members said-I forget who said-donot our Air Force take pictures and all that. Ido not think there is a full realization of what this

area is and where it is. The mere act of takingpictures would have endangered that plane whichtook it, endangered it not only from the physicalfeatures point of view, but endangered it from thepoint of view of action, by the other party shoot-ing it down, whatever the risks.

I won't go into details. But, I should likethis House to appreciate what these places are.This place, Aksai Chin area, is in our maps un-doubtedly. But, I distinguish it completely fromother areas. It is a matter for argument as towhat part of it belongs to us and what part of itbelongs to somebody else. It is not at all a deadclear matter. However, I have to be frank tothe House. It is not clear. I cannot go aboutdoing things in a matter which has been challenged,not today, but for a hundred years. It has beenchallenged as the ownership of this strip of terri-tory. That has nothing to do with the- McMahonLine. It has nothing to do with anything else.That particular area stands by itself. It has beenin challenge all the time. Our going abouttaking pictures of it from the air or, as somebodysaid, bombing it, is not a feasible proposition.We know it is not an inaccessible place. Ofcourse, people can go there.

I cannot say what part of it may not belongto us, and what parts may. The point is, therehas never been any delimitation there in that areaand it has been a challenged area-bits of it. Icannot say which bit is and which not. That isa question which will have to be decided.

There is the McMahon Line. By and large,apart from minor variations, that is a fixed line,which some parts, in the Subanasiri area or some-where there, it was not considered a good line andit was varied afterwards by us, by the Governmentof India. There are many factors to be seen.But, broadly, it follows the water-shed. That isthe test. We hold by that. We stick to it subjectto minor variations, for special reasons. A milehere or a mile there does not matter provided itis peacefully arranged. It is in regard to thatthat I said, let us have mediation, conciliation.There can be no mediation, conciliation or arbitra-tion about those demands of the Chinese about largechunks of territory. It is quite fantastic andabsurd basing their demand on what happened inpast centuries. As I said in the other House theotherday, if this argument is applied, I wonder how

much of the great Chinese State would survivethese arguments. How did the Chinese State, thishuge State, mighty State, build itself up-by theDoctrine of Panch Sheel or what? In the past itbuilt itself up by conquest obviously, all parts orit. Whether it was a few years ago, a hundred,200 or 500 years ago, it was built up by conquest,as all great States have been built up by conquest,

227violent conquest, and if you apply that theory,the Chinese State was not born complete itselfwhen civilisation began. So, that argument ofBritish imperialism can well be countered withpast, if not present, Chinese imperialism whichobviously functioned. One might say, as I said -the other day, in the old days Asoka's empire,the Kushan empire and Chandra Gupta's empirespread over half of Central Asia and Afghanistanand all over; therefore, we should lay claim tothat. It is an extraordinary argument, this kindof thing. The whole reason of that argumentsimply takes, you back to past ages of historyupsetting everything. It really is the argumentof a strong and aggressive Power. Nobody elsewould use it. I have A feeling that as there is acertain paranoia in individuals, sometimes thereis a paranoia in nations, and one sees that,so that in this matter let us come to basic facts.

The basic facts are these. Number one, thatthis Chinese claim which was vaguely set down inmaps etc., is becoming more definitey stated now.That is a claim which it is quite impossible forIndia or almost any Indian ever to admit whateverthe consequences. That is quite clear. There isno question of mediation, conciliation or arbitrationabout that, because that is absurd. As somebodysaid, Shri Khadilkar I think, it involves a funda-mental change in the whole geography of it, theHimalayas being handed over as a gift to them.This is an extraordinary claim. This is a thing,whether India exists or does not exist, cannot beagreed to. There the matter ends.

Now, having said that, so far as lines of de-limitation etc., are concerned, these are mattersalways for argument provided the approach is apeaceful one. Take Longju. We have said so,you have seen the letter. We think that Longjuis on our side of the line, just on our side withinabout half a mile of it. They say it is not. Wethink we have a good case, but leave that out.

We have said we are prepared not to go out toLongju. You get out too, and then the mattercan be considered by maps, charts, whatever it isbecause it is a minor rectification and it does notmake much difference provided it is peacefullydone. Or, any other minor point like that we areprepared to consider in this way, but not thislight demand of handing over the Himalayas tothem. That we are not prepared to consider.

Again, there is this McMahon Line that Ireferred to. There is the border of U.P., HimachalPradesh and Punjab.

There, when we had this treaty about Tibetin 1954, a number of passes were mentioned, thatis, passes meant for pilgrims and others to goover, and, traders. Those passes themselvesin a sense laid down the frontier, and the claimnow made here are there, as in the letter, to theShipki La pass etc., is undoubtedly a breach ofthat agreement of 1954 in so far as the passes areconcerned.

Dr. Ram Subhag Singh vaguely said: No-body knows in what places, what areas of Indiathe Chinese may have occupied. I beg to informhim that everybody knows it or ought to know it.If he does not know, he should try to find outfrom those who know, before making such state-ments. Now, apart from that area in Ladakh,about which I mentioned to you about the roadwe know exactly who is there. There is no partof our border at the present moment occupied bythe Chinese except the Longju area, that little bitabout which ......

An Hon. Member: May I submit one thing?About Longju, it is said that it was delimitedup to a length of 850 miles by Sir McMahon.Longju is on this side of the McMahon Line. So,how can they claim Longju now ?

The Prime Minister : At least, I do not know.I am merely stating the fact. I am stating the factin so far as I know, that there are no Chinesetroops on this side of McMahon Line anywhere,except three or may be, four miles of Longju,there is a small detachment there. The impressionseems to have grown that there are masses andmasses of Chinese armies perched on the frontieror not pouring into the frontier. That is not acorrect impression; it is not an easy thing to do,

and if it is done, it will be met, whether it is bigor small or whatever it may be.

Let us realise this; the real danger at the pre-sent moment is not of armies pouring in; thereal danger is the words that are being saidin Peking.

That is the thing which is extraordinary, andthese words which I have quoted, we cannot possi-bly accept, admit or agree to. That is the basicposition. Now, all minor things one talks about,one agree to, one has conciliation, one has this orthat as with any country. And our broadapproach will always be a friendly approach,is according to our thinking a wrong approach.We may lose our tempers. Losing one's temperis not a good thing, but one loses it because onecannot control oneself, but a nation at leastshould not lose temper, when it is faced withthese serious problems. And let us be firm, atthe same time, restrained and controlled.

228

May I also add, to complete the whole picture,that it is not merely a question of this, but aquestion of the treatment given to our Missions inTibet, our trade agencies. It has been consistentlydiscourteous treatment by the local authoritiesWe write, we complain, answers come, long expla-nations come, but it does seem that it is deliber-ately done, to make it more and more inconve-nient and difficult for them to work there.

May I say this here ? I would just like todraw Acharya Kripalani's attention to one notein the White Paper-he might note down just thepage, I would not read it now-which does indi-cate our approach to these questions, that is tosay, a mixture of politeness and firmness. This isat page 77 of the White Paper, the statement ofour Foreign Secretary in reply to the Chinesestatement.

May I here say that I should like to expressmy regret to the Members of the Socialist Partyhere for a reference to them in one of these state-ments, and I accept entire responsibility for it ?I am sorry. But I was much disturbed by thatparticular incident which happened in Bombay,because, whatever may happen, the Head of aState is supposed to be above criticism ; and it

rouses tremendous passions, if you bit the Headof a State. And what was done there in regard toChairman Mao had made a tremendous differencesuddenly to change the atmosphere of Chinaagainst us. It was utilised by ill our enemiesand I was moved by that, disturbed by that.

I should like this House to consider thismatter, apart from its views about the cold war,from its views on Communism. Indirectly, Com-munism comes in. In the sense that China is aCommunist State, in that sense, it does affect. Ithink it will make it more difficult for you tounderstand the situation if your minds arecoloured by this business of the cold war, thearguments that go on between Communism andanti-Communism. What we have to face today is agreat and powerful nation which is aggressive. Itmight be aggressive minus Communism or plusCommunism. Either way it might be there. Thatis a fact that you have to face.

Therefore, do not confuse the issue. So far asthe cold war is concerned, as the House knows,or ought to know, all wise men or most wise menin the world are trying to put an end toit, and it would be a tragedy if we, whostood up against the cold war, should surrenderto its voice and technique, when the countrieswhich started it were giving it up. Therefore,let us not have it. Cold war is an admissionof defeat-mental and intellectual defeat. Itis not, if I may say so with all respect to theparticipants of the cold war, a mature way ofconsidering a question. Certainly, I am notspeaking in terms of non-violence, although coldwar is the negation of non-violence. I say if youare violent, be violent. But nobody has yet, Ihope, approved of blackguardly language. Thatis cold war.

The Prime Minister said : In Premier Chou-En-lai's last letter, he says : "In Your Excellency's letter, you also referred to the boundary between China and Sikkim. Like the boundary between China and Bhutan, this question does not fall within the scope of our present discussion".

I beg to differ from Premier Chou En-lai.It does very much fall within the scope of ourpresent or future discussion. If he thinks that he

can deal with it as something apart from India, weare not agreeable to that. We have publicly,rightly, undertaken certain responsibilities for thedefence of Sikkim and Bhutan, if they areattacked. Therefore, it is very necessary for usto understand the position there, because if something happens on their borders, then it is the samething as an inteference with the border of India.

Then there was one question which was putto me-I am sorry to repeat Dr. Ram SubhagSingh's name. It was a very interesting question.In Premier Chou's letter, he had referred to atelegram which we received from Tibet-fromLhasa-in 1947. It is true. The point whichPremier Chou made was that even then, 1947,that is, soon after we became independent, Tibetclaimed territory from us. That was his argu-ment. It is true that we received a telegram fromthe Tibetan Bureau in Lhasa, which wasforwarded to us by our Mission in Lhasa, claim-ing the return of Tibetan territory on the boundaryof India and Tibet. A reply was sent by us,-itdid not say exactly what reply was sent by us in1947-demanding the assurance that it was theintention of the Tibetan Government to continuerelations on the existing basis until new agree-ments are reached on matters that either partymay wish to take up.

Now, what that telegram means, I do notknow. But this House should remember thatwhen we discuss these small border disputes,whether it is Migyitun or this or that, all theseare standing disputes with the old TibetanGovernment, even in British times, certain smallareas which were points of dispute between the

229then Government of India and the TibetanGovernment. There were some new disputestoo. It may be that this telegram refers to thoseareas in dispute, relatively small areas.

Here is another instance of what we call thenew approach of the Chinese Government to us,or, perhaps, an intensification of that approach.We received a complaint and a protest from thema few days ago about the' violation of theirterritorial waters. I was surprised because thereport was that it was one small ship-a frigateI think, which was taking supplies to a shipcalled Magar-crocodile-(its name is Magar).-

This frigate was taking supplies ; and passingnearby Hongkong, it did undoubtedly passacross the territorial waters of China, saywithin 12 miles or so-whatever it was. Theyprotested and said it was challenged and it didnot listen to the challenge. The Magar has notcome back yet. But we have received a. reportand it said that there was no challenge when theycame across and they did not know and theywent on. That is curious enough-petty incidentof the Magar going there and being challenged.

But in this connection another incident isquoted. "Last year your cruiser 'Mysore' also did the same thing, passed through our territorial waters."

Now the cruiser 'Mysore' had gone last yearon a visit of goodwill to China among othercountries. That is, it went to Hongkong, ChinaShanghai and it went to some other places also.I do not know. It certainly went to Shanghai.It is very surprising that it should be quotedand quoted a year after. Certainly last year itcame to within six or twelve miles. The affairis rather extraordinary.

There are a multitude of questions that arisein this connection and we shall have to deal withthem with all care, patience, firmness andforbearance. And I am sure that this House willshow the firmness coupled with forbearance.

If I have erred in the past in some delayin placing the papers before the House, I shallnot err again. It is too serious a matter. Atthat time one wanted the situation not to beworsened by publicity when we were dealing withthem, corresponding with them and their answerscome after months. This very answer fromPremier Chou has come six months after myletter of March. One waits and time goes on.But, anyhow, the situation is such that we haveto keep the country and especially the Parliamentin full touch with the developments. I do notexpect, and I do not want the House to imaginethat something very serious is going to happenon our frontiers. I do not at all expect that tohappen. It is not such an easy matter for it tohappen either. But the basic difficulty is thisapparent change in the attitude of the ChineseGovernment when it has come out quite clearly

with a demand which it is absolutely and whollyimpossible for us to look at. But, if youwill put that aside, the major demand aside,-they themselves say, the House will notice, thatthey are not, in a sense, pressing for that ordemanding it now and that they are preparedfor the status quo to continue that there is thedemand, just as the maps were a constant irritantand a reminder to us that something may happenand it is now much more obvious-it is only inthat sense the situation has worsened and notin the sense that something is going to happen inthe border or the frontier suddenly.

I would beg of you not to put this matterin the catagory of Communist or non-Communist.The House must have seen the statement issuedmore or less on behalf of the Soviet Governmentand this House knows the very close relationsthat the Soviet Government has naturally withthe Chinese Government. The issue of thatstatement itself shows that the Soviet Governmentis taking a calm and more or less objective ordispassionate view of the situation consideringeverything. We welcome that. It is not for usto divert this major issue between these twogreat countries, China and India into wrongchannels ; it will be completely wrong for us todo that and we must maintain our dignity andat the same time deal with the situation as firmlyas we can. It is a difficult situation, difficult inthe sense, physically difficult, apart from otherdifficulties. Remember, if the physical difficultiesare on our side, as they are, hundreds of milesof mountains and forests with the roads, the samedifficulties are on the side of any person whorashly tries to come in. So you can balance thedifficulties either way.

Anyhow, our Army and Defence Forces arefully seized of this matter and they are not peoplewho get excited quickly. They are brave people,experienced people and because they have todeal with a difficult job, they deal with it in acalm and quiet way but efficiently. I am surethey will do that.

In reply to a question whether the Dalai Lamais being subsidised by the Government the PrimeMinister said : I have not referred to the qestion

230of Tibet or the Dalai Lama, partly because,

although it slightly touches these issues and ithas affected them, it is a separate issue. So faras the Dalai Lama is concerned, I do not knowwhat is meant by 'subsidy'. We have spent somemoney over his remaining there but certainly wehave given him no special subsidy. But somemoney has been spent naturally on his stay atMussoorie and we are spending money on theother refugees. Again, as the House knows, wehave expressed our views in regard to some state-ments of the Dalai Lama. We have disagreedwith them.

I am merely telling you the fact. He is givenno subsidy of any kind but some money has beenspent by us on arrangements for his stay inMussoorie. That is the position. There was alittle controversy as to the freedom to be given toa person who has sought asylum here, and thatis quite apart from the respect we have for him.Of course, it is a constitutional question. Wehave great respect, and as the people of Indiahave great respect for the Dalai Lama. At 'thesame time, we did tell him many times that heshould not make India the seat of activities againsta country which is a friendly country. I wish tosay this : by and large, for a considerable time,he has observed a good deal of restraint con-sidering the stresses and strains he suffered from.But sometimes, he has gone beyond that and wehad to contradict some of his statements. Wedid not wish to enter into trouble about it, butbecause some of his statements did appear to usto go much too far that we had to contradictthem.

CHINA INDIA USA BHUTAN BURMA AFGHANISTAN LATVIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Reply to Rajya Sabha Debate on India-ChinaRelations

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehrumade a statement in the Rajya Sabha onSeptember 10, 1949 while replying to a debateon India-China relations.

The following is the full text of thestatement :

Mr. Chairman, Sir, I am grateful to thespeakers who have preceded me, even thoughI do not agree with everything they have said.When we decided to have this debate to-day,it was because the House considered that a serioussituation had arisen on our borders and in regardto the relations between India and China. Sincethat time, two days ago, something else hashappened which had added to the gravity of thesituation and high-lighted certain aspects whichwere perhaps under a shadow then. Therefore,in a sense, this debate becomes all the moreimportant, although perhaps it is being held alittle too soon after these developments to permitall of us to consider this new aspect carefullyand fully. Speaking for myself, as ForeignMinister, it is my business not merely to readthe new reply from Premier Chou-En-lai once,but many times, carefully, trying to understandwhat exactly it might mean. Therefore it wouldnot be proper for me at present to deal withthat reply at all fully or to refer to many of thepoints raised in it. It will no doubt have to bedealt with. As we have now taken Parliamentand indeed the public into our confidence bypublishing this White Paper, whenever our replygoes, that also would be published. As a matterof fact, only yesterday morning we sent amassage to the Chinese Government in continua-tion of this correspondence and a copy of thatmassage, I believe, has been placed on the Table ofthe House today. I do not know if Hon. Membershave read it or seen it. Yes, it is there. It wassoon after we had sent this massage that webegan getting bits of Premier Chou En-lai'sreply. It took a considerable time to comethrough. Therefore I shall venture only to dealwith certain aspects of it referred to by Hon.Members which I consider important and notdeal with Premier Chou En-lai's reply. Onething, however, I would like to say is, I oftenwonder if we, meaning the Government of Indiaand the Government of China, speak quite thesame language, if using the words or similar

words we mean the same thing. Because oftenenough I do not follow the course or line ofthought. I hope I could follow a line of thoughtthat is opposite to mine but I just do not follow ;whether the basic way of thinking is different,I do not know. Secondly, and I know this fromexperience, the problem of translating Chineseinto any other language is a terrific problem.I remember when Premier Chou En-lai came herefor the first time five years ago and we sat downto draft a simple joint communique, it wasoriginally drafted at his instance, on his sugges-tion, by me. He looked at it and he approvedof it. He knows some English and then histranslator told him. Then it was translated intoChinese and then I was asked by him to changesome of the words in the English draft becausein the Chinese language he did not like themin the Chinese translation. I told him that I hadno objection to changing them because they hadno significance but I did not like what he told mein the Chinese draft. The matter was of no

231great principle or significance but it struck methen how immensely difficult it was to translatean idea from English or any such language intoChinese or vice versa. It struck me also then,and I have never been able to find a completeanswer to this question which is troubling mymind, how Marx appeared in the Chinese languageI am quite sure that Marx or others must bedifferent in Chinese from what it was in theoriginal German or their translations in Englishor any other language.

So there are these difficulties that one grappleswith. One grapples with another difficulty. Itis all very well for Members here or for me tocriticise something that has happened in Chinaas we do and rightly do but I have not forgotten-and I hope nobody will forget-that before Iunderstand what is happening in China or inrelation to China, a big fact stares me in the faceand that is a tremendous human upheaval inChina which was going on there, the ChineseRevolution. My friend, Mr. Sapru said some-thing about the failure of the West to recognisethe Chinese Revolution. It is not a question ofyour liking the Chinese Revolution or not likingit. It is a fact, a fact of tremendous . significanceto the world, by the size of it and by the contentof it. Part of it may be good, part of it may be

bad according to your thinking or way of think-ing. It is neither here nor there but unless onerecognizes these major facts of history, yourappraisal of the situation may be wrong, utterlywrong. So it has been that many of the troubleswe have had in the international sphere have beendue to the fact of a deliberate attempt not to re-cognize one of the major things in human history.That is so.

Having said that, I would venture to say thatthere appears to me to be a lack of understand-ing or recognition in China of the revolution inIndia and to that perhaps is due not only some oftheir misunderstandings but many of theirapproaches to India and the matters connected withIndia. It is true that we have been brought up-I am talking about recent history, not the longpast-in a different tradition. We have beenconditioned by different factors, we in India andthey in China. True. Nevertheless, we ought tobe wise enough to understand what has happenedthere, if not agree with it. And they ought tobe wise enough to understand what is happeningand what has happened here in India even thoughthey do not agree with it. I find this lack ofunderstanding and appreciation. We have triedI hope, to understand them and to understandwhat has happened there. May be, we have notfully succeeded but I believe we have to a largeextent ; at any rate there was this great attempt.I am not at all sure that there was even anyattempt on the other side and I feel that just likecertain Western nations, not now but throughoutthe 19th and half of the 20th century, in theirpride and arrogance, ignored the rest of the world-they thought they were the leaders of the worldand the rest of the world should follow them-so also there is a tendency in some of these FarEastern countries to forget that there are otherparts of the world which count. They forget thatIndia is not a country which can be ignored eventhough she may speak in gentler language, as shehas been accustomed to do not only recently buteven in the past ages. The other day, some timeback-I forget when-in one of our notes to theChinese Government we said this. It is includedin the White Paper and I shall read it out. It ison page 77 here, in the note embodying theconversation with our Foreign Secretary. It wasamazing to get the note from- China to whichthis is the answer : The Statement says :

1. The Government of India have learnedof this statement with regret and surprise. It isnot only not in consonance with certain facts, butis also wholly out of keeping with diplomaticusage and the courtesies due to friendly countries.It is a matter of particular surprise and disappoint-ment to them that a Government and people notedfor their high culture and politeness should havecommitted this serious lapse and should haveaddressed the Government of India in a languagewhich is discourteous and unbecoming even if itwere addressed to a hostile country. Since it isaddressed to a country which is referred to asfriendly, this can only be considered as an act offorgetfulness.

2. We have no desire to enter into a lengthyargument about facts or opinions, much lessabout the discourteous language used in the state-ment made on behalf of the Chinese Government.It has been the consistent practice of the Gov-ernment of India to treat other countries withcourtesy and friendliness, even though anycountry might express opinions opposed to theirs.With China they have endeavoured to maintainand develop friendly relations, and they proposeto continue to do so in spite of the discourtesyshown to them by the Chinese Government.This is in consonance with India's past cultureand background and Mahatma Gandhi'steachings."

And this is because of what seems to us acomplete failure of the Chinese Government toappreciate that we have what are called certaincivil and democratic liberties here.

232

This is in relation to Tibet and what hahappened here, as if we could go and throttleeverybody who disagreed with us or disagreewith the Chinese Government. Then the notsays :

"The Government of India realise that the system of Government in China is different from that prevailing in India. It is the right of the Chinese people to have a Government of their choice, and no one else has a right to interfere; it is also the right of the Indian people to have a Government of their choice,

and no one else has a right to interfere. In India, unlike China the law recognises many parties, and gives protection to the expression of differing opinions. That is a right guaranteed by our Constitution and, contrary to the practice prevailing in China, the Government of India is often criticised and opposed by some sections of the Indian people. It is evident that this freedom of expression, free press and civil liberties in India are not fully appreciated by the Government of China, and hence misunderstandings arise."

Then again, in another matter it says

" From the statement made on behalf of the People's Government of China, it appears that, according to them, the Panch Sheel or the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence may or may not be applied according to convenience or circumstances. This is an approach with which the Government of India are not in agreement. They have proclaimed and adhered to these principles as matters of basic policy and not of opportunism. They will continue to hold to these Principles and endeavour to apply them according to their own thinking., I

I have read out extracts from that Paper. Sothere is this difficulty.

Dr. Kunzru said that our foreign policy wasin the melting pot. He also referred to our non-alignment and to Panchsheel being a slogan andan opiate and so on. I am sorry that Dr. Kunzruhas failed to appreciate-he may disagree, but hehas failed to appreciate-the basic reasons for ourforeign policy. They were not based on merelybeing friendly to China or some other country-although we wanted to be friendly with othercountries-but they were also based on a certainmental or other approach to this question. It isa basic thing. These Principles are right-andI do claim that they are right and I should likeany Hon. Member here to tell me wherein theyare not right. I have yet to find any one, not onlyhere but elsewhere as well, who can say that theyare not right, but only they say it is not right tosay this to China or some other country. But a

principle is a principle. It does not become unrightor wrong because somebody, whom you suspect tobe not quite truthful, says it. Therefore, I do notunderstand what the present situation which hasdeveloped, serious as it is, has got to do withputting our foreign policy in what is called amelting pot. So far as I am concerned and so faras our I Government is concerned, our foreignpolicy is as firm as a rock and it will remain so. Itwill be some other Government that may change it.The present Government will not and the presentGovernment will hold to nonalignment, becauseit is a matter of principle, not of opportunism orthe convenience of the day. That surely doesnot mean that we should not be vigilant, that weshould not protect India's interests or India'sborder or whatever it is. Surely that would be afoolish inference to draw from it.

Dr. Kunzru referred to various mistakes ofthe past. He particularly referred to our keepingthings back from Parliament. Well, Sir, what didwe do ? He said the other day when there was adebate here about Tibet we did not make a fullreport or a full and comprehensive report toParliament. Well, Sir, let us go back to that time, afew months ago. That was the time when themessage from which I just now read out was sent.I don't quite know what more report we couldmake at that stage. We could, of course, havesaid something more. But so far as the borderproblems were concerned, the position then wasas it had been for several years previously, becauseremember that the recent development, the veryrecent development, of the last few weeks, is a newdevelopment about the frontier problem. It is truethat the Government of Chinahad gone on produc-ing maps which were incorrect maps to which wehad taken exception. And they assured us that theywould look into the matter and correct them wherenecessary later, these old maps. That was notan adequate or satisfactory explanation to give.Yet it was some kind of explanation and thosemaps continuing were an irritating feature in thelandscape. Still there it was. We are not going tochange maps by shouting about them. After all,in dealing with countries, we deal with themdiplomatically or by methods of coercion and war.Where we rule out war and where these methodsof coercion are silly in the case of such countries,we have to proceed diplomatically.

233

Right from the first few months of indepen-dence, in the first year or two, repeatedly I statedin Parliament that the McMahon Line-I usethat word for short. Really I do not know whyit should not be called the McMahon Line. Itsimply means the defined frontier-was our fron-tier. When I say something in Parliament, it ismeant for the outside world and it was meant, if Imay say so, for the Government of China. We saidthis to the Chinese Government in communication,orally and otherwise too. Their answer wasvague. I am talking about the maps. I saw noreason at that time-I am talking about six, sevenor eight years ago-to discuss the question of thefrontier with the Chinese Government because,foolishly if you like, I thought that there was noth-ing to discuss. I think in the last letter Mr. ChouEn-lai refers to this that I would not even dis-cuss this.. I always recognised that they were minormatters, territories which had been considereddisputable even before the Chinese came to Tibet.Those areas were there even in the British period.There were minor disputes and the Chinese inheri-ted them and went on with them. We are pre-pared to settle those matters. You may say thatall these frontier matters might be divided intothree parts. One is broadly speaking what is calledthe McMahon Line from the Burmese border tothe Bhutan border. Then comes the UttarPradesh, Punjab, Lahaul, Spiti and then you go onto Ladakh. You must treat these separately.When I talk about the McMahon Line, obviouslyit is only that area, not of the Ladakh area whichis quite different. I am not going into the longhistory because I do not want to take the time ofthe House. It is a complicated thing but we havealways looked upon the Ladakh area as a differentarea as, if I may say so, some vaguer area so faras the frontier is concerned because the exact lineof the frontier is not at all clear as in the case ofthe McMahon Line. When discovered in1958, more than a year ago, that a road had beenbuilt across Yehcheng in the north-east corner ofLadakh, we were worried. We did not knowwhere it was. Hon. Members asked, why did younot know before ? It is a relevant question butthe fact of the matter is that we just are not withinhundred miles of that area. It is an uninhabitablearea and it has not been under any kind of adminis-tration. Nobody has been present there. It is aterritory where not even a blade of grass grows,about 17,000 feet high. It adjoins Sinkiang. We

sent a party, practically of explorers, small groupof six or seven or eight or ten, mountaineers andothers, to find out about this. One of the groupsof this party was apprehended by the ChineseGovernment and there was correspondence onthis. The men belonging to that group werereleased later on. Now, possibly it was an erroror a mistake or wrong on my part not to havebrought that fact before the House. I am myselfnot clear, thinking back on that, what I shouldhave done but our difficulty then was that we werecorresponding with Chinese Government and wewere waiting for these people, that little party, tocome here and tell us as to what happened tothem. It took two or three months for them tocome. The group which was apprehended bythe Chinese was released later-and the men cameback after some time. We thought at that timethat it might be easier for us to deal with theChinese Government without too much publicityof this incident. We might have been wrong butit was not a crisis or anything like that. HoweverI am prepared to admit that it was my error notto have brought this matter to the notice ofParliament when it occurred. For the rest, therehas been no keeping back really of any informa-tion and we have kept Parliament fully informed.There have been plenty of questions.

Dr. Ahmad said that there are no objectivereasons for war. Of course there are no objectivereasons, no practical reasons, no sensible reasonsor no reason whatsoever of any kind. Which-ever way you approach it, it would be folly of anextreme type for us to fight over such matters.We may get excited about the sacredness of theIndian soil and the Chinese people may get excitedabout something they hold sacred, if they holdanything sacred. That is a different matter butthe fact of the matter is that nothing can be amore amazing folly than for two great countrieslike India and China to go into a major conflictand war for the possession of a few mountainpeaks, however beautiful the mountain peaksmight be, or some area which is more or lessuninhabited. It is not that, as every Member ofthis House knows. When such conflicts occur,something happens which stirs our innermostconvictions, something which hurts our pride, ournational pride, our self-respect and all that. So,it is not a question of a mile or two or ten oreven a hundred miles. It is something moreprecious than a hundred or a thousand miles and

it is that which brings up people's passions to ahigh level and it is that which, to some extentis happening in India to-day. It is not becauseof a patch of territory but because they feel thatthey have not got a fair treatment in this matter,they have been treated rather casually by theChinese Government and an attempt is made, if Imay use the word, to bully them.

Now, the only time that firing took place wasin Longju, a few days ago. In his last letter,Mr. Chou En-lai gives a list of places where Indiahas committed aggression. We have committed

234aggression on air and we have committedaggression on land. There is no sea; otherwise,we would have been accused of committingaggression on sea also. I might inform theHouse that we have received a protest about oneof our ships having gone into the territorial watersof China. That ship, I think, was going fromHong Kong to somewhere. That is anothermatter. So, sea is also not left out. Now, whatis aggression and what is not aggression depends,of course, on where you put the line of demarca-tion. Obviously, we may go on saying that theyhave committed aggression and they may go onsaying that we have committed aggression becausetheir line is different from ours and so long as youdo not agree to a line, you can always go on sayingthis according to our own interpretation and ourown methods. There can be no limit to that butMr. Chou En-lai says in his letter that although theytotally deny and repudiate the so-called McMahonLine, nevertheless, they had not crossed the Line.That is his argument and he says that they won'tcross it till this matter is settled by agreement.I won't go into the long argument but take thisparticular place where actually firing took place.We got one version from our people and theyhave no doubt got a version from their ownpeople; the two versions do not meet and theyconflict with each other but there is just one simplematter I should like to bring to your notice and toChinese Government's notice. Over this there hasbeen a protest. There has been a post belongingto the Indian Government at Longju. It sohappened that towards the second half of July,we got news that the officer-in-charge ofthe check post at Longju was seriously ill.He was supposed to have got appendicitis andnobody was available there to deal with him. So

we sent a message to the Chinese Ministry ofForeign Affairs on the 23rd July, that is, slightlymore than a month before this small fighting tookplace and this was the message to the ChineseMinistry of Foreign Affairs :

"The officer-in-Charge of the Indian check post at Longju near the international border in the Subansiri Frontier Division of NEFA is seriously ill. It is essential to send immediate medical relief to save his life. The location of the post is ...........

Then the exact longitude, latitude etc. weregiven.

"The Government of India propose to paradrop a doctor at the post. Depending on weather the paradropping operation may take place on the 24th afternoon or on one of subsequent days. The aircraft has been instructed to take all rare not to cross into Chinese territory but the Chinese Government are being informed should there be any error of judgment. The Government of India will appreciate if immediate warning is issued to the neighbouring Chinese posts of this operation." This was a normal message sent to a friendlyGovernment but the mere normality of it showsthat we had no doubt about our post. We gavethem the longitude, latitude and we said we weresending a doctor and when they say that this isaggression on our part at Longju, I do submitthat that argument does not convince. We can ofcourse go into that; I need not convince the Housebecause the House is convinced about thesematters.

Now, I should like to go back to one thingto which attention has been drawn, I think, byDiwan Chaman Lall; that is about my talks withPremier Chou En-lai. It is no pleasure to me tocontradict Premier Chou. My memory may bewrong; his memory may be wrong. Whatever itis; but it happens I did not trust my memory buta record of the talks I made in an official notewithin 24 hours of our talk. There is a smallquotation given of that. How did this talk arise?How did it take place ? It was Premier Chouwho started it and the reason for it was that some

months previously I had sent him a message, notabout the Indian frontier, but about the Burmesefrontier. I had no business to interfere on thequestion of the Burmese frontier but the PrimeMinister of Burma who had been here about thattime said that he was having this trouble aboutthe frontier and we discussed it and he asked if Icould help in any way. 1 said, it is very difficultto interfere with two other countries of the statusthey had but still presuming rather our friendlyrelations with China and with Burma I sent amessage to Premier Chou saying that I was sorrythat this small matter of the Burma-China frontierwas continuing and was not being settled and Ihoped that it would be settled soon. Then I used-I remember very well-a phrase. In it I saidBurma is relatively a small country; on either sideof Burma are these big countries China and Indiaand Burma naturally feel a little apprehensive ofboth these countries-I included both India andChina-and it is up to us to function in a way toremove all apprehension from the mind of Burmawhich is a friendly country. We are friends withit. Why do anything carelessly which mightincrease their fear or apprehension ? I includedIndia and I put it in the same level as China in

235that letter. Then I suggested in that letter-it isnot for me to suggest what the frontiers shouldbe-that perhaps he might be good enough toinvite U Nu who was not at that time PrimeMinister and discuss this with him. PremierChou agreed to my suggestion and invited U Nu.Later U Nu went and they had talks and I believehe came back fairly satisfied with these talks butI regret to say that although this occurred sometime ago, three and half years ago, these talkshave not borne fruit in Burma yet. It is stillthere; there is a feeling in Burma that theassurances given to U Nu about the frontier arenot fulfilled by China. So when Premier Chouwas discussing this matter over the messagewe sent about Burma-I had invited U Nu andwe had talked in that connection-he said,although we do not recognise this McMahonLine-it was of British Imperialism and all that-nevertheless we are friendly countries, thesethings should not go on in this way and therefore-he said-we have agreed to recognise theMcMahon Line in so far as the Burmese frontieris concerned. We were discussing Burma, remem-ber-and the other few matters will also be settled

soon. In that connection he went on to say, alsobecause of our friendly relations, we shall acceptthe McMahon Line so far as the China-India fron-tier is concerned. That was the whole of the Mc-Mahon Line. Then one or two things he added.One was that he did not think that it was a valid line.Certainly he said that; that the British had goneon extending. Nevertheless, we shall recognise itbecause of long usage and because we are friendlycountries. Now, when I heard this I wantedto be quite sure that I had not misunderstoodhim. So I think three times in various ways.I came back to this subject and made him repeatthis. So there was no doubt about it. Becausethe matter was of some importance to me, whenI came away a little later I put it down in writingand there it is. Now, it is a matter of sorrow tome that this thing is now, if not denied-it isanyhow practically denied-ignored and anotherline is adopted. Of course, it may be that thingshave happened in China compelling a change inpolicy; I do not know. That may happen in anycountry but however that may be, there it is.And this change-over ; it is not sudden. Even inthis White Paper those who read it will see thatthe answer about this McMahon Line etc. isnot quite so strong, so positive, as in PremierChou's letter of yesterday. Gradually, stepby step, the policy of China in regard to thismatter has become more rigid. Why, I cannotsay.

Now, this is a matter, Sir, undoubtedly ofconcern to us, not only because of its consequencebut because such developments produce a feelingof lack of confidence in each other's words andassurances. That is a more important thing, assome Hon. Members said, than a few yards ofterritory. If there is that lack of faith, lack ofconfidence, where are we ?

Take another thing. On the one hand wehave these maps where large areas of India aremarked as if they were China and on the other theysay, well, the maps are not precise and accurate.We can change them if necessary but we do notrecognise the McMahon Line. Nobody knowsexactly what they may have in mind as to wherethe Line is. It is an extraordinary position for agreat State to take up. Even if we subscribed tothat it means leaving the matter vague and thepossibility of trouble is always there. So far aswe are concerned, administratively we have been

there. It is true that there is not much ofadministration in the high Himalayas but stillwhat there is, is there. We have our post; we haveour officers. We function ; we have functionedfor years there and to be told that this is aggres-sion or this may be aggression is an extraordinarything. If we have two sets of opinions about thisthe right thing to do for the two countries wasand is for them to sit down and talk about it andargue about it and come to a settlement. Now,I have made our position clear on this borderissue by statements in Parliament and later byletters, etc. for ten years now. There is no doubtthat the Chinese Government knew about it. Theyremained silent. They did not accept my positionexcept as I said that we had a talk here in Indiawhen Premier Chou came here three years ago,when he accepted the McMahon Line. Butapart from that we have been talking about it,acting upon it. Take even the Sino-Indian Treatyabout Tibet, five years ago, I think-in 1954. Nowwe were dealing with Tibet and we were dealingwith such matters as affected Tibet. We weredealing with the various extra-territorial rights wehad in Tibet, withdrawing them, some soldieringwe had, post office, telegraph office, roads, pilgrimroutes, trade, commerce and everything, and whatwere the passes we should go through. Now,normally one would think that, if there was aproblem of a bit of Tibet being in India or viceversa, when we are dealing with India-Tibet ques-tions, those matters should have come up fordiscussion. They did not. I saw no reason whyI should push them, because I had nothing to sayabout them. I accepted the boundary as it was.Nothing was mentioned. And the whole contof those discussions was that we were dealing withall the remaining problems as between Tibet andIndia in that treaty with China. And to have itat the back of your mind that you are going to

236change the whole frontier between Tibet and Indiaand later bring it up, does not seem to be quitestraight or fairplay. Now, a very favourite wordwe often use it too and they use it frequently, buta very favourite word with the Chinese authoritiesis "Imperialism". Well, there is imperialism inthe world. We have known enough of it to dis-like it very greatly. We have struggled against it.But it seems to me that sometimes this word isused to cover every sin and everything as if thatwas an explanation of every argument. Just say

"Imperialism"; it answers everything. Britishimperialism spread, they say. UndoubtedlyBritish imperialism was here. Undoubtedly inthe old days, half a century ago, it exercised pres-sure on Tibet. Those were the days, the Housemay remember, when China was not strong, butBritish imperialism was afraid of Czarist Russia.It was really Czarist Russia and British Empirepushing, being afraid of each other. However,they did do that and various things came. Varioussettlements were made from time to time and, asDiwan Chaman Lall pointed out, also the tri-partite treaty of 1919 or 1914. Although Chinadid not sign it, the real Chinese objection was to theborder between Inner Tibet and Outer Tibet, andnot to this border at all. We were not concernedwith that. However, whatever that may be, thatwas about more than 45 years ago. That is, afterthat treaty ; before that too, there was a vaguekind of occupation. Now, to raise these matterson the ground that many, many long years agoBritish imperialism functioned there, it does seemto me, is some strange argument. How do coun-tries grow? The Chinese State today is a great,very big, colossal State. Was this Chinese Stateborn as such from the head of 'Brahma'? Howdid it grow so big and great?-Surely, in past agesby the ability of its people and the conquests ofits warriors, in other words, by Chinese imperial-ism. There is no doubt about it and I am surethey would not deny it. I am not talking of thepresent more enlightened days of China, but ofthe old days surely-and I have the greatest ad-miration for Chinese history and culture-not thatthe world functioned in that way. But the pointis that the Chinese State grew in that way, whereit came to Tibet. Tibet now is a point at issue,very much so. But where do you draw the linefrom which a kind of certainty comes - there is noimperialism after and only before? At times, ifone discusses the history of Tibet, well, there wereperiods when Tibetan armies occupied the Chinesecapital. There were periods when the Nepalesearmies occupied the Tibetan capital. You go farenough. We had even in India, peaceful as weare empires going right over to a large part ofCentral Asia, in Asoka's time, Chandragupta'stimes, the Kushan period, and all that. Now,where do you draw the line in history? History isfull of changes, full of ups and downs, full of allkinds of things and full of mixtures of people andcountries. And if one does go back that way,there is no country in the wide world which may

not be shaken to its foundations and split up andcertainly the great Chinese State will not survive ifthat argument is applied. We do not apply thatargument. So, it is strange that these simplehuman factors, apart from constitutional andother factors, do not seem to be appreciated bythe Chinese State and they have valued India'sfriendship only to a very low extent in the finalanalysis.

I think we were right in 'working for theirfriendship and, may I repeat and say, We shallcontinue to work for it. Any person who hasthe least responsibility for India's present andIndia's future cannot allow himself to be frightenedand angered and behave in fright and anger. Nocountry should do that, more especially in a crisis.People who are frightened and angry can neveract wisely. We have to think of the present, ofcourse, but we have to think of the future of thesetwo great countries. To imagine that India can asort of push China about is silly. To imaginethat China can push India about is, if I may ven-ture to say so, equally silly. Now, therefore, thisidea of settling things by this kind of compulsionand force or by threats and bullying is all wrongand we must accept things as they are. Now, ifyou will read the letter, the message we sent tothe Chinese Government yesterday morning, thatyellow paper or whatever it is, you will find thatwe made a suggestion to them there.

You need not read it just now. But you willfind that we have suggested to them-there can beno other way-that we must accept the status quoand let us discuss these individual points. I do notknow, and I do not see how we can discuss thiskind of broad areas. We can discuss individualpoints where there might be some dispute andthere might be complaints. It is one thing toaccept or to adhere to the McMahon Line butquite another to see the exact alignment hereand there. A village may be there. It is not ofgreat importance provided it is done in a friendlyway. We are prepared to discuss, we have discus-sed once or twice. But we say that it is the statusquo, as somebody said it is the status quo priorto any recent incursion. Take Longju. We madea very fair offer. We said : "You say that wecommitted aggression. We don't agree that wedid. But we are prepared to agree to neither yourforces nor our forces being at Longju. Let usdiscuss that matter. Let your forces withdraw

and let our forces remain where they are or two

237

or three miles away. We are not prepared totake them back. That is, we want to approachthis matter in as peaceful and cooperative a wayas possible. Of course it is fantastic to talk aboutwar etc. in this way and to rush about in a panic.Nevertheless the matter is serious enough. Franklyit is serious beeause I just do not know how theChinese mind may think. I just do not know.I have been surprised at present developments.So I do not know. I have great admiration forthe Chinese mind, logical and reasonable andrelatively calm. But sometimes I wonder if allthose old qualities have not perhaps been partlyoverwhelmed. So we have to be careful. Wehave naturally to be vigilant, and we have to takesuch measures as we can to protect our integrity. One word more, Sir. Very probably theseTibetan developments have angered and souredthe mind of the Government of China, very likely.They have been in trouble there undoubtedly,and the Tibetan people have been in much greatertrouble of course. And perhaps they have reactedstrongly to what we have done, I mean, to theasylum we have given to the Dalai Lama and tocertain other factors. We have tried to steer amiddle way. We respect the Dalai Lama. Largenumbers of people respect him. That does notmean we agree with him in everything. In someways he is acting wrongly to-day. In so far asour advice was taken we have strongly told himthat he is acting wrongly and no good can comeif he goes to the United Nations on Tibet. I havetold him personally. I have said so in public,and I hold to that opinion. It will do no good tohim or Tibet. There it is. Some others haveadvised him differently. We have contradictedsome statements that he has reccntly made whichwere very unwise and incorrect, if I may say so.The other day in a speech he delivered, I thinksomewhere in Delhi, he talked of the McMahonLine and status of Tibet being at the same levelwhich was quite incorrect. So we do not agreewith him. We have warned him and I must sayin a large measure he has accepted our advice,that is to say, in regard to not indulging in politi-cal controversy. But sometimes he has not, andit has been a difficult question for us to decide.We do not want to come in his way. We want togive him freedom of action within limitations.

But no doubt all this must have affected and isaffecting the Chinese mind, and perhaps it is dueto that and not to the logic or the reasonablenessof the Chinese position in regard to India, in regardto our frontiers that they are taking up this rigidattitude. Well, we have to be firm, we have tohold to our position. I shall try to do that. ButI shall try always to find a way for peaceful settle-ments because I try to look into the future, andthe future, and the future is dark if it is to becovered by continuing hostility between Indiaand China.

CHINA INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC TUNISIA BHUTAN HONG KONG MALI BURMARUSSIA NEPAL

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement in Rajya Sabha on Chinese Reply toIndia's Protest

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in the Rajya Sabahon September 4, 1959 in reply to several calling-attention motions :

Yesterday evening (September 3) in fact wereceived a reply from the Chinese Government tothe protest we have made to them. We receivedit through our Embassy in Peking. It is a fairlylong reply and we are examining it fully. Butbroadly speaking the reply says that they have notcommitted any aggression, and in fact they haveaccused us of some aggression on that border andhave asked us to withdraw from one or two areaswhich they claim to be Chinese territory. Therest is an argument but this is the main purportof the reply. We are having that fully examined.As for what the Chinese Foreign Minister said,I believe he did say something to that effect ; thatis, he more or less supported the line taken upin the reply they have sent us ; that is, they have

not committed any aggression and in one or twoplaces our patrols have gone into Tibetan Chineseterritory.

As for Mr. Ganga Sharan's question as towhat is happening on the other side of our borderin Sikkim or elsewhere, it is difficult for me tosay with any precision. Broadly speaking, thereare very considerable numbers of troops, Chinesetroops, in Tibet spread out and in the last fewweeks or more, many of them were stationed onthe Sikkim-India border, originally I think, withthe intention perhaps of preventing the refugeesfrom coming into India. So they are there. Icannot say in what numbers they are there. Thenthere was a reference to certain regions in Ladakh.It is rather difficult for me to make any accuratestatement about that. But so far as the cornerof the Aksai Chin area is concerned, that is thearea across which the Chinese built a road twoyears ago or more, a road from Gartok to Yark-land, which passes through that area, that hasbeen and is claimed by the Chinese as their terri-tory and I believe in their maps too, not the newmaps but the old maps, that is shown as theirterritory. That is disputed and there are twoview-points about that. I do not know how manyChinese are there. I cannot say because so far

238as we are concerned, we have no representative,we can have none. It is not an inhabited area sofar as area goes. It is at an average of 16,000 to17,000 feet altitude and treeless, grassless almostor hardly of any kind, without any living thingthere. It is frightfully cold. So I cannot giveany information as to how many Chinese may bein that particular corner of Ladakh-Aksai Chinarea.

An Hon. Member: The Chinese have comeinto our border and have built air-fields. TheChinese have sent a reply to our protest that weare more on the offensive than they are and eventhe other day the Russian Minister speaking inthe Inter-Parliamentary Union said that theybelieved that India was on the offensive and notthe Chinese. Such statements by the Chineseand the Russians do cause us concern. Has thePrime Minister taken any objection to the state-ment made by the Russian Minister in a discussionin the Inter-Parliamentary Union saying that Indiawas in the wrong and not China ?

The Prime Minister : No, Sir, because wehave no particular report of that or the contextof it. Even the report that has appeared in thepress is that that matter was raised at the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Russian representa-tive said that it appeared from the reports he hadthat India was more at fault than China. Somesuch phrase appeared. Naturally he must havereceived reports from China or Wherever it is.There is no question of our objecting to everystatement that a person makes.

When asked whether the Prime Minister hasapprised the three Great Powers with regard tothe situation in this regard, the prime Ministerreplied : Well, Sir, not directly but as is usualwith us whenever any important matter occurs,we inform our various Missions abroad, we sendthem a report of the facts and the steps we aretaking and we ask them wherever necessary toinform the Government concerned there. Thatis what we have done and in pursuance of that,I suppose some of our Ambassadors abroadbrought these matters to the attention of theGovernments concerned but there was nodirect message from us to the Governmentsconcerned.

An Hon. Member: Does the reply givenby the Chinese authorities tally with our facts ?Is it true that our people have encroached orinfiltrated into their territory or something likethat ?

The Prime Minister : It does not tally withour version of the facts. Obviously that is whywe are arguing and we are having this detailedreply and they have mentioned many things init-names of places about which we have noinformation. We are trying to get information.In the next two or three days we will probably getmore information so as to be able to reply tothem as we propose to do in the course of a fewdays. May I mention to this House that we arepreparing a kind of a White Paper which willcontain the correspondence between the Govern-ment of India and the Government of China inthe last 4 or 5 years, ever since our Tibetan Treaty.That may not be cent per cent up-to-date in thesense that if I get a message today, it may not bein it but it will be fairly up-to-date till the lastten days or so. As soon as it is ready, I hope

before the Parliament adjourns, it will be placedon the Table of the House.

CHINA INDIA USA RUSSIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on White Paper

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in the Lok Sabhaon September 7, 1959 while placing a White Paperon India-China relations:-

Permit me, Sir, before I lay this paper on theTable, just to make a brief statement and to clarifysome misapprehensions. I find that in newspapers,news appears which, if true, would naturally be amatter of concern to the House. But, it is notalways true. For instance, in one of today'snewspapers, there is a report about somethinghappening on the Punjab-Spiti border-that theChinese have entered there and arrested somepeople and all that. I have not heard of it at all.I immediately got in touch, by telephone, with thePunjab Government. They had not heard anysuch thing. In fact, they said that it had nothappened.

Their report is, that, according to their infor-mation, it is not true. I cannot say more thanwhat they have told me. They have definitelysaid on the telephone that there has been noviolation of their territory in Spiti in that particu-lar place.

Then again, there was another report thatin Chini in Himachal Pradesh, some traders werearrested. We immediately got in touch with theHimachal Pradesh Government and we have notbeen able to get a detailed account. But we have

239had no such report from them. Then again,there was a report in the papers about some firingby Pakistani forces somewhere in the east. Again,we have had no report. I enquired from theDefence people as they get daily reports. Tilllast night,-no, last evening, they had no report.

I beg to lay on the Table a copy of the WhitePaper containing Notes, Memoranda and Lettersexchanged and Agreements signed between theGovernments of India and China, 1954-59.

I had promised to do so sometime back,and we are placing these papers. They are fairlyup-to-date, but they do not contain the last docu-ments received in the course of the last week. How-ever I shall keep the House informed of anydevelopments. So far as the NEFA border isconcerned, there has been no development of notewhich I can bring to the notice of the House yet.So at any rate, that has not come to our know-ledge. So far as the defence of that area isconcerned, the House knows that the matter hasbeen put in charge of our Armed Forces and theDefence Authorities.

The House will not expect. me to tell themexactly what steps they take; that would not beproper for them or for the House. But they arein charge and, no doubt, they will take adequatesteps. They will not, I take it, just rush about upand down the border, but they will take steps atproper points which they consider right places forthem to hold.

CHINA INDIA USA PAKISTAN

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement on Indian arrested by Chinese Forces

In reply to a question as to whether it was afact that Chinese forces had arrested 14 Indiansbelonging to Ladakh recently, and if so, the actiontaken in the matter ; and whether there was anyinformation about the whereabouts of the HeadLamas of Hemis and Phiang Monasteries of Ladakh,the Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, madethe following statement in the Lok Sabha onSeptember 7, 1959 :

According to information received from ourConsulate at Lhasa, five Indians are held incustody by the Chinese authorities in Lhasa. Itis not clear whether they come from Ladakh.Our Consulate has protested to the Chineseauthorities about the arrest of these persons.

We have also received some informationabout fourteen Ladakhi Lamas being in custodyin various prisons in Tibet. But we have receivedno precise information about them. We haveapproached the Chinese authorities to permitMuslims from Kashmir as well as Ladakhi Lamasto contact our Consulate in Lhasa and to allowthem to return to India if they so wish.

An Hon. Member : May I know whetherGovernment have any information about thenumber of Indians returning to Lhasa just priorto the starting of the trouble in Tibet ? If so,what was the number and how many of themhave been permitted to go back home ?

The Prime Minister : We have no definiteinformation. We have some reports about them.I say we have no definite information becausepeople used to go from Ladakh without anyformal papers being taken from us-pass-ports.It is an old practice. Two types of Indians wentthere ; the one were the Lamas and they were forstudy there ; the other were Ladakhi Muslimswho used to go there for trade. According toour old practice nobody need get the papers andmost of them did not. So, we had no record.Subsequently, when we tried to find out we weretold that about 400 Lamas from Ladakh werestudying in the various monasteries of Tibet andabout 124 families of Kashmiris, that is LadakhiMuslims, were there. We have not verified thesefigures. The Chinese authorities have raised thepoint that these people are no longer Indian

citizens if ever they were, because many of theKashmiris-Ladakhi Muslims-have been therefor a long long time. That is a matter on whichwe are conferring with them.

An Hon. Member : May I know whetherthese 14 Ladakhi Lamas who are in custody ofthe Chinese authorities in Lhasa are so becauseof mistaken identity ? If so, may I know whetherGovernment have taken any steps toestablish their identity so that they might bereleased ?

The Prime Minister : There is no question ofmistaken identity. It is a question of a personestablishing his nationality, not identity. Nationa-lity is normally established by papers, passportsetc. Now, they have no papers and passportsexcept such oral or other evidence they mightgive. Immediately it becomes a little less definitealthough it might be established. It dependsupon the authorities taking a strict view or aflexible view about it. They have said quite defini-tely that they are Indian nationals from Kashmir.It is true that in the past, sometimes to get over

240preliminary difficulties they have signed paperswhich probably go against them, because theygot some thing done quickly. That comes upagainst them now.

CHINA INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF MONGOLIA

Prime Minister Nehru's Welcome Speech

Mr. Yumjagiin Tsedenbal, Chairman of theCouncil of Ministers of the Mongolian People'sRepublic, paid a visit to India from September

10 to 16, 1959. He arrived in New Delhi onSeptember 10 and the same evening a StateBanquet was held in his honour at the Rashtra-pati Bhawan.

Welcoming Mr. Tsedenbal, Prime MinisterNehru said :

Mr. Prime Minister, Excellencies, ladies andgentlemen, when you arrived here this morning,we gave you a warm welcome, and memories ofold times came to us and echoes of long agorang in our ears. We remember, of course, thepresent in which we are, but we remembered alsothe distant past when messengers from India wentto your far country, taking with them many un-substantial but nevertheless very important gifts.They took their culture, their art and their religionand your forbears were pleased to welcome themand make friends with them, and thus began aclose bond of the spirit between our two countries,a bond which is more enduring than history,than perhaps the more material bonds. So, wethought of those old days, and we were happyto welcome you as the distinguished representativeof Mongolia.

We thought also of today in which we liveand the future for which we work, your countryand ours ; and we thought of these two together.And we thought how good it was that in thispresent and for the future, we were reviving thoseold bonds in this new context in which we live.We work for peace and the well-being of ourpeople. We work also for peace and are devotedto it, and work for the happiness and well-beingof both ; and yet most of us, I suppose, rememberbecause of the very incomplete and limitedhistories we learnt, of the days when your countrysent forth great warriors to conquer nearly halfthe world as it was known in those days, morethan half Asia and half Europe. Those days arepast, I hope, and in spite of all the troubles wesee and all the preparations for war and theatomic bombs and the rest, I hope we are march-ing to an era of peace!

I am sure that your country aims and worksfor peace as ours does, and we want to be com-rades and to co-operate in this work of peace forour own good, your good and for the world's good.

I did some little research work today and I

discovered that the area of your country is nearlyhalf the area of India. Our area, I believe, isabout 12,70,000 square miles. The area ofMongolia is nearly 6,00,000 square miles, whichis a little under half. Then I went on to thepopulation figures of the two countries. Yourcountry's population, you were good enough totell me, is one million. Our country's is, as Ibelieve, round about 400 million now. So,roughly speaking, we are two hundred times moreintensely populated than your country. Thatitself produces a different type of problem for usas other things do-climate and other things thataffect human beings.

So, in some ways our problems are in adifferent context. Nevertheless, essentially theyare similar as are problems of all countries whichare trying to develop and trying to get the goodthings of life for their people. In that we canlearn, I suppose, from each other and from othercountries. But in doing so, I believe, it isimportant that each country continues to waterits own roots and to derive sustenance fromthem to retain its individuality which connectsit with their distant past and which should projectitself into the future. I hope, I believe, we willdo that in our country. I hope that your countrytoo will maintain that in the future that you arebuilding.

Therefore, I hope also that those old bonds,cultural, artistic and other, that joined us in thepast will join us in the future also, in additionto the new bonds that we may build in the newworld that is being created by the efforts ofpeople all over. So, because of all this, andmuch more, we were particularly happy towelcome you here, and I am sure that whereveryou may go in India you will receive warm andheart-felt welcome.

You were good enough, Sir, to invite me to visit

241Mongolia. I cannot tell you how happy I wouldbe to be able to visit it. Even though it becomesrather difficult for me to pay visits to distantcountries, but, still, I shall live in the hope thatsometime or other I should come to Mongoliacarrying the good wishes of our people to yourpeople and help a little in strengthening thosebonds that have united us in the past.

Two years ago we sent you our mostdistinguished ambassador, our Vice-President.We could not have sent you a more suitableperson not only because of his great position inIndia today but because he represents in himselfthat great past of ours, the present and the future,all combined . So, we chose as our messenger toyou the best that we could offer and you gavehim a warm welcome and he told us aboutthat welcome and many things about yourcountry.

Now you have come here and not only webut the people of our country will think ofMongolia and the people of Mongolia, and I hopethus we shall strengthen in every way our oldcontacts and new ones.

So, again I wish you a warm welcome onmy own behalf and on behalf of our Governmentand the people of India. I hope that your verybrief stay here will be pleasant and that you willcarry back with you memories of friends, memoriesof comrades, memories of people who will workin co-operation with you in the great tasks ahead.

Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, Iask you to drink to the good health of the PrimeMinister of Mongolia.

MONGOLIA INDIA USA PERU CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF MONGOLIA

Mr. Tsedenbal's Reply

His Excellency Mr. Yumjagiin Tsedenbal,Prime Minister of the Council of Ministers of theMongolian People's Republic, in his reply said :

Most Honourable Mr. Prime Minister; Ex-cellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen :

Friends, I am grateful to Your Excellency,Mr. Prime Minister, for your hearty welcome,and for those kind words and good sentimentstowards my people that you have just expressed.

We feel greatly honoured to have come hereas envoys of our peace and freedom-loving peopleon a friendly visit to India, this beautiful mother-land of the great nation which contributed somuch to human civilization.

The cordial and warm welcome which is beingaccorded to us, eloquently testifies those friendlyfeelings which the people of India have towardsour people. I can assure you here that ourpeople have the same warm sentiments of friend-ship and respect towards your people whichfought hard and won their freedom and indepen-dence overthrowing the hated colonial yoke.The Mongolian people sincerely hail your effortsand successes in the uplift of your nationaleconomy scored during the years of independence.

As is known the vital problem of today is thatof safeguarding and strengthening world peace. Thepeoples are placing great hopes in the forthcomingexchange of visits between Mr. Khrushschev,Chairman of the Council of Ministers of theUSSR and Mr. Eisenhower, President of USA asan important event promising to bring aboutrelaxation of international tension. The peopleand the government of Mongolia heartily wishevery success for the meetings of the leaders of thetwo great powers.

Our people and government know very wellthe great efforts made by India for strengtheningpeace and reducing international tension. Weappreciate India's valuable contribution to thesettlement of big international problems.

The famous Five Principles of peaceful co-existence "the Panch Shila" first jointly proclaim-ed by the two great peace-loving countries ofAsia, the Republic of India, and the ChinesePeople's Republic, play an important part instrengthening the friendly relations among peoples,in safeguarding peace in Asia and throughout theworld.

India, too, was one of the sponsors of theBandung Conference of 1955, which signified anoutstanding event in bringing the Asian andAfrican nations still closer in their strugglefornational independence against colonia-lism.

The Mongolian People's Republic was found-ed as the sequence of successful struggle of theMongolian people against colonialism, and feudalregime. Since the very first day of its existencethis country has been pursuing the policy of peaceand friendship among nations. The Mongolianpeople are desirous to develop and strengthenfriendly ties with all nations.

242 The ties binding the peoples of Mongolia andIndia go back to times immemorial. At presentour two countries, marching along the path ofprogress are widening and strengthening thefriendly relations between them. You personally,Mr. Prime Minister, have made valuable contri-bution to this end.

It is a great pleasure for me to note that thevisit of His Excellency the Vice-President of theRepublic of India, Dr. Radhakrishnan, to burcountry in 1957, greatly promoted the friendlyrelations between Mongolia and India.

We hope that our visit to your country willalso serve the cause of further strengthening thefriendship and co-operation between our countries.

May I request you, Excellencies, Ladies andGentlemen, to join me in proposing this toast tothe further flourishing of friendship between thepeoples of Mongolia and India, to the good healthand happiness of our esteemed host, ShriJawaharlal Nehru.

MONGOLIA USA INDIA INDONESIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF MONGOLIA

Mr. Tsedenbal's Speech at Farewell Banquet

His Excellency Mr. Yumajagiin Tsedenbal,Chairman of the Council of Ministers of theMongolian People's Republic, speaking at abanquet given by him at Ashoka Hotel onSeptember 11, 1959 said :

Honourable Mr. Prime Minister, YourExcellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen :

Friends, I am thankful to you Mr. PrimeMinister, for accepting my invitation to gracethis humble function.

We take great pleasure, too, in welcoming mostheartily our esteemed and dear guests who havebeen so kind as to participate in this friendly party.

I and my colleagues are very happy to bepresent in your midst in this great peace, lovingcountry, the industrious and gifted people ofwhich are fighting and working hard for the noblecause of peace and progress.

The friendly relations so happily subsistingbetween our two countries are based on the firmprinciples of peaceful coexistence of nations andbenefit both Mongolia and India and serve thenoble cause of world peace.

These relations are testimony to the fact thatthe Bandung principles, the principles of co-existence, the principles of friendships andco-operation among nations with different socialsystems, are prevailing in internationallife.

Enjoying your warm hospitality we areseeing for ourselves with much interest, the lifeof your great people, the magnificent monumentsof the Indian culture, as well as your modernachievements.

Everywhere we feel deep sentiments of friend-ship and sympathy of the Indian people towardsthe Mongolian people.

I wish to express my sincere thanks to theIndian People, to H. E. Honourable PrimeMinister J. Nehru, to the Government of India,which accorded us such warm welcome.

May I propose a toast to the health ofH. E. Honourable Prime Minister, J. Nehru, andto that of all our guests present here-to the greatIndian people, to the friendship between Mongoliaand India, and among all countries of Asia andAfrica, to peace all over the world.

MONGOLIA USA INDIA INDONESIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF MONGOLIA

Vice-President Dr. Radhakrishnan's Reply

Replying, the Vice-President, Dr. S. Radha-krishnan said :

Mr. Chairman of the Council of Ministers ofMongolia, Your Ecxellencies and Friends:

I had the honour of visiting the Republic ofMongolia two years back and I received at thehands of the President and the Cabinet of thatcountry a most warm welcome. Though I spentonly one day there, they enabled me to appreciatetheir real love and friendship for us andappreciation of the efforts which we are making.

Many of our countries in Asia leaped intolife recently and they are adopting new ideas andare utilising new opportunities for raising theirstandard of living. In Mongolia also you seethat. Industrialisation is proceeding very fast.In addition to industrialisation we require some-thing else ; liberation from external constraints,liberation from the prejudices which we have in

243our own minds. There is tyranny in our minds,obsessions of which we are victims and there areexternal constraints of poverty, disease, humilia-tion, etc.

The Prime Minister of Mongolia just nowsaid, we want to work for peace. If we have toachieve peace, the under-privileged countries haveto raise their standards. But, all countries,privileged or under-privileged will have to developcharity, goodness and humanity. There must bea growth in human nature. Mongolia has inheri-ted a great religion which is scientific, ethicaland spiritual and I do hope that in their effortsto raise their material standards they will also tryto raise their moral standards. The great heritagewhich you have is something which requires tobe preserved. And I do hope the world overthere will be an attempt not merely to abolishpoverty, disease, unemployment, hunger etc., butalso national bigotry, racial discrimination andsuch other obsessions which even great nationspossess. If you are able to get rid of them, theworld will be a safe place for humanity and Ihive great pleasure now in asking you to rise anddrink to the health of the Prime Minister and wishpeace and prosperity to the people of Mongoliaand peace in the whole world.

MONGOLIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF MONGOLIA

Joint Communique

The following Joint Communique was issuedby the Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers ofthe Mongolian People's Republic, His ExcellencyMr. Yumjagiin Tsedenbal, on the conclusion of the

latter's visit to India :

At the invitation of the Government of India,His Excellency Mr. Yumjagiin Tsedenbal, Chair-man of the Council of Ministers of the MongolianPeople's Republic, paid a friendly visit to Indiafrom the 10th to the 16th September, 1959. Duringhis visit to India he called on the President andthe Vice-President of India and had discussionswith the Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru.

During his stay in Delhi and visits to Agra,Bangalore and Bombay the Mongolian PrimeMinister saw some of the ancient cultural monu-ments and a number of industrial and agriculturalenterprises and scientific institutions.

The discussions between the two Prime Minis-ters were friendly and cordial. This exchange ofviews covered economic development of the res-pective countries and important current interna-tional problems. Both the Prime Ministers agreedthat international problems should be resolvedby Peaceful methods and in a spirit of mutualunderstanding. They re-affirmed their strongbelief in the principles of peaceful co-existence.They stated that agreement should be reached with-out further delay on the suspension of tests to befollowed by prohibition of production, use andtests of nuclear weapons. This should be a part ofgeneral disarmament and the ending of cold war.

The two Prime Ministers welcomed the forth-coming exchange of visits between the SovietPrime Minister and the President of the UnitedStates of America and sincerely hoped that thesevisits would bring about a general relaxation ofinternational tensions.

The two Prime Ministers referred in thecourse of their discussions to the age-old contactsbetween their two countries and were happy to notethat in recent years this contact has been renewedand strengthened on a new basis.

The Prime Minister of Mongolia extended aninvitation to the Prime Minister of India to visitMongolia at a time convenient for him. ThePrime Minister of India expressed his gratitudefor the invitation and hoped that it may be possi-ble for him to pay a visit to Mongolia.

MONGOLIA USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

TIBET

Prime Minister's Statement on the Question of taking Tibet Issue toU.N.

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in the Lok Sabhaon September 4, 1959 in reply to a non-officialresolution urging that India should take theTibetan issue to the United Nations :

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the resolution movedby the Hon. Member appears to be a fairly simpleone, simply-worded. But as the course of thisdebate has shown, behind that resolution lie highinternational issues and big problems with big

244consequences. Now, I suppose everyone in thisHouse has a feeling of the deepest sympathy atthe sufferings of the Tibetan people. There is nodoubt about that. As everyone knows, we havegiven refuge and asylum not only to the DalaiLama but to nearly 13,000 others. In fact wehave given refuge to everyone who came. I cannotremember the case of a single person whom wedenied refuge in this case, in regard to Tibet.That itself was evidence of our feelings in thismatter.

But feelings apart, our sympathy for theTibetans apart, what exactly should we do aboutit? What exactly should we do even, let us say,to give expression to those feelings of sympathy?Some Hon. Members have delivered rather bravespeeches as to the evil deeds perpetrated by othercountries. IL is easy enough to talk about themand it is easy enough to find many faults in theways the countries behave. But, if a country likeIndia has to function, we have to function in amature way, in a considered way, in a way which

at least promises some kind of results. It is ab-solutely-I should say respectfully-pointless forus to make brave gestures and it is worse thanpointless, if these brave gestures react and reboundon us and injure us or injure the cause which weseek to promote.

So far as this question of Tibet is concerned,we may look at it from many points of view :historical, cultural and other contacts with India,China, etc. It is a long and chequered historyand one need not go into it. When a country hadhad a long and chequered history, it gives enoughmaterial, it supplies enough material for anyparty to support any claim. The Chinese claimthat Tibet was subject to their sovereignty orsuzerainty, I do not know what word they use,for hundreds of years. The Tibetans claim thatthey were independent for many periods exceptwhen they were forced into some kind of subser-vience. Now, really this may be interesting to thehistorical students, but it does not help us. It isa fact, of course, that after a period of 40 yearsor so, for all practical purposes, ever since theManchu Dynasty fell or a little after that, Tibetwas practically independent ; even so not 100 percent, even so China never gave up her claim.But in effect it was independent.

As I said, it does not help us very much. Ofcourse, if this question arose in the InternationalCourt of Justice at the Hague-of course, it willnot; such questions do not arise there becausenational States do not take them there and China,anyhow, has nothing to do with the InternationalCourt of Justice at the Hague-they might considerall these questions.

The two or three main considerations are thatinternationally considered Tibet has not beenconsidered as an independent country. It has beenconsidered an autonomous country but under thesuzerainty or sovereignty of China. That was thecase before India became independent with theUnited Kingdom, with Russia-not only the SovietUnion but the Czarist Russia previous to that-and these were the main countries concerned.The rest of the world did not pay the slightestattention to Tibet except that it was some kindof a land of mystery.

That being so, when India became independentand we inherited more or less the position as it

was in British days, both the advantages and thedisadvantages of it, well, for a moment we carriedon. We did not like many things there-I meanto say the extra-territorial privileges that we havethere which certainly were relics of British Impe-rialism in Tibet. We did not like that particularlybut we were too busy for the first year or two tointerfere with anything.

Then came this Chinese incursion or invasioninto Tibet. At no time had we denied Chineseoverleadership of Tibet, you might call it whatyou like. That has been the position all along.Even in recent years we have not denied it. Evenafter independence, even before the People'sGovernment of China came there we had notdenied it. In fact, we had somewhat functionedas if we accepted it.

Now, when this came we had to face a difficultsituation in law, and constitutionally speaking wecould not say anything because of the position wehad accepted and the world had accepted. Never-theless, we were rather pained and upset at the waythings were happening, armies marching and whatappeared to be a forcible conquest and occupationof Tibet. We sent some notes in those days,some one or two notes politely worded, expressingthe hope that this question would be peacefullysolved. I am afraid, the replies we got from theChinese Government were not equally politelyworded at that time. I am speaking from me-mory... Then, a country, El Salvador, a member ofthe United Nations, sponsored some kind of amotion on Tibet in the United Nations. It wasa motion for the inclusion of the item on theagenda of the General Assembly and with it was adraft resolution condemning, what they called, theunprovoked aggression in Tibet and suggestingthe appointment of a committee to study the

245appropriate measures to be taken.

Now, there was some discussion on thisquestion of the inclusion of the item on theagenda. The representative of India, and I believethe representative in this particular case was theJamsaheb of Nawanagar, pleaded that this mattermight be settled peacefully and it would be betternot to take it up in this way. He added, I believe,that we had received some assurances from the

Chinese Government that they wanted to settle itpeacefully by negotiation, and therefore the in-clusion of this item on the agenda be adjourned.This suggestion was supported by the UnitedKingdom, the United States of America, AustraliaSoviet Union, and for its own reasons no doubt,even by what might be called Kuemintang Chinain Formosa. The item was postponed. The post-ponement was agreed to.

On what basis did the Jamsaheb say that wehad received assurances from the Chinese Govern-ment ? I am sorry I have not got the exact paperswith me, but so far as I can remember, we hadreceived a message from the Chinese Governmentin answer to our representations and to ourrequests to the effect that they wanted to settleit by negotiation and in a peaceful way. In fact;I think they had stopped the march of their armysomewhere near the eastern borders of Tibet.

Also, some representatives of the TibetanGovernment sent by the Dalai Lama were to pro-ceed to Peking to discuss this matter. In thosedays, until quite recently, the easiest andsimplest way for a person going from Lhasa toPeking was via India. It was much more difficultto go via the Gobi desert and all that. In fact,even after the People's Government of Chinacame into power, on several occasions manyChinese travelled via India to Tibet. It wassimpler : from Calcutta right up to Gangtok inSikkim and through the Nathu La onwards. TheTibetan representatives, on their way to Peking,came to Delhi. It was more or less natural. AlsoI suppose, they wanted to consult us. Thishappened ten years ago, and I have no very clearrecollection of the sequence of events. I knowthey remained in Delhi for rather a long time ;why exactly it was not clear to me. Anyhow theydid. It was this sequence of events that led us tomake that suggestion in the United Nations, andthe matter was not discussed.

Afterwards. as a matter of fact, there was noproper negotiation with the team that the Tibetanssent. Long before they reached Peking. the otherdevelopments took place in Tibet. I think theChinese army started marching again and theDalai Lama and his representatives came to anagreement with them. Maybe, of course, theagreement might have been under compulsion ofevents, under pressure, but it was an agreement

signed on behalf of the Dalai Lama, etc.

May I say this in this connection ? The Hon.Member Shri Vajpayee stated that the Dalai LamaCame to the 17-point agreement with China be-cause of certain assurances that I gave him andfurther that this was after the Chinese PrimeMinister's visit to India. He has got these thingsrather mixed up. There was no question of mygiving any assurances, and the Chinese PrimeMinister had not come to India and I had notgone to China. I had not met the Chinese PrimeMinister at the time of this so-called 17-pointagreement between the People's Republic of Chinaand the Dalai Lama's Government, whatever itwas. So, the question of Any assurances from usdoes not come in at all. The only thing that weaccepted was-based on the message receivedfrom the Chinese Government-what theJamsaheb said in the United Nations SecurityCouncil, namely, that the Chinese said theywanted a peaceful settlement of this question andon the basis of that, it was not considered.

After that, there was this 17-point agreementin which some stress was laid on the autonomy ofTibet. Again it would be wrong to say that thisstress on autonomy was included there because ofour pressure and our desire. Certainly, it wasour desire undoubtedly but when the agreementwas concluded, we were not there ; we were notasked to express our opinion. It was betweenthe Chinese Government and the Tibetans. So,it is not correct to say that they had given us anassurance, which they broke later.

What happened was that, several years after-wards, when Premier Chou-En-lai came here,we had talks about Tibet and the Dalai Lamatoo was here at that time. The talks, I believe,were really initiated by Premier Chou-En-lai andhe wanted to explain to me-he did explain-what their position was in regard to Tibet notbecause he was answering some charge mad byme or because he thought that it was incumbenton him to do so but because he felt-I take it-that we had friendly relations and he had to tryto convince me of China's position in this case.

He began by telling me that Tibet hadalways been a part of the Chinese State, 'always'meaning for hundreds and hundreds of years.Occasionally when China was weak, that sove-

reignty was not exercised properly, but he saidTibet had always been a part of Chinese State.

246That was his case. He further added, but Tibetis not China proper. It is part of the ChineseState. It is not the Han people there. Chineseare the Han people, but these are the Mongols,Manchus, Tibetans, etc. Tibet, he said, is not aprovince of China. It is an autonomous regionof the Chinese State and we want to respect thatautonomy. That is what he told me. In fact,he went on to say that some people imagined thatwe want to thrust communism on Tibet. Thatis absurd, because the Tibetans, socially speaking,are so backward that communism is very farfrom the Tibetan state affairs now. But he said,certainly it is a very backward State and we wantto make them progress socially, economically,etc.

Even, then, i.e. three years ago, some troublehad started internally in Tibet or rather on theeastern border of Tibet, particularly in an areawhich was not in Tibet proper, but it was Tibetanreally in population-the Kham area which wason the eastern border of Tibet, but inhabited byTibetans. This portion had been incorporatedin China a little ago ; I forget when, but not nowanyway, but previous to all this. The Tibetansthere, the Khampas, did not take kindly tocertain Chinese measures because although theChinese Government left Tibet proper more orless untouched in the sense of any so-called landreforms or any other reforms, politically theyheld Tibet firmly. But they did not interfere-that is what Premier Chou-En-lai told me ; "Wedid not wish to interfere ; let them graduallydevelop themselves." But in this eastern partwhich was considered a part of China-theytreated it as a part of China-this ultimately ledto the Khamba rebellion there, a kind of guerillarebellion, which had already lasted for their time,a year or more when Premier Chou En-lai camehere three years ago.. We did not discuss that.But he referred to it and said : We do not wishto interfere with the Tibetans, with their internalstructure, internal autonomy, social custom, reli-gion or anything ; but we would not, of course,tolerate rebellion and foreign interference, etc.Well, I do not know what he meant of thoughtwhen he said foreign interference or imperialistinterference, but I find that they had some kind

of a link in their minds, not so much, I think, ofIndia having anything to do with it, but of foreigncountries, United Kingdom or America somehowmaking incursions into Tibet, because they hadgot those countries in their mind. They havenot quite realised that the United Kingdom hasabsolutely no interest in Tibet since they left India.They just cannot reach it. They have no means,no representative there ; they have nobody thereeven to give them any news. And, to my know-ledge, neither has the United States, in fact. Theonly representative in Tibet of any other countryis that of India, the Consul-General. Probablythe Soviet Union also ; possibly also Mongolians.But what I meant to say was there were noEuropeans or Americans. Anyhow this is whathe told me :-the rebellion is going on. So wehad this talk and you may call it what youlike. But it was more an explanation to me. Itwas not some kind of an assurance extracted byme from Premier Chou En-lai. I say this becausepeople might say : oh, you did this because of thatguarantee given to you. It was not a guaranteein that sense. It was certainly something which,when I heard, pleased me, about the autonomy ofTibet, etc. But I have no business to call himto account saying : "You guaranteed and youare not doing it ; in that sense, though I mustsay that I was pained when, because of otherdevelopments, the structure of the autonomybroke down completely.

Well, this internal revolt in Tibet graduallyspread month after month, year after year. Itspread slowly from the east westwards. And Ihave personally little doubt that the great majorityof Tibetans, even though, they did not during thisperiod participate in it, sympathised with it ;I have no doubt about it. And that is for obviousreasons, not on any high grounds but for thesimple reason that the Tibetans, like others, havea strong nationalist sense, and they resented thesewhen they considered outsiders coming in andupsetting their life and all the structures in whichthey lived. So this spread and then other thingshappened.

One need not go into detailed history butthe trouble in Lhasa itself, partly of course, Ithink may have been caused by various activitiesof the Chinese governors. Where a ruler, an out-sider, an alien ruler has to deal with the populationwhich is not friendly, well, the relationship can

well be imagined. It is not a healthy relationship.The ruler is afraid, the people are afraid, bothof each other. And when fear governs therelations of two parties, it is likely to lead to badresults. In fact, wherever a country, is a subjectcountry, that is an unhealthy relationship. Well,that led to this upheaval in Tibet and the DalaiLama's flight from Lhasa, coming to and so onand so forth. After that I have no accurate newsof what has happened.

I think we may broadly say that there hasbeen strong military pressure on several parts ofTibet and the Tibetans enjoy far from autonomyunder the military government there. It may bethat the stories that we hear about happenings inside

247Tibet are exaggerated, because most of the storiesinevitably come from refugees, and refugee how-ever good they may be, having suffered themselves,are apt to give rather a coloured picture, and thepicture is not of what they have seen or what theyhave heard. So, it goes on increasing. So, itmay be that the stories are exaggerated. But asa responsible person I cannot repeat these storiestill I have some kind of a proof. But whetherthey are exaggerated or not there can be littledoubt that a great deal has happened in Tibetwhich is deplorable and that the people of Tibethave suffered much and that it can certainly notbe said that it is a happy family living together.

Previously when this matter came up beforethis House I said that our approach to theseproblems are governed by two or three factors.Among these I mentioned two-our sympathy forthe Tibetan people and our desire to maintainfriendly relations with China. Now that mayappear to be something contradictory and it doesin the present context slightly contradict eachother. That is the difficulty of the situation.But that does not get away from our basicapproach which is governed by these two factors.The third factor, of course, is and always will bethe integrity of India and the freedom of India.It is our first duty to protect that.

Why do I say that ? Because I want to repeatthat any step that we may take now cannot betaken in a huff, if I may say so, because we areangry and we do something regardless of theconsequence of that step. We work not only in

the present but for the future-for the distantfuture. I have always thought that it is importanteven essential if you like, that these two countriesof Asia, India and China, should have friendlyand as far as possible cooperative relations. Itis a remarkable fact of history-and I do notthink you will find it duplicated elsewhere at anytime-that during these 2,000 years of relationshipbetween India and China they have not had anykind of military conflict. It has been a culturalrelationship. It has been to some extent relation-ship. It has been a religious association. Throughout these long periods they were not passivecountries. They were active, positive countries.They want in those days, not like the later daysin India when we did become a passive, inertcountry, tied down by caste and do not crossthe seas and not touch this man and do not seethat man-that type of country we developed-our people went on adventures. They went allover the South eastern seas. They establishedcolonies. They established, not imperialistcolonies, but independent colonies. In fact theeffect of India all over the south eastern regionwas tremendous. You see it today. So also wasthe effect of China there. So these two greatbig powerful countries were constantly meetingand yet there was no conflict. It is a remarkablefact of history. Certainly nowhere in Europewill you find such a thing or for the matter ofthat in Asia.

Now it seemed to me that in the future itwould be a tragedy not only for India, andpossibly for China, but for Asia and the worldif we develop some kind of permanent hostility.Natural friendship does not exist if you are weakand if you are looked down upon as a weakcountry. Friendship cannot exist between theweak and the strong, between a country that istrying to bully and the other who accepts to bebullied. Whether it is an individual or a groupor a country that does not happen. It is onlywhen people are more or less equal, when peoplerespect each other that they are friends. So alsonations. But subject to that we did work for thefriendship of India and China. May I say thatin spite of all that has happened and is happeningtoday that is still our objective and we shallcontinue to work for it. That does not meanthat we should surrender in anything that weconsider right or that we should hand over bits ofterritory of India to China to please them. That

is not the way to be friends with anybody or tomaintain our dignity or self-respect. But inthe long run, it is of importance for these twogreat countries, whatever internal structures andpolicies might be, to be friends.

I know that, sometimes, it is difficult to feelfriendly when one hears things that irritate, thatanger, when we see that our people have not beentreated even courteously, when we receive com-munications from the Chinese Government, whichare singularly lacking in even ordinary politeness.All that is irritating. But, then, it is easy enoughfor any one to get angry and irritated. It isnecessary for people who hold responsible posi-tions not to allow themselves to be irritated,certainly to maintain the dignity of the countryand the continuity of our policy too.

Many people charge us, 'What about yourfamous Panch Sheel where are these five principles:Dead and gone and buried or cremated ? Well,it is whatever you like. That indicates a com-pletely wrong approach to this question. Whatis Panch Sheel ? Panch Sheel or the five principles,they did not become principles because they wereembodied in a treaty between India and Chinathey stand by themselves, principles of interna-tional real relationship which we held to becorrect, and we shall hold to them even if all the

248world says no to them. Of course, it is obviousthat if the other party does not agree to them,that relationship does not subsist. The principlesremain true all the same. When people are wiseenough, they come back to them. Therefore,there is no question of Panch Sheel failing. Itmay be, if you like, the question of India failingor China failing. But, the principles remain.This is the outlook.

If you will permit me to go slightly outsidethe purview of this Resolution, we have to facecertain difficult situations on our borders andelsewhere: about the treatment accorded to ourpeople in Tibet by the Chinese authorities. I mayinform the House that the first thing that I doevery morning is to open a bunch of telegrams, apretty big bunch. I should imagine that in everybunch there are at least five or six dealing withthis affair either from Peking or Lhasa or Gyantseor Yatung, just the latest happenings, the latest

developments. Of course, the telegrams we getfrom Gyantse, Yatung and Lhasa cannot tell usabout the happenings in Tibet, because they haveno communication with the rest of Tibet. Theycan only see more or less round about the Con-sulate or the Trade agency and tell us what arethe happenings to-day. There are petty problemsarising. Almost every morning, usually, at least,I start the day in a not too pleasant mood becauseof these messages. I try to overcome that. I amgetting accustomed to some extent to do that.

We have got to deal with these difficult pro-blems, these border incidents. If any one asksme, as they sometimes do, what do the borderincident indicate, frankly, I do not know whatmight be in the minds of the other party ; whetherit is just local aggressiveness or just to show usour place, if I may use a colloquial phrase, so thatwe may not get uppish or whether it is somethingpeeper. I do not know.

I might inform the House that only lastevening, we received a fairly long reply from theChinese Governments. That is a reply to theprotest I had sent a few days ago about theseincidents on the North East Frontier border. Itis a fairly long reply. It will, naturally, requirevery careful consideration. But, broadly speakingthe reply is a repudiation of our charge that theyhad come on our territory, that they had startedfiring on our patrol there and charging us withhaving come on their territory and having openedfire on them : that is, complete conflict in the factsreversal of the facts here. We shall examine thatreply carefully because it is a long and more orless argued note, with lots of places mentionedand other things. And we shall send them areply fairly soon, that is, in the next two or threedays.

May I also repeat what I said here that be-fore this House rises this session, I hope to placea White Paper before the House containing cor-respondence between the Chinese Governmentand our Government ever since the treaty betweenIndia and China in regard to Tibet, that is, duringthe last five years, so that the House may have thebackground of what has been happening ?

Now, all this is there. We have, on the onehand naturally to protect our borders. Andwhen I say that I want to hold myself, and some-

what restrain my powerful reactions so as not togo too far, in, let us say, military measures andthe like; because, when nations get excited andall their prestige is involved, then, step by step,they are driven often in wrong directions. So, wetry, at any rate, to balance, balance in the senseof a firm policy where we think we are in the right.'Nevertheless, with always a door open to accom-modation, a door open to a settlement, whereverthis is possible.

Broadly speaking in regard to this border,that is, the border incidents, as I have just men-tioned, they say that we have committed aggres-sion. Now, it is a question of fact, whether thisvillage or that village or this little strip of territoryis on their side or on our side. Normally,wherever these are relatively petty disputes, well,it does seem to me rather absurd for two greatcountries or two small countries immediately torush at each other's throat and to decide whethertwo miles of territory are on this side or on thatside, and especially, two miles of territory in thehigh mountains, where nobody lives. But wherenational prestige and dignity is involved, it is notthe two miles of territory, it is the nation's dignityand self-respect that become involved in it. And,therefore, this happens. But I do not wish, in sofar as I can, to press the issue so far that there isno escape for either country, because theirnational dignities are involved, except a recourseto arms. That is not, I hope .........

An Hon. Member : What is the boundary,according to the latest report ? What is theboundary which they have indicated according tothe latest reply that we have received from them ?

The Prime Minister : How can I say thatwithout a large map and all kinds of little thingsabout villages and all that ? The present disputeabout that matter is relatively a small matter;whether it may be two miles this side or that sideis not a very big thing; but I do not know what

249their map is, here, there and elsewhere. So faras I am concerned, I have often stated how ourfrontier from the Burma border right up to theBhutan border is the MacMahon Line; we heldby that and we think it is highly objectionable,highly improper for the Chinese Government togo on issuing maps colouring half of the North

Eastern Frontier Agency, one third of Assamand one-third of Bhutan as if they belong toChina. That is really an affront. I can under-stand something happening for a little while, andsome mistake; but a continuing thing, to be toldyear after year for ten years that 'Oh, well, weshall look into it, when we have leisure' is not agood enough answer. That is so.

But having accepted broadly the MacMahonLine., I am prepared to discuss any interpretationof the MacMahon Line; minor interpretation hereand there;-that is a different matter--not these bigchunks but the minor interpretation whether thishill is there or this little bit is on that side or onthis side, on the facts, on the maps on the evidenceavailable. That I am prepared to discuss withthe Chinese Government. I am prepared to haveany kind of conciliatory, mediatory process toconsider this. I am prepared to have arbitrationof any authority agreed to by the two partiesabout these minor rectifications, where they arechallenged by them or by us, whichever the casemay be. That is a different matter. I say thisbecause I do not take up that kind of narrowattitude that whatever I say is right and whateverthe other person says is wrong. But the broadMacMahon Line has to be accepted and so far aswe are concerned, it is there and we accept it.

The position about Ladakh is somewhatdifferent. The MacMahon Line does not gothere. That is governed by ancient treaties over100 years old between the then ruler of Kashmir,Maharaja Gulab Singh, who was a feudatory ofthe Sikh ruler of the Punjab at the time. This wasin the thirties of the 19th century. On the oneside, there was the treaty of 1842 and on theother side, the ruler of Lhasa and the representa-tive of the Emperor of China, which resulted inLadakh being recognised as a part of KashmirState.

Now, nobody has challenged that. Nobodychallenges it now. But the actual boundary ofLadakh with Tibet was not very carefully defined.It was defined to some extent by British officerswho went there. But I rather doubt if they didany careful survey. They marked the line. Ithas been marked all along in our maps. They didit. As people do not live there, by and large,it does not make any difference. It did notmake any difference. At that time, nobody cared

about it. Now, the question arose. We are preparedto sit down and discuss these minor things. Butdiscuss it on what terms ? First, treaties, existingmaps etc. Secondly, usage, what has been theusage all those years. Thirdly, geography. Bygeography, I mean physical features like water-sheds, ridge of a mountain, not a bit of plaindivided up. These are convenient features forinternational boundaries.

I have gone out of my way to refer to thesevarious matters in connection with this Resolutionwhich deals with a simpler issue. Coming backto this particular Resolution, quite apart from thesympathy which the Hon. Mover and some otherHon. Members feel for Tibetans, if we take anaction, it should be justifiable in law and in Con-stitution and we should hope for some results,some results which will help us to achieve theobjective aimed at.

Looking at it from the point of view of justi-fication, the United Nations may come into thepicture for two reasons. One is, violation ofhuman rights and the other, aggression. Now,violation of human rights applies to those whohave accepted the Charter of the United Nationsin other words, those members of the UnitedNations who have accepted the Charter. Strictlyspeaking, you cannot apply the Charter to peoplewho have not accepted the Charter, who have notbeen allowed to come into the United Nations.That applies.

Secondly, if you talk about aggression, aggres-sion by one sovereign independent State on an-other. As I told you, in so far as world affairsare concerned, Tibet has not been acknowledgedas an independent State for a considerable time,even long before this happened-much less after.Therefore, it is difficult to justify aggression.

Now, you may say that these may be ratherlegal pleas. But I am merely pointing out a con-stitutional aspect of and the difficulties and theprocedures involved.

Then, I come to a certain practical aspect.And that is what good will it achieve ? Supposewe get over the legal quibbles and legal difficulties.It may lead to a debate in the General Assemblyor the Secuirity Council wherever it is taken up, a

debate whch will be an acrimonious debate, anangry debate, a debate which will be after thefashion of cold war. Having had the debate whatthen will be promotors of that debate and that

250motion do? Nothing more. They will returnhome. After having brought matters to a highertemperature, fever heat, they will go home. Theyhave done their duty because they can donothing else.

Obviously, nobody is going to send an armyto Tibet or China for that was not done in thecase of Hungary which is a part of Europe andwhich is more allied to European nations. It isfantastic to think they will move in that way inTibet. Obviously not. So, all that will happenis an expression of strong opinion by some, othercountries denying it and the matter being raisedto the level of cold war-brought into, the domainof cold war-and probably producing reactionson the Chinese Government which are more ad-verse to Tibet and the Tibetan people than evennow. So, the ultimate result is no relief tothe Tibetan people but something the reverseof it.

The question, both from the constitutionaland the legal point of view, is not clear. In fact,persons who have examined it think that it isdifficult to bring it there. And, from the practicalpoint of view also there is no good result. Then,what exactly is the purpose of taking that subjectexcept may be to satisfy some kind of urge toshow sympathy or to show that we are angry. Ican understand that urge certainly. But we mustnot allow the urge to take the reins into its handsand take us away with it to unknown regionsand dangerous regions. Therefore, I am unableto accept this resolution and I would suggest tothe House also not to accept it.

INDIA USA CHINA RUSSIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC EL SALVADOR AUSTRALIA MONGOLIABURMA BHUTAN HUNGARY

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS

Indo-Soviet Oil Agreement Signed

An agreement for the estiblishment of an oilrefinery at Barauni between the Governments ofIndia and the U.S.S.R. was concluded on NewDelhi on September 28, 1959.

Shri N.S. Mani, I. C. S., Joint Secretary,Ministry of Steel, Mines & Fuel, signed on behalfof the Government of India and Mr. V.A. Sergeev,Counsellor for Economic Affairs, for the SovietGovernment.

The Minister for Mines & Oil, Shri K.D.Malaviya and the Soviet Ambassador to India,Mr. Ivan Alexandrovich Benediktov, were present.

The refinery at Barauni will be the second tobe established in the public sector and will bebased on crude oil from the Nahorkatia region inAssam. The first refinery in the public sector isbeing set up at Nunmati in Assam, with financialand technical assistance obtained from the Govern-ment of Rumania.

The Barauni Refinery will be designed toprocess about 2 million tons of crude oil perannum. For the purpose of establishing thisrefinery, the Soviet Government have extended acredit of 100 million roubles or roughly Rs. 12crores, with a long dated repayment schedule.

NOTE

On the 7th September, 1959, Prime Minister Nehru presented toParliamenta White Paper containing the notes, memoranda and letters exchangedand theagreements signed between the Government of India and the Governmentof thePeople's Republic of China between April 1954 and August 1959.

251

INDIA USA CHINA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

President Rajendra Prasad's Message on U.N. Day

The President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad broad-cast a message over the All India Radio onOctober 23, 1959 on the occasion of the UnitedNations Day.

The following is the text of his message ;

"As we celebrate the U.N. Day this year, Ifeel that the idea of peaceful living or, at any rate,the need to avoid war, is taking roots. It is truethat effective concrete steps are yet to be taken,but I suggest that there are indications which goto support this feeling. Whether it is in the fieldof scientific advances or of economic development,the world seems to have made some progresswhich sustains the hope for a better future.

In its representative character U.N. is today.more powerful and effective than any internationalorganisation known in human history. There aredoubtless differences of opinion, but on manybasic issues, member nations are now tending tocome closer. All men and women of goodwillmust welcome the recent trends in general for thereduction of international tension and for thecreation of better understanding. While it is truethat U.N. is not designed to be a worldparliament, the day may not be far off whensuch a concept could be realistically pursued.

Never before have representatives of somany nations gathered together to discuss commonproblems having a close bearing on the future ofcountries and the well-being of man. The ideaof a common effort for solving problems affectingmore than one nation has begun to be widely

accepted. - The Security Council I and other mainbodies of U.N. as also the Specialised Agenciesare now more fully aware of the problems con-fronting them. It should be admitted that asevery year passes, the U.N. and the allied organsapproach these problems in a more constructivefashion.

India has always had full faith in the prin-ciples laid down in the Charter of the U.N. Weshall continue in our own small way to do all thatis possible to strengthen this world organisationand to make its working more successful.

On this day, when this great organisationwas founded 14 years ago, I should like to sendmy greetings to all member nations of U.N. andtheir peoples.

INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri Krishna Menon's Speech in General Assembly

Shri V. K. Krishna Menon, Leader of theIndian Delegation to the United Nations, made aSpeech in the General Debate of the UnitedNations General Assembly on October 6, 1959.

The following is the text of his Speech :

Mr. President my delegation had the oppor-tunity earlier during the course of this session tooffer its felicitations to you on your unanimouselection to the high office you hold. Today, wehave the pleasure of being able to congratulateyou and wish ourselves well upon your returnafter your brief indisposition. The Assemblywould not be as fruitful without your guidanceand without your presence with us here.

My delegation would also like to take thisopportunity of expressing the feelings of ourGovernment and country at the tragic death of thePrime Minister of Ceylon, Mr. Bandaranaike. Manyrepresentatives have spoken here of his qualitiesof statesmanship and personal qualities of wisdomand courage, and it is not necessary at this latehour for me to detain you. Ceylon is our closestneighbour. Its Prime Minister was a personalfriend of many of our people and we have alsobeen encouraged by the example of his greatcourage in times of difficulty in his own countryand by the leadership that he has given in regardto policies fashioned by himself and neighbouringnations.

My delegation participates in this debate at arather late stage. Some seventy-nine speakers,not including those who exercised the right of reply,have spoken nearly sixty hours on the variousproblems that concern the world. This is not alarge number of speakers, nor is it a considerableamount of time, and my delegation feels that theopportunity of the general debate-where we notonly hear the discussion of world problems assuch, but also get some glimpse of each other'scountries-is one of the main contributions at theopen session of the Assembly which makes forinternational understanding.

This session of the General Assembly opened,

253in the early stages, with an address of the Chair-man of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. Itwas one of the greatest events of our time, espe-cially in view of the pronouncements he made andthe policy decisions he communicated to thisAssembly, to which my delegation will address itselfat a later stage.

There has been a degree of criticism and, onthe part of the Secretary-General, what soundssomewhat like an apology for the development ofevents outside the United Nations. So far as theGovernment of India is concerned, we do not lookupon this as though we have to suffer throughthings as they are or make the best of a bad posi-tion. We think that the developments that havetaken place in what is called outside the UnitedNations, in so far as they are developments whichcontribute towards the progress of humanity, to-

wards world peace and co-operation, are insidethe United Nations, in so far as the UnitedNations is not bound by the limits of this Organi-sation but by the principles and purposes of theCharter. The Secretary-General has alreadypointed out the constitutional and other reasonswhich justify this kind of negotiation.

We think that it is very important, whereverpossible, that those who are in a position to nego-tiate, who are in a position to deliver the goods,those between whom there are greater suspicionsthan others, should take advantage of everyopportunity, and we in the United Nations shouldwish them well. We are equally anxious that ouranxiety or our concern in this matter should finda response in those others who are concerned,that we should be informed, that we should edu-cate ourselves, and that we should make ourcontribution as to the places where we stand.

The large number of speeches that have pre-ceeded me have as their main themes the centralproblem of our world, namely the tension thatexists. But it has also been characterized by adegree of at least a desire to hope. I think itwould be far optimistic to say "by a tone of hope-fulness", because that is not characteristic of theAssembly. The Assembly consists of large num-bers of hard-boiled representatives of Governmentsand it is not as though they take a romantic viewof things. But right through these speeches.except where intimate problems concerning theirown countries and their relations and other factorscome in, there has been in these speeches a desire,an anxiety, a passion, that we may feet hopeful inregard to what may happen in the future.

Also, there is very much concern about thedevelopment of arms and the fact that after tento fourteen years of discussing disarmament, theworld today stands more armed than it has everbeen. What is more, the various proposals thathave come in from time to time, though they haveengaged the attention of people and have certain-ly led to the development of the consideration ofvarious aspects and difficulties, have not led toany positive solutions.

Therefore, looking at the world as it is, wefind today, at a time when this Assembly meets,that we are, on the one hand, confronted withhope, and, on the other hand with anxiety. And

it brought to my mind the kind of romantic fan-tasy of a famous historical novelist-not of ourtime but of a previous century-who, in writingin one of his historical novels and fancying forhimself the periods when the British Crown re-ceived a communication from some British subjectsacross the seas, namely from the American colo-nies, wrote in this way :

"It was the best of times; it was the worst of times. It was the age of wis- dom ; it was the age of foolishness. It was the epoch of belief-, it was the epoch of incredulity. It was the season of light ; it was the season of darkness. It was the spring of hope ; it was the winter of despair. We had everything before us ; we had nothing before us."

And he goes on in that way.

The world is very much in that state and itlargely reflects the state of development of ourtimes, that we are confronted with problems aboutwhich we have little experience. And thereforea pragmatic approach, dealing with problems asthey arise and not being committed too far be-forehand as to what side on should take, is neces-sary in the interests of the relaxation of worldtensions.

My country has been committed to this posi-tion for a long time. In that connection, wewelcomed the statement of the representative ofIceland the other day, not about fishing rights inthe North Pole-in that we do not want to parti-cipate-but in regard to the formation of blocs,not the blocs of the cold war, but the blocs insidethe Assembly. We ourselves belong to variousgroups, and I think that groups, in so far as theyseek to offer to the Assembly the collective wis-dom, are a constructive force. But if, on theother hand, blocs surround themselves with wallsof isolation, then we shall divide the unity ofthis Assembly. A degree of neighbourliness, adegree of the coming together of people who have

254common problems and common backgrounds, isto be expected.

But my delegation shares, with the represen-tative of Iceland, the concern that our attempts

to cooperate with each other should not result inour isolating ourselves from the whole of theUnited Nations.

This period has also been one of considerablescientific advancement, including the proximityof human discovery towards finding the originsof life itself.

We have also had placed before us at thissession for the first time, although it had beenmentioned so many times in speeches by less not-able delegations, the proposition that disarmamentalone is not what we have to have in this world,but really a warless world. When the time comes,then, in the course of our observations at thisAssembly, my delegation would like to draw adistinction between the two proposals that arebefore the Assembly, one concerned with disarma-ment and the other concerned with a world with-out war.

We have before us the report of the Secre-tary-General, which is of unusual character. Itdeals with questions of political philosophy andtheory ; it deals with problems that have to dowith the development of this Organization in thefuture. And I say, in all humility, that I do notthink that our Organization has given properattention either to these problems or to the reportitself. The Secretary-General's report is receivedas a matter of course, and we are inclined to thinkthat our responsibilities are over when we payhim his meed of thanks.

We are grateful not only to the Secretary-General for this report. In his person, he em-bodies the whole of the Secretariat. At the endof this general debate, we should like to offer thethanks of our delegation and, if I may say so, thethanks of all of us, to all those persons who makeup the Secretariat, who make the functioning ofthe Assembly possible, and who prepare the largeamount of material and the considerable numberof documents which we receive, and some ofwhich we do not receive. For all these things,we are grateful to the Secretariat-to the adminis-trative staff, to the interpreters, and to everybodyconcerned. Most of them are people whosenames do not appear in the newspapers and donot even appear in official records. If not fortheir diligence and their devotion to duty and thehard work they have to put in, often after office

hours, it would not be possible for us to functionhere. May I therefore take the liberty of askingthe Secretary-General to convey to the Secretariatin an appropriate way, the appreciation of mydelegation.

It is not possible for me to study this reportpublicly, because some of it is obviously debat-able, and I do not want at this stage of the As-sembly to enter into a controversial field. How-ever, one may be permitted to refer to the variouspoints.

The Secretary-General has referred to theuniversality of the United Nations. I amsure that, as things stand all delegations butone in this Assembly hall would vote for uni-versality as far as membership is concerned.But the observations of the Secretary-Generalgo a little further, when this universal con-ception has a bearing upon functioning insuch a way as though the concern of every Mem-ber of the Assembly has to be demarcated in oneform or another. I do not say that this is alto-gether a proposition that should not be consideredbut it has its pitfalls. It is one of those thingsthat I do hope will engage the attention of theAssembly in the future-that is the developmentof the Organization, to what extent the UnitedNations has become synonymous with the entiretyof its Members and the Governments represented-and, even where the results are good, to whatextent, for the time being or for all time, theyhave to keep out of it.

There are certain constitutional procedureswhere, again, there are certain aspects which onewould welcome and other aspects which onewould want to study. We will all admit that asthe work of the United Nations grows, becomesintensive, becomes more a day-to-day affair, thefunctioning of the representatives of Governmentsat Headquarters who are accredited to the UnitedNations would become more important. But myGovernment has always taken the view that, whe-ther it be in groups, the Asian-African group orthe European group or whatever it is, policies areto be made by chancelleries, and therefore nogroup of representatives, either at a particulartime at an Assembly or otherwise, could, in thepresent circumstances of the world, in the absenceof a world constitution and world law, becomede facto a world government. Therefore, while

we are fully aware of the importance of day-to-day consultation, this Organization will carryweight with public opinion in various countries,will have the conscious and enthusiastic supportof Governments, only to the extent that, in acti-vities from day-to-day, the Secretary-General'spersonality itself is more and more in touch with

255Governments and chancelleries. Mr. Hammarsk-jold is fully conscious of this matter, and, duringthe considerable time that he has between sessionsof the Assembly, he takes care to visit capitals.Unfortunately, he has to do acerta in amount ofsightseeing, but. included in these sights are thestatesmen of those countries.

The same applies with regard to voting pro-cedures. When we touch on this matter, wetouch a very tender spot. While it is quite truethat equality of status, as a great British PrimeMinister once said, does not mean equality offunction, it is also true that, the less the capacityto function, the more a person is conscious ofhis status. Therefore, when we touch on thisproblem, we shall be touching on something whichrequires a great deal of consideration.

Each State here has one vote. All are equal.The very large country of Iceland, with a popula-tion of 200,000, is as important as the country ofIndia, with a population 380,000,000. But it isequally true that a mere massing of votes-whetherit is 45 to 11 with 25 abstentions or as in the olddays, 55 to 5--does not have the same impactupon world opinion as, shall we say, a vote thatreflects the real views and conditions in the world.To a very large extent, a vote in this Assemblyhas value in direct ratio to its impact upon worldopinion and the response it arouses on the part ofthe world.

The Secretary-General has also made referenceto the International Court and its uses. In thatconnexion, reference was made in the course ofthe debate to the fact that certain countries-par-ticularly referring to us-had taken the view thatwe could make decisions on matters where othersare concerned, and that it would be far better ifwe accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of theInternational Court. Merely as a point of infor-niation, I should like to inform the Assembly thatthe Government of India has accepted the com-

pulsory jurisdiction of the International Court,and the documents in this connexion have beencirculated by the Secretariat. Of course, theacceptance contains reservations, but those reser-vations are. not unusual. They are reservationswhich appertain to all Commonwealth countries,and reservations which are common in diplomaticpractice. But, apart from that, we have acceptedthe compulsory jurisdiction of the InternationalCourt.

It is usual at this time to look at the agendaof the United Nations. It is one of the easiestthings to do because we have looked at it for tenyears. It is always the same agenda because it isthe same world. But there are certain changesand developments, and then our approach to theseitems will vary. I do not think we should becynical and say that we discuss the same thingsyear after year. I suppose we discuss the samething in one sense, but we make a different ap.proach to these problems. Certain new items havecome into the agenda, and the Secretary-General'sreport, I think, constitutes one of the not un-necessary items on the agenda but a documentwhich provides much food for thought. I hopethe Secretary-General at some time will giveconsideration to placing the individual mattersfor consideration before the appropriate organs ofthe United Nations.

It is usual on occasions of this kind to referto ones own country. My delegation has givenconsiderable thought to this and there is goodjustification for it. It is done for two reasons.One is that in our part of the world great changesare taking place. We are at present in that partof the world which in recent times has come intoindependence. We also represent a social andeconomic system where revolutions, political, so-cial and economic, are sought to be established,by and large, by consent. But over and abovethat we would like to discuss briefly the develop-ments in our own land during the last twelvemonths or so, because it is one way of communi-cation. We lay great stress upon sendingdelegations, upon receiving delegations, uponcommunication of information. Therefore I thinkthat if delegates who are assembled here do notuse this opportunity within the brevity of time thatconditions us to inform each other of our positionwe shall not be doing our duty to our own countryor to the Assembly as a whole.

It may be that in some cases our nationalaspirations, our national considerations, our na-tional prejudices and traditions, may import intothis an essential balance. In India the main themeabout which one may speak is its economic andsocial development under its other conditions ofa planned economy. Various five-year plans havebeen in progress and we find that this progresshas maintained its schedules, and while progressis slow-at least slow according to our standardsand our hopes-it has still progressed.

From an expenditure of somewhere about$ 17,300 million in previous years, last year'sexpenditures on the progress of planned economyhas risen to somewhere about $ 22,600 million.Also the standards of life of our people have goneup but very slightly, because while the nationalincome, to which I refer now, has gone up, theper capita income in India has not gone up in the

256same way because of the increase in population.It does not mean that our increase in populationis proportionately higher than anywhere else, butthe aggregates are much larger. So from a percapita of $ 49.4 per head in the last ten years, ithas gone up to only $ 57.8 per head of population.

Since independence in our country there hasbeen an increase in population to the extent of67 millions. That is larger than the populationof many countries represented here. This comesabout from the fact that, while the birth-rate hasgone down one point per thousand of population,the death-rate has gone down eleven points. Fewerpeople are born, but much fewer people die.-Infantile mortality has also gone down from 146to 108 in last ten years. That results in the factthat the mouths to feed which press upon the meansubsistence is greater than can be catered to bythe increase in wealth itself.

Food production in India has increased inthe same way. As far as my recollection goes,in pre-partitioned India-that is, when India andPakistan were in one country-the total produc-tion of foodgrain in India was 47 million tons.In a smaller India, which is about three-fifths ofthe previous area, last year we produced 73.5million tons of foodgrain and we are still hungry.The rise in the first five years has been 15 per

cent and the following three years about 11 percent. The production of food in the country,which may sound a rather flat proposition to putforward, is really the basis of all prosperity andpeace and, indeed, is the substratum of our inter-national peace and co-operation.

Side by side with the advance in food pro-duction has been advances in social development.I would not take the time of the Assembly bygoing into every item. There are a great numberof them which may interest me as a national, butI think the development of co-operation in Indiais one of the outstanding features in a countrywhere a unique feature is that we have a distinctivePosition compared with western Europe. Inwestern Europe democracy and a political revolu-tion whether violent or otherwise, conferring poli-tical power upon the masses, came after theIndustrial Revolution. We have the reverseprocess.

In India, we have full-fledged political revolu-tion. We place this political power in the handsof every man and woman of adult age, whetherliterate or illiterate, whether rich or poor, whethertall or short, and the industrial and economicprogress which is to come thereafter, with all thesocial consequences that follow.

Ten years ago there were in India somewhereabout 5.7 million co-operative societies. Today,there are 13.8 million of them. There are 115,000of our villages which a few years ago were coveredby co-operatives; today 179,000 of them are cover-ed. But still there remain nearly 450,000 villagesto be covered by co-operatives. There are some-where about 340,000 co-operative societies in thecountry and 56 per cent of the people are covered.There is another project where there is so muchinterest in the United Nations. Indeed, it figuresin the report of the Secretary-General with regardto community project developments. India todayaspires to cover herself with this form of villagedemocracy and planning, economic and social,right from the bottom. Sixty per cent of ourvillages are covered by these projects, and 56.6 percent of our population, somewhere about 165million.

Then we come to a larger development whichhas international bearings. In a country like ourswhich has come into the field of modem develop-

ment only recently and with a standard of life in-dicated by the figures I have given with regard toper capita income, modern development, whichrequires capital goods from highly-advanced coun-tries, and what is more different separators, whichalso have been conditioned by the economy ofother countries, is to a large extent conditioned byour capacity to buy in foreign lands. That isexternal assistance becomes of great importance.In this sphere the United Nations itself hastaken part, although only with what the Secretary-General would in private call at a laboratory stage.

The amount of external aid as far as India isconcerned has come largely from the United Statestotalling some $ 1,800 million in the last ten years,out of which $ 490 million is outright aid, theremainder being loans repayable in dollars orIndian currency, with some $ 200 million or soreserved for the use of the United States Govern-ment. Therefore, in the way of outright grants,for which we are grateful, there has been nearly$ 500 million pumped into the Indian economy.From the Soviet Union, machinery, projects andassistance, in loans or otherwise, amounted to $ 670million. Then we have a series of other projectswhich are of a more co-operative character, largelyin the Commonwealth group, as indicated by theColombo Plan, out of which Canada has beenour best friend and helper. Canada is a compara-tively small country in the way of population,but it is a rich one. India has received up to1958-59 $ 176 million, mainly in the field ofmachinery and atomic apparatus.

From the small country of New Zealand, with

257a population of two and a half million, has beenpoured into India, largely through UNICEF, some$ 67 million in the last ten years. Australia, oneof our neighbours, has contributed to the buildingof hydroelectric projects to the extent of $ 23million. The United Kingdom, in the same wayhas contributed considerably towards equipmentapart from accommodating us in the way of loans.From Norway and various other countries hascome assistance to India. Fortunately for us,either in the technical field or in the field of money,aid has not been a one-way traffic. India has inthe same way extended either aid or loans to othercountries whose names I do not want to mentionhere, since I have not asked! their permission, to

the extent of tens of millions of dollars. In addition to this, into our country comestudents-trainees, factory hands, from all partsof the world, more particularly from Asia--nomi-nated either by the Colombo Plan or under varioustransfer schemes ; and in this way, not only arewe being helped by the increase of our owntechnical capacities, but also a degree of inter-national co-operation in the field of technicaldevelopment is built up. Neither political ideology,nor distance of other countries, nor racial, religiousor other differences have played a part in this.

India has also contributed to the UnitedNations Technical Assistance Programme up to$ 3.5 million, and today the Government of Indiahas announced that it will contribute $ 2 millionto the Special Fund if the other figures given outcome up to the expected levels.

The index of production in India has goneup from 87 per cent in 1948 to 142.7 per cent.But no country today has any chance of survival,either by a political philosophy or even by a longhistory, if it does not have at its disposal consi-derable engineering and technical abilities, andwe are glad to think that, while in 1949 we had2,900 engineers and technicians in the country,today we have 9,300, all trained in India. Thereare also about 400 foreign students on scholarshipsin India and altogether about 3,500 students fromother countries. We regret to say that thescholarships offered to various Trusteeship Terri-tories have not been availed of fully. Of the142 scholarships offered to Trust Territories, onlytwenty-seven have been utilized.

There are some 10,000 Indian students invarious parts of the world, the largest numberbeing in the United Kingdom, the United Statesand Australia.

The most modern of the developments in Indiaare in the field of atomic energy. I am happy tocommunicate to the General Assembly, as I havedone before, that it is not only part of our policy,but a policy which is fully insisted upon andimplemented and which has been testified by Dr.Davidson in the World Survey Report- the samescientist whom Mr. Khrushchev referred to as"Davidson"-that while the developments Wereof a very high order and we should soon becapable of becoming self-sufficient in the field

of atomic technical equipment there wasno indication that India would venture intothe field of atomic weapons. The atomic energyestablishments in India employ 970 scientists andalso take into training nearly 200 trainees everyyear from India and elsewhere. There are tworeactors in operation, one completely built inIndia itself and the other built by co-operationbetween Canada and ourselves.

India is the country in the world using thelargest amount of thorium for the production ofatomic fuel. It has also gone into the develop-ment of uranium metal plants and of variousother things that are required for this purpose,such as rare ores and metals. In view of thelateness of the hour, I do not intend to go intodetail in this connexion.

We have had, at the same time, our ownshare of natural calamities in addition to all otherconcomitants of adverse character and develop-ment that must happen in a democratic society.We have had devastation by floods. The worstfloods in history occurred in the State of Jammuand Kashmir and recently in Assam, and also inBengal and Bombay, causing losses of tens ofmillions of dollars and rendering large numbersof people homeless. Fortunately, the capacityof our people to adapt themselves to these circum-stances has made these calamities less than theyotherwise might have been.

Among other developments are the irrigationdevelopments of India notably the RajasthanCanal, the longest canal in the world, projectedsome time ago when the British were in India andwhich today would supply water to part of thePunjab and Rajputana and convert them intofood producing areas for the future.

From these matters we must now go on tovarious other questions which have been raisedhere specifically. In this matter I should liketo deal with questions with which we are intimatelyconcerned.

The Secretary-General, on the one hand, andvarious delegations, on the other, have referred

258to United Nations peace forces ; that is to say,the machinery, the instruments, for applying

sanctionary powers or carrying out police dutiesor whatever it may be called. We, as a countryhave participated in this development, and conti-nue to do so and to carry some of its burdens.I hope, Mr. President, that you will forgive usif we take the opportunity of expressing ourviews.

The Government of India is not at presentprepared to participate in a standing force of theUnited Nations as such and we do not think thatit is a practical proposition. We are surprisedto find that some countries have proposed thatcertain units should be allocated and demarcatedfor United Nations purposes. But if they areso allocated, what do they do when the UnitedNations does not want them ? Therefore, it isnot possible, in a defence force of any country, to.have troops allocated and demarcated in this way.

Secondly, for political reasons, we think that,with the present state of development in the worldand in the absence of world law and of the uni-versality of the United Nations, in the absence ofthe fact that we as an Organisation are free fromgroup politics and capable of taking objectivedecisions, we do not think that it would be rightto place at the disposal of such an organisationforces which may be moved without the consentof the people concerned. The time will come, ina disarmed world, when war is no longer regardedas a machinery for the settling of disputes, whensome kind of political organization may berequired to deal with those who break the worldlaw ; but we think that it is premature at thepresent time to speak in terms of a United Nationsforce or to expect countries to shoulder the res-ponsiblity from the point of view of personnel orof money.

In this connexion I am sure that the Secretary-General will expect us to say that units of theIndian army today in the Gaza Strip are there asa peace force ; and we are happy to participate inthis venture. But it imposes considerable burdensupon us, to a certain extent recompensed by thefact that these men, not diplomats, not universitymen, not men trained in the arts of peace but inthe arts of defence, have been the best ambassadorswhom our country has ever sent out. They haveno quarrels ; they have left no social problemsbehind them, as occupying armies do. They havecreated no difficulties in the places where they

have gone. And this has been our experiencein Korea, as well as with the officers who wentto Indo-China, the forces which Mr. Hammarskjoldrequested in a hurry for UNMOGIL in Lebanon,and now who, for two or more years have stoodas a peace force in true Gandhian tradition onthe Gaza Strip between Israel and Egypt-givingunfortunate evidence of the fact that there is anarmistice line and that the two countries are notat peace.

Then we come to another matter which mydelegation wants to deal with as carefully andgently as possible, namely the question of Laos.We would not have entered into a discussion ofthis matter except for the fact that we carry acertain responsibility in connexion with it. Asthe Assembly is aware, India is the Chairman ofthe International. Commission for Supervision andControl in Indo-China.

In 1954, largely under the initiative and theconstructive statesmanship of the then PrimeMinister of the United Kingdom, Sir AnthonyEden, an agreement was reached whereby fightingin that part of the world stopped and for the firsttime in twenty-five years, on 11 August 1954, theguns of war were silenced.

As a result of those negotiations and preli-minary to a cease-fire in those areas, after manyyears of very sanguinary warfare in which hun-dreds of thousands of lives were lost, agreementswere signed by the parties which are called theGeneva Agreements of 1954.

I hope the Assembly will pardon me if I feelit part of my Government's duty to communicateto the Assembly the actual position. We have nodesire to apportion blame, but, in view of the factthat the United Nations has intervened in thismatter and we are part of the United Nations, Ithink the Assembly should be fully seized of thismatter. The Government of India was the Chair-man of the Commission, and the other memberswere Canada and Poland. Decisions were reachedby majorities, but were almost always, with oneor two exceptions, unanimous. There were threeagreements-one on Laos, one on Viet-Nam andone on Cambodia. The parties to the GenevaAgreement on Laos were the Royal Governmentof Laos, the French High Command and the HighCommand of the Pathet Lao, that is, the dissident

forces, and of the People's Forces of the Demo-cratic Republic of Viet-Nam, usually called Viet-Minh.

The Viet-Minh, France and Laos subscribedto the final declaration-the final declaration inthe Geneva Agreement to which all the Govern-ments represented there were also parties. TheRoyal Laotian Government made two declarationswith reference to articles 3, 4 and 5 of the final

259declaration regarding political integration andnon-involvement in military alliances, and foreignmilitary aid. The period stated with reference tothe latter was the period between the cessation ofhostilities in Viet-Nam and the final settlement ofthe country's political problems.

The responsibility for the execution of thisagreement was placed on the parties, that is, thesignatories, under article 24 of the Agreement.The International Commission, of which Indiawas the Chairman, was made responsible underarticle 25 for control and supervision of the imple-mentation of this Agreement.

The special tasks for which the Commissionwas made responsible included the supervision ofthe implementation of the Agreement regardingthe introduction of military personnel and warmaterial and the rotation of personnel and suppliesfor French Union Security Forces maintained inLaos. The Commission was also charged withthe duty to see that the frontiers of Laos wererespected.

Article 25 states:

"An International Commission shall be res-ponsible for control and supervision of the appli-cation of the provisions of the Agreement on thecessation of hostilities in Laos. It shall becomposed of representatives of the followingStates: Canada, India and Poland........."

The political procedures of the Agreementare those given in articles 14 and 15 read with thetwo declarations made by the Laos Government atGeneva. These are the articles that deal with theresponsibility of the Laotian Government in thismatter, because it was said that pending a politicalsettlement, the rebel forces had to be grouped in

certain areas. Under article 15, the parties under-took to refrain from any reprisals or discrimina-tions against persons or organizations for theiractivities during the hostilities and also undertookto guarantee their democratic freedoms. Thepolitical procedures to the Agreement are thosegiven in articles 14 and 15, as read out.

It is true that the political settlement wasdelayed for a long time. That is to say, the PathetLao people who were concentrated in the twoplaces according to this Agreement, took a longtime before they achieved unity with the RoyalGovernment. Without attempting to apportionblame to either party, the Government of Indiawishes to point out that the Commission and theCommission Chairman materially assisted withtheir good offices in helping the parties to reach asettlement, as stated by the Prime Minister of Laosand the representative of the Pathet Lao forces ina joint letter dated 29 December 1956, which I amgoing to read out in a moment. That is to say,though it was not strictly the duty of the Commis-sion, the Commission brought about a settlementamong these people, and at the end of it the PrimeMinister of Laos issued a communique in theseterms : "Besides the signature of this communiquehas been facilitated by the attentive interest theInternational Commission has taken in the settle-ment of the Laotian problem, interest which inparticular is proved by the opportune and correctreport addressed to the Co - Chairmen"- Mr.Gromyko and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd; at that timeMr. Molotov and Sir Anthony Eden-"of theGeneva Conference, a copy of which has beenforwarded. Moreover, the International Commis-sion and especially Your Excellency" -that is, theChairman of the Commission-"did not sparetheir efforts to help the happy success of our talks.The results thus reached contribute in a goodmeasure to the strengthening of peace in theLaotian Kingdom, in South East Asia and in theworld. We therefore avail ourselves of this oppor-tunity to forward personally to the InternationalCommission and to Your Excellency our mostsincere thanks as well as those of the wholeLaotian people".

Now the representative of Laos has said here:

"The International Control Commission, abody established by the Geneva Conference of

1954, saw that it no longer served any purposeand, considering that its task had been completed,left Laos in July 1958." (A/PV. 815, p. 56)

We have no desire to enter into a contro-versy about this, but we want to put the factshistorically correct. The Commission did notleave in July 1958 because its work had beencompleted but only adjourned sine die with a pro-vision to reconvene in accordance with normalprocedures, and the Co-Chairmen also acknow-ledged this position. These documents were thesubject of considerable correspondence betweenthe Co-Chairmen, Mr. Gromyko and Mr. SelwynLloyd at the time. The Government of Indiasent the following communication :

"The Government of India have in their previous discussions with the High Com- mission ... stated that" (with regard to)... "the Geneva Agreements on Cambodia, Laos and Viet-Nam respectively, the three International Commissions have to

260 continue till political settlement is com. pleted in all the three countries, namely, Cambodia, Laos and Viet-Nam. The articles referred to above provide for reduction in the activities of a particular Commission in the light of the develop- ment of the situation in the other two countries, but there is no provision in the Geneva Agreements for the winding up of any of the Commissions indepen- dently of the completion of political settlement in the other two countries.".....

"Apart from the position of the Govern- ment of India on the general question of the inter-connexion of the three Commis- sions, given in paragraph I above, the Government of India would like to point out that there were two parties to the Geneva Agreement on Laos ; one party signed for the Commander-in-Chief of the forces of the French Union in Indo- China, from whom the Laotian Govern- ment derived their authority, and the other party signed for the Commander- in-Chief of the fighting units of the Pathet Lao and for the Commander-in- Chief of the People's Army of Viet-Nam.

The second party, namely the one repre- sented by the Vice-Minister of National Defence of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, do not accept the proposal to wind up the Commission made by the Prime Minister of the Royal Laotian Government. In effect, the decision of one Co-Chairman Government, viz., the UK, which supports the view advanced by one of the parties to the Agreement on Laos, viz., the Royal Laotian Govern- ment and with which the other Co-Chair- man Government, namely, the USSR, and the other party to the Agreement, viz., the Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam do not agree, means the unilateral denunciation, by one of the parties, of the Geneva Agree- ment on Laos, which is bound to have serious repercussions on the working of the Geneva Agreements not only in Laos but also in other parts of Indo-China.".....

"While the Government of India cannot, in view of the position stated in para- graphs I and 6 above, support this re- solution, they would like to point out that a resolution of this type which proposes to amend not only the Geneva Agree- ment on Laos but the Geneva Agree- ments on Cambodia and Viet-Nam as well, requires unanimous decision in the Commission and the concurrence of the other two Commissions."

Therefore, we took the view that the Com.mission could not be wound Up unless there wasan unanimous decision and the three Commissionshad agreed.

"The Government of India are of the view that the unilateral denunciation of the Geneva Agreement of Laos and the winding up or immobilization of the Laos Commission, which are bound to have serious repercussions on the working of the Geneva Agreements and on the working of the International Commis- sions in the whole of Indo-China, involve a serious threat to peace in this region."

One of the charges that were given to us was thesafeguarding of peace in that area.

Then in reply, when we placed this positionbefore the United Kingdom Government, theUnited Kingdom Government said that the replythat it had given was without prejudice to the viewthat the Government of the United Kingdom heldthat the decision in this matter was one that theCommission itself was competent to make. Then,after that, this reply was communicated to theCo-Chairmen-and this is a very importantmatter. The two Co-Chairmen, namely, Mr.Gromyko and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, wrote to theGovernment of India in these terms :

"The two Co-Chairmen took notice of the clarification of the Indian Govern- ment that this resolution does not affect the legal status of the Commission and does not reduce the competence of the Commission in implementing the tasks and functions assigned to it by the Geneva Agreements. The Co-Chairmen agreed that the resolution of the Com- mission of 19 July 1958"-that is, to adjourn sine die and to be reconvened in accordance with normal procedures- "was a procedural decision taken to adjourn sine die and having no connexion with the question of dissolution of the Commission. They were agreed that no question of abrogating any of the arti- cles of the Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Laos relating to the In- ternational Commission, in particular article 39, was involved."

So the position, when Laos made the

261complaint to the United Nations, was that, as aresult of this and in order to have some practicalarrangements, the Commission withdrew fromLaos with this idea of reconvening. Unfortunately,the Government of Canada did not find it possi-ble to appoint members to it. We have alwayssaid that, when things had developed badly inLaos, the international authority, that remainedthere should be available.

So, to go on with the story, when the Com-mission adjourned on 19 July there was everyprospect of the political settlement being satisfac-torily implemented in detail by the Government.

The need for supervision and control could besatisfied by occasional meetings in future, if neces-sary. The position changed later, and was repor-ted to the Co-Chairmen.

When the Commission adjourned, the unityand sovereignty of Laos had been established, Andpeace prevailed in the whole country. The detailsof the political integration were being workedout. The present position of armed clashes with-in Laos is a reversal of the process of settlementreached with the help of the Commission-andI his is an important point.

The Royal Government of Laos has allegedaggression and subversion by the DemocraticRepublic of Viet-Nam. Whatever may be themotives of the Democratic Republic in workingfor resumption of the activities of the Commissionit is clear that the Commission helped in achiev-ing political integration and in the establishmentof the unity and sovereignty of the LaotianGovernment over the entire territory of Laos. Ithas also been specifically directed under the Agree-ment to see that there are no violations of thefrontiers of Laos. That was one of the functionsof the Commission.

India's view is that the-present trouble is duemainly to the by-passing of the Geneva Agreementprocedures and the aggressive attitudes that haveprevailed since the Commission adjourned.

Basing its attitude on its experience duringits independence struggle, India believes in thepacific settlement of disputes. It is vitally interestedin the maintenance of peace in South-East Asiaand the world. It undertook special responsibilityin connexion with the maintenance of peace inIndo-China at the request of the Co-Chairmen,and, while not wedded to any particular proce-dures or interested in apportioning blame to par-ties, would like to see the adoption of procedureswhich would secure the cessation of fighting inLaos and the restoration of peace both inside andalong the frontiers of Laos.

In this connexion, I should like to quote acommunication made by my Prime Minister. Ihave already referred to the fact that the twoCo-Chairmen had taken notice of the adjourn-ment motion, which was only for an adjournmentsine die with a proviso to reconvene. Writing to

the Secretary-General of the United Nations on30 June 1959, since the Secretary-General hadvery kindly taken it upon himself to use his goodoffices in his capacity as Secretary-General of theUnited Nations and had been in touch with us,my Prime Minister wrote to Mr. Hammarskjold inthis way :

"The Agreement for the Cessation of Hostili-ties in Laos was a part of the resolution arrived atin Geneva in regard to the Indo-China settlement.In the Agreements made in 1954, the Governmentof the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam was asignatory on behalf of the Fighting Forces ofPathet Lao and these Agreements were accom-panied by a number of Declarations, including oneby the Government of Laos, indicating in generalterms that Laos would remain outside the activitiesof the Power blocs. Again, as a signatory ofGeneva on behalf of the Pathet Lao, the Demo-cratic Republic of Viet-Nam is interested in thevarious Agreements later arrived at between theRoyal Government of Laos and the FightingForces of Pathet Lao.....We are not justified inassuming, and it would be unrealistic to assume,that the conclusions of these Agreements renderthe problems there, which have become increas-ingly ominous, solely the internal affairs of Laos.The International Commission, despite its ad-journment, stands charged with the responsibilitiesassumed under the Geneva Agreements. Thiskind of development and situation which obtainat present were investigated when the GenevaAgreements were made and these were broughtwithin the authority and the functions vestedin the International Commission and thearrangements arising therefrom to which theRoyal Government of Laos is a signa-tory.

"We have consistently taken the view that theterritorial integrity and unity of Laos is basic tothe Geneva Agreements in respect of Laos. Anyproblem of a territorial conflict' between thedifferent political groups within Laos is not en-visaged by the Geneva Agreements. If, however,the 'conflict' relates to the dispute between theNorth Viet-Nam and Laos, it will be in the natureof a border problem which can well form the sub-ject of discussion and of mediation by and throughthe Commission."

262

In regard to the raising of the Laotian issuein the United Nations, the Prime Minister ofIndia said to Mr. Hammarskjold.

"It is not clear to me bow any effective actioncan be taken through the United Nations againsta country such as the Democratic Republic ofViet-Nam which is not a Member of the UnitedNations....In fact, any reference to the SecurityCouncil would bring these questions into theregion of great Power conflicts and put an end tomuch of the good work that has resulted fromthe Geneva Agreements."

I want to assure the Assembly that we do notclaim any vested interest in this matter, but ourcountry along with Canada and Poland, hasstruggled for four long years to keep the peace inthis part of the world. So far as we are concern-ed, it has been a considerable strain, and the con-ditions that prevail have been the subject ofcommunications between our two partners and theGovernments of the United Kingdom and theSoviet Union and, latterly, the Secretary-General,all in the hope that what was accomplished in1954-when, as I said, on II August the gunswere silenced-could continue.

For twenty-five years war had reigned in theworld, since Japan made its incursions into Man-churia. We think that, if that international bodywhether established by the United Nations or notit was within its competence, it was there merelyfor the purpose of peace-if it had continued itsfunctions, perhaps, and only perhaps, the presentsituation could have been avoided.

Over and above that, we would like to makethis submission. Because a country is indepen-dent, and this includes our own, and because it isa Member of the United Nations, there is noauthority in international law-indeed it would bea very bad precedent-by which it can thereforerepudiate agreements it has previously made. Thisis a denunciation of a treaty, and it remains adenunciation of a treaty.

We were among those who not only support-ed but made such contributions as we could to-wards obtaining the admission of Laos into theUnited Nations. The action taken by the SecurityCouncil in its wisdom is a matter for the SecurityCouncil, but either the presence of the Interna-

tional Commission was not regarded as sufficientlyobjective or impartial or it was not consideredcompetent after five years to be able to observewhat was going on. It is our view that, if theywere there and if there were arms going into theterritory, that could have been detected. IfNorth Viet-Nam was at fault-as has happened somany times in the last four or five years in regardto the parties to the Agreement-they would havebeen taken to task. It is our good fortune that,though there have been difficulties, the partieshave, after some time, come to some internationalcourt of behaviour in these matters.

All we should like to say is this. The basisof the position in Indo-China is the Geneva Agree-ments. There is no fighting in Cambodia, but theCambodian Government does not want the Com-mission dissolved. It is kept there in an attenua-ted form. Viet-Nam stands divided at the seven-teen-and-a-half degree parallel, into the Northand the South. Neither of them is a Member ofthis body, on account of this decision. We believethat it is largely the Geneva Agreements and thepresence of the Commission, and its objectivity,that have been able to maintain peace in that area.It should not be forgotten that, far away as thispart of the world may be from the Headquartersof the United Nations, small countries as theymay be, inhabited by people on a lower standardof life and so on, and however we may regardthem as outside the centre of so-called civilization,any conflict in that area would disturb the stabi-lity of South-East Asia.

We all breathed a sigh of relief when, as Isaid largely to impress the Prime Minister of theUnited Kingdom at that time, ably assisted by theSoviet Union and, I must say, the Prime Ministersof China and Viet-Nam, and by all the otherparties-the Pathet Lao, the Laotian Governmentand everyone else-and with the help contributedby the former Prime Minister of France, Mr.Mendes-France, an agreement was reached andit kept the peace. Our Government had the res-ponsibility of supplying the greater part of thepersonnel for maintaining communications. TheFrench Government carried a great deal of thefinancial burden. The Governments of the SovietUnion and the United Kingdom made financialcontributions in order to keep the machinery ofpeace going. It is a great pity if internationalagreements are disregarded, and in some way any

action taken by the United Nations tends to throwa degree of support into this. There is nothing inthe action the United Nations has taken thatwould necessarily be inconsistent with the Genevaagreement, and I am sure it is the desire of theSecretary-General to see the restoration, not neces-sarily of the Commission or anything of thatkind-that is up to him to decide-but that therewill be some attempt made to establish the posi-tion of the Geneva agreement.

The second matter that concerns us is China.

263I do not intend to speak at length on this matterbecause I do not want to stress the question ofthe admission of China; but my Government doesnot believe that by evading issues we enlightenourselves or the people. Our position with regardto the participation of China in this Organizationis well-known. It is a matter of great concern tous and a matter of resentment to our people thata country with whom we have been very goodfriends, a country which is one of our close neigh-bours and which has more than 2,500 miles of landfrontier with us, with which we have had no trou-bles in the past, has taken it upon itself to commitintrusions into our territory and to proclaim thatsome 40,000 square miles of it belongs to them.

We want to make our position clear in thismatter. On the one hand, we subscribe to theprinciples of the Charter and by our set of ideasthat were put forward at Bandung and by our owntreaty relations with China based upon what arepopularly called the "Five Principles". What ismore, we shall strive as hard as we can to reachsettlement on every problem by peaceful negotia-tion. But there are no individuals in India andno responsible body of opinion prepared to beintimidated, prepared to take aggression lyingdown. We shall not negotiate with the Chineseuntil they vacate the territories which they haveoccupied. These may be small places, they maybe mountaintops, but they are our country. There-fore I say this not only officially but also withthe hope that my humble voice will reach theChinese people, with whom we are good friends :I myself have participated in these matters, andwe hope that the friendship of our two great coun-tries, which is necessary for the stability of Asia,will not be jeopardized by thoughtlessness on theone hand or by arrogance on the other, and that

China will find it possible to make amends forwhat it has done, through the withdrawal of everyChinese soldier from our soil-and if they canfind any of our soldiers on their soil we shall bethe first to withdraw them.

Regarding those areas where boundaries arenot marked by posts or pillars that can be seen,sometimes there may be difficulties arising fromone party's going into the territory of the other.We have not violated their space, we have notviolated their peace and we have not inflictedviolence upon them ; and what is more, we havenot come and talked to the world, or even to ourown people, very loudly, even though things havereached this stage. The purpose of my sayingthis, on the one hand, is to point out that we arenot a war-minded people and that we believesettlement of all these problems must be achievedby peaceful negotiation. We would equally likethe Chinese to know that a peaceful approachdoes not mean a submissive approach ; that ourcountry is not prepared to accept a violation ofour frontiers, or, where there is a dispute overconditions established over a hundred years agoat least-and sometimes much more-to allow ourterritory or our frontiers to be altered by unilate-ral decisions. It may well be that after we havehad negotiations some adjustments will have to bemade, but our Prime Minister has made it veryclear that there cannot be negotiation on the basisof surrender of territories beforehand.

This brings us to the matter of other questionsbefore the Assembly. The first of these is thequestion of colonial empire. It would be im-possible for any delegate from any of the formercolonial territories-or indeed, I believe, anyMember of the United Nations-to participatein these debates without referring to the colonialproblem. We are this year in a position tocongratulate ourselves to a certain extent and tofeel relieved over the fact that problem of Cyprus-and I hope the delegation of Greece will notmind my saying that we have always regardedit as a colonial problem-has been solved at leastfor the time being and that it looks as though,as a result of this solution, Cyprus will become anindependent nation in 1960. We also would liketo lay stress on the fact that it was only recogni-tion of the nationality of Cyprus and by recogni-tion of the problem as a colonial one that asolution was found. There is no way of suppress-

ing these . national aspirations, either by anattempted division of a country or by playingoff one Power against another. The problemof Cyprus was solved very largely by the impactof public opinion, channeled through thisAssembly.

I would like to express our appreciation tothe Government of the United Kingdom as wellas to the parties in Cyprus and to Greece andTurkey, for their recognition of the Cypriotnationality, as a result of which Cyprus is wellon the way to becoming a Member of the UnitedNations.

The United Kingdom can also take credit forthe impending independence of the territory ofNigeria, of a large portion of colonial Africawhich in a few months will become an independentcountry and, I hope, take her place among us atthe next session of the Assembly.

We are also pleased to hear from the repre-sentative of Belgium about the project of theBelgian Government for the establishment ofindependence for her Congo territories. I am not

264referring to the Trust Territory of Ruanda-Urundibut to the Belgian Congo, which is several timeslarger than Belgium itself, and one of the richestparts of Africa. It is not for my Government toexpress any views as to the kind of constitutionthey should have, or its content or the characterof their independence, but as in all things, we takethese matters at face values. We have got a publicdeclaration made with enthusiasm by the newForeign Minister of the Belgian Government beforethis Assembly that his Government has, of its ownvolition and in recognition of the right of peoplesand the readiness of the Congolese people to shoul-der the responsibilities of self-government, decidedto establish self-government in this area. We shalltherefore look forward not with feelings of doubtand suspicion but with hope and confidence, toseeing the Belgian Congo also take its placeamong the African territories that have come tofreedom through the action of the Assembly.

Our own position with regard to colonialempires is that we remain unrepentent. We donot think that there are any peoples who aredabarred from self-government, or that there are

any particular people who, rationally, economi-cally or otherwise are to be regarded as especiallycompetent to govern other people. Thereforeour country takes the position that, while weshall take no part in underground revolutions orin exporting revolution, we stand in firm solidaritywith all those peoples in Africa, Asia and every-where else who are fighting for their own nationalliberation. We recognize that nationalism pro-perly channelled is a great constructive force, and,what is more, that if it is suppressed it is likelyto go in other directions, affecting the peace ofthe world as well as the stability and progress ofpeoples and territories themselves.

In this connexion we should like to refer tothe Non-Self-Governing Territories under article73 of the Charter. I have no desire to say any-thing that might raise a controversy and evokethe right of reply, but I would like to refer to thefact that the United Nations can claim some creditin this matter, because when we started in thisbusiness under article 73, some seventy-fourTerritories were submitting information. Thisis an occasion when what we look forward tois the cessation of this information in a wholesomeway. Out of the seventy-four Territories, sevenhave become independent ; fifteen have ceasedto send information because those who wereresponsible for their rule thought they were readyfor independence, that they require examination.Now, other Territories which are not sendinginformation would not, in our view, come underarticle 73 of the Charter. And in this connexionone would like to say that if arguments are putforward in order to relieve these Territories of thenecessity of supplying information, then all thedependent Territories would escape this justifica-tion, and not have the benefit of justification inthe demanding of their freedom either before thisbody or anywhere else.

A colonial territory is a territory where themajority of the populations can make no impactupon the policy of Governments and whereeconomically, socially and otherwise, they areexploited. There are large parts of Africa in thiscondition, and there are small portions of Asiain this condition. The Portuguese representativepointed out here the other day that Portugal hadno colonies, they were all part of the metropolitanterritory. Portugal's reply to the Secretary-Generalon 8th November 1956 stated : "She does not

administer any territories that come under Article73 of the Charter." That Article is very clearon this matter, and we shall discuss it in detail inthe Fourth Committee. Article 73 states :

"Member of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabi- tants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obliga- tion to promote to the utmost, within the system of international 'peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and to this end...

"e. to transmit regularly to the Secretary-General for information purposes, subjectto such limitation as security and consti-tutional considerations may requirestatistical and other information of atechnical nature relating to economic,social, and educational conditions in theterritories"-that is all we ask for-"forwhich they are respectively responsi-ble...."

There are 779,000 square miles of Portugueseterritory in Africa, apart from other areas, andthe territory of Portugal, of which the representa-tive of Portugal has spoken of as part of thePortuguese Republic, consists in Europe of themainland, Madeira and the Azores, which Isuppose are an integral part of Portugal. Theterritory of Portugal in West Africa consists ofCape Verde, Guinea, Sao Tome, Sao JoaoBaptista de Ajuda, Cabinda and Angola. In East

265Africa there is Mozambique, in Asia the Stateof India, so-called and Macao, and in Oceania,Timor.

These are territories which are not self-governing and which are inhabited by people whomake no impact upon the Central Government ofthe country and which, in a very classic sense,are colonial territories. We request the PortugueseGovernment to fall in line with other territories,irrespective of any claim to self-government and

irrespective of any demands or complaints thatmay have been made, to assist the United Nationsin the propagation of the idea that these territoriesare held in trust as human beings organized innations or in territorial units in order to establishtheir national independence.

These territories are known, under article 134of the Portuguese Constitution as provinces. Arti-cle 135 states that the "Overseas Provinces, as anintegral part of the Portuguese State, are unitedas between themselves and with metropolitanPortugal." Of course, that is how a colony isunited. Prior to 1951, these territories wereknown as "colonies", but the new terminology of"provinces" was introduced by the amendmentsof 11 June 1951, that is, after the establishmentof the United Nations.

Article 33 refers to "the classic mission ofPortugal to diffuse the benefits of civilization",which suggests the presence of non-self-governingpeoples within the meaning of the Charter. Whatthe Charter asks for is a record of this diffusionof the benefits of civilization. If the benefits ofcivilization are being diffused by educational andsocial progress, then that information should besent. There is a limited measure of decentraliza-tion and financial autonomy, but the legislativepower remains in the hands of the metropolitanNational Assembly.

Portuguese citizens alone may vote or standfor election. "Natives" do not have the rightunless they meet certain prescribed educational,religious, financial and social standards. SincePortugal regulates these standards, the "natives"who qualify for citizenship are kept in manageableproportions. Out of a population of 10 1/2million, only 35,000 people have the vote.

By any reasonable test such as the applicationof the Factors Resolution 742 (VIII) it can beestablished that they are non-self-governing. More-over, Article 4 o. the Portuguese Constitutionstates that "in the international field it recognizesonly those limitations which are derived fromconventions or treaties freely entered into". TheCharter is such a treaty and Article 73 applies.

I have taken care not to bring any Indo-Portuguese question into this matter but merelyto raise the whole question of colonies as such

and to request, not to demand, the PortugueseGovernment to provide this information.

With regard to colonial territories as a whole,there are twenty colonies under France and twentyunder the United Kingdom in each of whichduring the last few years there have been policieswhich have led to self-government. But thesecolonial areas cover 50 million people under Franceand 63 million people in the case of UnitedKingdom. In each case, they are twenty times aslarge as the metropolitan countries. My delega-tion does not suggest in regard to either of thesetwo metropolitan countries that progressive poli-cies are not the rule. If there are violations ofthem, or complaints about them, they are inherentin the colonial system. We hope, however, thatmore territories which are dependent will comeunder Article 73.

I should like to deal for a moment with theposition in Africa. To anyone who has spokenabout the colonial territories, Africa stands in acategory of its own and my delegation has beendelighted to notice that year after year for thelast three or four years the Secretary-General haspaid special attention to Africa, and the establish-ment of the Economic Commission on Africa isa great measure of progress about which myGovernment would like to express its appreciation.

Africa has an area of about 11,250,000 squaremiles and a population of 193 million people.Out of these, 5 million are Europeans, 600,000 areAsians and the rest are Africans. Of this remain-der, 103 million are under colonial rule and6,200,000 more or less under colonial rule. It isto be noted that this Africa, which is regardedas unfit to govern, which consists of colonial terri-tories, supplies a great part of the world's very pre-cious resources. Africa supplies the world with 98per cent of its diamonds, 94 per cent of its colum-bite, 84 per cent of its cobalt, 55 per. cent of itsgold, 41 per cent of its beryllium, 33 per cent of itsmanganese, 29 per cent of its chrome, 22 per centof its copper and 13 per cent of its tin. All thiscomes from what is called the "Dark Continent",it is dark only to its own people, it is very mucha light to others.

Uranium is believed to exist in very largequantities and there are large deposits of iron ore,manganese and bauxite. Two-thirds of the world's

cocoa comes from Africa and three-fifths of its

266palm oil.

So here are territories occupied by smallnumbers of people compared with the rest of theworld, covering a very large area and containingan enormous amount of mineral wealth, which itsupplies to the world, territories in I which thepeoples are strangers in their own country.

This brings me to the other part of thecolonial empire, which presents another picture-Algeria and West Irian. The Indonesian delega-tion in its wisdom did not take a decision to placeWest Irian on the agenda of this session of theGeneral Assembly. The Government of Indiaconsiders West Irian as unfinished business, thatis that part of Indonesia which, as in the case ofPortuguese Goa, is still remaining under alienrule. I do not desire to go into the technical andlegal questions which have been discussed so manytimes. Time after time the General Assembly hasappealed to the Dutch and Indonesian Govern-ments to negotiate so that West Irian may beunited with the rest of Indonesia and so that theliberation of the former Dutch colony will becomplete.

I would like to say, on behalf of a Govern-ment that has very friendly relations with theDutch Government, that any policy of this kindwould make the Netherlands Government muchmore appreciated in the Asian continent, establishto it relations between Europe and Asia, and bea blow to the doctrines of racialism and imperial-ism which are likely to endanger world peace. Aprogressive though small country like Holland,with a great technical and industial capacity whichmust survive very largely by the clientele from thelarge populations of the world in its own interestsand, in addition, as a response to the appeal wemake, will, we hope, find it possible, without anypressures from anywhere else and perhaps of itsown volition, to enter into negotiations with theIndonesian Government so that this little problemmay be solved for ever.

Then we come to the other question ofAlgeria. I am going to say very little at thismoment because the item is on our agenda andno doubt it will come up later for discussion.

My Government and delegation will supportthe demand of the Algerian people for full nation-al unity and independence, and in due time for theirtaking their rightful place as an independentnation in this Assembly. We do not subscribe tothe allegations made by one side or the otherbecause we are not in possession of these facts.But to us, it is not whether a place is well govern-ed or not so well governed, ill-governed or muchworse governed. People are entitled to theirindependence. Colonialism must end even if thecolonialism is a benevolent one. Therefore, weshall support the claim of Algeria for independence.We hope that the recent pronouncements made byGeneral de Gaulle, coupled with the position thatunder his regime a country like Guinea has beenable to become independent, may lead to a posi-tion where the French Government and the FrenchPresident will find it possible to initiate negotiationswith the people who are fighting them. After allif there is to be peace in Algeria, the firststep is a cease-fire, but you cannot negotiate acease-fire except with the people who are firing.Therefore, negotiations logically follow and all ofthe political questions come afterwards. Thereis no use negotiating with a number of Algerianswho may be in France or in New York or some-where else, in order to stop the fighting in thewilds of Algeria. Therefore, direct negotiationswith the FLN, that is the Government that iscontrol of the territory, with a view to finding out-I am not here for a moment saying there may notbe matters to discuss; we are not prepared toreject out of hand the approach made by theFrench Government and we certainly do notquestion their motives. But it is difficult for us toaccept as self-determination for Algeria, self-deter-mination in which the whole of France partici-pates. That would be very much like an equalityin the sandwich that was sold by a person whowas mixing horse flesh with the sandwich. Hewas asked, "What is all this?" He said, "It isonly a fifty-fifty proposition, one chicken to onehorse."

Then we come to the Trust Territories. Thisis a sphere in which the United Nations can con-gratulate itself and we are happy to think thatWestern Samoa, under the very enlightened admi-nistration of New Zealand, will now pass on toindependence. We should like to pay our tributeto the Visiting Missions, to the New Zealand

Government and to the Samoan people who haveall co-operated in this development. We hopethat there will be no hitches and that in a veryshort time Samoa will take its place among us asan independent territory and decide the nature ofits own association with New Zealand.

We have the Trust Territories of the Came-roons and French Togoland. As the Cameroonsis being discussed in the Fourth Committee, Itherefore do not wish to go into it. We hopethat the Territory of Togoland will take its place,in the same way as Ghana, with us next year.

We have another and different kind of problem

267in regard to South West Africa. South WestAfrica was a C Mandate under the Leagueof Nations and ought by rights to become a TrustTerritory. The World Court has expressed diffe-rent opinions in this matter, but the UnitedNations has always taken the view that SouthWest Africa ought to come into trusteeship. Wehope that the Union Government, in spite of allthe positions held so far, will recognize soonerrather than later that it is more in harmony withits own position, with the contribution the UnionGovernment has made to the founding of thisOrganization, with the principles that it, apartfrom apartheid, often exposes in this Assembly, tocome to some position whereby South West Africain our view in accordance with the principles ofthe Charter and the obligations which it hadundertaken in the League Covenant, will comeunder trusteeship.

There is one other thing I should like to say.As large numbers of Trust Territories become in-dependent, what the Trusteeship Council has todo becomes less and less. But the Charter pro-vided for this Trusteeship as a new way of treat-ing colonial Territories. May I take this oppor-tunity to make an appeal on behalf of the Govern-ment of India and say that one hopes that the-enlightened Administering Powers will now findit possible to place other Territories that are Non-Self-Governing under Trusteeship so that theymay become independent very soon. That iswhat is provided for in this Chapter because thatwould be the best way of proclaiming what theyhave constantly proclaimed on this platformthat Trusteeship is the intermediate step and an

enlightened one provided for by the UnitedNations and by the League of Nations, and wemay hope that voluntarily-nobody can forcethem-under the provisions of the TrusteeshipCouncil, Territories may be placed in this wayunder Trusteeship.

I should like to take a much briefer time asregards the question of race relations. There areitems on the agenda of the Assembly to be dis-cussed in Committees. Therefore, I do not wishto go into this at great length. However, Ihave to do that because the Foreign Minister ofthe Union Government on this rostrum not onlymerely made an attempt at defending the policyof the administration in regard to race relations,but he also expounded a policy which he thoughtshould be accepted by the world. Now it is quitetrue, I entirely agree with him, that there is not acountry in the world, including my own, wherethere is not social discrimination based on race,caste, creed or colour or whatever it may be.There is not a country in the world which can say"we are free from this". But equally, there isnot a country in the world which is not trying toget away from it. The difference between theapartheidists and the others is that we recognizeit is evil and we recognize the weakness of oursthat we are still tolerating it. But in the othercase it is put to us as a kind of historical patternof Africa that must be followed. In support ofthis, we are told that the Dutch went to SouthAfrica before the Bantus. But who went therebefore the Bantus : the Hottentots and the Bush-men ? They are also human beings. If theUnion Government is prepared to bring theHottentots and the Bushmen to self-government,that would be even a greater piece of work thanotherwise. So I do not think there is any usegoing into the history of who came there first andwho did not. My Government has not, and Ihope never will, argued that people should beturned out of Africa because of their racial origins.We regard these territories as multi-racial societieswhere other races exist. That would be so in thecase of Algeria, that would be the case of SouthAfrica and so on. So when the Foreign Ministerof the Union of South Africa tells us, "We arestrangers in our land, the land of our forefathers,"and that the United Nations wants to turn themout, it is not historically or politically correct. Noone has suggested that apartheid in reverse shouldbe practised. What we have said is that there

is nothing scientific in this. Indeed last yearUNESCO appointed a committee which produceda report. I am not going to quote from thisreport as I do not have the time. They examinedthis question in great scientific detail, the ques-tion whether there is a scientific basis for racialdiscrimination. They came to the conclusion, onscientific grounds, that there are no reasons what-soever for the practices that obtain politically,socially or otherwise. If I may, I will commendthis scientific investigation to the notice of theSouth African Government.

We stand fully opposed to the whole doctrineof apartheid. If the Foreign Minister of the SouthAfrican Government tells us, "What is there tocomplain about, we are going to have a whiteAfrica and a non-white Africa," then that is notthe whole story. If there was a white Africa anda non-white Africa and if they step out of non-white Africa there might be something to be saidfor it. But a white Africa and a non-white Africaare under white Africa. Therefore, apartheid onlygoes to a certain extent. It is not a completeapartheid. I am not supporting it. Therefore,the argument that is put before us in defence ofapartheid is a position totally contrary to the prin-ciples of the Charter; totally contrary to the in-vestigations made in the scientific field, totally

268contrary to the sense of human dignity and, whatis more, a position that is likely to lead to racialconflict in Africa of a character which can onlybe inferred by people if they would just look atthe numerals : 193 million as against 5 million.That is the hard logical fact to be faced when thetime comes. What is more, the industrial develop-ment of Africa, all that I have told you, is notpossible without the manpower of its populations.If they are good enough to produce wealth, theyare good enough to enjoy political power.

I propose, in view of the time, to skip thenext part of what I was going to make observa-tions upon, namely, the economic developmentposition, and deal with it in the Committee. How.ever, I must state this. The most outstandingsituation of our time has been the visits of greatpersonalities as between their respective countries.If I may say so, it began with the so-called "ironcurtain"--a word which is not permitted to beused in correspondence or otherwise by the

Government of India-and we think the abandon-ment of it will be a small contribution, just asthe abandonment of the words "running dogsof imperialism" would be on the other side, tothe lowering of tensions.

The first of these started when Mr. Bulganin,then Prime Minister, and Mr. Khrushchev visitedIndia three or four years ago. Later followedthe visit of Mr. Khrushchev to the United King-dom, and then the British Prime Minister to theSoviet Union. The United States Vice-Presidentcame to the Soviet Union, and later the SovietPrime Minister to the United Nations.

In as far as it merely concerns Soviet-UnitedStates relations, it would not be my place tocomment upon them, but these are world pro-blems. We have at all times stated that we be-lieve in direct talks between the United States andthe Soviet Union. As early as 1952, speakingbefore this Assembly, my delegation said thatthere are two great Powers in the world. Thepeace of the world depends upon them and wewould subscribe to any proposal to have directnegotiations between them. There is no dignity,no face-saving, involved in this matter. The onlyway that the problems of this world can be settledis by direct negotiation between countries who areso powerful, who are so strong and who have thecapacity to make decisions.

I will not quote the statements. There arestatements year after year from 1952 to 1957where we have made appeals in this Assemblyfor direct talks between the Soviet Governmentand the American Government. It is not for usto speculate about what has happened betweenthese He-ads of State. But there is no doubt thatwe all recognize that when they see each otherface to face, one thinks that the other fellow isnot so bad as he thought he was. At least itdoes that much good.

But this has been a political visit and, so faras the United Nations is concerned, it is mostimportant for the statement made by the SovietPrime Minister before this Assembly, followedby observations by others afterwards. The SovietPrime Minister's statement, to the mind of mydelegation, falls into two distinct parts. One isa proposal for disarmament which belongs to thesame category as the discussions that have gone

on here for what is called the balanced produc-tion, limitation and so on of armaments. Theother is an entirely different proposal ... for awarless world, the kind of thing that a Govern-ment like ours, which has not the economic orpolitical power or the power to influence hasconstantly appealed for-that is, disarmamentalone cannot bring about peace or settlement inour world; we must have a situation where waris outlawed.

We regard the proposals put forward asproposals not of a visionary character, as theyare called, but as embodying vision. My PrimeMinister, when he heard of this, said :

"It seems to me as a proposal, a brave proposal, which deserves every consi- deration. Whether humanity, that is various countries concerned, is brave enough to put an end suddenly to armies, navies, and air forces, I do not know. But the time will come, will have to come, when something of this kind will have to be adopted because in this era of atomic and hydrogen weapons and bal- listic missiles, war has become an anachronism."

Therefore we were happy when the GeneralCommittee, without any dissenting voice, admittedthe item put forward by the Soviet Union withregard to complete disarmament. On the faceof it, it looks like two items put by two differentparties, but we think that the two different pro-positions are : one the balanced reduction ofarmaments and the other the abandonment ofwar as a matter for settling disputes ; and whatis more, the community of the world is esta-blished in society where force has a municipalcharacter and a municipal character mustnecessarily, as a corollary come under worldlaw. Therefore, this is the first great movement

269towards a world (State or towards the congeriesof people who" are characterized by so manydifferences. We make no reservation for our-selves in subscribing to this objective. It is notan objective which means something that willnot happen now, but something which we hopewe will work for and, for that reason, speed upthe course of disarmament.

We are happy to think that the Secretary ofState for the United States also supported thissaying :

"...it did echo sentiments that are very widely held, that, if it were practicable and if it could safely be done, the type of disarmament which Mr. Khrushchev has spoken about is a high] desirable thing for mankind. From this point of view it must be taken very seriously."

Members of the Assembly will be awarethat it is not always that the Soviet Union says ofthe United States or the United States says of theSoviet Union that the other party "must be takenseriously." From the West German Defence Ministeralso comes a similar statement when be says theproposal was a "wonderful, excellent idea and Ishare his opinion."

The Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdomtold us that "it is important to make a fresh startwith disarmament." Similarly, other countriesin uncommitted areas like Burma, Yugoslavia,my own country and Afghanistan welcome it,especially in underdeveloped areas, not merelybecause of its economic consequences, but becausewe do not see a world surviving in the context ofmodem war where it is possible to annihilate notonly vast populations but even kill the characterof the population, if any did survive, for thefuture with all the genetic consequences of anatomic war. Therefore, my delegation willsupport the priority consideration being given tothe discussion of the item.

We shall also approach it from the point ofview of a warless world with all its implications. Wedo not share the view that, because a four-yearperiod has been put into it, it is impracticable. Inthe way that the world is going on-on 4 October1957, when the first Russian sputnic went up,followed by so many American bodies of thesame kind ; and then, two years later and yester-day when another of these things went round themoon-we did not think that in two yearsthese great things could happen. Indeed, we aremoving away from the world as from 4 October1957, as my Prime Minister once said, whichmakes the Atomic Age look like the Stone Age.

The progress of the world cannot be measuredmerely by the terms of the calendar. Einsteinquite rightly in his relativity dissertations points outthat time is an event, so that events must measuretime. Time by the clock is not what calculatesor what conditions the consciousness of humanbeings, nor must it be the ruling factor in thismatter.

On the other hand, the Soviet Prime Ministeror those who have followed him have not ruledout the other problems, namely the immediateproblems, for limitation of armaments. MyGovernment stands fully committed and publiclyproclaims the view that there cannot be anylimitation by agreement except with control. Wehave never been able to understand this argumentabout which comes first the chicken or the egg.You can talk about control without disarmamentor disarmament without control. We think theplans on this should be simultaneous so that whenthe agreement to disarm is reached the controlmachinery will be there, and the control apparatusshould also be agreed upon the same way. Weare glad to think that both in the East and theWest, so-called, there have been advances in theproblems of control and the problems of surpriseattack, and we are also told that there may besome agreement in regard to outer space. Inthis connexion, may I say that time after timeinsignificant delegations like ours have putforward suggestions in this way which have notfound favour so far as the votes to which youreferred are concerned. Some years ago, theUnited Nations rejected, I believe by 38 votes to22, or something of that kind, the proposal madeby the delegation of India that technical exami-nation of the methods of controlling nuclearexplosions might bring you out of it. But wehad the pleasure of hearing the Foreign Secretaryof the United Kingdom, say a few days ago, thatthis had been put forward-not the proposal weput forward, but at any rate the idea of the use oftechnical knowledge for this purpose-and there-fore they had reached agreement.

We have asked for a long time, from the year1949, for an armaments truce, and also for theSecretariat to start what they call the blueprint fora disarmament treaty so that the arguments wouldbe in regard to particular details and not merelyto phrase-placing juxtaposition.

There are a number of problems in thisconnexion which I would have liked to mention,

270but time forbids it.

I would not like to leave this rostrum withoutreferring to two other matters. One is in regardto the Suez Canal. I refer to the Suez Canal notbecause anything I say will make a difference inthis problem, but because, as I have saidrepeatedly, the problem is not the Suez Canal, it issomething else. I do not intend to tread whereangels fear to do so but I would like to point outthe position of my Government in this matter.

Two or three years ago, when the question ofthe Suez Canal came here and the attack onEgypt by three countries took place, the UnitedNations intervened and there was all this argument.We have always said that the right of freenavigation under the Convention of 1888 must beaccepted. We have never moved away from thatposition and we were completely in favour of thedevelopment of the instrument that was depositedwith the Secretary-General by the Government ofEgypt.

We therefore think that this problem is fullycovered in pursuant to the principles laid down inthe Constantinople Convention of 1888 :

"The Suez Canal Authority, by the terms of its Charter, can in no case grant any vessel, company or other party, any advantage or favour not accorded to other vessels, companies or parties on the same condition. Complaints of dis- crimination or violation of the Canal Code is incorporated in the Canal Code Violations of the Canal Code shall be sought to be resolved by the complain- ing party by a reference to the Suez Canal Authority in the first instance. In the event of such a reference not resolv- ing the complaint, the matter may be re. ferred, at option of the complaining party or the Authority, to an Arbitration Tribunal composed of one nominee of the complaining party, one of the autho- rity and a third to be chosen by both. In case of disagreement, such third will be

chosen by the International Court of Justice upon the application of either party. The decisions of the Arbitration Tribunal shall be made by majority of its members. The decision shall be binding upon the parties when they are rendered and they must be carried out in good faith."

Soon afterwards, in order to set all doubts atrest, we are glad to note that the following decla-ration also was deposited with the Secretary-General on 18 July 1957:

I, Mahmoud Fawzi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Egypt, declare on behalf of the Government of the Re- public of Egypt, that, in accordance with article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and in pursuance and for the purposes of para- graph 9 (b) of the Declaration of the Government of the Republic of Egypt dated 24 April 1957 on the Suez Canal and the arrangements for its operation, the Government of the Republic of Egypt accept as compulsory ipso facto, on condition of reciprocity and without special agreement, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in all legal disputes that may arise under the said paragraph 9 (b) of the above Declara- tion..." (S/3818/Add. 1)

So that as far as we are concerned, if thereis a violation of any legal rights, intra-nationalor international, they are today justiciable.Therefore if the existing situation is somethingthat militates against the interests of the partiesconcerned, or of international behaviour, I thinkthat we should follow the advice of the SecretaryGeneral and evoke the operation of the Courts.

I had to race through the last part of this.I express the support of my Government in regardto what may be called the warless world planwhich was put forward by the Soviet PrimeMinister, a plan which is the same as talkingabout the outlawing of war. But we think thatside by side with it must come other matters.

Mr. Khrushchev referred to the fact that $ 100billion was spent in the making of armaments

and that if this money was saved, it would gotowards the development of the world as a whole.I have not the time nor the facts before me todetail these matters to you. Not only do wehave hope, but we must work for a warless world,a world without war. A world community hasbeen established and at the present time it hasbeen placed in the context of measurable time.

There arises a new situation. Today in thisworld we have 2,800 million people. Whatevermay be your personal views on this matter at theend of this century there will be 5,200 millionpeople in this world. We are increasing at therate of sixty million a year. And arising fromthis, my delegation would like to put to theAssembly the fact that the Secretariat should be

271charged with producing the blueprints of whatmay be called "a world plan of development."It is not only a question of the Special Fund orthe technical aid, or this or that other thing, buthow we are going to subsist in this world with5,000 million people, where on the one hand, theper capita income of a prosperous country issomewhere about $ 1800 per head, while in otherplaces it is $ 58 per head, while there are largepockets of unemployment, while there is theposition that industrially and socially they arebackward, and where there is the problem offeeding these vast populations. So a world ofpeace must be a world of imbalance. A worldof imbalance would be a world that is not at peace.

My delegation would submit for the consi-deration of the Secretariat that they produce theblueprints of a world plan, which should be themain concern of the Second Committee from nextyear onwards. It should not be a question oftinkering with this or that, but it should be,recognized that the $ 100 billion that would besaved would not go to the production of consumergoods which would find their place in the under-developed areas. No under-developed country isprepared to take imperialism in reverse. It shouldnot be forgotten that when the making of arma-ments in the present armed world has stoppedand the producers who are now consuming the$ 100 billion in one way or another turn to peace-ful occupation, the under-developed world at thesame time is also producing goods.

It is not as in the nineteenth century wheresome people are hewers of wood and drawers ofwater. Some people produce raw materials andother people produce finished goods. And in theremainder of the century that is before us, theposition will be that there will be a large quantityof production. Equally, there will be large popu-lations. The problem of feeding, housing and,what is more, of establishing a balance betweencommunities and social developments, will becomethe world problem, especially in a warless worldbecause at the present moment suspicions andfears divert the attention of people away fromthese problems.

This cannot be solved either by loan schemes,or by charity schemes. They can only be solved inthe context of a cooperative world where eachparty, big or small, poor or rich, makes his owncontribution, where the world is taken as onepicture, where there are no communities outsideworld law and outside the United Nations, whereproduction has to match the requirements ofthe community, and the conception of this, as re-gards underdeveloped countries, of profit-makingloans, would be regarded as an anachronism.The under-developed country that at the presentmoment may feel very much heartened by thetaking of loan from a developed country has tocarry in the years to come all the survicing ofthose loans and mortgage its future in that way.

It is not a question merely of technical assis-tance as we knew it before, but of a world plan,and the Secretariat, in the first instance, shouldproduce working papers so that we could side byside, as a corollary of a disarmed world, proceedin this way. Therefore, it is not as though we donot have the problem before us. The problemhas been brought nearer by the picture of awarless world that is put to us at the presenttime. I would therefore submit to the GeneralAssembly that this would be one of the tasks thatwe could undertake. But we could not approachany of these problems if we approach them fromthe point of view of suspicion, from the point ofview of "well, it is a vision of the future."

There is a difference between visions of thefuture and just being visionary. There is adifference between schemes on the one hand andidle dreams on the other. A world that is solargely populated as ours is likely to be, where

there are populations of different types of deve-lopment, can only be tackled from the point ofview of world planning, With our minds onconsiderations of outer space and what not, thetime is fast coming when there will be the reverseof what I am told is the theological doctrine thatthe ills of this world are solved in heaven. Verysoon the time will come when the troubles ofheaven will have to be solved in this world,because the quarrels between the different countriesusing space for one thing or the other has to besettled terrestrially.

Therefore, this world becomes a small planet.It will take its place in the prospective of creation,and we hope that this economic aspect which wehave now begun to tackle in the way of SUNFEDthe Special Fund, the Development Fund, thebilateral loans, and so on, will become a humanconcern, a project that arises from the principles ofthe Charter, from the Declaration of Human Rightsand our conception of world war and a warlessworld, and things of that kind.

But for all this, the approach to this matterhas to be one where the ends and the means arenot separated much one from the other. Wecould not move toward these projects withoutfaith, and that faith cannot just merely be an idlehope that something would happen. It might bethe realization of the truth as we see it, of our

272faith in the destiny of humanity.

As we said at San Franciso, our people andour Government believe in disarmament only asa means to an end. It is a means that shares thecharacter of the end, as all means should do.But in the next decade disarmament alone willnot be enough. Therefore-we ought to addressourselves in the next decade to our main purpose.and-if we have said it once we are prepared tosay it one hundred times if necessary-there isonly one way before the world, and that is fornations to renounce war as an instrument ofpolicy. This Organization now has to addressitself, as a longer-term project, to the idea ofrenouncing war as an instrument of nationalpolicy. Disarmament or limitation of armamentsis a good thing ; it is an advance on presentconditions; but it is not the establishment ofpeace. We can establish peace only when the

nations have decided to abandon war.

This will be possible-when these weaponsof mass destruction and of terror are removed-once confidence is established and once it ispossible for us in this Assembly, for example, tosay, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, that errorsof opinion may be tolerated where reason is leftfree to combat it. If we are able to trust toreason and not to passion, it will be possible todo this.

So, finally, let us realize that, in the face ofthese great problems, it is our business to listento the voice of destiny. History is replete withexample of the truth that the solution of problemsby means that are contrary to ends always resultsin tragedy. That was the fate of Congress ofVienna. That was the fate of the League ofNations. One cannot reconcile dreams withschemes. If we must have schemes, we will beschemers. If we are going in pursuit of an ideal,then we should not be obsessed by the thought ofthe peet who, in the mid-war years, reflected thetemper of that period of great despondency andcynicism when he said: "In this great hour ofdestiny they stand each with disputes, jealousiesand sorrows." But instead we should say, like thebard who belonged to the age of the Renaissanceand of constructive endeavour, that "we must takethe current when it serves, or lose our ventures".And our ventures of today are the ventures ofpeace-a world that is rid of war, a planned worldfrom the economic and social point of view, andwhat is more, not lost in idle dreams but harnessedto constructive endeavour by the Organization thatis ours, by the ideals that are contained in theCharter. And our ventures-the venture ofpeace, the venture of world community-we darenot lose. This is our charge and our obligation.

INDIA USA OMAN ICELAND CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC PAKISTAN CANADA SRI LANKA NEWZEALAND AUSTRALIA NORWAY LATVIA KOREA CHINA LEBANON EGYPT ISRAEL LAOSSWITZERLAND POLAND CAMBODIA FRANCE UNITED KINGDOM JAPAN INDONESIA CYPRUSGREECE TURKEY NIGER NIGERIA BELGIUM CONGO PORTUGAL CAPE VERDE GUINEA SAO TOMEE PRINCIPE ANGOLA MOZAMBIQUE ITALY ALGERIA THE NETHERLANDS WESTERN SAMOACAMEROON GHANA SOUTH AFRICA BURMA YUGOSLAVIA AFGHANISTAN RUSSIA AUSTRIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri Krishna Menon's Statement on Tibet

Shri V. K. Krishna Menon, Leader of theIndian Delegation to the United Nations, madea statement in the General Assembly on October21, 1959 on the question of Tibet.

The following is the text of his speech

The Assembly has been discussing this itemnow for two days, in which time some twenty-fivespeakers have taken part in the debate. This isthe first occasion on which my delegation hastaken the rostrum in connexion with this matter.

It is hardly necessary to say that there isconsiderable divergence of opinion not only inregard to this discussion but in regard to thevarious points of merit that have come up. Thereis, however, one common factor among us all.Whether we supported inscription or otherwise,whether we are going to vote for the draft resolu-tion or otherwise, it appears to us that there isa general sense of distress in having to deal withthis subject, and that distress is no less with usthan with any other delegation. I should likebriefly to deal with this matter.

Apart from all other considerations we haveto take into account the fact that it is introducedhere by two delegations which are very close tous, that of Ireland and that of Malaya. Irelandis close to us not in a geographical sense but bysentiment and by history and by a common con-cern for the liberty and welfare of peoples.Malaya, a very close neighbour, recently emergedfrom colonial status into independence. If wetake the view which we intend to present largelyfor the purpose of explanation, it is not thecustom or the practice of our Government toevade expression of opinion even if it may not bevery popular. So far as this question is concerned

they will have a great deal of sympathy from ourpoint of view in the sense that the views expressedby my Government and its representatives, whichto a certain extent I shall seek to summarize here,have evoked support neither from the Tibetans norfrom the Chinese nor from the Western Powersnor from the uncommitted nations, nor fromour friends or our non-friends. But this perhapsis an indication of the complexity of this problem.

Now may I say a word or two about our

273own position in this matter ? It is not entirely apolitical one. It is not only coloured, it isconditioned, by our emotional backgrounds andconnexions with the territory we now call Tibet.

It emerges into history, so far as we areconcerned, only in very recent times, somewhereabout the seventh century of this era. Buttraditionally our connexions with, Tibet go back.to the emergence of the earliest strains of ourcivilization, which were supposed to emerge fromCentral Asia, from the banks of the Tibetanlakes. But in more recent times, when after theBuddha had given his gospel to India, or hadlived his life in India about ten or twelvecenturies afterwards, Buddhism went into Tibet.At that time the Tibetans were not part of anyother country-that was 1200 years ago-but fromthat time onwards there have been religious,cultural and other relations between Tibet andIndia.

Then we emerge into the second half of thethirteenth century, when the new Tibet, as wemay call it, takes its place in history, with itschequered progress and with its many vicissitudes.In the thirteenth century the Mongols conqueredTibet. So whatever views we may hold aboutpresent Governments or administrations ofpeople, whether of Tibet or China, we would begoing against history if we were to say thatthis was the first time violence of war orconquest had been the fate of this part of theworld. In the thirteenth century the Mongolconquerors established themselves as emperors ofChina, and they conquered Tibet. Then came aseries of other matters, and three or four centuriesafterwards the Dalai Lama of Tibet, who wasoriginally and basically a religious head, becamethe political head of Tibet.

In 1640, after overrunning Tibet, GusriKhan appointed the fifth Dalai Lama as thepolitical head of Tibet. The effective suzeraintyof China over Tibet was not even established, butby the eighteenth century China obtaind effectivesuzerainty over this territory.

Then we pass on to the period of modemimperialism. In 1870, soon after the Franco-Prussian War, the British were apprehensive ofRussian designs in Central Asia-this sounds asif we were talking about today-and they startedinteresting themselves in Tibet and in the periodof 1873 to 1899 obtained various concessions inTibet, not by negotiating with the Tibetans butby negotiating with the Chinese Government.We pass on from that period till we come to1907, when the Anglo-Russian Convention wassigned in regard to China's suzerainty over Tibet,and this was largely done at that time by theBritish authorities as a safeguard againstunilateral conduct by Czarist Russia and wasnever repealed years afterwards. In this 1907Convention the Chinese suzerainty was reiterated.Then there was the conference of Simla in 1914at which the parties who signed, or rather initialledthese treaties were Tibet and Great Britain, andthat also shows Tibet as part of China.

But for the purpose of this discussion myGovernment is not so much concerned with thelegal niceties or the textual implications of theCharter as such. Therefore, it is not our intentionto raise the question of whether the subject mayor may not be discussed or whether it may bebarred by the doctrine of domestic jurisdiction.We ourselves would not raise that issue, even ifwe were taking a more active part in this matter.We think the Assembly has a right to discuss itif it so decides to do, but discussion does notmean intervention, and we have always held thatpoint of view. Therefore, while we did notparticipate in the voting, we have no desire toraise the question of domestic jurisdiction forthat reason.

In the document circulated (A/4234), thereis a memorandum explaining the request for theintroduction of this item by the Governments ofMalaya and Ireland, and there is a reference to aletter from the Dalai Lama to the Secretary-General.

The Dalai Lama's letter deals with two aspectsof the problem. One is dealt with on the firstpage, in points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. It deals withpolitical issues. It seeks to establish the Tibetans'status and seeks recognition of their sovereigntyas a result of our discussion. The second partdeals with present conditions, with human rightsand atrocities and things of that character. Thememorandum submitted by the two sponsorsdeals only with the second part. Therefore, inwhat the Assembly is seized of now there are nopolitical issues, and therefore it is unnecessary formy Government to argue this question at all. Sofar as human rights are concerned, we state with-out any reservations whatsoever that we do nothave any standards different from what we haveadvocated from this platform and in a smallmeasure have tried to practise in our political andother relations.

Therefore from the point of view of consi-deration of these matters, while we did notsupport the inscription of this item, for reasonswhich I shall mention in a moment, we do not

274want in any way to put forward legalistic objec-tions and to try to build up a procedural barrier.

Consideration of this problem must, first ofall, have as its central theme the future of theTibetan people and of the Dalai Lama himself.So far as we are concerned, there have beentroubles in Tibet not only in the old days butin recent times also. That is part of the greatchanges that am taking place in the world. Butwe should like to have those changes take placemore peacefully, with less cruelty, perhaps withless upset. Also, we do not subscribe to the viewthat these changes are merely the overthrow ofcertain feudal lords or otherwise. If these upsetshave to come, they should come, so far as possi-ble, with the least degree of violence. But-while we may wish that, we have no right toimpose non-violence with violence. That is tosay, we cannot argue non-interference by inter-fering. Therefore, all we can do is to expressour point of view and, without violence to ourforeign policy and without violence to our rela-tions with other countries, unless there is justifi-cation for it, do what we can within our owncapacities.

India inherited the British Position in Tibetin 1947-that is to say, that Tibet was underChinese suzerainty. In 1954, we entered into anagreement which was not a political agreement inregard to the political status of Tibet as such, butwas an agreement relating to trade matters. Indiahas a degree of trade with Tibet, and vice versa,and these trade routes were very often protectedby our own physical force in difficult terrain.

When China established itself under this newGovernment, we regularized these relations. Wewithdrew the so-called Political Agent from Tibetand appointed a Consul-General who was underthe jurisdiction of our Ambassador in China. Thetreaty we had with Tibet in 1954 is largely con-cerned with those trade matters-the introductionwhich establishes the relation between China andourselves. That is the position.

There have been troubles before. The mattercame up here in 1950, and then it was adjournedbemuse it was thought that a peaceful settlementwould be brought about. Then, more recently,there have been disturbances in Tibet, for instancethe revolt of the Khambas. They themselve arenot in Tibet proper, they are in the Chineseprovince. They are Chinese themselves. How-ever, the Tibetans joined them, and a very consi-derable revolt appears to have taken place.

As a result, the Dalai Lama himself and some12,000 or 13,000 of his followers came over toIndia. I think it would be right for us in thisconnexion, when considering the concern thatparties and countries and peoples have in regardto human rights and humanitarian affairs, to pointout to the Assembly that, while we are not aBuddhist country, we alone of all countries in theworld have a responsibility, which we willinglyundertook, to give asylum to the Dalai Lama, aswe had the right but not the obligation to do,and also to receive some 12,000 or 13,000 re-fugees.

Therefore, no charge that we are indifferent towhat happens in a neighbouring country or to theconditions that I have mentioned can ever bebrought in this connexion. We still have thoserefugees in our land. And, although there havebeen allegations in the past by the Chinese Govern-ment-not perhaps the Chinese Government, but

Chinese quarters-that India has promoted thesetroubles, or that India has been a base for this,there has been no justification whatsoever for thatsort of statement.

On the other hand, the Dalai Lama is entirelyfree in India to do whatever he likes. That is evi-dent from the fact that this item has come up here.The Government of India does not approve, doesnot support the discussion of this item in theUnited Nations. But, in spite of that, we havedone nothing to prevent it. Our view is that itis within the rights of a political refugee, to whomwe have given asylum. to exercise his own free-dom, within limits, in his own way, and we havenot interfered with that at all. At the same time,we have said that we hope and expect that therewill be no embarrassment.

This matter has been discussed times withoutnumber in India, and my Prime Minister has madethe position of the Government very clear. Hehas said :

"On the one side there was a dynamic, rapid-ly moving society; on the other, a static unchang-ing society, fearful of what might be done to it inthe name of reforms. The distance between thetwo was great and there appeared to be hardlyany meeting point. Meanwhile, changes insome forms inevitably came to Tibet ... Thoughphysical barriers were progressively removed, men-tal and emotional barriers increased...

"When the news of these unhappy develop-ments came to India, there was immediately astrong and widespread reaction. The Governmentdid not bring about this reaction. Nor was thisreaction essentially political. It was largely one

275of sympathy based on sentiment and humanitarianreasons, and also on a certain feeling of kinshipwith the Tibetan people derived from long-estab-lished religious and cultural contracts. It wasan instinctive reaction."

Then he went on to say, referring to thegeneral criticism that had been made on theChinese side about our "interference" :

"We have no desire whatever to interfere in Tibet; we have every desire to maintain

the friendship between India and China; but at the same time we have every sympathy for the people of Tibet, and we are greatly distressed at their help- less plight. We hope still that the autho- rities of China, in their wisdom, will not use their great strength against the Tibetans but will win them to friendly co-operation...".

This was in the early part of the troubleThen more and more refugees began to come in.At the beginning of this problem, various coun-tries-it is not my business to mention their names-intimated to us that their attitude must depend,to a certain extent, upon India's reactions to thisbusiness. You will find in this Assembly thatIndia and a large number of Asian countries havenot chosen to take an active part in promotingand supporting any movement here. That is not,as has been suggested, because of our fear of any-body or because we are too near China and donot want to displease her. Of course, nobodywants to displease his neighbours. But our actionin this matter, our posture in this matter, is dicta-ted by considerations which are not of a selfishcharacter. We recognize that equally the actiontaken by Ireland and Malaya is dictated bymotives which they regard as very worthy andvalid, and we respect them. But we expect otherpeople to understand that, if we have taken theposition in this matter that we have taken, it isnot because of extraneous considerations of pres-sure but because we think that the welfare of thepeople concerned and their future largely dependupon the degree of restraint that can be exercised.

The Prime Minister of India has said:

"Now, where a society has existed for hundreds and hundreds of years, it may have outlasted its utility, but the fact is that uprooting it is a terribly painful process. It can be uprooted slowly, it can be changed even with rapidity, but with a measure of co-operation. But any kind of a forcible uprooting of that must necessarily be painful, whether it is a good society or a bad society. When we have to deal with such societies anywhere in the world, which as a social group may be called primitive, it is not an easy matter to deal with it. All these

difficult things are happening. They should have happened ; they would have happened, may be a little more slowly but with a greater measure of co- operation, because such a change can only take place effectively and with least harm to the fabric, to those people concerned, if it is done by themselves. They May be helped by others, may be advised by others, but it must be done by themselves.

He goes on to say that this applies to us all.He continued :

The moment a good thing is done by badmeans that good thing becomes a bad thing. Itproduces different reactions. That is, I cannotjudge of what is happening in Tibet. I do nothave facts, neither does anybody in this house,(Parliament) except broadly some odd fact hereand there. But I am merely venturing to saythat all these complicated systems-not so easy todisentangle; anyhow, whatever it may be-havebrought undoubtedly a great deal of suffering tothe people of Tibet."

As a result of this there are 12,000 refugeesfrom Tibet who have crossed into India throughthe North Eastern Frontier Agency, which isIndian territory, and about 1,600 through Bhutan,through the Himalayan territory, and a fewhundreds through Sikkim. These refugees arebeing cared for. But I should like to say, inorder to put the international position correctly,that we have disarmed these refugees on theborder. And where there have been any instancesof arms not being surrendered we have notallowed these refugees to come into our country.That is international law in regard to all politicalasylum, which we have carried out.

All this is done on the basis of broad policy.I should like to quote again the Prime Minister :

"Our broad policy was governed by three factors : (1) the preservation of the security and integrity of India; (2) our desire to maintain friendly relations with China; and (3) our deep sympathy for the people of Tibet. That policy we shall continue to follow, because we think that a correct policy not only for

276the present but even more so for thefuture. It would be a tragedy if the twogreat countries of Asia, India and China,which have been peaceful neighbours forages past, should develop feelings ofhostility against each other. We for ourpart will follow this policy, but we hopethat China also will do likewise and thatnothing will be said or done whichendangers the friendly relations of thetwo countries ... maintaining our dignity,maintaining our rights, maintaining ourself-respect, and yet not allowing our-selves to drift into wrong attitudes andhostile attitudes, and trying to help inremoving or in solving such problemsAS they arise, we may help a little."

This is still our hope. That is one of the reasonswe do not want to enter into the fray, to usestrong language either way because, after all,the end of this must be some settlement. Theseproblems cannot be solved quickly. The thingone can do in the circumstances is to create anatmosphere which may bring this about. Thisis our position.

Then the question arises as to whether thepresence of the Dalai Lama and his entouragein India does not create a difference in the politicalrelationship. I have already indicated ourposition in this matter, and that we stand by theTreaty of 1954. What is more, in regard to the17-point agreement, to which reference has beenmade by many representatives in this assembly,it is the view of the Government that thatagreement still stands. It is quite true that someof its provisions have been broken, but thatappears to be the case in many internationaltreaties. If certain conditions are broken wetake whatever action is necessary-either partyconcerned, talking about a different situation.But the 17-point Agreement as a whole stands,and we have not had any difference of opinionon this.

Sometime Ago, on 30 June, some statementwas issued which suggested that there was tobe established some political changes, and thenthe Government of India said :

"The Government of India want to make it clear that they do not recognize any separate Government of Tibet, and there is therefore no question of a Tibetan Government under the Dalai Lama functioning in India."

I have stated as far as I can both sides ofthis proposition. Now the matter comes hereeither as a political issue or as a humanitarianissue. We could argue the legalism of it, asI said, but we do not intend to do it. My PrimeMinister informed Parliament that this mattercan come up before the United Nations onlyfor two reasons. He said :

"One is violation of human rights and theother aggression. Now, violation of humanrights applies to those who have accepted theCharter of the United Nations, in other words,those members of the United Nations who haveaccepted the Charter. Strictly speaking, you cannotapply the Charter to people who have not acceptedthe Charter, who have not been allowed to comeinto the United Nations."

"Secondly, if you talk about aggression,aggression by one sovereign, independent Stateon another ... Tibet has not been acknowledgedas an independent State for a considerable time,even long before this happened-much lessafter. Therefore, it is difficult to justifyaggression." Then, regarding the legal aspects,the Prime Minister went on to say :

"Then, I come to a certain practical aspect.And that is what good will it achieve" bydiscussion or resolution in the United Nations."Suppose we get over the legal quibbles ... Itmay lead to a debate in the General Assemblyor the Security Council, wherever it is taken up"-this was said in September of this year-"adebate which will be an acrimonious debate,an angry debate, a debate which will be afterthe fashion of cold war. Having had the debate,what then will the promoters of that debate andthat motion do ? Nothing more. They willreturn home. After having brought matters toa higher temperature, fever heat, they will gohome. They have done their duty because theycan do nothing else.

"Obviously, nobody is going to send an

army to Tibet or China for that was not done" in other cases. "It is fantastic to think they will move in that way in Tibet. Obviously not. So, all that will happen is an expression of strong opinion by some, other countries denying it and the matter being raised to the level of cold war-brought into the domain of cold war-and probably producing reactions on the Chinese Government which are more adverse to Tibet and the Tibetan people than even now. So, the ultimate result is no relief to the Tibetan people but something the

277 reverse of it."

This is our position.

Just because a matter is a matter that containsfeatures we do not like, we do not therefore neces-sarily think this is either the forum or any remedycan be brought about here. We have no evidencein regard to some of these matters, nor is itour business to argue the contrary. All thatwe should like to say is this : that the PrimeMinister has said in some other place that so faras aggression and refugees are concerned, theserefugees came into India sometime in March orApril of this year, and they have not returnedsince. There may be some exaggerations, therewould be some exaggerations, it may beotherwise. We are not prepared to vouch for iteither Way.

The problem, as we see it at present, is this.The Dalai Lama is a very young man--I methim myself; he came to see me before I camehere. He is highly respected by his own people,at least by a great part of his own people.There is, as I have outlined, a degree of emotionalconcern in this matter in India, and one wouldhope that in all the conditions of the worldthat his future, the future of his people, lie intheir own homeland. We would not push themback, we would not be inhospitable, we wouldnot reverse the laws of political asylum in any way.But we would never depart from the belief thatreconciliation is not impossible. In this we aresomewhat encouraged in the sense that theDalai Lama, in spite of all the violent languageused in controversy either here or in China, is

still the Vice-Chairman of the People's Republicof China, If the Chinese thought that there wasan end to all of these things, I personally wouldhave believed that they would have brought atermination to those affairs. Neither I as anindividual nor the Government of India canand wish to hold out any prospects orhopes or anything of that kind in this matter.The fact that the Dalai Lama is still a youngperson with a great deal of vitality, that he isinterested in the welfare of his own people who,apart from these 12,000 are in the trans-Himalayanregion in Tibet and, what is more, the ChineseGovernment has not gone the whole way, it maygive us some hope that the expression of opinionin the world, with the passage of time, that somereconciliation would come about and that thissorry chapter of history would now be forgotten,would be a past chapter.

We think that, however acute the problem,the path of reconciliation is the constructivepath. It is for those reasons that we shall nottighten this deadlock, we shall not add to thisby being parties to any acrimonious discussionhere.

There have been many arguments about whe-ther this is a cold war debate or otherwise, aboutwhether the motives were one thing or another,but the issue is not whether the Irish and Malayandelegations brought this subject up here in orderto promote the cold war. To our mind, theissue certainly is not whether they were askedby someone else to do it. The issue is, whatare the consequences? These consequences arebefore us in the proceedings of the last twodays and in the proceedings before the GeneralCommittee. Much has been said which canneither be established nor refuted. Many theorieshave been brought forward. Out of twenty-fivespeakers, I think that twelve different viewshave been expressed on these matters. Therefore,it has not led either to a clarification of theCharter position or to the establishment of asolution to this problem.

The problem is largely concerned with theTibetan people, who have not figured verymuch in these debates, and we therefore do notfind ourselves in a position to support the resolu-tion that is before us, either as it stands as awhole or any part of it. We have been asked

whether, if it were put paragraph by paragraph,some representatives could not support one partor another. What other delegations do mustnaturally depend upon their own judgment.We have examined the draft resolution verycarefully, and so has my Government, and wetherefore take the only position we can take,that, in the interests of reconciliation in thefuture, because it does not promote any construe-tive step at all, the draft resolution containedin document A/L. 264 cannot have our support.We do not see a basis for it in the sense thatif it is a question of human rights we must dealwith people here who have subscribed to theDeclaration, because the Declaration definitelystates that it is the States' parties whom it binds.Therefore, I have to state that this draft resolutioncannot have our support. We will abstain onevery paragraph of it and on the resolution as awhole.

Our abstention, however, will be in nosense-I repeat, in no sense--a lack of concernor a lack of feeling in regard to the Tibetanpeople or any reflection upon our relationswith China. It merely arises from the postureand policy which I have placed before theAssembly.

278 This also does not mean that we are uncon-cerned when the issue of human rights is raisedbefore us. We have been told that it standsand that it does not stand on the same footingas the case of colonial repression and variousthings that happen in States where the sovereigntyhas been held down by physical force by others.The answer to this, so far as I can see, has beenfully stated by my colleague from Ethiopia, andI do not wish to take up any more of the timeof this Assembly.

In spite of all that has happened in Tibet,in spite of all that has happened in the corridorsof this Assembly and in the debating from eitherside, in spite of the type of language sometimesused and the approaches, wrong or otherwiseto a solution, it is the hope of my people andmy Government that the plight of the Tibetanpeople will be resolved by the process ofreconciliation and that the incidents of the recentpast will become part of past history. At thepresent moment, with the other incidents that

have taken place on the Indian border, it is notpossible for me to say whether this may be eitherproximate or immediate, but any warming upof these issues or any exacerbation of themcannot lead in any way to reconciliation. Butat no time have we lost faith in that sort ofthing because, I have said, outside the 12,000people who are in India, the vast bulk of theTibetan people are still on Tibetan land. Theylive there and they have to have their being there,and I hope that the young Dalai Lama who hasbeen their leader, in whom a large number ofthe Tibetan people place a great faith and whohas attracted a great deal of sympathy fromvarious parts of the world, will be able to placehis talents and services at the disposal of hispeople and return to them in dignity and in peace.If any one of us, be it my country or yours oranyone else's, or you, Mr. President, can do any-thing in order to minister to that reconciliation, thatwould be our role as part of the United Nations.

INDIA USA IRELAND CHINA RUSSIA BHUTAN CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ETHIOPIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri Krishna Menon's Statement in Trusteeship Committee on SouthWest Africa

Shri V. K. Krishna Menon, Leader of theIndian Delegation to the United Nations, made astatement in the Trusteeship Council on October23, 1959 on the question of South West Africa.

The following is the full text of his statement:Mr. Chairman,

I would seek your indulgence, Mr. Chairman,for making a few preliminary observations whichare in the modest view of my delegation, veryrelevant to the consideration of this and similarproblems before this Committee and I hope you

will not regard this as either an abuse of time orgoing beyond the strict province of a delegation.

We meet here as one of the principal Com-mittees of the United Nations and I say thisdeliberately because while every Committee isequal to every other, increasingly as years go on,here are debated and decided various syntheses ofreapprochement reached on questions which involvesome of the more fundamental aspects of theCharter, of Human Rights, neighbourly relations,conciliation and things of that character. There-fore, it is incumbent upon us to realise, to takestock of our various responsibilities. We havean outstanding and overwhelming responsibilityto the Charter and the Organisation-not theOrganisation in the narrow sense of these glassand steel buildings, or of its Secretariat or itsdelegations but the organisation as bounded bythe frontiers of peace, goodwill and neighbourli-ness and also the good ethical principles set outin its Charter. We have an equally outstandingobligation to the peoples whose fate is involvedin the subject we are discussing. That is anobligation which we cannot waive ; that is anobligation of which we cannot afford to beignorant-and that is the obligation on which wecannot, on the one hand, either afford to be weakor on the other to use brave words which do notcarry us anywhere.

Therefore my delegation wishes deliberatelyto address a few words on the subject of ourapproach to this problem. We regard a solutionthat is to be reached here on any vital question,whether it be disarmament, peace, South WestAfrica or anything else, as possible of achievementonly by the processes of conciliation, as theUnited Nations has no mandatory powers, hasno sanctionary powers, has no powers of compul-sion ; that is both its strength and its weakness.If it had powers of compulsion, we would have abrittle instrument on our hands which wouldbreak down the Organisation. Therefore, as mydelegation has stated for the last two succeedingyears on the question of Indians in South Africa,the one vote we require in order to bring about asettlement is the vote of the Union. And I amnot without hope that the day will come when theUnion itself will willingly come forward and takepart in these negotiations. Therefore, it is ourduty, in spite of all the strong feelings we mayhave, that we do not create a sense in ourselves

279of being apart from the Union, or that this is aparty issue in which we seek to divide theAssembly.

It is quite true that the issues raised are ofa character that arouse passions, emotions andmake response of that character for our expressionto be firm, So far as my delegation is concerned,we want to reiterate again, that there are threeor four items on the Assembly's agenda in whichSouth Africa is in the position where she mayfeel that a general attack is made against her.So far as my government is concerned, that is notthe position.

We are also conscious of the fact that thepresent Charter itself and, what is more, theCovenant of the League, its predecessor owes agreat deal to the genius of South African states-men. Gen. Smuts in the case of the Covenant and,what is more, in the case of the provisions we aretoday discussing, the provisions of the Mandatewas the architect. I would not say he was alaw-giver of the United Nations-that will beunreal and exaggerated-but he made a bigcontribution to this, and, what is more, on thisvery question that is before us he made a con-tribution of a juridical and basic character whichshould be of help to us. Therefore, I hope thatin spite of the fact that various positions havebeen taken-matters of administrative mishandlingor otherwise, as you may look at it, have comeunder review here-I hope that these would notbecome a factor in prejudicing this issue, recog-nising well that ultimately if the United Nationshas to survive the spirit-not only the terms, butalso the spirit of the Charter must endure. Thatis to say that there has to be neighbourliness,there has to be the removal of the elements ofconflict among nations, namely, social and politicalimbalance, that exist in the Empire and the condi-tions that exist in colonial or para-colonialterritories. It is in this way that we addressourselves to this problem. That is why year afteryear this Committee, in good sense, has foundequilibrium and has provided machinery wherebyfurther discussions in spite of all disappointmentscan be carried on ; whereby South Africa if itwere so willing, can, without abandoning anypositions, make a fresh start of negotiations withthe Good Offices Committee, or the South West

Africa Committee. Neither Committee need toexclude the Union itself ; for, after all, she has tomake the agreement.

Now, we start this year's debate on the basisof the report of the Good Offices Committee wereappointed at the 13th Session. The Chairmanof that Committee commands the respect of theTrusteeship Committee. He commands therespect of the rest of the Assembly. He has agreat record in standing up for human rights, forthe liberties of people, and his country standsalso as an example of democratic institutions andof the insistence upon carrying out the principlesof the Charter. The findings of the report of theCommittee now before us are regrettably, failure.It says : "the Committee regrets to inform theAssembly that it has not succeeded in finding abasis for an agreement under its terms of reference.Now this is a very carefully worded sentence.It says 'it has not succeeded', which is a littledifferent from saying : 'it has failed'.

In other words, that is to say, that it canmake a further effort. Secondly, it says : "anagreement under its terms of reference". Thatmight mean that it is an invitation to us toexamine these terms of reference, if necessary.Now, the Good Offices Committee could probablyhave been of a greater potency if some of theother member States, who perhaps would nottake exactly the same view as most members onthis Trusteeship Committee, had found it possibleto share our views in this matter, That may wellbe the position, let us hope, this year or next yearor the year after.

Now, coming to the basic positions : theUnion view is-and we must not miss this fact-the Union still speaks in terms of a 'new look'or 'new approach' that is said to have beencreated by statements made in 1957. Howevercynical some people might be, I think it will beunwise to throw this out of the window.When the Union Government says that its attitudeis in conformity with the spirit of the new approachand the resolution which was agreed to by a largemajority in 1957 we may profoundly disagreewith the Union's interpretation, but we do notdisagree with the fact that in recognising the newapproach there may be subconsciously this desirethat there should be a new approach. Therefore,whatever little support there is in this difficulty

we have to catch up and persuade the UnionGovernment, particularly through States who arenearer to it than we unfortunately are ; we shouldtry and make some progress. We may not beled away either by the feelings that may bearoused in us by the very authentic, from ourpoint of view very authentic, and moving storieswe heard- not stories in any fictional sense-moving descriptions we heard from the petitionerswho appeared before us, by the information wehave from the documents before us, such as thereports of the Good Offices Committee and theCommittee on South West Africa and the pro-vocative observations of the distinguished chairman

280of the Union delegation. These are incidents inthe resolving of a problem which is so complex,which is rooted in the desires of strong people tomaintain their strength and the weak to break thepower of repression. That has been the history ofall nations in the world ; and if all of us were tocarry with us only the remembrance of the woundsand the scars that struggle has left upon them,it will not be necessary for us to move to apeaceful world.

Now, the unfortunate part of this is that whilethe Union Government has reminded theCommittee that it had reiterated its willingness toreach an agreement, the agreement it wants toenter into is with what it calls the surviving Alliedand Associated Powers. It is difficult to knowwho the Allied and Associated Powers are. Inthe strict term of International Law, Indiawould be one of the Allied and AssociatedPowers, because partly we are signatories to thawagreements or treaties signed at that time onbehalf of the British Crown. The five Dominionsof that time were part of the Allied and Associat-ed Powers. The United States is one of theAllied and Associated Powers ; and, no doubt,therefore, the States associated with her, suchas Puerto Rices perhaps, and others may alsocome in under similar interpretation. France isan Allied and Associated Power and, therefore,Guinea would be able to take its place in the sameway as we do, as one of the Allied and AssociatedPowers. So, if I may say so with great respect,the South African Government would be in nobetter position if she summons the Allied andAssociated Powers, because there will be a largenumber of members of this family, who at that

time were not regarded as legitimate but are nowlegitimate ; and, therefore, today the Unionwould be in no better position vis-a-vis the Alliedand Associated Powers than it would be vis-a-visthe United Nations. On the other hand, I feelsure that the country of Field Marshall Smutsand the Government that succeeded his govern-ment would not want to plead before us that in1959 they want to resurrect the ghost of theLeague of Nations-the League of Nations thatfoundered in its incapacity to meet the rapacityof the war elements in the world ; they wouldnot want to resurrect that! Nor would theywant to go back from their own point of viewinto the commitments of Allied and AssociatedPowers.

We, on our part, would be very happy if theSouth African Government would hold to commit-ments made in Geneva at the time of the negotia-tions in regard to the Mandates and no one couldhave made more radical, more fundamental, morefar-reaching statements-statements which cutinto the position today held by the Union,than the distinguished former Prime Minister ofSouth Africa. I propose to refer to those state-ments later. But what worries us is that theUnion during the last two years, perhaps by arather unfortunate misunderstanding of theapproach by the Good Offices Committee of theprevious year seems to think that the onlyinterpretation of this new approach is, on the onehand, to deal with the Allied and AssociatedPowers, which will include Guinea, India, Ceylon,China and several other countries-we take thisview of the Allied and Associated Powers underinternational law. If the United Nations choosesto disregard that, then the Convention of 1883in regard to the Suez Canal would be in trouble.Successor States have certain rights and onemust be very careful in quoting, in trying to findways out of situations through methods that arenot very correct ; they may lead them into moredifficult situations.

The other condition the Union makes, inorder to find a settlement, is to partition SouthWest Africa. Now partition has now becomea well-known imperial device. In the old daysthe Empire ruled territories by dividing theirpopulations. From times of the Roman empireshave followed the principle : divide and rule.Now in the post-war years the fashion seems

to be : divide and leave. They divided ourcountry and left it ; they divided our people andleft them. So it is divide and leave. So nowdivision seems to be the position. Now, I wouldlike the Assembly, however, to look at thisproblem of partition from another point of view.Partition is only one aspect of it ; the proposalis not to partition in order to create two indepen-dent units of South West Africa. Partition isanother name for annexation. Partition meanscut the country up, take all the good part andamalgamate it with the Union and leave theremainder, if you want, to experiment withtrusteeship. Those are some of the aspects ofthis problem of partition.

So partition should not be viewed merely aspartition. After all, there is no objection to parti-tion as such, there being other things to compen-sate for it. There are many nations sittingaround here today, which a hundred years agowere parts of much larger units, whether they beAustro-hungarian Empire, or any other empire,not to speak of the British Empire. As I said,there is no objection to partition if it were inten-ded to take off the parts which have becomematured in order that they may express them-selves or rule themselves better. But partition

281

is only the other name for annexation. Now themotive, the purpose, the political purpose andindeed there is no secret about it, is to integrateand take over the richer part of South West Africa,which contains all the diamonds. I think poorpeople like ourselves must pray, must wish that therewere no minerals under the earth in our country,for they attract civilisation. The minerals of acountry give that country its name, but they areexploited by, they belong to somebody else. Thatis the experience of our colleagues in Ghana. So,this partition means the amalgamation of thericher part of Africa with all its great mineralwealth and, what is more, with the most salubriousclimate-there is one way of finding in Africawhere the climate is agreeable : that would bewhere the white populations live. I rememberdistinctly the debate that went on about EastAfrica when the first Labour Government tookoffice in England. The then Colonial Secretary,who had come under attack at that time had saidthat the high lands were for the whites and the

low lands for the others-he did not use theexpression "the others;" he said something elsewhich I do not wish to repeat. So the high landsare for the white. There it is. So the high lands,the most salubrious places of occupation in thegreat riches of South West Africa, will be amalga-mated with the Union.

There is another aspect which we should lookat. Supposing the United Nations by an act ofunwisdom agreed to partition, or supposing byforce measure something was inflicted, then whathappens ? In S.W.A. develops an empire, theempire is extended to this territory on the onehand of which there is the Union of South Africawhich proclaims the doctrine that its survival isonly possible, as in the case of Sparta, by theliberty of 300 out of 300,000. On the other sideof it stands the Portuguese Dominion of Angola;and on the top of it stands Bechuanaland, in avery tender spot and a very tender position at themercy of the great forces of these two States. Alittle above is the Central African Federation,which is taking very good lessons from the Unionand following the example, indeed as a pupilshould. And then there lies to the east coast theterritory of Nyasaland, about which out of cour-tesy and tenderness to our colleagues of the Uni-ted Kingdom I say very little.

This is the picture of South West Africa.What we are discussing here is NOT partition.We are discussing here a scheme which will bringabout a great authoritarian empire under thedoctrine of apartheid. It is our business to per-suade the South African Government. I do notwant to make any secret of it. Apart from thisquestion of race or apartheid, the South Africandelegation is one of the most interesting and theeasiest delegations to deal with. But there is abig 'apart' ; That is the trouble. On all otherquestions we meet them and we can discuss intelli-gently; we can discuss philosophical views of Gen.Smuts and everything else. We hope that we cansome day persuade them, and I have no doubt wecan persuade them : there are no human beings,there are no nations, there are no communities whichcannot be persuaded. But there is one principle,Mr. Chairman, in regard to persuasion : no onecan persuade anybody unless he is willing to bepersuaded. Persuasion means the throwing out ofone's own personality through the doors of one'smind to somebody else. Now for fear of being

persuaded if we shut our minds, how do our mindsreach somebody else? So even in the hardestof times we must not give up this hope of reachingthe mind of the South African Union, whichhas got great liberal traditions-at one time a warwas waged by their own people-against whom,I shall not say-in the interest of liberty, as it wasthen understood. What is more, modern SouthAfrica, I mean white South Africa, is the creation-whether we like parts of it or not-of pioneerswho ventured out and while it is true that someacts of cruelty might have followed, they were alsoaccompanied by acts of great adventure and thingsof that kind. There is also in this matter ofhumanity an element to which we can appeal,which we must mobilise and use as a counter-poiseagainst evil forces. This doctrine of partition Iwould like the Committee to look upon notmerely as a device of splitting, or splitting thedifference, as the English would call it. It is noargument to say that it is a large territory : it isso large, therefore give us a small slice of it. Thesmall slice, first of all, is a big slice in depth.Secondly it involves the principle of annexation.

Now here I would like to look a little backat the history. The Union of South Africa wasthe only country in the inter-war years whichdiaregarded the principles of the mandate, Japanfollowing soon after in regard to the Pacific Is-lands. The Union of South Africa conferredunion citizenship on the people of South W.A. in1923. She had no business to do so, because itwas not her territory. At that time the peopleprotested, and the Mandates Commission had agreat deal to say about that action of the Union.So, this idea of annexation has always been intheir minds.

I do not speak of annexation in the sense ofbare naked conquest. They (the Union) profoundlybelieve, probably, that the best interest ofcivilisation is served by the doctrine of apartheid,

282by the kind of government they have after all wehave heard the petitioners saying that there aresome good hospitals. Therefore they Probablythink that more a system of apartheid, that underthe system of partition there will be some goodhospitals even though for a few people only.The point is that these ideas of annexation havealways been with them, and you may, remember,

Mr. Chairman, that in 1946 in London and after-wards here the Union Government, before theTrusteeship Committee, as I said yesterday, theUnion Government, prepared that they weregoing to submit proposals to the United Nationsfor the annexation, or rather for what is calledmaking this territory as integral part of the Union.Now integral part clause appears in severalTrusteeship Agreements concluded by the. United,Kingdom and by France, but with very goodqualifications. It reads to the effect that a certainTerritory "shall be administered as though it werean integral part etc." As though it were integralpart", in English means that it is not an integralpart. But in the case of South Africa the Unionwants to reverse this. I do not say this just togive the history and take up your time, but it isnecessary to understand how deepseated are theirviews and where they lead to, and, therefore, it isnot sufficient to deal with them merely on thesurface. The South African Union has alwayslooked upon the Mandated Territory, apart fromthe statements of Gen. Smuts and other moreliberal element in South Africa as part of colonialconquest. Their attitude reminds me of aJapanese representative of Nagv regime, who atone time is reported to have said, when it waspointed out to have come up, that thefortification of the South Sea Islands was againstthe Mandate-I do not vouch for the statement-he is reported to have said : Mandates-What !President Wilson would not allow us to callanything by its proper name in 1921, and there-fore we call them Mandates. And that mighthave been the Union's view also.

My position is confirmed by all that we haveheard, by the information we do not get, and,what is more by the implications of the smallinformation that came from the expert of theUnion delegation, who very kindly spoke to us.All these point to the fact that the picture inSouth West Africa today is that of a colonialempire. This picture exists in 1959 and not in1919. To come back to the report of the GoodOffices Committee that Committee has reportedfailure and South African Union has stated tothat Committee that the only way to deal withthe situation from their point of view is to enterinto a north treaty with the Allied and AssociatedPowers. This position is worth examining. Ihope-I am sure the Secretariat of the United

Nation, would have no option and I do not saythat in a totalitarian way-but to advice thisCommittee that among the Allied and AssociatedPowers are some thirty countries and not all ofthem are the category that is contemplated bythe Union. If that is so, this idea is worth anexamination, though it is open to other defectsand we ourselves would not recommend it. Thenthere is the second proposition of partition.That proposal the Committee has already rejected,and then said enough about it.

From the Good Offices Committee we go onto the S.W.A. Committee. This Committee hasbeen in existence for many years. I think itspeaks well of the sense of the United Nations,that in spite of all our failures and in spite ofall our difficulties we have kept this Committeegoing, kept it going not as a fossil, not becausewe had a committee and therefore we must keepit going, not for that reason. That committee isa proclamation to the Union and to South WestAfrica that the United Nations still feel thatthere are methods of negotiations, that there aremethods of approach and rapprochement andso on. That Committee has survived inspiteof many attacks, and I hope the Assembly willdo nothing either to annihilate it, either to makeit extinct, or to take away its prestige. For fourdecades the administration of S. A. has beenconducted by the Union under the Mandates-System, whose guiding principle is that the well-being and development of the territory's inhabi-tants from a sacred trust of civilisation. Andwhat has the Committee on South Africa to say ?Its report tells us that the Union of S. A. hasfailed and continues to fail to carry out theobligations it undertook to promote to the utmostthe material and the moral well-being and theprogress of the inhabitants of the territory. "TheCommittee," the report continues, "has becomeincreasingly disturbed at the trend of the adminis-tration in recent years, and at the apparentintention of the mandatory power to continue toadminister the territory in a manner contrary tothe mandate,"-here I would like to interpolatethat the South African Government has publicityproclaimed that it has no desire to go againstthe Mandate. Of course the interpretationmay be different but they would be quitewilling, presumably, they would be proudtopically to follow, if it is proved to them thatthe implementation of the Mandate requires this

plan or the other-contrary to the Mandate",the Charter of the United Nations, the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, the advisory

283opinions of the International Court of Justice,and the resolutions of the General Assembly."I ask you, Mr. Chairman, is it possible for anymember State or the United Nations to goagainst more injunctions than this catalogue that.has been recorded by the Committee on SouthWest Africa. Therefore this again we point outto the Union-not in the sense of what thedistinguished foreign minister once before calledthe pillorying-the Union'-but in order thatit be known to their people, who in their limiteddemocracy, profess to a democratic way of lifeand where public opinion matters, even thoughonly among a small part of the population.I have an interesting anecdote about this,Mr. Chairman. In 1921, the League of Nationswas discussing the populations of the world.Each country was asked to give its populationfigure. The distinguished delegate of the Unionat that time said that it was 1 1/2 million. Thedelegate of India said that he thought there weresome Africans there too. "O, 8 million ; youmean the Africans." But in the context of theirown limited democracy, there is a public opinion,there are news papers ; there is a parliamentaryopposition, there are free churches ; there isfreedom of worship and, what is more, there isincreasing industrialization. No country in theworld be it the Union of South Africa or anyother country will be able to resist the impact,the powerful force of industrial labour in thedays to come. I say this with no desire tointerfere in the internal affairs of South Africa.

The Union has another inhibition. On theone hand it says that it involves to negotiate withthe United Nations, but on the other it is unionto come to an agreement with the United Nations,as the second party. Now, this is rather astrange insistence for the sake of prestige orfor the sake of saving face. My country, so faras possible, does not hold to this doctrine ofwhat is called saving the face. Very often peoplein saving faces, lose their heads. In this case,when the Good Offices Committee says that thenegotiations must be with the United Nations asa party, it is basing itself on one of the threedoctrines on which the advisory opinion of the

Court has given common conclusions, both inrespect of the majority judgment, and also thevarious minority judgments. Therefore, negotia-tion with the United Nations as a party is agreedupon by everyone almost on all sides except bythe Union, and, therefore, we readily hope thatthe member States, who are closer in their emo-tional and political relations to them, would beable to persuade the Union of the rather invidiousposition that will arise if the Union of SouthAfrica, which must claim for itself a great contri-bution in the formulation of the Charter includingits racial provisions, would want to disregard theUnited Nations. Even today, South Africa hasadmitted that this territory has internationalstatus. Are they now going to say that statushas not to be negotiated with this world body, ofwhich the Union is a member, and in regard towhich there are no rivals at present in the world ?

In this matter of S.W.A. the usual difficulty,I would not call it a red-herring, the usualdifficulty, the usual plea that is raised, the pleaof domestic jurisdiction does not arise. Nowin this Assembly there are States who, on merits,would agree that if they were dealing with anissue that owing to either philosophical orjuridical reasons or their own domestic considera-tions, they would not want that matter to bediscussed in the Assembly under Article 2 (7)does not arise, because sovereignty of thisterritory does not vest in the Union. The Unionmay have laid claims to it but it has never pleadeddomestic jurisdiction so far that puts one usualdifficulty out of the way.

Arising from this debate, Mr. Chairman,these are four or five main things which we haveto consider. Among them are their statementsmade by the petitioners; and here I am sureneither my Asian or African colleagues nor thepetitioners themselves nor anyone else who holdsa radical view on this question, will think that I amin any way guilty of derogation of the petitionerscase before us. It may be granted for argument'ssake that a petitioner, a person who makes arepresentation, is probably likely to present oneside of the case more than the other ; that is theworst that can be said. But what has been saidby the petitioners-not one of them, not only the8 or 9 who came here but also in the largenumbers of other written petitions that we haveexamined-even if 10% of all that was said

were true, if 10% of that represented the facts,then I think a case of maladministration pre-vailing in the territory contrary to the provisionof Mandate has been established. Therefore,it is not necessary for us, in my opinion, toexamine every word or every syllable of thepetitions. It should suffice generally to take thebroad outline of the presentation. It is animportant fact that tribal chiefs and others whoare in suppresion in South West Africa still havegreat faith in this organisation and still want tosend petitions to it. It is also important toremember that those men who have come beforeus, particularly of non-African origin, have takenvery considerable risks in obtaining information,not newspaper stories for any publicity for them-selves. They have come before us in a serious

284way ; they have taken very considerable risks tomake, shall we say, a little split in this curtain-I do not say what particular colour this curtainis-on South West Africa. They have done aservice to their own country and to the UnitedNations as a whole by bringing about what issought to be achieved in the Charter as freedomof information. I would like to say on behalf ofmy delegation that we owe a debt of gratitude tothese men, who at a great risk to themselves and,I must say that in all the circumstances as theysaw them, with great restraint have presentedthe case of South West Africa before us. Theirstatements. along with other material form. thenatural basis of our judgment.

Another set of factors, which we have toexamine, is the juridical position, rights andobligations in the context of this particularproblem. And Yet another factor is which Ipurposely put in another category, the Charterprovisions, which - are of more than juridicalimportance because they he at the root of thefoundations of the United Nations and involvegreat moral and ethical issues. I cannot say inthat juridical issues are often divorced from moralissues but they are not coterminus.

Mr. Chairman, besides all this there are threeproposals before the Assembly. One comes fromour neighbouring country of Nepal, another fromMexico and the third from Iran. There I proposeto refer to at a later stage. At this time, thoughit is a very old, hardy proposition, it is well for

us to go very briefly into the background of thisproblem. S.W.A., like many other countries,came into the pale of the modem civilisation inthe context of imperial conquest. There was atime when the British Empire did not want to haveany part or lot of it. There were several occasionswhen missionaries and traders asked for protectionbut the Government of the 19th century Englandsaid that it did not want to get involved in thesematters. Fortunately that was the time of littleEnglanders-they expanded afterwards and nowthey are not so little : At any rate at that timeBritain did not go and conquer this place. By themiddle of the nineteenth century the Germanconnection with this territory has been establishedin an unofficial way and, as it happened in thoseyears, the local chieftains-I do not suppose theyconsulted their populations--made agreementswith them and gave them hospitality. This wasnot the first time that things happened in thatway. I have read then in history of an incidentin my own home town, where I was born, wherethe emissary of a great country visited in 1498,landed on that coast and visited the ruler of thattime, who showered him with presents andhonours and the result was that he took away1200 inhabitants to his home country and wenever heard of them afterwards. Anyway thePortuguese entered this territory and the otherparts of Africa which they now have as parts oftheir colonial empire. However, in the particulararea the German influence prevailed and theyestablished themselves after the rebuffs of thethen British Empire which was not then preparedto give them assistance and protection thoughafterwards it became a little more sympathetic.I am not going to read out the whole history ofthis, but what has to be remembered is this thatSouth West Africa was at no time a 'No Man'sLand'.

In 1883 a merchant of Bremen obtained fromthe Hottentot chief, Joseph Frederick of Bethanya cession of land, later known as Luderitz Bay.Bismark, still unconverted to a colonial policy-he was still a school boy in the imperial business-caused the British Government to be informedbeforehand-they called Britain the elder brother-of the protectorate in words that were almost aninvitation to Great Britain to assume sovereigntyover the territory. This opportunity, like theprevious one, was allowed to slip away-by thisunfortunate historian-and in April 1884 Bismark

took the initiative and assured Luderitz and hisestablishments of German protection. The pro-tection is a funny word, Mr. Chairman I Youknow, under the Treaty of South East AsianTreaty Organisation, your country and mine areunder protection even though we did not ask forit ! Below the 28th parallel, or whatever it is,protection is just like the sun which rises and setswithout our knowing it. To continue with thehistorical account belated attempts by the Britishand Cape Government-i.e. the South AfricanGovernment of the time, to retrieve the situationwere unavailing. In the later part of the 19thcentury however the Empire had come into exis-tence ; by 1857 India had passed under the Crownand the Empire as such had taken shape. Butbelated attempts by the British and Cape Govern-ments to retrieve the situation in Southern Africawas unavailing, and in due course protection overGerman traders developed into full-fledgedGerman annexation of the whole territory. Nowthere is nothing wrong in it : it is a very olddoctrine, Mr. Chairman, that 'Flag follows thetrade' not 'Trade follows the Flag,' that is wrong !Flag follows the trade! British anxiety overGerman designs in the territory and the fear thatthe Germans might join across the continent-those were the days of Czarist expansion whenRussia and the United Kigdom were everywhereestablishing, what are called, spheres of influence,nothing else but spheres of influence in China

285and other places; the antagonism between Russiaand these people is an old business and nothingnew. But to continue British anxiety over Germandesigns on the territory-they tried to solve it inthose days by inter-dynastic marriages-and thefear that the Germans might join across the conti-nent with the Boers of the Transvaal was one ofthe reasons that prompted the British Governmentto declare a protectorate over Bechuanaland andthat became part of the Brirish Empire. The firstGerman representative sent to this territory-hedoes not bear a good name in the present context-was His Excellency Goering. He was succeededby Kurt von Francois--that was also not a goodname, the first part I mean. He transferred thecapital from somewhere to somewhere. It wasthere that, the first German farmers settled in 1892.And unlike most of us these farmers were veryindustrious people. In 1893 there was troublewith Hendrik Witbooi, and the Hottentot chiefs

I suppose he did not like this man going into hisfarm. I believe it happens in the Middle Westover here that people going into the farm are notliked. The Germans attacked this man's villageand 150 of his subjects including women andchildren were killed. It could be argued of coursethat these subjects had no human rights and there-fore somebody was trying to impose inhumanrights upon them. The Germans attacked thisvillage and 150 of his subjects were killed. ThenFrancois was succeeded by Theodor Leutwein,who tried to treat the native population withconsideration. You will find in the history ofall empires it is always firmness plus the reverse,and the process: goes on. It is the pendulum inall foreign rule. It is part of a policy, but whenit goes too far the democracy at home startsbiting. So Theodore Leutwein found much cause fordissatisfaction and it required only a spark to setthe country ablaze. The Bondelswaartz Hotten-tots rose in 1903--come to modern times. Thisrising was suppressed, but early in 1904 theHereros revoited and killed a number of Germansettlers, but not the British or the Boers. Therebellion was quickly quelled but in the 'cleaningup'-it is called 'mopping up' now a days-in themopping up operations the Hereros were ferocious-ly harried by Gen. Trotha-this man's successor--and were then reduced and this is the importantpart to which I want to come to-from a tribe of80,000 people to 15,000 starving refugees, manyof whom found sanctuary in Bechuanaland, whichwas British territory and where liberal traditionsprevailed and these people could move in there.

That, Mr. Chairman, is the background inwhich this Territory starts its career in the modernworld. When we talk about sovereignty, wemust recognise the fact that power was establishednot by legitimate rights but by conquest, whichwas recognised in those days. Then came theperiod of the Great War-the First World War-and German expansionism encountered the oppo-sition, or rather the firmness of the British empireand its associates, and was defeated. But inyears that followed came another trouble-another invitation to civilzation ! In the yearsthat followed these troubles, the depopulationresulting from the methods used in suppressingthe rebellion caused a labour shortage. The onlything that did not happen here was that theBritish Government not ruling this place no Indian

immigrants were sent like in South Africa. IfS.W.A. were part of the British Empire otherconsequences might have followed. Labourshortage hampered the development of the terri-tory. The discovery of diamonds in 1908 ledto the considerable increase in European popula-tion which rose nearly to 15000 by 1913. On the6th August 1914, that is two days after thedeclaration of the First World War, the Govern-ment of the Union undertook to assume all obli-gations resting upon the British regular garrisonin South Africa. That was a part of the Empirearrangements. Britain having gone to war withGermany, in our part of the world the administra-tion of our country took over whatever responsi-bilities there were ; South Africa then a colonialterritory did the same quite rightly. South Africathen sent a military expedition of its own toGerman South Africa. And I think, I must say infairness and in historical context this replacementof regular British garrison and the sending of themilitary expedition was part of the operations ofthe First World War against the enemy, Germany,and not against these people. Soon after thepreliminary occupation of Luderitz Bay the Boerrebellion interrupted these operations-that is tosay the Boer business had not come quite to aconclusion by that time. But later the campaignagainst the Germans developed rapidly andsuccessfully. In January, 1915 South Africanforces advanced into the country. This is thebeginning of the conquest from acting on behalfof the British Empire against the common enemynow before the period of colonial occupation-and after a campaign of swift moment in semi-desert and waterless country forces the surrenderof the Germans on July 9, 1915. This is the warstory.

Then came the end of the empire when theformer territories of Germany and Turkey, whichnormally would have been the booty of war, cameunder the system of the international tutelage.Thanks to the initiative of the American President,

286who had entered the war with the promise ofno annexations and no reparations, annexationsdid not take place and these territories after agreat deal of haggling and bargaining betweenvictorious. Powers came under the. System ofMandates and South Africa became a `C' man-date, being regarded then as an undeveloped

region-God knows why-because these peoplehad been under civilisation for at least six orseven hundred years before with their own tribalsystems and with their own ways of rule and,what is more, they were civilised enough forthe German missionaries on the one hand andthe traders afterwards on the other to concludetreaties with them to acquire land ! But theywere not civilised enough to be placed under 'B'or 'A' mandate! At any rate, South West Africawent under `C' mandate and that 'C' mandatewent to His Brittanic Majesty and His B.M. madethe Union responsible for its administration.

I do not know what the arrangement was thatmade the Union responsible as part of its defencein the administration of S.W. Africa. The purposeof this historical account, which I have given asbriefly as I can, is to point out, Mr. Chairman,that on the one hand the occupation originallywas forcible, but at the same time not forcibleagainst the population ; I want to be very accurateabout this-not against the population but onlyagainst the Germans. The whole operationwas in order to beat the enemy and havingbeaten him the booty of war went to the com-munity of nationals as "Sacred Trust" and that"Sacred Trust" was transferred to the Union and,therefore, the Union's title is only the Mandate.If the Union were today to say that they arenot bound by the obligations of the Mandate,then the Union cannot take the benefits.If she must have the smooth, she must havethe rough ; if she must have the rough, shemust have the smooth. If there are no obli-gations under the Mandate, there are norights under the Mandate either. Now if we takethe Mandate away, what is left ? In that caseS.W.A. must come before the United Nationsin the same way as Algeria has come beforethe United Nations for the liberation of thesuppressed people. But we do not see thisas a colonial position. In the interest of his-torical accuracy, in the interest of the peopleof this State, and out of defence to the Union,therefore, it either is a Mandated Territory, whichit is-and if it is argued that the Union has noobligations under the Mandate, then the wholebasis of the Mandate disappears : you cannot haveit half and half. My delegation has said in thecase of another Territory that you cannot keepone part and give up the other one. The Unionrepresentative Gen. Smuts who took considerable

work in formulating the mandates system hadhimself said that while this territory was to beadministered and so on there was no question ofthe transfer of sovereignty. Even at the risk oftaking the time of this Committee it is necessaryfor me to point this out.

Article 22 of the Covenant says-"To thosecolonies and territories which as a consequence ofthe late war have ceased to be under the sovereigntyof the States which formerly governed them andwhich are inhabited by peoples not yet able tostand by themselves under the strenuous conditionsof the modern world, there should be applied theprinciple that the well-being and development ofsuch peoples form a sacred trust of civilisationand that securities for the performance of thistrust should be embodied in this Covenant."That is article 22 of the League Covenant. Itsays further-"The best method of giving practicaleffect to this principle is that the tutelage of suchpeoples should be entrusted to advanced nationswho by reason of their resources, their experienceor this geographical position can best undertakethis responsibility, and who are willing to acceptit, and that this tutelage should be exercised bythem as Mandatories on behalf of the League."If sovereignty rests in the Union there would beno 'behalf'. 'Behalf' means some sort of agency,some sort of wardenship. And therefore sove-reignty does not exist there. Here I would like tosay that in the opinion of my delegation theUnion of South Africa is an advanced nation-advanced nation in terms of economic position,or political power, or civilisation, as we generallyunderstand it, or education etc. We not onlyadmit that, we base our position on this that sheis an advanced nation capable of this administra-tion. We do not contest its geographical positionand we also think that she is best able to under-take this responsibility. But that responsibilityhas to be exercised in terms of the Mandate,which alone confers this privilege uponthem.

If this were not sufficient-this is in theCovenant, Sir-Gen. Smuts, who was responsiblefor this, has himself gone into this question of theMandate. He says - "The Mandatory Stateshould look upon its position as of a greattrust and honour, not as an office of profitor a position of private advantage for it orits nationals. And in case of any flagrant and

prolonged abuse of this trust the populationsconcerned should be able to appeal for redressto the League, who should in a proper caseassert its authority to the full, even to theextent of removing the mandate, and entrusting

287it to somebody else, if necessary."

Now we come, Sir, to the present position.While I do not wish the Committee to be takenagain into the petitioner's case and what not, I dobelieve it my duty just to refer to certain matters.These acts of administration are not individualactions. My delegation does not take the viewthat there are in South Africa large numbers ofadministrators who, like those in the Hitler regimewhich had professional sadists, went to inflictcruelty. We are only talking in terms of criticismor offering our comments on a system not uponindividuals. The South Africans we come across,we have met, are people for whom we havehighest respect, but they are is well victims of thesystems as those whom they victimise. Now theSouth West Africa Committee says "The Com-mittee has shown in earlier reports that althoughthe administration of the territory has previouslybeen characterised by separate treatment of thedifferent racial components of the population, theadaptation of this situation to the policy ofapartheid, the concept of racial segregation andthe separate development of the races as a perma-nent feature of the structure of society has beenintensified since the transfer of Native administra-tion from the territorial authorities to the Govern-ment of the Union of South Africa in 1955". Ithink it is necessary to point out that we need notgo far. There is the Declaration of HumanRights to which South Africa is a party where itsays that people must be governed by the will ofthose who are being governed and so on. Thereis no representation of those large populations inthe South East African Legislature, or in theUnion's Parliament for whose welfare the Union isresponsible. The territory is represented, Ibelieve, by six persons in the Lower House andfour in the Upper House of the Union Parliamentand none of them belongs to the indigenouspopulation nor has the indigenous , populationany vote. Therefore, there is no question even ofa limited franchise. All non-Europeans in theterritory are prohibited by law from voting in theterritorial elections. They are also prohibited

from being candidates for elections since member-ship in both the Union Parliament and theLegislative Assembly of South West Africa isrestricted by law to Europeans. Therefore,either in the indirect election or whatever it maybe, in the limited election to the Union Parliamentor in the Local Parliament of S.W.A., the non.European propulations are excluded. They areprohibited from being candidates and they areprohibited from taking part in the elections.Therefore there is no question that this is nothingexcept what is comparable to a democracy of theGreek of Spartan days where 300 people had allthe rights and 300,000 did not. Then that is onepart of apartheid:

The other is the innocuous system of PassLaws which prevail in this territory! Pass Lawsare not just identification cards like those carriedby citizens of the United States or any othercountry. I remember reading a judgment of adistinguished South African judge, Justice Bloom-field, who said: "We (South Africans) havepassed so many laws in our country so that whenan African gets out of his house, he commits acrime. He makes statutory offences." Now hereare some of these Pass Laws! Any policemanmay at any time call upon an African who hasattained the age of sixteen years to produce hisreference book. If a reference book has beenissued to him but he fails to produce it because itis not in his possession at the time, he commits acriminal offence and is liable to a fine not exceedingten pounds or imprisonment for a period notexceeding one month." It is not so much theenormity of the punishment but the fact thatpeople should have to live in this kind of terrorand should have to identify themselves, asdemand, in the way under penal sanctions. PassLaws are applicable only to one section of thepopulation. In other countries we carry identi-fications equally applicable to everybody. Thereare practices in other countries which we do notapprove of. I myself do not want my thumbimpression taken by policemen but it is a normalthing of this country. That is, where it is thelaw they do it. Another example of discriminatoryLegislation: "Whenever the Governor-General,in his unfettered discretion-he need not askanybody-deems it fit to issue the necessary pro-clamation, an African who has been required byan order of Court to leave a certain area must doso, and no Court of Law may grant an interdict

preventing such removal, nor may appeal orreview proceedings, stay or suspend such removal,even when it has been established beyond alldoubt that the order of the Court was intendedfor some other persons and was served upon himin error." You cannot even argue mistakenidentity and the person in regard to whom themistake is made has to pay the penalty! I couldread on in this way quite a lot but there is notthe time to do so.

Now supposing, for instance, it were argued,as it may be arguable, that things are not so bad;they could be worse as we were told so manytimes. But we still-as a government, as a peo-ple--still hold to the view that even good govern-ment is no substitute for people's liberty. It isfar better for people to have their own bad govern-ment than somebody else's good government.

288Now, therefore, we come to the juridical posi-tion under the Covenant of the League underArtical 22, much of which I have read out. Thejuridical position is in regard to the WorldCourt and, here again, I intended to go into greaterdetail but since the delegation of China says theyare going to deal with it afterwards, if necessary Iwill come back to it. There are, Sir, two main setsof documentation coming from the World Court-one belongs to 1950 and the other to later periods-and I must place the whole facts before you.There are parts of this judgment which probablywill appear contradictory to one another. Equallythere and the answers to these questions were--1."the South are minority judgments. There arediffering views. We have tried, African Unioncontinues to have the international obligationsstated as, far as possible, in all honesty to analysethese and find the common factors and this iswhat we find.

Three questions were referred to the WorldCourt. 1. Does the Union of South Africa continueto have international obligations under the Man-date for South West Africa and, if so, what arethose obligations ?

2. Are the provisions of Chapter XII of theCharter applicable and, if so, in what manner,to the territory of South West Africa ?

3. Has the Union of South Africa the com-petence to modify the international status of theTerritory of South West Africa, or, in the eventof a negative reply, where does competence restto determine and modify the international statusof the Territory ?

And the answers to these questions were--1."the South African Union continues to have theinternational obligations stated in Article 22"and then this answer proceeds to set out whatthose obligations are in regard to the Mandateand in regard to Chapter XII of the Charter. Onthe first question, the answer was reached by 12votes to 2. I do not want to read the names ofthe judges, that will not be proper. By 12 votesto 2 the Court is of the opinion that "the Unionof South Africa continues to have internationalobligations stated in Article 22 of the Covenantof the League of Nations and in the Mandate forSouth West Africa as well as the obligation totransmit petitions from the inhabitants of thatterritory, the supervisory functions to be exercisedby the United Nations, to which the annual re-ports and the petitions are to be submitted, and thereference to the Permanent Court of InternationalJustice to be replaced by a reference to the Inter-national Court of Justice in accordance withArticle 7 of the Mandate and Article 37 of theStatute of the Court". That is to say, that by amajority of 12 to 2 the World Court advises theUnited Nations that under Article 22 of the Cove-nant the obligations remain with South Africa totransmit information and positions received frominhabitants, and that supervisory functions are tobe exercised by the United Nations and also thatany member of this organization, who was amember of the League of Nations, under Article37 of the Statute of the Court and Article 7 of theMandate, can invoke the jurisdiction of theCourt .

On Question (2), i.e., are the provisions ofChapter XII of the Charter applicable, and, if so,in what manner, the answer is unanimously in theaffirmative and the Court has added-"The provi-sions of Chapter XII of the Charter are applicable tothe Territory of South West Africa in the sense thatthey provide a means by which the territory maybe brought under the Trusteeship System."

Now I haven't the time to place it togetherwith other statements that have been made, but

what the Union has said is that the Mandate inthat way cannot function because the League hasdemised. But for want of time I could haveplaced before you several statements in whichSouth Africa has herself come here and said thatthey are prepared to honour these obligations.They were parties to the creation of the Trustee-ship System, and Gen. Smuts himself said thatTrusteeship System was even superior to theMandate. These are his words : "The Trustee-ship System is not only a substitute for theMandate but even superior to the Mandate andtakes these things over." The World Court hasalso said that the Charter provides an alternative.If the League has lapsed-it cannot be said thatthere is nobody whom one may pay ones taxes orwho else will receive them. While it may betechnically true that the United Nations cannotcompel-it cannot compel anybody-to placeterritories under trusteeship, the United Kingdom,France, Belgium, Italy and United States, theyall placed their former mandated areas under thetrusteeship system, of their own free will. Thesame request was made to South Africa timeswithout number and it was the understanding in1946 (I remember the discussions at that time)that there will be no difficulty in this matter. InSan Francisco Gen. Smuts had said at the Con-ference which led to the establishment of thesystem : "The principle of trusteeship is nowapplied generally. It applies to all dependentpeoples in all dependent territories. It covers all

289of them, and therefore an extension has beengiven to the principle of very far-reaching andimportant character. The application of theseprinciples to colonies of a large number of powerswill mean a general improvement of administra-tion-I hope the imperial powers will take noticeof this-and the setting up of quite new idealsfor many of the dependent peoples in thosecolonies."

Now, if the Union of South Africa is not atthe present moment, I say the present moment,disposed to entertain our views, may we, in allhumility, submit these documents, of probablythe greatest statesman of South Africa has producedand one of the founders of the United Nations,for their attention. Gen. Smuts also said at thesame meeting that "if these additions for theadvancement of these dependent peoples, politi-

cally, socially, economically, are carried out, Ihave no doubt that the result will be very farreaching. The result will be that as both Sections'A' and 'B' (Chapters XII and XIII of the Charter)are applied to dependent peoples all over theworld, wherever a territory is inhabited by depen-dent peoples-peoples who are not advanced tolook after themselves, peoples who are stillbackward in development one way or another,they will have the benefits of this new adminis-tration.

...Also that the United Nations organizationis an important part of it"-Gen. Smuts says thatit will be for the United Nations organisation tosee that dependent peoples get the benefitscontemplated for them in the system. This is tosay that Gen. Smuts concedes, not only concedesbut argues the case of supervision.

In San Francisco Gen. Smuts not onlyconceded, he was the advocate of the TrusteeshipSystem with all its implications including thesupervision by the United Nations and not by theAllied and Associated Powers or anybody else.Again speaking here on the 4th of November1946 before this very Committee, and I distinctlyremember this, Gen. Smuts said that the Trustee-ship System embodied in the Charter has taken theplace of the Mandate System occupied in the,Covenants of the League of Nations. Thereforewhile the Court might have doubts whether theUnited Nations is successor to the League ofNations or not, South African Government ofthat time had no doubts whatsoever in thatmatter. This is what its representative, Gen.Smuts said about this system of Trusteeship. "Itis not only the successor to the Mandate Systemand is in many respects an advance and improve-ment upon it. The Mandate System dealt withGerman and Turkish colonies after the GreatWar. The present Trusteeship System has muchwider scope and deals with all territories, whetheror not they were under trusteeship or voluntaryagreement."

Now, Sir, the fundamental concept of theTrust itself, as that of the Mandate, is the advance-ment of the inhabitants and their progress insocial, economic and political fields and thisadvance is to be with due regard to the wishes ofthe inhabitants of the territory. There is norecord here, Sir, of any consultation of the

inhabitants of the territory in the way that ismeant in that position. I would have liked toplace more documentation before you, but mostof us are familiar with these things and the onlypurpose of placing them here again is to remindmembers of the Committee of the position asit is.

Now about these three proposals. One is theproposal of the Mexican delegation. Naturallyit is not a proposal to which we can object. Butif South Africa will agree to supervise by a bodycomposed on the same pattern as the TrusteeshipCouncil, it is very difficult to understand whythere should be replacement of the TrusteeshipCouncil, but so far as the principle of it is con-cerned we do not find any objection to it except,of course, that the Trusteeship Council is establish-ed by the Charter ; and there must be some verygood reasons for its displacement. But, of course,if its composition is suitable-and I am sure thatmembers of this Council, if their absence from abody of that kind will assist in any way to bringthis territory under Trusteeship, I am sure in thegeneral interest they will be prepared to do so-we have no objection on the merits as put in thatWay. But in principle it appears that if on theone hand you have the U.K., the U.S.A., Franceand the Union (four) and on the other fourelected members the purpose is merely to excludesome countries and that may create difficulties.But in any case it is another Trusteeship Coun-cil-Trusteeship Council 'B' instead of the presentTrusteeship Council 'A' and whether we have thepower to create a thing like that, I do not know.

Our friend from Nepal has suggested that weshould send a fact-finding mission to South WestAfrica. We have no objection to that, but if theUnion is not prepared to accept the authority ofthe United Nations and will not negotiate with it,then of course that creates a difficulty regardingthe fact-finding mission. But it appears to us, andI feel sure that my colleague from Nepal will agree,that under the Mandates System and, so far as theprinciple is concerned, under the Trusteeship

290System and under the statements made by Gen.Smuts over here on a particular point, the Manda-tory Power cannot bar any member of the thenLeague of Nations and now the United Nationsfrom having access to these territories. That is

to say, in a Trust Territory the AdministeringAuthority cannot create privileges for itself whichit cannot afford to other members of the UnitedNations.

So, in our humble submission, it is open toany member of the United Nations, any Govern-ment, any State member of the United Nations tosend out people not necessarily to fact-find but tovisit these areas, so that our organisation wouldbe seized better of all these things. In anyattempt of that kind we are not for a momentsuggesting that we should create greater difficultieswith regard to South Africa by raising other issueswhich are unsettled. All we are saying is that afact-finding mission, even if it cannot come aboutin the way Nepal has suggested, its substance canbe obtained by individual efforts on the part ofmember governments-and whether it is goodthing or not it is for the Committee to consider.We may make an appeal to member governments-particularly member governments who are moreof persona grata with the Union that some of usmay be-to visit these areas so that the Committeecan also feel that we are not being influenced orcoming to conclusions only on the basis of docu-ments submitted by the Good Offices Committee orthe South West Africa Committee or by our ownpredilections or by previous history or by thepetitioners, but by seeing for themselves the pic-ture that exists. The representative of Iran madeanother suggestion which, of course, also requiresthe consent of the Union. That again is theposition with regard to the proposal concerningthe consultation of the inhabitants.

Now, Sir, soon I hope we will come to thestage of submitting resolutions in this matter.Here, my delegation will take you back for fiveminutes. We will not take any position and wewould not, in any way, promote an activity whichis intended, so to say, to pile up opprobrium onthe Union. That is not our purpose. We wouldlike not to submit a resolution but to make somesuggestions. It will be good thing if into theCommittee on S.W.A. the Union were elected asmember. She would be there : we could ask herquestion : she could assist us. The Committeecan be assisted by her presence in it, and what ismore, the member from South Africa, who willsit on S.W.A. Committee, would not be barredfrom going into the territory and in that wayS.W.A. Committee will become more representa-

tive. The second suggestion we would like tomake is one that has been submitted before; wewill make a request to the South African Govern-ment once again, not only once again but as manytimes as may be necessary-that is not putting itoff, we will request the S.A. Government to assistthe United Nations in the solution of this pro-blem and take the assurance, so far as we areconcerned, of our delegation and so far as othersare concerned that this is not an attempt to framean indictment or to allocate blame or praise, butmerely a step in the progress of the United Nationsunder Article 76. We hope that the Assemblywill make an appeal to member governments firston the lines I mentioned a while ago and also touse their influence with the South African Govern-ment that this question, which creates so muchill-feeling, takes so much time of this Committee,and creates on the one hand anticipatory and hope-ful feelings in the peoples of S.W. Africa and onthe other a great emotional, almost evengelicaldivision of this organisation which if not justifiedwould have certain consequences-we hope thatcountrie's like the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates with their great influence all over the sevenseas would be able to persuade the S. A.Government-I do not say to see reason butassist, not in order to accept any of the argumentswe have stated, not in order to accept any res-ponsibility for misdemeanours but in order tofulfil the pledges given by Gen. Smuts to thisorganization. In order that the representative ofSouth Africa who, for the first time, has given usdetails in regard to the administration of the terri-tory, would have the opportunity to give it tothe right channel and to the right source if heshould come and sit in this Committee on SouthWest Africa, or equally in the TrusteeshipCouncil

Or if they are suggesting that South WestAfrica is a part of the colonial empire and theMandate has lapsed, then of course we, thoseof us who are ex-colonial people, must go intoanother question, and like Algeria, demand theindependence of South West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we will be able, atthis time, to pass through this Committee aresolution that is unanimous, and while I amentirely, perhaps, unrealistic but hopeful personmy delegation is always hopeful in thesematters. We have been negotiating with the

Union since 1907. We have not lost patience,nor have the South Africans. South Africansand we are probably the most patient peoplein the world in regard to negotiations ! Whatis more, to South Africa we owe a great debtof gratitude because it nourished the GreatGandhiji in his earlier days and gave him the

291field--not gave him, he found the field-for hisexperiments and also for the development ofthe great personality that brought about theliberation of our country and, what is more,gave to the world the great gospel of establishingreconciliation and resolving conflict throughmeans of non-violence. So, therefore, we do notlose hope. And in regard to this resolution thatthis committee might adopt, it is our hope thateven if the Union cannot, today, vote for this atleast, she will use her influence with other peoplenot to vote against it and, what is more, refrainfrom voting against it herself. So, for the firsttime, would have gone out of this Assembly aresolution in which South Africa is not beingordered to do anything, in which South Africais probably being asked not to accept anythingto which she is opposed publicly, and what ismore, if I may say so, there is machinery providedhere, which does not hit her in the face. TheSouth Africa Committee is not a partisan commit-tee ; so far as my delegation is concerned weare prepared to move that the Union be electedas a member of this Committee and I am sureall of us would agree to that, so that there willbe committee in which she herself sits, wheresome beginning can be made of the reality wehope for.

I say all these things not by way of submit-ting a resolution but throwing forward ideas inorder that this question does not come heremerely as a hardy annual for us to repeat mostof these arguments. The time is fast running, Mr.Chairman when each delegation like ours will bequoting itself as an authority rather than no-bodyelse. We are getting so ancient. And thereforewe hope, that while we do not submit a resolutionat the present moment, it will be possible forthe Assembly unanimously and withoutcompartmental differences and decisions to cometo some agreement in that way. I equally hopethat those of us, who are less patient than others,who probably think, who probably consider,

that something more is required to maintain thefeelings of hopefulness of South West Africanpeople, will not do what in our humble viewwould be a diversion into the path that will bedifficult and may only create more difficultiesfor the more progressive elements in SouthAfrica, for gentlemen like the distinguisheddelegate who spoke in regard to the conditionsthere, for the more liberal elements in SouthAfrica by putting forward propositions whichmay have the smell, the tinge of ultimatum, oranything of that kind.

Our function here is reconciliation. Thisis the place where differences have to be harmo-nised and it is a great opportunity not only forthe United Nations, for some of us, who mayhave erred on the path through our enthusiasm,and for South Africa, most of all, for the firsttime in the history of the United Nations tocome forward and say that they would cooperatein establishing not something that is new butsomething which their own leader-one of thefounders of the United Nations-contributedin the Charter. It would give them the opportu-nity to come before us, not merely as a partythat has been pressed under the force of publicopinion, but in the awareness of the 14 yearsof debate, being reminded of some of its owncommitments, being reminded of the historyof the League of Nations, and, what is more,knowing well that it is not possible to, maintainor perpetuate the conditions that obtain in SouthWest Africa today, also having before them theshadows of those thousands of Hereros andHottetots, who disappeared when Germanscame in. It is all part of history, and remember-ing all this I hope the Union will break in newhistory and refrain from voting against the resolu-tion that is being submitted to the Assembly.

INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC SOUTH AFRICA FRANCE GUINEA SWITZERLANDCHINA OMAN GHANA PERU ANGOLA JAPAN UNITED KINGDOM NEPAL IRAN MEXICO RUSSIAGERMANY TURKEY ALGERIA BELGIUM ITALY

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri Krishna Menon's Statement in Trusteeship Committee on British(Southern) Cameroons.

Shri V. K. Krishna Menon, Leader of theIndian Delegation to the United Nations, made astatement in the Trusteeship Committee on October7, 1959 on the future of the British (Southern)Cameroons.

The following is the text of his statement :

Though my delegation has intervened insmall ways in the proceedings of this Committeeuntil now, this is the first occasion that we areaddressing ourselves to a particular item andtherefore, I would take this opportunity, if I may,of conveying to you, Mr. Chairman, our rejoicingat your election as Chairman of this Committee.You are an old associate of ours in the UnitedNations in this struggle for national independence-a neighbour with whom we have been associatedin the struggle for colonial liberation, and wecould not think of a better choice for guiding theproceedings of this Committee than a person ofyour political, administrative and other experienceboth in the political and the labour movementsbefore the independence of Indonesia. We shouldlike to take this opportunity also conveying ourcongratulations to the Vice-Chairman, who has

292now been elected to this post, although notunanimously. Then, there is our friend Mr.Kennedy-as the name denotes-from Ireland, theRapporteur, by whose ability and application todetail the proceedings of this Committee will begreatly assisted.

Now, this afternoon, we are participating inthe general debate in regard to the British admi-nistrated Cameroons. Whatever may be the titleactually appearing in the agenda-you read it outas a plebiscite in the Southern Cameroons-the po-sition before the Committee arises from resolution1350 (XIII) of the resumed session of the Assem-bly. But, before we take up this position, I shouldlike to say that this is the second occasion on whichmy delegation has been able to participate in

expressing publicly and without reservation ourappreciation of the contribution the Administer-ing Authority has made not only in the materialdevelopment of a former colonial area placedunder its administration as a mandate and later aTerritory under United Nations Trusteeship.Once again the United Kingdom has come beforethe United Nations, not in order to defend aposition, not in order to make claims for itself,but to report that the purpose of the TrusteeshipSystem have been achieved in this particular area.This is an occasion for gratification, not only forthe Administering Authority, but for the UnitedNations as a whole.

Speaking in the general debate yesterday inthe plenary session, my delegation said that theTrusteeship System had, to a very considerableextent, justified itself in the advances to freedomattained in the Italian, British and French colonialareas and that in other parts including the terri-tories administered by New Zealand and Belgiumsimilar advances were in prospect. For in thatway the object of the Trusteeship System in theshort period of a decade had begun to bear fruitwhich was visible before our eyes. It is not oftenthat the results of long-range political policy arethus available for us in a tangible form; and,therefore, our reasons to congratulate both theAdministering Authority and ourselves arereal. I said in this general debate in the Assem-bly that as a result of the success of theTrusteeship System and because the originalplacement of certain territories was as part, orperhaps an experiment, or perhaps a limitedventure, the Administering Authorities who arein possession of colonial areas will now seriouslyconsider placing more territories under the Trustee-ship System which has an advantage of develop-ment towards self-government under the auspicesof a character different from those of a colonialempire; and what is more, which will shift thewhole world from the whole conception of acolonial system.

My delegation did not put this suggestionforward merely to find some work for the Trustee-ship Council to do, but because we think that itis a normal development which should take placein the United Nations. Otherwise, it would look asthough: Well, the evil is over; now, what about usbeing entrusted with a task that is done with?There are colonial areas in the world comprising

several million square miles of territory and hun-dreds of millions of colonial peoples, and it wouldbe a good thing if as a result of the experiencegained the Administering Authorities on the onehand, and the United Nations on the other, wereable to extend the use of this system.

Now, we have here before us diverse materialfor our consideration. On the one hand, we havethe Visiting Mission's report. The TrusteeshipCouncil having been informed by the Administer-ing Authority that in this territory the object ofthe Trusteeship System had been accomplishedand, what is more, the neighbouring territory ofwhich this Trust Territory was administered as anintegral part, was going to be independent and,therefore, it would no longer be possible to admi-nister this Trust Territory in that way or as a partof the metropolitan territory or the imperial terri-tory, or the metropolitan country, asked theUnited Nations to take the steps that were requiredfor implementing the further stages of the trustee-ship. And, therefore, a Visiting Mission was sentout some time ago and it has produced a report.It is our duty to express our gratitude to themembers of the Visiting Mission; on behalf of theGovernment of India, I should like to conveyour thanks and our appreciation to them throughyou, Mr. Chairman. At the same time, also,there is a matter of principle: that Governmentdoes not consider itself bound by the opinionsexpressed by any member of the Visiting Mission,even though he is a national of that country.There is nothing in the report with which we wouldlike to disagree, but we should like to restate theprinciple that the members of this Visiting Missionas of previous Visiting Missions are to be consi-dered as independent persons-not as nationals-reporting for the United Nations : the nationsconcerned hand over their services for this purposeto the United Nations.

The next set of documents which we have isthe report of the Trusteeship Council. TheTrusteeship Council in its wisdom, and alsoguided by the experience of previous years,examined and surveyed the reports of both the Ad-ministering Authority and of the Visiting Mission

293and passed on the task of decisions to the GeneralAssembly. This is as it should have been. Forafter all, the responsibility rests with the Assembly

as a whole. Thus this problem came up before theresumed session and the resumed session passeda resolution-1350 (XIII), to which I havereferred earlier.

Now, having regard to the debates which wehave held during the last few days, I think it is aswell for us to say here and now that this reso-lution is not only apart of the records of theGeneral Assembly; that the decisions embodiedin it are decisions that bind us; they arenot merely views, they are not expressionsof opinion; they are as good decisions asany decision we shall make here. Therefore,any variation of those decisions would require theusual procedural sanctions. It is sometimes,perhaps, forgotten in the pressure of changedcircumstances; or in a desire to produce someresults that, perhaps, these procedures cannot beoverlooked. We are not sticklers for procedureas such, but if there are resolutions of theAssembly, they have got to be treated with therespect that is due to them.

Now this resolution, again I should like tosubmit, is not about the Southern Cameroons assuch. The resolution deals with the Cameroonsunder British administration. It is a matter ofvery great political, constitutional and legalimportance because there is only one TrustTerritory-the Cameroons under British admi-nistration, It may have two parts; it may havefour provinces; on the map it may be shaded indifferent colours ; it may lie in different parts onthe continent of Africa, sometimes isolated orseparated one from another. But, so far as thelaw of the United Nations is concerned-so far asthe history of this question is concerned-there isonly one Trust Territory, governed by one agree-ment : the Trusteenship Agreement of 13 Decem-ber 1946. This is a matter that enters into theconsideration of the whole of this question. Butthe resolution has two separate paragraphsdealing with plebiscites in the northern andsouthern parts of the Territory because theGeneral Assembly in its wisdom considered thatthe assessment of opinion through a plebiscite orotherwise, that the procedures that had to beadopted in order to implement the very laudableresults of the Administering Authority's work, hadto be accomplished by dealing with these twoparts of the Trust Territory separately. For thepurpose of convenience, therefore, having referred

to this constitutional position, I will now confinemyself to those aspects of this resolution and theother documents before us that deal with theSouthern Cameroons, and which we have beendiscussing for some days.

May I say in this connexion that it is necessaryfor us, who do not belong to Africa, who do notbelong to the Trust Territory-who probably arenot familiar with the interior of these matters-torealize that while the peoples of these territories areancient peoples, far more ancient than the TrustTerritory some of the so-called ancient civilizations,with their own institutions and customs, the linesthat are drawn on the map, the names they have, thenationalities-they are all of recent growth. Thebetter part of modern Africa, in the sense that itcomes before us, whether as independent territoriesor otherwise, has come into the era of modemcivilization as a result of imperial conquest and,therefore, it could not be as though we could lookback into history and say: these are its bounda-ries. The boundaries on the map are partly theresult of administrative reasons and partly theresult of conquest. It is very doubtful as towhat would be the position if these territories hadnot been taken from Germany. Germany, in theearly part of the nineteenth century, being last inthe race for colonial territories, grabbed what partsof Africa were available. When people landedon a particular place of land, they either sawa village, or a mosquito, or a fish, or something,and formed the territory after its name. It isonly historical that that extent, in the same wayas Togoland was called the village of Togo ;the Cameroons after some insects of some kindand so on ; they give those local names in thatWay. I am not saying all this in any derogatorysense, but to place our minds in the historicalcontext that there is behind this all these con-siderations.

So, these colonies having been wrested bythe Allied and Associated Powers from the CentralPowers after the First World War, and theUnited States, having entered the war after thefirst year or so and, therefore, having becomea participant and, what is more, an importantparticipant in the discussion of the Peace Treatyat Versailles, President Wilson-who was bothan idealist and a statesman-introduced theconception, or rather re-introduced the conceptionof trusteeship in the minds of the European

statesmen, also coupled very closely to somenon-European Statesmen. The idea of Trustee-ship is a very old one particularly to the nationalsof the present Administering Authority. Thisidea of trusteeship had been brought to theirattention in the tumultous days of the eighteenthcentury. Then the thirteen colonies, whichformed afterwards the basis of the United Stateswere going through the process of revolt and

294their discontent was being discussed in the House ofCommons and a great conservative statesman toldhis colleagues that these territories are territoriesin trust. What is more, when the same kind ofsituation was in existence in our part of the world,and when a gentleman called Warren Hastings wasbeing impeached for his high-handed actions inIndia, it was said in the House of Commonsthat these territories were in trust and the realowners of it were the people of India and, thatwhen trusts are abused there are only two remedies;either to bring an end to the trust by revolts orby wars on the one hand,; or by changing thetrustee. These were the arguments advanced byEdmund Burke who took part in those delibera-tions of the House of Commons. And he said:"All political power which is set over men, and...all privilege claimed or exercised in exclusion ofthem, being wholly artificial,"--meaning manmade-"and for so much a derogation from thenatural equality of mankind at large, ought to bein some way or other exercised ultimately fortheir benefit." That was the eighteenth century,when they were speaking in terms of natural rightsand of political institutions that were just emerg-ing. He continues : "If this is true with regardto every species of political dominion, and everydescription of commercial privilege, none of whichcan be original self-derived rights," (that is to say,they are rights established by the economic relat-tions or by conquest, or by law : they are notnatural rights as understood at that time) "'orgrants for the benefit of holders, then such rightsor privileges, or whatever else you choose to callthem, are all, in the strict sense, a trust ; and it isof the very essence of every trust to be renderedaccountable ; and even totally to cease, when itsubstantially varies from the purposes, for alone itcould have a lawful existence."

I did not read out this extract merely for thepurpose of historic interest. There are two

features of a trust which are in the TrusteeshipSystem also. One is accountability. In the time ofEdmund Burke, it was the national accountabilityby the East Indian merchants to Parliament, orby administrators of the East India Company toParliament again : but, today, it is the responsi-bility of one nation to the international communitytherefore, it is international accountability. Theother is good administration. Those are two ofthe features of the trust system. And the thirdone is that trust must mature. There are notyrannical trusts and, therefore, whether, it isincorporated in the trusteeship agreement or inthe provisions of the Charter or not, inherent inthe objects of the Trusteeship System, namely thedevelopment of peoples towards self-governmentis the implication that trust must come to an end.Scholars writing in the last five or six yearsand examining the position in regard to thetermination of institutions set up by the UnitedNations have been nonplussed by the idea thatthere are no provisions in the trusteeship agree-ment and the Charter for the actual termination oftrust. The logical answer is that it is inherent inthe Charter provisions because it says that theobject of the Trusteeship System is self-governmentand, therefore, when self-government comestutelage goes away ; it is eliminated.

A scholar writing on this says : "Since thegoal of the Trusteeship System is self-governmentor independence, it would seem that the trustee.ship agreement must be terminated when thatstate of development has been reached by theinhabitants of the territory. The question arisesas to who is to decide when this goal has beenattained with regard to any particular trust terri-tory. To comply with Article 79 of the Charter,this must be decided upon by the GeneralAssembly or the Security Council in the case ofstrategic areas. This termination is a form ofalteration." This, therefore, implies that ifthere is to be any change in anything that is saidover here that will require the consent of theGeneral Assembly and it cannot be a matterwhich can be operated in any other way.

Now, let me come to the resolution. Theresolution starts on page 2 of this document,A/RES/135 of the thirteenth session. Now, inthe resolution the recommendations are in 2b.After having put questions in regard to NorthernNigeria, we come to paragraph 3 which states:

"Recommends further that the plebiscite in theSouthern part of the Territory should be conduc-ted during the next dry season between thebeginning of December 1959 and April 1960."I am sure that neither the representative of theUnited Kingdom, nor those associated with him,who also are members of his delegation, as eitherthe Prime Minister of the Territory, or the leaderof the opposition in Territorial legislation willmisunderstand us when we say that this, at thepresent moment, is the operative decision and,therefore, this is the stage from which we have toproceed to whatever we want to do when wedecide what we want to do. The present positionbefore the Assembly is that the plebiscite in theSouthern part of the Territory should be con-ducted during the next dry season between thebeginning of December 1959 and April 1960. There-fore, if this decision still stands, then it would befor the Assembly as was the case in Togoland toappoint and establish the necessary plebiscitemachinery to operate within this period. Buteven if as a result of all that we have heard-all

295that we know-any changes occur and changesare to be made in the decisions we have alreadytaken, then those changes have to be made in alegal and constitutional way. Secondly, thereis paragraph 4 of the resolution which states:"Decides that the two alternatives to be put tothe people in the southern part of the territoryand the qualifications for voting in the plebisciteshould be considered by the General Assemblyat its fourteenth session," that is, now. Theresolution goes on to express the hope that allconcerned in the territory will endeavour to reachagreement before the opening of the fourteenthsession on the alternatives to be put in the plebiscitein the Southern Cameroons and the qualificationsfor voting in it etc. etc.

Now, I should like to draw the attention ofthe Committee to these three paragraphs. Notonly is this resolution the expression of the willof the Assembly ; this resolution makes decisionson particulars. First of all, it says that thereshould be a plebiscite-the plebiscite to be at aparticular time and, then, it decides that thereshould be two alternatives, and all that is leftto be agreed between the parties concerned is inregard to what those two alternatives shall be. Soit is not as though we have got an open-end pro-

gramme. Much of the work has been done in theresumed session; the resumed session was operatingunder the difficulty of not being able to providethe two alternatives to be put up and it desired,quite rightly, that the Administering Authorityshould be able to bring about some agreementbetween the contending elements in the territoryin regard to those questions. Now, from thathave arisen certain expressions of the position onwhich we want to offer our observations. Theparties I emphasize this-the parties in this matterare the United Nations and the Administering Au-thority. The parties in Africa, in the Cameroons,are parts of the Administering Authority. The Trus-teeship Agreement cannot be operated or terminatedmerely by some agreement reached between theselocal parties, however important they may be.And, therefore, what was sought in this resolutionwas the grounds he prepared for getting over thedifficulties that may be local in order that theUnited Nations and the Administering Authoritycould carry out the next stage of this process.So this is the position of this resolution and thisis what also led to our raising a few problems inregard to the suggestions that were put forwardwhich, in our humble opinion, would have encoun-tered difficulties.

Now, I thought in my recollection at the timeI had participated in this myself, that in thebeginning of the trusteeship agreement in 1946,when there was much controversy-much contro-versy. In which the United Kingdom delegationand the other metropolitan Powers were on oneside and my own country along with the UnitedStates of America-represented at that time byMr. Dulles in this Committee-was more or lesson the other : I am not saying that there was atug of war, but they represented different pointsof view. At that time also came up the question:Who were the parties most directly concerned andhow were the Trusteeship Agreements to beamended, and so on? In 1946, the GeneralAssembly approved a proposal of Mr. Dulles inthis connection; it is part of the decisions ofthe Assembly. With regard to the question ofincluding in the Trusteeship Agreements someprovision for alteration or amendment in the lightof changing circumstances, the Sub-Committeedecided by a majority vote to recommend "thatthe General Assembly instruct the TrusteeshipCouncil to observe whether the TrusteeshipAgreements which had been approved by the

General Assembly, operate in fact to achieve thebasic objectives of the Trusteeship System."

"Secondly, if it is the opinion that, in the lightof changing circumstances and practical experience,some alteration or amendment of any suchTrusteeship Agreement will promote the morerapid achievement of the basic objectives of theTrusteeship System, "to submit such. proposedalterations or amendments to the AdministeringAuthority so that if agreed on, in pursuant toArticle 79, such alterations or amendments maythen be submitted to the General Assembly forapproval.

I read this out in order to point out two things:first of all, these alterations-since there is nospecial provision for amendment of the Trustee-ship Agreement-as my delegation pointed out tothe legal Counsel the other day, has to be inpursuance of the objectives of the TrusteeshipSystem, namely, in promoting the advance towardsself-government.

Secondly, irrespective of that, it has to be doneby our referring it, or whoever refers it, to theGeneral Assembly: it must come before theGeneral Assembly. In other words, we cannotdeal with the Trusteeship Agreements and all thearrangements that exist in connection with itwhich concerned the Administration of vastterritories merely by informal understandings ofany character. Though it was not a resolution ofthe Assembly, the United Kingdom, at that time,expressed agreement with it, insisted that thisshould be regarded as instruction and should beincorporated in the Rapporteur's report. So I

296say this because it is not the thought that it ismerely arbiter dicta. It was the United Kingdomdelegation at that time that came forward insupport of it, and said that it may be includedin the records of the Assembly, and it will be sofound.

Then, again, in 1946, the delegation of Indiain the Sub-Committee, while considering Trustee-ship Agreements, proposed the following modifica-tion to the agreements-under consideration:

"This agreement is valid for the period of ten,years; at the end of which it may be renewed with

or without amendment at the discretion of theTrusteeship Council."

The United Kingdom delegation opposed thisamendment because we were asking for automatictermination in ten years in anticipation of thesedifficulties which we face now. The UnitedKingdom. delegation opposed this amendment ina written observation Which stated the following :"In considering the proposed amendments byIndia, the United Kingdom delegation has beenguided by two primary criteria : one, the ques-tion of whether the amendment proposed is inAccordance with the Charter; two the questionwhether acceptance of it, will result in the trustee-ship agreement with more advantages to theinhabitants in the territory concerned." Theseare almost the same words which my delegationsubmitted the other day.

At the same session, Mr. Thomas, whorepresented the United Kingdom, said that it wasnot necessary to go beyond the method oftrusteeship in common law. "A trust is expectedto remain invariable under the law when the wardenters into its enjoyment. I repeat "a trust isexpected to remain invariable until the wardenters into its enjoyment." That is, the disposi-tion of these territories must be at the terminationof trusteeship and not before. It is in thesecircumstances that the Visiting Mission went out.We have a very useful report, but not a reportthat helps very much either in the formulation ofthese questions or in regard to time element inthis matter. But after surveying the situation,they suggested-they did not recommend-theysuggested the method that might be used.

Again, the General Assembly in resolution 224(III) spoke of "the entity of the trust", in connec-tion with the consideration of the provisions of theTrusteeship Agreements relating to the Administra-tive Unions. And the summary records state thatthe delegations of Australia, Belgium, France andthe United Kingdom-all administering countries-gave "an assurance to the Sub-Committee-this wasin 1946-which was later approved by the FourthCommittee and, subsequently, by the GeneralAssembly, and this is what they said : "The dele-gations of Australia, Belgium, France and theUnited kingdom, being the delegations of Statessubmitting the Trusteeship Agreement to theapproval of the General Assembly, wish to give

the assurance that they do not consider the termsof the articles above quoted as giving powers tothe Administering Authority to establish any formof political association between the Trust Terri-tories respectively adminstered by them and theadjacent territories which will involve an annexa-tion of Trust Territories".

In this statement that I have read where thefirst part is not relevant just at the present mo-ment, because neither the United Kingdom, nor anyother Administering Authority, has attemptedeither to have an annexation or anything of thatkind in regard to Trust Territories : the questionhas not arisen in that form. But it is the secondpart that is important, where it says that the statusof the Trust cannot be extinguished; that is to say,there can be no alteration for the purpose.

Later on the General Assembly adopted itsresolution 224 (III) in which : Recalling. that theGeneral Assembly had approved these. agreementsupon the assurance of the Administering Powersthat they do not consider the terms of the relevantarticles of the Trusteeship Agreements as "givingpowers to the Administering Authorities to estab-lish any form of political association between theTrust Territories respectively adminstered by themand the adjacent territories which could involvethe annexation of Trust Territories in any sense,or would have the effect of extinguishing theirstatus as Trust Territories" in its own delibera-tions of this question the Trusteeship Council alsoobserved that Administrative Unions must remainstrictly administrative in nature and scope, thattheir operation must not have the effect of creatingany conditions which will obstruct the separatedevelopment of Trust Territories in the fields ofpolitical, economic, social and educational advance-ment as a distinct entity.

Therefore, so far as the United Nations isconcerned, in the interpretation of my delegation,irrespective of the fact that a part of the NorthernCameroons is separated from the rest of it whichis contiguous with the Southern Cameroons bythe Nigerian territory projecting between the two.The Trust Territory is a distinct entity.

Now, if I may respectfully suggest, Mr. Chair-man, in the future when we discuss Trust Terri-

297

tories, perhaps we should have a very large map ofthese territories right in front of us, because I amsure-and my colleagues will agree with me-thegeneral impression that anybody would have topayis that Northern Cameroons is a kind of enclaveseparated from the rest of the Cameroons. But ifyou look at the map you will find that very nearlyhalf of the Northern Cameroons is in the northof Nigeria and, then there is Nigerian territory,and then you have well over half of the NorthernCameroons which is contiguous to the SouthernCameroons. So it is not as though they arenaturally, two separate areas. Geographicallythe bulk of the Northern Cameroons and theentire Southern Cameroons are one stretch ofterritory. That is additional consideration forlooking into the question of the future of theseterritories which, in the last analysis, can only bedecided by the peoples themselves. But in consi-dering those decisions, in making arrangementsfor implementing those decisions, we may notoverlook these considerations.

This problem seems to have engaged theattention of the Assembly at subsequent sessions.At the seventh session this is much later, in reso-lution 293 (VII), the Assembly said: "Considersthat in order to assist the Council in the dis-charge of its functions and to avoid the possibilityof any Administrative Union operating in such amanner as to prejudice the achievement of theobjectives of the Trusteeship System, the followingsafeguards are necessary and brings them to theattention of the Administering Authorities (1)That the Administering Authorities furnish clearand precise separate financial statistical and otherdata relating to the Trust Territories-they alwaysdo that. (2) The Administering Authorities facili-tate the access of the Visiting Mission, etc.-theydo. Then this is the important part : "theAdministering Authorities continue to maintainthe boundaries, separate status and identities ofTrust Territories participating in the Administra-tive Union." That is to say, that this TrustTerritory of the Cameroons still hangs together,even either administered as part of a neighbouringterritory or, as in the case of Tanganyika, as apart of a union either for judicial purposes ortraffic purposes with the rest of Britain's EastAfrican territories. And the safeguard is that theAdministering Authorities ensure with regard toTrust Territories, participating in the Administra-tive Unions, that the expenditures on the Adminis-

tration welfare and development of any suchTrust Territory for a given year be not lessthan the total amount of public revenue derivedfrom the Territory for that year. All this isintended to maintain the personality of thisterritory.

The distinguished representative of the UnitedKingdom in July, 1958, submitted a memorandumand in speaking on the memorandum he informedthe Trusteeship Council-said Sir Andrew Cohen :We suggest that as the first step the Councilshould instruct its forthcoming Visiting Mission toinclude in its report the views on the method ofconsultation which will be adopted when the timecomes for the people of the Northern andSouthern sections of the Cameroons under UnitedKingdom administration to express their wishesconcerning their future." In bringing forwardthis proposal, I believe that he acted in accordancewith the wishes expressed by various members atthe last session.

Now, this matter came up for a great deal ofquestions and answers in regard to petitionersand the United Arab Republic made the followingstatement. "I have listened to the observationsof the representative of the United Kingdom andI regret that I have to come back once again tomy suggestion. I believe that my proposal doesnot exclude the possibility mentioned by therepresentative of the United Kingdom, but to putemphasis on the "Northern and Southern sections"in this draft resolution, is something that is notconsistent with reality, whereas my suggestion isto retain the words "the Territory." It is entirelyconsistent with the Trusteeship Agreement. Onthe other hand as the representative of Italy has notformally accepted my suggestion, I shall seek a sepa-rate vote on the phrase "Northern and SouthernSections of the Territory." And what happenedto the vote ? There were 7 votes in favour and7 against. Therefore, the words "Northern andSouthern sections" were deleted. That is theposition in regard to the United Nations.

Now, the distinguished representative ofIsrael this morning has done us the honour ofreferring to statements I made in this Committeesome days ago. And two or three points werebrought out-that is, that legalities do not mattervery much, but we should have commonsensesolutions. Now, if the representative was a

lawyer, he would say, law is essentially common-sense. In another part of his statement it issuggested that the parties immediately concernedare Ghana, Guinea, etc, No one, least of all mydelegation, yields to anyone in either respect forthe concern or the judgment of our Africancolleagues in this matter. But it would be wrong,in our loyalty for the Charter, in our friendshipwith them, to suggest that any particular Memberof the United Nations is less concerned. Thequotation, more or less, says this; "anyone-familiar with the drafting and the approval of theTrusteeship Agreement is aware of the compli-

298cations that we Play run into in order to, interpretthis particular Article 79. I suggest that we beguided by ordinary commonsense ; that is whatwe try to do here. Let us say that all MemberStates are concerned with the problem of theBritish Cameroons. The Trusteeship Agreementhas been approved by the General Assembly andthe opinion of the Israeli delegation is that indepen-dent West African countries like Ghana, Guinea,etc., are today States even more directly concernedwith the fate of the Trust Territories, togetherwith other countries, namely, Nigeria and theCameroons Republic. Now, I do not know whatthe implication of this is, but we stand entirelyunashamed, unapologetic, for raising these fewother obligations of the United Nations in thismatter, and I am sure that these Member Statesmentioned, would have no difference of opinionwith regard to our own concern in this matter.Therefore, the States directly concerned alsohave been a matter of much discussion in theUnited Nations for a long, long time, to whichI shall refer in a moment. Therefore, the concernof the Israeli delegation, when he said : "Wegreatly fear that the extension of the legal debatemay introduce extraneous elements throughoutthis discussion that has very little to do with theitem before us." I think if he has some applica-tion to legalities in matters which concern others,we will have less trouble in the world.

Now, this question of the 'States directlyconcerned' also came up in 1946 and the recordssay the following : "the approval of any termsof trusteeship by this session of the GeneralAssembly should be on the following understand-ing with respect to States directly concerned. AllMembers of the United Nations have had an

opportunity to present their views on the termsof trusteeship now proposed to the General Assem-by for approval. That is, there will be no specifi-cation by the General Assembly of States directlyconcerned in relation to the proposed Trust Terri-tories. Accordingly, the General Assembly, inapproving the terms of trusteeship, does notprejudge the question of what States are orare not directly concerned within the meaningof Article 79. It recognizes that no State haswaived or prejudiced its rights hereafter, or toclaim to be such a State directly concerned inrelation to the approval of subsequently proposedTrusteeship Agreements, or any alteration oramendment of those that are approved, and proce-dures to be followed in the future, with referenceto these matters, may be subject to later determi-nation. This was in November 1946.

I have several extracts here from the writingsof scholars on the subject but as time is shortI shall not go into them. But there is veryenlightened and a quantitative and large legalopinion supporting that provision. Now, otherbody of opinion that is before us, apart fromthe decisions of the United Nations, and the Visit-ing Mission's report, is the statement of peti-tioners. The Committee as a whole, and mydelegation no less than anyone else, attaches agreat deal of importance to the role of the peti-tioners before this Committee. We have, almost,without exception, voted for the hearing of peti-tioners. We think, in the context of the Trustee-ship Council, it is a form of assessment of opinionand in fact the democratic way of thinking on ourdecisions. So, in this matter, there have beenbefore us seventy-five written petitions-seventy-five petitions have come to regard to the choicesto be put to the people of the Southern Came-roons. They have expressed their views on thechoices of questions to put in the plebiscite. Onlyone petitioner has favoured continued trusteeship;seventeen petitioners suggested that the questionsshould be "secession from Nigeria or integrationwith Nigeria". The remaining fifty-seven peti-tioners state that two straight questions should beput : namely, "federation with Nigeria or unifi-cation with the French Cameroons." In layingstress on the opinion of the petitioners, we are inno way implying any derogation to the opinionexpressed either by the Administering Authorityor by the Prime Minister of the Southern Came-roons or by the Leader of the Opposition. The

very idea of petitioners coming here is a recognitionby the United Nations that there are other lessformal opinions, but nevertheless, opinions deeplyfelt, of which the United Nations must be seized.For reference purposes, Mr. Chairman, the docu-ment concerning all this evidence is A/C./4/418.I have given you the summary of what itcontains.

Now, we refer to these two gentlemen, whohave occupied the place of Prime Minister of theSouthern Cameroons at, one time or another, Mr.Foncha at present, and Mr. Endeley previously,and they have been good enough to acquaint theAssembly, with their views as to what the ques-tion should be. And on 24 September 1959, thatis, a few days ago, Mr. Foncha submitted thesequestions in this way : "(1) the self-governingregion within independent Federation of Nigeria,(2) Separation from Nigeria with a period undertrusteeship. That is the proposition supportedonly by one petitioner. Now, Mr. Endeley wouldprefer the questions (1) Do you wish to continueas an autonomous or self-governing region in anindependent Federation of Nigeria ? (2) Do youwish to secede from Nigeria to effect reunificationwith the Cameroons' Republic ?

299 Here, I think it is only fair to say that theAdministering Authority has always been con-scious about the sense of autonomy, about thedesire for degrees of exercise of power and func-tions by and, therefore, the Northern Cameroonshave had a comparatively closer existence with therest of the Territory. But while these problemswere discussed at the conference in London, andas a result of those discussions, a degree of auto-nomy has been established and the SouthernCameroons are in possession of a regional assem-bly or Parliament ; the distinguished PrimeMinister, who is with us, is the head of thegovernment at the present time.

Now, this is a convenient moment for us,therefore, to deal with legal issues which I raisedthe other day. It is desired to change the datesin resolution 1350 (XIII) then with the advice ofthe Secretariat, Mr. Chairman, you will no doubtadvise the Committee as to what procedure is tobe followed. There is some doubt whether inrescending a resolution of a previous Assembly atwo-thirds majority is required or not. My

delegation takes the view that any decision of theAssembly, particularly a decision so recent as afew months ago for rescinding, requires two-thirdsmajority as though it were in the same session.This is, however, a matter for your own ruling.The second question relates to amending of theAgreement. From what I have said, it must beclear in the view of my delegation any changes inregard to the Territory, splitting it into two parts,which I read so much about, that cannot bemade by an amendment of the agreement. Thismatter was discussed the other day and it was theview of the Administering Authority and of theLegal Counsel of the United Nations, that thischange could be brought about by an amendmentof Article I of the Trusteeship Agreements. Mydelegation is in profound disagreement with this,because the amendments can only be in regard todetail of procedure, administration, and similarother things. You cannot amend the corpus of aTrust. The whole of this exercise is in order toadminister something. It is just like saying : youcan change a doctor, you can change the treat-ment, but it is no use changing the patient : if youcan't change the patient, cut him up into pieces.That is the position.

Now, the separate entity question I havedealt with at length. Article 79, has been in-voked and my delegation has stated the limitationswith regard to that 79. If at the time of thedrafting of the Trusteeship Agreement, theAdministering Authority or the United Nations,represented by the Secretariat, had been carefulto incorporate into definite provisions for amend-ment, then things should have been easier. Thereis enough authority to show from writings ontrusteeship that Article 79 cannot be invokedwhere there is no such definite provision. I havedealt with the question of the "States directlyconcerned."

Now we come to the immediate proposition.Politically, we are faced with such a situationthat makes me want to say, looking back on theIsraeli intervention it has been suggested that theintervention by the delegation of India was, itwas implied, apart from not being, consonancewith common sense-I hope it is sense, anyway-that the real cause for our objections was notlegal but political. And I quote : "As it happenedit is quite possible some may apply to theterritory of South West Africa. Of course, all

issues that come here would be political, but theyhave legal implications or legal basis or legalconsequences, and so on. Secondly, the reper-cussions, the setting of precedents are legal matterof political consequences. Therefore, it isImpossible to separate these matters in this way.

Now, to go on, therefore, to the presentsituation. There is a body of opinion in thisAssembly represented by the present PrimeMinister of the Cameroons, who feels for variousreasons that there must be a little more time in regard to the assessment of opinion, which theAssembly has now decided must be by plebiscite.Now, here again, I want to submit to you Mr.Chairman, and to the United Kingdom delegationwith great respects, that the matter, the ambit ofsearch for agreement which was enjoined by thatresolution was only in regard to what two alter-natives should be put; not in regard to whetherthere should be a plebiscite or not, or at whattime it should be held or in what form. Thatwould be another matter. And, therefore, if weare to meet the view of the Prime Minister of theCameroons, to which some support has latelycome from the leaders of the opposition also, wehave to find ways and means of doing this. Now,with regard, therefore, to the termination of theAgreement, the question of the termination oftrusteeship must first be considered. And here Iwould like to ask the Committee to have patienceto bear with us, in going into the details of thismatter.

First, I said that a Trusteeship Agreementcarries with it the termination, like life it mustcome to an end, and that termination is fulfilmentof the goal of independence. The United Kingdomdelegation, in a memorandum communicated tothe Trusteeship Council has stated that theseTerritories are fit for self-government. I read

300out from this memorandum the other day "theCameroons has not been left behind in the politicalprogress of its neighbour ; ......but its separateexistence has been carefully maintained." Thatis to say that, on the one hand, the entity of thetrust has been maintained-that is entity of theCameroons; separate existence of the Cameroons,as a whole not of the Southern Cameroons, hasbeen maintained. At the same time, they arepolitically as advanced as the Territory of which

they have been administered as an integral partnamely Nigeria. Now we have it on the authorityof the United Kingdom delegation that Nigeriais to become independent on the first or the secondof October. Therefore, two problems arise : one,there will be no territory with which it can beadministered, because, as Sir Andrew Cohen toldus the other. day, when Nigeria becomes indepen-dent it will cease to be one of the territories ofHer Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom;it will pass on to Her Majesty the Queen ofNigeria. (Interruption)

Well, I am quite prepared to give way andhave an elucidation. The last thing I want to dois to misinterpret Sir Andrew Cohen, becausethere is a long speech afterwards. I am waiting,Sir.

I said that when Nigeria becomes independentthe Nigerian territory would have ceased to be theterritory of the Queen of the United Kingdomand would have become the territory of the Queenof Nigeria and that is the constitutional position.I have no desire to take a seminar on it, butthat is how it is. And therefore, it would nolonger be under the Colonial Office if Nigeria isgoing to really have independence; and, therefore,a new arrangement becomes necessary.

Secondly, the United Kingdom has communi-cated to us that the Territory of the Cameroonsis ready for self-government. "Neither sectionof the Trust Territory has fallen behind thefederation of Nigeria in the advance of thatcountry towards full self-government and ulti-mately independence." That is what the U.K.memorandum says. So we have the communi-cation from the United Kingdom analogous tocommunication in regard to Togoland two yearsago where it says that the object of the trusteeshipsystem in regard to the development towards self-government is accomplished and it is for us to dothe rest. So let us take some steps in thisdirection. In doing that, whatever may be theletter of the law on this point, it stands to reasonand commonsense that opinion of the people,not only expressed through plebiscite at the timeof assessment, but even such valid opinion as maybe available beforehand, has to be taken intoaccount. And my delegation would be the lastin discounting the value of those opinions. What-ever we have said is only to indicate that, that is

not the only element under consideration; it is asubstantial element. And, therefore, we get theposition here, apart from the question of quali-fications of voters, choices, and so on, withregard to the timing of the plebiscite, the timingof the termination. The timing of the terminationagain is tied up with the fact that there is onlyone territory and that one territory is administeredas part of Nigeria, and could not have been other-wise administered. When Nigeria becomes in-dependent, the trusteeship must also come to anend, from that point of view, unless there is anamendment of the trusteeship. Therefore, onthe 1st of October, the trusteeship, in regard toCameroons, will come to an end constitutionallyand legally. There can be no consecutive termi-nations. There can only be one termination-in view of the Administering Authority's presentposition-in regard to the two Territories.

However, in regard to the Northern Came-roons, I understand, the plebiscite machinery hasleft this morning, so that we have gone far enoughto get the processes of ascertainment started.Now, we are discussing the South. In the South,first of all we have the request of the distinguishedPrime Minister of the Southern Cameroons thattrusteeship should go on for one year, two years,three years, five years, or whatever it was, for anindefinite period. And it was for that purpose thatthe United Kingdom and others suggested that thisTerritory may be separated and a new arrange-ment be made. That new arrangement will be anew trusteeship agreement. It will be a novelprocess. The purpose cannot be accomplishedby any kind of tinkering with the principles totrustehship. Then, what are we to do as prac-tical persons to meet the difficulties in regardto the position of the Southern CameroonsPrime Minister and to keep to the legalitiesand to the Charter of the United Nations, not tocreate precedent for the future, and not to createcomplications for ourselves? My delegation, there-fore, suggests that the termination be so authorizedthat it will take place automatically when Nigeriabecomes independent. That agreed, it should bepossible by a degree of give and take that theactual termination in Southern - Cameroons shouldtake place by the appointment or by the establish-ment of the plebiscite machinery on the last dayof September. And, having established the ple-biscite machinery, that plebiscite machinerynaturally had to go through the process of assess-

ment of opinion. It would be in our opinionentirely reasonable that if we establish machinery

301on the 30 of September, which is what we arebound to do--we are not bound to establish anymachinery before--in fact--we cannot becausetoday Northern Nigeria, even if the plebiscitecommissioner comes back with the results in fourweeks' time or ten weeks' time, as the case may beit will still remain as part of Nigeria for adminis-trative purpose because the Trusteeship Systemcontinues. What I am trying to point out is this:the fact that the plebiscite is taken does not bringabout the termination of trusteeship. That willcome only on 30 September. So, in the NorthernComeroons, when it comes on 30 September, wewould have a situation where the future has beendecided by those people one way or another; thatis their concern, since they have agreed to what Icall a compartmental plebiscite.

Now, with regard to the Southern Cameroonsalso the Trusteeship would have come to an end.Before Trusteeship having come to an end, wethe United Nations within our competence, wouldhave appointed the plebiscite machinery, on theway of plebiscite commissioner whatever you like todo. Then, if that is done, it is quite obvious thatthe preparation of these electoral lists, the estab-lishment of the necessary administrative mach-inery, both before and after, the process is ofenumeration, of counting and of making thereturns to the United Nations, will take some time.And, therefore, it will be entirely reasonable, inthe view of my delegation, that a time periodbetween 30 September and, what is technicallyand practically necessary for the attainment ofthese results, without any political implication,and without it becoming a precedent, that shouldbe possible. And it is, in that way, I hope, thatthe distinguished Prime Minister of the SouthernCameroons, the Administering Authority, thevarious African and other delegations who havebeen discussing this with them, will be able tocome to some arrangement whereby this periodbetween 30 September and, what is normallyrequired to take a plebiscite, three or four monthsthat period could be bridged over. During thatperiod, the Secretariat of the United Nationswould have to make administrative arrange-ments of an interim nature with the Administer-ing Authority, giving them the legal power

to maintain order or otherwise, all of which ispossible under the general rule that it is the dutyof the Administering Authority and it is its func-tions to assist in the taking of the plebiscite.Therefore, there will be no extension of theTrusteeship System, there will be no amendmentof this law; there will be no coming here beforeus of this matter in a legal way. The trusteeshipwill be terminated consecutively. Plebiscites willbe taken separately. What the results are, it isnot for us to speculate, because that would beanti-democratic.

But, at any rate, if that is decided, it is thesubmission of my delegation that the interveningperiod between the termination of the Trusteeshipand the actual return of the plebiscite results-theplebiscite commissioner making a return to theUnited Nations,-that would have to be condi-tioned by the practical necessity and not as partof amendment of the Trusteeship Agreement. Onthis, the best people to advise us are the Adminis-tering Authority and the political leaders thathave addressed us from time to time. But anyadvice should have regard to the fact that thisperiod cannot be very long, because the Adminis-tering Authority's legal status in that Territory isonly as of assisting law and order and other thingsin order to maintain the situation and enable theconduct of the plebiscite. That period naturallywill have to be limited.

My delegation does not want to add to thecomplications by suggesting a specific date. Wehave indicated what the principle is on which thisarrangement should be based ; that principle isthat the period should be sufficient, reasonablysufficient, for making all these arrangements, fortaking the plebiscite and returning it. If thatperiod is so sufficient,-and there can be diffe-rences of opinion in regard to the length of thatperiod, but broadly speaking it could be a matterof months and not longer and, when that date isfixed, that could be incorporated in the resolutionwithout violating any law.

Now, that is the most difficult part in regardto the plebiscite, namely, the date. And fromthe date we go on to the second item in regardto the two questions to be posed. The fact thatthere should be two questions has been decidedby the United Nations beforehand. Logicallyand legally, there is no objection to asking as

many questions as one wishes. But, again,from the commonsense point of view, it will bevery difficult to ask masses of people, who are toput a cross-mark on a paper, to judge as betweenso many alternative propositions. Those whoare accustomed to the system of proportionalrepresentation in their own countries and all thegrotesque results that sometimes come out, arefamiliar with the problem. It is not possible,-especially in a plebiscite,-to put too many alter-natives ; but, over and above that, there arecertain considerations to be taken into account.This territory has been administered as part-anintegral part-of Nigeria, as communicated by theUnited Kindom Government, from 1946 onwardsfor a considerable time. It has never been

302administered, since it came out of German hands,as the Cameroons. The French Cameroons andthe British Cameroons have remained dividedfrom each other with the pursuit of administrationin different languages and in different moulds ofthinking for the period of the Trusteeship. Allthese are practical facts which pose practicalproblems.

My delegation and others asked the distin-guished delegate of the United Kingdom about theviability of this Territory to be an independentterritory. There is nothing in the law to preventthis being dope. But, my delegation must submitits position that the responsibility of the UnitedNations in regard to a Trust Territory is not onlyto release it from whatever control or supervisionof the Administering Authority there may be. Itcould not just release it in a world where it can-not sustain itself. That is not for a moment tosuggest that the period of tutelage has not beenproperly used by the Administering Authority,but it has used it in that way for the scaffoldingof the other Territory. That is, for years it hasbeen administered in such a way,-with its civilservice, with its financial and other arrangements,-depending upon the neighbouring territory.But because of the difference of opinion, mydelegation is fully agreeable to posing two ques-tions ; that is to say, do they want to beincorporated into Nigeria ? Or do they wantto become part of an independent French Came-roons?

My delegation would like, however, to place

emphasis upon the fact that a Trust Territory canonly be so incorporated with an independentcountry and through the expression of its ownwill. These two questions, which have been posedat various times by various people would appearto be the convenient questions to ask. Mr. Fonchahimself, while he has referred to this questionof independent trusteeship, has not laid any greatstress upon it lately. In fact, on 26 February 1959-not so long ago-when the Assembly was mak-ing a decision, Mr. Foncha was asked this ques-tion, and he said this. The answer to the questionwhether we envisage three possible solutions forthe future of the Southern Cameroons,-fullindependence, union with the French Cameroons,and union with the Southern Cameroons, whichwould have seceded from Nigeria, is definitely"Yes". But this particular answer is very prob-lematical, because there is before us no pictureof the succession of the Northern Cameroons fromNigeria. We cannot anticipate results either way.

Then, the representative of India wished toknow if the United Nations decided to holdanother plebiscite to determine whether the peopleof the Southern Cameroons wished to join thenew State of the Cameroons and the responseswere to be in the negative, did Mr. Foncha con-template a free and independent Southern Came-roons or had he in mind a further indefinite periodof trusteeship ? If the independent State of theSouthern Cameroons was envisaged, it would beinteresting to know what would be the existingrevenue and what would be the anticipatedrevenue of the Southern State. And Mr. Foncha'sanswer was. "We prefer a free and independentCameroon State under those circumstances..I donot contemplate an indefinite period of trusteeship...The commissioner of the Cameroons will beable to give details."

Now, Sir Andrew Cohen was more practicalin regard to viability and I do not want to readout the whole of his answer. However, theimpression that was left with my delegation wasthat while it was possible to administer theSouthern Cameroons with some assistance fromoutside it would be a formidable problem. "I donot see, particularly in the early years how we cansolve that problem exclusively from its ownresources. Up to now the Southern Cameroonshas been staffed with members of the federalpublic service. The hard fact is that nearly all

the professional and technical posts and a largeproportion of most of the subordinate posts arenecessarily filled by non-Cameroonians. Theindications are that many of them would not beable to continue to serve in the Cameroons withthe limited prospects that a small territory has tooffer," and so on. Generally speaking, there hasbeen no support for this idea of independence forthe Southern Cameroons by itself. In so far asthe petitioners are concerned-as there is onlyone in support of it as opposed to 54 of the othersagainst it and 17 of a different kind. Now, there-fore, while we do not object juridically to thisposition, we have also to take account of all theresponsibility that rests upon us. We have to seethat we do not launch this territory in such a wayit is unable to keep in the race with other indepen-dent nations of the world.

Now, I think it is only fair to the PrimeMinister of the Cameroons to present to theCommittee our understanding of the reasons hegave to the Committee for his preferences. Hesaid, and I quote "Separation from Nigeria,resulting in new trusteeship, will keep the dooropen for the building of a greater Camerooniannation; the independence that the people of theCameroons want is nothing short of the self-government or independence indicated in theUnited Nations Charter-that is independence

303which has no strings attached to it." But if Imight interpolate here, the United Nations chartermentioned here also includes the Trusteeship pro-visions and the Trusteeship Agreements. Then,dealing with trusteeship territories, you cannottake the Charter and keep it in suspended anima-tion. In addition to the provisions of the Charterapplying to the Trust Territory, we have a Trustee-ship Agreement. Now, the Prime Minister goeson to say : "We have advanced politically fasterthan economically; it is because-"that itself isvery telling-" it is because of this importantproblem that we want the continuation of theTrusteeship Agreement as an interim measure togive the Administering Authority a chance to seeexactly what is wrong with the Territory'seconomy, and thus better to build it. Obviously,they must have tried hard in the last ten or twelveyears and they have only accomplished what theyhave done so far. That much for economic circu-mstances.

Then he goes on to say : "We are cautiousand we do not want to leap before we look ifthere is anything wrong, to gamble with thefuture of our country. There is one more stepthat applies to the independence that can berespected. Any suggestion that the colonialistswere clinging to us is without foundation. Wehave chosen to continue under the United King-dom Trusteeship Agreement simply because webelieve that Britain as Administering Authority isfully aware of our problems and their responsi-bilities. We know the step we are taking to gainour independence..." A very courageous state-ment ! It is very difficult for a Prime Minister ofa dependent territory, being fully conscious, as hesays, of looking before leaping, and be able to saypublicly that this is his position.

But as against that, there are other views,particularly those of the other political leaderswho have appeared here before us. So far as weare concerned I wish to assure you that the ideaof having to choose between freedom and conti-nued trusteeship is repugnant and unacceptableto right thinking people of the Cameroons whoare closely following events. I am not suggestingthat the expression "right thinking" is correct inthis particular context. Now, may I here, withoutgoing into further documents, just state theposition of my Government. This same positionwas stated in regard to Togoland some years agowhen my distinguished colleague from Liberia hadmoved some amendments to a resolution of ours.The result of those amendments at that timewould have been the continuance of trusteeship overa longer period ; and here is the summary record :"The Indian delegation could not accept amend-ments 6 and 7 proposed by Liberia which calledfor the insertion in operative paragraph 2 of thewords "or its continuance under trusteeshippending the ultimate determination of its, politicalfuture." That would conflict with the generalview that the time has come to put an end to thetrusteeship system in the Territory. Continuanceunder trusteeship would be a retrograde stepwhich would create an unfortunate impression inTogoland under French administration, theCameroons and other African territories. More-over, Togoland under British administration wasadministered as an integral part of the Gold Coast.That agreement had been accepted by the GeneralAssembly when it approved the Trusteeship

Agreement and, in view of its geographical situa-tion as a small area the Territory could not beadministered in isolation."

What was true of Togoland is true of theCameroons also. So far as my Government isconcerned, we want to state categorically andwithout reservation that we at no time subscribeto any doctrine which impedes the termination oftrusteeship over any territory. We would not beable to defend it before our people; we could notcast a vote in favour in any such proposition. Itis not because we think that the AdministeringAuthority wants to prolong the period or doesnot Want the termination in a comparatively shorttime, but it would be a very bad precedent to setup. When the Administering Authority, which isa colonial Power at the same time, comes to usand says: These dependent people are ready forself-government, and then we turn down and say:No, not yet. So, we could not, with great respectand all the consideration and feeling we have forthe Prime Minister of the Southern Cameroons,agree to this proposition.

Now, there is something on which we wouldlike some enlightenment from Sir Andrew Cohen.There appear to be certain commitments enteredinto by the United Kingdom Government withthe people of the Northern and Southern Came-roons with regard to these matters. It says here:On 10 February 1958, at the 856th meeting of theTrusteeship Council, Sir Andrew Cohen communi-cated: Because of the special status of Territory,the United Kingdom Government has given theassurance at the Conference-at the NigerianConstitutional Conference-that before Nigeriabecame independent, the people of the Northernand Southern Cameroons would be given theopportunity to freely express their wishes con-cerning their own future; and I submit that theseagreements made at the Nigerian ConstitutionalConference covered Southern Cameroons andNorthern Cameroons and Nigeria who were

304parties and who accepted this of the United King-dom Government. This assurance, in our humblesubmission, could only be honoured and discharg-ed if the termination takes place on 30 Septembereither straightforwardly-as we had originallyintended it at the last resumed session--or in theway that we venture to submit.

Sir Andrew Cohen said, subsequently, on 28July: "The Cameroons, under the United King-dom administration, has to be administered as anintegral part of Nigeria. This, as I have explain-ed, cannot go on, so far as the United Kingdomis concerned, after Nigeria itself becomes indepen-dent. Therefore, it is necessary that there shouldbe consultations with the people of the Cameroonsunder United Kingdom administration. There isa case where there. Should be a plebiscite imme-diately. Subject to the views of the VisitingMission and of the Trusteeship Council, theUnited Kingdom delegation's intention was toask the General Assembly to agree that theconsultations with the people, once authorized,should be held at the earliest possible date"--thatis, support for the view I put forward, namelythat the date between the appointment and theestablishment of the plebiscite authority, and thetaking of the plebiscite should be as brief as possi-ble! Sir Andrew Cohen hoped that a resolutionauthorizing the United Kingdom Government toproceed with the task would be adopted as earlyas October 1959, after which the consultationsshould be rapidly organized. Now, in this parti.cular case-in the case of the Southern Cameroonsas it is, in the submission we have made, thiswould not be rapid organization. Sir AndrewCohen went on to say: "The results of the plebis-cite would be reported to the Trusteeship Council.Once the Council has considered the question, itwould be the intention of his delegation to ask fora brief special session of the General Assemblyat an appropriate stage in 1960"-now this stagewill come in 1961 to decide on the action to betaken in the light of the results of the plebiscite".It is obvious that decisions should be taken someconsiderable time before the date of Nigerianindependence, and that is why my delegation ispressing that the decision in regard to this shall betaken at this Assembly because there will be noother Assemblies before the establishment ofNigerian independence....it akes up a few days,or so to enable the necessary practical and legalarrangements to be made in the Trust Territory.The whole problem has been carefully thoughtover by the British Government so as to ensurethat the people of the Cameroons under Britishadministration will have free and fair choice re-garding their future". It will be recalled that inthe context of recent developments in Nigeria andthe Cameroons under French administration, the

United Kingdom delegation still felt that they hadthe right programme and properly timed. Andthis was on 18 November 1958--a year ago !

At the resumed session, Sir Andrew Cohensaid, on 20 February: "We shall have to considerwhether everything is known about the variouspossibilities to enable the Assembly to settle nowhow future of the Southern Cameroons shouldbe determined, and particularly whether there issufficient agreement between the parties to enablethe taking of the plebiscite and the questions tobe put at the present session." That again iswhat we are planning to do. I have no desirenow to prolong the observations I am submittingto this Committee ; my delegation would feel induty bound to offer whatever assistance it can inorder that a unanimous resolution might comeout of this Committee. But that unanimity canonly be assisted by the conformity with theCharter and its provisions, by no violence to law,by no creation of precedents to make difficultiesfor the future ; by the termination of the Trustee-ship Agreement concurrently and not consecu-tively, denoting other periods between 30September as we have suggested, and the actualtaking of the plebiscite to what is reasonable andpractical and, what is more, to some agreementin regard to the questions and the qualification ofelectors. Now, that is the last point I wish todeal with.

With regard to the qualification of electors,in the Togoland resolution there is a fairly well-worded statement which appeared to us at thattime to be entirely opposite, and we would havethought that that would have been the right thingto do. But we understand from private conver-sations that there are some difficulties in thismatter because, in the Southern Cameroons thereare a number of Nigerians who have been eitherliving there for a short or for a long time. It isquite possible that some of these people mighthave no other homes, except the homes whichthey have in the Southern Cameroons. Thereare also a number of French Cameroons; who arethere, and under the existing law, any politicalfacility that is given to the French and Britishwould naturally differ, because some are Britishnationals and the others are aliens.

In our humble submission, in the general law ofthe world as it stands, franchise-if it is franchise

-can be based only upon two principles ; oneis nationality and the other is domicile. Now,the Cameroons today, irrespective of the commit-ment in regard to non-absorption, are protectedcitizens ; they carry a United Kingdom passport

305and they are protected citizens subject to theprotection of the arm of Britain if they are travel-ling abroad or in other ways. The defence ofof that Territory is under United Kingdomcontrol. Therefore, the nationality of thesecitizens is that of protected persons under UnitedKingdom nationality. But it may perhaps beunfair to go by British nationality, especially inview of, or pending the independence of Nigeriawhen the Nigerians, with a Nigerian nationality,are different- from United Kingdom nationals,though they still carry a British passport.

So, the question of domicile rights, speakingfor our own delegation-and our position in thismatter is not inflexible ; speaking for our owndelegation-we think the reasonable and ethicalview to-take is that domicile should be the quali-fication for franchise ; that is to say, if a personhas made a place his home-and you do not makea place your home in that sense, by living therefor five days, or even a year-domicile is a well-understood conception in both domestic as well asin international law. If they are domiciled thenin our submission, they would be entitled toparticipate in the plebiscite.

But we recognize the particular circumstancesand the fact that there is a tug of war betweenthe pro-Nigerian view and the pro-French Came-roonian view and, perhaps, there may be justifica-tion in looking at this problem with an objectiveeye in order to find a unanimous decision.

May I now read what we did in regard toTogoland where the problem was not at all aneasy one. In the case of the plebiscite in BritishTogoland, the General Assembly recommendedthe following qualifications for the voter. (Reso-lution 944 of the tenth session.) This wasoriginally proposed by the Visiting Mission (1)that the voter be of the age of 21 years at thetime of registration ; (2) that he will have residedwithin the Trust Territory for a period of at leasttwelve months during the two years immediatelypreceding registration ;-that is, domicile plus a

residential qualification ; (3) that he, at the timeof registration, be residing within the ward inwhich he or she applies to register-that is ratherdifferent, if I may explain how it is different fromwhat Mr. Foncha wants in regard to the SouthernCameroonians and I shall come to that in amoment-(4) that he or she is not disqualifiedby reason of disqualification listed under thegovernment ordinances.

Now, with regard to the views expressed, Ihave already recapitulated what the Prime Ministerhas to say in this matter. The resumed sessionlooked over the question as to who should voteat the plebiscite and left it for us to decide at thefourteenth session. There is serious disagreementbetween Premier Foncha and Dr. Endeley. Thedisagreement arises from the fact that in approxi-mate numbers there are about 10,000 Nigeriansand 6,000 French Cameroonians of voting agein the Southern Cameroons. I would havethought that this is an ideal figure for carryingthe whole thing out. Dr. Endeley is of the viewthat the plebiscite should take place on the basisof the existing electoral register. Premier Fonchais of the view that only native-born Camerooniansshould be allowed to vote in that plebiscite whichwill determine the future of the Territory for alltime to come. I understand that some delegationsincluding Mexico and Indonesia, have come outin support of Premier Foncha's position on thisquestion. Now, I would like to submit the viewof the Government of India in regard to this. Ihave said that the view in regard to domicile isreasonable ; I also said that our position in thismatter is not inflexible and we are entirely guidedby the desire to get a reasonable and unanimousdecision in the Assembly. We could not agreewith disenfranchising people who have had theirfranchise, if the enrolment or otherwise of theplebiscite is going to affect their political rights inthe future. That would amount to politicalpunishment of one kind or another. But Iunderstand that that is not the view of PrimeMinister Foncha.

Now, we do not agree with the view of Dr.Endeley either in this matter. He said that theplebiscite should take place on the basis of theexisting electoral register because we think, in theview of my Government, that there should be nodistinction between men and women, betweeneducated, illiterate or literate and also that those

who are about the age of 21-they should beentitled to take part-which would not be the caseif the electoral register was maintained. On theother hand there is here one difficulty with regardto these so-called native-born Cameroonians. Weappreciate the strength of this argument, but, atthe same time, there are two propositions ; first ofall, Prime Minister Foncha, so far as I understandwants native-born Cameroons outside the Came-roons to vote. Now how that is to be accomp-lished, we would like to know. Secondly, how arenative-born Cameroonians to be found, distingui-shed from others, because in these territories thereare no birth registers, there are no documentsconcerning births. I noted that in his speechesthe Prime Minister said that in the villages every-body knows everybody else. Now we would begoing back to the days of the old Britons whensomebody would say an oath whether a man had

306committed a crime or not; that is to say, you willask the village to say: this is not a Cameroonian,or otherwise. That would be, to a certain extenta kind of mob rule. In any charge that is handedover to the Plebiscite Commissioner, the UnitedNations, in order to safeguard its own position,would have to place the injunction that theregistration of these prospective plebiscite voterswould have to be free from any political difficulties,because, after all, without any disrespect to any-body, there are two views on this question and oneview is held by the party in power and the otherview is held by the opposition-and the registra-tion takes place under governmental authorities.

Of course we have the position that the Ad-ministering I Authority is mainly responsible, but inthis case the Administering Authority also hastaken this view, it appears to me, and therefore youwould have to charge the plebiscite administrationwith the special responsibility of seeing that there isno victimization, no exclusion, and no unjustifiedinclusion in the electoral register. This is theposition, so far as we see it. I would requestmy colleagues of the African delegations andothers who have taken an interest in promotinga resolution on the subject, that in the interestsof unanimity it would be far better to obtain these-agreements before a formal resolution is placed-on the agenda, because if formal resolutions areplaced on the agenda, even if there are no differ-ences in substance, the formulations are such as

to make it difficult for us to defend them in termsof the Charter or before our legislators, then youwill have to seek to alter them within the Assem-bly. You may or may not succeed, but thatwould be a very bad position. For example, ifit were said that on such and such a date theAdministering Authority shall free the SouthernCameroons as a separate territory, and so on,that would bring up the whole question of cuttingup the Trust Territories. The position does notarise ; it is merely wrong formulation and, there-fore, I would request that those who are taking aninterest in this matter-after all, a few delegationsalways promote these resolutions-if it is expectedthat they should be unanimous on a contributionin a matter of this character, my delegation, as Ihave already said, will go as far as possible andnecessary in order to meet the requirements of thepolitical situation as expressed by the PrimeMinister of the Southern Cameroons several timesand by the opposition. You should take all thesematters into consideration.

But, there are certain principles; those princi-ples are in regard to the amendment and the alter-ation of the corpus of the trust; the other in regardto concurrent or consecutive termination; in re-gard to the placement of the authority in theAdministering Powers, which is necessary for thepurpose of the plebiscite and for carrying on ad-ministration during that period without a newagreement; and the bridging- of the period bet-ween the establishment of the plebiscite machi-nery and the taking of the plebiscite. To that-I will not say "to that minimum"-extent that isdictated by reason, by prudence and by technicalconsiderations. In that background, my delega-tion would be willing-not only willing, it wouldbe anxious-to give all the support that is possiblein order to find a solution that is agreeable to allparties concerned.

I ask the Chairman's forgiveness for the longtime that I have taken in this Committee.

INDIA USA CAMEROON INDONESIA IRELAND BELGIUM NEW ZEALAND GERMANY ECUADORNIGER NIGERIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC AUSTRALIA FRANCE ITALY ISRAEL GHANAGUINEA UNITED KINGDOM LIBERIA MEXICO

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C. S. Jha's Statement in Special Political Committee onrevision of U. N. Charter

Shri C. S. Jha, India's Permanent Representa-tive to the United Nations, made a statement inthe Special Political Committee on October 15,1959 on the revision of the United NationsCharter.

The following is the full text of thestatement :

Mr. Chairman

The question of amending the United NationsCharter in accordance with the procedure laiddown in Article 108, with a view to increasing themembership of the ECOSOC, the Security Counciland the International Court of Justice, has figuredon the agenda of the General. Assembly everyyear-as separate items-since the EleventhSession of the General Assembly. These itemsare thus, like many others on the agenda, tendingto become hardy annuals. I say this in no senseof disparagement of their importance. The factthat these questions as agenda items continue,even if they have been postponed year after year,is sufficient indication of the continued interest ofthe members of the United Nations in the expan-sion of the membership of these principal organsof the United Nations. It is also evidence of thecontinuing existence of the problem of which wehave to search for a solution.

The 'raison d'etre' of the problem is clear.Since the beginning of the United Nations therehas been an increase in membership by 32

307countries. The original figure of 51 membersreduced two years ago to 50 (as a result of theunion of Egypt with Syria) has risen to 82. Ofthe 32 additional members admitted since the

signing of the Charter, 14 are Asian, 12 Europeanand 6 African States, and at least three moreAfrican States are expected to join the organisa-tion in the next year or two. The populationcovered by the present-day membership of theUnited Nations is 2363 million as against 1707million at the time of the signature of the Charter.A mere recital of these facts is sufficient to showthat there exists a 'prima facie' case for an expan-sion in the strength of some or all of the principalorgans of the United Nations, so that both thecomposition of such organs and the expressionof views and deliberations therein should reflectthe present-day composition of the United Nations.

Furthermore, the increase has to be notmerely quantitative but qualitative also; that is tosay, not only is there need for revising the strengthof the principal organs of the United Nations, butthe revision should be such as to reflect adequatelythe geographical distribution of the members ofthe United Nations; and I use this expression'geographical distribution' in the broadest senseas I shall indicate later. At the time of the signingof the Charter in 1945, 8 Asian and 3 AfricanStates were members of the United Nations.Their strength has now increased to 31, that is22 Asian and 9 African States, representing atotal population of 1253 million. The Asian-African countries thus constitute nearly 40% ofthe membership of the United Nations andrepresent more than 54% of the peoples whosecountries are represented. It is true that theUnited Nations works on the basis of sovereignequality of all States, large and small, irrespectiveof size or population. We do not dispute orimpugn this principle. But in so far as the Charterof the United Nations in its very preamble is anexpression of the will of the peoples of theworld, and the activities of the United Nationshave their impact on and are designed for thepeace and welfare of the peoples of the world,the peoples of the world are, so to speak, consti-tuents of the United Nations, and considerationsof population and geopolitical considerationscannot be altogether ignored in favour of anover-simplified statistical approach to the problem.It is necessary that when a revision of the com-position of the principal organs of the UnitedNations takes place, these considerations alongof course with others should, as far as possible,be reflected in the revised composition of thesebodies.

The position today is unsatisfactory. Wehave an expanding world organisation with astatic composition of the Principal organs. Thisinevitably gives rise to unhealthy pressures. Inthe Security Council as constituted today, out of6 non-permanent members, there is a single Asianand a single African State, which as a member ofthe Arab. League may also be regarded asrepresenting Arab States. In the ECOSOC, outof 18 members, there are only 4 Asian-Africans,and the position from the point of view of Asianand African States is even more unsatisfactorythan in the Security Council. The gross under-representation of Asian and African States ofcourse means over-representation of other areas.

I should like to state once again, Mr. Chair-man, that the problem of revision is not merely anarithmetical exercise in the adjustment of figures :In considering the question of revision of thecomposition of the Security Council and theECOSOC, we have to consider not only thepresent imbalance in numerical representation,but various other factors, some of which. I havejust indicated. This particularly applies to theSecurity Council. Article 23 of the Charter saysthat 'the General Assembly shall elect six othermembers of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, dueregard being specially paid, in the first instance,to the contribution of members of the UnitedNations to the maintenance of international peaceand security and to the other purposes of theorganisation, and also to equitable geographicaldistribution. It is quite clear, therefore, thatgeographical distribution is not the only factor.But just because it is not the only factor it cannotbe dismissed as a factor of importance. Since theSecurity Council is concerned with the mainte-nance of international peace and security, geo-graphy plays an obviously important part andlarge parts of the world cannot be left unrepre-sented in this way. However, the first considera-tion under Article 23 is the contribution of mem-bers of the United Nations to the maintenance ofinternal peace and security and to the otherpurposes of the organisation.

To elaborate this point further, in referenceto the problem of revision of membership of theSecurity Council, the question may be asked"What is the sort of contribution to the main-

tenance of international peace and security" iscontemplated under Article 23 ? This contribu-tion is not to be merely assessed by the positivecontribution which they make or can make; theweight-economic, military, political and geogra-phical-that is inherent in the position of acountry or region, or a group of countries, inrelation to the rest of the world has also to be

308taken into account. Secondly, what are theother purposes of the organisation referred to inArticle 23 ? One of the purposes of the UnitedNations Charter under Article 4 is that it should'be a centre for harmonising the actions of nationsin the attainment of the "common ends" of theorganisation'.

It is therefore necessary to get the largestpossible representation of divergent views andinterests in the Security Council, so that thesecould be harmonised towards the commonpurpose.

To sum up what I have just said, - Mr.Chairman, the problem we are facing is notmerely an increase in membership of the principalorgans proportionately or as near proportionatelyas possible to the increase in membership of theorganisation but a rectification, in the broadestsense, of the mal-distribution of membershipwhich prevails at present.

Having recounted the general considerations,Mr. Chairman, we must deal with the practicalaspects of the question. There seems considerablesupport for the view that the membership ofthe Security Council and the ECOSOC shouldbe enlarged. My delegation shares this view, andis in principle in favour of such an expansion,provided the object of such an amendment to theCharter is to ensure proper and equitabledistribution of seats to under-represented regionssuch as Asia and Africa. Of these twobodies, the case for an expansion in the member-ship of the ECOSOC is much more clear, whilewe are not convinced of the need for expansionof the International Court of Justice. Accordingto one view, the expansion should be very modestin order that the principal organs should notbecome unwieldy. My delegation, Mr. Chairman,agrees with the general principle that the principalorgans of the United Nations should not become

too unwieldy, but at the same time we do notfavour extreme caution in this matter; the increasein the membership of the principal organs mustbe substantially related to the increased member-ship in the United Nations, though it need not bein exact mathematical proportion. If there is tobe an amendment to the Charter so as to providefor increased membership we should not merelytinker with the problem. The whole question ofincreased membership of these bodies should, atthe appropriate time, be examined in the lightof the larger considerations to which I have givenexpression. The matter has to be very carefullygone into. The reality of the situation, however,is that however much we may wish to expand themembership of the principal organs of the UnitedNations', the increase in membership can only bebrought about through an amendment tothe Charter, and amendment of the Charterunder Article 108 requires not only a voteby two-thirds of the members of the GeneralAssembly but ratification by them, including all thepermanent members of the Security Council.We have heard the views of the distinguishedrepresentative of the Soviet Union. One maynot agree with all that he has said, but he hasgiven weighty reasons for his views. It is quiteclear that apart from other reasons he has given,the Soviet Union is not at present prepared toconsider an amendment to the Charter withoutthe presence of the People's Republic of Chinain the United Nations.

Several delegations, Mr. Chairman, havecommented adversely on the provision of theCharter which requires ratification by all the fivepermanent members of any amendment of theCharter and thereby confers what is popularlycalled a 'veto' by any of the permanent membersof the Security Council. I wish, Mr. Chairman,to make the position of my delegation clear. Weare in favour of an expansion of the membershipof the Security Council and of the ECOSOC, butwe realise that unless there is unanimity amongthe Big Powers in favour of the necessary amend-ments, no Charter revision required for enlarge-ment of the membership of these bodies can comeabout. It is far from helpful to criticise theprovisions of the Charter which contain the'unanimity rule' ; that is the very basis of theCharter and without such a rule, as the discussionsin San Francisco have shown, the United Nationswould not have come into existence at all ; and

as the Charter would not have emerged withoutagreement among the Big Powers, so there can beno revision of the Charter without the consent ofall the Big Powers. That is the reality of the wholesituation, and by ignoring it, we cannot solve thisquestion. Furthermore, it is the view of my delega-tion that if a permanent member of the SecurityCouncil takes a view different from that of themembers on a question in respect of which it hasbeen given a special position in Article 108 orelsewhere, we should respect that view. It wouldnot help to criticise or even adopt resolutions bylarge majority. Such resolutions, by appearing toone side or the other to prejudge issues which canonly be settled by the unanimous consent of theBig Powers, may conceivably make solutions moredifficult. We can only hope for a change in thatattitude either through the persuasion that viewsexpressed in the United Nations naturally exerciseor as a result of change in the circumstances ofthe international situation. That is the generalattitude of my delegation without any particular

309reference to the views of the Soviet Union on thequestion before us which have been expressedbefore this Committee. From the point of viewof practical politics we have to wait until suchtime as the permanent members of the SecurityCouncil are able to harmonise their views on thisand on other related questions. Fortunately, wehave the beginning this year of a better inter-national atmosphere and a diminution in the coldwar and lessening of international tensions appearto be a reasonable prospect. The exchange ofvisits that have taken place recently and that arelikely to take place in the near future betweenthe Heads of Governments of the Soviet Unionand the USA are full of promise for the realisationof international understanding and mutual con-fidence among the Big Powers. We sincerelyhope that the day will arrive soon when in thesunshine of goodwill and understanding the fog ofsuspicion and apparent intransigence not onlyround the question that we are considering butother questions too with which we in the UnitedNations are concerned, may disappear.

It is obvious, Mr. Chairman, that theconsummation of such hopes and the much wishedfor Charter revision may take time. Manydelegations have given expression to their dis-satisfaction at the mal-distribution from the point

of view of geographical distribution, of the existingmembership of the Economic and Social Counciland the Security Council, and have pleaded foragreements which would ensure more equitabledistribution, at least in the ECOSOC. While in.the view of my delegation this is no answer to thelarger question of expansion of membership ofthese principal organs, we share the view thatpending such expansion, efforts should be directedtowards securing agreements aimed at a moreequitable distribution of existing seats, whichwould ensure for Asian and African members,particularly new members, their rightful chance tocontribute to the purposes of these bodies. Mean-while also the inadequacy of representation ofAsian African countries on the principal organscould be partially at least rectified by securing tothem increased representation in functional Com-missions and subsidiary bodies which have beenalready set up or may be set up in the future bythe United Nations.

INDIA USA EGYPT SYRIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC CHINA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C.S. Jha's Letters to President of the Security Council

Shri C.S. Jha, India's Permanant Representa-tive to the United Nations, addressed two lettersto the President of the Security Council onOctober 12 and 29, 1959. Shri Jha's letters werein reply to Pakistan's Acting Permanant Repre-sentative's letters to the Security Council Presidentdated September 9 and 11, 1959.

The following is the full text of Shri Jha'sletter dated October 12, 1959 :

I am instructed by the Government ofIndia to refer to a letter addressed by the Acting

Permanent Representative of Pakistan to thePresident of the Security Council on 9 September,1959 (S/4217). This letter like other similarcommunications in the past attempts to confusethe basic facts of the situation by referring toirrelevant matters.

Since its accession towards the end ofOctober 1947, Jammu and Kashmir has been aconstituent State of the Indian Union. It wasbecause of this fact that the Government of Indiacomplained on I January, 1948 to the SecurityCouncil against Pakistan aggression on the IndianUnion territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It wasalso on the basis of this position that the UnitedNations Commission for India and Pakistanframed its resolutions dated 13 August 1948 and5 January 1949, and gave various assurances tothe Prime Minister of India on behalf of theSecurity Council.

The situation about which the Govern-ment of India complained to the Security Councilin January 1948 is still unresolved. The Pakistanforces still continue to illegally occupy Jammuand Kashmir territory which they were directedto vacate under the resolution of the UnitedNations Commission for India and Pakistan dated13 August 1948.

The Government of India are, under thecircumstances, surprised that the Government ofPakistan, who have repeatedly stressed theirpreference for democratic methods and the ruleof law, should, in this case, consider it necessaryto object to normal democratic, legal and ad-ministrative processes introduced in the territoryof the Indian Union at the request of the Govern-ment of the Constituent State.

It is requested that this communicationmay kindly be brought to the notice of themembers of the Security Council.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances ofmy highest consideration.

310 The following is the text of Shri Jha's letterdated October 29, 1959 :

I have the honour to refer to the letter, dated11 September 1959 (S/4219), from the Acting Per-

manent Representative of Pakistan, addressed tothe President of the Security Council and to, statethat the Government of India's position in thecase of the construction of Mangla Dam inJammu and Kashmir has been clearly stated inmy previous communications to the President. Ihave, however, been instructed by my Governmentto correct the following inaccurate statementsmade in the letter of the Acting PermanentRepresentative of Pakistan of 11 September 1959 :

The Acting Permanent Representative ofPakistan has, while referring to the statement inmy letter, dated 7 August 1959 (S/4202), that "Onits own admission, as recorded by the UnitedNations Commission in its report and its resolu-tion of August 13, 1948, the Government ofPakistan committed aggression on the IndianUnion territory of Jammu and Kashmir", com-mented that "Neither my Government nor theUnited Nations as a whole is aware of any suchadmission". The contention of the PakistanActing Permanent Representative is not only un-supported by the facts as reported by the UNCIPbut stands denied by them. The following extractsfrom UNCIP report may be relevantly quoted :

"As set forth in the letter of I January 1948 (S/628), the Government of India placed its complaint against the Govern- ment of Pakistan under Article 35 of the Charter, which allows any Member to bring to the attention of the Security Council any situation the continuance of which is likely to endanger the mainte- nance of international peace and security. India alleged that such a situation existed between it and Pakistan owing to the aid which invaders, consisting of nationals of Pakistan and of tribesmen from the territory immediately adjoining that Dominion on the north-west, were draw- ing from Pakistan for operations against the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which has acceded to India on 27th October, 1947, and was part of India.

"The Government of Pakistan in its com- munications of 15 January 1948 (S/646 and Corr. 1) denied that it was giving aid and assistance to the invaders..." (paras. 111 and 112).

"In the course of this interview, the Foreign Minister (of Pakistan) informed the members of the Commission that the Pakistan Army had at the time three brigades of regular troops in Kashmir and that troops had been sent into the State during the first half of May (1948)" (para. 40).

"The statement of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan to the effect that Pakistani troops had entered the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and later his reply to a Commission questionnaire that all forces fighting on the Azad side were 'under the over-all command and tactical direction of the Pakistan Army', confronted the Commission with an un- foreseen and entirely new situation." (para. 127).

According to the Security Council's reso- lution of 17 January, the Government of Pakistan was requested to inform the Security Council immediately of any material change in the situation. In a letter addressed to the Security Council, the Pakistan Government agreed to comply with this request. The Govern- ment of Pakistan had, however, not informed the Security Council about the presence of Pakistani troops in the State of Jammu and Kashmir". (para. 128).

-(The United Nations Commission's First Interim Report. Words within brackets are mine).

"Then came the first bombshell. Sir Zafrullah Khan informed the Commission that three Pakistani brigades had been on Kashmir territory since May..... The Commission....explained to the Pakis- tanis, the movement of these troops into foreign territory without the invitation of that territory's Government, was a violation of international law......."

--("Danger in Kashmir" : by Josef Korbel, a member of the UNCIP).

"As the presence of troops of Pakistan in

the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State."

311 -- (Para. A 1 of Part II of the UNCIP resolution of 13 August 1948).

Thus aggression on the Indian Union territoryof Jammu and Kashmir by Pakistan on the onehand and the obligation subsequently accepted byPakistan to vacate the aggression, are on record.

Another statement made in the letter ofthe Acting Permanent Representative of Pakistanreads :

"The United Nations resolutions, which both India and Pakistan have accepted, laid down clearly that the future status of the State shall be decided by a free and impartial prebiscite. The assump- tion that Jammu and Kashmir State is Indian territory is, therefore, wholly unwarranted."

The Acting Permanent Representative ofPakistan is obviously referring in this connexionto the provisions of the United Nations Com-mission's resolution of 5 January 1959. Thisresolution, according to its own terms, is "supple-mentary" to the UNCIP resolution of 13 August1948. With regard to the "plebiscite" proposalscontained in it, it was explained by Dr. Lozano,Chairman of the United Nations Commission,that they "did not supersede Part III of the resolu-tion of 13 August but were an elaboration of it".The Chairman had stated further that if the ple-biscite Administrator found a plebiscite impossiblefor "technical or practical reasons", he or theCommission would then recommend to the Secu-rity Council a solution different from that of aplebiscite (Annex. 8, S/1430). Thus there is noexclusive or final character about the plebisciteproposal.

Even apart from the fact that plebiscite pro-posals in the resolution of 5 January are only oneof the methods envisaged in Part III of the resolu-

tion of 13 August, the order in which thesematters are to be considered is, first the imple-mentation of Part I, then of Part II and finally ofPart III of the resolution of 13 August. The "con-sultations" envisaged in Part III obviously cannottake place unless Parts I and II have been imple-mented.

Not only has Pakistan not implemented PartsI and II but has repeatedly violated and continuesto violate the terms and the spirit of the obliga-tions assumed by her in the first two parts of thesaid resolution. Some of her violations, e.g., theaugmentation of the so-called Azad Kashmirforces and the annexation of the northern areasafter the cease-fire, and totally contrary to theUnited Nations resolutions and agreements arisingthereof as well as to the information given to theCommission by Pakistan, have been placed onrecord by the United Nations Commission. Othershave been detailed by India's representatives in theSecurity Council from time to time. MeanwhilePakistan troops and elements which were to bewithdrawn from Kashmir under Part II stillcontinue their forcible and illegal occupation ofthe territory of the Union of India in Jammu andKashmir, though eleven years have elapsed sincethe provision for their withdrawal was made andaccepted by Pakistan under Part It of the UNCIPresolution of 13 August 1948. Pakistan has thusin this regard alone violated solemn and vitalagreements and continues to do so.

I request that this communication maykindly be circulated as a Security Council docu-ment and brought to the notice of the membersof the Security Council.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances ofmy highest consideration.

INDIA PAKISTAN USA LATVIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri G. S. Pathak's Statement in Legal Committee on Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation

Shri G.S. Pathak, Member of the Indian Dele-gation to the United Nations, made a statement inthe Sixth Committee (Legal Committee) on Octo-ber 19, 1959 on the question of reservations tomultilateral conventions and the convention onInter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Or-ganization.

The following is the full text of his state-ment :

Mr. Chairman,

This item, which concerns the membership ofthe Republic of India to the Inter-GovernmentalMartime Consultative Organization, raises ques-tions of great general importance. For the pur-pose of explaining how India is directly and vitallyaffected by certain proceedings (which I shall detailhereinafter), and for a proper appreciation of thepoints that emerge in relation to the law relatingto reservations to multilateral conventions, it isnecessary, first, to give the background of theproblem and the facts which have led to the in-scription of this item on the agenda of this

312session.

India has a vast coastline and more than3,000 years ago, she emerged as one of the fore-most maritime countries of the world. She culti-vated trade relations not only with countries ofAsia but also with the whole of the then knownworld. For a long period, India was extensivelyengaged in commerce. Later the Europeans cameon the scene and in course of time the Britishacquired mastery over the seas surrounding thepeninsula. During the time when the territoriesof India were under the domination and rule ofthe European powers, colonial trade grew, andthe British and other European nations whichwere engaged in colonial trade developed and builtup their own shipping interests.

Since the attainment of independence by

India, shipping became one of the concerns ofindependent India. Shipping has been rightlydescribed as the handmaid of commerce andnational shipping is the necessary concomitant ofthe economic development of India, as of otherunder-developed countries. India has also a largeinterest in international sea-borne trade. Thus,when the Economic and Social Council called theUN Maritime Conference, India participated inthe proceedings of the Conference, which met atGeneva from 19 February 1948 to 6 March 1948.The Conference prepared a Convention which wasopened for signature and acceptance on 6 March1948. On that date the Convention was signedon behalf of India, subject to approval by theGovernment of India.

By a resolution adopted by the Con-ference for the establishment of a PreparatoryCommittee of the IMCO, India was appointeda member of that Committee, and her nameappeared as such member in the Final Act of theaforesaid Conference.

One of the organs of IMCO was its Councilwhich was to consist of 16 members in accordancewith Article 17 of the Convention. India wasappointed a member of this Council and her nameappeared in Appendix A of the Convention, assuch member.

It is necessary at this stage to call atten-tion to Articles 6 and 57 of the Convention

ARTICLE 6 READS:

"Members of the United Nations may become Members of the Organisation by becoming parties to the convention in accordance with the provisions of Article 57"

ARTICLE 57 SAYS:

"Subject to the provisions of Part III, the present Convention shall remain open for signature or acceptance and States may become parties to the con- vention by

(a) Signature without reservation as to acceptance ;

(b) Signature subject to acceptance followed by acceptance ;

or

(c) Acceptance.

Acceptance shall be effected by the depo- sit of an instrument with the Secretary- General of the United Nations."

In pursuance of the aforesaid Article, andinstrument of acceptance was executed by Indiawhich is in the following terms :

Read Annex 1 of the Secretary-General Report-Document A/4235/-

It is necessary to recall, at this stage, thelanguage of Article 1(b) of the Convention, towhich this declaration relates. Article 1 clause(b) reads as follows :

The purposes of the Organisation are

1 (b) "To encourage the removal of dis- criminatory action and unnecessary restrictions by Governments affecting shipping engaged in international trade so as to promote the availability of shipping services to the commerce of the world without discrimination ; assistance and encouragement given by a Govern- ment for the development of its national shipping and for purposes of security does not in itself constitute discrimina- tion, provided that such assistance and encouragement is not based on measures designed to restrict the freedom of ship- ping of all flags to take part in interna- tional trade."

The aforesaid Instrument of Acceptancedated 31 December 1958 was lodged with the

313Secretary-General on 6 January 1959. On thatdate the Assembly of IMCO was in session inLondon and the Secretary-General informed theAssembly of the said Instrument of Acceptance.

On 12 January 1959 a resolution moved

by the United Kingdom was passed by theAssembly of IMCO by which the Secretary-General of the UN was requested to circulatethe document to member states of IMCO. Bythis resolution it was further resolved :

"....Until the member States have had an opportunity of expressing their views, the representative of India shall be free to take part without vote in the procee- dings of this Assembly."

As a result of this resolution India's right to voteas member was suspended.

The representative of India then stated thathis Government considered itself to be a full andunconditional member of the Organization; andthat it had deposited an instrument of acceptancein accordance with Article 57 of the Convention.He further stated :

".......There was, therefore, nothing provi- sional, incomplete, or temporary about its participation in the Organization. Any continuation of the present limitation of India's rights to those of provisional membership was, therefore, not only anomalous but contrary to accepted practice."

"The present attitude of the organization towards the status of the Government of India appeard to be based on the view that the terms in which India had accepted the Convention constitutes a reservation ; and that in consequence, India could not be treated a party until all other signatories had accepted the terms laid down in the Indian instru- ment of acceptance."

Before dealing with the question withreference to the law relating to Reservations andstating that the status of India as a party to theConvention did not depend upon the assent ofall the other signatories of the Convention, therepresentative of India had said that

"While he did not consider it necessary to examine at the present juncture the question whether or not the terms of the instrument did amount to a reservation

in law, his Government was prepared, for the purpose of determining its status as a party to the Convention, to assume that technically its instrument of accep- tance did contain a reservation."

Thus, although it is true, that the discussionin the statement of the Indian representativeproceeded on what appeared to him to be thebasis of the attitude of the sponsors of the Reso-lution, it is manifest that the point whether thedeclaration amounted in law to reservation wasclearly indicated. The representative of Indiahad no choice in the matter, when IMCO hadalready proceeded on the view that the IndianDeclaration constituted a reservation. At thatstep he had stated, inter alia, that the Declarationwas not provisional, although he did not considerit necessary to examine that aspect further.

By a letter dated 6 February 1959 addressedto the Permanent Representative of India, theSecretary-General of the UN, while quoting thedeclaration made in the instrument of acceptanceby India said.

"...In cases where instruments of ratifi- cation, accession or acceptance are accompained by a reservation or by a declaration in the nature of a reservation and where such instruments relate to agreements concluded before the adop- tion on 12 January 1952 by the General Assembly of the United Nations of its resolution 598 (VI) on reservations to multilateral conventions and where the agreement does not contain any clause on reservations, it is the practice of the Secretary-General to circulate the text of the reservation of declaration to all States parties in order to determine their attitude in this respect."

In this letter the Secretary-General furtherstated :

"...All States parties to the Convention accordingly are being informed of the submission for deposit by India of its instrument of acceptance together with the text of the declaration and are requested to inform the Secretary- General as soon as possible of their

attitude in this declaration."

"...If the Secretary-General receives no objection to the declaration from a State party to the Convention on the Inter- Governmental Maritime Consultative

314 Organisation, India will be listed as a party to the said convention and all interested States will be notified accord- ingly."

Three things clearly appear from thisletter :

(1) That the Secretary-General had treated the declaration as a reservation.

(2) The Secretary-General purported to follow his practice relating to reserva- tions on the ground that Convention was concluded prior to 12 January 1952, the date of the General Assembly Resolu- tion 598 (VI).

(3) The Secretary-General will list India as a party to the State Convention pro- vided no State party to the Convention raises any objection to India's declara- tion. No time was specified for the lodging of the objections nor was the nature or character of the objections indicated. Thus the last sentence was open to the interpretation that the absence of any objection was essential before the Secretary-General could treat India as a party to the Convention, and in case an objection was received India will not be listed as a party.

In reply to the letter of Secretary-General, the Permanent Representative of Indiato the UN, addressed a communication dated7 July 1959 to the former, in which it was statedthat-

"...The Government of India consider

that all action relevant to and arising from the Secretary-General as Depositary of the Instrument of Acceptance and Declaration connected with it, is thereby

fully discharged."

The position taken up by the Governmentof India thus, was that India had fulfilled therequirements of the law by depositing the instru-ment of acceptance and that she was a fullmember of the Organisation automatically andthat there was no question of any State party tothe Convention raising any objection. Therefore,it was stated in the letter of the Permanent Repre-sentative of India to the Secretary-General :

"...The Goverment of India are, how- ever, bound to ask themselves what significance is to be attached to the statement of the Secretary-General made in his letter under reference that if he `receives no objection to the Declaration from a State party to the Convention on the inter-Governmental Maritime Con- sultative Organization India will be listed as a party to the said Convention and all interested States will be notified accordingly'."

It was further stated in the said letter :

"...The Government of India cannot believe that it can be the intention of the Secretary-General to introduce in this regard by such a statement, arising from his functions as Depositary, a rule or principle of unanimity."

And in this connection reliance was placed onthe opinion of the International Court of Justiceon the Convention of Genocide.

India's instrument of acceptance alongwith the declaration was circulated and no objec-tion was raised by any state, except France andthe Federal Republic of Germany.

By a letter dated 20 July 1959 sent inanswer to the Communication mentioned abovethe Secretary-General pointed out to the Perma-nent Representative of India that statementssimilar to the one made by him were made inother instances. Reference was also made toresolution 598 (VI) of the General Assembly, andit was stated that :

"......It was the understanding and in-

tention that the Secretary-General was to follow his previous practice in respect to agreements concluded prior to the date of adoption of the resolution, namely before 12 January 1952....The practice follow- ed by the Secretary-General is con- tained in his report on the subject Document A/1372, and applies in respect of IMCO Convention."

The Secretary-General proceeded further :

".....Consequently, until the resolution adopted by the Assembly of IMCO, on 13 January 1959 is modified by a new resolution or decision taken by a compe- tent organ of the IMCO, the Secretary- General, in view of the expression of attitude he has received from some of the States Parties to the Convention, in respect to the declaration accompanying

315 the instrument of acceptance of India of the Convention of IMCO, is unable to receive this instrument in final deposit.

".......It follows from the foregoing that so long as objection exists to the terms of the instrument of acceptance of India it would exceed the authority of the Secretary-General to make the affirmative decision suggested in the penultimate paragraph of the note of the Permanent Representative, as such action would con- stitute a ruling in favour of one Govern- ment's position and against that taken by another. In abstaining from such action, however, the Secretary-General would be reserving to the IMCO the right to pass upon the legal status of the acceptance by India on the basis of its compatibility with the Convention."

Thereupon the item under considerationwas proposed for inclusion on the agenda of thepresent session of the General Assembly with thefollowing Explanatory Memorandum: The first question that emerges from theabove facts is what is the true nature and characterof the declaration appended to the instrument ofacceptance. If the declaration is a mere statementof policy which in law does not amount to

reservation, the question what are the principlesand procedures relative to reservation, to multi-lateral conventions would not arise. The answerto the problem then would be that as the truenature and character of the declaration inquestion, is not reservation in the real sense ofthe term, the acceptance fulfils the requirementsof the provisions of the Convention and of thelaw and, therefore, the membership of India to theIMCO was the automatic result of the deposit ofthe Instrument of acceptance.

The legal effect of the application ofArticles 6 and 57 of the Convention is automatic.The Secretery-General is not required underArticle 57 to circulate the instrument of acceptancebefore accepting it in deposit for inviting theviews or attitude of the party States. The legaleffect of acceptance being automatic, the Secretary-General under Article 61 of the Convention "willinform all States invited to the UN MaritimeConference and such other States as may havebecome Members, of the date when each Statebecomes party to the Convention, and also of thedate on which the Convention enters into force."

The alleged practice of the Secretary-General had reference only to reservations andcould not be resorted to where there was noreservation. First, therefore, the question whetherthe declaration amounts to reservation. Article1(b) says that "assistance and encouragementgiven by a Government for the development of itsnational shipping and for purposes of securitydoes not in itself constitute discrimination,provided that such assistance and encouragementis not based on measures designed to respect thefreedom of shipping of all flags to take part ininternational trade."

Now the Declaration states:

"In accepting the Convention of IMCO the Government of India declare that any measures which it adopts or may have adopted for giving encouragement and assistance to its national shipping and shipping industries. ...and such other measures as the Government of India may adopt ... are consistent with the purposes of IMCO as defined in Article 1 (b) of the Convention."

Assistance and encouragement can begiven by a Government to its national shippingonly by means of measures taken by it. There-fore, a declaration that any measures which itadopts or may have adopted or may adopt infuture for giving encouragement and assistance tonational shipping and shipping industry, areconsistent with Article 1 (b), is nothing but a re-statement of the contents of that Article. TheDeclaration means-and cannot mean anythingelse-that all such measures, are and shall be con-sistent with Article 1 (b). The word "are", in theEnglish language, is also read in a futuresense. (Strond's Judicial Dictionary Vol.III.).The contents of the declaration (namely,loans, financing of national shipping compa-nies, or allocation of Government owned orGovernment-controlled cargoes to national ship-ping) are merely instances of such measuresof encouragement and assistance. They are thenormal and natural ways in which suchassistance and encouragement are given. Placethe declaration alongside Article 1 (b) and therecannot be any room for doubt that the contentsof the declaration are identical with the verylanguage of Article 1 (b). "Such other measuresas the Government may adopt" is a clear state-ment that such measures will be ejusdum generiswith the instances of measures given earlier.

The declaration emphasises that the soleobject of these measures is to promote thedevelopment of its own national shipping. Theword "sole" excludes the possibility of any other

316object; and, therefore, the proviso contained inArticle 1 (b) does not apply, as a measure design-ed to restrict the freedom of shipping of all flagsto take part in-international trade will be excludedby the expression "sole".

The Government of India, therefore,has merely made a declaration of policy withregard to giving assistance. and encourage-ment for the development of its national shipping.Such a declaration might not have been madeat all and the Government of India would stillhave been able to render assistance and encourage-ment for the development of its national shipping,without acting inconsistently with the purposesof the organization. The Government of Indiamade this declaration ex abundanti cautela.

We must remember the background inwhich Article 1(b) was framed. The memberswho participated in the conference which framedthe convention were conscious of the fact thatthere were under-developed countries in the worldwhich could not develop their national shippingexcept by assistance and encouragement givento the States. Under-developed countries were anobject of special concern to the UN and it couldnot be the desire of any power, colonial ornon-colonial, to do anything which would retardthe progress which could be made only by meansof such assistance and encouragement given tonational shipping.

It must be remembered that the func-tion of IMCO as provided in Article 2, are"consultative and advisory". IMCO can onlymake a recommendation by way of consultationor by way of advice. It is for the State partiesto accept or not to accept such recommendations.It will be robbing the words 'consultative andadvisory' of their meaning to read into them anyfunction the exercise of which would resultin acts of a binding character. An advice maybe followed or not followed. It is liable to bere-examined and, therefore, the statement in thedeclaration that any recommendation relatingto this subject that may be adopted by theorganization will be subject to re-examination bythe Government of India, is only the necessaryconsequence of the advisory and consultativefunction of IMCO.

Another necessary corollary of the 'con-sultative and advisory' character of the functionsof IMCO is that the advice received by a partystate, being liable to be rejected, shall not have theeffect of altering or modifying its national laws.There is nothing in the declaration, therefore, whichcan be said to be inconsistent with Article 1 (b)of the Convention.

The word 'condition' does not presentany difficulty. In the first place it is in thelanguage of the declaration itself that will deter-mine its character. But apart from this, the.word 'condition' has also got the meaning ofdeclaration. Webster's Dictionary says thatthe "root of the word signifies, to show, pointout, diceri, to say, dicari, to proclaim, todedicate."

A reservation' is always an exceptionand is made when a party to a treaty doesnot wish to be bound by a particular pro-vision contained in it. A reservation is a specialterm, limiting or varying the terms of a treaty.'It is not necessary to quote any authorityfor the meaning of the expression 'reservation'in the law of Treaties. Reservation is a well-known expression and has a well recognizedconnotation. The Indian declaration neitherdeclares itself to be a reservation nor does ituse the language of 'reservation.' The declarationdoes not seek to limit or vary any term of theConvention and therefore it is not a reservationat all.

It is important to note that the UnitedStates examined the nature and character of theIndian declaration, as that would be the very firstquestion which should arise before the procedurerelating to reservations to multilateral conventionscould be resorted to

(Quote US letter dated 30 June 1959 addressed to the Secretary-General Annex III to the Report of the Secretary- General)

The result is that the Indian declarationdoes not subject the Convention to a reservationand does not make the acceptance conditional.That being so, the acceptance automaticallyproduces the legal result viz. that India becamea member of the IMCO on making the depositof the Instrument of acceptance. The procedurefor becoming a member as laid down in Article 6and Article 57 was fully complied with, and that allthat was necessary for the Secretary-General to dowas to act under Article 61 of the Conventionand inform the States concerned of the date whenIndia became a party. No other procedure wascalled for the Convention or by any other law orresolution of the General Assembly. The proce-dure adopted by the Secretary-General, therefore,was ultra vires. When I say this, I do not do soin a spirit of criticism. Questions of vires areoften raised in the national courts of law and

317have also been raised before the ICJ. There aresometimes dissenting views on the subject. Suchquestions are raised because, the Rule of law

governs all actions of courts and the examinationof such questions never involves the criticismof the exercise of powers by the court. It is amatter of the highest importance and gratificationthat the Rule of law is insisted on in all mattersin the General Assembly, and I am merely invokingthat rule in vindication of my country's rights,when I ask this Committee to examine the pro-cedures that have been applied in the presentcase. We have the highest respect for the Secre-tary-General and for the high office he holds, and,on a number of occasions, we have expressedour appreciation of the work done by the Secre-tary-General, in particular, and by theSecretariat in general, on the floor of the GeneralAssembly and in this Committee. Recently mydelegation in the General debate gave expressionto this appreciation and paid tribute to the workdone by the Secretary-General and his staff.

The statement of the Secretary-General isan admirable and well-reasoned document. Itis unfortunate that my Delegation is not inagreement with the legal positions set out in thatstatement but differences on questions of law isnot a matter of uncommon occurrence. It isindeed a glory and distinction of the legal pro.fession in which I include judges and theteaching profession and all those engaged inthe administration of law, in whatever capacity-that discussions on questions of law take place,differences are resolved by discussion and thatthis process, indeed, is the very condition of theprogress of the legal system. I have every respectfor Mr. Stavropoulos for his legal learning andacumen and express my gratitude to him for thecourtesy and assistance which we have receivedfrom him and no disrespect is meant or couldbe meant when I give my reasons for differingfrom the various view as indicated in hisreport.

In his letter dated 6 February 1959addressed to the Permanent Representative ofIndia, the Secretary-General refers to the practicewhich he described in the following terms:

"...In cases where the instruments of ratification, accession or acceptance are accompanied by a reservation or by a declaration in the nature of a reservation and where such instruments relate to agreements concluded before the adop-

tion on 12 January 1952 by the General Assembly of the United Nations of its resolution 598 (VI) on reservations to multilateral conventions and where the agreement does not contain any clause or reservations it is the practice of the Secretary-General to circulate the text of the reservation or declaration to all States parties in order to determine their attitude in this respect."

The Secretary-General has clearly treated theIndian declaration as one in the nature of reser-vation and there is an implied finding that thedeclaration was a reservation. This was notwithin the competence of the Secretary-Generalboth for the reason that his functions are of anadministrative character, and also because theprocedure applied by him was one which wasnot warranted by either the Convention or inlaw or by the resolution of the General Assemblywhich related only to cases of reservations. I amhere assuming but not admitting that the reso-lution of the General Assembly 598 (VI) wasotherwise relevant to the question of what pro-cedure should be applied to reservations madeto agreements prior to 12 January 1952.

I must explain here what, according to mydelegation, is the scope of this function whichI have described as 'administrative'. This func-tion of a depositary is a technical function. Itis not purely Instrument of acceptance and anydeclaration appended thereto. If he finds onexamination that there is no reservation, he mustaccept the Instrument in deposit, without anythingmore. In case there is any ambiguity, he mustascertain from the State executing the Instrumentof acceptance whether it intended it to be areservation and he must accept the statementof the State in this respect. He has now powerto adjudicate himself whether the Declarationconstitutes a reservation. This procedure hasthe sanction of International practice. To quotean instance, in the case of the InternationalConvention for promoting Safety of Life at Sea,signed on 31 May 1929, the United Statesratified it subject to certain understandingsand intimated to the United Kingdom which wasthe depositary, that the Convention was not inany way modified by the 'understandings' or wasaffected thereby. The Government of the UnitedKingdom was requested to accept the deposit of

the Instrument of ratification without first re-quiring acceptance of the 'understandings' bysignatory and adhering States. The BritishGovernment received the deposit of the ratificationwithout requiring the acceptance of these 'under-standings' by the parties to the Convention.

At page 16 of the Report the Secretary-General says:

318 "......The circulation by the Secretary- General being thus inherently a minister- ial measure, he was serving directly as the agent of IMCO Assembly acting on their request."

To this proposition my delegation takes exception.Under the Convention the Secretary-General, asa functionary of the UN in that capacity aloneis designated for a limited purpose, namely, forthe purpose of receiving in deposit of the accep-tance and for informing the States concerned ofthe date when a State becomes a party. Thisdoes not create a relationship of principal andagent between IMCO and the Secretary-Generaland the Secretary-General is not required by theConvention or anything contained in theCharter to follow any directions of the IMCO.For the creation of such a relationship suitablelanguage is required. There is no such languagein the present case making the Secretary-Generalan agent of IMCO. He is the administrativeOfficer of the Organization under Article 97 ofthe Charter and under Article 98 he shall performsuch other functions as are entrusted to him bythe General Assembly, Security Council, Econo-mic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Coun-cil. There is no provision in the Charter, wherebythe Secretary-General is required to perform anyfunctions entrusted to him by any specialisedagency.

The principle of expressio unius est exclusioalterius would apply and only the bodies mention-ed in Article 98 could entrust other functions tothe Secretary-General. Any other view wouldresult in the situation that while the Charter hasexcluded bodies other than those enumeratedfrom entrusting functions to the Secretary-Generalof the United Nations, such functions could beimposed on him by resorting to the Doctrine ofAgency. This would amount to an amendment

of the Charter. Thus no duties can be assignedby any specialised agency on the Secretary-Generaland the Secretary-General is prohibited fromaccepting any such duties from a specialisedagency. This idea of agency is repeated in para-graph 29 of the Report.

That paragraph says

"It might even create for the Secretary- General the direct conflict between the authority given him by IMCO as its agent and the views of the General Assembly as a principal organ of the United Nations."

The supposed position of the Secretary-Generalas the agent of IMCO is inconsistent with the pro-visions of the Charter. Further, he cannot seekand receive instructions from any external autho-rity. Article 100 of the Charter says :

"In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any authority ex- ternal to the organization."

The supposed relationship of principal and agentbetween IMCO and the Secretary-General wouldcreate situations in which the Secretary-Generalmight have to seek and receive instructions fromIMCO.

Article 100 further states :

"They (i.e. the Secretary-General and the staff) shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organisation."

The acceptance of the position as agent of IMCOwill make the Secretary-General responsible toIMCO also. But he is prohibited from takingany action which may make him responsible toany body except the United Nations. By theaddition of the function of a depositary theSecretary-General's status as administrative officerof the United Nations is not altered. This func-tion is allotted to him in his capacity as Secretary-General. He does not denude himself of thatcapacity and status when he performs the function

of a depositary. Therefore in the performanceof his duties as depositary he cannot seek andreceive instructions from IMCO. In the presentcase on his own showing he has done both andhis acts are wholly ultra vires on that account.Even the General Assembly, much less theSecretary-General, could act in a manner contra-dictory to the Charter.

Mr. Chairman, the concept of a depositaryis quite distinct from that of an agent.

'Deposit' is a part of the process of becominga member. Under Article 57 of the ConventionStates become parties by acceptance and accep-tance is effected by the deposit of the Instrumentof acceptance. `Deposit' is not unlike the'delivery' which is necessary to give effect to anEnglish deed after signing and sealing it. Theprocess of becoming a member is outside thefunctions of IMCO. IMCO has no jurisdiction togive any instructions in relation to this process orto pronounce upon the legal effect of an instru-

319ment of acceptance and its deposit or of, any actin relation to the process of deposit. In the viewof my delegation, the General Assembly is theonly body which can give instructions to theSecretary-General in relation to the process ofdeposit. If the Secretary-General feels that heneeds instructions it is for him to seek andreceive instructions from the General Assemblyand the General Assembly alone.

It has now become usual to provide intreaties that the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations shall be the depositary thereof. Thisseems to be related to the functions of theSecretary-General as the Registrar of treatiesunder Article 102 of the Charter. It is conduciveto convenience if the Registrar and the Depositaryare the same organ. Professor Brierly, in hisreport (Decument A/CN 4/23) to the InternationalLaw Commission, in reference to this practice,says:

"Thus, it would be possible, in the case of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for the General Assembly to lay down regulations for the conduct of that official of any duties laid upon him as a Depositary......."

Mr. Chairman, the question may be asked-Before IMCO came into existence, whose agentwas the Secretary-General? Cetainly not ofIMCO, because it was not yet born. If an Instru-ment of acceptance had been received by theSecretary-General at a time when the Conventionhad not entered into force, according to Article60 of the convention by 21 States having becomeparties, he could not be the agent of a non-exis-tent body. Therefore, the so-called agency dotsnot arise from the fact that the Secretary-Generalis a depositary. This relationship could notattach itself to him from any later date, if he wasnot an agent before, as there is no such provisionin the Convention. The law in this respect thatwas applicable before the date the Conventionentered into force would continue to apply afterthat date.

Suppose the General Assembly givesinstructions to the Secretary-General in connectionwith his function as depositary and IMCO alsogives instructions and there is conflict between theinstructions given by the General Assembly andgiven by IMCO, whose instructions will he follow ?He can certainly not disregard the instructions ofthe General Assembly, whose Administrative-Officer he is under the Charter. This clearlydemonstrates that the theory of the Secretary-General being an agent of IMCO is incorrect.

If the Secretary-General is the agent ofIMCO, on the same reasoning he will be the agentof other specialised agencies also. The agenciesmay take different views on the procedure relatingto reservations and may evolve different practices.In such a situation there will be chaos in Inter-national Law and there will be as many practicesand laws as the specialised agencies or otherbodies who may choose to designate the Secretary-General as a depositary. The United Nations isunder an obligation to make recommendationsfor the coordination of the policies and activitiesof the specialised. agencies under Article 58 of theCharter. Even if IMCO had any jurisdiction overthe process of deposit-which it has not-it wouldbe the duty of the General Assembly, torecommend one policy to all the agencies.

It will, be well to bear in mind the nature ofrelationship between the General Assembly ofUnited Nations on the one side and specialisedagencies on the other. On examination of this

relationship, it will clearly appear that it will bewholly incongruous with this relationship andinconsistent with the provisions of the Charter tohold that any organ of the United Nations holdsa subordinate position vis-a-vis a specialisedagency like that of an agent bound to obey theinstructions of a specialised agency.

The nature of relationship between the UnitedNations and specialised agencies will have to bejudged on the following considerations :

Specialised agencies are the instrumentsthrough which the purposes of the United Nationsare achieved under Article 55. The UnitedNations promotes solution of internationaleconomic and other problems enumerated therein.One of the purposes of the United Nations is toachieve international cooperation in solvinginternational problems of economic character.The United Nations is the centre for harmonisingthe actions of nations in the attainment of commonends (Article 1, paras 3 and 4).

The United Nations takes steps to bringinto being a special agency. The United Nationsinitiates negotiations for creation of a specialisedagency (Article 59).

ECOSOC, which has to perform functionsas assigned by the General Assembly (Article 66para 3) calls an international conference forbringing a specialised agency into existence.When a specialised agency is born, it must bebrought into relationship with ECOSOC underagreements which are subject to approval by theGeneral Assembly (Articles 59 and 63).

320 The responsibility for. the discharge of functionsof the United Nations as set forth in Chapter IXwhich contains Articles 57, 58 and 59, Tests on theGeneral Assembly and under the authority ofthe General Assembly, on ECOSOC (Article 60).One of these responsibilities is the coordination ofthe policies and activities of the specialised agencies(Article 58), and for this purpose recommendationmust be made by the General Assembly.

The ECOSOC may obtain regular reportsfrom specialised agencies and also reports onsteps taken by these agencies to give effect torecommendations made by the General Assembly

(Article 64). These reports will be submittedbefore the General Assembly with the observationsof ECOSOC (Article 64). This implies thatspecialised agencies shall carry out the recommend-ations of the General Assembly. The GeneralAssembly shall examine the administrative budgetsof specialised agencies with a view to makingrecommendations to the agencies concerned.(Article 17, para 3). The result is that at the apexis the United Nations or the General Assembly.The General Assembly gives birth to specialisedagencies, has the right and power to supervisethe activities of the net-work of specialisedagencies, its progeny. The progeny is independentwithin their sphere but subject to recommendatorycontrol by the General Assembly. Their policieson common matters must be coordinated by theGeneral Assembly. If the policies conflict, therewill be chaos and the purpose will be defeated.

Kelson in his book on "The Law of theUnited Nations", while examining the status ofspecialised agencies, says that specialisedagencies, although not considering to be organs,may be characterised at least as indirect organsof the United Nations. (The Law of the UnitedNations, A Critical Analysis of its FundamentalProblems' by Hans Kelson, New York 1950,page 146).

The agreements between the specialisedagencies of the United Nations generally containimportant provisions intended to give assurancethat the recommendations of the United Nationswill be considered and acted upon. (See Good-rich and Hambroon "Charter of the UnitedNations", revised edition, page 352).

The learned authors, while referring to theReport of the Advisory Committee on Ad-ministrative and Budgetary Questions, which wasadopted with minor changes by the GeneralAssembly, says that the Report emphasises :

"the achievement of the necessary degree of coordination between the United Nations and the specialised agencies is, in the last analysis, the responsibility of members themselves." (page 354)

Having regard, therefore, to the exactrelationship of the United Nations and the

specialised agencies, it will be incorrect to saythat the specialised agencies have got the powersto pass upon the legal effect of acts done in thecourse of the process of deposit; and that theGeneral Assembly has no power to give instruc-tions to the Secretary-General in this respect.

The IMCO has its own Secretary-General appointed under Article 33 of theConvention, and he is its chief administrativeofficer. Apart from the duties expressly entrustedto him by the Convention, he is to perform suchother tasks as may be assigned by the Conventionthe Assembly, the Council and the MaritimeSafety Committee under Article 38 of the Conven-tion. There is, thus, nothing either in the Charterof the United Nations, or in the Convention ofIMCO which may constitute the Secretary-Generalof the United Nations as the agent of the IMCOfor any purpose whatsoever.

Consequently, the Secretary-General's actioncannot derive support from the resolution ofIMCO. The Office of the Secretary-General isthe Creature of the Charter and-its functions arecircumscribed by and cannot transcend the Charter.No resolution of any specialised agency can addto the functions of the Secretary-General of theUnited Nations.

A resolution of the specialised agency can-not create jurisdiction and powers for any organof the United Nations. India was a member ofIMCO and no question could, therefore, arise ofobtaining information with regard to the attitudeof other party States. The resolution of IMCOitself would be ultra vires. And if the GeneralAssembly has to take notice of this Resolution, itis for the purpose of expressing its views of thesubject and of finding out what recommendationscan be made to IMCO or what instructions haveto be given to the Secretary-General. It may beremembered that the members are bound to obeythe Charter in preference to a Convention in caseof conflict (Article 103).

Reference is mad? in the Report of theSecretary General to Article 55 of the convention.That Article runs thus :

"Any question or dispute concerning the

321

interpretation or application of the "con- vention shall be referred to for settlement to the Assembly, or shall be settled in such other manner as the parties to the dispute agree..."

The view of my Delegation is that there is noquestion in the present case concerning theinterpretation or application of this convention.There is no sentence or phrase in any article whosemeaning is doubtful or with regard to whose mean-ing any contention is raised. The principle iswell recognised that once the language of a state-ment is plain and unambiguous, there is nooccasion for interpretation of this principleapplies to treaties also. The question of theinterpretation of the Indian declaration cannot bea question in respect of which it can be predictedthat the interpretation or the application of theconvention is involved. It is interesting tocompare the language of Article 9 of the GenocideConvention with the language of Article 55 of theIMCO convention. Article 9 of the GenocideConvention provided that disputes relating to theinterpretation, application or fulfilment of thatconvention shall be submitted to the InternationalCourt of Justice at the request of any parties tothe dispute. The word `fulfilment' does notappear in Article 55. It must be remembered thatIMCO is an organisation for technical matters.It cannot constitute itself a Tribunal for the settle-ment of disputes. The matters, not being coveredby Article 55 cannot fall within the competence ofIMCO. But apart from this even if IMCO had gotthe jurisdiction to decide whether the Indian decla-ration amounted to a reservation or whether theunanimity or the opposite rule shall apply, thejurisdiction of the General Assembly is not oustedthereby. There is no question of any conflict ofjurisdiction in the present case. The viewexpressed in the Report of the Secretary-General isthat the Assembly of IMCO is seized of the matter.The General Assembly is a larger body having alegal Committee consisting of representativesspecially qualified in legal matters. IMCO iscomparatively much smaller body and India willbe excluded from voting. In the view of myDelegation both in law and having regard toconsiderations of propriety, the General Assemblyis the most suitable forum for the examinationof the questions involved in this matter.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that

there is a case of reservation in the real sense of theterm. The question that would arise then will be:what is the current law on the subject and in casewhere a convention is silent as to the rule to beapplied, what is the rule which should be applied.The history of the subject is so fresh in the mindsof the honourable delegates that it is not necessaryto reiterate beyond stating that the Secretary-.General made a report regarding reservations tomultilateral Conventions. Different views hadbeen expressed in the 6th Committee during the5th session and the Advisory opinion of the ICJwas sought by the General Assembly by its resolu-tion dated 16 November 1950.

In the debates the main controversycentered round the question whether in case wherea multilateral convention is silent upon the ruleto be applied, it is the unanimity rule whichshould prevail or the State making the reservationbecomes a party to the Convention so far as thenon-objecting States are concerned, i.e. the ruleof universality. The World Court, on reference,gave its opinion which is reported on page 15of the Opinions and Judgments of the Interna-tional Court of Justice of the year 1951.

It is true that the questions referred tothe International Court of Justice concerned onlythe Genocide Convention but the opinion of theInternational Court of Justice is also based on thegeneral principles.

On the question of the effect of theopinion of the ICJ a jurist of the eminence ofSir H. Lauterpacht has taken the view that theprinciples laid down by the Court are of generalapplication. In the 8th edition, volume 1,Oppenheim's International Law, at page 915,occurs the following passage :

"...Although the Opinion of ICJ was limited to the case of the Genocide Con- vention, it must be considered as having a distinct bearing upon the question of reservations in general. While the opi- nion fails to provide a workable legal rule, it gives expression to the view which is gaining ground, that the principle of unanimous consent to reservations is not well suited to the requirements of International intercourse characterised by multilateral conventions of a general

character, and that it is impracticable and unwarranted to give one state (a small or large state), the right to prevent ano- ther state from becoming a party to the Convention, although almost all contract- ing parties consider the reservation appended by it to be compatible with the objects of the Convention".

In volume 39 of Grotius Society Trans-actions on page 97 and 98 is an article contributedby Sir H. Lauterpacht. Basing himself on the

322reasoning of general character adopted by theICJ. he expresses the view that the AdvisoryOpinion further impaired the rule of unanimousconsent as expressing the generally recognisedprinciple of international law. This reasoningof a general character is to be found at page 24of the report of the ICJ. This reason which isin addition to the one given before ... is of ageneral character and is stated by the Interna-tional Court of Justice in these words :

"...It does not appear, moreover, that the conception of the absolute integrity of a convention has been transformed into the rule of international law."

The reasons given by the Court insupport of this conclusion were these

(1) The considerable part which tacit assent has always played in estimating the effect which is to be given to reserva- tions scarcely permits one to state that such a rule exists, determining with suffi- cient precision the effect of objections made to reservations. In fact, the exam- ples of objections made to reservations appear to be too rare in international practice to have given rise to such a rule.

(2) It cannot be recognized that the report which was adopted on the subject by the Council of the League of Nations on 17 June 1927 has had this effect. At best, the recommendation made on that date by the Council constitutes the point of departure of an administrative practice which, after being observed by the Secre-

tariat of the League of Nations, imposed itself, so to speak, in the ordinary course of things on the Secre- tary-General of the U.N. in his capacity of depositary of conventions concluded under the auspices of the League. But it cannot be concluded that the legal problem of the effect of objections to reservations has in this way been solved.

(3) The opinion of the Secretary-General of the United Nations himself is embodied in the following passage of his report of September 21, 1950: "While it is univer- sally recognized that the consent of the other governments concerned must be sought before they can be bound by the terms of a reservation, there has not been unanimity either as to the procedure to be followed by a depositary in obtain- ing the necessary consent or as to the legal effect of a State's Objecting to a reservation".

(4) On the question whether the Gene. ral Assembly, in approving the Geno- cide Convention had in mind the practice according to which the Secretary- General exercising his functions as a depositary, did not regard a reservation as definitively accepted until it had been established that none of the other contracting States objected to it, the Court observed that it "does not consi- der that this view corresponds to reality. it must be pointed out, first of all, that the existence of an administrative prac- tice does not in itself constitute a decisive factor: in ascertaining what views the contracting States to the Genocide Convention may have had concerning the rights and duties resulting therefrom. It must also be pointed out that there existed among the American States members both of the United Nations and of the Organization of American States, a different practice which goes so far as to permit a reserving State to become a patty irrespective of the nature of the reservations or of the objections raised by other contracting States. The pre- paratory work of the Convention con- tains nothing to justify the statement that

the contracting States implicitly had any definite practice in mind?'

(5) "The debate on reservations to multilateral treaties which took place in the 6th Committee at the 5th session of the General Assembly reveals a pro- found divergence of views, some delega- tions being attached to the idea of the absolute integrity of the convention, other favouring a more flexible practice which would bring about the participation of as many States as possible."

Therefore, it is quite clear that the

opinion of ICJ was also based upon a findingof a general character viz that there is no ruleof international law known as the unanimityrule.

My delegation takes the view that theprinciple laid down in the opinion of the Courtis correct and that there is no unanimity rulerecognized by International Law, and thereforeeven though there might be an objection, one ortwo states cannot prevent India from becoming

323a member of the IMCO, even if India had madeany reservation, which it has not, as pointedout above.

It is worthy of note that the IMCOConvention bears close resemblance to theGenocide Convention in regard to the materialparticulars which weighed with the InternationalCourt of Justice. The Court remarked in regardto the Genocide Convention that although theGenocide Convention was finally approvedunanimously, it is nevertheless a result of seriesof majority votes. The majority principle-sosays the World Court-while facilitating theconclusion of multilateral convention also makesit necessary for, certain States to make reservations.This reservation is confirmed by the great numberof reservations which have been made of recentyears in multilateral conventions. In the caseof IMCO Convention the majority principle wasapplied at all stages of the proceedings of theConference including its final approval. In casea State were not prepared to accept any particularpart of the draft Convention and had raised the

question in the Conference and the majority hadaccepted the views of that State, that view wouldhave been treated as the view of the entire Con-ference and the Convention itself would haveadopted the exception to the Draft urged by thesaid State. A dissenting vote would not haveprevented the incorporation of the exception inthe Convention itself. It would be anomalousthat if at the time of acceptance a reservation ismade by a State and if there are only one or twoStates (out of a very large number of States)objecting to the exception, the one or two Statescould prevent the State making the reservationfrom becoming a party to the organization.

Like the Genocide Convention, the IMCOConvention also subserves purposes of universalconcern. Shipping is not a matter in which thecontracting parties alone are interested. A matterrelating to economic purposes stands on the samefooting as one relating to humanitarian purposes.For the above reasons the principle of the opinionof International Court of Justice in the GenocideConvention Case would be applicable, even ifthere were a reservation, and India became amember of IMCO, in spite of one or two objec-tions raised to the Indian Delegation.

The Government of India has stated inthe explanatory memorandum that it does notfind any resolution or decision of the GeneralAssembly authorising the application of theunanimity rule in regard to multilateral conven-tions concluded under the auspices of the UnitedNations. The report of the Secretary-Generaland the correspondence referred to above whichpassed between the Secretary-General and theGovernment of India, shows that the reliance hasbeen placed upon resolution 598 (VI) of theGeneral Assembly of 12 January 1952.) Thatresolution runs thus :

"598 (VI). Reservations to multilateral conventions

The General Assembly,

Bearing in mind the provisions of its resolu-tion 478 (V) of 16 November 1950, which (1)requested the International Court of Justice togive an advisory opinion regarding reservationsto the Convention on the Prevention and Punish-ment of the Crime of Genocide and (2) invitedthe International Law Commission to study the

question of reservations to multilateral conven-tions.

Noting the Court's advisory opinion of 28May 1951 and the Commission's report, bothrendered pursuant to the said resolution,

1. Recommends that organs of the UnitedNations specialized agencies and States should, inthe course of preparing multilateral conventions,consider the insertion therein of provisions relatingto the admissibility or non-admissibility of reser-vations and to the effect to be attributed tothem :

2. Recommends to all States that they beguided in regard to the Convention on the Pre-vention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocideby the advisory opinion of the International Courtof Justice of 28 May 1951;

3. Requests the Secretary-General :

(a) In relation to reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Geno- cide, to conform his practice to the advisory opinion of the Court of 28 May 1951;

(b) In respect of future conventions concluded under the auspices of the United Nations of which he is the depositary :

(i) To continue to act as depositary in connexion with the deposit of documents containing reserva- tions or objections, without passing upon the legal effect of such documents; and

324

(ii) To communicate the text of such documents relating to reservations or objections to all States concerned, leaving it to each State to draw legal consequences from such commu- nications."

The first clause of the resolution mentions a

recommendation to the organs of United Nationsspecialised agencies and States to consider theinsertion of provision relating to the admissibilityor non-admissibility of reservations. The secondclause of the resolution mentions a recommen-dation to all States that they may be guided inregard to the Convention on Genocide by theadvisory opinion of International Court of Justice.The third clause refers to the procedure to beadopted by the Secretary-General in respect ofconvention which had not been made prior to12 January 1952. There is no express provisionin the resolution instructing the Secretary-Generalto apply unanimity rule or the practice foundedupon that rule in regard to conventions whichhad come into existence before. Reference ismade in the Report of the Secretary-General tothe Summary Records of the 6th Committee inparagraphs 27 and 28 of the Report and it is statedthat the representative of the U.S.S.R. called fora separate report on phrase relating to futureconventions. The Report says that the spokesmanfor the joint sponsors explained that "the purposeof the addition of the words referred to by theU.S.S.R. representative in the joint statement,namely, 'future conventions' were not to haveany retroactive effect on existing conventions orconventions that had merely been signed, but wereonly to be applied with respect to future conven-tions." The Committee then adopted thislanguage by a vote of 32 to 5, with 12 abstentions.Reference is also made to the statement of theAssistant Secretary-General, in charge of theLegal Department. The question that arises iswhether in the absence of any express provisionin the resolution itself can the statements made inthe course of discussions supply the deficiencyand should the resolution therefore be read ascontaining an instruction to the Secretary-Generalto apply the rule of unanimity or his old practicebased upon that rule in respect of conventionsmade prior to 12 of January 1952 ? In a casewhere the language of a resolution or a treaty isdoubtful and they have to be interpreted, recoursecan always be had to the proceedings or thepreparatory work. My Delegation is not preparedto agree that such proceedings or the preparatorywork can be utilized for the purpose of creatingthe provision in a resolution, when the resolutionitself is silent. There is no doubt that the GeneralAssembly is not a legislative body and it canmerely declare an existing law. It would bestrange if 12 of January 1952 would mark a

point of time when the law would change fromthe rule of unanimity to the rule laid down inthe Genocide Conventions. The approval of theunanimity rule could not have been the intentionof the General Assembly.

The various points mentioned in theReport of the Secretary-General and not yetdealt with may now be considered. First, asregards the jurisdiction of the General Assemblyor the propriety of the consideration of this itemby the General Assembly, as shown above, thequestion relates to the powers and functions ofthe Secretary-General. Article 10 of the Charterprovider, that the "General Assembly may discussany questions or any matters within the scope ofthe present Charter or relating to the powersand functions of any organs provided for in thepresent Charter." The Secretariat is, under Arti-cle 7 of the Charter, one of the principal organsof the United Nations and under Article 97 theSecretariat comprises the Secretary-General andthe Staff. Therefore, in the present case whenthe question has arisen as to the powers andfunctions of the Secretariat, Article 10 makes theGeneral Assembly the proper forum for the discus-sion of the question relating to such powers andfunctions. The fact that it is at the instance ofanother body that the Secretary-General has per-formed the acts does not alter the fact that thematter here relates to his powers and functionsparticularly when the submission is that the actin question fell outside such powers andfunctions.

Article 10 of the Charter would applyfor another reason. The Charter has contemplatedinternational economic cooperation and IMCOhas been created as a result of conference conven-ed by an organ of the UN to subserve one of thepurposes of the Charter, namely, to achieve inter-national cooperation in economic matter. If by theapplication of procedures not warranted by law, amember State is rendered unable fully to take partin the organization created on the initiation ofUN, it is certainly a matter which the GeneralAssembly can discuss. In the opinion on Genocidethe ICJ has said with regard to Genocide Conven-tion that:

"The precise determination of the condi- tions for participation in the Convention constitutes a paramount interest of direct

concern to the UN which has not dis- appeared with the entry into force of the Convention."

325 By a parity of reasoning it can be said in thepresent case that the General Assembly possessesinterest of direct concern in the matter of partici-pation of a member State of the UN in the IMCOand the present is, therefore, a question or amatter within the scope of the Charter.

Moreover, for the consideration of theprevious resolution of the General Assembly, theGeneral Assembly itself would be the properforum. The General Assembly may pass a re-solution clarifying or amplifying its previous re-solution. No other body would be competentto explain or clarify the resolution of the GeneralAssembly, or to pass a suitable resolution if thecircumstances of the case so require. TheSecretary-General himself would probably like tohave the position clarified by the General Assem-bly itself. In the opinion of the InternationalCourt of Justice it is stated that "the GeneralAssembly which drafted and adopted the GenocideConvention and the Secretary General who is thedepositary of instruments of ratification andaccession, have an interest in knowing the legaleffects of reservations to that convention and moreparticularly the legal effects of objections to suchreservations." We are sure that it would be inthe interest of the Secretariat itself that theGeneral Assembly should clarify the position andshould give proper guidance to the Secretary-General. This Committee is one of the mainCommittees for the discussion of legal questionsand we have complete confidence in the wisdomand judgment of this Committee. Moreover, thequestion is one of general application which mayarise in connection with other specialised agenciesand other conventions. IMCO will have nopower to give any guidance (if it could give anyguidance to the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations at all) in respect of the procedures to beadopted in relation to other specialised agenciesor other convention.

The Report of the Secretary-General saysthat the reference to the final decision of theIMCO Assembly would include the question ofunanimity also. The Report of the Secretary-General further says that the IMCO Assembly

had taken no decision on the question whether,the unanimity in vote in India's favour wasrequired. It was India's representative who attract-ed to IMCO the application of the rule of unanimi-ty. The draft resolution might not have referred tothe rule of unanimity but it is a matter of commonknowledge that there are talks and discussionsin the corridors which sometimes reveal theunderlying basis of the resolutions in addition tothe language thereof. The Indian representativeas pointed out earlier, had not given up the posi-tion that the declaration was not a reservation.

The questions of validity of reservationregarding payments of financial contributions orvoting procedure do not arise in the present caseat all. The report of the Secretary-General statesthat the General Assembly cannot fix a rule fordetermining the question of membership of anotherorganization nor take a decision on the interpre-tation of treaties and that that would amount tothe modification of the Convention. With this state-ment we do not agree. The question before theGeneral Assembly is one of the powers andfunctions of the Secretariat and in the discussionof this question no modification of the Conven-tion would be involved. The question is notreally one of interpretation of treaties and in anyevent a decision on the interpretation of a treatydoes not amount to the modification thereof. Inthe view of my delegation no complication canarise if the General Assembly expresses its view onthe subject and makes suitable recommendationsto IMCO. In doing so, the General Assemblywill not assume the role of a Court of Appeal.

It remains for me to place before theCommittee the objections raised against the ins-truments of acceptance by France and by WestGermany. Unlike the USA, France has, withoutconsidering the question whether the declarationamounted to reservation at all, raised the objec-tion on the ground that the unanimity rule appliesand has said that the reservations are valid onlyif they are accepted by all the State parties to thetreaty. Objections are raised to the wording ofthe Indian declaration on the ground which Iread as under :

"It is in the first place impossible to accept that the governing parties' con- vention should itself decide unilaterally that any measures which it might adopt

in the future with regard to the subjects covered by the Convention, shall auto- matically be deemed consistent with the Convention."

The declaration made by any government inthe instruments of acceptance has to be from thevery nature of the case unilateral. I have alreadydealt with the true meaning and purport of theIndian declaration. The declaration as it standsmust be accepted and the question of compatibi-lity would be judged on the footing that thedeclaration is true. But this again is a question,as stated above, which can only arise if thedeclaration amounts to a reservation. Theobjection then raised is that the declaration isnot precise and is strictly limited. No Govern-

326ment other than that of France has put thisinterpretation of the declaration and I hope Ihave been able to clearly demonstrate that thedeclaration is clear and is nothing but a re-statement of purposes mentioned in Article 1 (b)of the Convention.

The latter parts of the declaration do notimpose any conditions. They are founded uponthe basis that the functions of the IMCO amconsultative and advisory and the objection raisedby France omits to take notice of this aspect.The objection raised by the Federal Republic ofGermany is annexure 4 to the Secretary-General'sreport and it is submitted with respect that it isnot based on a correct reading of the Indiandeclaration.

In the end, I would submit that thelegal effect of depositing the Instrument ofacceptance by India with the Secretary-General ofthe United Nations, is that India became amember of IMCO, because -

(a) there was no reservation, and

(b) even if there had been any, objections raised by France and the Federal Republic of Germany could not and did not prevent India from becoming a member.

And ever since the date of deposit of theInstrument of Acceptance by India, India has

been a member of IMCO with all the rightsbelonging to such membership.

We have confidence in the goodwill ofthe member States and we believe in the principleof international cooperation. We are gratefulto the courtesy and consideration shown to us,and we hope that this Committee will-

(i) express itself in favour of the Indian point of view,

(ii) make suitable recommendations to the IMCO, and

(iii) give appropriate instructions to the Secretary-General.

There may be some matters in the Reportof the Secretary-General, or arising out ofthe report, which I may not have touched andwhich I shall deal later, if necessary. Mr.Chairman, I reserve the right to intervene at alater stage in the debate.

INDIA USA SWITZERLAND UNITED KINGDOM FRANCE GERMANY CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri G. S. Pathak's Statement in Legal Committee on Report ofInternational Law Commission

Shri Gopal Swarup Pathak, Member, IndianDelegation to the United Nations, made a state-ment in the Legal Committee (Sixth Committee)of the 14th session of the General Assembly onOctober 6, 1959 on the Report of the InternationalLaw Commission.

The following in the full text of the State-ment :

Mr. Chairman:

I wish to make only a few brief observations.My delegation has listened with great interestto the presentation made by Sir Gerald Fitzmau-rice, the distinguished Chairman of the Interna-tional Law Commission, of the report of its 11thsession. We are, indeed, fortunate in having adetailed account of the progress of the importantwork that is being done by the International LawCommission, given to us by a jurist of SirGerald's distinction and eminence.

We have read with care the report that isbefore us, and are in general agreement with themethods adopted by the International LawCommission in the performance of its arduoustask. In particular we endorse the view of theCommission contained in paragraph 13 of itsreport. The various sub-divisions of the Lawof Treaties, although inter-related in certainrespects, are to a large extent self-contained.And, therefore even though the work on thedifferent branches will have to be reviewed andadjustments made, the various sub-divisions couldbe dealt with separately. As the Articles presen-ted in the report are provisional, and may requirereconsideration at a later stage, we feel thatcomment on the text of the articles at this stagewould be premature and, consequently, we preferto wait until all articles dealing with the entiresubject have been codified.

We have also noted the suggestion of thedistinguished Chairman, mentioned in paragraph18 of the report that a code on the Law ofTreaties is more appropriate than a draft conven-tion on the subject. While we do not wish toprejudice any future decision by the InternationalLaw Commission, we ourselves are inclined toagree with this suggestion.

327 As regards the subject of Consular Inter-course and Immunities, we would like to paytribute to the work done by the InternationalLaw Commission and the distinguished SpecialRapporteur Mr. Zourek in this matter. We appre-ciate the reason which prevented the completion ofthe consideration of this subject by the Commis-sion, and we are glad to note that the Commissionwill give priority to this subject at its next session.My Government reserves its right to comment

on this matter at the appropriate time.

We regret that it has not been possible forthe International Law Commission, so far, tohave an observer present at the meetings of theAsian-African Legal Consulative Committee, andwe hope that it will be possible for the Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee to makesuch arrangements as would facilitate closerconsultation between the two bodies. As thereare present in this Committee some members ofthe Asian-African Legal Consultative Committeeas well as the distinguished Chairman of theInternational Law Commission, perhaps, byinformal consultations, some arrangements mightbe arrived at.

Turning now to the first draft resolutions,i.e., A/C.6/254 which is before this committee,my delegation is very happy, indeed, to supportthe joint draft resolution which takes note of thereport, and commends the International LawCommission on its work.

We shall support the resolution submittedby the distinguished delegate of El Salvador withregard to the Right of Asylum. My delegationagrees with the distinguished delegate of theUnited States that the question of when thismatter should be taken up by the Commissionshould be left to the Commission itself. Thismatter of Asylum, as has already been stated by anumber of delegations, is already before theHuman Rights Commission. Considerable dis-cussion took place during the last session of theCommission on Human Rights on this subjectand the delegation of India participated in thatdiscussion. We feel that there is close inter-rela-tion between the work on the subject done bythe Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-national Law Commission, and we have no doubtthat the latter will take into consideration theresult of the efforts of the former.

The Bolivian draft resolution is receiving ourconsideration and we shall make a statement, ifnecessary, later.

INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC EL SALVADOR BOLIVIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri Venkataraman's Statements in Fifth Committee

Shri R. Venkataraman, Member of theIndian Delegation to the United Nations, madetwo statements in the Administrative andBudgetary Committee (Fifth Committee) of theUnited Nations on October 15 and 19, 1959. Thefollowing is the text of the statement he madeon October 15, 1959

Mr. Chairman,

Several delegations have expressed apprecia-tion of the gallant efforts made by the Secretary-General to keep down the costs of administrationand keep up the efficiency of operation and levelof the services to the members. My delegationjoins in the tribute paid to the Secretary-General and to the members of his staff.

We have been accustomed in this Committeeto receive expert advice and guidance in ourexamination of Budget Estimates from thethoughtful Reports of the Advisory Committtee.These Reports are the result of hours of silenttoil and scrutiny of figures and estimates ofactivities spread over the entire globe. I mustconfess that without these invaluable Reports ourexamination of the Budget Estimates will besuperficial and unsatisfactory. My delegationhas expressed its deep appreciation year afteryear of the work of the Advisory Com-mittee and its wise Chairman AmbassadorAghnides but we feel that our words have alwaysfallen short of what the Committee and its ableChairman deserve.

My delegation is unable to share the compla-cency of the Secretary-General with regard to theBudgetary situation of the Organisation. Inpara 33 of his statement before the CommitteeDoc. A/C. 51782, the Secretary-General stated

that the assessment base for the year 1960would be 3 million dollars lower than in 1959and that itself was a pleasant prospect beforethe Budgetary Committee. While not denyingthe arithmetic, my delegation desires to point outthat the comparison obscures the fact that thesituations are not comparable and that the abnor-mal political and security situation of 1958necessitated supplementary appropriations of over6 million dollars in the year 1959. On the contrary,as pointed out by the Advisory Committee inpara 9 of Doc. A/4170, the real increase in 1960

328initial estimates over 1959 appropriations is 2million dollars and there are further Prospectsof increase in the estimates arising out of

(a) revision of the initial estimates

(b) additional expenditure arising out of decisions of the current session of the General Assembly, and

(c) possible unforeseen and extraordinary expenditure during the Budget year.

The need for vigilence and economy is there-fore constant and compelling.

Many delegations have drawn the pointedattention of the Committee to the ever increasingcosts of the Secretariat. My delegation sharesthe concern expressed by others in this Committeeregarding the mounting cost of staff. In the faceof the rising cost of maintaining even a stableestablishment, it is imperative that every effortshould be made to make the maximum use of thestaff so that any necessary expenditure of pro-grammes could, as far as possible, be accomplishedwith little or no additional resources. We mustalso ensure that, in addition to well-qualified staff,we have an administrative organisation andmachinery which will facilitate a greater outputand more efficient performance on the part of theSecretariat.

We agree with the Advisory Committee thatconsideration might be given to the need foran over-all review of the organisation of theSecretariat. We know that the Secretary-Generalhimself is of the view that the organisation of theSecretariat must be subject to constant scrutiny

and adjustment in order to meet changing require-ments, and to achieve maximum economies andsound administrative practices.

In our own national system such continuingscrutiny of organizational questions is performedby an organization and Methods Division. Inaddition, of course, there are also periodic over-all reviews by appropriate groups. The time mayhave come for such a fresh over-all look at theSecretariat of the United Nations, nearly five tosix years after the last occasion when we had asomewhat similar review.

In the view of my delegation, any group whichis charged with the responsibility for such an over-all review should be composed of persons outsidethe Secretariat or, at any rate, include such outsideelements. I wish, in this connection, to refer tothe management survey which was undertaken inthe F. A. O. some two or three years ago. Thatsurvey was performed by experts from the Organi-sation and Methods Division of the BritishTreasury, and it is my delegation's understandingthat the survey proved beneficial to the F. A. O.My delegation is confident that there is enoughexpertise in the Governments of Member Stateswhich might be used to explore ways and meansof improving the organisation and methods of theSecretariat.

From the very beginning my delegation hasnot been enthusiastic about change in the formof the Budget. At the 522nd meeting of the FifthCommittee the Chairman of the Delegation ofIndia who participated in the general debate onthe Budget said "the proposal was, however, opento grave objections on the part of Governmentsfor it would defeat the main purpose of budgetpresentation which was to enable the members toscrutinise the estimates given in all the details.'Again during the 13th Session of the GeneralAssembly my delegation expressed its grave doubtsabout relative advantages of the new form ofbudget. At the 644th meeting of the Fifth Com-mittee my delegation stated 'that a consolidationof the amounts such as travel costs or salary andwages is not likely to give a clear picture of thecosts involved project-wise and the advantages ofthe new form would be negligible". My delegationhas since carefully examined both the Report ofthe Secretary-General and the comments of theAdvisory Committee and it regrets that it has not

been convinced of the advantages of the new formof Budget. On the contrary, my delegation feelsthat all the information that were available to theCommittee in 1957 in the Budget presentation inthe old form is not now available to the Membersof the Committee and that the examination of theestimates, therefore, does suffer at least in certainsections. For a brief comparison my delegationwould refer to Section 3 of part I of the BudgetEstimates for the financial year 1957 Doc.A/3126dealing with the Economic and Social Council itsCommissions and Committees. In old presenta-tion the total expenditure in respect of Economicand Social Council, its Commissions and Commit-tees together with the break-up of expenditure foreach of the commission and committee, withseparate figures relating to the cost of travel ofmembers of staff, of the expenses for consultants,have all been given under separate chapter. Thesame information in the new presentation of theBudget will have to be pieced together fromChapter 3 of Part I of the Budget and from Section8 of Part III of the Budget rendering comparisonsdifficult if not impossible. Let us take againSection 21 of part VI of the Budget Estimates forthe year 1957 Doc. A/3126 dealing with the Eco-

329nomic Commission for Asia and Far East.Detailed information was available in the old formregarding cost of establishment, costs of consul-tants, of temporary assistance and over-timerelating to the Secretariat of the ECAFE, etc.All this information is not available in a consoli-dated sum in the Budget presentation in the newform though it is possible to call out some infor-mation regarding established posts from severalsections and annexes.

A national delegate is not particularlyinterested in knowing that the expenditure onSection 6 Salary and Wages would be 31.5 milliondollars and that on Section 7 Common Staff costs6.9 million dollars. They carry no particularsignificance to him. The budgetary decisionwhich the delegations desire to make are broadlyrelated to the functional activities of the Organiza-tion. They would like to know how much isbeing spent on economic and social activities,on trusteeship or public information and howre-allocation of the funds among the differentappropriations would affect the programmes.My delegation feels that in the long run the

present system will weaken the budgetary controlof the fifth Committee and reduce it to the posi-tion of merely discussing the differences betweenthe Advisory Committee on the one hand and theSecretary-General on the other. Economies indepartmental expenditure can be enforced onlyif expenditure is shown department-wise and incomparable form. Comparison of departmentalexpenditure over a period of say five years willreveal the trend in the department and will helpin the analysis of proposals for economy. Suchinformation will never get collected under thebudgetary form now in use. After a few yearsit will be almost impossible to compare theexpenditure of the Economic and Social Counciland its related activities in say 1965 with thosefor the year 1960 since the relevant informationwill not be available in any consolidated form.My delegation will deal with this question ingreater detail when this item comes up separatelyand will offer its suggestions for consideration bythe Committee.

Another matter which causes concern to mydelegation and which I am sure is being sharedby a number of other delegations in this Com-mittee is the prospect of increasing the WorkingCapital Fund. The Secretary-General has statedthat in June-July 1959 the cash position haddeteriorated to such an extent that he had toborrow from the special accounts in his custodyin pursuance of resolution 1341 (XIII) dated l3thDecember, 1958. My delegation was one of thosewho promoted a clear decision last year to enablethe Secretary-General to utilize on a temporaryadvance basis cash from other funds under thecustody of the Secretary-General. We are natu-rally gratified to note that this provision hasenabled the Secretary-General to tide over aserious situation in June 1959. However, this isonly an ad hoc remedy and cannot be a permanentsolution to the problem of low cash balances atcertain parts of the year. We are apprehensivethat an increase in the Working Capital Fundmay lead to increased defaults in payments byMember States and instead of solving the problemwe shall only be magnifying them. My delegationwould, therefore, venture to make a suggestionfor the consideration of the appropriate authoritiesand the Committee. I might make it clear at theoutset that what I am going to mention isprobably of a long-term significance and is notintended as a solution to the immediate problem

in the United Nations which has been accentuatedby certain special difficulties.

The Specialized Agencies of the United Na-tions and the International Atomic Energy Agencyhave among them Working Capital Funds whichtotal some 14 million dollars. In most cases theprimary purpose of the Fund is to finance expendi-tures pending receipt of contributions. It is myunderstanding-and here I may invite the attentionof members to paragraph 21 of Doc. A/4032which is thirty-third Report of the AdvisoryCommittee to the Thirteenth Session of theGeneral Assembly-that relatively little recourseis made to withdrawals from the Working CapitalFunds in the case of most of the SpecializedAgencies. Happily they seem to be better placedin regard to earlier receipt of contributions. Inother words, a substantial part of the total amountof some 14 million dollars remains unused atany given time. It seems to me that there mightbe some advantage in studying the possibility ofhaving a combined Working Capital Fund for allof the United Nations Organization covering theUnited Nations, its Specialized Agencies andAtomic Energy Agency.

The Working Capital Fund in each organisa-tion is a creation of the legislative body of theorganisation ; it is not a provision which is writteninto the constitution of the organisation. Thereshould, therefore, be no serious difficulty from aconstitutional point of view in setting up a singlefund from which advances could be made to theseveral organisations as and when necessary.This fund might be placed under the custody ofthe Secretary-General of the United Nations withappropriate provisions for the necessary advancesto be made to the several organisations as andwhen necessary.

330 Even as we have a Joint Staff Pension Fund,we may have a common Working Capital Fundfor U.N. and its Specialized Agencies.

I should like the Secretary-General and theexecutive heads of the Specialized Agencies toconsider this question as a long term solution tothe recurring problem of low cash balances.

My delegation has always maintained thatpeace is the concern of all the nations of the

world and problems like disarmament are notconfined to Major Powers. In financial termsthis must include a readiness to share the legiti-mate costs emanating from such actions initiatedby the United Nations. At the same time mydelegation would voice the apprehension of oursas well as other delegations against the increasingburdens of such obligations. My delegation isaware of other thoughts in the Committeeregarding the sharing of costs of operationsconnected with the U.N.E.F. All these ideashave to be carefully scrutinized before endorsedand since the question of U.N.E.F. contributions iscoming up as a separate item later in our agenda,my delegation will refrain from commenting onthis question further.

My delegation would like to reiterate thesuggestion my delegation put forward during thegeneral debate on the Budget last year withregard to the need for examination of the fre-quency of meetings of the subsidiary commissionsand committees of the organs of the UnitedNations. I would draw the attention of theCommittee to the observations of the AdvisoryCommittee contained in paragraph 8 of Doc.A/4223. The Advisory Committee while con-curring the proposal to increase the membershipof the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Dis-crimination and Protection of Minorities hasstated "the committee trusts that the frequency ofthe sessions of the Sub-Commission would alsobe reviewed when the Economic Council next exa-mines the periodicity of meetings of its functionalcommissions". In paragraph 35 of Doc. A/4170the Committee has also stated "a pattern ofmeeting which is too frequent not only involvessubstantial expenditure in terms of meeting costsbut has a greater disadvantage as it might leaveinsufficient time for adequate preparatory workand careful and unhurried study of the problemsin question within the Secretariat". In the interestof efficiency even more than economy, suchappraisal seems to be called for.

My delegation would briefly refer at thisstage to the Secretary-General's report on theimplementation of the resolution 1335 (XIII) onPublic Information Activities. Though theSecretary-General's report reflects some limitedprogress my delegation regrets that after theserious and time consuming efforts of the expertCommitee and the extensive discussions in the

Fifth Committee the Secretary-General did not findit possible to implement or accept even a numberof important recommendations of the ExpertCommittee. While it seems that certain sugges-tions and recommendations which implied addedemphasis in certain areas have found an echo inthe Secretary-General's report, other recommenda-tions which asked for curtailment or adjustmentsin other areas have not found the same response.My delegation has no doubt that the Secretary-General has given serious thought to the variousproblems and proposals ; at the same time mydelegation is disappointed at the progress achievedor intended to be achieved in the field of imple-mentation of the recommendations of the ExpertCommittee. The senior officials who constitutedthe Secretariat Committee entrusted with this taskof implementing the resolution of last year areundoubtedly men of great ability but with veryheavy load of their own normal and in fact very im-portant work and it would not be entirely fair toexpect constant, continuous and uninterruptedattention on their part to the public informationmatters. My delegation will go into details whenthe separate item on Public Information is takenup for consideration and will content itself at thisstage by stating that the absence of an officialresponsible for implementating the programmesand policies adopted by the General Assemblyin its resolution last year has robbed the reportof the Secretary-General of much of its valuewhich it would otherwise have had.

Appropriation for the Economic Commissionfor Africa has tipped off a needless controversy.In the understanding of my delegation the AdvisoryCommittee has not (repeat not) declined theappropriation requested but has estimated thatthe expenses in 1960 were likely to be below theamount requested and has provided for what, inits opinion, is likely to be reached in the year1960. The Advisory Committee has further statedthat in the event the building up of Secretariatwent faster, it would review the situation andauthorise additional funds as necessary. Alongwith the delegation of U. A. R. the delegation ofIndia took an active interest in the project for theEconomic Commission of Africa and is deeplyinterested in its growth and development. Sinceit is not the intention of the Advisory Committeeto suggest any cut in this item of expenditure-and this was abundantly made clear in the inter-ventions of the Chairman of that Committee-

and as the delegations of the Region feel more

331assured by restoring the appropriations; my dele-gation will be very happy to lend its support tothe same so that the place of economic develop-ment of the African Region may be accelerated.

My delegation will conclude by expressingits appreciation of the munificent gift of 6.2million dollars by the Ford Foundation for theconstruction of the United Nations library.

On October 19, Shri Venkataraman said:

As the Fifth Committee is aware, the IndianDelegation has taken a particular interest in publicinformation about the United Nations. At the 11thSession my delegation sponsored the reference tothe Advisory Committee for recommendations toconduct an objective study and appraisal. At the12th Session we supported the appointment ofan Expert Committee. At the last Session weparticipated fully in the discussion of the Reportand supported the Resolution which expressed theconsensus of this Committee. We have since follow-ed the work of the Office of Public Informationboth here and in our country.

Mr. Chairman, this sustained interest of myGovernment arises from our conviction that thepromotion of public understanding of the UnitedNations is indispensable for the success of thisOrganisation. Let me add quite frankly that forseveral years we have felt uneasy with the resultsachieved and the working methods employed bythe Department of Public Information. Weregarded an annual vote of the order of 5 milliondollars as a substantial expenditure and we werenot satisfied that this Assembly was getting thebest value for the monies spent.

Our uneasiness was strengthened by theReport of the Expert Committee. The mainfindings of the Report indicated that there waslittle over-all planning, that production was notrelated to actual needs, that much of the outputwas wasted especially abroad and that theDepartment was not putting to good use themillions of people and agencies able and willingto help the United Nations.

The Resolution 1335(XIII) was simply a

request to the Secretary-General to give effectin 1959 to the extent practicable, those recommen-dations of the Expert Committee or to any othermeans which, in his opinion, would further theobjectives set forth in the resolution with maxi-mum effect at minimum cost. Thus, the Secretary-General was given a set of objectives and re-quested to take what practical means he couldto achieve these objectives. The Secretary-Gene-ral's report on implementation Document A/4122must therefore be appraised by the criteria wegave him in Resolution 1335(XIII).

What are these criteria? Paraphrasing thepreambular clauses of the Resolution these arethe tests we should apply in this examination ofthe implementation during 1959:

1. Has the O.P.I. made available ob- jective and factual information ?

2. Has priority been given to the use of media of information?

3. Has greater emphasis been laid on enlisting the cooperation of Member governments, media of information, non- governmental organisations and educationists ?

4. Has greater emphasis been given to the operations and effectiveness of Information Centres ?

My delegation is happy to take up theseobjectives or criteria in their order of enumeration-because we would like to go on record asexpressing satisfaction with the implementationof the first requirement. The objectivity andfactual content of United Nations informationhas been fairly maintained. And this informationhas been made available freely to the media ofinformation. This is true particularly of theoutput of the press section but it is also sub-stantially correct with respect to the output ofradio news. In all such matters there is room fordifferences on the degree of attention given to thecoverage of one or other subject but the contenthas always been sound and informative.

The second objective of Resolution 1335(XIII)calls for "priority to the use of all media ofinformation which ensure maximum effectiveness

at minimum cost". Satisfaction of this objective,as the Secretary-General rightly points out, callsfor "strengthening field operations without im-pairing the present facilities for the servicing ofmass media of mass communications at Head-quarters". Putting aside field operations for themoment, we note with satisfaction that Head-quarters Services to media representatives arebeing maintained at last year's level. The Secre-tary-General anticipates in para. 31 of DocumentA/4122 an increase in the number of press andradio representatives at Headquarters. If thisincrease materializes and if the services requiredas reasonable demands from established journalsand radio networks, additional facilities should be

332considered. For the present the Indian Delegationnotes with satisfaction that Headquarters faci-lities are adequate and managed by the PressDivision to the apparent satisfaction of its ratherdemanding clientele. My delegation would liketo add also that the facilities provided by O.P.I.are put to good use. Over the years a corps ofreporters and interpreters thoroughly conversantwith United Nations work and principles hasbeen built up. We do not always agree withtheir judgment of news value or their inter-pretations but, on the whole, the ideals of theorganisation are well served by these competent,and critical but devoted friends of the UnitedNations.

My delegation feels that the services andfacilities made available to mass media of infor-mation not represented at Headquarters are notsatisfactory but this matter we shall take up inexamining overseas work generally.

The two other objectives of Resolution1335(XIII)--greater emphasis on enlisting coopera-tion and greater emphasis on the InformationCentres-are closely related and might thereforebe taken together in our evaluation of DocumentA/4122. They are both concerned with whatis referred to as "field operations" the "field"being the Member States.

In examining these aspects, my delegationwould like to recall to the Members of the Com-mittee the basic principles cited and reaffirmed inour Resolution last year. Resolution 1335(XIII)reaffirmed the prior directive of the General

Assembly to the Secretariat to use fully, to ex-ploit, if you will, official and private assistanceincluding those of mass media of information andin doing so to give special attention to the needsof the less developed countries. Renewed em-phasis was given to these directives by the ExpertCommittee and in our repeated references to thebasic principles in last year's debate. Againstthis background, Mr. Chairman, let us examinethe practical measures taken during the year tostrengthen the field operations, since it is mainlythrough the Information Centres that Govern-mental as well as Non-Governmental and privateowned media of information can be betterutilised.

Paras 36 to 47 of Document A/4122 bear apoor record of implementation of the basic princi-ples. Of the eight officers who will be outposted tocertain capitals, two will go to Geneva anWashington. Nothing is mentioned about theduties of these officers nor has any reason beeadduced as to why it is necessary to give priorityto strengthening Geneva and Washington. Againas the distinguished representative of Japanincisively put it at the last meeting, there is noanalysis of how the increased allocation of 90,000dollars over 1958 expenditure is utilised invarious services such as radio, film, television andpublications.

The question of improving library facilitiesat the Centres on which the Expert Committeelaid so great emphasis is only under "consi-deration".

The recommendation of the Expert Committeeregarding the interchange of personnel betweenthe O.P.I. and substantive departments so thatthere may be a continuous flow of new bloodand fresh experience, has escaped the attention ofthe Secretary-General.

Again the choice of Geneva and Washingtonfor strengthening cooperation with non-govern-mental organisations cannot enthuse this com-mittee because the non-governmental organi-sation in other continents which struggle alongwith very little or no resources should havereceived a kinder consideration at the hands ofthe Secretary-General in priority to the welldeveloped centres of Geneva and Washington.

As regards the field programmes, my delega-tion feels that adequate attention has not beenpaid to the views of the majority of the membersregarding the publication of the Reviews inEnglish, French and Spanish. It was urged thatthese Reviews should be vehicles of adequatefactual information of use to those who followedU.N. activities closely and desired to utilise themas basic material for their own productions. TheEnglish Review, however has continued to remainmore or less the same with some factual featuresadded, but still largely a feature magazine printedon heavy glossy paper and priced 50 cents a copy-a substantial sum for other than fashionmagazines even in this country. My delegationventures to suggest that a more appropriate formatfor an essentially factual magazine, one moresuitable for air transport and overseas distributionmay be adopted by the O.P.I. For identificationof the format, my delegation suggests the weeklyManchester Guardian or the Weekly Hindu frommy own country. Such format will enable thepublic and overseas readers to obtain informationquickly and at a reasonable price.

My delegation desires to reiterate the impor-tance of regular annual publication of the veryuseful book of reference namely the Every-man'sUnited Nations. My delegation notes with regret

333that the latest English edition is dated 1956 andthat the French and Spanish editions are mucholder. Let me now turn to another important subjectnamely, the increase in the number of informationcentres. On this subject there was generalagreement in the Committee as stated by theRapporteur (Document A/C. 5/L. 555) that O.P.I.should study the present geographical situationof the centres with special reference to the areasof less developed media ; that the policy shouldbe shaped with due regard to new member states,the still unfulfilled needs of other Member States,and the unfavourable position of some Statesserved by Centres in other countries with differentlanguages and traditions. Now, documentA/4122 is content merely to state that considera-tion will have to be given to this matter. At the11th Session we adopted Resolution 1086, whichdrew attention to "the desirability of the establish-ment of information centres on the basis of theregional and linguistic distribution referred to in

the Basic Principles and recommended favourableattention to the establishment of centres in thenew Member States. But very little progress hasbeen achieved in that direction.

Let us consider the regional distribution ofInformation Centres today as shown in the Annexto the Expert Commitees' Repart (A/3928). Mak-ing allowance for the new Information Centre inBurma there are :

8. Centres or offices in Asia and the Far East

(Bangkok, Djakarta, Karachi, New Delhi, Sydney, Tokyo and Rangoon.

3 in Middle East and Africa

(Accra, Cairo and Tehran)

5 in Latin America

(Bogota, Buenos Aires, Mexico, Rio de Janeiro and Santiago (Chile)

11 in Europe and North America

(Athens, Belgrade, Copenhagen, Geneva, The Hague, London, Moscow, Paris, Prague, Rome and Washington).

If we note that Tokyo and Sydney are not in lessdeveloped areas, the figures show that 13 of the27 offices are in advanced countries and 14 in theareas to which O.P.I. is directed to give specialattention.

Nor do the figures of the number of Centrestell the whole story. An analysis shows that ofthe 57 officers in Information Centres and officessome 31 are in advanced countries and 26 areposted to the less developed areas.

My delegation submits that this situation of thenumber and distribution of Information Centresis not very satisfactory. The meaning of Resolu-tion 1086(XI) and of the opinion in this Committeelast year was clear-that new centres must beadded especially in the regions of Asia and theFar East, the Middle East and Africa and LatinAmerica without additional cost to the organisa-tion. How feasible that is will be clear from thestudy of Headquarters arrangements to which I

now turn.

These arrangements are described in theSections of Document A/4122 headed Changes inOrganisation at Headquarters and Programmingat Headquarters to strengthen Field operationsand I shall confine myself to two significant pointsdeserving careful consideration in this Committee.

The first of these relates to the organisationof the External Relations Division, a matter toWhich the Expert Committee rightly gave thegreatest importance in its Report. Their con-clusions were that the Division to be called aBureau should be responsible for the planning ofthe entire work of the Department in accordancewith the needs of the various regions. The secondpoint made was that the Bureau should beorganised largely on a regional basis each regionalsection being composed of a senior officer and anassistant both of them with special knowledge ofthe regions they serve.

The Secretary-General in his written A/3945doubted the desirability of placing over-all plan-ning under one division of the Department. Inhis present report A/4122 it is stated that after"very searching exploration" the organisationalchanges suggested did not prove feasible. Mydelegation feels that in a matter such as how over-all planning in a Department should be donemust be left to the Secretary-General's direction.So long as there is systematic and continuousplanning we shall accept the Secretariat decisionon this matter.

However, we attach the greatest importanceto the structure of the External Relations Divi-sion because of its effect on overseas work. Ifthis division is to be really sensitive to the needsof the Centres and the areas they serve it must bepatterned on a regional basis with area officerswhose responsibility it is to keep the closest touch

334with the needs of the regions they serve. It isimportant that the officers of the External Rela-tions Division like the Centre Directors them-selves should have a reasonable competence in allaspects of the work. The essential qualificactionof the External Relations Division is that it shouldbe able to speak with intimate knowledge andauthority on the needs of various regions and to

bring this knowledge of practical requirements tobear effectively on the planning of informationwork. Unless this is done we know that the needsof the less-developed regions will go by default asit has done all these years.

Mr. Chairman, while on this matter, mydelegation draws attention again to the geographi-cal composition of the O. P. I. In doing, so Iwish to emphasise that we are not here concernedwith the general equity of fair representation forall Member States. We are concerned with thenecessity for a department charged with world-wide public information responsibilities beingsensitive to the requirements, interests and reac-tion of all Member States. A sound knowledgeof the most effective and least expensive techni-ques is essential, as also judgment based on thepolitical, economic and social outlook. Unlessthe Office of Public Information at Headquartershas at the policy-making level a really represent-ative character, in broad regional if not nationalterms, it will continue to miss many opportunitiesfor effective work.

The Expert Committee in paragraph 127which was singled out for special mention in ourresolution last year was most reasonable in itscomment on the subject. The Committee said.

"It is recognised that within the narrow field of a single department of the Uni- ted Nations Secretariat, it may not be possible to obtain a balance staff re- presenting in due proportion the various Member States. The Committee, how- ever, attaches great importance to ensur- ing that the O.P.I. reflects broad cultural regions in its staffing pattern."

Mr. Chairman, mere figures for variousnationalities at all levels will be no answer tothe criticism. But what we need is an adequatediversity of culture at the policy-making levels inthe Department. While we do not doubt thecomplete international integrity of these officers,we insist that it is impossible to be effective inthe work of planning information work for thewhole world with a limited budget if there is norepresentation at the policy-making level of allstreams of culture.

Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to complete

this study of information work without referringto a medium of the greatest value all over theworld-the film medium with its immense poten-tialities for education as well as information.

On this subject the Expert Committee's re-commendations were short, explicit and thorough-ly practical. The Committee defined the primaryresponsibility of the film unit as film coverage ofUnited Nations activities with field operationsbeing covered as far as possible through facilitiesof the Governments. It envisaged production ofdocumentaries not by the United Nations butwith its help, by independent producers andgovernment film units, the Information Centresstimulating local production.

This recommendation is in line with the ex-perience of all governments and inter-govern-mental agencies. The main function should beto provide news-reel and documentary materialand thus enable outside producers to make theirown feature and documentary films. The im-mensely expensive problem of adequate. prints andeffective distribution for longer films cannot betackled by an official agency with limited re-sources.

Nevertheless, the film unit has gone on pro-ducing on its own. Not discouraged by the factthat in 1958 a sum of 34,000 dollars excludingstaff costs was spent on a film of the Suez Crisisentitled Blue Vanguard the Division has this yearproduced a much more ambitious feature filmentitled Power Among Men running for no lessthan ninety minutes. A documentary of an hourand a half's duration is almost a contradiction interms. We learn from press releases that the filmis of high quality and we are prepared to believeit, but it is not reasonable to expect that the con-siderable costs of a feature film could be recoveredby commercial exploitation. To the productioncost much naturally be added staff time and travelexpenses over several months.

Another example of film activities was seenin our country when two film officers arrived toexplore production possibilities. This type ofactivity, exploration of locations for possible films,belongs to Hollywood not to the United Nations.All the information required was readily availablefrom the technical assistance experts, the CentreDirectors and the Government.

I have said enough, however, to show howentirely misconceived the whole film programmeis. This, Mr. Chairman, is a very sizeable itemof expenditure and my delegation cannot see its

335way to approve these costs unless we receive assu-rances that the monies will be spent for the properpurposes of covering United Nations activities andmeeting educational requirements like film stripsand slides.

Document A/4122 makes a special plea fora Television Studio arguing that the expenseswould be rapid by earnings. My delegation feelsthat the alleged revenue will prove illusory if onetakes into account the real costs, namely, staffcosts, costs of operation and equipment. Consi-dering again the comparatively limited area thattelevision would serve, my delegation is reluctantto authorise heavy expenditure on this media atpresent.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a refer-ence to one other matter which engaged our atten-tion last year, the possibility of setting up anAdvisory Committee to advise the Secretary-General. This proposal was acceptable to theSecretary-General last year it being understoodthat the body proposed would be advisory on thepattern broadly of the UNEF Advisory Committee.The Advisory Committee on Public Informationmay give their pointed attention to the imple-mentation of the broad mandate given to theO.P.I. in the Resolutions of the General Assemblythe implementation over a period of the usefulrecommendations of the Expert Committee andgenerally bring the Regional requirements to thenotice of the O.P.I. for more effective coverage.Besides, Mr. Chairman, the Fifth Committeeneed not devote such a detailed consideration ofthe Office of Public Information year after yearif it is adequately served by an Advisory Com-mittee. My delegation will, therefore, supportany proposal for the consideration of such acommittee.

The distinguished representative of Japan hasasked some very pertinent questions on the interneprogrammes, a subject of special importanceto the less-developed countries far away fromthe many services of the Headquarters. As he

pointed out the Expert Committee's recommenda-tions (para 168 of A/3928) call for a planned pro-gramme to cover teachers of secondary schools,and active workers in essentially educational non-governmental organisations and coming mainlyfrom the under-developed countries. The selectionof candidates was to be made by joint consulta-tions between the governments concerned, thenon-governmental organisations and the Informa-tion Centre Directors. Funds for 1959 were ap-proved by the Advisory Committee on conditionthat the programme would be prepared in thelight of the Expert Committee's recommendations.My delegation would like to have full informa-tion covering all these points more particularlyas to the proportion of internes from less-develop-ed countries and other countries, as compared tothe previous year, as to the steps taken to consultgovernments and non-governmental organisationsin their selection and the selections from whichinternes have been chosen this year, so that wecould examine as to how far there has been imple-mentation of these recommendations in 1959programmes.

In conclusion my delegation desires to statethat though some limited progress has beenachieved in the implementation of the Resolution1335 of the 13th Session, constant and continuedattention is still required over a period of yearsto this very important section of the U.N. activi-ties. My delegation cannot, therefore, take thereport A/4122 as the final conclusion of Secretariataction on either the resolution passed last yearor on the recommendations of the Expert Com-mittee. We would accept the position taken bythe distinguished representative of the UnitedKingdom that document A/4122 represents onlyan interim report on the implementation of theresolution passed last year and look forward tofurther reports from Secretary-General with regardto the progress of the implementation of thevarious recommendations in the field of PublicInformation activities.

INDIA USA FRANCE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC SWITZERLAND JAPAN BURMA INDONESIAPAKISTAN AUSTRALIA EGYPT GHANA IRAN ARGENTINA COLOMBIA MEXICO CHILE DENMARKGREECE YUGOSLAVIA RUSSIA UNITED KINGDOM CZECH REPUBLIC ITALY

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Special Fund Aid

A Standared Agreement between the UnitedNations Special Fund and the Government ofIndia was signed in New Delhi on October 20,1959. This agreement embodies conditions underwhich the United Nations Special Fund will assistthe Government of India in respect of all projectsalready approved or to be approved in future.

The Agreement was signed by Mr. JamesKeen, Resident Representative in India of theUnited Nations Technical Assistance Board onbehalf of the Managing Director of the SpecialFund and Shri N. C. Sen Gupta, I. C. S., JointSecretary, Ministry of Finance, Department ofEconomic Affairs, on behalf of the Governmentof India.

The Special Fund was created under a UnitedNations resolution in October 1958 for large scaletechnical assistance projects designed to have

336immediate impact on economic and social develop-ment of under-developed and semi-developedcountries.

During the first year of its operation, theSpecial Fund has already sanctioned in favour ofIndia one project and approved three more pro-jects covering about $4 million in foreign exchange.The project of an Industrial Instructors' TrainingInstitute to be set up near Calcutta has alreadybeen sanctioned. The projects which have beenapproved in principle are : Power EngineeringResearch Institutes at Bhopal and Bangalore, aCentral Mechanical Engineering Research instituteat Durgapur and three Regional Labour Institutesat Calcutta, Kanpur and Madras.

The Government of India contributed in 1959

the equivalent of $ 590,000 to the Special Fund,and for 1960, would be contributing upto anequivalent of $ 2 million i. e. four times last year'scontribution if the total resources of the SpecialFund reached the 100 million dollar target, asoriginally planned. If the total resources of theFund do not reach this figure, India's contributionWould be proportionate.

INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

ITALY

Trade Agreement Signed

A new trade agreement between India andItaly was signed at Rome on October 6, 1959.

The agreement was signed on the Indian sideby Shri K.B. Lall, Additional Secretary, Ministryof Commerce and Industry, and on the Italianside, by Ambassador Casto Caruso, Director-General of Economic Affairs in the ItalianMinistry of External Affairs. The Trade Agree-ment - between the two countries concluded inJuly 1954 expired recently.

Underlining the need to increase the exchangesbetween the two countries, the new agreement laysstress on greater economic and commercial co-operation for mutual benefit. To this end acommission has been set up to facilitate consulta-tions between the two Governments and to adoptpractical measures' for promoting and extendingcooperation between industrial enterprises,commercial organisations and banks on both sides.

The agreement comes into force immediatelyon signature and will remain valid until June 30,1960. It will be renewed automatically foranother year unless either party gives three months'

notice of its intention to terminate it. Two listsof commodities available for export from Indiato Italy and from Italy to India are annexed tothe agreement.

ITALY INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Joint Communique on Indo-Pakistan Border Talks.

The Ministry of External Affairs, Governmentof India, issued on October 24, 1959 the followingcommunique after the conclusion of the Minister-level Conference on border disputes between Indiaand Pakistan held in New Delhi and Dacca fromOctober 18 to 22, 1959

At their meeting on 1st September, 1959,the President of Pakistan and the Prime Ministerof India agreed, in pursuance of their desire topromote good neighbourly relations between theirtwo countries on a rational basis, to an Indo-Pakistan conference at Minister level to devisemeasures to end disputes and incidents on theIndo-East Pakistan border. This Minister-levelConference, with Sardar Swaran Singh and Lt.General K. M. Shaikh. leading their respectivedelegations, started in Delhi on 15th October,1959, continued its deliberations at Dacca from18th to 20th and had its concluding session atDelhi on 21st and 22nd October.

The Delegations approached the variousquestions discussed in a positive and constructivespirit and, while they had full and frank exchangeof views, the objectives of arriving at agreeddecisions and procedures to end disputes andincidents and establishing and maintaining peace-ful conditions on the Indo-East Pakistan borderregions throughout guided the deliberations of

337the Conference.

The fact that there has been no settlement ofthe respective claims of India and Pakistan inthe areas of the Patharia Forest Reserve and theKushiyara river in accordance with the RadcliffeAward in spite of these disputes having been referredto an international tribunal which gave awards in1950 has been one of the principal causes ofconflict and tension along these Indo-East Pakistanborder areas. The leaders of the two Delegationsagreed that these and other disputes between thetwo countries should be resolved in a spirit ofgive and fake in the larger interest of bothcountries. With a view to avoiding dislocationin the life of the population of these border areasand promoting friendly relations, the followingagreed decisions have been reached in respect ofthese disputes :

(i) The dispute concerning Bagge AwardNo.. III should be settled by adopting a rationalboundary in the Patharia Forest Reserve region. (ii) The dispute concerning Bagge Award No.IV in the Kushiyara river region should be settledby adopting the thana boundaries of Beani Bazaarand Karimganj as per notification No. 5133-Hdated the 28th May, 1940 as the India-EastPakistan boundary.

(iii) The status-quo should be restored: inTukergram.

It was also agreed that detailed proceduresshould be worked out to maintain peace on theIndo-East Pakistan border and to bring immediatelyunder control any incident that may occur.

Detailed ground rules to be observed by theborder security forces of both sides, which amongother things, provide that no border outpost will belocated within 150 yards of the border, on eitherside, and other procedures laid down in the groundrules regarding frequent contacts between thosein charge of border security forces and otherofficials of the Governments concerned at variouslevels, will secure maintenance of peaceful condi-tions on the Indo-East Pakistan border and ensurethat immediate action is taken to re-establishpeace should any incident unfortunately occur.

Detailed procedures for expediting progressof demarcation work and for orderly adjustmentof territorial jurisdiction, due regard being had tolocal agricultural practices and the interests of thelocal border population, have been worked out. Itwas also agreed that, in their quarterly review, theGovernments of East Pakistan, West Bengal,Assam and Tripura will ensure that the targetdates for progressing demarcation work areobserved.

Both Governments re-affirmed theirdetermination to resolve border disputes bynegotiation and agreed that all outstanding boun-dary disputes on the East Pakistan-India borderand the West Pakistan-India border, raised sofar by either country, should, if not settled bynegotiation, be referred to an impartial tribunalfor settlement and implementation of thatsettelment by demarcation on the groundand by exchange of territorial jurisdictionif any.

Both Governments agreed to appeal tothe press to exercise restraint and assist in themaintenance and promotion of friendly relationsbetween India and Pakistan. In furtherance ofthis objective, both Governments agreed to takeearly action for a meeting of the Indo-PakistanInformation Consultative Committee which isbeing revived.

Both Governments are resolved to imple-ment, in full and as expeditiously as possible, theNoon-Nehru Agreement and the present agreementon Indo-East Pakistan border settlements and tothat end to devise expeditiously the legal andconstitutional procedures necessary for implemen-tation. Both Governments agreed to maintaincontact with each other continuously on theprogress of implementation of these agreementsand to carry out periodical reviews of the workingof the procedures adopted to maintain peacefuland friendly relations in the border regions.

PAKISTAN INDIA USA UNITED KINGDOM CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Ground Rules for Border Guards

As instructed by the leaders of the twodelegations the Military sub-committee met on the17th October, 1959. In pursuance of the directive,this joint paper was written by Major GeneralUmrao Khan, S. Pk., G.O.C., 14th Division, EastPakistan, and Lt. General S.P.P. Thorat, DSO-G.O.C.-in-Chief, Eastern Command, India. Fromthe Pakistan side Mr. S.M. Koreishi, P.F.S., UnderSecretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and fromthe Indian side Brigadier Ghasi Ram, Commander181 Inf. Bde. also attended the meeting.

For the sake of clarity the paper is dividedinto two parts - part I deals with the basic

338requirements which will have direct bearing onthe implementation of the "Ground Rules" whichare outlined in Part II. We earnestly feel thatunless the basic requirements are fulfilled, theimplementation of the "Ground Rules" will notbe as effective as we would like them to be.

The Ground Rules formulated in this paperdeal with the Indo-East Pakistan border.

PART I

2. During the general discussions betweenthe two delegations held from the 15th to 19thOctober, 1959, it was agreed :-

(a) That legal provision must be made foreffecting the exchange of territories after demar-cation has taken place, wherever it becomesnecessary.

(b) That the boundary should be demarca-ted as early as administratively possible. Theprogress of demarcation should be reviewed everyquarter by the Government of Pakistan and Indiawith reference to the field programmes settled bythe D.L. Rs and necessary action taken to resolvedifficulties, if any, and to expedite progress of

demarcation work. In case of a dispute. thedisputed portion may be left out, the dispute beingreported cartorgaphically and in writing to theChief Secretaries of the Governments concernedwho would resolve the. dispute or refer to theCentral Government concerned and the demar-cation should proceed from where the disputedarea ends.

(c) That following demarcation, exchangeof territories in sizeable stretches of the bordershould by agreement take place without waitingfor the entire length of the border to be de-marcated. To implement this it was agreed that thetransfer of territorial jurisdiction should takeplace on an agreed date which All not be laterthan the 31st of December of the year in whichdemarcation has been, completed by the 31st ofMay. The State Government shall make everyattempt to speedily transfer the territorial juris-diction of these areas in respect of which thefollowing processes have been completed :-

(i) The mechanical part of the process ofdemarcation would be deemed to be completedwhen the final traverse has been done after con-struction of pillars and the position of the pillarshas been jointly checked and proved by theD.L. Rs concerned;

(ii) Necessary time should be allowed tothe farmers to harvest their crops before thetransfer of territorial jurisdiction; and

(iii)Before the transfer of territorial jurisdic-tion, the authorities on the two sides should collectdata on the populated and farm areas and onproperties held by individuals. This will enablethe Governments concerned to exchange thesedata and ensure that special responsibility isplaced on the local commanders and/or policeand other officials to provide full protection tothe person and property of the people so thattheir interests are not prejudiced by the transferof jurisdiction on the agreed date.

PART II

3. On, the Indo-East Pakistan border thesecurity forces of both the countries are locatedin close proximity of each other. Owing to avariety of reasons there have been occasional

firings across the border. The causes whichusually lead to firing are :-

(a) Often, border security forces on bothsides do not know where the International Boun-dary lies on the ground. Therefore, whennationals of the other country cross into what theythink is their territory, fire is opened to preventthe ingress.

(b) Where the boundary in the riverine areais crisscross and portions of land on the homeside of the river are owned by the other country,fire is opened when these lands are cultivated orattempts are made to dispossess their rightfulowners.

(c) When a char land is formed after thefloods, whether in the bed of the river or as anaccretion of the mainland, attempt is made bynationals of both countries to seize the newlyformed char lands. This leads to claims andcounter-claims as to which side owns the charlands. Firing is resorted to support claims of therespective sides.

(d) When the river falls on the internationalboundary, fishing and navigational disputes occurand fire is opened to stop cattle lifting or otherraids by local inhabitants on either side.

(e) Occasionally fire is opened because ofsuspected movement in the vicinity of bordersecurity posts-this happens usually at night.

(f) Sometimes a build-up of border securityforces leads to a race between the two countries and

339tempers are frayed. A "trigger happy" personlets off a round and this develops into a shootingmatch.

4. The problem is how to prevent suchfirings.

Most of the causes for the firing can beeliminated or at least considerably lessened if thesecurity forces on either side 'keep out' of eachothers way. (This does not apply in the case ofcommanders as stated in para 6 to 8 below).

5. We think that the possibility of fire being

opened will be considerably reduced if bordersecurity forces on both sides observe the followingsimple rules :-

(a) Where the international boundary is notproperly demarcated by pillars, a "working boun-dary" which can be easily indentified on theground should be decided between the commandersof the border security forces of both sides.The working boundary will be decided uponas under :-

(i) Assam/East Pakistan Border : BetweenD.G., E.P.R., and Commander 181 Inf. Bde.

(ii) West Bengal/East Pakistan BorderBetween D.G., E.P.R. and I.G.P. West BengalBorder.

(iii)Tripura East Pakistan Border : BetweenD.G., E.P.R. and I.G.P. Tripura.

(b) The working military boundary may ormay not coincide with the International boundaryand its acceptance by both sides will not committhe two Governments in any manner in respect oftheir de jure claims. The working military boun-dary should, if necessary, be marked in somesimple manner and the demarcations should beshown jointly and recorded on one inch maps.

(c) After an identifiable boundary linewhether real or working has been demarcated,neither side will have any permanent or temporaryborder security forces or any other armed per-sonnel within 150 yards on either side of this line.Also no permanent posts will be constructed tillthe final demarcation has been done.

(d) This will not prevent either side frompatrolling up to the 'real' or 'working' boundaryprovided :-

(i) Where possible adequate warning is givento the other side; (ii) Patrols are small in numbers, i. e. notexceeding a section (1 & 10); Patrols will invari-ably move with flags.

(iii)Nothing but non-automatic small armsare carried by the patrol.

(e) If defensive works of any nature includ-

ing trenches exist in the stretch of 300 yards(150 yards on each side of the working boundary)they must be destroyed or filled up.

(f) It will be the duty of the border securityforces on either side to prevent armed civilianentering the 300 yards stretch of the border (150yards on either side of the working boundary).

(g) Border security forces of both sides arecharged with the responsibility of preventingsmuggling in their respective areas. Therefore itis incumbent upon them to arrest smugglers ofany nationality, whether armed or unarmed, andto deal with them under the law of the land.

(h) Wherever the boundary "real" or"working" runs through mid-stream of a river,the facilities to use the main channel will beprovided by both sides. The following procedurewill be adopted to regulate traffic and ensure thatthe nationals of both the countries are notharassed.

(i) Joint check-posts will be established onthe bank if possible or in the main channel whereit leaves or enters the mid-stream boundary.

(ii) A check will be made and manifests ofcommodities will be prepared at the Joint Check-post. Manifests signed by Joint Check-posts willbe accepted as the permit to use the main channelfor navigation purpose only.

(iii)The boats using the main channel in theother country will not be allowed to touch thebank or exchange goods or engage in any othertransaction with the nationals of other side.

(iv) Border forces on both sides shall on noaccount participate in any quarrels betweennationals of the two countries living on the border.If nationals of one country ingress the workingboundary and enter illegally and commit orattempt to commit an offence, the border securityforces would be at liberty to take appropriateaction in the exercise of the "right of privatedefence" perferably without resorting to fire. Incase fire has been opened the local commanderwill intimate his action to opposite commanderand to his own higher authorities.

340

(j) In case of inadvertant crossings, aftersatisfying themselves that the crossing was doneinadvertantly, the border security forces shallimmediately return the persons concerned to theopposite commanders at the officers level. Simi-larly, the cattle straying across the border will behanded over to the authorities on the border side. (k) Certain bonafide governmental bodies,e.g. survey parties, forest guards etc. will be operat-ing in the near vicinity of the international borders.Border security forces shall not interfere with theirworking-in fact they are expected to help. Theexistence of such parties will be notified to bothsides, by the department concerned.

6. For the practical implementation of theabove, the border on both sides shall be dividedinto Sectors/Sub-sectors. The existence of theHeadquarters of these sub-sectors will be intimat-ed to each other and attempt should be made tolink the Headquarters of both sides with telephone.

7. The sub-sector commanders should beof the rank of Capt/Major or of equivalent ranksin the police.

8. The duties of the Sector/Sub-sector/PostCommanders in their respective areas of responsi-bility shall be as under:-

(a) They will maintain close liaison withtheir opposite numbers;

(b) They will pay frequent visits, make them-selves known both to the Border Security Forcesof the opposite side and to own local populations.

(c) They shall receive all complaints regard-ing territorial disputes referring to title to anyland, immovable property lying on the other sideof the border, char lands, navigation facilities anddifficulty of harvesting. They will immediatelyhold a joint enquiry not later than 24 hours of theinformation report.

(d) They will immediately enforce a status-quo e.g. if a national of one country lays a freshclaim to land and takes any step in furtherance ofthat claim which is objected to by the other side,then the two commanders will hold a joint enquiryon the spot and restrain the person from enforcinghis claim until the matter is settled at the appro-priate level;

(e) The two commanders shall be responsi-ble for referring disputes to the appropriate autho-rities and for seeing that they are progressed witha view to bringing the disputes to a finalsettlement;

(f) Similarly the military Commanders onboth sides will keep close in touch with the pro-gress of survey parties working in their areas.Where in their opinion the progress is not accord-ing to the programme or work is stopped onaccount of difference of opinion or for any otherreason, immediate reports by quickest means willbe submitted to the G.O.C.-in-C/G.O.C. concernedwho will report the matter to their respectiveGovernments with a copy to the Chief Secretaryconcerned.

9. We suggest that the tension on the borderswill be greatly minimised if there is close personaltouch between commanders of the two bordersecurity forces particularly military commander oneither side. We recommend that they should meetperiodically to discuss matters of mutual interest.Sector Commanders or their senior representativeswill normally meet each other at the time ofroutine DMs/DCs' meetings. The brigade com-manders shall also meet as and when the situationdemands and whenever they consider it necessary.In any case when it is apprehended that trouble islikely to occur they must meet. We further re-commend that in case the situation is likely tobecome serious, the G. O. C. 14th Div., EastPakistan and G.O.C.-in-C., Eastern Command ortheir representative of sufficiently high rank shouldmeet to discuss the situation and evolve means ofeliminating the tension.

10. We attach great importance to suchcontacts for we feel that they will contributesubstantially towards the good relations betweenthe two forces, and help in removing misunder-standing about moves by both sides.

11. If in spite of this, unfortunately firingdoes start, the other side shall refrain from reply-ing. The local commanders will get in touch witheach other by telephone and will meet with aview to implementing the cease-fire forthwith.After every firing incident, it is necessary for bothsides to carry out an investigation, fix theresponsibility and submit the report for informa-

tion of their higher authorities.

12. Communications : In order to maintainclose liaison between the border forces of the twocountries, it is essential that adequate telephoneand other communications are provided at variouslevels.

13. Telephone : G.O.C.-in-C., East Com-mand and G.O.C. 14th Div, East Pakistan, shouldbe able to talk to each other directly without

341any formality. Similarly, D. G.. E.P.R. andComdr. 181 Inf. Bde, I.G.P., West Bengal andI.G.P., Tripura, should, be able to talk to eachother whenever necessary. Telephone betweenthe two opposing Coy/Wing Headquarters andbetween important border posts of either sideshould also be installed, which will be done asearly as possible, in any case, not later thanJanuary 1960.

14. Communication by Flags : In the absenceof telephone conversation/contact whenever anyComdr. on either side wishes to meet his counter-part, he will wave a flag, of the specificationsgiven below and will proceed to the border un-armed without any escort to a prearranged place.The opposite Comdr or the Senior Officer presenton seeing the flag hoisted, will acknowledge thesignal and proceed to the place of meeting, alsounarmed and without escort. The use of flagsshall be introduced by 15 November, 1959.

15. All pickets and patrols on both sideswill have flags of the following description :

Pickets Patrols Pole Cloth Pole Cloth

Size 7 th. 4x3 ft. 3 ft. 2x2 1/2ft.

Colours Indian: Orange.

Pakistan: Blue.

16. At night flags will be substituted by lightsignals (two red very lights) or signal by torchesas arranged between the two commanders.

17. In the past, tension has mounted onfalse rumours and exaggerated reports to such a

pitch that the movement of extra forces andreinforcements to the affected areas was under-taken. Repetition of such moves in future isinadvisable from all points of view. To preventsuch contingencies in the future, it is necessarythat whenever there are reports of concentrationand build up of forces on either side, MilitaryCommanders of all levels, including the G.O.C.-in-C. Eastern Command and G.O.C. 14 Div.,East Pakistan should meet and ascertain theauthenticity of the reports if necessary even by avisit to the affected area. Similarly joint inspec-tion will also be applicable to any fresh diggingwhich is likely to create unnecessary misunder-standings.

18. Whenever there is a joint enquiry byD. Ms or Commissioners on the two sides, therespective overall commanders of security forcesshall also attend the meeting and submit for theinformation of the higher respective militarycommanders their assessment of the situationcreated by the particular incident.

19. Finally, we think that much harm iscaused by alarming reports which are occasionallypublished in the press. We recommend that thepress on both sides be persuaded to exerciserestraint and not to publish material which islikely to inflame the feelings of the population onboth sides. Should incorrect reports be pub-lished we recommend that contradiction on agovernmental level be issued at the earliestopportunity.

Sd/- Sd/-Lt. Gen. S.P.P. Thorat Major-Gen. Umrao Khan D.S.O., S. Pk.,G.O.C.-in-C, Earstern G.O.C., 14 Div., Command, India. East Pakistan.

20 Oct. 1959. 20 Oct. 1959.

342

PAKISTAN INDIA LATVIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC MALI

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Trade Agreement Signed

An agreement on economic collaborationbetween the Government of India and the Govern-ment of Czechoslovak Republic concerning theestablishment of certain industrial plants in Indiawas signed in New Delhi on November 24, 1959by Shri Manubhai Shah, Minister for Industry,Government of India, and Mr. F.Krajcir, Ministerof Foreign Trade, Czechoslovakia.

According to this agreement, Czechoslovakiawill make available to India long-term creditamounting to Rs. 231 million within the frameworkof which Czechoslovakia will deliver machineryand equipment for the third stage of foundry forge,Heavy machinery building plant, heavy electricalplant, and for other projects included in the ThirdFive-Year Plan.

This credit will be for a period of eight yearsand will bear an interest of 2 1/2 per cent per annum,the first instalment becoming payable one yearafter the completion of the last delivery againsteach project. The credit will be repaid by deliver-ies of Indian goods such as pig iron, chemical andengineering goods, non-ferrous metals, processedand other ores and semi-finished products.

NORWAY SLOVAKIA INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri Krishna Menon's Statement on General and Complete Disarmament

Shri V.K. Krishna Menon, Leader of the IndianDelegation to the United Nations, made a statementin the Political Committee on November, 2, 1959 onthe 82-Nation Resolution on Disarmament calling formeasures, aimed at world wide total disarmament.

The following is the text of his statement :

Although it is many weeks, Mr. Chairman,since you have occupied the chair of thisCommittee, along with the other officers, it doesnot diminish our desire or pleasure in congratu-lating you on your unanimous election. Wetherefore would like to convey these feelings toyou and to the Vice-Chairman and theRapporteur, who were also unanimously elected.

My delegation would also like to express itsfeelings of sorrow and sympathy, which havealready been expressed in this Committee, in res-pect of the sad demise of His Majesty the Kingof Laos-a country that is so close to us bothgeographically and otherwise.

We come today to the latest stages of thedebate on disarmament. For various reasons,including the one that my delegation may nothave many opportunities of intervening on thissubject in the course of this session, if nothingelse on account of the developments that havetaken place, I ask the Committee's indulgence tobe able to deal with this problem in the contextin which we see it, its past history and what webelieve may be its progress in the future.

I can do no better to place this subject in itscontext than to read out to the Committee themost recent statement of our Prime Minister,after this item was placed on the agenda :

"There are few problems that call for more calm judgment than the issue of war. Yet, the approach to, and con- sideration of, this problem is more often than otherwise in the context of emotion, passion or prejudice, or at best in terms of pious virtue and sentiment. This is true whether it be of its causes and, as some argue, its justification, or, as humanity ardently desires, the abolition

of war."

It goes on to say :

"It is unrealistic, and indeed perilous, to rest in the belief that this world of ours will be rid of the scourge of war and that war will be abandoned as a method of settling disputes and problems, merely because there is a general desire for peace. Too often this desire is coupled with placing the onus of existing tensions and threats to peace and of their calamitous prospects on others-indivi- dual national leaders, nations or groups of them. The plea for peace has thus be- come inseparable from political acrimony, and almost the language or war is used to promote peace! All this

343 is part evidence that possibly the desire for peace, though well nigh universal, is not yet an informed and instructed desire, nor is it free from some of the very factors that threaten civilization with a holocaust.

"We have to use our informed thinking to understand and assess these causes, and their relation to war and war institutions, their place in national and international politics, economy and thought, and seek to adapt and orient them in terms of our evaluation in re- lation to war or its avoidance".

It is in the background of this way ofthinking that my delegation seeks to present itsviews to the Committee.

For two years prior to this session there wasno discussion of disarmament in the organs ofthe United Nations proper, since the DisarmamentCommission was not able to meet except toperform its formal functions or to pass on what-ever there was. The item for the DisarmamentCommission is not before us. I shall refer tothat in a moment. But although there had beenno discussion in these buildings or in what iscalled the narrow context of the United Nations,there perhaps has not been any period at whichmore intensive discussions have taken place than

in the last two years between the people who arein the best position to deliver the goods. This isnot to say that disarmament or the establishmentof peace is the responsibility of a few Powers,however great or small, or however important inone way or another. But it is to point out thatthe method of direct discussion represents, on theone hand, the realization that one way or another,irrespective of the channel through whichcommunications take place, results must beachieved.

As a result of this, there have been talks inGeneva, as we all know, on various items andaspects of this problem, and some practical agree-ments or progress to agreements have beenreached. This progress, the pace of it, quick orslow, as we look at it, and what has not beenreached, are all reflective of the present state ofthe problem and its difficulties.

I would like to say however-and from thepoint of view of our delegation it is very impor-tant-that the present debate, that is to say, thedebate on the item that we have now, procedurallydoes not emerge from the Geneva talks. Thatis to say, we are not discussing either theprogress or the report of the Geneva discussions.They proceed procedurally and therefore onmerit from the item put before the Assembly byone of the delegations, the delegation of theSoviet Union, after the Assembly met and afterit was thrown together with another item, andtherefore it has political meaning. That is to say,we are discussing an item which has arisen fromthe context of factors that emerged after we methere. In other words, we in the discussion ofthis matter may not water it down back to ourold controversies and also forget the newerelements and approaches imported into it.

But at the same time, I think it would bewrong to suggest that this main problem of awarless world, as my delegation termed it in thediscussion in the general debate, is a new thing tothe world or indeed in the context of moderndebates. One can go back to antiquity and referto theological phrases :

"They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift sword against nation. Neither shall they

learn war anymore."

That is in the modern world, the last 2000years. But if we go further back there arereferences in the same way. But for the purposeof our present controversy, apart from the historyof the previous age in Europe, even in recenttimes, that is since the Disarmament Commissionwas set up, there have been definite proposalsplaced before us through the various organs,principally by the United States of America andthe Soviet Union.

Now, if I will not tax the patience of theCommittee, I should like to read two or threeof these small extracts-and perhaps go a littlebackward. It is usual in these halls to speakrather cynically about what has been called the"Geneva spirit". That is because we approachthings with a spirit-like approach in a desire tocount the material advantages that come out ofthem, or we are unable to assess the effects ofthat spirit upon action.

On 28 July 1955, President Eisenhower,speaking on war at Geneva said :

"I came to Geneva because I believe mankind longs for freedom from war and rumours of war. I came here because of my lasting faith in the decent instincts and good sense of the people who populate this world of ours. I

344

return home tonight with these con- victions unshaken and with the prayer that the hope of mankind will one day be realized."

He went on to say about the same time

"I want to give you a few reasons for hope in this project. First, the people of all the world desire peace ; not a peace of the mere stilling of the guns, but a peace in which they can live happily, tranquilly and in confidence ; in which they can raise their children in a world of which they, will be proud. That common desire for peace is a traffic force in this world., and one to which I believe

all the political leaders in the world are beginning to respond."

If I may say so, with great respect, we do notpay adequate attention to that last sentiment inthis extract which I read out to you.

Now, we come to a more recent statementof the President of the United States, that is,only a few days ago on 17 September 1959, hesaid :

"The basic principle is that we have the conviction, first of all, that mutual dis- armament, universal disarmament is really the one great hope of the world living in peace in future years."

The following day we heard the Chairmanof the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Unionsay to us :

"The peoples are thirsting for peace they want to live without fear for their future, for their destinies, without fear of losing their loved ones in the conflagra- tion of a new war." (A/PV. 799, page 17) "For centuries the peoples dreamed of getting rid of the destructive means of warfare." (Ibid.)

"We say sincerely to all countries : To counter-balance the slogan 'Let us arm', which is still current in some quarters, we put forward the slogan 'Let us completely disarm.' Let us rather compete in who builds more homes, schools,... for his people, produces more grain, meat, milk, clothing and other consumer goods ; let us not compete in who has more hydrogen bombs or more missiles." (A/PV. 799, page 38)

At the end of their historic interview, whichis not merely a matter for the United States andthe Soviet Union, but for the world as a wholein view of the subject, they stated :

"The Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. and the Presi- dent of the United States agreed that the question of disarmament"--which we are discussing-"is the most important

one facing the world today. Both Govern- ments will make every effort to achieve a constructive solution of this problem."

I will not read these any more because theMembers of the United Nations are familiar withmost of them.

There have been statements of this kindright through history, and our effort in theestablishment of peace is still in the midst of amental conflict and confusion. Taking themodern world, and if I may briefly survey, goingback to the time of the Roman empire, theyestablished what Mahatma Gandhi called "thepeace of the grave". That is, they conqueredthe empire of the Greeks, then they went on toconquer others, and conquered Britain and Gaul,even though the Teutons and Asiatics unitedagainst them. And they said, "There is peace".That kind of peace is the peace that comes outof a doctrine of balance of power. That is thekind of peace established by negotiation fromstrength, as it is called--a very badly coinedphrase. Also, that is the kind of peace where weregard powerful instruments of destruction asdeterrents and agents of peace. Here again if Imay go back to Mahatma Gandhi's ideas, youcan never get peace out of war. We are toequate means to our ends ; and out of wrongmeans we never get good ends. So from thattime onwards, there have been attempts.

Coming near to the statements of PresidentEisenhower and Chairman Khrushchev, and theothers, about a world that is rid of all arms, andwe live in a condition, I hope, where disputes andproblems between nations shall be resolved notby the instrument of war. There have been manyattempts at peace making. In modern times-I will not give the chronology of it-right down,shall we say, if you take the very recent times andof 1648 and the Peace of Westphalia-after theBaruch Plan, there have been about twentyattempts. "And each time the establishment ofpeace has been based upon the balance of power.Introduced it is one of those doctrines thatappeals to the national spirit of people and alsothe desire to survive, the doctrine that is called

345

"self-defence" which has appeared in our time

by, in our opinion, a misrepresentation of theCharter and Article 51. Self-defence will existonly in conditions where nations, fully armed,are living in a state of peace by some sort ofuncomfortable agreement. Self-defence in theconditions of a disarmed world would becomeunnecessary because the defence of any part ofthe world will become the competence and theobligation of the entire world.

I intended to go through these variousattempts, which have failed, because referencehas been made about the sentimental characterof this approach-and the Briand-Kellogg Pact, forexample, was quoted as one of those attemptsthat became abortive. Well, first of all, justbemuse we have tried and failed, is not a reasonnot to try again until peace is established. Butwhat is more, conditions have changed so much,not merely in degree but in kind, going to thebasic quality of it. The current of history,beginning with the Peace of Westphalia to thevarious treaties and conventions resulting in theHague Conventions and the establishment of theLeague of Nations, all that was based upon theprevious ideas. But now we have this situation:Right through modern history, in between twowars, the statesmen of the world get together andsay "Let us have peace". And they spend theinter-war years preparing for the next war-quiteunconsciously, perhaps-in case peace does notcome. So much is their faith in removing mountainsthat they open their windows in the morning tosee if the mountain is still in front of it. There-fore, while it was possible in past years that in theintervening periods of the wars we could discusspeace in order to establish it, and do it again afterthe next war, we have different circumstances nowin that we will not have the facility to discusspeace if there is another war in modern times.That is to say, there will be no ruins to repair inthe same way.

This, of course, has changed the entiresituation, even discussing peace. My country isconvinced that there is no half-way house betweenpeace and war. That is why we want to devotesome of the time that we take at this meeting topoint out that there is a fundamental differenceof approach in these matters, and while it isnecessary to talk about control and disarmament,the size of guns and the reduction of troops-weshall have something to say about all these

things-it is equally necessary to understand thatthe objective we have in view is not the balancedlimitation of armaments. The balanced limitationof armaments is only a method of being able tothrow away all arms. There is no possibility ofachieving any of the things we have spoken aboutunless we have a world in which there are onnational forces for so-called national security.This is not again either a new thought or some-thing that we managed-my delegation or mypart of the world.

On 24 April 1952, the United States ofAmerica-which I suppose represents in a verytypical way Western civilization-presented adocument in the Disarmament Sub-Committee.It is marked Document DC/C. 1/PV. 3 24 April1952. Since the document is available, I will notread it all out. But it says here :

"The goal of disarmament is not to regulate but to prevent war by relaxing the tensions and fears created by arma- ments and by making war inherently, as it is constitutionally under the Charter, impossible as a means of settling disputes between nations." (DC/C. 1/PV. 3, paragraph 20)

My delegation submitted the same type ofthing in so many resolutions and also made itsappeal on behalf of the Government of India inour commemorative session at San Francisco.But it is one thing for a comparatively under-powered nation-economically, politically andmilitarily-to speak about this ; it is another forthe Heads of two Governments of the mostpowerful countries, to put forward that as aproblem of political policy.

"To achieve this goal," said the United States, "all States must co-operate to establish an open and substantially disarmed world ; (a) in which its armed forces and armaments will be reduced to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no State will be in a condition of armed preparedness to start a war, and (b) in which no State will be in a position to undertake preparations for war without other States having knowledge of such preparations..."

Again, it goes on to say :

"To reach and keep this goal, inter- national agreements must be entered into by which all States would reduce their armed forces to levels and restrict their armaments, types and quantities neces- sary for (a) the maintenance of internal security, (b) fulfilment of obligations of States to maintain peace and security

346

in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

"Such international agreements must ensure by a comprehensive and co- ordinated programmes...."

My delegation does not necessarily agree withall the details set out, but we have read them outin order to point out that from the beginning oftime there has been this attempt to try to talkabout the bringing down of arms. Even con-servative statesmen such as a British ConservativePrime Minister said years ago :

"Is not the time come when the powerful countries of Europe should reduce their armaments ... when they should be prepared to declare that there is no use in such overgrown establishment".- This is very relevant for us to consider today-"What is the advantage of one Power greatly increasing its army and navy ? Does it not see that other Powers will follow out its example ? No increase of relative strength will accrue to any one Power ;"-that is to say, an arms race is not likely to give anyone a preponderance.-"The true interest of Europe is to come to some accord so as to enable every country to reduce those military armaments which belong to a state of war rather than of peace."

This was said as early as 1841, and we arestill discussing the same problems.

To come nearer to our time, with regard tothe First World War, which was the war previous

to the last one, the British Foreign Secretary, whohad the responsibility of declaring war at thattime, said a few years after the war :

"What was the underlying cause which had been working for years to bring about War ?.. It was, in my opinion, the great growth of armaments before the war. Before the war, it was often said that great armaments were a protection against war. Now, if we were wiser after the event"-this is 1922 after the 1914 War-"we should never say that again... The moral of the last Great War, and the state of Europe before it, was that great armaments did not prevent war ; they brought war about. That was one lesson. Another lesson was that if war came on a modern scale no victory would enable the conqueror to escape from the awful suffering which war caused. And the next war, if it ever came, would be far more terrible than the last."

All this looks elementary today in thecontext of atomic destruction.

I think it was the representative of Greecewho, in speaking to us, said :

"It is necessary for us, while discussing this matter and speaking about a world without war or even universal disarma- ment, to look at the thing in a realistic fashion and consider what are the reasons."

But before we do that I would like to referto the fact that we are discussing this item in thecontext of a draft resolution sponsored by eighty-two countries. It is a good newspaper story. Iam sure it warms the corners of our hearts to feelthat for the first time the co-sponsoring of a draftresolution by all the countries of the worldrepresented here is on this subject. But it hasmore than one effect and more than one reaction.When everybody co-sponsors it, it may becomenobody's business. Apart from that, it is likelyto be regarded that the whole of this debate is akind of shadow boxing or going through themotions of debate.

So far as we are concerned, the universalsupport of this draft resolution is not withoutprecedent, and a precedent which did not havethe consequences we desired it should have. In1957, we had a resolution in this Assembly, afteran acrimonious debate which, even though it wasnot sponsored by the eighty-two countries, wascarried unanimously. After 1957, the result notof the resolutions but of the general turn of eventswas that there had been no progress in theDisarmament Commission. Therefore, this reso-lution should not be merely dismissed by us withthe thought that here is a universal agreement. Inthat case, we need not discuss anything at all.I submit that it represents, on the one hand, theanxieties of Governments and States in regard tothis problem. It represents also encouragement,support. If it were the beginning, I would saythat it represents a good sendoff, a good push tothe ten-Power efforts that are being made, to thediscussions that are going on at Geneva, to thecoming together of two great countries with theirfriends on either side. All this is represented bythis draft resolution.

Therefore, we do not approach this merely

347

from the point of view that we are one of theeighty-two countries and, consequently, the resultmust be a foregone conclusion from the point ofview of obtaining a vote. In fact, we have hardlyever made speeches here with a view to influencingvotes. They are decided in other ways. But inthis particular case, the decision of the Assemblyis a foregone conclusion. This is the opportunityfor us, for those who are outside these discussionsin their narrow context and those who may nothave had the opportunity to present their viewsin the course of the discussions in this Committee,to express our views. Repeatedly in the speechesof the Great Powers or the participants in theten-Power meeting and indeed in all the otherspeeches, it has been said that whatever is saidhere may be communicated to the ten-Powermeeting. Of course, this is an old story. Thisalso indicates that world Governments, large andsmall, have become very concerned.

But if we could be satisfied with a resolutionof this kind, we could go back to the history ofthe United Nations in regard to the disarmament

business. As early as 24 January, 1946, thisOrganization, at its first session, passed resolution1(1), the first resolution that was passed. Itappointed an Atomic Energy Commission andsaid that it

"shall proceed with the utmost dispatch and inquire into phases of the problem, and make such recommendations from time to time with respect to them as it finds possible."

These were the concrete things it had to doexchange of scientific information, control ofatomic energy, elimination from national arma-ments of atomic weapons and other majorweapons of mass destruction, effective safeguardsagainst violations.

In resolution 41 (I) of the same session, theAssembly recommended to the Security Council

"that it give prompt consideration to the working out of proposals to provide such practical and effective safeguards in connexion with the control of atomic energy and the general regulation and reduction of armaments."

Resolutions have been passed in this way.Similarly, smaller delegations, less significantdelegations like mine, have repeatedly submittedproposals. While one has no desire to refer tothem from any point of view of selfish nationalism,it is as well for the Committee to be remindedthat the Disarmament Commission was repeatedlyasked by resolution 704 (VII), resolution715 (VIII), resolution 808 (IX) and resolution914 (X) to consider proposals made in thisCommittee in their Commission. So far as weare concerned, resolution 808 (IX) and resolution914 (X) of two separate sessions were specificallyreferred by name to the Disarmament Com-mission. The only result it produced was acertain amount of encomium and praise fromleaders of the disarmament movement like JulesMoch, who said that they were very good, butwe heard no more about them. What is more, ittook two years before the Disarmament Com-mission found out that there were now proceduraldifficulties in allowing the delegation of India topresent its proposals.

This is not said by way of complaint but onlyto point out that these proposals, proposals ofthe character made in this Assembly, have takenseveral years in order to reach a point of morepractical consideration. Since there is no time,I will not read them but merely state what theysay. These resolutions referred to an armamentstruce, a United Nations peace fund, the enlarge-ment of the Sub-Committee of the DisarmamentCommission, the cessation of tests, budgetaryreduction, the stopping of the dissemination ofnuclear weapons and a ban on the use of fission-able materials for military purposes. So it isnot as though the topics were not discussed.All this has been referred to. But we approachthis from a different point of view as well and,as I said a while ago, I will come back to it.

My Government desires attention to bedrawn to some of the problems that have beendiscussed in this debate, largely with a view topresenting our view as to their inapplicability orapplicability. Reference has been made to thefact that only if we remove these causes to a con-siderable extent would it be possible to takeeffective steps. We are not attempting anypsychological examination or academic discussionof this matter. But the main problem, as therepresentative of Greece pointed out, was theproblem of national security.

So long as this problem of national securityis considered as an exclusive concern or, verylargely, of national concern, then we are boundto have the problems of keeping arms, increasingthose arms, as said by Lord Grey, and afterwardsmaking those arms themselves the cause of war.In our opinion also, this lack of security ariseson the one hand because of the egoistic feelingsof nations with regard to their cultural, racial orother superiorities, or the conception that some

348

people are born to rule and others are not, andthat great nations and small nations are to acertain extent eliminated by the composition ofthe United Nations itself, in status but not infunction. It also arises from the fact thatnationalism often outflows its national frontiersand, not satisfied with flying aloft the flag of thatcountry in their own territory, they desire to plantit in others.

That is why people like ourselves areunashamed to repeat, time after time, that empireand colonies are the cause of wars, even in theirattentuated state, because of the desire for ex-pansion, the desire and search for other land ;what is more, the necessity to raise the size ofnational arms, not merely to protect their bordersbut to protect territories that are far away fromthem, calls upon them to demand more and morearmament. We shall refer to this matter later.

Thirdly, comes what is now very fashionableand more current, and that is the ideologicalconflicts. These ideological conflicts are notnew to us. In more modern times there were theCrusades in the Holy Land against the Infidel.The Infidel is the fellow whom you do not like,and the Holy man is one's self. Ideological con-flicts, therefore, are not new. But in the view ofmy delegation, the ideological conflict is largelya propaganda instrument, largely a motive powerperhaps to already other existing factors and veryoften used by those who want to retain certainideas or interests in order to get mass support.

Ideological controversies will disappear onlywhen we begin to respect the human mind andrealize that there is no conquest of an idea, bador good. If it is a bad idea, as we see it, it mustbe counter-balanced not by another bad idea butby a good one. Therefore, we are likely in thistime, largely on account of the propaganda thathas gone on from either side, to give a place tothe ideological controversies which to the futurehistorian will appear rather exaggerated.

Then, of course, there are the economicconflicts. The economic conflicts, in old times,regarded part of the world as the producers ofraw materials, and other manufacturers, whereit was thought that the invisible exports from acountry in the way of services would in someform be used as an economic hold on the others,where in order to retain one part of the world asprosperous, another part must remain poor and,what is more, those positions being stabilized orbuttressed by the building of heavy barriers in theway of trade; coming in the way of traffic betweennation and nation, euphemistically called "tariffwalls". All these things have been responsiblefor creating rivalry between peoples.

However,-and we may congratulate our-selves in so thinking-there is one course whichnobody now speaks of in respectable society, andthat is what is called "War muscle"; that war isnecessary in order to make people what they are.I remember seeing a show some years ago in NewYork where the father tells a son that he must bea cannibal. And he said, "I will not eat a man".Then the father says : "What has happened toyou ? You cannot eat a man ! Have you gonesoft ?" So the wars must have appeared toMussolini, He is no longer prevalent and thatis one great advantage we have gained.

We say, therefore, that security must notmerely be a national affair. It should not merelybe a question of, in the name of self-defence,getting together in order to form great war groupsand accumulating arms to cause further wars.The idea of expansionism must go, and wherelarge areas of the world are today in thepossession of groups of people, which on the onehand creates controversies and, on the other-purely from this point of view-makes necessarythe retention of arms either to suppress unwillingpopulations or in order to prevent the territoryfrom being taken by somebody else, that willalso have to go.

Therefore, the emerging action, in order tobe possible, must accept this view of a warlessworld.

It is not possible to give commands to nationalStates' sovereignty unless you can back it withthe power of sanction, and if the power of sanc-tion is present in some one, that power musteffectively be greater than those against whom thesanction is exercised. If there are groups workingtogether, other groups come in. Therefore, in thesubmission of my delegation, so long as it isthought that peace can be established by methodsof war, there will be no peace, there will be thesearguments about disarmament. It they are success-ful, they will lead towards the goal.

The new item which is called "general andcomplete disarmament", which as I have said, hasrespectable support from all quarters, in our viewmeans a world without war, which lives under aworld law where it is possible not only to bringdown the size of armies, but to abandon themaltogether. This calls for a degree--not an

absolute one--of economic equality as betweenpeoples in the world, looking upon disarmamentas a significant step towards peace and, what

349is more, not using the resources of a nation inorder to arm countries which do not require armsfor their own defence but only require them forpurposes of alliances and what not.

This attempt has a rather sordid history inthe past. Nowadays we talk about arms that willfire only in one direction. When we say to ourfriends, "These war alliances are threatening tous", they turn around and say, "They are notintended against you". Our answer is that theguns that fire only in one direction have not beenmade. But then, in older times, it was evenworse. If one looks at the Patent Office Libraryin the United Kingdom, one will find that therewas a gentleman who patented a weapon in 1870.He said : "I have a new type of gun which is agun that fires automatically and prevents invadersfrom boarding ships". The Turks at that timewere a powerful people and he claimed greatadvantage for this war-like invention. He saidthat it was :

"A new type of gun or machine, called 'defence' that discharges so often, and so many bullets, and can be so quickly loaded as to render it next to impossible to carry any ship boarding."

Its peculiar virtue lay in the fact that it wasconstructed with two sets of magazines, one forround bullets for fighting Christians, and theother for square bullets, with sharp edges to beused against the Turks.

This was the old days. I read this notbecause of morbid interest, but because we havemoved on. We are not after all so bad ashumanity; we have moved on to the idea thatthere must be some equality in offensive weaponsand, therefore, we have banned some of thesethings, and introduced new ones, of course.

Then there is also the idea that if weaponsare made, they must be sufficiently respectable forinnocent people to carry. Therefore, it is in-teresting to recall that one of the armamentswhich were wielded by soldiers in this olden time

was an old mace made of iron or steel, capable, inskilled hands, of breaking the strongest bodyarmour. A point about this mace was that itmight be properly used in war by Priests andBishops instead of a sword, so that it mightconform to the canonical rule against theirshedding of blood. Apparently, if you knock yourhead, you do not shed blood.

I well remember my history master explainingthis difference and pointing out with ironic gustothat Bishops and maces could take effective partin hand-to-hand warfare by breaking a limb orbattering out a brain. So that humanity has gonethrough all this foolishness of trying to camouflagesomething.

The alternative to the mace today-and Ihope that nobody will take offence at it-is aclean bomb; that is, instead of a dirty bomb, youhave a clean bomb; instead of a sword, you havea mace. All this leads to the following. It isnot, as a great man said, a matter of physics, buta matter of ethics. How well arms may beabandoned, so long as war is not banished fromthe world as an instrument of policy, depends toa certain extent on individual minds. To themind of my delegation the main purpose of thisdebate must be, as we shall point out later, tocreate a change of climate where we are no longeraiming to be killed by nine-inch guns and not bynineteen-inch guns, but already to avoid the wholepurpose of killing.

Therefore, in the modern version there arevarious humane weapons where radiation doesnot come out and, what is more, there is the ideathat these instruments are not intended for thepurpose of war. I beg to submit, I presume to doso, that if children have toys they will play withthem. Unfortunately, the vast capacity of manin the field of technology, particularly between thedays of 4 October 1957 and today, has advanc-ed beyond all known limits and has not beenmatched by his growth in culture or imaginationor even by the idea that if he hurts somebody hewill hurt himself. It always reminds me of whatthe great British General, Lord Montgomery,once said. He said that the safest place in thenext war would be that nearest to the enemybecause the radiation would go away from himand not towards him.

Therefore, this problem as it is presented tous and as we must present it before the world,has a different orientation, that we are not look-ing to a number of people who will be like aprotection squad in order to use physical force,and unless this is done we are not likely to getanywhere.

Apart from anything else, the reason, ofcourse, is this. With modern weapons, and I donot only mean atomic weapons, to a certain extentthe danger is greater when it is agreed that werely only upon molecular weapons, because wemay go back to the wars of those times. Inmodern times, even without any deliberate attemptat waging war, the mistaken judgement of some-body, the machiavelian policy of someone, or the

350

conveying of wrong news, purposely or otherwise,can lead to difficulties.

I will not refer to any more recent instancesbecause it might arouse feelings, but it is possibletoday, for example, that an aeroplane which iscarrying atomic bombs for practice purposes maypick up phenomena in the sky on the radar screenwhich might be mistaken for an aircraft of someother country, yet it might be a large bird or ameteor, and the pilot would drop his bombssomewhere. Again, there may be such a situationas that which precipitated the Franco-PrussianWar of 1870, when King Frederick William ofPrussia, aided by Bismarck, was endeavouring toensure that Prince Albert would go to Spain inorder that France might be beaten out of thebusiness. What be did was to edit a press tele-gram so that it appeared as something differentfrom what it was. He thus created a war mentali-ty and precipitated the war, even though NapoleonBonaparte might have waged war without that.Therefore, we have to create this climate ofpeace if we are to get anywhere.

We have before us the Soviet proposal whichcontains this main objective, which is what movesus the most, in spite of what is called "the lackof realism", to which we will refer in a moment.It has talked on to it certain proposals whichsome may think rather vitiate it, but, on theother hand, the Russian claim that they arebeing realistic. And there are certain specific

proposals, all of which we have heard aboutin this room so many times, but since time isgoing on, my Government desires its views tobe expressed on these matters, not in order tohave a premature discussion, but because we willhave no other opportunity of presenting theseviews in this way.

I will first take the United Kingdom proposals.Now, as is known, the United Kingdom is veryclose to us and usually there are consultations,not on matters of defence, but generally speaking.At least we know their mind and they know ours,which is a great advantage. What is more, theBritish people, as they would all admit, have avery pragmatic view of things, what Lord Dicken-son called "a sense of fact". Therefore, I ampersonally rather disappointed that my goodfriend, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, has put forward theseproposals on which we have to make remarksand observations which he might not accept.

The programme is divided into three stages,and we would say that these three stages wouldonly take us to the beginning of disarmament.That is the first point. The second point is thatthe first stage and the second stage really doesnot carry us far at all, because we are told thatwe must find methods of cut-off, and then thereis some talk about outer space, something aboutnuclear weapons, which is already being discussedand something about surprise attack. My dele-gation does not say that all this is not necessary ;all we do say is that the first stage, as a milestoneeven as conventional type of disarmament dis-cussions, does not take us very far, but it doesrepresent an attitude and an approach whichdesires to see a beginning made. We thereforehope that this first stage will be taken as some-thing that is already taking place or has takenplace.

Next we come to the position where it issought to implement this. Here we have certainobservations to make, particularly in regard toproposal D, and I hope the United Kingdomdelegation will try to appreciate our point of viewin this. In the first stage, under proposal D, wewould pursue the idea of handing over specificquantities of designated types of armamentsto the custody of an international organization.I find it difficult to describe my consternationat this proposal that Mr. Hammarskjold must

have a large armoury where all these weaponsthat other people have discarded, not becausethey are useful, can be placed. Field MarshalHammarskjold will be in charge of this largequantity of arms to convert him into a newNapoleon. This is not a laughing matter ; it isa very serious matter. This is going the wrongway. The orientation is wrong. It is the wayof trying to establish peace and abandon war bya collection of arms.

What are these arms of specific quantitiesand designated type ? They would includethe hydrogen weapon, the atom weapon, flamethrowers, napalm bombs and what not. Presum-ably they would include all the poison gases inthe world and all the bacteriological weapons andI fear, also the instruments of psychologicalwarfare. While this is not the time to analyseproposal D in detail, my delegation wishes theTen-Power Committee to take this particularlyinto account. This is not a question of differ-ence or of variation in detail. It is an entirelydifferent and in our view an erroneous methodof approach to collect these large arms and placethem at the disposal of an international organiza-tion. That will become clear when we speak aboutthe international police force.

With regard to the question of outer spacewhile we hope that a study of that will be pursued,it does not come in the way of progress in what

351

is called the first stage.

I turn now to the French proposal. Asusual, Mr. Moch presents novel ideas with greatsincerity, and everybody would support anythingthat would stop the use of weapons. But we arenot looking at the matter purely from the pointof view of disarming an individual. What weare told is this : if the vehicles, the carriers, whichdeliver all these terrific weapons were madedifficult to obtain by their non-manufacture. ifwe tackled the problem of the carriers, then wewould get somewhere. My delegation was atfirst impressed by this idea when we heard aboutit, but then we i thought about the matter andwe found that while the highest speed vehiclethat today carries atomic weapons would be outof the way, we would still have passenger aircraft

travelling at 1,500 miles an hour, and, to startwith, that would be adequate. After a coupleof days, others would be produced. The historyof Germany in the interwar years and its capacityto , put Messerschmidts and what not and,ultimately, their V-bomb into the sky isan indication that a cutting out of thesevehicles would not be sufficient. What we wantis not to abolish the carrier, but the carried.It is the atom bomb that is carried which mustcome off. We would not make any objection tothe abolition of vehicles intended for this purposebut we say that this should not be regarded asbeing effective enough to prevent the deliveryof bombs because there would be vehicles fastenough for this purpose.

Another aspect is that among the vehiclesmust be included the bases because the base isprobably the most potent carrier. It is from therethat these intercontinental or other weaponswould go out ; and now we are told that thesebase may well be under water and, therefore.unless these proposals are viewed from that pointof view, we shall be in difficulties.

Then there are the Soviet proposals, whichare well-known to this Assembly. But here wewant to say that my country stands fully for thenecessity of organisation, of inspection, controland all those things that appear, unfortunately,essential in an imperfect society like ours. Butat the same time, this controversy as to whichshould come first has always appeared to us asunreal-the chicken or the egg. We think thatany disarmament proposal carries within it thewhole machinery of control. One could agreewith the idea that a control machinery should beestablished and left there in the hope that dis-armament will come afterwards. In our view,therefore, whenever any disarmament, howeversmall or large, takes place, it should not evenwait for the control machinery ; the progresstowards it should not be lax or slowed downbecause the other is not ready. It was for thatreason that, several years ago, we suggested thatthe Secretariat might draft, even if it were notaccepted, the blue print of a disarmament treatyso that discussions would be on specific problemsinstead of saying which should come first andwhich should not.

To a certain extent we have discovered, by

Mr. Lodge's phrase, built-in systems, and whenhe explains that you will probably understand.If it properly goes along with the disarmamentproposals-that is to say, if we are abandoningguns of such and such size and this is the waywe shall inspect it-then I do not think that anyreasonable person can object to it.

Mr. Lodge has asked us three categoricalquestions. They are not quite in place here,but, since my time is getting on, I shall takethem out of turn. One is with regard to theinternational police force.

To a certain extent, my delegation has ex-pressed its views in a statement before the GeneralAssembly. The Government of India is totallyopposed to the formation of an internationalpolice force by allocating units of a nationalforce for that purpose for these variousreasons.

First of all, a police force that functions inthe context not of a warless world, but of aworld with national arms, would have to haveat its disposal all that Mr. Selwyn Lloyd wouldgive to Mr. Hammarskjold. That is to say, thispolice force would at least have to be as big orpowerful as all the national armies put together.Therefore, we would have to create a super-leviathan for the international police force, whichwould be a menace to mankind, apart from itsheavy cost ; and it would also try to improve itsweapons, so that the competition, instead ofbeing between the Americans and the Russians,would be between the international communityof the United Nations and the Americans andRussians put together. That is a very finespectacle. Therefore, the idea of an internationalpolice force composed of a lot of soldiers andequipment and everything else, and this greatproject of peace converted into an armoury withall that goes with it, is not an idea to which myGovernment can lend its support. I submit thatan international police force is what it says. It isnot only international ; it must be police and itsforce must be used for that purpose.

352

A police force by definition is a force thatis used against people who are under certaincommon law and, what is more, are not people

whom one faces with the same arms, unless theyare brigands. Even then, a burglar or house-breaker --- or whatever you have these days-probably has much smaller weapons than apoliceman. So, an international police force,on the one hand, can function only in thecontext of countries which have subscribed tointernational law-that leads on to Mr. Lodge'snext question-of some kind where there are nonational armies. For these national armies,small as they may be, if put together becomevery big and, what is more, these small nationalarmies will be tempted, as they are now, tointervene in the internal affairs of other people,either in order to make them good people or inorder to assist them against bad people. Which-ever it is, if you have all the problems of warin as small a context, nothing can be saved.

The proposal is made that each countrymust set aside units of its own national army tocreate an international police force. That wouldbe at least the best way to make it international.Then as we have here, the geographical represen-tation, canvassing, arm-twisting and what not tobe able to see whether a Patagonian or a Lap-lander would be the Commander-in-Chief, wouldfollow, and international rivalries would come in.So, with the rivalries in the international policeforce, they would agree like the internationalcivil servants of the international community.

Therefore, we are against national units beingkept in reserve for these purposes by law-abidingnations ; and, of course, whether law-abiding ornot, it would be decided by the majority of peoplehere, who may or may not be law-abiding in allcircumstances, as we have seen in recent times.

Secondly, it is not a practical proposition.I have some acquaintance with this matter. Howdo you keep units of a national army ear-markedfor a certain purpose ? And if the Secretary-General cannot find a special job for them, whatdo we do with them ? We would have a lot ofsoldiers or equipment earmarked for this purpose-obviously paid for by the United Nations-andwhat would they do in times when there was notrouble anywhere?-which always tempts Secre-tariat officials to find some trouble somewhere inthe world in order to make use of an internationalpolice force. Therefore this idea of earmarkingunits in a particular country is entirely impractical.

We found it impractical in having to send outunits to Gaza or anywhere else. The only wayto find the units is to take them out of the regulararmy as it stands and replace them by otherforces, or by territorials, or go without them.Therefore, the conception that you can have aninternational force of this kind--a super-forcearmed with all the traffic weapons of internationalwar, on the one hand, or having units in aparticular country, not international but stillnational in character-and I would like to see thesuperman who would command these forces-that is, in our opinion, out of the question.

Secondly, they would be of such a size asnot to relieve the world. The Secretary-Generalfinds it difficult to persuade the Assembly toprovide the $ 60 million, the large fortune thatis required to run this Organization. We stillhave trouble in dealing with the outgoing inregard to commitments which we have undertaken;so, in a warless world, if the preparation for waris going to cost so much, then the disarmamentand the peace are not worth much. And thatis why you cannot obtain peace by methodsof war.

Then Mr. Lodge asks : what sort of inter-national law would prevail ? International lawhas been described-some people say inaccurately-as international morality. This internationallaw would not be enforceable in the municipalcourts of any country. The international lawsthat would govern the police force would have tobe above the national laws of various countries.At the present moment, if Indian troops go toGaza, as far as they are concerned they aregoverned by Indian military law, which may betotally opposed to the law in Israel or to thelaw in Egypt. Supposing, for example, in ourmilitary law there were punishments which offendthe conscience of these countries in which theyare living, then a serious situation is created.Therefore, in my opinion, the international lawthat pertains to the international police forcewould have to be a law equally accepted by everycountry, and not as in Korea during the last fewdays and not as in Gaza. What is more, in theseinternational police forces, being composed ofunits drawn from different countries, under thecommand of a particular national, usually thenational of a country that has a smaller army andhas probably not used it for a long time, the

administration would be found very difficult.But that is not really Mr. Lodge's question.His question is : who is going to enforce this law,and will they conform to certain difficultstandards? This, I think, is a problem in whichthe Disarmament Commission, the United Nationsand everybody, as we shall find out later, shoulddo some work in research and find out how theseforces would be governed.

353

In hour humble submission it would be muchsimpler when the element of sanction becomes as lowas in the case of a policeman. If, even in a munici-pality, all the citizens are armed and are permittedto take the law into their own hands, then, inthe enforcement of the law, the case of even aburglar would become a civil war., That is becausethe offender is not armed, on the one band, andpeople around are willing to support the authorityof the police force, even though sometimes onemay give succor to a hunted criminal. But it isbecause of that that enforcement becomespossible.

My country does not believe in securityforces for the purposes of internal order. Whatdoes it mean? These security forces are for thepurpose of maintaining internal order. If it issuggested that armies are necessary in orderto obtain the assent of citizens to a government,then that kind of government should not haveinternational sanction. Security forces of nationalarmy character become necessary only in thecontext where they are going to be used againstpeople across the border. If security forces areonly for the purpose of dealing with civil tumultwith drunks or other offenders, then it is notnecessary to have security forces. Thereforesecurity forces to the extent of internationalarmies, in our opinion, have no meaning. Butthat is tied up to another problem, and I canunderstand most of these countries raising thequestion of security forces because nationalarmies today are not over-sized and, in a greatmany countries, are not intended and necessaryfor the defence of their frontiers only, but inorder to keep the whole of 4 or 5 million squaremiles of land in other parts of the world becausethey are, by some strange logic and by someinterpretation of law, made part of the territoryof the mother country, so-called. So then, if

security forces are intended only to keep order inthe homeland of a country against their ownpeople, then, if in any community it becomesnecessary to use the army to rule-that is, if thereis no consent-then they are not security forces ;we are discussing and giving support not onlyto a police state, but a state that is unarmedhelotry. Therefore, security forces in that wayare not something that we can support. To talkabout an international police force being organi-zed in the way often suggested in these rooms isto put the cart before the horse. The police forcecomes only after there is a law. Police areintended to enforce the law and not to make thelaw. Police are not governed by anything whichthey think is necessary at any particular time,and they are not under the command of com-manders. Therefore, for an international policeforce to emerge, we must first of all establish theinternational community.

This is not an argument for delay, but ratherthe reverse. Since we think that internationalwars-wars between nations-can be avoided bythe use of forces which are neutral, or which areobjective, or which have no interest in the matter,then since we all want to establish such a force,I think national armies must go. As the ministerof defence, I would be the happiest person in theworld if I had the work of demobilization.

My Prime Minister has a reputation of beingextremely realistic, and this is what he said aboutthe Soviet proposals :

"It seems to me as a proposal a brave proposal, which deserves every consider- ation. Whether humanity, that is, vari- ous countries concerned, is brave enough to put an end suddenly to armies, navies and air forces, I do not know. But the time will come, will have to come, when something of this kind will have to be adopted, because in this era of atomic and hydrogen weapons and ballistic mis- siles, war has become an anachronism."

My delegation says these things because, ifhumanity is to survive, it would have to have atleast intervening periods of abandoning arms. Inother words, to put it in rather an exaggeratedway, disarmament to a certain extent is inevitabletoday. Because for one thing, people cannot

afford to pay for it, big countries are afraid ofsmall countries-they have rivalry in that way-and what is more, even if more weapons can bebuilt they are not necessary, because each of theseatomic Powers presumably has enough weaponsto destroy the world ten times over, so why shouldthey destroy it an eleventh time ? Therefore, thewhole problem of disarmament from that pointof view, to my humble mind, has an element ofinevitability.

But having disarmed, we will go back again,and this is where we want to mention anotherfactor which we have in mind. Let us supposethere was disarmed world, by which we mean aworld where there is a limitation of armaments.That is the same kind of idea which one of thecountries concerned put forward some time ago,that both the Soviet Union and the United Stateshave a limited number of atomic bombs in orderto protect the peace of the world. Let us alsosuppose there should be a limitation of armies tothis size, that size, and the other size. Now, wesay that if there are molecular weapons in the

354

world, enough to start a small war, that war car-ries the momentum to become a big war. A smallwar is started, and each side wants to improve itsweapons, and those weapons will keep on improv-ing. We may throw away, we may dismantleand destroy-I am told we cannot destroy-butwe may dismantle and prohibit the present deadlyweapons, but the people who make them wouldstill be there, because no one is suggesting that allthese great geniuses and technicians of scienceshould be destroyed. Even if they were, otherswould come in their place. So that if you starta small war with small weapons, mankind havingknown the great advantages of civilization andhaving the capacity to make these deadly weaponsin a short time, from the molecular weapons wewill proceed to other weapons. This has been theexperience of wars in the past.

Even if countries who have armies were dis-armed, as they were after the First World War,this situation could arise in the normal course ofindustry. Let us take the example of Germanyafter the First World War. Happily, there wasa Nuremburg trial, to which I shall refer in an-other context. Let us take case number ten. In

December 1947 the head of the Krupp organisa-tion and his eleven co-defendents were indictedby the Allies, who won the war, with the crimesof planning, preparation, initiation, and wagingof aggressive war. A company is waging an ag-gressive war I They were also indicted with plun-der and spoilation, crimes involving prisoner ofwar and slave labour, and common plan or cons-piracy to commit crimes against the peace, butthat is not material. Captured documents provedthat after 1918 Krupps duped the Allied commis-sioners into believing that their products were suchpeaceful objects as padlocks, milk cans, cashregisters, carts, motor cars, and locomotives.In a memorandum of Gustav Krupp it was saidthat after the assumption of power by Hitler hehad the satisfaction of reporting to him thatKrupps stood ready shortly to begin the re-arma-ment of the Germans. Krupp made it clear thatbecause of his conviction that Germans mustagain fight to rise, his companies had from 1918onward maintained at their own cost-they are apatriotic people-developments in production ofwar material, and that they had to maintain theseactivities for the future. It was boasted that thedemolitions consequent on the presence of theInter-Allied Control after the armistice were notreal but only apparent. The most important gunsthat were used in 1939 to 1941 were alreadydeveloped in 1933, having been tested secretly,and the ordnance organization had stoodready for mass production on Hitler'sorders.

The Krupps, not satisfied with this, wantedto export his enterprise into the neighbouring andthe peaceful country of Sweden; but the SwedishGovernment came to the rescue, and as soon asthey discovered it, in less than two years theypassed laws prohibiting the employment of foreignmoney in armament concerns. This is one of thethings we will have to consider with regard topreventive measures. The Krupps also, by in-geneous financial accountancy, were prominentamong those who enabled Germany to concealexpenditure of 12 billion marks, extending over aperiod of several years. Therefore, if any attemptis to be made to cut down the size of these armsand say "You shall not do that", and so on, unlessthe treaties are observed, in the case it is betterto abandon arms totally. That is to say, if youare relying on the ethical quality in man, there isno reason why the ethical quality should stop

short of a capacity of killing. Therefore, youeither take it as a whole or we play at this busi-ness.

The Soviet Government had examined thesituation and had come to the firm convictionthat the way out of deadlock should be shownalong the road of general and complete disarma-ment. Even at the risk of being called not suffi-ciently non-aligned, my Government would saythat was a correct statement. But it is also sup-ported by the Government of the United Kingdomwhen Mr. Ormsby-Gore tells us:

"But I assure you that this single adjec- tive 'comprehensive' has the same mean- ing for us as the two adjectives 'general and complete'....."

There is for my Government nothing novelin the concept which lies behind the formal tittleof the item. This thing we cannot agree with,because if we try to water this down after there isno new entry in the new field, then we shall bediscussing the same old thing we have been dis-cussing before.

The United States Government told us thatthe road to complete disarmament is long andthat the United States will be happy to travel tothe end of it. That is what we would like to see.Mr. Jules Moch, the doyen of this moment, saidthat the plan is a straight and narrow path leadingto total and controlled disarmament, which thepeople certainly dream about, but which cannotbe total unless at the same time an internationalforce is created among the States to play the samerole that law enforcement agencies play amongcitizens. We subscribe to this. We certainlyagree on the general considerations underlying

355

the Soviet plan and with the advantages that allpeoples will receive from total disarmament. What-ever may be the immediate necessities for findingformulas for the various problems put forwardwith regard to partial measures, the objective ofour discussions should be this world without warwhich alone can sustain a world without war.A world which relies on war, however limited, willbecome a world laden with war, knowing theexperience of mankind. Therefore, we must not

say with Milton ;

"The remedy ; perhaps more valid arms, Weapons more violent, when next we meet May serve to better us, and worse our foes, Or equal what between us made the odds."

This doctrine we must discard, and adopt theother one.

We are told-and my delegation likes toface this as far as it can-that this idea isa dream, that it is utopian. If it is utopian,no thought is necessary ; in Utopia therewould be no war, and therefore it would beunrealistic. Now, I ask you, is it more realisticto spend a hundred billion-so we are told; insome other book it will say more than that-onthe manufacture of weapons which we are toldwill never be used ? - a doctrine with which I donot agree, since they are being used, if only forpractice purposes, throwing them away, which iswar use because these instruments of war, almostthe moment they leave the drawing-table becomeobsolete, and they go on to something else.Therefore, this hundred billion of war expenditureis being used for war purposes, except for thefact that it does serve to promote technicaldevelopments, and so on. So, is it more realisticto spend a hundred billion a year, to keep thewhole world keyed up to conditions of war, toseek safety only in the machines of destruction,and to say that you cannot trust yourneighbour even when your neighbour is un-trustworthy? Or is it more realistic to takeaway the weapons of war ? We are asked,how can this be accomplished at this time? Iwould like to submit, in all modesty, that ifdemobilization is possible in a short time, whyshould not disarmament be possible ? The UnitedStates of America-and I do not vouch for thesefigures as they have been published; the Americansdo not let me into their secrets-the UnitedStates of America had a peak strength of12,300,000 men under arms during World War II.That was presumably at the end of theEuropean War in 1945, when the United Statesarmy numbered 8,300,000. In 1946 the armyhad been reduced to 1,900,000, and four yearslater, in 1950, it had been reduced to 591,487.So it was possible, without any particular attemptat disarmament in this sense, in the normal courseof administration to demobilize 8,300,000 people

to 591,487 in less than five years ; and what ismore, practically all weapons of war used at thattime were dismantled or thrown into the scrap-heap or put into Cellophane to be sold to peoplewho are less sophisticated in the arts of war, andso they were withdrawn from commission.Therefore it was possible for the United States ofAmerica-not the most perfect people in theworld in regard to organization ; and I do notsay that we are-but the United States reducedtheir strength from 12,300,000 to 591,487 in fiveyears. In two years, from 1944 to 1946, theyreduced their forces from 12,300,000 to less thantwo million. They reduced by ten and a halfmillions in two years, and in another two orthree years the 1,900,000 became 591,487.

It maybe said that demobilizing men is avery different proposition from demobilizingestablishments. Even with all the organizationthat has gone on, if there are no men theseweapons will not be used, and what is more, thepeople who produce them will go into otherthings.

Referring again to documents which arepublic and available, the Soviet Union had apeak strength during World War II of 12,500,000.I hope the representative of the Soviet Unionwill not join issue with me on these figures, andthat if he does he will supply me with otherfigures. But at the end of World War II theyhad a peak strength of 12,500,000. In 1946 thishad come down to 6,000,000 and in 1950 toto 2,800,000.

France, it is reported, had armed forces of5,000,000 at the end of World War II. In 1946this had come down to 835,000 and in 1950,659,000.

The United Kingdom-usually but quitewrongly considered very slow in everything-had an army of 5,120,000 during World War II.Whether that figure includes the army of theCommonwealth, I do not know. This figurewas reduced to 800,000 in 1948, and to 725,000in 1950.

These figures are telling in more than oneway. When they really wanted to demobilizevast millions were demobilized in two years.But between 1946 and 1950 the figures became

smaller not because more could not have beendemobilized but because it was not the policy

356

to do so.

So I submit that it is not so fantasticto think that it is possible to dismantlethe weapons of war. I do not say it should bedone in four calendar years or five years or sixyears. That really does not matter. Time isnot measured since Einstein's day by the calendar.but by events. It is occurrence that makes time,and as occurrence goes forward time will bebridged.

I also wish to repeat that once the processof demobilization and dismantling and discardingstarts, it acquires its own momentum. It over-comes resistances, political, psychological andmechanical ; it will have produced devices where-by these things can be quickly done, thepsychology of dismantling and demobilizationof resources in this way would become theaccepted law of the world. I believe the slaveowners of two or three hundred years ago musthave said, "When these slaves are liberated whatare the 'poor devils' going to do ? They willbe out of work. They do not want to leave theirjobs and homes, and what is more, it will take along time to send them away." But the decisionwas made, and if today anyone were to suggestkeeping slaves, he would not be regarded as aperson fit for decent society. Sol that theseproblems which we think impossible to solveor unrealistic, are more realistic.

I should like to ask, since the weapons ofyesterday have already become obsolete, is itmore realistic to make bigger, more efficient,"more beautiful" bombs than those that fellduring the war years? Is that more realistic?Is it more realistic to contemplate the possibilityof every country in the world making these deadlyweapons ? This seems to be the case, if youread the investigations conducted by a group ofAmerican scientists under the chairmanship of theAmerican Mr. Davidon, where a number ofcountries, including my own, are listed as havingthe capacity to make atomic weapons within twoor three years-as though. we would make them.But how do we know ? I say we will not make

them, but I may not be there in two or threeyears.

Therefore the possibility of demobilizationis more realistic than the capacity for massingarms, We take time over this because it is thehope of our delegation that, if not the UnitedNations Organization, then world public opinionwill set in motion this idea, that we contemplatenot merely less arms and less expenditure, but amethod by which we outlaw war as an instrumentof policy, a method through which differencesbetween neighbours would be settled by invokingthe councils of nations, by the impact of opinion,so that, since both sides would be without armsthe actual precipitation of a large-scale conflictwould be largely and remotely delayed. It isquite true that there are smaller problems,unresolved problems, in the world, but they wouldfall into their place.

And here we must all take courage from thefact that, while there have been failures during thelast two years in the sense that we actually haveno solution for the most troublesome problem ofsurprise attack, the main cause of war, apart fromwhat I said before, is the reverse of the securityidea, and is the fear that people have. That iswhy Yugoslavia, in company with my delegation,sponsored a resolution last year asking for thestudy of this question at Geneva. Actualstudies are going on, and though no results havebeen reached we have received very welcomenews from the leader of the United States delega-tion offering to resume these talks. When theelement of surprise attack is removed, there willbe some advantage.

Similarly, we have made no progress in regardto co-operation in outer space, but developmentshave gone ahead in outer space. There has beenno progress likewise in the matter of a suspensionin the increase of arms, as was asked for in theresolution submitted by my delegation sometime ago for an arms truce. Likewise, as wemust be reminded by the rumours-I don'tknow the facts-of further nuclear explosions, inthe Sahara Desert, there has been no progressin stopping what is called the "nth power"problem, or the "fourth power" problem.

With regard to chemical warfare, we are toldby a research student in America that the ancient

Hindus were probably the originators of chemicalwarfare. I do not take any responsibility for that.The beginnings of chemical warfare are lost inantiquity. References to particular nations arenot intended to point the finger of blame ; we arein the company of friends. Incendiary chemicals-I suppose the poor Hindus threw only a littlebit of a candle, or something-incendiary chemi-cals have been known to be used since at least1200 B.C. in Greece as also in India and by theRomans. Greek fire was invented in 600 B.C.,with the property of spontaneously burstinginto flame. (All this sounds very modern.)Smoke also has been used since early times toscreen movements, so when in the First WorldWar they created smoke-screens they were notbeing very modern, apparently.

357

Tear gases for harassment purposes were usedby the French in August 1914, followed by theGermans and British later. The first Americanuse of gas was phosgene against the Germans inJune 1918.

This is not what should worry us.

In the total, both sides employed about17,000 chemical troops and caused 1.3 millioncasualties, but only 91,000 were deaths. Aboutone-fourth of the ratio was wounded and dead,as compared with other weapons. Somethinglike 9 million shells filled with mustard gas werefired, producing 400,000 casualties, nearly fivetimes as effective as shrapnel and high explosives.

So these days we are rather inclined to thinkthat chemical warfare is no longer a danger.

I would request the United States delegationnot to regard the next quotation as chosen with aview to making an attack of any kind. This isthe purely military point of view. It was reportedin the New York Times, under dateline 8th August

"Leading military officials are trying to overcome public horror of chemical, bio- logical and radiological warfare.

"Pentagon strategists fear that unless a formidable programme of public educa- tion in this field is carried out the

country may suffer as significantly as if it were behind in nuclear-armed missiles.

"What the public must know, according to the highest Defense Department authorities, is that many forms of chemi- cal and allied warfare are more 'humane' than existing weapons."

This is one of the ideas which we must get,not only in America but in every country : thisidea of humane killing. It is rather a contradic-tion in terms.

In the New York Times of 30th August itwas reported from Pugwash :

"Twenty-six scientists from eight coun- tries who have been discussing the danger of biological and chemical warfare to humanity, animal and plant life, conclu- ded a one-week-long session here today. They warned the world that only inter- national control of such agents and weapons could ease heightened distrust among nations and eliminate the amnesia of secrecy'."

"It was emphasized that while control of nuclear weapons is proving difficult, control of biological and chemical weapons is more awkward. The cost of the latter is infinitely less than that of the hydrogen bomb and so places much less expensive instruments of mass anni- hilation in the hands of small nations."

So I should like to point out that limitedagreements on non-use of this weapon or thatweapon are not going to get anywhere. What ismore, chemical warfare was not employed duringthe last war, my advisers tell me now, largelybecause it was ineffective in a system of round-the-clock bombing. But the great countries inpossession of arms are still storing these chemicalgases. I beg to submit that an agreement of aninternational character, though it has now lastednearly thirty-four years, is not the most effectiveway of doing it.

In 1925 there was a Geneva protocol, towhich some nations had subscribed and othershave not, but I remember-I was a scholar in

those days-that on 13th August 1914 theGermans published in Berlin that the British wereusing poison gas, and on 14th August, the nextday, the British published that the Germans wereusing poison gas. So somebody knew about it.I do not know who started it first. So these gaseswill be used. The same applies to bacteriologicalwarfare.

Taking all these rather diabolical weapons ofvarious kinds, which are inexpensive and may besecretly concealed, there is no answer in themodern world except matching the power that isexhibited by man in so-called conquest of naturein this rather complex world, other than to referto the ethical problem in the context of socialorganization ; as my Prime Minister rightlywarned, not in terms of sentiment, not in terms ofpious intentions.

I have said : "Where no progress was made".But it would be very wrong for us not to refer towhere progress has been made. One area is inregard to a subject prohibited in the UnitedNations : Antarctica. My delegation had thetemerity to bring it up two or three years ago andupset the whole of the Latin American continent.But I am glad to hear by rumour-for nobodyhas told us-that in Washington on 15th Octoberthe twelve nations active in Antarctica pledgedtheir determination to keep that continent freeof war :

358

"Mr. Kuznetsov said the convening of the Conference 'indicates that its parti- cipants agree that a regime for Antarctica should be established on an international basis with due consideration to mutual interests and rights'."

While we have no desire to go into thedetails of this conference, even if the elements ofit are true, we have made the first step towardsfinding a place in the world-I believe it is about6 million square miles of ice-which at any ratewould not be a theatre of war or a base foroperations.

The success of the Geneva talks is anotherarea. We come now to the crux of this problem:the establishment of the ten-Power Committee.

My delegation does not support this by sayingthat we cannot do anything else. We think it is adevelopment of great importance, and we raisedthis problem about seven years ago in the UnitedNations and repeatedly stated that directnegotiations between the Americans and Russianswere the only beginning that would bring abouteffective talks in this direction. So we regardthis ten-Power Committee mainly as direct talksbetween those who can deliver the goods.

This ten-Power Committee is nothing new.It is merely an expression of the diplomatic capa-cities and diplomatic facilities existing in peopleand it is in no way opposed to the purpose ofthis Organization. But we think that if we agree,as we have, and wish this ten-Power Committeewell, then we must leave it to make its ownprocedures and arrange its own composition, notupsetting the balances, because, if it is to reach asuccessful conclusion, no impediments should beput in its way.

It is for us to devise ways and means bywhich the United Nations as a whole may be ableto express its concern and make its contributionin other ways, but we regard the ten-Power Com-mittee as self-sufficient, as coming into existenceas a result of the Geneva agreements, as havingpotency for good. At the same time, in ourhumble submission, the usual diplomatic channelsshould not be confined to communications bet-ween these ten great Powers. They have theirown representatives and chancelleries, and theworld-not in this building, not in our committees,but in terms of Governments-should have someknowledge of what is going on--I shall not say"should be informed", for that is the wrongword-depending upon the discretion, the desireand the willingness of these people to havecommunication with them. That must be left tothem. In that way the problem would not beisolated.

I shall not quote the Eisenhower-Khrushchevcommunique, which everybody has read. I amsorry that so much time has gone by that I mustomit many of the things I wished to say and comedown to the actual proposals we should like tosubmit for consideration.

I have already spoken a great deal about theclimate that should lead to the solution of this

problem. We should like to see the peopleappreciate the difference between cutting down thesize of armaments and coming to agreementswith regard to their size and so on, and we shouldlike public opinion in the world- not so muchGovernments and chancelleries, but public opinionin the world-to realize that there is no alter-native for survival in this world except a worldfree from war, where war is no longer an instru-ment of national policy. Since I have spoken somuch about this, I shall leave it for the moment. The second suggestion I should like to makeis that this ten-Power Committee, we hope-weare not proposing this, but we hope-will functiongenerally under the umbrella of what is usuallycalled the summit. That is to say, if it gets into• deadlock, the world will not hear merely about• deadlock, but the great ones will step in andtry to resolve it, so that it is not isolated fromwhat is now called the new atmosphere arisingfrom the Eisenhower-Khrushchev meeting, thevisit of Mr. Macmillan to the Soviet Union, andthe impending visit of the Soviet Prime Ministerto France and so on. If in this more or lessspecialized technical committee there arise diffi-culties, either because the meetings are too longor the speeches are too long, or because of gettinginvolved in previous history-and we must notforget that out of the ten Powers on the ten-Power Committee at least six or seven will be thesame that have been dealing with this for tenyears and know each other too well, sometimesknowing what is good and sometimes knowingwhat is bad-and if there is a conflict of this kind,we hope that the ten-Power Committee will resortat once to asking the bigger powers to step in toresolve the particular problem.

Then I want to make a suggestion, which atthe present moment I will make on my personalresponsibility because it involves many matters ofprinciple on which I have not been able to consultmy Government. Often it is asked : how do weenforce agreements? How are agreements inregard to violations implemented? The Nurembergtrials do put forward ideas which are worth

359

considering. suppose there was in the world acode in regard to scientists, shall we say, or inregard to soldiers or in regard to statesmen-whatever it may be-the violation of which would

be regarded as a violation of a peace treaty.Suppose, for example, technicians and scientiststogether made an atom bomb in secret. Thatwould be a violation of an agreement. There isno way now to enforce that agreement, except bygoing to war or making the country adopt someother method. It is worthwhile considering, andwe put it forward only as a suggestion, whetherthe Nuremberg method in this matter, of makingthe individual violator subject to penalty underthe national laws of his own country, again bytreaty, would not be the right thing to do.

That is to say, if a scientist is hired for thepurpose of violating the law in regard to thebanning of weapons, that scientist-apart fromthe country- becomes individually liable for anact of the kind I read out a while ago. Therefore,if individual responsibility can be fixed by way ofagreement in an international treaty, then it be-comes obligatory on the part of the municipalpower to execute the law of that country or tohand the individual over to an internationaltribunal, as the case may be.

Whatever may be the controversy about theNuremberg method, it brought to the forefrontfor the first time the idea of fixing individualresponsibility for crimes against humanity. Acrime against humanity cannot be prepetrated bya nation in the abstract. It is morally responsible,it is politically responsible, but the actual handsand the brains must be those of individuals. If,as in the case of Nuremberg, punishment hangsover people who violate the laws of men, as setforth in a treaty and sanctioned by this Orga-nization, that may well serve as a deterrent.

Fourthly, we would suggest that the deepsecrecy which is spread about, which really leadsto the leaking of information to a considerabledegree and to espionage, and, what is more, thespreading of erroneous scientific knowledge inorder to mislead one's opponent, is not onlyagainst the laws of civilization but also contributesto all those fears of disguised experiments andwhat not.

I have already said that the ten-PowerCommittee, in our opinion, while it should beentirely the master of its own procedure, willhave diplomatic connexions with various Govern-ments, and the use that it may make of any party

on its own responsibility, to resolve matters wouldbe a very healthy way of dealing with some ofthese problems.

Then we would suggest that there should bea ban placed by the industrially advanced coun-tries on the export of capital equipment andtechnicians to other countries, which are notmanufacturing arms, for the purpose ofestablishing arms industries. We read in thenewspapers the other day that these things werebeginning again. I read out the extract aboutwhat happened in the mid-war years. If, therefore,arms industries are to be established in countrieswhich are not members of the United Nations orare not properly represented here by the govern-ment whose writ runs in the place-if in thoseareas, if that situation should unhappily continue,arms establishments were to arise-then therewould be a leakage which would make any agree-ment useless. Therefore, it would be a point ofhonour, a point of international understandingand agreement, that the promotion of this parti-cular kind of enterprise and traffic is not in theinterests of humanity.

Finally, I should like to submit that the worldtoday spends billions and billions of dollars, ofroubles and of pounds in research on weapons ofwar. I think that the Secretariat should submitpapers and we should consider whether the timehas not come, and whether it is not urgent, to dosome research in the other direction-not to makepolicy, but to give facts-instead of war researchan inquiry into peace research problems. Thismay well be a part of the work of the Disarma-ment Commission. It should include the greatscientists of the world, who, in their public pro-nouncements and in the efforts they make whenthey are not strictly employed by Governmentsfor this purpose, are very emphatic about all thematters we have been speaking about. The greatscientists of the world, perhaps the main states-men of the world, should participate in this vastorganization, so that the money that may beavailable for this purpose may be spent on otherthings than investing methods of war. Suppose,for example, that we were told, as we were toldtwo or three years ago that it is possible to ex-plode an atom bomb in one's pocket and thattherefore any suspension is of no value. Thenthe scientists who would be international servantswith no particular allegiance to national policies,

would be able to come forward either to contra-dict that or, if that were the case, to find someother method.

The same applies to the resolving of certaindisputes. No one is suggesting the establishmentof a new machinery of conciliation. Some vastresearch of this kind is called for by an Organi-

360

zation whose main purpose is to rid the worldof the scourge of war and to be a centre for theresolving of disputes.

If this Assembly makes no other decisionthan to turn our hand to this more constructivepurpose, it will have accomplished a great deal.

My purpose in making these submissions isin no way either to anticipate what the ten-Powercommittee will do or to advise it. We trust itscompetence in these matters, we wish it well.Even though the representatives on. that committeewill represent their countries, by the very fact ofour endorsement of their establishment, by thefunctions they have taken in hand and the greathopes they have aroused, and, what is more,through the faith that this Organization places inthem, they have really become the custodians of thepursuit of truth and the establishment of peace.

While, therefore, the ten-Power Committeeis not a sub-committee of the Disarmament Com-mission and owes it no organizational responsible-lity--the only organizational connexion we willhave with the committee is that it will be servicedby the Secretariat in many ways--I hope it willtake into account the fact that, while there aregreat national loyalties, there are even greaterloyalties to the idea of peace and to the purposeof this resolution. The resolution should be thecharter of that committee. It is a resolution notonly endorsed, but sponsored, by the eighty-twoMembers of this Organization. It is a resolutionwhich has evoked great hope in the minds of menin every part of the world.

Finally, my delegation would like to suggestthat the Disarmament Commission of eighty-twonations, which did not meet last year except topass on information, will meet around the middleof the coming calendar year, in order to be inform-

ed and educated and equally in order to give en-couragement to the ten-Power Committee. That, inour submission, would be a very good way to keepthe United Nations well informed and intimatelyconcerned with this matter, apart from the referralto chancelleries. We would like to hope that thegreat Powers themselves, those who are involvedin this and who must be the deciding factors inthis matter, will give consideration and lend theirsupport to this suggestion, so that the Commissionwould meet again in six months or so. It wouldnot be a matter of sending out a notice overnightto the permanent representatives to meet in NewYork-distinguished people though they may be.The meeting would take place at governmentallevel, after the difficulties had been considered byGovernments in the chancelleries. Thus, when wegather here, we will not be putting forth our ownideas-bright as we always think our own ideasare-but there would have been a real delegateconference, and the disarmament business wouldhave become much more broad-based and withroots striking deeper into the people. It wouldalso be a method whereby this controversy wouldbe carried from council halls and chambers intothe market place and would become part of thenational, politics of every country.

It is our hope that the suggestion we havemade will not be thought of as intended to dis-place other ideas or to constitute a reflection onthe ten-Power Committee. But to have a targetin this way, and a comparatively near one, whereproposals would be considered in this vast worldassembly by delegates accredited for that purposewith their technical advisers, would be a greatstep forward.

We believe that the proposals we have sub-mitted are not unrealistic. We firmly believe thatit is possible to disarm this world. We firmlybelieve that it is possible for man to throw awayhis arms. For thousands of years, men havetalked about turning their weapons into plough-shares. But the time has now come when, if theydo not turn them into instruments of peace, theywill no longer be here to turn them into any-thing.

We must therefore recognize that, as the poetsaid :

"The moving Finger writes, and having writ

Moves on : nor all thy Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line Nor all thy Tears wash out a word of it."

That should be our outlook in this matter.

INDIA USA LAOS SWITZERLAND OMAN GREECE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC RUSSIA PERUSPAIN FRANCE GERMANY LATVIA ISRAEL EGYPT KOREA SWEDEN YUGOSLAVIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri Krishna Menon's Statement on French Nuclear Tests in Sahara

Shri V.K. Krishna Menon, Leader of theIndian Delegation to the United Nations, made astatement in the Political Committee on November6, 1959 on the question of French nuclear tests inthe Sahara. He said :

The item that we are discussing this morningis one of a series that relates to tests of nuclearweapons, having reference either to explosionsthat have occurred in the past, those that areprojected and those that may occur in the future.

361

While these items have some relationship, mycountry, in common with a large number ofothers, and finally by the whole Membership ofthe Organization, agreed for a separate discussionof this matter. That is due to the urgency of thisissue and also because of the terrain on whichthis explosion is taking place.

If I may introduce a personal note in thismatter, though my delegation will take full partin the item that stands in our name and has sub-mitted resolutions along with others, I myself maynot be able to be present here, and if I overlapinto the general problem I hope the Committee

will forgive me.

We make no apologies for the importance weattach to this project of the Republic of Francein regard to entering the field of atomic explosions.Before I address myself to this subject, may I saythat on behalf of the French Government, Mr.Jules Moch has been the exponent. This doescreate a great deal of embarrassment because ofthe great respect in which he is held in this Com-mittee, the well-known devotion he has to thecause of disarmament and his great knowledge ofthe subject, which does not always mean that allthe available data on a particular point comes outin a statement. It is part of the rights of anexponent of a case to present the aspects of theproblem which naturally advance his argument.This applies to all of us. It is for the Committeeto place the arguments side by side and to cometo its own conclusions. I am not for a momentsuggesting that the representative of France hasbecome the devil's advocate in this case, butsimply to say that there are other aspects to thesematters.

Secondly, we are all glad to note that boththe representative of Morocco and the representa-tive of France have found it possible to pay eachother compliments with regard to the way thisproblem is being tackled. That probably is due tothe facility of the French language of their longassociation with each other and their hopes offriendship in the future.

So far as my country is concerned, we havebeen interested in this problem and indeed broughtbefore this Assembly in 1954, after a statement byour Prime Minister in our Parliament on 2 Aprilof the same year, the idea of the suspension ofnuclear tests, the tests of these weapons of massdestruction, these nuclear and thermonuclear weap-ons. During the years it has gained gradual currencyand countries that thought that this did not belongto the disarmament problem, that it does not affecthumanity very much-and indeed at one time itwas argued that it was in their interests that thereshould be explosions of this kind in the world-and we are at last moving to a situation whenat Geneva, largely by the process of direct ne-gotiation, the main Powers concerned, popularlycalled the nuclear Powers of the members of the"Nuclear Club", have made some progress to-wards agreement. While this Committee has

no cognizance of the advance reached by anycommunication to it, so much is published and isnot contradicted that we find in magazinesrelating to this matter that seventeen points ofagreement have been reached. While at first onethought that these were insignificant ones, lookingthrough the contents of them they do representsubstantial advance, and what remains is withregard to the staffing on the control posts, on siteinspection and the veto. While these are formid-able subjects, the very fact that agreements havebeen reached on other matters gives one the hopethat progress is being made. This is a veryrelevant consideration.

The application of France to join the"Nuclear Club" comes at a time when we hopethe club will be wound up. Therefore, the ideaof giving oxygen to this particular animal is notso welcome to everybody concerned. The dele-gation of India at a later stage introduced in thisCommittee a resolution which it thought wouldassist the advance of this project of the cessationof nuclear tests by suggesting that there should betalks on a technical basis because the UnitedKingdom delegation at that time, with the know-ledge it had at its disposal, advised the Committeethat while it had a great deal of sympathy withthis idea, with the hope of suspending nucleartests, the question of detectability was difficult andtherefore the suspension must wait or could notbe carried out, apart from other objections.

It was at that time in 1957 we proposed indraft resolution A/C.1/L.176/Rev.4, Annex I, thata scientific committee should be established, andrequested the States concerned. In view of thedoubts expressed about the detectability of explo-sions and the need to dispel those doubts and alsoto provide against possible evasions, to agree forth-with to the nomination of a scientific-technicalcommission consisting of scientific-technical expertsrepresenting the differing views together withother eminent scientific-technical participation tobe agreed upon by the aforementioned repre-sentatives.

The Assembly in its wisdom did not find itpossible to carry this draft resolution, but its fatewas 38 against, 22 for, and 20 abstentions. But theideas were incorporated, as usual, in a little more

362

anaemic resolution which was adopted-we votedfor it-by 79 to 2, on the general principle ofgetting the best we could in the hope that it wouldbe improved, and that is resolution 1148 (XII).

So, various aspects of progress have takenplace, and it is at this time that the question ofthe explosion in the Sahara arises. Now, I thinkthe simplest and the briefest way of dealing withit would be to look at the presentation of thissubject by its sponsors on the one hand, and thereply given by the representative of France. We have, for the purpose of brevity again,tried to summarize Mr. Jules Moch's answersto them. He says, first of all, "the matteris exaggerated." Now, here we want to placethis, so far as we can, in its proper context. Theissue here is not the exploding of one bomb-whether if be a baby bomb or other bomb-becausein the context of the Hiroshima bomb, the presentbombs are giants-and that was a small one.But it was a small bomb that released all thistrouble, that created the whole chain of develop-ment in this direction. So, when the representativeof France says "the matter is exaggerated" we aregoing to take the following things into account.

First of all it has to be taken from the pointof view of those who are against the explosions ongeneral grounds, and as a danger to the world. Ithas also to be taken from the point of view of thepeople who live nearby. Indeed the IndonesianGovernment at one time made serious protestswith regard to the explosions in Christmas Island,in which they were more concerned than theexplosions in Siberia. Therefore, we cannot agreewith the fact that "the matter is exaggerated"because any more development at all in this fieldis something that must be regarded as deplorable.But over and above that, is it suggested that theGovernment of France is going to explode justthis one hundred thousand ton bomb, and nomore ? If that is so. then this problem assumes anaspect which is even more deplorable because theexperimentation is merely for the purpose ofletting off one firecracker as a demonstration.Then, all that it does is to excerbate feelings in theAfrican continent, and the worst part of it, toreverse the process which this Assembly has atlast set in motion and accepted by the Powersconcerned, and the process which has made someprogress in Geneva. Therefore, small as the bomb

may be, limited to one as it may be-it has notbeen so stated-and with all the precautions theFrench Government proposes to take-the veryidea of taking precautions implies that there aredangers-and therefore, however small it is, it is amove in the reverse direction. And this argumentthat the French test would be negligible in quan-tity of fission energy is therefore one we cannotaccept.

We also have the repetition of the usualarguments, already introduced by the then represen-tative of the United Kingdom at that time thatthere is plenty of natural radiation, and thereforea little more does not matter. My delegation hasalways answered it by a parallel. We merely pointedout that normally the human body carries on it,for every square inch, about 300 pounds of weight.For that reason, would any one of us agree tocarry another square inch ? That would be aburden. Therefore. it is not correct to argue thatthere is plenty of natural radiation, and that pro-portionally to that radiation a little more does notmatter. Nature makes allowances for that; we havegrown accustomed to that ; our genetic conditionsand processes are all adapted to that. So thisargument which has been put forward over andover again by the United Kingdom in the past,before they became active participants in theprocesses of disengagement in this matter, is nowadopted by France.

But, as against that, since it has come fromsuch a distinguished source, it is necessary for theAssembly to repeat that we cannot agree to theminimization, the presentation of these facts asthough it does not matter. Any explosion of thiskind, anything that leads to more ionizing radia-tion, is harmful to the people around, to thosewho are handling it, and to the world as awhole.

I make no apologies for again quoting docu-ments which have been published and which havebeen released since our last meeting. The firstof these is from the hearings before the JointCommittee on Atomic Energy, Congress of theUnited States:

"It was generally agreed that in consider- ing acceptable exposure limits in the context of worldwide environmental contamination from fallout, the best

assumption that can be made at present concerning the relationship of biological effect to radiation does is to assume that any dose, however small, produces some biological effect and that this effect is harmful."

Nothing could be more categorical than that :

"The testimony made it clear that much difficulty now exists in evaluating the haz- ards of environmental contamination from

363

fallout. This is because of the difficulty in attempting to apply to whole popu- lations exposed to fallout the concepts behind 'maximum permissible dose' and `maximum permissible concentration,' which were developed for occupational exposures to individuals under controlled conditions." (Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests-Summary Analysis of Hearings, May 5-8, 1959, page 7-Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States.)

We get the same things from various otherpeople. The National Planning Association ofthe United States refers to this and says:

"In problems of world-wide contami- nation, strontium-90 and cesium-137 are particularly important. Their half-lives are twenty-eight and thirty-eight years respectively, and so they do not die out in the long time required for distri- bution via the stratosphere. Strontium is similar to calcium and is therefore concentrated in the bones, where it can produce tumors." (A Special Committee Report, May 1958, page 13)

Another American authority on this statesthat if a thermonuclear blast such as the one onBikini in March 1954 had exploded during theCrusades between 1080 A.D., and 1299 A.D.it would have taken until the present centuryfor the genetic damage to be erased out of thehuman population.

Another source, dated 8 May 1959, published

in the Washington Post and Times Herald stated:

"A new danger from past atomic weapons tests was described at a Congressional hearing yesterday.

"It is radioactive-iodine which con- centrates in the thyroid. It is an atomic fission product which loses fifty per cent of its radioactivity every eight days.

"Because iodine-131 concentrates in the thyroid, which is a relatively small gland, extremely small amounts can result in relatively highdoses..."

Then we also have one of these statementscoming from Oak Ridge in Tennessee :

"Female fertility has been found far more vulnerable to radiations than has long been believed, it was reported here today.

"The tests with compartively low ex- posures to radiation sources, were done on mice. But there is no reason to be- lieve the same sterilizing effects would not occur in humans, said biologist Liane Russell of Oak Ridge, Tenn."

Then we have the Russians, who take secondplace in test explosions.

"Professor Lebedinsky of the Soviet Aca- demy of Medical Sciences said human subjects who had received relatively small doses of gamma radiation from 'hot' cobalt for unspecified therapeutic pur- poses suffered observable depressions in their brain rhythms thirty seconds after the experiments began."

We come now to that source from which noexaggeration will come, that is, the British :

"It should however be evident," says Mr. Orbuck in Nature, "that in a matter like this-a matter of life and death for hundreds of thousands-one should act on the basis of the more pessimistic view until convincing evidence for the more optimistic one has been furnished. This

seems also the opinion of the Medical Research Council ... In our view," said the Medical Council "it is not possible at this time to decide whether there is or is not a threshold dose concerned in the induc- tion of leukemia and cancer, and the only scientific attitude to the problem at present is one of suspended judgment. Nevertheless, the significance of the alternative points of view in determining the ultimate assessing of risk should be clearly understood so that those who have the responsibility of acting on such assessments should be fully aware of the alternative possibilities that need to be taken into account."

I would like to say here that this is the mostconservative British statement one can find. Thebulk of British scientific opinion is far strongerthan this. There are so many quotations that Ido not want to read out at the present momentwhich refer to the harmful results that have alreadyoccurred and to the fact that these results areinevitable.

"The Inernational Commission on

364

Radiological Protection has issued figures -about to be made public-which indi- cate that the 'permissible' limit of stron- tium-90 in milk and food should be lowered about 60 per cent.

"The National Committee on Radiation Protection, which sets limits for the United States, issued figures last Thursday which when applied to milk and food, raises the strontium-90 limit 25 per cent."

I will not tax the Committee with further ex-tracts from my outside sources, but I will go on toUnited Nations sources.

The Secretary-General is responsible for thisalthough he himself has not written these reports.Mr. Jules Moch relies on the United NationsScientific Committee. India is a member of thisCommittee. This is what Mr. Moch said:

"All the figures that I have given have

been taken either from the report of our Scientific Committee-which my colle- agues will easily be able to locate..." (A/C.1/PV. 1043, page 26)

Then a part of this Scientific Committee'sreport is quoted, which incidentally, may I say, isalready a year old. The Indian representative onthis Committee made the following proposal, whichis relevant:

"The exposure of mankind to ionizing radiation. at present arises mainly from natural sources, from medical and indus- trial procedures, and from environmental contamination due to nuclear explosions. The industrial research and medical applications expose only part of the population, while natural sources and environmental sources, expose the whole population. The artificial sources to which man is exposed during his work in industry, and in scientific research are, of value in science and technology. Their use is controllable, and exposures can be reduced by perfecting protection and safety techniques." (A/3848,page 41, footnote to para 54)

Now, if I may interpose here, Mr. Moch'sargument is that protection can be introducedin other cases. But here the scientific peoplesay that their use for research purposes iscontrollable.

"Radioactive contamination of the en- vironment resulting from explosions of nuclear weapons constitutes a growing increment to world-wide radiation levels." (Ibid.)

This concludes

"...these hazards, by their very nature, are beyond the control of the exposed persons. The physical and biological data contained in the report lead to the conclusion that it is undesirable to allow any general rise in world-wide contamina- tion because of its harmful effects and that any activity which produces such rise should be avoided. Nuclear tests are the main source at present which

produce such a rise." (Ibid.)

This was moved by the Indian delegation asan amendment to the resolution that was finallypassed. The significance of it is that in favourof the amendment were Brazil, France, India,Japan and the United States of America. So therepresentative of France, in putting forward thisview, is speaking against scientific opinion onbehalf of his country submitted in the ScientificCommittee by Professor Jammet, who was theChief of the Isotopes Service of the Civic Hospital.He serves as an atomic, hydrogen and radiopathologist.

From France has come the greatest contribu-tions in this field from the time the Curies firstdiscovered radium up to the present time. Wewould not join issue with the representative ofFrance about the scientific calibre or the placebecause he has said that he has consultedscientists and so on. My delegation still takesthe view that in no circumstances can it be arguedthat the fall-out from the tests that have takenplace, which now continues and will continuefor many, many years, has not had just technicalresults but results in bulk on the populationsand the generations to be born.

As against this report quoted, may we readanother part of the Scientific Committee's report,which is in document A/3838 and is deted June,1958, one year old :

"Many may prove to be unusually vulnerable to ionizing radiations (A/3838, page 39, paragraph 37)

"....the opinion seems justified that even a very small dose to the human foetus may involve some risk of injurious effects if received during a critical period of preg-

365

nancy." (Ibid., page 40, paragraph 38).

"Exposure of gonads to even the smallest doses of ionizing radiations can give rise to mutant genes which accumu- late, are transmissible to the progeny and are considered to be, in general, harmful to the human race. As the

persons who will be affected will belong to. future generations, it is important to minimize undue exposures of populations to such radiation and so to safeguard the well-being of those who are still unborn." (Ibid., paragraph 49).

"Radioactive contamination of the environment resulting from explosions of nuclear weapons constitutes a growing increment to world-wide radiation levels. This involves new and largely unknown hazards to present and future popu- lations; these hazards, by their very nature, are beyond the control of the exposed persons. The committee con- cludes that all steps designed to minimize irradiation of human populations will act to the benefit of human health. Such steps include the avoidance of unnecessary exposure resulting from medical, industrial and other procedures for peaceful uses on the one hand and the cessation of contamination of the environ- ment by explosions of nuclear weapons on the other. The Committee is aware that considerations involving effective control of all these sources of radiation"-including the cessation of the contamination of the environment by explosions of nuclear weapons-"involve national and international decisions which lie outside the scope of its work. (Ibid., page 41, paragraph 54).

In paragraph 55, the Committee definitely says:

"Even the smallest amounts of radiation are liable to cause deleterious genetic, and perhaps also somatic effects.

"It is clear that medical and occupational exposure, and the testing of nuclear weapons, can be influenced by human action, and that natural radiation and the fall-out of radioactive material al- ready injected into the stratosphere, cannot." (Ibid., pages 41 and 42, para- graph 55).

This last paragraph that I quoted isimportant because Mr. Jules Moch refers tonatural radiation. We cannot control that but

we can control this one.

"Even a slow rise in the environmental radioactivity in the world, whether from weapon tests or any other sources, might eventually cause appreciably damage to large populations before it could be definitely identified..." (Ibid., page 42, paragraph 56).

Then this report gives a table, Table II,which says that an estimated total of 25,000 to150,000 cases of leukemia will ultimately occur iftests are stopped in 1958 from tests already heldand that an estimated total of 2,500 to 100,000genetic effects will occur in subsequent yearsfrom tests already held. That is to say, theexplosions that have already taken place have aprogressively deleterious effect upon humanity.

From his own countrymen comes an appealin regard to this matter.

On 30 July 1959, twenty-seven Frenchscientists appealed to the French Government ormade their views known in regard to the Frenchbomb. This is what they said:

"Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the danger of nuclear war has been a source of constant concern to mankind. In France and throughout the world a very broad movement of opinion has deve- loped to eliminate this danger. Hundreds of millions of signatures were collected to the Stockholm Appeal, launched by the World Peace Movement. Other groupings took action along similar lines and more and more scientists are speak- ing out."

This is part of the appeal made by thesepeople that I am going to read. out. I cannotread out the whole of it because it would take toolong. But these are the relevant parts of whatwas said by the French scientists :

"Continued nuclear weapon testing is doubly dangerous in that it is an impor- tant factor in the arms race and involves grave biological dangers. There are perhaps differences of appreciation on the importance of the biological

hazards, but no expert disputes that they exist, and it may be said that every nuclear weapon test damages the health and life of a great number of people.

366

As new results are made known, it is becoming clear that the fixation of radioactive elements, particularly stron- tium 90 in the human body, takes place much more rapidly and in greater quantities than indicated by the initial calculations."

Another part of the statement of the Frenchscientists says the following :

"Any act that tends to oppose the con- clusion of an agreement on stopping nuclear weapons tests is a dangerous act. This would be true of the announced explosion of the French atomic bomb. It should, first of all, be pointed out that this would necessarily open the door to other tests, whereas one of the vital problems facing mankind is the stopping of these test explosions."

There we have scientific evidence from allthe continents and all the countries concerned inthis matter. I read out the French opinion not topose one French opinion against another, but inorder that we may not nurse in our minds a feelingagainst any particular people or any nation. Thereis far more opposition probably in France to thisbusiness than anywhere else in the world, becausethe sense of guilt might be greater.

As regards precautions taken about wind andweather, as I said, precautions always imply thatthere are dangers, and although science has advan-ced a great deal-it can burst clouds and makerain; it can split atoms and what not-we haveas yet found no method of controlling theisotherms and isobars in the world which producethe movements of wind. When Mr. Jules Mochsays something about the wind and that it willnot move in that direction, it becomes extremelydifficult to accept that position.

The uncertainty of the wind has been spokenof by American sources. On 28 January 1959-

and I am confinding myself, as far as possible, tothe expressions of opinion since we last met-The New York Times contained the followingstatement :

"Several specialists in the study of atomic bomb fall-out agreed yesterday that it was impossible at present to predict the drift of fall-out clouds more than a few hours in advance ... R. Robert Rapp of the Rand Corporation, in Santa Monica, California, said that fairly reliable predictions could be made for only eight hours in advance. The un- certainty, beyond that point, is not merely owing to the whims of wind change, but it is also the lack of know- ledge on diffusion of particles."

When we consider that it is not a question ofeight hours or eight days or eight months, butperhaps eight or eighty years during which theresults can take place, and the winds may changewith regard to the particles that hang around inany part of the atmosphere, any suggestion thatthe winds will be in favour of the exploders, or,rather, not so much against them, would not becorrect.

Then the next point raised is the question ofthe site in the Sahara. Here I want to say, firstof all, that it is not the intention of my delegationto go into any political question. We have nodesire to refer to the question of sovereignty,whether the Sahara is res nulles or French terri-tory ; or even if it is French territory ; whetherthe sovereign Power has control over undefinedmiles of atmosphere, stratosphere, and the spherebeyond. That is a question which future inter-national lawyers and international agreementsmust settle.

But the suggestion was that the site was onewhich was not likely to create much of theconsequences that was feared by the Africanpopulations around there. The answer to thiswas given by the Moroccan delegation itself. Butsince they are the movers of the draft resolution,I think it would be safer for us to go to someFrench source. In the Observer of London of 2August, a report was carried by a Paris corres-pondent Mr. William Millinship. This is whathe says :

"The 'atom city' built at El Hammoudia, south of Reggane, is not in the centre of a bleak desert".

Because the popular conception of the Saharais that it is no man's land and that there is nobodythere.

"The population of the Saoura Depart- ment, which includes Reggane, is close on 200,000.

"A French archaeologist, a specialist in Saharan research, informs me that the Touat and Tidikelt Valleys which con- verge on El Hammoudia from the north and east are among the most fertile regions of the Sahara. From Reggane

367

to Colomb Bechar in the north an almost unbroken avenue of palm trees lines what is known as the date-highway'. The string of oases has been irrigated for centuries by a complex system of underground channels known as 'foggaras'. The French have sunk wells to supplement the water supplies.

"The archaeologist feels that the oases may be contaminated by fall-out from the bomb, and that radioactive substan- ces may be carried from well to well along the subterranean waterways."

I am not suggesting that an archaeologist isan authority on radioactivity, but he certainlyknows about these other matters. Mr. JulesMoch said in this matter that, not contrary to theshort geography read out earlier, the sector withinthis range is totally uninhabited. Either therepresentative has been misinformed, which cannotbe the case, or there is this element. We shouldlike some clarification. Both the Moroccandelegation and all the other independent sourcesspeak of this area as being inhabited, and, if Imay say so, as in the case, of the Marshall Islands,it is not necessary for the particular spot of theexplosion, the particular platform of the explo-sion, to be inhabited. If it is inhabited withinseveral hundred miles or thousand miles, still, it

would be inhabited. But our evidence is that itis one of the richer areas of the oasis in theSahara.

The Times of London, on 17 July 1959 wrotean article about the Sahara bomb. The Britishare the allies of the French. The French areseeking admission into the nuclear club, of whichBritain is a recent entrant. But this is what TheTimes says :

"Both the Ghanaian and Liberian Governments have protested to France, and Nigeria has requested the British Government to convey its apprehensions. These protests are undoubtedly genuine. And indeed these West African States have logical cause to protest ... the West African Governments are protesting against the setting off by a foreign Power of a bomb on their borders which to their mind, apart from any harm that may be caused by radiation or fall-out, is as likely to be used against them as for their protection. Throughout Asia and Africa the bomb is a white man's weapon, used, on the only occasion when it was used, by white men against Asians."

I did not say this, The Times said it. It goes on :

"...The Sahara is large, but it is surrounded today by States which are neither part of France, nor even part of the community. What are the effects of the bomb likely to be on France's neighbours ?"

Again, this last extract does not come from anArab paper or from an Asian paper; it comesfrom The Times of London, with its aura ofrespectability.

The representative of the United Kingdom,Mr.Ormsby-Gore, speaking of this Committee,said the following :

"The United Kingdom has a very special interest in ensuring that no action which is contemplated could do harm to those peoples living in Africa who have not yet attained independence and

for whose welfare my Government has a special responsibility. We have taken every step on their account as well as that of other nations to satisfy ourselves that the measures to be taken by France will ensure the safety of all concerned." (A/C.1/PV.1044, page 13).

Now what interests us is the first part, thatis, that they have responsibility in regard to thosepopulations that precautions have become nece-ssary because there is danger. Nobody takesprecautions unless there is anticipation of danger. But the reaction of the Nigerian State andthe African States not necessarily represented hereare even more important. It has been statedthat :

"The following views were expressed in the Nigerian Federal House of Repre- sentatives in Lagos on 14 July 1959 by the Federal Prime Minister of Nigeria : 'That the people of Nigeria had the right to protest against the explosion of an atom bomb in the Sahara by the French Governments'. The Prime Minister recollected that the House of Representatives on 24 February 1959 had clearly expressed the general feeling in Nigeria towards such a test. The text of the resolution then debated was subsequently sent to the Secretary of State by the Governor General with the

368

request that the apprehension felt in Nigeria should be brought to the notice of the French Government."

The document goes on to state

"The Prime Minister is most unhappy to learn from Press reports and from news bulletins that the French commu- nity at their meeting in Madagascar have proposed that the tests should be proceeded with regardless of the Nigerian protest and he hopes that the United Kingdom Government will renew their representation on the subject."

In the same assembly another Minister of

the Nigerian Federal Government said :

"It appears that efforts made by the Ghana Government to stop these tests have failed, and the appeals, genuine as they were, had fallen on deaf cars. And so it becomes necessary for all other West African countries to make their feelings known in no uncertain terms and protest most strongly against these atomic tests."

The Acting Prime Minister of Nigeria, who spokeat a later date, said :

"The Northern Government is strongly opposed to the proposed atomic tests in the Sahara. We urge the French Government to use its influence and see that this dreadful proposal is not carried out."

There are many other Nigerian protests andprotests from Ghana that have gone to the FrenchGovernment. A group of scientists of the NigerianUniversity warned that in a country like Nigeria

..."where much of the population live directly on cereals and vegetables, the intake of radioactive material may be higher than in countries where meat and dairy produce form the staple diet."

The Trade Union Congress of Nigeriastated :

"In the name of the working classes and on the mandate of organized labour in Nigeria, the undersigned hereby register strongest protest against France's determination to use the Sahara or any part of the African continent for the purpose or conducting her atomic tests.

"In the name of Nigerian workers and in the interest of future Franco-Nigerian relations, the workers of this country call through you, on General de Gaulle, as President of the French Republic and head of the Franco-African community, to use his authority to withdraw France's decision to use the Sahara for her pro- posed atom tests."

I hope that organized labour in the worldWill take notice of this strong expression of opin-ion from the African workers.

From religious sources comes the following.The Christian Council of Nigeria stated :

"Although the short-term effect on the inhabitants of Nigeria seems likely to be negligible, the Council feels concerned for those who live nearer wherever the venue of the test may be, and also for the long-term effects of radioactive fall- out, particularly in countries whose main foods are cereals and root crops."

The Roman Catholic Church of Nigeriathrough its Archbishop, also spoke about theproposed test. He expressed the hope that itwould be "as far removed from human life as theAmerican test in the Pacific and perhaps fartherthan the Russian test in Siberia." But he saysthat does not matter.

I will conclude this set of quotations withanother one from a French source, because mydelegation is most anxious that this issue shouldnot become a matter of political controversy andlead to a deterioration of relations in the Africancontinent. With the problems in relation toAlgeria and the difficulties in the transition ofTrust Territories to independence, and with thecontinuance of colonialism, mainly by Portugal,on the African continent and the remains of theBritish and French empires which are progressingtowards independence, it is our very ferventdesire that, regrettable as this is and with thehopes that it will be abandoned, especially in viewof the circumstances I shall later mention, thiswill not become an issue between white and non-white, between Africa and France, or introducequestions of a different character. Le Mondestated : "In some months perhaps, one bomb will be exploded in French silence. It de- pends upon us"-that is, Frenchmen-

369

"to stop it. Because one has chosen an African desert for this explosion, shall we be slow ? Shall we leave only the

unquiet voice of Africa to raise a protest In the middle of the suspicious silence of the big atomic proprietors ? Explosion without danger of contamination..... precautions taken.....negligible risks..... We are being reassured. That which re- assures us above all is that these atomic tests are to take place near Tamanrasset rather than near Dunkirk. The great France a little polluted towards its south, Europe a little dirtied from the direction of Africa, who should be disquieted by this ?

"Fourteen years ago, the bomb which we manufacture today for the prestige and the defence of the community' (speech of General de Gaulle) hit Hiro- shima and then Nagasaki. In some seconds 300,000 died, men, women and children. They were yellow in colour it is true. We should thank Japan."

Those are not our statements. The articleends :

"If France carries out the tests that have been announced, she will only be speak- ing for herself, a mediocre atomic Power of the fourth order, detested by Africa, and responsible exactly with the same rights as the three others, for the poison. ing of the skies, the earth, the sands and the seas. France will be no more nor less than the victim of an improbable atomic conflict where there will be none other than victims, and France will simply be a non-innocent victim.

"The day when the blinding flash of Hiroshima exploded over Japanese soil. let us remember our horror, our anguish and later, when we understood it, our shame. The day France becomes, by her first explosion, an atomic Power, we will become at that instant, if we do not agitate now, the accomplices of Hiro- shima."

These comments with regard to Hiroshimaand France are not ours.

There are two other aspects in the argument

put forward by the representative of France towhich my delegation wants to apply its mind.First of all, why does France want this test ? Themain argument, put forward by. the President ofthe French Republic, is that of non-discriminationin terms of prestige, and this perhaps has beenoverstated by the Moroccan delegation. Whatdid Mr. Moch say ? Mr. Moch is respected inthis Assembly and would not be expected to giveany support to the idea that arguments of thischaracter should be enlisted in support of thepromotion of weapon of mass destruction. Mr.Moch stated:

"We do not accept any indirect discrimi- nation. We do not accept any tacit monopoly. Our precise, permanent and fundamental objective is nuclear disarma- ment for all, for that alone will bring about the full equality of peoples. If the fact that France is the fourth State to liberate the explosive energy of the nucleus of the atom-if this fact should cause the other three Powers to turn towards the necessary and urgent elimi- nation of nuclear weapons, then the present efforts of France and the research of its scientists would, without fear of the verdict of history, have served the cause of peace." (A/C. 1/PV. 1043, page 51)

That is one approach to it; the otherapproach of Mr. Moch is as follows :

"So long as there remains the agonizing insecurity of a world dedicated, as it is, and despite ourselves, to the arms race, each State has the right-and each Government the duty to ensure the pro- tection of its country, France as well as all others." (Ibid, page 46)

He went on :

"During nearly ten years we have been faithful to that declaration, hoping thus to set an example which, alas! has not been followed. Ought we, in the in- secure world of today, to remain without modern weapons ?" (Ibid)

Without any disrespect, I should like to

apply myself to that paragraph. I am sure thatMr. Moch did not mean what is implied by hisstatement. The first part of it is an appeal and asanction to all the Powers of the world to becomenuclear and thermonuclear Powers, because hestates that each Government has the duty toensure the protection of its country by this weapon;it was said in that context. It is said that forten years France has desisted. That is quite true;

370

France, with its great scientific abilities andresources has not produced the atomic bomb.That is all to their credit, but it cannot be saidthat in ten years the contribution made by Francein the Disarmament Commission, despite Mr.Moch's great dedication, has been of a characterwhich has not been the same as the other Westernor Eastern Powers, that is to say, it has notcontributed to progress until the meetings inGeneva began. I now come to the argument that France mustproclaim its determination to have no discrimina-tion ; the law must be the same for all ; it mustbe the same for the Africans as well. If everyoneis to conform to it, since France is not creatingany risks for the rest of the world, nor is Francecreating a risk for Africa, is France, from thepoint of view of its own interests, right or wrong.in equipping itself with nuclear weapons ? ThisI believe, is a matter which concerns only theFrench, which Frenchmen discuss among them-selves, on which they alone have a right to holddifferent opinions-but which is a matter thathas no place in a debate of this nature.

What I am going to try to do is to restoreto its true perspective a matter emotionally exag-gerated by the propaganda of people makingcapital out of the nervous state of public opinion.I shall be as restrained as possible in my commentson this matter.

First of all, it is raised for the first time; inthe history of the General Assembly a delegationhas raised Article 2 (7), by implication, in regardto nuclear tests. Never has anybody contended thatthe United Nations is intervening in this matterjust because tests were taking place in Siberia onRussian territory, or in the Pacific, which theUnited States has claimed is under its administra-tion by the Trusteeship system, or in Australia,

which is British territory-none of them hasargued on the . basis of Article 2 (7), partlybecause, I suppose, of general world opinion andthe recognition that the effects were not confinedto the populations among whom the explosionswere taking place. But, in all humility, I shouldlike to address this set of arguments to therepresentative of France.

How can this question be posed on thebasis of discrimination ? Does France desire tobe equal to all other people in all matters?Does France, with its great level of culture, withthe contribution which it has made to the volumeof liberty in the world, want to be equateddown to the others who have not risen tothat level?

Secondly, is the restriction that the GeneralAssembly likes to see enforced in regard to whatis necessary evil a discrimination ? Does libertylie in the capacity to inflict harm equally ? Thatis the issue.

Discrimination cannot apply to these matters.It can apply to the advantages that accrue if itproceeds from racial or other circumstances. Toargue on the appeal to the Assembly, on the onehand, and the protests of the African people orothers-and my delegation denies that this isparticularly African business ; it is everybody'sbusiness-is not acceptable on the ground of dis-crimination. It is not only misplaced, it is entirelymisconceived and I hope that we may pay noattention to it. There can be no question of dis-crimination.

That takes us to the other point : what is thepurpose of this ? Mr. Moch has been good enoughto show the Assembly that just one little bomb isinvolved-by implication, there will be no moreof it. If that is so, it would not add to the atomicprowess of France from the point of view of equip-ment. In the power alignment of the world atpresent France is aligned with the United King-dom and the United States, both of which are inpossession of plentiful stocks of atomic weapons.For the defence of the frontiers of France, or evenfor waging colonial war in Africa, it is most un-likely that the atomic bomb would be used. There-fore, the possession of this bomb really is merelya way of finding a place in the atomic club. Thatis all therein to it. And if the representative of

France is going to tell us that because France pro-jects the explosion of the bomb, thereby, it mayhave an influence on the three other atomicPowers to come to some agreement, that is a veryspecious argument.

Are we to suppose that France has no in-fluence other than this on its two close allies, theUnited Kingdom and the United States, and, bythe power which those two hold, could not exertthe same pressure on the Soviet Union ? There-fore, the argument put to the Assembly that it isa blessing in disguise, that if the French explodethe bomb it will speed up the talks in Geneva,and that is the argument that is put forward some-where, that if it is exploded it will be a good thing-if we start exploding these bombs there is al-ways a hullabaloo going on here and, therefore,the talks in Geneva will be speeded up-that is avery specious argument to put forward : thatFrance would have to use that kind of pressurefactor as against the United States and the UnitedKingdom to achieve the intimate and close alliance.And what is more, in the whole disarmament dis-

371

cussions, not only has France participated, equallybut France-and Mr. Moch especially-has beenthe spokesman of the West.

If the argument applies to the Soviet Union,then, of course, it should be considered whetherthe combined capacities of the United States, onthe one hand, and the United Kingdom, on theother, of the explosions which have taken place-in the proportion, I believe, of 130 for the UnitedStates, 55 for the Soviet Union and about 23 forthe United Kingdom-should be of far morepressure than this baby bomb that is to be explod-ed in the Sahara.

Therefore, as far as we can, we have tried toapply to the various justifications produced bythe representative of France, largely out or ourrespect for him and his desire to assure us thatthere is no ill-will, no last words in the matter.

We are told that France will give up testsif all the other Powers agree to give up tests. Howcan it be that when the General Assembly, Franceitself, the world as a whole, want three Powers togive up tests, that a fourth Power should emerge ?

That is not a step in the direction of stoppingtests.

I quote the following paragraph from Mr.Moch's statement of 4 November:

"I come finally to my conclusion. It is a repetition of my statements made in 1957 and 1958. France unanimously wishes for peace with disarmament. With enthu- siasm, on the day that the first three atomic Powers renounce their nuclear ar- mament, France will forego all military tests. Let these three Powers agree to halt, under international control, the pro- duction of fissionable materials for wea- pons purposes, to begin the reconversion of their stockpiles, to eliminate the vehi- cles for these explosives-in short, to renounce a monopoly in fact-and that very hour France will adopt the same measures. Seriously and solemnly I re- affirm this stand." (A/C.1/PV.1043, page 48-50)

We are grateful to the French representativefor at least implying that if there was an agree-ment on suspension of nuclear tests, there wouldbe no difficulty in France in acceding to it. Butwhen we read the latter part of this paragraphit is not so clear because what is said is, we willstop these tests when production of fissionalmaterials will be halted, stockpiles reconverted, andthe vehicles for these explosives elimanated-thatis to say when war is outlawed. It will be diffi-cult for any country, in those circumstances, to bethe lawbreaker. Thus, on the one hand, onewelcomes the first part and, on the other hand,the second part is a little bit of a double-edgedweapon.

My delegation would not like, even by impli-cation, to express disagreement with those who havespoken in opposition to this, but we should liketo disassociate ourselves from any statement whichsays : if you want to explode it, why do you notexplode it in France ? That may be rhetoric. Inso far as it is rhetoric, one does not object to it,but we stand quite clear on this matter. Whetherthese bombs are exploded in Siberia or in thePacific or in Australia or in the Arc de Triomphein Paris, or in these buildings of the UnitedNations, the issue is the same. The explosion any-

where is an explosion against humanity, againsthumanity present and of generations to come.Therefore, if, apart from the rhetorical side of it,if there is implication in this that the objectionis because of the fact that it is in the Sahara, theurgency is there, but we should not like to say thatif it is exploded somewhere else we do not mind. Iam, however, instructed by my Government todisassociate ourselves from any idea that thisparticular menacing evil, this diabolical weapon,is more acceptable in one part of the world thananother. In fact, perhaps to a certain extentwe would have reason to be more sad if it wereto be exploded, as suggested by a French news-paper, in France itself, because, apart from com-mitting mass murder on a large scale, Francewould also be guilty of suicide.

Another suggestion that is made is that,instead of exploding the bomb, France could beconsoled by the allies sharing their atomicsecrets with France. That is a matter betweenthem. We do not know what they share-weknow that they share a great deal, but that is amatter between those allied powers-but certainlyit would not be a step in the right directionbecause what the Assembly seeks to do, whatworld opinion seeks to do, is to restrict and toend for good and all the menacing qualities ofthis weapon itself and, therefore, any idea thatit may be done somewhere else or that, insteadof having one yourself, you may borrow someoneelse's-that is no answer to this problem.

In the short time that is left I should liketo say a word about this draft resolution. Wehave co-sponsored this draft resolution; wemake no apologies in regard to this. In fact,considering the enormous amount of feeling and

372

emotion to which Mr. Moch has rightly drawnattention, it is composed in the most restrainedterms.

It is an appeal to the French Government,even at this late hour, to abandon this experi-ment, if it is an experiment. It is, not going, inour opinion, in any way to contribute to progressof the discussions at Geneva. It is a procla-mation, in terms, by a great Power, that the currentmay be the other way. It comes too late to be

more effective than at present in the negotiationsthemselves. As one of the great Powers concernedwith disarmament, they have all the influencethey can have in the Geneva discussions.

If it is suggested that these discussions areclosely, confined to the three atomic Powers, thenI believe the Sahara explosion, which will not takeplace tomorrow--or at all, if France willed it-will not have any great bearing, because it is ourhope that these discussions at Geneva, whichaccording to published information have alreadyreached the stage of agreement on seventeenarticles, will conclude with complete agreement.The three subjects which remain are importantfrom the point of view of the general approachwhich is being made by the so-called two sidesin this disarmament discussion ; but one expressesthe hope that progress will be made towardsagreement, or even if there is no agreement, thatis neither the United States nor the Soviet Unionand I am quite sure in my own mind the UnitedKingdom-will embark on any tests while thesenegotiations are going on.

I would like to call attention to the statementI believe of 29 October or so, from the RussianPrime Minister to this effect:

"The Soviet Union said tonight (August 28) that it would not conduct any nuclear weapons tests as long as the Western Powers did not resume theirs." The New York Times, 29 August 1959.

Britain announced on 27 August that its banon tests would go on as long as talks among thethree nuclear Powers on a general suspension oftests showed some prospect of success. TheUnited States announced on 26 August, beforethe General Assembly commenced this sessionand before the two statements I have just men-tioned, that the United States would not carryout new tests of nuclear weapons for the restof this year. The statement goes on :

"The President has directed that the uni- lateral suspension of nuclear weapons testing by the United States currently in effect be extended throughout the calendar year. This decision was taken in the light of the agreed six-week recess announced today by the negotiating

parties at the Geneva Conference on the discontinuance of nuclear weapons tests. ...The United States wishes to allow a reasonable period of time for the negotiations to proceed"....".

But yesterday, the President of the UnitedStates further stated that it will not be the first torestart nuclear weapons tests. So that the processif I may say so-not with an attitude of "We toldyou so"-which led to the suspension of tests,namely unilateral, voluntary action, and whichwhen it was submitted to the Assembly was notacceptable-it was treated with a certain amountof ridicule-is to continue.

We also have the correspondence that hasgone on between the President of the UnitedStates and the Prime Minister of the Soviet Unionin order to find interim ways of agreement inregard to the discontinuance of suspension. Weall know that there are arguments going on withregard to underground tests, overground tests, andso on, but all of these circumstances point tosome progress being made in this matter, and oneprefers to be optimistic about this. It is all themore reason, therefore, this statement comingfrom such a source, almost a pacifist source,being the doyen of disarmament in this Assemblyand spokesman for the Western Powers, himselfhaving suffered bereavement, as he tells us, in thewars, and having, what is more, the capacitytoday to call upon the nuclear Powers of ourallies, it is all the more reason why, if the worldembarked on this suicidal project, we cannotunderstand it.

My delegation refuses to believe that acountry with a background of the French Repub-lic, with its great humane traditions, would simplyembark on a project of this character inimical toworld peace, against the trend of world opinionand against the trend of progress being made inthis matter, merely for the purpose of establishingprestige. There is no more prestige today inbeing in the atomic club than, I suppose, owningslaves in the twentieth century. That might havebeen the case two centuries ago. Therefore, noquestion of prestige arises. Our respect forFrance and her traditions, as well as for certaintendencies which we hope will come to fruition inAfrica-we dare not say any more-will not bediminished. In fact, the prestige of France, certainly

on the Continent of Africa, certainly in Japan

373

certainly in my own country, and in great parts ofEurope which I have said nothing about, suchas the Mediterranean-European countries closelyrelated to France, would be affected by this explo-sion. There are large numbers of countries of onenationality or another on the Mediterraneanborders who cannot but be affected by the resultsof this explosion, which is the explosion of abomb, incidentally, five times more powerful thanthe Hiroshima bomb. Therefore, when we talkabout baby bombs, let us not forget that;this bomb which is to be exploded is about fivetimes the Hiroshima bomb.

Finally, my Government and my delegationwould like us all to be aware of the fact that oneof the greatest misleading arguments is about theminimal danger, as is the argument about "clean"bombs and humane killing. These arguments arefar more ominous and difficult to meet thanstraightforward opposition. In any event, nobodywants to be killed humanely. It reminds me of acartoon I saw once saying, "I want to cut yourhonourable throat". So just because the throatis called honourable, it is still cut. We thereforeappeal to the French Government-we cannotappeal to the Government, but we express ourhope-that the volume of opinion which will beexpressed in the world is such that if they listenedand responded to it, it would not be interpreted inany quarter-I am sure Mr. Moch wants noassurance of this-as yielding to pressure of anykind. It would be regarded as a very noble ges-ture, the response of a country of the traditionsand responsibilities of the French Republic; andparticularly in view, as I have said, of the attitudein regard to certain African problems which wehope will go in a particular direction, it wouldnot be interpreted in any way as an attitude ofsubmission, of yielding to pressure. It would beregarded as an attitude of recognition of thefeelings of people in the world. What is more,in reply to Mr. Moch's argument that their atti-tude would perhaps speed the progress of discus-sion in Geneva, the fact that it is announcedthat the project has been abandoned wouldmake that speeding even more speedy thanotherwise.

For all these reasons, my delegation supportsthis resolution, not merely just to put it to the voteand gain a large number of votes. I have not theleast doubt that the resolution will go through.But that is not enough, because this Assembly,with all its votes, cannot stop this explosion.The vote we require is the vote of France, and ifFrance would vote for this resolution, then wecan all afford to abstain.

INDIA USA FRANCE MOROCCO SWITZERLAND CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC JAPAN INDONESIAMALDIVES RUSSIA UNITED KINGDOM BRAZIL SWEDEN LATVIA MARSHALL ISLANDS GHANALIBERIA NIGER NIGERIA MADAGASCAR OMAN ALGERIA PORTUGAL AUSTRALIA PERU

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri Krishna Menon's Statement in Economic and Financial Committee.

Shri V.K. Krishna Menon, Leader of theIndian Delegation to the United Nations, madethe following Statement in the Economic andFinancial Committee of the United Nations onNovember 6, 1959:

Mr. Chairman, I intervene in this debate witha great deal of timidity for many reasons. Firstof all, this is the first time I am addressing theSecond Committee and though every delegatefrom many countries speaks for his Government,but more than that, you are a committee ofexperts dealing with problems with which youare thoroughly familiar, but with which I have onlythe acquaintance arising from a sense of purposeand of general approaches. Apart from all thatthere are some procedural difficulties. The obser-vations which my delegation wishes to submit,probably go slightly beyond procedural limits tothe item which you are discussing. On the Agendais stated "The Development of Under-developedCountries." I am here, as far as I can with yourpermission and the indulgence of the Committee,

to have a look at this problem from the point ofview of approach that my country makes to theworld as it is today, from the economic andsocial point of view in the context of the tensionsand the conflicts between nations and the slighttendencies which we see of their relaxation. And,what is more, at a time when, whetherwe achieve it or not, the United Nations has beenfaced with the problem of the essence of disarma-ment-that is, the disarmament but a step towardsthe establishment of a world that is free fromwar. That it has got not only political butsocial and economic consequences. Forlong, Mr. Chairman, we have been accustomedto speak of the economic causes of war. Oftenin postwar periods, especially when there is un-employment, recession, the difficulty of adjust-ment of industries, people speak about economicconsequences of war. Now, the problem thatI desire to address myself to is in a sense forecastin one or two lines of the Secretary-General'sReport to the Economic and Social Council, setout in statements by my own Prime Minister,and there is nothing new about these matters. Infact, there is very little new that my delegationcould submit. In his report to the ECOSOC,dated July 1959, Mr. Hammerskjold, says"The economic challenge which the UnitedNations has set for all mankind is a far reaching

374

one. It is nothing less than the balanced growthof world economy." Now, this is the slightprocedural conflict I find. It would be a mistake,an error, today and certainly tomorrow, to lookupon the balance of world economy as merely aproblem of meeting the difficulties of under-developed countries. The world is not composedof merely underdeveloped countries. Under-developed countries would not become developedby the pumping in or the syphoning in of thesurplus products of developed countries or bycharitable or very intentioned or generous aidgiven to them though it is necessary for theirdevelopment. And, what is more, we could notavoid the considerations that we must have inour mind in the changing circumstances oftechnical development, of social ideas, or thevicissitudes through which the concept ofnationalism mutt pass. Mr. Hammerskjold goeson to say, the phrase "balanced growth of worldeconomy" has been heard so often in the halls of

the United Nations that I sometimes wonder thatthe repetition may not have dulled our sins intomany. If I may say so, Sir, there are so manywords in these halls of recess which are mattersof common utterance by different people with thecontents deliberately not to mislead, but theirmental approaches being different, understandingor analysis of problems being different, the con-tents of these words are sometimes not the same.It is beyond question that most ambitious, econo-mical goal mankind has ever set itself, embracingin a sense, therefore, superseding all otherobjectives. Says Mr. Hammerskjold "It involvesnot only balanced economic growth withinnations, that is one of the things that nationalgovernments try to do, difficult to achieve as thetarget is in itself, but even more balancedeconomic growth among nations."

This is our problem. And, if I may say so,with great respect, without any sense conveyingthe impression, and in all goodwill on the onehand, the spirit of sacrifice and the act of sacrificeon the part of giving nations, is not forgotten,but "among nations" means all nations and thenations that are under-developed have a contributionto make in this more than anybody else. I believethe time has come now, Mr. Secretary-General,to recognise equally that equilibrium in the balanceof payments of under-developed countries, whichwould doom them to widening rather than narrow-ing gaps in per capita income and then of deve-loped countries would also be a hallowed balance.In other words, even viewing this problem fromthe point of view of aid to under-developed coun-tries, if these efforts finally developed into a systemor an organisation of arrangements or relationshipswherein the under-developed countries continuedto produce the raw materials and became theconsumers, not necessarily the markets, theconsumers of developed products of other count-ries, standards of life would remain very muchthe same, and the problems, which have developedwithin the developed countries, to which I shallrefer later on, would become more acute. MyPrime Minister, in speaking on this matter ingeneral, nearly a year ago, in a preface that hewrote for a book called "Paths to Peace" editedby an Australian, said "Happily, we, as thoughmoved by some element and forces of destiny,move towards cooperation. Ours is a shrunkenworld. Science, trade and commerce, communica-tions, in the back of ideas have made nations and

people, often despite adverse circumstances,belong more one to another. Sentiment the worldover moves us in that direction despite all fearsand inhibitions. In this scientific age both vistas,hitherto unknown and unimagined by man, andterrors not dreamt of by him, they cast the mirageof annihilation on him and his world. And ourstatesmen and governments must make consciousand intelligent efforts to solve those problemsthat tell on the survival of humanity andcivilisation."

If I may interpolate here, these problems arenot necessarily the problems of hydrogen bomb ina narrow context. The paths to peace aredifficult, but pursue them we must. They aloneenable survival and fulfilment. The journeycalls for patience and tolerance and belief in ourobjectives. They demand more than all anequation of means and ends. They call forendeavours of us all. Now, the economic develop-ment of the whole world has, until now, shallI say from 5000 BC onward, rather been a hit andrun business, that is, each country from itsnational point of view has to adopt policiesto make either the powerful groups in them or thecountry as a whole, to balance its position.Inaccurately, but I hope for the purposessufficiently, we may say our economic policies,whatever the form, our economic approaches,consciously or unconsciously, whatever their formmay be-I am not now speaking of socialistic,non-socialistic, left, right, totalitarian or anyother kind, have been largely conditioned byideas of power rather than of plenty. In a worldof prices, power, rather than plenty, comes in.So the products are destroyed in order to keepprices ; one country may be prevented, notnecessarily by force, from producing in ordernot to affect someone else, broadly speakingin this modern world, from the era of mercan-tilism, it has been a policy of power as againstplenty. That was correct in the days when democra-tic ideas had not become universal-and by demo-

375

cracy I do not mean necessarily any particularform of parliamentary congressional or any othergovernment but merely the modem world-eventhe most totalitarian countries, the masses ofthe people have become important. They maketheir impact on opinion. Therefore, we address

ourselves to that problem in that way and,fortunately for us, the great leaders of the worldof the most powerful countries, particularly theUnited States and the Soviet Union, are notonly conscious of this, they keep on, both fromthe point of view of disarmament and the pointof view of world development, harp, or ratherrepeatedly make these statements. On the 14thof October, President Eisenhower, speaking inKansas, referred to this matter. Many peopleof the world, once dominated and submissiveare now and will continue to be involved in agreat ferment, explosive in its potential. Every-where knowledge and ideas, spread by moderncommunications, are routing the countries ofignorance and superstition. Peoples know thatpoverty and suppression are neither universalnor are they inevitable. Increasingly and insis-tantly they are demanding the elimination ofhuman indignities of starvation, ill-health. Theywant independence, individual freedom andresponsible government. These increasinglynumerous periods of tomorrow's world willmultiply those once and they leave at theirdisposal both more constructive and more des-tructive capacity. Obviously a programme forpeaceful progress calls for intelligent, economic,educational and political cooperation. Economiccooperation which promises that peoples every-where may by considered effort conquer hungerand disease, lift their levels of living ; educationalcooperation to develop that genuine humanunderstanding on which all other cooperativeactivity must be based ; political cooperation notonly to settle dispute which continually arisein this imperfect world. Then speaking aboutunderdeveloped countries specifically a few dayslater, in London I think, he says "I believe in thesense that the problem of underdeveloped nations,is more lasting, more important for Westerncivilisation, than this problem of Soviet-Westerndifferences and quarrels. There are 1,700,000people that today are living without sufficientfood, shelter, clothing and health facilities. Ibelieve that the biggest cooperative job that allthe world that calls itself civilised, including theSoviet, ought to address themselves to-thisproblem on a cooperative basis-and help tosolve it so that these people can achieve theirlegitimate aspirations." And that is a problemthat everyone of us must address himself to andsee what we can do and what our proper partis. When my delegation submits observations,

naturally there will be a slant of approach,however, slightly different from this, becausethese were statements on behalf of the problemof the underdeveloped countries.

Now, Mr. Khrushchev also, about the sametime, spoke about, in relation to disarmament"the carrying out of a general and completedisarmament programme will provide the oppor-tunity to switch enormous sums of money overto the building of schools, hospitals, houses, roadsand production of foodstuffs and industrial goods.Economies may differ, that I have my own doubtsabout whether this money will be available,because it won't be there. Money is raised for apurpose. The resources that are released wouldprovide the opportunities of substantially reducingtaxes and lowering prices. This will create abeneficial effect upon the living standards of thepopulation and will be welcomed by millions ofordinary people. Just the money spent by Statesover the last decade for military needs would beenough to build over 150 million houses to com-fortably accommodate many hundreds of millionsof people. And so on."

Now, I would like you to look at this pro-blem as more or less a problem which my PrimeMinister has referred to a 'shrunken world.' Ourworld presents contradiction, on the one handbeing a 'shrunken world' on the other an 'expand-ing world.' A shrunken in the sense that we arenearer each other than we used to be, by commu-nication and by the impact of ideas of andby the consequences of the action or theinaction of any part of the world or any sectionof the population upon the other. In that sensewe are brought nearer. But equally we are anexpanded and expanding world, in the sense thatlarge numbers of millions of people, who werejust a chattel, who were not human quantities,have come into life. Now that does not mean,that is not a political problem, it appearspolitical in a narrow sense, but it means therelease of aspiration. It means that wants haveto be satisfied. People will not be denied. Thatis the modern position. Over and above that,it is an expanded and expanding world in thesense of the discovery of the new sources of reso-urces; now application of resources; the advance oftechnology; the expanse, the dimensions of theworld; and, over and above, basic to all this, isthe fact that we, some twenty or thirty years

ago-when I say, we, or I mean the humanityor human being-resolved this apparent conflictbetween energy and matter. So that there is nolonger any question, as some people seem tohave expressed even in the United NationsOrganisation a few days ago, of the lack of

376

resources in this world. Now, from there we goon to the 'shrunken world' on the one hand andthe 'expanding world' on the other. The worldtoday has a population of somewhere about 2800millions. And if you will permit me, Mr.Chairman, for the purpose of this discussion, wemust look at this world as a whole and try toplan for its development and its service.

I will try, as far as I can, to put my observa-tions in this respect. We have never, as a peoplewithin nations, or nations together, taken thislonger view but merely tackled this problem asit arises. That is necessary because problemsdo not wait for the whole picture. But at thesame time no single part or number of partswould ever make the whole. So, in this worldtoday there are some 2800 million people andthose populations have risen in the last 5000 yearsfrom 25 million to .2800 million. There arecertain factors to be noted in this connection.The jump of population from 5000 BC goes onsteadily more or less to the beginning of theChristian era. By the beginning of the Christianera, perhaps a thousand years before, populationshave moved on from the stage of feeding them-selves by feeding on berries or roots or animalsor whatever it may be, into the approaches ofthe civilised. side of agriculture. So you find ajump of population from somewhere about 25million to 700 million in the world after thelapse of millennium era. From there, there isa comparative steadiness and then comes theperiod of industrialisation, the period of indus-trialisation in early stages from the beginning ofChristian era and afterwards some 300 yearsago. So all these changes in, what you mightcall it, the terms of production and also the termsof transaction between nations and communities,have affected the rise of population. Now themain problem at every stage, for example in thebeginning of the 19th century, when countriesof Western Europe were moving from an agricul-tural to an industrial economy, and populations

were rising from a small number of somewhereabout 40 million in the United Kingdom, atthat time the cry was raised of populationaffecting on the move. Mr. Chairman, thoughit might rouse a great deal of controversy, Iwould like to submit there are no remedies tothe increase of population if you want an increase.It is quite true there will be limitations of popula-tion ; but whatever limitation was imposed-andhere you take the rate of increase of population,or a higher rate or a lower rate-there will be, atthe end of the century 5000 million people inthe world, at a conservative estimate. What ismore, this population and its composition therewill be large numbers of young people and largenumbers of old people ; this is one factor to betaken into account. Therefore, our problem isthe planning for these five thousand millions.Now, for the present, we look at it from thepoint of view of various resources. People wouldlike to say that while there has been increase ofpopulation, while there has been an increase inproduction shall we say of food in the last ten,fifteen, twenty years, there has been no increasein the per capita consumption. In fact, in thepostwar period people, taken the world as a wholeare less paid than they were before. But what-ever the population may be, I would like to submitthat there can be, by definition, no stoppage ofresources in the world, because whatever existsmust exist in the universe. We cannot importanything from anywhere and, as I said a whileago, the very fact that science has now abolishedthe difference between matter and energy, and wehappen to know that it is possible to extract moreout of dumb resources than before. I am notonly speaking about mechanical machinery but thevast storage of energy in the world that isresponsible for production. But as we are nowtold that every gram of matter the energy, thatgets that matter and the atom together is so muchas we are able to provide for all the power thatwe require in the world. So there will be noshortages of power when human knowledge isable to release them. But let us take, instead ofgoing into the abstract matters, the more concreteparts. Food is regarded as the basic proposition.If there are shortages in food how do we meetthem ? Are there shortages of food in the world?It is said that for a production of nearly 150 tonsper head of food in the world the consumptionthat we require will be somewhere less than oneton per head. Now where will the remainder go ?

When we talk about food, and I am not referringin this context to only the food that under thepresent conditions we eat, but what is edible. Nowwe can go further in the concrete realities. And ifwe take the production of the world we producefar more than the world can consume. Theworld can consume probably only about athird of what it produces. The remainder isconsumed either by cattle, I mean by animalsincluding pests-the uneconomic conveyors ofenergy to ourselves. But, anyway, that is onepart of it. The other part of it-the great part ofour food gets wasted, not on the table becausewe see it and we do not waste it being the cookedfood that is served before us-that is anothermatter altogether. But, let us take for examplea stalk of grain. It is only about one-fourth ofit that we eat. The remainder goes out andbecomes fodder. So if from that point of viewthe world expands to 5000 millions, or by themiddle of next century to about 8000 millions,

377

there will be no shortages even on the presentbasis. This is on account of increase in scientificknowledge. So our purpose should be now notmerely to think in terms of 1960 or 1961 and soon, but initiate studies to ensure what are theseresources and where do they go. A large quanti-ty of food is consumed by pests on the onehand and by the cattle on the other who areeconomic in ways of nutrition. So the carboncontent that must go into the body, that would beProduced from a certain quantity of food at a-certain time it is consumed whether the animalconsumes it he passes it on. So that the animalin that sense is not merely a transmitter of allwhat he received, but about only 10 per cent, whileall flesh is got. So what we do is this, the plant ab-sorbs solar rays, which is our real energy and theanimal consumes the plant, and so you consumesthe animal; but in the bargain the animal is a stockbroker which takes 90 per cent and we get 10per cent only of nutrition. So it is. But seriouslylet us look at the problem in the plant world.What is the quantum of animals we can keep ?For example, take my country. It halt about thelargest cattle population in the world and is themost uneconomic element in our life. Then ofcourse there are other kinds of animals, redents,and other pests, the locust from the banks of theEuphrates, getting on in India or China or Japan

or whatever it may be. Therefore, if you destroythe pest it would be no use. The United Nations,the United States, the Soviet Union, Australia,Canada, or whoever he may be, if it was time tofeed, shall we say India, in this case, with grain,when at the same time the locust are destroyinga great part of it, which in India we cannot dealwith, because locusts fly over India and destroycrops in a few minutes, they were born on thebanks of Euphrates-how are we going to dealwith the locusts-then you must plan Wit merelyfor India but for plants in India. The Indiangovernment or the Indian nation, taking as anexample, cannot legislate as to how to controlthe locusts in the Persian Gulf or in those areas.That is one instance. So the whole of file controlof the destroyers or what is required, has to beplanned in this way. Here, a great deal ofplanning of populations, and there is no doubtthat the figures that are now given 5000/5500millions take into account the fact that there will beconscious restrictions in the increase of populationby individuals all over the world, prejudices,edicts and everything apart, there will be greatrestriction ; But all that will not prevent thegrowth of population to this number if you lookat the mathematics of it and if you try, it will bepossible by mass insecticide, shall we say takingan absurd instance, or, by some method of non-production of the human species. Then what arethe consequences? We will get a world that isnot only neurotic; we will get a world of oldpeople. What is more, everything we do to raise-the standard of life increases population. Inwhatever way we may try we have to limit themby family planning or whatever it may be,because when we raise the standard of life thereis longivity of life. For example, in the UnitedStates the longivity of life is seventy years insteadof sixty; in India it is thirty-four years- used to betwenty-four at one time. So the more we increasethe standards of life the longer the expectation oflife. Less people die out. Normally speakingthe net increase in population is the balancebetween the birth rate and the death rate. InIndia we had a very high birth rate and we had abig death rate, Now with the adoption of familyplanning as part of national policy we have nodifficulties in this matter. We had to bring downthe birth rate as we did the death rate.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, the increase inpopulation is not a phenomenon exclusive to

under-developed countries. People are born else-where, and I believe in this country the rate ofincrease is as much or more as elsewhere. Sothis mass population has to be planned beforetheir food has to be found, and that would requirethe taking into account, substituting studies andinquiries that are necessary for the distribution ofthe present resources and also the reasons whysome parts of the world produce more thanothers. I am speaking from memory, but Ibelieve that in this country an acre of land wouldprobably produce somewhere 4500 calories worthof food products in a day, the correspondingfigure would be 7/8000 from Western 'Europe;the corresponding figure for Asia, exclusive ofJapan, would be somewhere about 4000 and that4000 is brought about by the big rice belts ofIndo-China, Thailand, etc.; but if you go to Japanthis figure goes up to 18,000. That is due totechniques of production on the one hand. Andin regard to the United States the techniques areknown but they are not used and they are notusable in present conditions because if the calorieswere to go up from 4500 to 18,000 in Japan theUnited States administration, as at presentcomposed or conditioned, it provides largerquantities of money to pay for the support ofthe farmer. Therefore, as I said in the beginning,we produce not for the purpose of plenty, but forthe purpose of meeting economical conditionsas they are at present. I say all this, not in orderto comment on the state of economy of differentcountries or their administration, but when weare planning for the world as a whole what werequire is a necessary calorie content for 7000people; and if 7000 people have to be fed, it

378

has got to come from somewhere and mysubmission is that it is here. As the worldprogresses the more people there are. There willbe more pairs of hands and more stomachs andtherefore energy goes into it.

At the same time, I have come, into a largenumber of questions of technology. Technologythat is concerned on many things ; technology inrelation with meteorology. In a country likeours, for example, we are so dependent on theconditions of the weather. We do not speakabout it as the Engilsh do, always, but our cropis dependent on rainfall. If the monsoon, so called

comes fifteem days earlier then it destroys thecrop. If it comes 15 days later it destroys, eitherthe drought or the floods, whatever it is. It alldepends, on the timing of this rain. But with theincrease of technology it will come to an end. Ifyou can do that only in the conditions of theworld, and if there is to be improvement in techno-logy we should be able to produce this rain,where and when wanted. Our Australian friendsare going to say about it ! But supposing it hasto be done, then you cannot do it on a nationalbasis. It will lead to the same disputes as wehave now with the riparian problems. That is,if one country pumps out the rain from thebearing clouds, which would have gone into theother, he may get the rain which the other fellowwants. And, therefore, it requires a worldorganization. The same thing applies to irriga-tion and other sources of warer. Now it waspossible that a larger part of water that the rainsbring in the world goes in the sea, and so onewonders why all these disputes for water distribu-tion when the greater part of the water goesinto the sea. That sounds very simple ! It goesinto the sea and will continue to go into thesea until we can store it, and we could nothave stored it in the world in previous condi-tions. But today a bomb of the megatonsize of explosion of megatons, or somethingof that kind, could really create a crater whichperhaps, would store somewhere about 67/70billion gallons of water. So it was impossiblein old times.

Then we have the areas in our country andin other parts of the world where the soil is unfitfor cultivation because it is all lime. Now weare able to deal with this in the same way as otherpeople should be able to deal with it. But inthis matter, international connection or worldplanning becomes necessary, not for the reasonI said in the beginning, that what we do for our-selves may hurt somebody else, but for theinterchange of knowledge. Then there are areaslike the Sahara, for example-but it is a verycontroversial place at the moment. What Imean, there are places near the sea and likeColeridge, you will have to say-"Water, watereverywhere but not a drop to drink !"-sort ofthing. But with the ability of atomic energy andwith the knowledge that the energy contained inevery unit of matter is releaseable and it is the multi-plication of the mass by the square of the velocity

of light, which means that in every gram of matterwe are told there are 26,000 kwts hours of powers.And that is why somebody wrote that the atomcontained in the size of a railway ticket is suffi-cient to provide the power all over the world.Now, theoretically that is so. But when oneputs it in an indirect way in order to indicate thatthere will be no power shortages in our world,whether that power comes from wind or fromcowdung or from water, or from hydroelectricity,or from cosmic rays, or from any other source.So advance of technology on the one hand,and meteorological sciences can only be organisedon a world basis. It is an exact science to startwith and the investigations in the GeophysicalYear have indicated to the world that world coope-ration would be a healthy process in this respect.

Then we have the other problem, Mr.Chairman, which, perhaps in this country andsome of the European countries may not have thesignificance, but of course a world significance.That is, humanity, so far as we know, for the pastseven or ten thousand years, have been cuttingdown all the trees in the world. So you see, aproblem of aforestation becomes one of feedingpopulations. We were taught at school that plantsbreathe out oxygen and that, apart from thesupply of oxygen, for out sustenance, the plantsbreathe out oxygen and build up carbon. Theyabsorb the carbondyoxide which is in our midstand that feeds us. So, unless in the course of thecentury we are able to embark on the wholeproblem of aforestation in the world, where ourpredecessors, our people, who before us, parti-cularly in my country, for the last 5/6000 yearshave been shaving off tops of hills and therebydying away the sustenance that was going into thecarbon content of the people. What is more,the industrial societies with thier smoke and theircrowding and the deprivation of fresh air theoxygen they breathe out becomes necessary fromtheir point of view. Now, therefore, the plantworld even in this era requires this sort ofthing.

And secondly, in countries like ours and inthe United States I am told there is a vast degreeof soil erosion brought about by the deprivationof the capacity of the soil to be held together by theroots of trees. So the whole of this problem requires

379

intense study from our point of view and not merelylooking at it from the aspect of one country. Thatis why, when making this initial submission to theGeneral Assembly of the United Nations, mydelegation spoke in the way of planning for 5000millions. And, unless we did that what willhappen to us is this that there are under-developedcountries, to a certain extent in some case inanother every case, which partly reflect thementality of what I hope no unhealthy people willmisunderstand when I say you cannot build upan economy on the basis of laughing at a pint ofmilk. It used to be said. That is to say wecannot build on a soup kitchen basis. It has tobe self-sufficient basis.

When I speak about the problem of thedeveloped countries it would become even moreclear. Now, there is a vast degree of productionin the developed countries. The idea of ourpresent piecemeal efforts is that these surpluseswould assist other people who have not gotenough. What happens to those developedcountries who also become industrialized. There-fore, there is, of course, production in that partof the world, so in any world planning we wouldhave to deal with the product of industry, whichagain would not present any problem, Mr.Chairman, when one realises that the totalquantity, shall we say the basic thing like iron andsteel, today, I believe, is somewhere about 200billion tons, then the production of it has to beincreased if every other country in the world hasto have the industrial economy and social pros-perity of the United States. The quantity of steelthat would be required would be, I under-stand, about 300 times or something of what wenow have. In our own country, for example, tenyears ago we produced less than 1 million tons ofsteel and by the end of next year, I suppose, orthe year after, we will produce probably five or 6million tons. In another five years we will pro-duce 15 million tons. At that rate of production,it is calculated, not by us but about us, at the endof the century India should be producing, forexample, about 80 million tons of steel. There-fore, for the availability of power, the shifting theproduction of machines for other people and therecognition that the economy of these countriescannot be stabilized merely by the transmission ofthe goods that you make, that does give relief tothe giving country and it gives succour to the

receiving country as well, provided it does helpthem to live in the long terms. That is theproblem. And it is interesting to see that a non-political person like Mr. Eugene Black has madereferences to this in an entirely different context.I don't think Mr. Black ever thought I wouldquote him in this way. Mr. Black cautionedtonight that the cold war eventually might beovershadowed by the growth of tension resultingin the wide disparity in the living standard of thedeveloped and under-developed countries. ThePresident of the International Bank for Recons-truction and Development said at a dinner givenin his honour by the pilgrims of the United States,that the inequality was a source of frustration andtension. His prediction, he said, might seem far-fetched at a time when "we are so much concernedwith the relations among the great Powers."It is interesting that in very conservative quartersin what Mr. Khrushchev would call "capitalistworld" and what is more, in rather rigid quartersin the Soviet World, we are now beginning tothink that the soul of ideological controversyreally does not go to the roots of our problem;because this planet is one and there is no escapefrom it. We cannot escape from the earth. Wecan escape from one nation to the other. Youcan be political refugees, you can be reformers,you can be invader, and so on. But where do wego from here ? I suppose, now more people willsay, you can go to the moon ; but probably some-time hence. So this planet is a compulsorysociety and, therefore, we have to live here.Goes on Mr. Black, "But it is not really so farfetched as it seems. It seems to me, I have thesupposition that the cold war itself may be theultimate conflict of history to be resolved only bythe complete triumph of one side and completeobliteration of the other. For instance, it hasbeen the fashion for some time to try to usefinancial instrument in diplomacy-this is theimportant part-financial instrument in diplomacyas a method of winning or cultivating friendsamong nations for the purpose of main-taining or meeting international alignments in atime of world tension." By now, he thought,the limitations of this project are plainly evident.Now, Mr. Chairman, I am glad I did not saythis because that would have been regarded as ahighly political statement. But, here, we have theposition that this mere idea of trying to balanceeconomies in this way, while it has its short termvalue, does not meet the requirements. I keep

on saying that because otherwise it would lookas though we had to tear everything down andstart writing on a clean slate. Which is impossibleMr. Black goes on to say, even now it is markedby too many instances in which aid given tocountries for the wrong motives and wrong objectshas fallen far short of accomplishing what it shouldhave achieved. In extreme cases aid purelyconceived, far from improving the economies ofthe receiving countries, has actually added to theheavy burden under which they are sufferingalready. Far from helping to create partnershipbetween nations, it has, on occasion, aroused

380

bitterness and even downright animity." Mr.Black stresses successful development of theunderdeveloped world for the vital objective thatit is worth pursuing for its own sake, steadily,unremittingly, and with astutely regard as ishumanly possible for the fluctuating temperature ofthe international politics of the changing fortunesof international trade. Now this is the last part,you should take as mine, especially in thisCommittee, which by some artificial methodsisolated certain political questions.

The economic issue will become very muchmore important when the Russian and the Ameri-cans have agreed to talk to each other-there isnot much tension in the other room-and thereforethe economic issues come to the forefront in thisway.

Now from there we turn to what are calledthe "developed countries". The developed coun-tries have both short-term and long-term problems.First of all, there will be competition between thedeveloped country and the underdevelopedcountry, not as people think by the dumping ofcheap goods produced by low-paid labour-that is a superficial problem which can beeasily dealt with-not by that, but unless poweris used, unless planning is taking place on aworld scale, by studies initiated by the UnitedNations-they will have some work to do ifyou accept this !-By studies initiated by theUnited Nations; what happens? There will becompetition for raw meterial. Now, raw materialis short in the world-not short under the earth,because I believe even if you take elementaryraw meterial as a whole, there must be sufficient

that everybody wants, for essentially at least,underneath, and I will soon refer to the increaseof this quantity by technical application. But,as things are at present, and if there is no plan-ning, there will be pressure on resources. Deve-loped countries will compete for the same re-sources as the under-developed countries, whichhave been supplying them but now want them forthemselves,-whether it be manganese, whether itbe tungsten or anything else, on which developedcountries are dependent for competition. Whenthat competition in raw material comes, it hasboth a healthy effect and an unhealthy effect.Take an advanced country like the United Stateswhere-I am not in any way touching on internalmatters-it is unthinkable that the industrial systemcan be based in the decade to come on the basisof eight hours, six hours, or even four hours aday; because the quantum of production wouldbe such that shorter hours of work would notonly be adequate but would be necessary ifthere is to be full employment. That again I amgoing to talk of in a moment as another problemor world planning. So that, when the number ofhours worked particularly by a industrial worker,and we hope by agricultural worker, becomes less,this will pose, Mr. Chairman, the most difficultof all problems before humanity. That is theproblem of human leisure. What to do with it.

At the present moment-for the last twentyyears, I believe-we have got out of the idea thelonger you work the more you produce'. Thathas disappeared with Labour organization, bythe scientific study of the optimum production.by the increase of hours, and so on. But evennow we do not envisage the position whenin automobile factories, shall we say, a workercan work only three hours a day, because evenif he did any more, there would be too muchproduction-all over the world. If that situationof automation, the improvement of technicalproduction, comes around everywhere, thenthe Labour Unions of the world would naturally,in order to protect the very legitimate rights andto prevent unemployment, want the availableemployment to be spread over the entire people;which means people must work less. And if theywork less, even though during the period theywork, they work strenuously, what happens totheir leisure time? This leisure time is one ofthe important unstabilising factors in society.Now, the Secretary would probably know that

if his very department is over-staffed, less workwould get done and there will be more complaintsabout conditions of work and how much betterthey all can run the United Nations than theSecretary-General. It is always that some mis-chief is found for idle hands.

This problem of labour which in the old daysof a more leisurely society was met by pursuits ofa character which we need not regard economic,would have in modern conditions to take someother turn. In the old days, this labour, or thesurplus energy was absorbed by the industrialwar. Now, when war and war preparation todayof about 100 billions a year-95, I am told-100billions of a year, it is not expended for storingthings in peace time because every piece of equip-ment is used when there is no war, because eitherit is tested or it is used for practice purpose, or itused by being thrown away the next year, asevery piece of war equipment becomes obsoleteby the time it leaves the drawing table, and soit will go on to the next one. So when you sayyou have spent 100 billions it is not as thoughthey are storing these weapons at the end of tenyears-it will be 1000 billions worth of equipment.What I am saying is, this military expenditure isactual expenditure in military exercise whether

381

it be for practice purposes or whether you shootoff a blank guided or misguided weapon costing4 or 5 thousand pounds a piece or fifteen thousandpounds a piece, as the case may be. What isreally war without actual killing. That is, theprocess of war goes on the whole time and thereis a replacement for the 100 billions every year.It is not as though it is stored and after ten yearsyou can say 'Now we have got enough, we cannothave to spend more.' So each year you spendsomething, you spend more the next year. Sothat in the advanced countries when war pro-duction ceases the energy and the capital and theequipment, the material and what goes in thewar production, would have to be diverted forother purposes. It is quite true that some of itwould not be there at all, so far as money isconcerned, but the 100 million people-there aremillions of people that are engaged in war industrythey would have to find other occupations andthat occupation in the biblical sense of convertingsouls in the plough shares; but the difficulty

about plough shares is that if there are too manyof them, they get in each other's way ! And,what is more, a model plough share does thework of 200 plough shares of old times! Thereagain you are faced with this problem. Thedistribution of this population, in my humblesubmission, is a problem of world employment.Because if there are large parts of the world wherepeople who are employable in one country may,without infringing upon the fortunes and the in-terests may go to some other country. In our dayswe would not permit it, even in spite of the bestsentiment you may have. I remember in thewar years when Hitler invaded certain countriesI do not wish to mention the names of countriesand the populations of those countries, parti-cularly the mining populations who were resistorsof Fascist tyranny, when they were pushed out oftheir own country went to a neighbouring country.They were welcomed as the people who wereoppressed by Hitler; they were welcomed peopleas a whole as allies as the rest of us. But verysoon came the problem of their competing withthe local miners. That has been the positionin the past. But in the conditions of plannedworld economy there will be adjustments of acharacter where there will be no difficulties in thisway. But it will be putting the cart before thehorse to refer to this problem unless we previouslyobtain a world without war and where thereare no national armies and no hopes of nationalaggression. Now, Sir, from here we go on toother problems.

The world planning would require the scarcestof all commodities in the modern world. Youremember when I called the world shrunken andexpanding. The more scarce commodity ismanpower. We are on one hand talking aboutthe increase of population and on the other handtalking about the shortage of manpower; becausemanpower that is relevant to economic develop-ment today is technical manpower and thattechnical manpower for the first time in historythere are not enough technicians to go around.The Russians are meeting this far more effectivelythan others because, as has been pointed out byAmerican writers themselves, their economy, theirmethods, are so different to ours. They do notsend people from the University to the factory fora little practice, but you send people fromthe factory to the University for a littlestudy of humanity. But whatever it is, we

have not got the necessary number of techni-cians anywhere and it is believed that if the besteffort is put in, in ten years time I think, I amspeaking from memory, United States wouldprobably have 17,000 technicians which, by theend of the century, would become 300,000technicians; that would just meet the requirementsof this country. On the same plan, if my countrywere to produce technicians they would have toproduce 480,000 technicians a year. Today thereis one technician or scientist in this country toevery 200 of the population. There is one tothirty thousand of the population in India. Thisapplies in various fields. For example, there isone doctor in our country to three thousandpeople. There is one doctor in this country to170 people, and so on. Now, these contrastingfigures I am not giving because I feel jealous ormoved by it, but you must understand the situa-tion. So the greatest shortage in the world isthe technical manpower, because our world withall the scientific developments is an unsafe placefor people to live in unless they are technical.Now, in a small way, we know even in our ownhouseholds if the staff in the house, the peoplewho live there with their masters, servants, orwhatever may be, even the children in the house,even if they do not understand that electricity islikely to create trouble if they touch it in the raw,or if they cannot mend a fuse, or if they cannotdo something, the whole of their life would bedislocated, if, for example, in all the buildinghouses elevators were used and it was not knownto the ordinary people how to operate them,there would be more deaths than otherwise. Inother words, in this world we cannot functionexcept by being intelligent. Increasingly thisworld will not suffer fools because we requireintelligent man's guide to walk through this.Even a person like me-the only mathematics Iknow is simple multiplication and division-even I have to look into these mattersin order to function and give an appearance of

382

being knowledgeable. So that this matter oftechnical studies would again be a matter ofplanning for 5000 millions because unless thesestudies were instituted, simply the older concep-tion that you must find work for people even if wedid go back to the 19th century conception oftaking up from one pit and putting into another

or building relief work, that is the whole idea ofemployment. This will not do. But today, if youhave to have full employment that can only bescientific employment. Because the greater partof industry or greater part of our economic lifewill be, one way or another, scientific.

Now that applies to agriculture also. Ireferred a while ago to the differences in the yieldin the case of different countries, but the caloricvalue I gave was not of the actual food we eat,but of the actual food that is edible. Now that isbrought about largely by technical development.For example, in Japan I imagine they use some-where about-may be very nearly-a hundred lbs.of fertiliser per acre as against 40 or so in Europeand half that quantity over here and 0.6 in India.It is largely due to lack of technical knowledge,partly due to lack of resources and, of course, dueto national habits. That is another part of theplanning of the economic life on a world scalewhere I said a while ago that without scientificand technical knowledge we cannot navigateourselves in the world; equally, without a degreeof information, which enables us to cast outsuperstitions and prejudices, which so prevails inthe food habits; in my own country, for example,large masses of people would sooner go hungryunless they get the particular type of rice to whichthey had been accustomed. This happened in thedays of Bengal Famine. Other food habits arenot to be written off merely by statistical figures.That is why, though there is production of food,there is still starvation all round. Today in theworld-I am rambling about a bit-only 50 percent of its population is above starvation level, Imean below sub-standard level. Fifty per cent ofthe peoples of the world, so far as food isconcerned are sub-standard. When you come toshelter, sanitation, education and leisure, I wouldimagine, somewhere about 70 percent are sub-standard; because the first 50 per cent refers to thepopulations of certain countries. But when youcome to housing, which is shelter, or sanitation,which is medical assistance, and all that sort ofthing, or enjoyment of leisure, even in prosperouscountries probably half the population will besub-standard. So without in any way implyinganything, I am suggesting that different forms oforganisation should come in the world if it has tosurvive, if the 5000 millions of people have to live,in the end of the century-I believe it would bemore than 5000 millions-if 5000 millions have to

live it cannot be accomplished as in the old daysby finding a place. The old answer was, it wasconsidered in terms of particular countries. Ifthere are too many people either you take tomigration or to the conquest of other territories.For living space by sending people out doesn'twork today because you only shift this problem; sothat with the increase of power resources reveal-able, the quantity of material available would goup. I am not going to bore this Committee witha large collection of facts on this, but will quoteone or two things for example.

With the discovery not of fission but of fusion,because fission would lead us to the problem ofradio activity, it is hoped that the discovery ofthermonuclear bomb and its harnessing forindustrial purposes, when our atomic energyestablishments and our conceptions have gonebeyond the laboratory stage and have becomeuniversal, it should be possible to use vast quanti-ties of power that will release resources that arenow unknown or unworkable. Take for examplethe tar oil resources in Canada. It is said thatfor each square mile and a foot of depth, thereis one $1,000,000 worth of oil to be obtained.Now it is not possible by any known method howwe can work this tar element into oil except bythe degree of heat that will come out of explosions.Now, in the next room, as you know, people arediscussing atomic tests and one of the snags,which scientists from both sides are up against,is this question of underground explosions. Nowit is possible, whatever may be the militarysignificance of it, by underground explosions toproduce that degree of heat which I said wouldconvert this tar oil into fuel oil, which is requiredfor power purposes. I believe this particulartract lies in northern Canada and is somewhereabout 100 ft. deep. It is 100 ft. solid tar oil patchor rock. Now that means it is nearly a 100million dollars worth of oil in one square mileand there are miles and miles of it. The samething applies to various other sources of oilproduction. Equally our technical abilities willenable us to use what is now thrown away. Forthis we have not to go very far.

Before the capacity to smelt metals and purifythem as quickly as we can do now, scrap iron-all the tin cans and things of that sort-were ofno value. Now a particularly industrious countryin the world collects from India, for example,

what they call third class scrap, i.e., thrown awaytin cans and what not; and it goes 3000 miles bysea, it is smelted and it comes back to India asstainless steel and it is still economical. There-fore, with our new techniques, it is possible not

383

only to re-use used materials some materials wecannot use because out of the billions of tons ofiron that we have produced a Grail deal has gonenowhere; somebody may want to ask us where didthe iron go that we manufactured. It just dis-appeared, in the working by the colossal frictionon the one hand and by the corosion on the other.It is said that millions and millions, of dollarsworth of material is lost simply by the process ofcorosion of steel. But that is probably digression.What I am saying is that large quantities of low-grade coal, low-grade iron ores and so on, whichtoday are not considered economic, but with therequirement of humanity they will become econo-mic. And what is more, with the availability ofpower and by the increase of technical knowledge,these resources become valuable resources for thelarger population. Only a few days ago before theFood and Agriculture Organization-I hope thereis no harm in referring to this-a very dis-tinguished gentleman addressed them and said-this is a newspaper report, and I believe he wasmisreported-that perhaps we have reached thelimit of our capacity in the production of food. Iwould say, Mr. Chairman, we shall never reachthe limits of our capacity unless our minds andour hearts capacity to work is also limited.

After all, first of all, I said we have theknowledge that matter is no longer separate fromenergy as it is convertible and the introduction offourth dimension into our thinking of our know-ledge of things. Secondly, with the vast amountof power that is available and the fact that thereis from nowhere else where we can get energy.The matter is limited in the three dimensionalsense and it is only when the fourth dimension isintroduced, it can be expanded, so there is noquestion any time being without it. The latterpart of my education having been in England,one naturally refers to English instances.

In the time of Henry VII, there were 2,000,000people in England, it is said. I do not know howthey said it. They did not know how to count in

those days! But there were 2 million people, theysaid. In the time of Queen Elizabeth, there were4 million, though she herself made no contribu-tions so far as we know. But at both times it wassaid that England was over-populated. Thencomes the early part of 19th century, when therewere 12 million people, when they transferredfrom sheep farming into corn farming at the timeof the Agitations. Then the population went onincreasing. By 1840 the Industrial Revolutionhad well got under swing and the people from thevillages were drawn into the towns and afterwardsthe population rose to 50 million. Even today theyare over-populated. By the end of the centurythere probably would be 70 millions. They willprobably still be over-populated. That is the effortthat is required is not commensurate with therequirements. That is the problem, and that isour problem in other ways also. Our mindadvances. Our capacity for technical improve-ment advances. But at the same time while weare possessed of plenty of information and theadaptability of information to known technicalpurposes, our knowledge is still limited. I meanknowledge in the literal sense. The wisdom ofman, his imagination, his recognition in regard tolimitations are imposed by himself. Though it isnot possible, for example. I hope my colleaguesfrom South Africa would not object to impose thecolour bar, the Asiatic fluid or yellow fever bacteriado not recognise apartheid. If there is infectiousdisease in a poor part of the town, it is as much adanger to the rich part. That is one of thereasons the Public Health came into being, becausethe wealthy people did not like being infected bypoor people. So, at any rate, the world becomesone.

So going back to these power problems, Sir,on the one hand there is the capacity to use theenergy released by fusion without being dangerousto ourselves and any world plan must take intoaccount the fact that the selfishness of nations,if nations still have the power of that kind, does notthereby create problems indeed as oil, has createdproblems in regard to sea water by the dumpingof atomic waste into the sea; because if you dumpthe waste into the sea either at a depth of 100miles where we are told the water has not beenmoved for many million of years-we do not knowbut we are told-but either that way or any otherway the chances are that the generations thatcome afterwards will suffer from it and that is why

with the advance of scientific knowledge, wherewe have released the bound energies within theatom, and I think, if I may say so, it appears tome, as a layman, that we are only at the begin-ning of this because when we realise that in everydrop of water something of that size of that muchis six thousand million atoms. A great deal ofdistance we have to cover before we are able touse the knowledge that we already have and torealise the further capacities that we insistupon.

So, on the one hand, we use this fusion powerfor these purposes and again, as a result of thesein regard to the explosions it is possible thatscientists will discover the way not merely to testthese underground weapons in order to prefectthese weapons of mass destruction, but they maywell be converted, people say now, for the purposeof storing large quantities of heat in the same way

384

as we are now using natural gas ; or we mayperhaps even be able to use volcanoes which havethe capacity for eruption in the future. Similarlythese great bombs that are exploded undergroundwould become reservoirs of the heat which bycontrol can be transferred to other people and theactual primary source of it is so plentiful that thehuman knowledge for the release of the atomicenergy would help us in that way. In the samemanner, as I said a while ago, there are greatdeserts near the sea-water everywhere but noth-ing to be obtained. Why at present moment itappears that the irrigation of these areas is on theone hand conditioned by the nature of the sub-soilstreams as we referred to Ghana, but perhapseven the Sahara. Well, there is plenty of waterunder the sand. Now, they probably do notknow. The deserts of Rajasthan-Rajputana asit used to be called-has normally in the year onlyabout two inches to two and a half inches of rain,but if every part itself does get that rain then thecrop on that place-the particular kind of coarsegrain crop-grows up nearly to the height of man.Thus, water is all that is lacking. All the otherchemical components, everything else, is there.Except for the fact that centuries of civilisedIndian people have cut down all the trees with theresult from the Arawali Hills flow the winds whichcreate erosion. That is another of the problemswe have to deal with. But what I am saying is

this, that with the supply of water into the desertsthe oasis becomes the normal route and not theobstruction. Now, this water may come, as I said,by breaking the clouds. But all clouds do nothave water and apparently the clouds over thedesert generally do not have. But if there is waterin the sea, and if it is possible by the use of thisconsiderable amount of thermonuclear energy,it may become economical to remove theslying part by the process of distillation. Itvery sounds fantastic at the present moment,but so many things have been done in the samemanner.

Similarly, there are other sources of energyin these isotopes in regard to the increase of pro-duction and the knowledge of Genetics will intro-duce into the production of food fertilisingelements which will soon not displace, they willsoon take the place which now cannot be occupiedby chemical fertilisers. The Japanese have shownto the world that the genetic processes and thegenetic knowledge that they have, which they haveintroduced in the agriculture, has enabled them toproduce grain on a scale unknown in Europe orin Asia, or in America. In my country the aver-age grain production is somewhere about 600 lbs.per acre. I believe subject to correction it is some-where about 1050 lbs. per acre in the UnitedStates. It can grow up very much higher but theydo not want it to grow very much higher, becausetechnical knowledge is used only to the extent itis economically and socially necessary. But inJapan and China it grows up to 2800/3000 lbs. peracre largely by the application of fertilisers andother material.

Secondly, in this world is the idea of planningfor plenty of these products that are required tobuild up the human body. It would becomeknown to the world that the exposure of the cropto the sun is as important as the bulk of the cropthat comes to us. In other words, the English-man's sugar which comes from beet is not as goodas the sugar as I have at home because it comesfrom the sugarcane, and because the sugarcaneis warmed up by the sun for the whole year andthereby absorbs the things that the beet plantcannot which matures in three or four months,since the investment of the sun in it is over ashorter period. No wonder the Hindus andParsees and everybody else are all sun worshippers,because that is where all the energy comes from.

This is a subject on which one can talk at length.Therefore, why we place these matters before youwas the attempt to deal with these things piece-meal. They are necessary. We have made greatstories in this way, at least by drawing the atten-tion of the world and ourselves and the countriesand the nations that the elevation of thestandards of life in one part of the world isnot necessary if the world as a whole hasto prosper.

Secondly, it is not possible for the world tobe at peace so long as there is social instability.The imbalances are to be rectified. If there areinstabilities then there will be other features whichI hope my friends from the United States willforgive me by my mentioning. That is the tonsof foreign trade and balance of payments getseverely affected and you get that particularinstitution known of that character and peopleinstead of living under the supposedly Iron Cur-tain would be living under a Tariff War, andthat Tariff War in these conditions, when greatpowers of the world are trying to equal theirenergies; they also have surplus products; theyare no longer markets for manufacturing countriesor the producers of the raw materials; thosetraditions you go to the grave and we may getthe plains, that would disappear. And thisdegree of national isolation will become a causeof befigerency. So the terms of trade and theextremely small quantum of foreign trade thereas in the world, would appear to us ridiculous inconditions where there is disparity. If I refer tofigures which show contract, it is not meant for

385

any other purpose but to give a picture. I believethe per capita income in this country is some-where about $1050 and mine is about $50. Thoughthere is in the last few years the bulk of the nationalproduct and national income, but it has beenbrought down by the increase in population. Orif you take some other country, like Russia or theUnited Kingdom it goes into the hundreds. Sowith these disparties it is not a matter of indivi-dual jealousies or individual desires to attainsomething. You create a situation of distinctequilibrium that will not lead to forwardmovement but rather to restlessness and if it hasto be removed then our economic organisationhas to be of such a character where the foreign

trade of the country is not governed so much bymercantilist concentrations of power but ratherby the desire to establish economic equilibriumwhich will contribute to political equilibrium.So that so long as there are territories in this waypopulations in any country for which the re.sources are regarded inadequate and the malnutri-tion and falacy is repeated in the 20th century.If he committed the falacy it was not because hisbasic proposition was fundamentally wrong, butbecause he did not take into account the fact thatwith the increase of population he could not bekilled off by an epidemic or by war, could be saidby the increase of technology. He came in theearlier part of technical development and, there-fore, this idea of population pressing on the meansof subsistence proved to be a falacy. Similarly,if, as I said a while ago, large populations aregoing to press on the means of subsistence and wesit back with folded hands, or simply say thatpopulations may not increase, people who are notborn should not be born because we are alreadyborn, that sort of thing is not going tohelp us.

That is for this purpose, Mr. Chairman, thatmy delegation thought that we should contributesomething by speaking on the subject-I haveleft out a great many things I intended to say be-cause time is getting on-and to request the Com-mittee to consider the idea because this particularproposition probably would not have to go to theFifth Committee, whether while we are going onwith all the, remedies and everything else, the Secre-tary should not be asked by a Resolution of theCommittee to prepare some study papers for thenext session of the United Nations. And it is mysubmission, my hope, that the Second Committeein times to come-I am not saying this becauseI am here in this Committee-in this building-and the Fourth Committee will prove to be farmore important centres of discussions and decisionsthan the Political Committee is today. Theseeconomic matters will become as Mr. Black hassaid, the more important things when we wouldhave forgotten all the other quarrels and I hopeespecially in conditions when there are no nationalarmies. But you cannot beat souls into plough-shares unless we can use the plough shares. Andwhat is more, you can plough a land as manytimes as you like, but if you plough it in the oldway the result will be the old crop. Equally,this study, I hope, would go into the whole

question of education whereby the vast numberof technicians which, probably at the end of thiscentury, will grow into many millions in theworld. How they would be made available? To-day what we are doing is we are sending either un-wanted or very much wantedmen from one countryto another. That is one way of just taking oneanother's washing. That does not take us anyfurther. The world wants, just as it wants morefood, it wants men, it wants men and women,who have the understanding of modern techno-logy. And modern technology does not meanmerely engineering in a small sense but thedevelopment which has made the world differentfrom what it has been. And one of the itemsof this study, in my humble submission, should bethis idea how it is possible without distinction ofrace and national prestige, without even theproblems that at present are created by differentstandards of life and by different ways of living.How we can use all the available resources in theworld. How the educational and training systemsof the world, including the industrial systems,.can be so changed. The vast amount of moneythat is now spent on research, for example,would, to a certain extent, be directed towardsthe reformation of technical education of ourentire world so that there will be no shortages ofmanpower. Now the population is not themanpower in any economic sense. We wouldalso consider this question, as I said, on themeteorological developments required in the worldand its relation to all the newer inquiries in theouter space, inner space, and everything else. Itwould also be possible for us to put before thepeople the necessities of the limitations onnational, I do not want to use the wordsovereignty, explosive competence in the interestof the world. Now, Mr. Chairman, I will submit,even if no action was taken immediately on asubmission of this kind, and this organizationwould have justified itself if we got out of theidea of not seeing beyond our own notions.These problems of today will appear differentlytomorrow unless with wisdom we can anticipatethem. It is often said for those who do not takecare of the present, the future will takerevenge. In this world the vast populations,which were regarded as growing menace andgiven various names, with the contraction of

386

resources as they are called do not exist. And,what is more, our inability to use the advance oftechnique and science in constructional ways and,therefore, the growth of suspicion would againbe removed ; in these circumstances our secrecyknowledge would also disappear. So mydelegation would like at some time, as I havesaid, to put away some of these things where Ihave submitted that if necessary for us, if theCommittee agrees, to come to some decisionwhich would not be too controversial, if theSecretariat, that is the Secretary-General, wereso willing, as he appears to be in this,we would give him the umbrella underwhich great activity can take place. Iwould like to repeat once again, this is not aproblem of coming to the relief of the under-developed countries. The problems of thedeveloped countries will be even greater. Thedeveloped countries cannot prosper except underthe conditions of stability. To a certain extenttheir stability would be maintained so long as theirideological conflicts, exist, because pressures fromoutside create unities within. Stabilities cannotbe maintained in any country in the world whenthere are no universal franchises, whatever theform of it may be; that is the release of theaspirations of men where political revolutionshave taken place, but industrial revolutions havenot. So, in the words of a United Stateshistorian-the multiplication of new nations andthe shifting power relations of old ones, theastounding advances in science and technology,the soaring productivity of farm and factory, andthe population explosion in much of the world,we are passing into an era of greater and vasterchange than man has ever seen. The mostelementary effects-one of the most revolutionaryis the unprecedented growth of populationalmost everywhere on the globe. I would notsay 'unprecedented' because from 25 millions ithas gone to 750 millions in a short time, ofabout 2000 years or so, but, particularly inthose countries inhabited by coloured peoples.AU this has got a bias from the back-ground ofthe personal writing. The population of the earthis increasing by some 50 millions, if that is notaccurate, probably 40 millions anyway. Chinais adding each year the total population of thethree Scandinavian countries and by the year2000 the population of China will be close on1 billion, probably it will be 1200 millions. India,Pakistan and Ceylon, with the birthrate of 38 per

thousand are increasing at a comparable pace.Their population should be more than three-quarters of a billion by 2000 AD. WhereasAfrica will reach 400 millions. All these areguesses. Nobody can give correct figures inregard to this because so many factors enter.But there is no doubt that the populations willincrease in this large way. Therefore, we wouldlike, if there was a general degree of agreementthat some kind of a solution, not necessarilyemanating from the Indian Delegation, somekind of a desire could come forward. And if itis not out of order, Mr. Chairman, I hope youwill take some interest in this matter and see ifthere is any co-ordination of ideas that is possiblebecause this is not a thing on which either thereshould be too much expression of detail or toomuch of the depth of position from differentpoints for producing an ideal kind of decision,but to make a start which it does not in anyway affect, either the Special Fund or theSUNFED, if it ever comes into existence, NorTechnical Assistance-all things go on. But atthe same time, in the First Committee, we spokeabout a world without war. They try to planfor throwing away of arms and there must be theother side of this picture.

And therefore, like the poet, we wouldsay : " We shall be missions of a dependable future As far as human eye could see And see a vision of the world And all the wonder that will be For there is a Parliament of man, The federation of the world. They are the common sense of most And hold a fateful realm in awe And kindly the earth shall slumber Left in universal law.

INDIA USA AUSTRALIA UNITED KINGDOM CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC CHINA JAPANCANADA THAILAND LATVIA RUSSIA SOUTH AFRICA GHANA PAKISTAN

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C.S. Jha's Statement in Political Committee on Suspension ofNuclear Tests

Shri C.S. Jha, India's Permanent Repre-sentative to the United Nations, madethe following statement in the PoliticalCommittee, on November 18, 1959 on thesuspension of nuclear and thermonucleartests :

Mr. Chairman,

Once again my delegation has submitted theitem 'SUSPENSION OF NUCLEAR ANDTHERMO-NUCLEAR TESTS' for considerationby the General Assembly. We have done so inthe firm conviction and faith which have, duringthe past five years, prompted us to bring up thisquestion more than once before the GeneralAssembly. The Government and people of India

387

have steadfastly urged that nuclear and otherweapons of mass destruction be outlawed, thatnuclear energy be used only for peaceful purposesand that the fissile material contained in existingnuclear and thermonuclear weapons be convertedto peaceful uses. We believe that suspension ofnuclear and thermo-nuclear test explosions is anessential first step in disarmament and the pro-hibition of weapons of mass destruction and theoutlawry of war. Equally important is the needto meet the moral challenge posed by theunleashing of the tremendous forces of naturelocked up in the nucleus of the atom andhitherto not unmercifully hidden fromman.

As members of the Committee are aware, wehave brought this issue before this world forumevery year since 1954 in the hope that theAssembly would take cognizance of the anxietiesand apprehensions of the peoples of the worldregarding the dangers. of continued testing ofnuclear and thermonuclear weapons and makeappropriate recommendations regarding cessationof such tests. As far back as April 2, 1954, thePrime Minister of India, Mr. Nehru, said in the

Indian Parliament-"I have stated publicly ourview that these experiments which may haveserved one and only useful purpose, namely, ex-pose the nature of the horror and the tragedy,even though only partly, should cease. I repeatthat to be our considered position and it is ourhope that this view and the great concern whichis reflected in worldwide opinion will evokeadequate and timely responses. Pending progresstowards some solution, full or partial, in respectof prohibition and elimination of these weaponsof mass destruction which the General Assemblyhas affirmed as its earnest desire, the Governmentwould consider among the steps to be taken nowand forthwith some sort of what may be calledstandstill agreement in respect, at least, of theseactual explosions even if arrangements about thediscontinuance of production and stockpilingmust await more substantial agreements amongthose principally concerned." This proposal fora 'standstill agreement' by our Prime Ministerwas forwarded for the consideration of theDisarmament Commission. Subsequently, severalproposals covering many fields of disarmamentwere made by our delegation to the DisarmamentCommission and its Sub-Committee. Among allthese, the one to which we attached special impor-tance, was the suspension of nuclear and thermo-nuclear tests. Unfortunately, all our efforts wereof no avail and the sterile discussions in theDisarmament Commission and its Sub-Committeeinevitably led to virtual dissolution of theCommission. Apart from the proposals that wehad made from time to time for the considerationof the Disarmament Commission and its Sub-Committee, which in those days were the onlyforums where the questions in the field of dis-armament were discussed in any seriousness andto which all proposals made in the Assembly until1957 were transmitted, my delegation did notlose any opportunity during the sessions of theGeneral Assembly to make some headway towardsthe goal of cessation of these experimental nuclearexplosions.

I need not recall in any detail the main reso-lutions moved by my delegation at successivesessions of the General Assembly, to further theobjective of cessation of nuclear and thermo-nuclear tests. It is well-known that for sometime there was acute controversy on the possibilityof detection of nuclear and thermonuclear ex-plosions, despite the consensus of opinion among

reputed scientists that most of these were capableof being detected. At the 12th session of theGeneral Assembly, the delegation of India sub-mitted a draft resolution on the question ofstopping nuclear tests: In this resolution (docu-ment A/C.1/L.176) we suggested among otherthings the setting up of a scientific and technicalcommission, which should look into the questionof detectability of explosions. Our draft reso-lution failed to secure approval because of theopposition of certain nuclear powers to ourproposal in that resolution for the suspension ofnuclear and thermonuclear tests without delay.However, the suggestions regarding the technicaltalks and the detectability of tests found favourand were incorporated in General Assemblyresolution 1148 (XII) adopted at the 12thsession.

I have said all this, Mr. Chairman, to conveythe sense of urgency and purpose, with which mydelegation has pursued its efforts to secure thediscontinuance of the testing of nuclear andthermonuclear weapons. We have not beendeterred by setback and failures as we believedthat we were persevering in a world causesustained and supported by world public opinion.And, if I may say so, Mr. Chairman, neither wenor the General Assembly as a whole have anyreason to be despondent at the lack of results sofar. Indeed, discussions here have not onlymirrored the concern and the anxiety of the peopleof the world in regard to nuclear explosions andthe continued possession and manufacture ofnuclear and thermonuclear weapons of massdestructive power even difficult to contemplate,they have in turn educated and stimulated worldpublic opinion and interest. Indeed, these dis-cussions have had their inevitable impact on the

388

powers that have been conducting nuclear andthermonuclear test explosions.

It is not without significance, Mr. Chairman,that the last two years have witnessed a significantadvance in this regard. Two conferences havebeen held on the subject of cessation of nuclearweapons tests. The first, a scientific and technicalconference; and the second, a political conference,which is being held in Geneva and is still pursuingits labours, with a view to implementing the

findings of the first. Between the 1st July and21st August 1958, 23 experts from the East andthe West met in closed session in Geneva andcame to the conclusion that it was technicallyfeasible to establish "a workable and effectivecontrol system to detect violations of an agree-ment on the world-wide suspension of nuclearweapons tests". According to them, even lowyield explosions of 5 kilotons or under could beidentified by collecting samples of radioactivefall-out by recording seismic, acoustic and hydro-acoustic waves, by radio signals and by 'on site'inspection of suspected and unidentified ex-plosions. The Conference recommended theestablishment of an international control organwith 160 to 170 land-based control posts and 10more of water. The political conference inGeneva has, as a result of patient and protracted,and, if I may say so, sincere and skilful nego-tiations reached a large measure of agreementalthough some outstanding issue, namely, thestaffing of the control posts, the question of 'onsite' inspections, and the method of takingdecisions in the control commission, still awaitsolution. It is our sincere hope that thesenegotiations succeed in the evolution of an inter-national agreement which could later be adheredto by all members of the United Nations. At thesame time, it seems to us, Mr. Chairman, that inthe attainment of these milestones of progress,the United Nations is entitled to take some credit,and that the discussions over the years in theGeneral Assembly have not gone in vain.

The question may be asked, what is the rea-son for the persistence shown by my delegation ?Mr. Chairman, much can be said on this subject-and has been said-not only during debate, inpast years but in the discussions in the Committeeon other items concerning Disarmament; in parti-cular there was a fairly full discussion of thedangers arising from nuclear explosions duringthe debate on the item submitted by Moroccoregarding French nuclear tests in the Sahara. Itseems to me necessary, however, in a discussionon the subject of nuclear explosions to summariseas briefly as possible, what appear to us conclu-sive reasons for continued United Nations interestin this subject.

Firstly, nuclear test explosions are intimatelyconnected with disarmament. Until recently somenuclear powers held the view that there could be

no cessation of nuclear tests unless and until therewas a comprehensive agreement on disarmament.This view has fortunately been modified and nowit is generally held that the cessation of nucleartests though connected with disarmament neednot necessarily wait till after a comprehensiveagreement in all fields of disarmament. This hadindeed been the view of my delegation all along.Test explosions of nuclear and thermonuclearweapons, however, are motivated by a desire forincreasing re-armament and for perfecting andaugmenting the destructive power of nuclear andthermonuclear weapons. In this sense, nuclearand thermonuclear. explosions are an ugly andominous symbol; and without the cessation of testexplosions of nuclear and thermonuclear weaponsthere can be no advance towards the universallydesired goal of total and general disarmament,which, only the other day, has been endorsed bythe General Assembly with a unanimity and inan atmosphere of hope and goodwill, unparalleledin the history of the United Nations. If thenations of the world, which possess nuclear wea-pons, and others, which do not possess such wea-pons, but are in a position to manufacture themnow or in the near future, can agree to the cessa-tion or suspension of test explosions of nuclearand thermonuclear weapons, the first majorbreakthrough in disarmament will have beenmade. The establishment of the necessarymachinery for inspection and control, and ex-perience of its working, will show the way to thecomprehensive controls which must form partof any general and complete disarmament.

Here, may I quote, Mr. Chairman, a state-ment made by Mr. Wadsworth, the United Statesrepresentative at the Geneva talks, who is playingsuch a valuable role in these talks, which expressesthe same ideas. Speaking on September 3, 1959at a news conference, Mr. Wadsworth said : "Weshould not lose sight of the fact that these con-ferences are the only hope of establishing a pre-cedent which can be used in negotiations through-out the whole field of disarmament."

Not only is the cessation of nuclear andthermo-nuclear explosions necessary for haltingthe race for nuclear and thermonuclear armamentamong the powers that now possess them, but itis equally necessary to prevent the disseminationof nuclear weapons among other nations. Theate Prof. Einstein used to say that in the not too

distant future anyone could manufacture a

389

nuclear bomb in his backyard ! Scientists agreetoday that at least 10 or 12 nations, besides thepresent-day nuclear powers, are capable of manu-facturing either now or in the near future nuclearweapons; and if no agreement is reached on thecessation of such tests sooner or later there maybe test explosions by other powers as a step to-ward the manufacture of nuclear and thermo-nu-clear weapons. Once such weapons are spreadaround the world, not only will disarmamentbecome much more difficult but the chances of anuclear war with total destruction will becomeimmeasurably greater. The measure of supportfor the resolution on this item brought up byIreland which was adopted without dissent is aclear indication of the views of the United Nationsin this regard.

Secondly, there is the fear arising from nuclearand thermonuclear explosions. This fear, aseveryone knows, is real. It is the fear of totaldestruction likely to be caused by a nuclear andthermonuclear war-destruction not merely ofhuman lives but of all the accumulated cultureand achievements of humanity. It is also the fearof the unknown which is sometimes more potent,more insiduous than fear of something which onecan lay one's hands on. There is today, no onecan doubt, a widespread fear of the effects of theradio-activity released in the nuclear test explo-sions and of the effects of the nuclear fall-out. Wehave heard in this Committee, Mr. Chairman, inthe discussions on a previous item, views calculat-ed to allay these fears.

Mr. Chairman, detailed figures were givenduring discussions on another item to show thatthe increase in radiation caused by nuclear explo-sions is infinitesimally small compared to thenatural radiation to which man is subject. Statis-tically these figures are not open to question, butcan anyone of us, Mr. Chairman, argue fromthese figures that there is no danger to humanhealth from the increased man-made radiation asa result of the 207 nuclear explosions that havealready taken place ? There is difference of opi-nion among scientists as to the exact extent of thedanger and the effects themselves are not fullyknown, but there is not one responsible body of

opinion which asserts that increased radiationfrom man-made explosions poses no danger tohumanity. If ways and means could be found toprevent deaths and damages due to natural radia-tion, man would do it. In the case of naturalradiation, we are faced with a situation where,for the time being at least, we are unable to dovery much to ward off the danger. Man maderadiation is in an entirely different category andthere can be no doubt that neither the occurrencenor the consequences of such radiation can beaccepted as inevitable.

What are the known facts about atomicradiation ? Eighteen scientists, Nobel Prizewinners of many countries, on 15 July 1955 gavea warning that the use of nuclear weapons mightcontaminate the world with radio-activity andwipe out entire nations. At the internationalconference on peaceful uses of atomic energy in1955 much attention was devoted to the possiblegenetic effects of radiation on the human race andsuggestions were put forward that internationalorganisations should be set up to study the matterand establish standards of radio-biological pro-tection. The consensus of opinion was that al-though the dangers might not be immediate, quickaction should be taken to safeguard the humanrace against adverse effects of radiation, parti-cularly as regards the possibility of unfavourablegenetic mutations.

On 15 February 1955, the U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission in a report on Bikini HydrogenBomb test of March 1, 1954, said that there wassufficient radio-activity in the down-wind belt forabout 140 miles in length and of varying widthupto 20 miles to have seriously threatened thelives of all persons in the area who did not takeprotective measures.

Addressing the Royal Society for Health inEngland, Prof. Gordon Fair of Harvard said :"Present figures indicate that fall out from weaponstests before 1957 accounted for the birth ofbetween 2500 and 13000 genetically defectivechildren and between 25,000 and 100,000 cases ofLeukemia and bone-tumor considered altogether."

The report of the U.N. Scientific Committeeon the effects of atomic radiation, to whichreference has been made in this Committee veryfrequently, also states that an estimated total of

2500 to 100,000 genetic defects will occur oversubsequent years from tests already held.

The U.S. official publication "The SummaryAnalysis of the Public Hearings" held from May5 to May 8, 1959, by the Special Sub-Committeeon Radiation of the Joint Committee of AtomicEnergy, on fall out from nuclear weapons tests,says : "It was generally agreed that in consideringacceptable exposure limits in the context of world-wide environmental contamination from fall out,the best assumption that can be made at presentconcerning the relationship of biological effectto radiation dose is to assume that any dose,however small, produces some biological effectand that this effect is harmful."

390

Many more quotations of scientific viewsmight be made but I do not wish to burden theCommittee with such quotations. Suffice it tosay that responsible bodies like the Federation ofAmerican Scientists, the British Medical ResearchCouncil, the U. S. Academy of Sciences andothers have voiced concern at the genetic andother effects of radiation and nuclear fall out.

I have mentioned these facts to show thateven though the extent of the danger or damagecaused radiation or nuclear fall out may be amatter of controversy, the danger is still thereand cannot be ignored, and irrespective of howmany people might be affected, world opinion andindeed the General Assembly cannot for a momentapprove the continuance of the nuclear andthermo-nuclear tests. No nation has the rightto cause genetic or other damage to the humanspecies, irrespective of whether they are its ownnationals or not.

I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the moralchallenge offered by the whole question of nuclearexplosions. What is the nature of this challenge ?The challenge, Mr. Chairman, is nothing less thanthat of survival of human race. This cannot beput in more precise or moving words than thoseused by the scientists' appeal for renunciation ofwar, made by the late Prof. Albert Einstein and8 other world famous scientists. The appealsaid, inter alia : "In the tragic situation whichconfronts humanity we feel that the scientistsshould assemble in a conference to appraise the

perils that have arisen as a result of thedevelopment of weapons of mass destruction andto discuss a resolution ......

"We are speaking not as members of thisor that nation, continent, or creed, but as humanbeings, members of the species Man, whosecontinued existence is in doubt ......

"It is feared that if many H-bombs are usedthere will be universal death-sudden only for aminority, but for the majority a slow torture ofdisease and disintegration.

"Many warnings have been uttered byeminent men of science and by authorities inmilitary strategy. None of them will say thatthe worst results are certain. What they do sayis that these results are possible, and no one canbe sure that they will not be realised......

"Here, then, is the problem which we presentto you, stark and dreadful and inescapable : Shallwe put an end to the human race ; or shall man-kind renounce war ?"

The scientists' appeal, to which I havereferred, concludes : "There lies before us, ifwe choose, continual progress in happiness,knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead,choose death because we cannot forget ourquarrels ? We appeal, as human beings, tohuman beings : Remember your humanity, andforget the rest. If you can do so, the way liesopen to a new Paradise ; if you cannot, therelies before you the risk of universal death.

Mr. Chairman, this is the great challenge ofour time - the supreme challenge of the spirit.Shall man have the wisdom to use the tremendouspower placed in his hands by the discovery ofatomic power to make this planet a world ofhappiness and plenty, or will he, in wanton follyuse nuclear power for committing mass suicideand the destruction of the human race ?

This, Mr. Chairman, is the challenge that weare facing today. Nuclear and thermonuclear testsare but a facet of this great challenge, since theseare a symbol of nuclear war. We of the UnitedNations are placed in a position of privilege andresponsibility. The way we attempt to answerit will be inscribed in the pages of history. I

hope, for the sake of us all, that we shall facethe challenge in the right way.

Having said all this, Mr. Chairman, toemphasise the great importance of the subjectbefore us, and the approach of my delegation inbringing it up before the United Nations, wewould like to make it clear that my delegationhas a sense of satisfaction at the earnest effortsbeing made in Geneva to reach a final and defini-tive agreement on the suspension of nuclear testswith effective international control. We wish topay a tribute to the patience and the earnestnessof purpose and perseverance of the three greatpowers, the U.K., the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.,which are participating in the Geneva discussions.It is our earnest hope that these discussionsreach a satisfactory conclusion and that theremaining points of difference are resolved verysoon. The omens are good. Agreement for thecessation of nuclear tests should be facilitatedin the new atmosphere of understanding amongthe great powers. If agreement is reached theworld will have a sigh of relief and we shall entera new era of hope and confidence for the futureof nations.

It may be asked why we have thought fit tobring this subject before the United Nationsagain when the Geneva discussions are alreadyin progress and promise results. I can assurethe members of the Committee that we have done

391

so to help and not to hinder the negotiations inGeneva. Our task is to reinforce and not toundermine the efforts that are being made. Wesincerely feel that the question of suspension ofnuclear tests is an issue of such great importancethat the United Nations must remain continuouslyseized of it. It is our intention that the UnitedNations General Assembly by its resolution andthrough an appropriate expression of opinionrecord appreciation for the efforts being made bythe nuclear powers in Geneva to reach agreementon the suspension of tests of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons under a system of effectiveinternational control, and we wish the Powersgoodspeed in their efforts to reach agreement inthis regard.

It is also our intention that we should appeal

to the powers to continue their present voluntarysuspension of tests ; and that not only the threenuclear powers who at present are in a positionto conduct such tests but all other States shoulddesist from undertaking such tests, even if theyshould have the capability of doing so. Suchappeal might have looked unpractical a couple ofyears ago, but 1959 is different. The successalready achieved in the negotiations and theproximity of eventual complete agreement on thecessation of nuclear tests makes such an appealnot only entirely practical but timely, natural anddesirable, as well as urgent and imperative. Webelieve that the discussions in the United NationsGeneral Assembly will contribute to the realisa-tion of the great objective of prohibition ofnuclear and thermonuclear tests. It is in thisspirit that we have co-sponsored, along withothers, the resolution before the Committee whichembodies these ideas.

INDIA USA RUSSIA SWITZERLAND MOROCCO IRELAND UNITED KINGDOM

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C. S. Jha's Statement in Special Political Committee on Reportof U. N. Relief and Works Agency forPalestine Refugees.

Shri C.S. Jha, Permanent Representative ofIndia to the United Nations, made a statementin the Special Political Committee on November19, 1959, on the Report of the U.N. Relief &Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.

The following is the full text of thestatement :

Mr. Chairman:

Once again the problem of Palestine refugeesis before us. A problem of long standing, its origin

lies in the upheavals that took place in Palestinein the years 1947-48 following the decision of theUnited Nations to partition Palestine and tocreate the State of Israel-upheavals which. need nothave taken place if wiser counsels had prevailed.I refer, Mr. Chairman, to the proposals whichmy delegation had then sponsored providing forthe establishment of a federated Arab State withautonomous Arab and Jewish regions in Palestine.This proposal we shall never cease to regret, didnot find favour. We believe that it would havebeen the wisest solution, would have preservedthe peace and stability in the Middle East andsaved us from facing the problem of PalestineRefugees and many other headaches. It wouldhave enabled the Arabs and Jews of Palestine toplay a worthy role in the national life of theirown country and in the life of the Middle Eastand contribute to its stability and prosperity.

In 1947-48, Mr. Chairman, a million Arabswere forced to leave their homelands and seekshelter in neighbouring countries across theborders of Palestine. They were indeed themajority of the then population of Palestine andthe very fact that they were forced by circum-stances to leave their hearths and homes is indi-cation of the intensity of the upheavals and theresultant passions and emotions and tragedies.The refugees have remained during all these yearsa seething mass of discontented population,unreconciled to their plight and longing to returnto their native land.

From the very beginning, the United Nationsrecognised their responsibility for the refugees. Itwas in consequence of such recognition thatResolutions No. 194 and No. 212 of the ThirdSession were adopted. Under the latter, aDirector of United Nations Relief for PalestineRefugees was appointed, and in paragraph I I ofthe oft-quoted Resolution 194 (III) the UnitedNations resolved that the refugees wishing toreturn to their homes and live at peace with theirneighbours should be permitted to do so at theearliest possible date, and that compensationshould be paid for the property of those choosingnot to return and for loss of or damage toproperty which, under principles of internationallaw or in equity, should be made good by theGovernments or authorities responsible, and itinstructed the Conciliation Committee on Palestineto facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and

economic and social rehabilitation of the refugeesand the payment of compensation, and tomaintain close relations with the Director of theUnited Nations Relief for Palestine refugees.

392

By Resolution 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949,the General Assembly declared that, withoutprejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of theGeneral Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of 11December 1948, continued assistance for therelief of Palestine refugees was necessary to preventconditions of starvation and distress among themand to further conditions of peace and stability,and that constructive measures should be under-taken at an early date with a view to thetermination of international assistance for relief,The organisation for relief for Palestine refugeeswas set up in terms of this Resolution under thecontrol of a Director, and he has been makingannual reports to the United Nations on thenature and progress of his work within the termsof his mandate as laid down in Resolution 302 (IV)of 8 December 1949.

Since that time, the report of the Director ofUnited Nations Relief and Works Agency forPalestine refugees in the Near East has figuredon the agenda of the United Nations GeneralAssembly every year and appropriate resolutionshave been adopted. The control theme of allthese resolutions, apart from details, has been torecall Resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948and Resolution 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949, andsubsequent resolutions connected therewith, andto emphasise that the resolutions and recommenda-tions adopted were without prejudice to theprovisions of paragraph 11 of Resolution 194 (III)or to the provisions of Resolution 393 (V). Theseresolutions have also made it clear that thecontinuation of the United Nations agency forrelief of Palestine refugees was necessary because"repatriation or compensation of the refugees asprovided for in paragraph II of Resolution 194had not been effected, and that the situation ofthe refugees continued to be a matter of greatconcern". This is a quotation from Resolution818 (IX) which is the one which decided to extendthe mandate of the United Nations Relief andWorks Agency for Palestine refugees in the NearEast for five years ending 30 June 1960.

The essence of these resolutions, Mr. Chair-man, is that the United Nations have steadfastlystood by the principles laid down in paragraph 11of their Resolution 194 (III) and. that they haverecognised the continued United Nations responsi-bility for the relief of the refugees until repatriationor compensation is provided for in terms of thatparagraph.

The distinguished representative of Israel hasargued that paragraph 11 of Resolution 194 (III)does not confer unconditional right of return.Varying interpretations are possible on any formaldocument and we have no desire to enter into alegal argument about the meaning of paragraph11 of Resolution 194 (III). The plain meaning ofthe text of that resolution and subsequent resolu-tions adopted by the United Nations to which Ihave made reference, seems to us that it wasclearly the intention of the United Nations thatthe refugees should be given the choice of eitherreturning or not returning to their homes withcompensation for the loss or damage to property,and that whatever choice they made should berespected. There was no qualification placed oneither the exercise of the choice or the acceptanceof it, except of course that it shall be freely andvoluntarily made, which is an inherent aspect ofany free choice, and that those wishing to returnto their homes should be willing to live at peacewith their neighbours. This last qualificationseems to our delegation to be wholly reasonablebecause we believe that refugees who wish toreturn to their homelands in Israel mustbe prepared to live peacefully as goodcitizens. This point has been made clearin statements on behalf of my delegation in previousyears. Subject to these qualifications, we believe,Mr. Chairman, that the intention of the UnitedNations which has been repeatedly expressed inits resolutions is quite clear.

To our delegation, the problem of the Pales-tine refugees is one of the greatest importanceAnyone who has lived in the Middle East orvisited the areas where the refugees are housed incamps and has observed and studied the MiddleEastern situation knows that the problem ofPalestine refugees is not merely an intensely humanproblem; it is also one of great political importanceand indeed affects the entire complex of politicalrelations in the Middle East. It cannot be treatedin isolation and purely in terms of economic

rehabilitation. It is an inseparable element of thewhole Middle Eastern situation. It is not for us,in the consideration of the item before us, to gointo political aspects in any detail or to try to findsolutions thereof solutions which have baffledefforts for over a decade. We have to confineourselves to the problem of what to do after 30June 1960 when the present mandate of the UnitedNations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinerefugees in the Near East expires.

It seems to us inevitable that the Agencyshould be continued. It is obvious, Mr. Chair-man, that after assuming responsibility for thePalestine refugees in a certain context, the UnitedNations cannot, after 30 June 1960, cease allinterest in the welfare and relief of the refugees,when there has been no fulfilment of the condi-tions laid down in paragraph 11 of Resolution 194

393

(III). There can be no departure from the basicstand of the United Nations regarding the futureof the refugees as contained in that resolution andreaffirmed over the years. It is abundantly clearfrom the latest report of the Director of theAgency that the plight of the refugees continuesto be us miserable as before. Not only on thebasis of human considerations is the continuationof the Agency justified and desirable, but as theDirector has pointed out, quite rightly, the Agencyhas helped to maintain a climate in which theforces that can and will solve the problem in itsvarious aspects and work effectively. If nothingelse, it has kept the-refugee problem from boilingover and seriously endangering the peace andtranquillity in the Middle East. At the same time,the intensely human problem of the refugeescontinues. As the Director points out, and I quote :"The relief given to refugees, indispensable thoughit has been, supplies only their basic needs. It doeslittle to satisfy the aspirations of the adult mindor to challenge the creative talents that exist.The life of the refugees continues to be one ofhardship and disappointment. Their standardof living is meagre; their opportunities for self-advancement almost non-existent; and their hopeof repatriation and for compensation appears nocloser to realisation today than when first held outto them by the General Assembly eleven years ago".He further says: "It is a means for alleviatinghuman suffering and augmenting stability in the

Middle East while forces that will shape thefuture of the area are at work-forces that in timewill, among other things, resolve the Palestinerefugee problem".

These are the considerations which providea justification for the continuance of the UnitedNations Relief and Works Agency even thoughit entails considerable expenditure and is a burdenon many members of the United Nations.

As I have indicated earlier, Mr. Chairman,if it were merely a question of resettling a millionrefugees in certain areas, the problem thoughonerous would not have been of such difficultyand severity. We in our country have succeededin settling and reintegrating nearly nine millionrefugees who came into India-and some are stillcoming in-as a consequence of the partition ofIndia. In ordinary circumstances it might havebeen possible in time to settle the problem bypurely economic methods, but that in the case ofthe Palestine refugees seems impossible. In fact,any attempt to do so could bring great dangerto the peace and stability of the Middle East.It we are to believe the numerous and successivereports of Directors of the Agency and of allobservers, the refugees are unreconciled to theirplight and continue to display, by and large, anintense longing and determination to return totheir homelands.

All this is not to say that we minimise theimportance of the human consideration in thisproblem. The Relief and Works Agency has overthe years done admirable work in many fieldsand the host Governments themselves have homea great deal of responsibility, particularly in thematter of education. In particular, it is grati-fying to note that by December 30 of this yearthe last tents housing the refugees will disappear ;the facilities for vocational training which had tobe curtailed in 1957 have been resumed andextended in 1959 ; and that it has been possibleto arrange for school education of practically allrefugee children of school-going age. ManyGovernments have made munificent contributions;my own Government fully recognising the natureof the problem and moved by humanitarian consi-derations has made contributions, both in cash andin kind. It has not been possible for us to makemore than token contributions because of India'sown colossal expenditure towards the rehabilita-

tion and resettlement of its own over nine millionrefugees. Our sympathy for the Palestine re-fugees continues and we hope that in the not-too-distant future conditions of peace and harmonyin the Middle East will prevail which, amongother things, will provide the solvent for thePalestine refugee problem. The first step in thecreation of these conditions might well be asincere and objective attempt to implement faith-fully the oft-repeated paragraph 11 of GeneralAssembly Resolution 194 (III), to which allMembers of the United Nations have subscribedover the years. Given the goodwill and goodfaith, this, like any other task, is not impossibleof fulfilment.

Meanwhile the United Nations Relief andWorks Agency has to continue. In the wordsof the Secretary-General, this has to be for alltime and to all the extent necessary.

INDIA USA ISRAEL PERU

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C. S. Jha's Letter to President of Security Council

Shri C. S. Jha, India's Permanent Representa-tive to the United Nations, addressed the followingletter to the President of the Security Councilon November 12, 1959 :

I have been instructed by the Government

394

of India to invite Your Excellency's attention tothe following report which has appeared in thePakistan press and has not been contradicted bythe Government of Pakistan :"AZAD KASHMIR GOVERNMENT TO SELL

STATE PROPERTY IN WEST PAKISTAN

(From Our Lahore Correspondent)

Oct. 10: The Azad Kashmir Govern- ment has decided to sell by open auction all property belonging to Jammu and Kashmir State in different parts of West Pakistan. The property includes both residential buildings and agricultural land. its value is estimated at more than rupees two crores (Rupees twenty million)". (Words in brackets added).

(Morning News, Dacca, 12 October 1959)

As Your Excellency and the members ofthe Council are aware, the Government of Jammuand Kashmir, which is a constituent State of theIndian Union, is the only lawful Government ofthe State. This was clearly stated by the UnitedNations Commission for India and Pakistan both.in its resolutions of 13 August 1948, and 5 January1949, which India and Pakistan accepted, and inthe assurances which it gave to the Prime Ministerof India on behalf of the Security Council. Thefollowing quotation from paragraph 69 of theFirst Interim Report of the Commission willmake it clear that the United Nations Commissioncategorically refused to recognize the so-calledGovernment of Azad Kashmir:

"During the 29th meeting, held on 5 August, the Commission discussed the (Pakistan) Foreign Minister's statement and agreed that it should avoid any action which might be interpreted as signifying de facto or de jure recognition of the 'Azad Kashmir Government'." (Words in brackets added).

As a matter of fact, the then Pakistan ForeignMinister, Sir Mohd. Zafrullah Khan, solemnlyassured the Commission that even the Govern-ment of Pakistan had "not granted legal recogni-tion to the Azad "Government" in view of theimplications which might ensue" (S/1100,paragraph 132).

Neither the Government of Pakistan northe so-called Azad Kashmir Government, haveany legal right to sell these properties of theGovernment of Jammu and Kashmir which are

valued at rupees five crores (Rupees fifty million).The proposed sale, if persisted in, will be anunlawful and fraudulent transaction in violation ofthe Security Council resolution of 17 January1948, and the United Nations Commission forIndia and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August 1948and 5 January 1949.

It is requested that this communicationmay kindly be brought to the notice of themembers of the Security Council.

INDIA PAKISTAN USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri H. Dayal's Statement on Report of U. N. Commission forUnification and Rehabilitation of Korea

Shri Harishwar Dayal, member of the IndianDelegation to the United Nations, made a state-ment in the Political Committee on November26, 1959 on the Report of the U.N. Commission forthe Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea.

The following is the full text of his statement

The fact that this item has been appearingupon our agenda year after year is a tragicreminder that Korea and the Korean people havenot yet recovered from the devastation of theSecond World War.

It is customary for my delegation to begin byinforming the Committee of the status of theformer prisoners of war who wished to settle inneutral countries and who were brought to Indiafrom Korea with the Custodian Force in February1954. This was a residual responsibility assumedby India by reason of the fact that we had presidedover the Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission.There were 88 such ex-prisoners, comprising 74

whose homes were in North Korea, 2 SouthKoreans and 12 Chinese. They were placed in acamp established by the Government of India andmaintained there pending their departure for othercountries or resettlement in India.

In accordance with their wishes, 55 of theseex-prisoners have been sent to Brazil, 2 to China,6 to North Korea and 14 to Argentina, leaving 11still in India. Five of these have opted to remainin India and have been given employment. Theremaining 6 are men who were not accepted by thecountry to which they wished to go. Five of themhave been or are being resettled with financial andother assistance from the Government of India.The remaining one, the last of the original 88, isreported to be mentally deranged and continues to

395

be looked after by the Indian authorities. Withthis, the disposal of these ex-prisoners has for allpractical purposes been completed, and the campset up for them was closed in September of this year.

I come now to the substance of the matterbefore the Committee. My delegation has studiedthe report of the United Nations Commission forthe Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea, andhas given due attention to the debate in thisCommittee. We are bound to say, with regret,that we have found nothing in the report or in thecourse of the debate so far to cause us to hopethat the lines on which we are proceeding will leadto an early realization of the common objective ofus all. And it is useful to remember that there is acommon objective, namely, the reunification ofKorea under a government based upon the freelyexpressed will of all the people of Korea.

It is the will of all the people that has to beexpressed, and my delegation consider it unfor-tunate that the Committee has once again denieditself the opportunity of hearing a representativeof the regime operating in North Korea, namelythe Government of the Democratic People'sRepublic of Korea, along with the representativeof the other part of the country, the Republic ofKorea. It is not as if the United Nations has atall times refused to have anything to do with theNorth Korean authorities. It has negotiated withthem for an armistice and for the disposal ofprisoners of war. Both before and since the war

in Korea, the United Nations and Commissionsand other bodies set up under its authority havemade contact, or attempted to make contact, withthe Government of North Korea. We are con-vinced that the future of Korea cannot be effec-tively discussed, still less can any solutions for thepresent divisions and difficulties be found, in theabsence of the Government responsible for morethan half the area and nearly a third of the popu-lation of Korea.

We are equally convinced that no solution islikely to come out of a simple reiteration ofprevious resolutions of the General Assembly. Wehold to this view although we have no doubt thatthe United Nations has the responsibility forworking towards the reunification and rehabili-tation of Korea. Nevertheless, as a practicalmatter we cannot ignore the difficulties of approachthat have arisen from the fact that the NorthKorean Government has been at war with aUnited Nations force and has refused to co-operate with a Commission composed of rep-resentatives of countries whose troops have beenfighting under the banner of the United Nations.My delegation has pointed out on previousoccasions that the United Nations has at no timeexercised authority or supervision over the wholeterritory of Korea. If we are to escape from thepresent deadlock, there has to be a step forwardfrom the present fixed positions. Some form ofinternational supervision of elections, for instance,other than that now proposed to us, can, we think,be devised. There is also the matter of foreign troops inKorea. My delegation has learnt with satis-faction of the withdrawal of the Chinese People'svolunteers. We are of the view that the with-drawal from the other part of the country of theforces under the United Nations flag, whose num-ber is already much reduced, might be helpful toprogress towards political solutions. There areother ways of maintaining an armistice. TheNeutral Nations Supervisory Commission played auseful role in the early stages in Korea. Elsewhere,we have other instances of international supervisionof cease-fire and armistice arrangements.

There remains the economic aspect of theKorean problem. It continues to be a matter ofregret to my delegation that the operations of theUnited Nations even in this field have to berestricted to only one part of the country. State-

ments made here have claimed superior economicas well as social and political progress for eachpart as compared with the other, and it is saidthat progress on one side is matched by miseryon the other. In our opinion, progress in allfields can best be made if the problems of thecountry are treated as a whole and the presentunnatural division eliminated. We look forwardalso to the day when altered circumstances maymake it possible to apply all assistance from ab-road to purely productive purposes.

It follows from what I have said that mydelegation does not feel able to support thefourteen-Power draft resolution contained indocument A/C.1/L.245. It will also be unableto support any other proposal which might be putforward that might have the effect of freezing thepresent division of Korea. It should not bethought that our abstention is based upon in-difference to the future of the Korean people orto the practical realities of the situation. I mightremind the Committee that my country has fromtime to time been called upon to play a part inKorean affairs. India provided the Chairman ofthe United Nations Temporary Commission onKorea which was set up at the second session ofhe General Assembly to facilitate the establish-ment, through elections, of a national governmentKorea and to arrange the withdrawal of the thenoccupying the forces, and which unfortunately was

396

able to function in only a part of the country.

In the years immediately following, India waselected to two new Commissions charged with thepeaceful unification of Korea. In 1950, Indiaparticipated as a member of the Security Councilin the Council's decisions after the outbreak ofhostilities. We provided a military medical unitfor service with the United Nations in Korea.India was a member of General Assembly's Cease-Fire Group in 1950-51, and at the seventh sessionof the General Assembly introduced the reso-lution that led to the Armistice. At a later stage,India became Chairman of the Neutral NationsRepatriation Commission; and I have alreadyspoken of measures taken for the resettlement ofsome of the prisoners of war.

So it is from no position of indifference or

detachment that my delegation comes to theconclusion that a solution of the problems ofKorea will emerge only, when korea ceases to bean item in the general complex of great-Powerdisagreements in Fast Asia and throughout theworld. But, as I have said, on one thing at leastthere is no disagreement, and that is the objec-tive of a unified, democratic and prosperousKorea. That objective, we feel, can be achievedwith goodwill, if the Korean people can be assist-ed to work out their own solutions.

INDIA KOREA USA NORTH KOREA BRAZIL CHINA ARGENTINA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri Venkataraman's Statement in Trusteeship Committee

Shri R. Venkataraman, Member of the IndianDelegation to the United Nations, made a state-ment in the Trusteeship Committee on November25, 1959, on information from Non-Self-GoverningTerritories.

The following is the full text of the statement

Mr. Chairman,

I join in the tributes paid to the Chairman ofthe Committee, the distinguished representative ofAustralia and the Chairman of the Sub-Committee,the distinguished representative of Ceylon andnaturally thank the delegations for their kindreferences to the Rapporteur from India.

The item which we are now discussing arisesfrom the information that is transmitted bymembers of the Organisation who administerdependent Territories. The scope of this informa-tion is restricted to the fields of social, economicand educational conditions prevailing in these

Territories. In the examination of this informa-tion, it is often overlooked that article 73 (e) isonly one part of Chapter XI of the Charter whichmust necessarily be read as a whole. While in-formation is submitted under the provisions ofSection (e) of article 73, any fruitful examinationof that information can take place only in thelight of the objectives of chapter XI as a whole.

In terms of Article 73, Administering Mem-bers have responsibilities for the administration ofTerritories whose people have not yet attained afull measure of self-government. These membersrecognise the principle that the interests of theinhabitants of these Territories are paramount andthey accept as a "SACRED TRUST" the obliga-tion to promote the well being of these inhabitants"within the system of international peace andsecurity". Part (b) of article 73 goes on to definethe principal objective of Chapter XI viz. "todevelop self-government, to take due account ofthe political aspirations of the peoples, and toassist them in the progressive development of theirfree political institutions".

If, therefore, article 73 (e) asks for the sub-mission of information in respect of these Ter-ritories only in the functional fields, that does notmean-it cannot be interpreted to mean that inthe examination of that information we are toignore or set aside questions relating to theadvancement of dependent peoples in the politicalfield. Rather, we have to assess the significanceof the information submitted by AdministeringMembers in relation to the progress made in thedirection of the achievement of the principal objec-tive, namely, self-government or independence.

It is hardly necessary to stress the inter-relationship of social, educational, economic andpolitical conditions. It is unrealistic today forany one to assert that politically submergedinhabitants of dependent Territories need nothingmore than a little economic advancement, a littlesocial encouragement or a few universities andschools. The views of non-administering countrieson this subject are likely to be brushed aside bysome Administering Members as unpractical talk.We, therefore, prefer to draw the attention ofAdministering Powers to what their own represen-tatives or citizens feel or say about this matter.If we refer them to the views of their own people,we do so not with a view to scoring a debating

point but because we genuinely feel that the expan-sion of freedom in dependent Territories is due asmuch to the liberal ideas cherished by the pro-gressive sections of the populations of colonial

397

countries as to the struggles of the colonisedpeoples. Our attention, Mr. Chairman has beendrawn to the annual report of the Chairman of theRhodesian Selection Trust, Sir Ronald L. Prain,who is the Chairman of, perhaps, the most power-ful copper combine in Africa. In this report, Mr.Prain says, and I quote: "that economic develop-ment alone will prevent the emergence of politicalproblems has been amply demonstrated in otherAfrican Territories to be a fallacy ........ It isclear that to Africans political and social advancesare just as important as economic advances ifnot more so.

In recent months we have witnessed seriousdisturbances in the Congo under Belgian Admi-nistration, in Nyasaland and in other Territories.The Parliamentary Enquiry Commission establishedby the Belgian Government following the distur-bances last year and earlier this year in the Congostated that among the causes which led to thedisturbances in that Territory were the low-levelof human relations, the differences in wages andsalaries of the White Europeans on the one handand the indigenous people on the other, thearbitrary and discriminatory labour legislation,and the slow application of political reforms. Itis obvious, therefore, that even the much pro-claimed social, economic and educational develop-ment in that Territory had not kept pace with theaspirations of the people and that its inadequacyhas given rise to political troubles of a seriousnature. Political conditions apart, here we haveexamples of vast Territories on the continent ofAfrica, in which provisions of Articles I and 55of the Charter, in the light of which the Committeeon Information is authorised to examine the in-formation submitted by Administering Members,continue to be ignored.

Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that someAdministering Authorities persist in their refusalto submit political information to the GeneralAssembly to enable its Committee on Informationto examine the other information submitted underArticle 73 in a proper perspective. While we

commend the voluntary submission of informationof a political and constitutional character bysome of the Administering Authorities, we wouldurge upon other Administering Authorities also tosubmit such information. At the appropriatetime in the proceedings of the Committee mydelegation proposes to submit a resolution for theAssembly's consideration with regard to this matter.

I should like to say here how much my dele-gation regrets the fact that the Government ofBelgium has thus far withheld its cooperation inthe work of the Committee on Information estab-lished by the General Assembly, and we hopevery much that Belgium will find itself in a posi-tion to send representatives to the 11th session ofthat Committee.

Mr. Chairman, it is the intention of mydelegation to intervene in the various sub-itemsthat we have before us. In this general statement,however, I would like to comment briefly on thevarious aspects of the Report of the Committee onInformation from Non-Self-Governing Territories.

In its report to the Tenth Session of theGeneral Assembly, the Committee had summedup one of the directive principles of policy to beadopted in Non-Self-Governing Territories in thefollowing words :

"To bring to every community a vision of a better way of life which, by their own efforts, they could build for themselves."

The Committee on Information had definedthis principle in relation to the policies and pro-grammes of Administering Powers in Non-Self-Governing Territories in the field of their socialadvancement. Education being the most impor-tant and effective means of the advancement of asociety, this aim is equally applicable to education-al policies.

If the orderly development of these Territoriestowards independence and self-government is tocontinue unhindered, educational activities inthese Territories will need to be considerablyexpanded and intensified almost immediately.We are not unaware of the difficulties, bothfinancial and administrative faced by those whoare responsible for the formulation and imple-

mentation of educational policies in Non-Self-Governing Territories. We have been, and arenow, face to face with these difficulties in ourown country. We appreciate the efforts that theAdministering Powers are making to achieve theobjectives of education in Non-Self-GoverningTerritories enunciated by the General Assemblyin its Resolution 743 (VIII). Nevertheless, despitenotable progress in some individual territories,the progress on the whole in the sphere of educa-tion has fallen far short of the needs of the peopleof their passionate desire for education and ofthe pace at which Non-Self-Governing Territoriesare moving towards the realisation of the goalof self-government or independence under theimpact of modem world conditions.

We are glad to see that in some of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, particularly those

398

under the administration of the United States ofAmerica, educational progress has been spectacular.A few decades ago there was nothing in theseterritories to distinguish them from the rest ofthe Non-Self-Governing Territories in the matterof educational advancement. Today in theseterritories primary education is free and compul-sory; secondary education, technical and voca-tional education are available to the inhabitantsfree of cost and in adequate measure; and highereducation, not only in the academic field but alsoin the professional fields, such as medicine, techno-logy and engineering, has made rapid strides.

Impressive progress has been achieved, es-pecially in the field of primary education, in theAustralian Territory of Papua. Papua is, perhapsthe only territory where not only educationimparted by the State but also by Missionaryorganisations is completely free. This is anexample which deserves special mention andemulation by other Administering Authorities.

In terms of numbers, comparatively speaking,the task was easier in the territories under NewZealand administration, but we are impressed bythe zeal and success with which the AdministeringAuthority has tackled this task, and we are happyto note that educational policies and programmesof the Administering Authority in. the CookIslands, in the Niue Islands and the Tokelau

Islands have evoked the enthusiasm and the sup-port of the people for whose benefit they wereintended.

My delegation is not unconscious of thegenuine, sustained and well-intentioned effortswhich the United Kingdom is making for theexpansion and development of educationalfacilities, especially in the primary field, in Terri-tories under its administration and control.These efforts are bearing fruit in Nigeria, wherethe formulation and implementation of educa-tional policies are now largely in the hands ofindigenous authorities. But on the whole,government programmes and plans for the dis-semination of education are only now beginningto assume tangible proportions. My delegationwas glad to bear the statement made by thedistinguished representative of the United King-dom yesterday. He has given an account of theprogrammes and policies for which credit is dueto the Administering Authority. On the otherhand, we cannot help feeling that the picture,as a whole, of the educational advan-cement in Territories under the United KingdomAdministration, is not particularly bright, Thereis hardly a Territory in which primary educationis either free or compulsory or both.

In Article 26 of the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights it is stated that "everyone has theright to education; that education should be freeat least in the elementary and fundamental stagesand that elementary education shall be compul-sory " In some Territories under United King-dom administration primary education is, in fact,exorbitantly expensive as in the Territory of Fiji.That is, in varying degree, true of numerous otherdependent Territories.

The distinguished representative of the UnitedKingdom gave some facts and figures about theeducation of girls and women. There has beensome considerable progress in this direction-es-pecially in the primary field where the percentageof girls students sometimes exceeds 50. High asthese percentages are, in total numbers they areless significant as total enrolment of pupils inrelation to the total number of boys and girls ofschool-going age is rather low. It is gratifyingto note that at long last the first African womanfrom Kenya had qualified as a registered nurse inthe United Kingdom. I suppose there is a 100

per cent increase in the number of nurses. Mr.Chairman, India is one of those countries whichhas from time immemorial believed in theessential equality of women with men, and hasregarded the basic education of women in reli-gious and domestic matters as of the highestimportance. It is our considered view that nocountry can continue its forward march if itswomen are not educated. We can hardly over-emphasise the need for paying greater attentionin Non-Self-Governing Territories especially thoseof Africa to the promotion of education ofwomen. Without going into great detail at thisstage, I would merely draw this Committee'sattention to the measures recommended in the1953 report of the Committee on Information forthe rapid development of educational facilities forwomen, which have been reiterated in the Reportbefore us.

About secondary, higher secondary and uni-versity education, my delegation expressed somedetailed views during the 10th session of theCommittee on Information. We shall cover someof the ground over again in our statement on theReport of the Committee on Information. HereI would merely like to say that in our view thefacilities for secondary education need to be multi-plied many times almost in every dependentTerritory.

The facilities for the education of workers-both in the fields of agriculture and industry-aremore or less completely non-existent, and needto be developed. Of special importance is the

399

education of union representatives in the techni-ques of trade-union organisation, managementand financing and education of union membersfor their intelligent participation in union affairs,should be undertaken. Schemes of trainingteachers for workers' education should be preparedand implemented. Such programmes can befinanced through Government grants, trade unioncontributions, employers' contributions, contribu-tions in kind in the shape of classrooms, librariesand teachers etc. from educational institutionsand grants from funds consisting of unpaid wages,fines and canteen profits etc. The InternationalLabour Orrganisation has commendable schemesand the Administering Authorities should seek

their guidance in promoting workers' education.

With regard to higher education, we wouldstress the need of what the Secretariat in para-graph 64 of its paper A/AC. 35/L. 299 describedas the "systematic policies of Africanisation" ofeducation. While bursaries and scholarships forstudy abroad are useful and fill a gap, it is tobe regretted that with the exception of the Uni-versity of Dakar there is not a single universityin any of the African Territories. The represen-tative of United Kingdom had mentioned thatsome 3000 students from Non-Self-GoverningTerritories were studying in the United Kingdom.We do not deny the significance of that number.But apart from the fact that of this number some2000 students had gone to the United Kingdomat their own expenses, experience in Nigeria andelsewhere shows that only a very small numberof these foreign educated students may be expect-ed to return to the service of their respectivecountries ; for the education they receive abroadis ill-adopted to their needs owing to the funda-mental differences between highly-developed coun-tries. We would, therefore, urge that everyeffort should be made to establish two or threesmall universities, each having 4 or 5 faculties,in some of the larger African territories.

I do not say this to minimize the importanceof education abroad. Facilities for advancedstudies-especially in scientific and technicaleducation-that are available in the more advanc-ed countries of the West will be needed by theinhabitants in dependent Territories and otherunder-developed countries for some time. More-over, the programmes of bursaries and scholarshipfor study abroad are, in themselves, useful asan interim measure. We would, therefore, liketo see all member states pool their resourcesand offer as many scholarships to the inhabitantsof Non-Self-Governing Territories as possible.I might, perhaps, mention that under its CulturalScholarship Scheme for the year 1959/60 mygovernment has been able to offer 56 scholarshipsto the inhabitants of Kenya, Uganda, Zanzibar,Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland,British West Indies, British Guinea, Trinidad,Aden, Fiji, Mauritius, Nigeria and Madagascar,of which 49 scholarships have been utilized. Wehope that the scholarships offered by othergovernments will be equally well availed of. Mr. Chairman, on the chapters dealing with

social and economic conditions in Non-Self-Governing Territories in the Committee's reportalso my delegation will make a separate statementat the appropriate time in our proceedings. Iwould, therefore, confine myself to a few generalobservations at this stage.

First of all the methods of cyclic examinationadopted by the Committee disables it, much toour regret, from giving adequate considerationto the developments in the remaining two fieldsevery year. While we recognize the difficultieswhich led to the adoption of this method ofexamination of information, we cannot helpfeeling that it is an unsatisfactory method. Iwould, therefore, reiterate the suggestion mydelegation made in the Committee on informationthat the Specialized Agencies should jointly pre-pare every year two or three brief studies for theCommittee on the two fields other than the onewhich comes up for full discussion. In thisconnection my delegation desires to reiterate thesuggestion it made on a prior occasion, namelythat the Economic Commission for Africa maylend its cooperation to the work of the Committeeby sending their representative to the Committeeand submitting their observation on economicdevelopment in these territories. Simultaneouslywith that we would also request the AdministeringAuthorities to inform the Committee at its succes-sive sessions of the concrete measures that theiradministrations have adopted to implement thesuggestions and recommendations contained inthe reports of the Committee on Informationof the preceding years. It is, perhaps, notenough to know that these reports were forwardedto the Administrations of Non-Self-GoverningTerritories : What this Committee would beinterested to learn is the degree to which therecommendations of these reports have been putinto effect in each succeeding year.

Though there is some evidence of a limitedprogress in the elimination of racial discrimina-tion and racial policies in the fields of economic,social and educational development of theseterritories, the present position is far from satis-factory and much yet remains to be done in thatdirection. In the Committee on Information

400

my delegation bad drawn attention to the

glaring disparities in the allocation of fundsfor the education of different racial groups. InKenya, for example, in 1956-1957 about œ 880,000sterling had been allocated for the education ofthe children of 63,000 Europeans, whereas the6 million Africans had been allowed onlyœ 12,130,000. Thus the United Kingdom hadfailed to respect the. Committee's recommenda-tion, made as early as 195C, that where separatesystems existed, each sector of the populationshould receive a fair share of the available funds.In fact, the small European community was atthe present time receiving the lion's share of suchfunds. The organization of education on raciallines has tended to develop prejudices againsttechnical and vocational education. When aEuropean community is given education of theacademic type aiming at turning out qualifiedpersonnel for high administrative jobs the im-pression is created that the technical andvocational education offered to an indi-genous community for different purposes isintended to exclude that community fromprofessions of greater importance, and is thereforean education of an inferior type. The situationis aggravated when an agricultural institutionlike the Egerton Agricultural College of Kenya,where a superior type of agricultural edu-cation is imparted is reserved exclusively forEuropeans. Prejudices are further perpetratedwhen an indigenous person with qualificationsequal to a European counterpart is called by adifferent name and designation in the same pro-fessional field. The FAO has, pointed out in oneof its studies, that while a European officer withcertain training is designated an AssistantAgricultural Officer, an African with equaltraining is referred to as a Field Officer. It isFAO's view that this is a minor point, but itis our conviction that this is a point of majorpsychological importance since discriminationbetween two persons of equal qualifications butdifferent races cannot but aggravate prejudice.

Mr. Chairman, it is our considered viewthat on no ground whatsoever, can the principleof racial education be justified. Racial discrimi-nation results from, and, in turn, creates politicaldiscrimination. It serves to keep the communitiesand races apart by solidifying the barriers tothe understanding which should result frommembership of common educational institutionsand providing equal opportunities to all. History

has proved that no one race is nearer to Godthan any other and that no race as a whole issuperior or inferior to the other. Discriminationon the grounds of race in any matter can onlyprecipitate strife. Racial discrimination in thefield of education can only perpetuate racialdivision, and thereby aggravate such strife. Andyet in the Congo, as in the Central AfricanFederation, in Kenya and in Uganda and innumerous other territories, education continuesto be organized on racial lines.

Mr. Chairman, my delegation has time andagain in this Committee suggested that theAdministering Authorities concerned shouldendeavour to establish comprehensive plans inall fields of development of these Territories withstages and tentative time-tables for the accom-plishment of there stages duly specified. Whilein some territories there are five-year and ten-year education plan or plans of general develop-ment in which the implementation of educationalmeasures is taken care of, in most territoriesmeasures for the expansion of primary, secondary,technical, vocational and higher education areadopted on an ad hoc basis. Our own experiencein India has confirmed the view that we haveso often expressed that progress is muchmore satisfactory and much more easilyachieved in any field when it is systematicallyplanned ahead. The aim of educational policiesin most territories is the introduction of freeand compulsory primary education. While theprogress in the various fields of education inNon-Self-Governing Territories is characterizedby a remarkable variety, there seems to begeneral agreement on this point, namely, theintroduction of free and compulsory education.We would, therefore, strongly urge that allAdministering Authorities adopt as the Committeeon Information has recommended, time-tablesfor the attainment of each particular stage onthe path towards free and compulsory primaryeducation both for men and women in all Non-Self-Governing Territories.

I feel that I should once again, stresson behalf of my delegation the importantmutual link between educational, socialand economic advancement and political res-ponsibility. More education and better educa-tion mean better base for political advance andgreater acceleration towards self-government.

At the same time, the larger the responsibilityof the people, the greater will be the stimulusfor education and the more accelerated will thespread of education become. The processes ofdevolution of political responsibility on thepeople and the development of education or ofeconomy, must, therefore, go hand in hand. Itis for this reason, Mr. Chairman, that the increas-ed participation of people leading to an earlyentrustment of responsibility for education forsocial and economic development on elected

401

Ministers is a necessary and urgent further steps inall Non-Self-Governing Territories. We therefore,attach very special importance to section III of theSub-Committee report on educational conditionsand would commend that part of the report inparticular to the urgent attention of all Adminis-tering Authorities.

Mr. Chairman, it is one of the greatest trage-dies of our time that two of the largest Africanterritories, namely, Angola and Mozambique, anda few smaller territories, which are Non-Self-Governing Territories in every sense of the phrase,are not so regarded by the colonial power thatadministers them by a few friends of that power.They are regarded as part of Portugal itself.In spite of all the legalism and tenacity with whichthis view is maintained, our delegation considersthat the myth of such territories forming partof the metropolitan country cannot obscure thereal fact of their being no different from a colony.In the absence of the information which oughtto be submitted to the United Nations underArticle 73 of the Charter by a colonial powerwhich is a member of the United Nations, we canonly extend our sympathies to the peoples of theseterritories who in this latter half of the TwentiethCentury continue to bear the yoke of colonialismand tosuffer exploitation in speechless sorrow.

At an appropriate stage in our deliberationswe intend, along with several other like mindeddelegations, to submit proposals to the Committeewhich will enable the Assembly to remove theexisting anomalous position with regard tothese Territories. We regret that so far theAssembly has not been able to take effectiveaction to bring these Territories, like other colo-nial territories, into the purview of Chapter XI

of the Charter. Viewed either in the light ofthe Factors Resolution adopted by the Assemblyat its 8th session or in the prevailing context ofAfrica and Asia today, these Territories cannotbe regarded as different from colonies. Youmay call them what you will, but colonies, byany other name, remain colonies. The sacredtrust and the principles mentioned in Chapter XIof the Charter apply as much to these Territoriesas to any other. We cannot, therefore, sit hereyear after year and ignore the voices of thesepeople which try to reach us but are preventedfrom reaching us by juridical and constitutionaladumbrations which are prepounded to us. Onthe eve of the 6th decade of the 20th century, it isnot good enough for us, who are members of theUnited Nations and are signatories to its Charterwho hold aloft the torch of liberty, and who pro-claim the indivisibility of human freedom to ignorethe claims to freedom and equality of these suffer-ing peoples, claims which we ourselves dearlycherish.

Mr. Chairman, twice in the last four decadesour world has gone to war to fight and eliminatethe suppression of human values ; and yet if weallow the same to presist, all those noble idealsfor which the great Powers along with othersstruggled so hard may again be endangered. Andonce again strife may ensue which might endangerthe very peace for the maintenance of which weare assembled in this organization. We sincerelyhope, therefore, that those who have failed in thepast to see eye to eye with us in this matter oftreating the dependent territories on a par withother Non-Self-Governing Territories, will nowjoin their efforts with ours to extend to them thesolicitude and the care of the United Nationswhich they so well deserve.

INDIA USA AUSTRALIA CONGO BELGIUM NIGER NIGERIA FIJI OMAN KENYA SENEGAL UGANDAGUINEA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC MADAGASCAR MAURITIUS ANGOLA MOZAMBIQUEPORTUGAL

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri Jagannath Rao's Statements in Trusteeship Committee

Shri Jagannath Rao, Member of the IndianDelegation to the United Nations, made three state-ments in the Trusteeship Committee on November10, 13 and 30, 1959 on a variety of subjects.

The following is the text of the statementShri Rao made on November 10, 1959 on theReport of the Trusteeship Council.

Mr. Chairman,

The principal objective of the United NationsTrusteeship System, as laid down in the Charter,is "to promote the political, economic, social, andeducational advancement of the inhabitants ofthe Trust Territories, and their progressive develop-ment towards self-government or independence"...it goes without saying that the responsibility offulfilling this task of promoting the economic,social and educational welfare of the peoples ofTrust Territories and of preparing them forindependence rests largely on the AdministeringPowers. We come into the picture, whether asmembers of the Trusteeship Council, or thisTrusteeship Committee, or of the GeneralAssembly, as components of the organs of supervi-sion to which these Administering Powers areaccountable for the administration of the Trustreposed in them by the United Nations. Whiletherefore, this noble task is primarily the res-ponsibility of the Administering Authorities, it isalso, at the same time, a cooperative endeavour

402of the Administering Authority and the peoplesof the Trust Territories acting in mutual confidenceand partnership on the one hand, and betweenthem and ourselves who are represented here inthis Committee or in the Trusteeship Council onthe other. We can only help by our commentsand commendations, by our criticisms and sug-gestions made in a helpful and constructive spiritand with the sole purpose of carrying forward thepurposes and objectives of the Trusteeship System.It is in that spirit of helpfulness and of construc-tive cooperation that we view the report on thework of the two preceding sessions of the Trustee-

ship Council. If- therefore, at times the remarksand observations made by my delegation, eitherhere or in the Trusteeship Council should appearcritical, we do not have to offer an apology forthe views or suggestions that we put forward ; andit is our hope that our remarks will be acceptedby the representatives of the AdministeringAuthority in the spirit in which they are offered.

As has been pointed out by several speakers,who preceded me in this general debate, theTrusteeship System is now beginning to matureand yield results which were contemplated by thefounders of this organisation. In a few weeksfrom now the Trust Territory of the Cameroonsunder French Administration will become in-dependent. Togoland under French Administra-tion will soon follow suit. Later, in 1960,Somalia will join the comity of independentnations. The process leading to the terminationof Trusteeship in the Cameroons under the UnitedKingdom Administration have already begun.All these Trust Territories are situated in the greatcontinent of Africa, which, after a slumber ofcenturies, is now coming into its own. Those ofus who heard, the other day, the elotuent andmoving address of His Excellency, Mr. SekouToure, President of the Republic of Guinea,will recall his words ; and I quote : "Too longexcluded from free human enterprises, toolong held on the sidelines of history, Africa-fullyaware of the needs of its future-refuses fromnow on to remain on the back lines of history, itrefuses to allow the unlimited sacrifice of genera-tions of its people.". And again, "African historyin our days is undergoing such an acceleration thatdecisive and important events punctuate theprocess at an unexpected rhythm." "The noblesttask which the United Nations will have toaccomplish in the immediate future," added HisExcellency Mr. Sekou Toure, "is the task ofliberating colonised peoples."

The independence of the two Cameroons, ofSomalia, and of Togoland are, undoubtedly,important events in the acceleration of Africanhistory of which the President of Guinea spokein his address to the General Assembly. Wehave also no doubt that these events, important asthey are in themselves, will further accentuate thatprocess. And these are events in which theAdministering Authorities concerned, the Trustee-ship Council, and this Committee itself can take

justifiable pride. As I said, this TrusteeshipSystem of the United Nations is beginning tomature and to yield results. By and large theexperiment has proved successful. We would,therefore, like to renew the appeal that ourdelegation made in the general debate in theAssembly plenary, that Administering Powers mayfind it possible to place other territories that arenon-self-governing under Trusteeship. We makethis appeal not so much with a view to findingwork for the Trusteeship Council to do as with aview to rapidly promoting the expansion offreedom in dependent areas of the world throughpeaceful and constitutional processes. TheCharter provides for the placing of territoriesunder Trusteeship in that way, and that would,in our submission, be the best way of proclaimingwhat the representatives of the AdministeringPowers so often proclaim on the floor of thisCommittee, namely, their attachment to the princi-ple of the "Sacred Trust".

SOMALIA

After these prefatory remarks, I would seekyour permission, Mr. Chairman, to submit a fewobservations on individual Trust Territories.Somaliland, under Italian Administration, is theclosest land area of Africa to India, and if Imay say so, Somaliland is our closest Africanneighbour, with which we have had closecommercial and cultural ties from timeimmemorial. The last two or three year havewitnessed encouraging developments in theeducational, economic, social as well as thepolitical and constitutional fields of the Territory'slife. Recently general elections were held in theTerritory, resulting in the constitution of a newlegislature. Though there was some dissatisfac-tion among some of the political parties concern-ing the conduct of these elections, it is gratifyingto note that aspirit of harmony and reconciliationprevails in the Territory. In the TrusteeshipCouncil my delegation had suggested that itwould be in the interest of stability and progressof the future independent State of Somalia thatthe Political Committee, which is charged withthe task of drafting the Constituent Assembly,which is shortly to be established, should beconstituted on a broad base so as to include therepresentatives of such political, cultural, regional.trade unions, and economic interests as are not

403represented in the present government Pr theLegislative Assembly. We heard with interest thestatement made by the representative of Italyyesterday concerning Somalia. We await theintervention in this debate of the distinguishedChairman of the U.N. Advisory Council, and weshall, if necessary, intervene in the debate, onceagain, with regard to Somalia.

CAMEROONS

Mr. Chairman, we have listened with greatinterest to the petitioners from the Cameroonsunder French Administration. In its Resolution1349, adopted at the resumed Thirteenth Session,the General Assembly has already decided that theTrusteeship over this Territory should be termi-nated on January 1, 1960, upon the Territory'saccession to independence. The forthcomingindependence of the Cameroons under FrenchAdministration will be a happy event, whichshould give all of us great satisfaction. However,we are not unware of the apprehensions enter-tained in some quarters in regard to the conditionsin the Territory.

The independence of an under-developedTerritory brings in its wake numerous problemsof great economic, social and political con-sequence, which only the united will of the peoplecan surmount and solve. We had, therefore,hoped that independence would be preceded by aperiod of transition marked by peace, tranquilityand co-operation among all political groups andparties in the Territory. Independence born instrife often loses some of its meaning. It isnatural, therefore, that the disturbed conditions,the 'state of alert', which have been frequentlyreported upon in the world press in recentmonths should cause us concern. We hope thatthe political parties of the Territory and theirleaders, and the government of Prime MinisterAhidjo will do their utmost to promote reconcilia-tion and harmony in the Cameroons.

It was with a view to assisting in thisendeavour of national reconciliation that at theresumed session and earlier at the 23rd session ofthe Trusteeship Council my delegation had insistedon the implementation of the broadest

possible measures of political amnesty and theholding of general elections in the Territoryimmediately after its independence.

Therefore, in renewing our appeal to thepolitical leaders and parties of the Territory toeschew violence, and to subordinate all factionalinterests to the larger and more vital interests ofthe nation as a whole at this crucial time in itshistory, we would also say that liberalisation ofamnesty measures and the full restoration of anatmosphere of complete freedom of expression ofopinion, whether through the press or from thepolitical platform would be an act of wisdom onthe part of the government of the day. Such anact would help remove whatever politicaldifferences persist, and will enable the governmentand the people of the Cameroons to consolidatetheir country's independence, and to secure itsfuture as a strong sovereign State.

We heard with interest the information thedelegation of France gave us in their statementof November 3 about several new developmentsin the Trust State of the Cameroons since theresumed session. We were glad to note that theGovernment has decided to hold fresh generalelections in the month of February, 1960, that isto say, about two months after independence. Wewonder if the petitioners were aware of this deci-sion of the Cameroonian Government when theyspoke here. A clear and categorical announce-ment concerning the date on which elections areto be held, may therefore help remove some of theexisting doubts and uncertainties in this regard.

A fresh declaration of intentions on the partof the government to that effect will, in our view,further alleviate the concern and anxiety feltamong certain sections of the Territory's popula-tions. We would suggest that there should bedeclaration by the present Government of theCameroons reaffirming that the forthcomingelections will be held in complete freedom andfairness, and that the Government would invite,of their own volition, the world press and otherimpartial observers to watch the elections. Thiswe believe, will be an act of far-sighted statesman-ship.

WESTERN SAMOA

Mr. Chairman, it was our privilege, a few

days ago, to hear the distinguished Prime Ministerof New Zealand, Mr. Walter Nash, in thisgeneral debate. The visit of the Prime Minister ofNew Zealand among us is, to my mind, evidenceof the deep sense of obligation and responsibilitythat the Government of New Zealand feel as theAdministering Authority for the Trust Territoryof Western Samoa. In that part of the Council'sReport which deals with this Territory, there aremany things from which this Committee willderive satisfaction. First, the leaders of theSamoan people have agreed to hold a plebiscite onthe basis of universal adult suffrage to ascertainthe wishes of the Samoan people concerning thetermination of Trusteeship and to obtain popular

404ratification of the constitution of the new State.Viewed in the context of the Samoan Tradition,which has preference for the restricted mataisuffrage, this is a significant step forward whichmight mark the beginning of the introduction ofuniversal adult suffrage in territorial elections.Western Samoa is expected to accede to indepen-dence towards the end of 1961. The emergenceof this Territory from International Trust willmark the birth of the first sovereign and indepen-dent Polynesian State in the Pacific. Despite thesmallness of its territory and population, WesternSamoa is in many ways well placed to live anindependent life, and we shall look forward towelcoming its representatives in our midst at the16th or 17th Assembly. Of special significance tothis Committee is the fact that the AdministeringAuthority in this case has not only fulfilled therecommendations of the General Assembly con-cerning the formulation of immediate targets andstages, but has gone ahead and fixed, in consulta-tion with the Territory's leaders, a tentative finaltarget date for the Territory's independence. Forthis and for many other actions which are dealtwith in the Trusteeship Council's Report theGovernment of New Zealand deserves our warmappreciation and commendation. While this Com-mittee will be expected to approve of the modali-ties leading to the termination of Trust over Wes-tern Samoa, only next year, we would like, at thisstage, to express our general endorsement of thetimetable drawn up by the Administering Autho-rity for Samoa's progress, stage by stage, towardsindependence in 1961. We would also expressthe hope that the Administering Authority will

agree to such modifications in this programme asthe Samoan authorities may consider necessaryor desirable.

TANGANYIKA

Sir, in our statement to this Committee inthe debate on the Trusteeship Council's Report,last year, my delegation had noted that progressin Tanganyika--the largest, both in size andpopulation, among Trust Territories-was in theright direction and that it seemed that there wasevery intention on the part of the AdministeringAuthority that Tanganyika should become inde-pendent as soon as possible, in accordance withthe wishes of its people. We were, therefore gladto hear the distinguished representative of theUnited Kingdom tell us, Friday last, that theTerritory of Tanganyika is on the move and thatthe Administering Authority and the leaders inthe Territory are already deeply involved in thecomplex processes of building up the machineryfor self-government, Sir Andrew Cohen alsogave us an account of the developments that havetaken place in the Territory since the Council lastdiscussed its affairs in January of this year. Thesedevelopments are encouraging as they are impor-tant ; and we welcome them. The recent electionsthough held on the basis of an extremely restrictedfranchise and parity of representation, have hap-pily resulted in a sweeping victory for the Tangan-yika African National Union which is led by aman of great vision, wisdom and moderation, Mr.Julius Nyrere, an erstwhile petitioner of thisCommittee. The results of these elections, limit-ed as their scope was, have proved that so far asTanganyikans are concerned, the system of parityrepresentation is out-of-date, and we are glad tohave the assurance of the Administering Authori-ty that it will be discarded before long. We awaiwith interest the report of the Post ElectionsCommittee, and the constitutional and politicalreforms that may ensue therefrom.

We cannot, however, fail to note that, tobegin with, the terms of reference of this Com.mittee were not sufficiently broad as was recom-mended by our delegation and by several othersat the winter session of the Trusteeship Council.For example, the Committee was asked "to re-commend whether, within the general principlesof a qualitative franchise-I wish to emphasisethe words "within the general principles of a

qualitative franchise"--"any changes in the pre-sent qualification for candidates and voters wouldbe desirable." In our view, Mr. Chairman, qua-litative franchise is not in conformity with demo-cratic principles and practice ; and Tanganyikain its advance towards the objectives of theCharter has moved beyond the stage of qualitativefranchise.--Our preference as a general rule is foran electoral system based on universal adult fran-chise. We do not believe that illiteracy or simi-lar other considerations, which are brought for-ward in support of qualitative franchise, in effectact as a bar to intelligent voting. The Councilhas been recommending for some years now, inrespect of Tanganyika, Ruanda-Urundi, and severalother territories, the introduction of universalsuffrage in elections at all levels. Action to imple-ment these recommendations has long been incoming, and we hope that it will not be furtherdelayed. Fresh general elections have now beenfixed for September 1960, and we would recom-mend that these be held on the basis of universaladult franchise.

In his reply to the Governor's address ofOctober 29, 1959, to which Sir Andrew Cohenreferred in his statement, Mr. Nyrere statedin the legislative council, and I quote : "I wouldlike to express the hope that the necessarypreparations for a general election will be com-

405pleted long before September (1960) so that theelections may be held earlier." There is inTanganyikan political circles an urge for theimmediate introduction of responsible self-government. At present, only 5 of the 12 Ministersin the Council of Ministers are drawn from theelected wing of the legislative council. They arenot, in any way, responsible to the legislature.Besides the Council of Ministers, the ExecutiveCouncil has continued in existence. The electedmembers themselves are in a minority in thelegislative council. It cannot, therefore be saidthat the present government is, to any tangibledegree, either responsible or representative in thestrict political sense of the word. While Mr.Nyrere accepted these arrangements, he didnot do so without reservation,' and this in ourview is a fact of some importance of which thisCommittee, should be seized. Speaking in thelegislative council, Mr. Nyrere stated his partys

demand for "an elected government in which fewcivil servants might still participate." He addedand I quote : "I have said in this Council beforethat this demand of ours must be put in itsproper perspective. It must be put in the perspec-tive of an Africa which is impatient, an Africawhich is seeking, not responsible government, butcomplete independence from colonial rule. It mustbe put in the perspective of an Africa whichregards colonialism as such, as a wrong. We arepart of that Africa, and we have even strongerreasons, stronger grounds for being more impa-tient."

We hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Administer-ing Authority in full knowledge of this Africanperspective and in the light of its own experienceand wisdom will keep ahead of the aspirations ofthe Tanganyikan people rather than fall behindthem, and be subjected, in any way, to the pres-sures of events. In our submission, the time hascome in this Territory for those who are responsi-ble, in one way or another, for the managementof its affairs, not only to move forward but tomove forward with determination and speed.We feel that it will be an act of wisdom on thepart of the Administering Authority to formulate,in consultation with the elected representatives ofthe people, only not intermediate stages of the Terri-tory's progress towards the objective of Trusteeshipbut also to define a final target, however tentativefor the attainment of independence by the Terri-tory. The Governor of Tanganyika said in hisaddress to the legislative Council on the 17thMarch of this year : "The position we have nowreached is a stage in a succession of stages, eachone of which will get us nearer to our final goal."We hope, therefore, that when new constitutionalreforms are formulated in the light of the PostElections Committee's recommendations, thesewill be formulated and implemented in the lightof a carefully drawn up programme in consulta-tion with Tanganyikan representatives.

RUANDA-URUNDI

I come now to the Trust Territory of Ruanda-Urundi. This Territory, Mr. Chairman, is situatedin the very heart of Africa, and, therefore, itcannot remain isolated from the mighty forcesthat are surging around it, in Tanganyika, inWestern Africa and particularly in the neighbour-ing Congo. We have no indication as yet of

the political reforms which are contemplated bythe Administering Authority for Ruanda-Urundi.When they do come, however, we hope it will betheir purpose to ensure that Ruanda-Urundi isnot left a straggler on the African scene, out oftune with its surroundings and out of tune withthe aspirations and thinking of fellow Africans.While this Territory has made some tangibleprogress in the development of its economy andin the provision of health and education facilities,the Administering Authority has paid little heed,in the past, to the recommendations of theTrusteeship Council with regard to politicalreforms such as the introduction of elections onthe basis of universal franchise, the confermentof legislative powers on the high councils ofRuanda and Urundi and the general council ofthe Territory. Despite Trusteeship Council'srecommendations there is little evidence ofmeasures on the part of the Administering Autho-rity to promote national consciousness and todevelop a sense of nationhood among the inhabi-tants of Ruanda-Urundi. Even the Council'srecommendation that the Administering Authoritydevise a national flag and an anthem for Ruanda-Urundi has been ignored. Without attemptingto pass premature judgment on the contemplatedreforms, we hope that the Administering Authoritywill lose no further time in introducing the princi-ple of elections into the sub-Chiefdom Councils,Chiefdom Councils, the Regional Councils ofRuanda and Urundi and the General Council.It is also necessary that women should be giventheir due place and their due rights in the politicallife of the country. The two parallel administra-tions the indigenous administration and theBelgian Administration-must be immediatelyintegrated. The development and growth ofdemocratic institutions and democratic practiceshas been too long discouraged, and an acceleratedeffort to bring them about is now called for. Thepeople of the Territory have not, at any stage,been associated with the formulation of plans ofeconomic, social or educational development orin the implementation of those plans. From that

406in good part, results the falling short of targetdefined in the ten-year plan which is now comingto a close. It is, therefore, imperative that anindigenous development council should be estab-lished to assist in the formulation and implemen-

tation of plans.

Mr. Chairman, in the Trusteeship Counciland in this Committee we have expressed ourdeep concern regarding the fact that a military orparamilitary force-the public force of BelgianCongo-drawn from outside the Territory shouldbe stationed in Ruanda-Urundi for the purpose ofmaintaining law and order. And, what is more,the Territory has to pay for the maintenance andupkeep of this Force from its slender resourcesand from a budget which suffers from chronicdeficits. If it is regarded necessary to developa force to constitute the nucleus of a territorialarmy, that force should be created over the years,from among the Territory's own inhabitants.The maintenance of the Territory's security is,ultimately, the responsibility of its own people,and we cannot view with satisfaction an arrange-ment which denies them the full burden of thatresponsibility.

As distinguished delegates will have observedfrom the Council's Report large sections of theinhabitants of Ruanda-Urundi do not yet enjoymany of the fundamental freedoms envisaged inthe Declaration of Human Rights. While therehas been, in the last year or two, a partialremoval of regulations and laws relating tocompulsory labour, curfew and the movementof indigenous inhabitants from one area toanother, the surviving restrictions are contrary tothe Declaration of Human Rights and the princi-ples of the Charter : these restrictions are in them-selves undesirable, and must go. It is also clearfrom the Administering Authority's Report andother information submitted by it, and it isborne out by the evidence of the petitioner, Mr.John Kale, that because of various restrictionsin the extra-customary areas, there is little en-couragement for the formation of politicalorganizations and healthy public opinion. Suchrestrictions in these times, and on the populationof a Trust Territory, can only be regarded asunprogressive and archaic ; and it is hoped thatthe Administering Authority will give seriousconsideration to their immediate removal.

Mr. Chairman, our position concerning theestablishment of intermediate and final time-tables envisaging the progressive movement ofTrust Territories towards independence is toowell-known for me to reiterate here. At the

appropriate stage of our proceedings we proposeto submit in CO-sponsorship with other delegationswho think like us in this matter a suitable resolu-tion for the Committee's consideration. I would,however, like to state our view that Ruanda-Urundi, like Tanganyika, is now at a point ofdevelopment, where its final destiny can be visua-lised and, therefore, it would be appropriate forthe Administering Authority, acting in concertwith local authorities, to set a date for the attain-ment of the final objective of independence.

NAURU

Sir, I shall not say much about the TrustTerritory of Nauru here. The most vital questionin this Territory is that of the future of theNauruan community after the phosphate depositshave been exhausted. We trust that the viewsthat my delegation and several others haveexpressed in that regard in the TrusteeshipCouncil will receive the Administering Authority'sserious attention.

NEW GUINEA

In New Guinea the Administering Authority,that is Australia, is faced with a unique task, witha unique responsibility and with a unique oppor-tunity. We have expressed ourselves in greatdetail on all aspects of the conditions prevailingin that Territory at the 24th session of theTrusteeship Council. We have expressed our con-cern, particularly with regard to the inadequacy ofthe civil service, somewhat serious short-comings inthe scope and nature of the Territory's educationalprogramme, the comparative lack of industry,failings in the programme of agriculture extensionand the disconcerting paucity of economic plan-ning. It has seemed to us that in comparison withneighbouring Papua, with which the Territory isbound in an administrative union, the develop-ment of the Territory has been somewhat neglected.As a result dissatisfaction and discontentment inNew Guinea have lately been in evidence. Wehave no doubt that the Administering Authoritywill, before long, take adequate measures toincrease the tempo of political, social, economicand educational progress of New Guinea.

In the political field the increase in the numberof local government councils and the developmentof Kivunges--unofficial village councils covering

groups of three or four villages-are encouragingdevelopments and we hope that the growth ofthese Councils will be further stimulated. Thecomposition and character of the LegislativeCouncils, however, continue to cause dissatisfac-tion in the Territory and concern to us here. Firstof all, the Territory has not been given a

407legislative council of its own. Secondly, theindigenous members representing New Guineain the legislative council, which has a pre-dominantly Papuan bias, are appointed by theAdministration. The missionary organisations--and this is a unique feature--have representationon the Council, in their own right, equal to therepresentation granted to the vast mass ofindigenous inhabitants. In addition, missionarieshave the right to vote in the election of threeother non-indigenous members. These arrange-ments result in the grant of undue weightage to analien community numbering about 1200, and thecontinuation of this practice can hardly be expectedto have a salutary effect on the growth of demo-cratic organs and democratic practices in theTrust Territory. The Visiting Mission, whichvisited the Territory recently, has stated that theNew Guineans would prefer to elect the personswho represent them in the legislative council. TheMission also expressed the view that there aremen in the Territory who would make effectiveindigenous representatives on the council. Inthese circumstances, we hope, that the Adminis-tering Authority will not hesitate to take suchsteps as may be necessary to remove the grievancesof the people in this regard before long.

ASSOCIATION OF TRUST TERRITORY WITH THE E.E.C.

Mr. Chairman, having commented, as brieflyas I could, on the various sections of the Council'sReport dealing with individual territories, Iwould like, if I may, to submit some generalobservations for your consideration and for theconsideration of my colleagues. round this table.It will be recalled that last year we had expressedreservations-and we hold to those reservationstoday concerning the association of some of theTrust Territories with the European Economic Com-munity and the European Common Market. Con-sidering that the association of Trust Territories

with the community may have a significant impactupon their development towards independence, theAssembly had adopted resolution 1275 (XIII) inwhich it reiterated its request to the AdministeringAuthorities to include in their annual reportsinformation concerning the effect of such associa-tion. This resolution further asked the Trustee-ship Council to examine this question, and theCouncil's action in this matter is now before youin Chapter XI of Part I of its Report. Mydelegation had expressed itself on this question inits general statement on Ruanda-Urundi, and Ican only regret that our observations have notfound a place in the relevant chapter of theReport. The delegations of Belgium, France, andItaly, in the additional information submitted bythem, gave their views on the possible effects ofassociation of Ruanda-Urundi, the Cameroonsand Togoland, and Somalia with the EuropeanCommon Market. It was stated by them thatthese Territories stand to benefit from this asso-ciation, that they have already received monetaryand technical benefits, and that no other effectswere likely to ensue from this position. Werespectfully beg to disagree with them. Wesubmit that this action of the AdministeringAuthorities, which does not have the support ofindigenous populations, on which the indigenouspopulations or their representative bodies havenot even been consulted by the AdministeringAuthorities, is contrary to the provisions of theTrusteeship Agreements. While these Agreementsgive the Administering Authorities powers toconstitute the Territories into administrative andfiscal unions with adjacent territories, they haveno competence under the Trusteeship Agreementsto link the economies of these Territories for thepresent, or for the future, or for both, to a com-munity or group of countries far away. The oneand the only consequence of this association isnot, as the Administering Authority would haveus believe, the allocation from the Community'sresources of financial grants or credits to theTrust Territories concerned ; that would be anover-simplification of the matter. There arelarger questions involved such as the direction ofthe trade of these Territories and the exploitationof their mineral and other wealth. These oughtto be investigated in detail. What we areinterested in is to see that the economic interestsin general and the resources in particular-of theseTerritories are not mortgaged to outside interests,to the detriment of their own future independence

in economic or political action.

CIVIL SERVICES AND ECONOMIC PLANNING

Experience in regard to the Territories whichare now heading for independence, has shown,Mr. Chairman, that problems of great economicand administrative consequence are brought tolight, almost as a rule, on the eve of independence.Whether you take Tanganyika, or the Cameroons,or French Togoland, or Somalia, it is the samestory : acute shortage of trained administrative,medical and other technical personnel, budgetarydeficits, and inadequacy of financial and technicalresources for expansion and implementation ofdevelopment plans. Independence or the arrivalof independence releases new expectations andgives rise to new aspirations. Therefore, while itis natural that the requirements of civil cadresand technical and financial assistance for develop-ment purposes should expand with approaching

408independence, we feet that careful and boldplanning ahead of independence should assistthese Territories in meeting new demands whenthey come. It will be observed from the Reportof the Trusteeship Council and from relateddocuments that such planning, except in a fewcases, is completely lacking ; or where plans exist,they are compartmental plans, conceived inisolation on departmental basis, and, in effect,suffer from a lack of the essence of planningwhich is coordinated assessment of needs andassets and the allocation of priorities.

We are glad to note from the TrusteeshipCouncil's Report that Somalia's needs with regardto civil or technical personnel and financial andtechnical assistance are, for the time being, met.We hope that the Assembly will give sympatheticconsideration to Togoland's renewed plea forUnited Nations financial and technical assistanceso eloquently put to us the other day by thedistinguished Minister of State, Mr. Freitas, whomwe were happy to see here. While renewing ourappeal to the Administering Authorities to for-mulate carefully and boldly conceived plans forthe training of civil, medical and other technicalpersonnel, and to develop internal economicresources in a manner commensurate with the

requirements of Trust Territories both before andafter independence, we trust that this Committee,within the purview of its powers and functions,will continue to support, as it has done in thepast, the requests of Trust Territories for assistancefrom the United Nations' sources.

DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION

You will recall, Sir, that last year on therecommendations of this Committee, the GeneralAssembly had adopted resolution 1276(XIII)requesting the Secretary-General to prepare forthe 24th session of the Trusteeship Council areport on the early establishment of informationcentres in or near Trust Territories to promotethe dissemination of U.N. information. We areconfident that those who have seen this report(document T/1467) will join us in expressingadmiration for its remarkable brevity, which,perhaps is its sole virtue. Members of thisCommittee would also have perused another re-port of the Secretary-General in documentT/1463 submitted by him to the Trusteeship Councilpursuant to the Council's resolution 36(III). Itemerges from this report that not only there hasbeen no noteworthy progress in the disseminationof information but, on the other hand, there hasbeen some decline in the circulation of printedinformation about the United Nations and theTrusteeship System in practically all Territoriesexcept Western Samoa and the Pacific Islands.This view is further confirmed by the VisitingMission that visited Tanganyika and Ruanda-Urundi in 1957 and the Visiting Missionthat went to the Trust Territories in thePacific earlier this year. In view of thespecial status of Trust Territories and also thespecial obligations of the United Nations withrespect to these Territories, we feel that activesteps should be taken to establish U.N. infor-mation centres in some of the larger Territories,such as Tanganyika, Ruanda-Urundi and NewGuinea. In view of the fact that the paucity ofinformation about the United Nations in theseTerritories is admitted by the AdministeringAuthorities themselves, we are confident that ifthe Secretary-General or the Office of PublicInformation were to approach the AdministeringAuthorities concerned with a view to openinginformation centres, their agreement would bereadily forthcoming. Mr. Chairman, if necessary,we shall submit more detailed observations on this

question for the Committee's consideration whenwe come to the stage of submitting resolutions.

I wish to thank you, Sir, and the Membersof the Committee for allowing me to speak atsuch length.

On November 13, 1959, Shri Rao made thefollowing statement on the question of offers ofscholarships to students from Trust Territories :

When at its sixth session, the GeneralAssembly invited Member States to make avail-able to qualified students from Trust Territories,fellowships, scholarships and internships in publicas well as private institutions, it did so in thebelief that the speedy educational advancementof the inhabitants of the Trust Territories willaccelerate their advancement towards the basicobjective of the International Trusteeship System,namely independence. It is common knowledgethat the facilities, even for primary, secondary andhigher secondary education in Trust Territories,are, viewed in relation to their needs, highly inade-quate. Facilities for higher education are very muchless adequate; and, in fact, in several Territories arecompletely non-existent. We do not wish tominimise the work the Administering Authoritieshave accomplished to develop educational faci-lities in these Territories, but that is the overallpicture that emerges from a study of the annualreports of the Administering Authorities on theseTrust Territories, and of the reports of theTrusteeship Council. It would be neither realisticnor beneficial to ourselves or to the Trust Terri-tories or to the Administering Authorities for us totry to forget or to get away from that picture.

409 Since the Trusteeship System is a cooperativeendeavour of the world community, this invitationwas entirely appropriate, and it is gratifying tonote that there have been encouraging responsesfrom Member States to this invitation containedin Resolution 557(VI). However, it is equally tobe regretted that while the number of scholarshipsand internships by member States has been in-creasing during the past six years, large numbersof these offers have remained unutilised. TheGeneral Assembly has, very rightly, taken a veryserious note of this situation. It was largely toexamine this anomaly in greater detail than

hitherto that by its Resolution 1277(XIII) theAssembly decided to place this question as aseparate item on the agenda of this session.

A study of the report submitted by theSecretary-General to the 24th session of theTrusteeship Council presents, Mr. Chairman, arather disturbing picture. While the number ofscholarships offered for the year 1958-59 increasedby 19 over the previous year, the number ofscholarships actually utilised decreased consider-ably. In view of the concern felt by the Assemblyover this situation, one would have thought thatthe Secretary-General's report would give ananalysis of the causes resulting in this state ofaffairs to enable the Assembly to suggest orrecommend corrective measures. We hope thatan attempt in that direction will be made inthe Secretary-General's next report on thesubject.

My delegation, Sir, finds a number of reasonsfor this non-utilisation of offers of scholarshipsand fellowships. One of them is the difficulty ofthe medium of instruction. A number of studentsin Trust Territories are unable to avail themselvesof these offers because the medium of instructionis alienated to them, and in many cases there arenot enough opportunities for them to learn thatlanguage. Of course there are a number ofcountries which offer facilities for such instructionas part of their scholarship schemes. In thisconnection my delegation wishes to take note,with satisfaction, of the statement of the distingui-shed representative of Burma at the 24thsession of the Trusteeship Council that his govern-ment has been able to devise a procedure toremove the language barrier in respect of ad-mission of students from Trust Territories toeducational institutions in Burma. We areconfident that other countries, who have offerededucational and training facilities for inhabitantsof Trust Territories will also be able to find waysand means of overcoming this particular diffi-culty so that their offers can be utilised to thefullest extent.

There are other difficulties, prominent amongthem are those relating to travel facilities and tra-velling expenses. We have no doubt that Govern-ments offering scholarships are conscious of thefact that the absence of the provision of travelfunds for possible beneficiaries may sometimes

result in the non-utilisation of their offers and areconsidering ways and means of getting over thisdifficulty. Might I suggest that where a hostGovernment does not find it possible to make aprovision for travel expenses and a candidate isunable to meet them himself, the AdministeringAuthority might usefully consider what financialassistance it can offer from its own resources toenable him to avail of the offer.

Particularly deplorable, in our view, are caseswhere candidates are debarred from availingthemselves of these offers on account of the denialof passports and other travel facilities. TheSecretary-General's report mentions two cases,among others, in which students who were awardedscholarships by the Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics could not make use of them as theyfailed to obtain the necessary travel documents.In his statement before this Committee therepresentative of the Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics referred to a case where a student fromTanganyika could not make use of a scholarshipoffered to him because he was required by theAdministering Authority to furnish a security of200 pounds sterling for possible repatriation-andthis when the scholarship included full cost oftravel both ways. This kind of difficulty shouldnot arise, and we hope that the AdministeringAuthorities will see to it that there is no recurrenceof this kind.

Further analysis of the Secretary-General'sreport reveals that no applications were receivedfor 31 scholarships offered by 4 countries.Furthermore, only 18 applications were received inrespect of 36 offers made by another 4 countries.Thus, Sir, we have in effect a situation where only18 candidates applied for 67 offers of scholarshipsand fellowships. What is more, out of these 18,according to the information available in theSecretary-General's report, only 2 scholarshipswere awarded and were actually utilised.

We fear that the most important reason forthis regrettable situation might be the lack ofadequate publicity and information about theseoffers. It is the obligation of the AdministeringAuthorities to publicise these offers in theTerritories for the administration of which theyare responsible. Conjointly with several of ourfriends and colleagues we have submitted a pro-posal concerning the dissemination of U.N. infor-

410mation in Trust Territories, and the adoption andimplementation thereof, we believe, will assist inthis direction. We hope that it will not be argued-it can-not in fact be argued-that any action on the partof an Administering Authority which results indebarring a candidate from availing of a scholar-ship for which he has the requisite qualifications isconsistent with the interests and needs of theTerritories and their peoples-the expression usedin Resolution 1277 of the XIII Session.

I might, perhaps, at this stage, say a fewwords about the scholarships and other educa-tional and training facilities offered by my Govern-ment. Detailed information concerning our offersand their utilisation is available in the Secretary-General's report. In 1958-59 the Government ofIndia had offered 8 scholarships to students fromTrust Territories : subsequently it was found pos-sible to award one more scholarship, and all 9awards have been utilised. Six scholars out ofthose listed in document T/1462 have already leftIndia on the completion of their studies. Forthe year 1959-60 my Government has alreadyannounced awards to 11 students; originally 12were intended but one candidate from Togolandunder French Administration could not make useof the scholarship awarded to him. Under thescheme for 1960-61, 9 scholarships are for thepresent, earmarked for students from Trust Terri-tories. I might, perhaps, add that the Govern-ment of India are meeting the cost of airfares ofthree candidates selected this year from the BritishCameroons.

Mr. Chairman, our own national scheme ofscholarships for students from foreign countrieshad been put into effect long before the Assemblyadopted its resolution 557(VI) and we were hap-pily, with Yugoslavia, the first to respond to theappeal made in that resolution. Within our limi-ted resources we have done our best to assist inthe provision of much needed facilities of highereducation for students from Trust Territories, andin view of our ever-increasing interest in the wel-fare and advancement of Trust inhabitants andother dependent peoples I hardly need to reassureyou and this Committee that, within our capacity,we shall continue to offer to them such facilitiesand assistance as we can. It is a source of the

great satisfaction to my Government that ouroffers are fully utilised. We earnestly hope thatsimilar satisfaction will not be denied to thoseother governments which have come forward withgenerous offers of help in response to the Assemb-ly's resolution 557(VI) and subsequent resolutionson the subject. It is, in our view, truly anomalousthat while normally it is the educational facilitieswhich lag behind the demand, here we have asituation in which for one reason or another,demand is kept below the facilities that are sogenerously and so readily made available. Mr.Chairman, in the light of the views that I haveexpressed my delegation will support the resolu-tion that has been placed before the Committeeon this subject in paper A/C 4/L. 605. On November 30, 1959 Shri Rao made thefollowing statement on educational and otherconditions prevailing in the Non-Self-GoverningTerritories: It was three years ago that the Committee onInformation last gave particular attention to theeducational conditions in the Non-Self-GoverningTerritories. In considering the Committee's reportthen, the General Assembly had by its resolution1049 (XI) reiterated the objectives of educationalpolicy laid down in resolution 743 (VIII). TheAssembly had also pointed out that for the attain-ment of those objectives it would be necessary to es-tablish systems of primary, secondary and highereducation which would meet the needs of all,regardless of sex, race, religion, social or economicstatus, and provide adequate preparation forcitizenship. The Assembly had also recommendedthat, according to the requirements of the popula-tion of each Non-Self-Governing Territory, theAdministering Powers concerned should considerthe formulation plans, with targets and dates,for various aspects of educational development,including the establishment or extension of uni-versal, free and compulsory primary educationand general literacy.

My delegation, Mr. Chairman, welcomes thestatement in the Report of the Committee onInformation that the Administering Membersgenerally subscribe to these principles andobjectives of education set forth by the GeneralAssembly; and that they seek rapidly to achievethe broadest possible extension of full educationalopportunities to the people of the Non-Self-Govern-ing Territories. And yet if one peruses thesummaries and analyses of information, the

studies prepared by the Specialised Agencies andthe summary records of the proceedings of theTenth Session of the Committee on Information,one cannot help noticing the vast gulf betweenthe policies and the objectives proclaimed and theresults achieved in their implementation. Theoverall picture that emerges from the Committee'sReport is both stimulating and disconcerting. Itis stimulating in the sense that it conveys theimpression of a growing consciousness on the partof the people of the Territories of the value of

411education, and an ever-increasing demand, analmost maniacal passion, if I may use a badexpression in a good cause, for more and moreeducation; it is. a disconcerting picture, on theother hand, because the pace of development ofeducational facilities and the spread of educationhave been painfully slow. Indeed, there has beensome progress in these last years, and we are gladto acknowledge it. But this progress, viewed inthe context of the needs of the people or in thelight of the objectives set by the Assembly or thegoals laid down by the Charter, and what is evenmore important compared with the growth ofsocial and political awakening in these Territoriesthis progress is of a comparatively restricted scopeand limited character.

The educational opportunities in a largenumber of Territories do not meet the needs ofthe people and their urgent demands for education.If we take all these Territories with theirpopulation of some 150 million together, lessthan 10% of the children of school-going age aretoday attending schools. Indeed there areTerritories like the Somaliland protectorate wherethe percentage of illiteracy is 99. Thenumber of girls in primary schools in many areasis but a small fraction. of the number of boys.In several Territories, secondary school facilitiesare available for less than 3% of the primaryschool population, and only an insignificantnumber of girls continue there education beyondthe primary level. In some Territories, as pointedout by the Committee in its report, the quality ofeducation requires considerable improvement. If,as is admitted on all hands, education is the keyto social, economic and political advancement ofunder-developed peoples, then with the state ofdissemination of education at its present level howsoon and in what manner is the principle of the

paramountcy of the interests of these dependentpeoples to be vindicated, and the obligation topromote to the utmost the well-being of theinhabitants of these Territories-to borrow thelanguage of the Charter-to be fulfilled ?

Mr. Chairman, democratic governments, fortheir very functioning, can no longer depend onlyon educated "elites". The general education ofthe bulk of the population is of fundamentalimportance, as education is of the very essence ofdemocracy- Appropriately, therefore, this is thecentral theme of the Report on educational con-ditions now before us. Before I offer my dele-gation's observations on the various sections andsub-sections of this Report, I would like to saythat my delegation generally agrees with therecommendations and observations of this Reportand we would commend them to the urgent andcareful attention of the Members responsible forthe adminstration of dependent Territories.

Mr. Chairman, in the opinion of my delega-tion full application of the principle of universal,free and compulsory primary education is the basicfirst step which must be taken to achieve effectiveprogress in the field of education. We therefore,note with satisfaction in paragraph 65 of Part IIof the report of the Committee on Informationthat it is the ultimate objective of the educationalpolicy of the Administering Powers to introduceuniversal, free and compulsory education in theTerritories under their respective control.

However, Sir, we are concerned over the factthat in many of the Territories progress in thisfield, to quote from the report, "is not rapidenough to justify the expectation that it will bepossible to introduce universal, free and compul-sory primary education in these Territories in thenear future". We do not wish to minimise inany way the advances made in this respect insome of the Territories, but the picture, as awhole, Mr. Chairman, leaves much to be desired.

We are conscious of the immense problemsinvolved in implementing a programme of universalfree and compulsory primary education the chiefamong them being that of financing such a pro-gramme. These problems and difficulties arefrequently reiterated by Administering Powers.We are also not unconscious of the financial andtechnical investment made in this field in Non-

Self-Governing Territories. It is difficult, how-ever, to draw up a balance-sheet of what colonialpowers invest in their colonies and what they takeaway from them. While we are told of their invest-ments, the benefits they derive through the exploita-tion of the raw materials of the colonies, throughthe export of consumer and other goods manufac-tured in metropolitan countries and in other waysare not always made known to us. We have to as-sess the extent of the fulfilment of their obligationsfrom the results actually achieved. My delegationtherefore, fully associates itself with the Com-mittee on Information when it reiterates in para-graph 68 the view expressed in 1956 on thisquestion, namely, that "it is a responsibility ofthe Administering Members to assist in the provi-sion of adequate resources for the developmentof education, which forms an important part ofthe foundation of new societies in Non-Self-Governing Territories." On the other hand, thereare instances of Territories with financial sur-pluses, like the Territories of Sarawak and Brunei,where financial difficulties do not exist and yet theadvances in the field of primary education areexceedingly limited. We hope that effective

412measures will be taken for the introduction byrapidly succeeding stages of universal, free andcompulsory primary education without much delayin these Territories.

In the field of secondary education, the Com-mittee's report records a continued expansion insecondary school facilities and in enrolment overthe past three years. Sir, while this is so, it isalso a fact of cardinal importance that these lastthree years have witnessed a unique accelerationof general political and social awakening, whichhas, naturally, stimulated the demand for furthereducational facilities in this field. On the otherhand, we have a situation in certain Territorieswhere the existing facilities are not fully utilisedand are at least, in part, wasted. This, in ourview, results from the fact that often secondaryeducation is of. an academic type and is not relatedto the day-to-day life of the students in order tomake it popular and useful.

I may recall here an excellent definition ofthe objectives of secondary education which wasgiven in the declaration of policy contained in the1957 Report on American Samoa. "The basic

approach to education in American Samoa"according to that declaration, "is to providetraining which enables people to serve more effec-tively within their social, economic and politicalstructure and at the same time to provide thesuitable background for those, who will find itpossible to take advantage of opportunities forhigher education." This is a commendable defini-tion of the purposes of secondary education ; andwe hope that other Administering Powers willalso adopt and implement it in the Territoriesunder their respective administrations.

My colleagues will have noted the Com-mittee's view-a view which we fully endorse-that "education is interdependent at all levels,that the vicious circle of educational inadequaciescan be broken only by simultaneous action atmany different points, and that higher educationalfacilities should, therefore, be developed simulta-neously with secondary schools." As the Non-Self-Governing Territories come closer to theirgoal of self-government and independence, theirneeds for highly educated and trained personnelfor the various services, will keep growing.It is essential, therefore, that proper facilitiesmust be provided on an ever-increasing scale tomeet the needs for such personnel. In the lightof these considerations we note that there is byand large a great dearth of institutions of higherlearning in the Non-Self-Governing Territories.In the words of the Committee on Information"a sense of urgency is necessary" in dealing withthese, problems if events are not to outstrip themeasures devised to meet them. We also agreewith the Committee that this sense of urgencyapplies especially to higher education, on which,in quality and quantity, the entire educationalsystem depends.

Mr. Chairman, it is from this inadequacy ofthe facilities of higher education, or vocationaltraining, that one of the greatest impediments tothe development of education in the Non-Self-Governing Territories, namely, the lack of ade-quately trained teachers, arises. My delegationhas urged in the past that as a first step in solvingthis problem the teaching profession should bemade more lucrative. We have expressed theview that teachers as a class are entitled toGovernment protection. We note that the - Com-mittee on Information has made recommendationsalong similar lines. The Administering Powers

must create unified cadres of teachers withprospects of advancement and promotion inorder to attract sufficient numbers of qualifiedpersons into this profession. This coupled with theprovision for more training facilities for teachers,would go a long way in providing more teachersfor these Territories.

In our statement in the general debate theother day, Mr. Chairman, we offered out obser-vations, at some length, on questions relating tothe education of women, the education of workers,the importance of non-racial policies, and I shallnot touch upon them now. There is onematter, however, to which I would like to draw theCommittee's attention and that is the "training ofmedical and health personnel" dealt with in SectionXII of part II of the Report. The Report observes,and I quote :

"The information before the Committee shows that the development of schools for the professional training of physicians and higher medical personnel has been slow and difficult."

This is rather under-stating the situation. Thestark fact of the matter is that today in the Congounder Belgian administration there is not a single,well-trained, fully qualified African doctor, andthe situation with regard to this matter in severalother territories is not far different. For admis-sion to the medical faculties in institutes of higherstudies in the Congo, candidates are required topossess knowledge of Latin or Greek. Thepurpose of this requirement we fail to understandthe effect of this pre-requisite on prospectivecandidates must necessarily be discouraging.Speaking from our own experience in India I

413can say that our medical institutions have notfound the absence of Greek, Latin or Sanskrit-from their curricula to be a handicap in theteaching or practice of modern medicine.

I would also like to draw the Committee'sattention to the World Health Organisation'ssubstantial offer of fellowships to the inhabitantsof Non-Self-Governing Territories for studyabroad in this field. This is a constructive andgenerous gesture on the part of the World HealthOrganisation, and we should hope that it will be

fully availed of. We would appreciate a reportfrom the World Health Organisation to theeleventh session of the Committee on Informationshowing the progress in the utilisation of this offer.

Mr. Chairman, I should now like to dealbriefly with social and economic conditions inNon-Self-Governing Territories. It is obviousthat in its consideration of these conditions theCommittee on Information was handicapped bya lack of additional information or any specialdocumentation. It had, naturally, to rely on thesummaries of information transmitted underArticle 73(e) of the Charter since the establishmentof the United Nations and much of this informa-tion was out-of-date. It had no informationbefore it from any of the Administering Authori-ties with regard to the steps taken by them toimplement the recommendations of the 1957and 1958 Reports of the Committee onInformation.

At the ninth session of the Committee onInformation and in this Committee last year mydelegation had stressed the importance ofCommunity Development to the social advance-ment of under-developed peoples. We areconstantly reminded that the main obstacle todevelopment in any field is the lack of funds.We believe from our own experience in India,Mr. Chairman, that well coordinated plans ofcommunity development is what the vast ruralpopulations of these Territories need most of all.The whole concept of community developmentis based on the idea of self-help. Communitydevelopment aims at mobilising indigenousresources and manpower. With a little assistanceand some guidance from the authorities in initialstages much more rapid progress can be achievedin this way than is the case at present. Com-munity development aims at the creation ofself-reliant communities working for their ownbetterment at village level. Since the economic,social and educational life of a village communityis closely integrated, such development works forintegrated advances in all these fields at the sametime.

While we welcome the information that somesuch projects have been established in someTerritories, notably those in East Africa underthe United Kingdom administration; much yetremains to be done in this regard in many other

Territories and to extend their scope in the Terri-tories where experiments have already been made.The limited success already achieved in someTerritories should warrant a better coordinatedand more extensive planning in this particularfield.

Of special note, in our view, are the prog-rammes, limited though is their scope, of ruraldevelopment in Papua. The role played by localgovernment Councils in these programmes is aparticularly healthy feature. Labour, agriculturaland other cooperatives work together to promotethese programmes of rural development withcommendable results. We hope that experimentsin this form of development will continue inPapua and we would commend the methods usedthere for adoption in other Non-Self-GoverningTerritories also.

Numerous social problems of great magnitudeshave arisen in these Territories in recent yearsfrom urbanisation and industrialisation; andamong these problems are displacements ofpopulations, disturbances in family life andjuvenile delinquency. Urbanisation is known tobring these problems in its wake; and these aresimilar in nature to the problems and difficultiesexperienced in 19th century Europe in thisconnection. The Administering Powers withtheir experience are in a position to assist in theirsolution, and my delegation hopes that in thelight of European experience a scientific and well-organised attack will be made on these problems,and that these Territories in Africa and Asia andelsewhere will not have to go through the samelong and painful processes of trial and error infinding solutions to these problems as were wit-nessed in Europe a century or more ago.

Despite the growing trend towards urbani-sation, the fact remains that by far the largestproportion of the populations in these Territoriesare in rural areas, and that they depend on landfor their livelihood. The problems relating toland-tenure, land-alienation and land-utilisationare, therefore, of the highest significance. Thetraditional values and institutions and the verylives of these vast populations remain inextricablylinked with their lands. It is, therefore, to beregretted that there is little evidence of sufficientattention having been paid to the social problemsrelating to and arising from land-legislation and

land-tenure. It would be useful to have a

414comprehensive report either from the Secretariator from the Specialised Agencies on the state ofrural economic and social development of Non-Self-Governing Territories.

In the sphere of industrial relations, Mr.Chairman, progress in recent years has been evenless encouraging. While, from the informationmade available, the right of association for wor-kers would appear to be provided in severalTerritories by legislation, in actual practice thereis an absence of vigorous trade-union movements.In several Territories, the various I.L.O. conven-tions concerning the freedom of association andthe right to organise have been made applicable;and yet there are complaints-as in the case ofthe Bahamas-that labour legislation is not inconformity with I.L.O. requirements. In HongKong the working hours in the Textile Industryare still, perhaps, the longest in the world. About40% of the workers are women, and they arerequired to work nearly 12 hours a day underconditions and for wages which leave much to bedesired; and they are entitled to four holidays ayear! We hope that this situation will be remediedwithout delay.

Sir, today the I.L.O. African AdvisoryCommittee is meeting at Luanda in Angola. Thisevent marks a new stage in the activities of theInternational Labour Organisation in Africa. Wehope that the I.L.O.'s interest and efforts in pro-moting the welfare of labour all over the worldwill soon succeed in restoring to African labourthe dignity, justice and fair-play which are itsinherent rights.

Mr. Chairman, as regards economic develop-ment of Non-Self-Governing Territories, themost important of the objectives laid down bythe Committee on Information, in our view, isthe removal of the obstacles to economic develop-ment by modifying, where necessary, the basicstructures of the economy of these Territories.The most serious of these obstacles, in our view,is the dead-weight of subsistence agriculture.Only by a shift from subsistence agriculture tothe production of cash-crops can cash surplusesbe obtained which could be used for the forma-tion of capital for investment purposes.

Investments in agriculture should be intendednot only to raise farming productivity but alsoto render possible the domestic production ofindustrial goods for which the farmers wouldthemselves furnish a consumer market.

There is evidence of efforts-sometimessizeable efforts-in the direction of this shift fromsubsistence agriculture to cash-crop production.Unfortunately, however, in a number of Terri-tories it appears to be the policy to preserve cash-crops production, or ownership thereof, to alienelements of the population. aid to allow theindigenous peasant to continue with subsistenceagriculture. As a result, the extent of the benefitwhich indigenous populations might receive fromthis shift is considerably decreased, and what ismore important, the processes leading to theintegrated economic development of a peopleor a territory, as a whole, are hindered.

In some of the Territories, on the other handthe necessity of maintaining a proper balancebetween cash-crop production and food produc-tion is ignored with the result that while an ex-portable surplus of cash-crops is created theTerritory has to depend on sizeable imports offoodstuffs, and the essential purpose of the shiftfrom subsistence agriculture to cash-crop produc-tion namely to develop export surpluses for theimport of capital goods so necessary for indus-trialization is lost.

Another defect of the economic policies ofthe Administering members in these Territoriesis that there is an unhealthy dependence on theproduction of raw materials for export to metro-politan countries. There is an undue emphasison trade. It is necessary, in our view, that pro-cessing industry based on primary and secondaryproducts should be developed in the territoriesthemselves to enable them to produce articlesof daily consumption and also to export finishedor semi-finished goods. While there has beensome improvement in industrial production inthese Territories, such production relates almostentirely to raw materials. The price market ofraw materials is controlled not by these Territoriesbut by the importing countries of Europe withthe result that while in recent years exports fromNon-Self-Governing Territories have consider-ably increased, the earnings of the Territorieshave decreased because of the falls in world

prices of raw materials.

On the other hand, there have been notice-able increases in the imports of consumer goodsin almost every Non-Self-Governing Territory.Often these imports relate to consumer goodswhich could easily be manufactured in theTerritories themselves. If processing industriesare not developed in the Territories and theycontinue to import primary products, it is ourfear that the stagnation of their economies islikely to be perpetuated, and, therefore, specialefforts are needed not only to develop and expandthe production of raw-materials in these Terri-tories but to instal light industries without delay.

415 A careful perusal of the summaries of in-formation reveals, Mr. Chairman, that littleattention has been paid, in African Territoriesin particular, to develop infrastructure, especiallycommunications. In a majority of Territoriesthere are no long-term plans of integrated econo-mic development. There are, of course, projects--and even plans--of one kind or another, butit is our impression that these are conceived inisolation one from the other. So long as thatis so, it will be impossible to ensure theintegrated development of Non-Self-GoverningTerritories. In most of the Territories thereis a complete absence of surveys, statisticsand other scientific data so essential to planningand to the implementation of plans. Existingresearch facilities are meagre, though efforts arenow being made to expand them. We wouldsuggest that more comprehensive planning shouldbe undertaken not only in individual Territories,but also on a regional basis, specially in areaswhere separate Territories happen to be of asmall size. We are glad to note that the firstsession of the Economic Commission for Africaheld recently in Addis Ababa took a decision to"arrange for meetings of experts and officialsresponsible for the execution of developmentprogrammes and ... arrange for training in thetechniques of planning." Under the auspices ofthe United Nations' Economic Commission forAfrica a conference of government and universityrepresentatives from several African Non-Self-Governing Territories and independent Statesis due to open in Addis Ababa today. We hopethat the work of this conference will fill someof the gaps in economic planning in Africa.

The distinguished representative of theUnited Kingdom had informed the Committeeon Information at its 199th meeting that it washis government's policy to rely on private invest-ment and private loans rather than on Stateinvestment. It is our view, Mr. Chairman, thatwhatever the merits of that policy as applied inthe conditions prevailing in the United Kingdomit is not in our view the most suitable policy forNon-Self-Governing Territories which are soobviously and so deplorably under-developed.Private investment in these Territories mustnecessarily come from abroad ; it is regulatedunduly by considerations of profit, and is, there-fore, fitful. In the conditions prevailing in theseTerritories, it is necessary that governments shouldthemselves take the initiative and through Stateinvestment offer competition to private investment.The system of private and State investmentscomplementing each other in healthy competitionhas worked satisfactorily in our own country,and the conditions in most of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, today, are not differentfrom those prevailing in India.'

Mr. Chairman, it is the common experienceof most of the newly independent countries, whichwere formerly Non-Self-Governing Territories,that upon the attainment of independence deve-lopment in all functional fields assumes newproportions ; and strides are made in comparative-ly short periods in economic, educational andsocial advancement, which appeared almostimpossible before. This is the case in Ghana,in Guinea, in my own country, and in Nigeria,which is now on the eve of independence. Fromthis common occurrence we have formed theopinion that speedy advancement is usuallyobtained when there is the widest possible parti-cipation of inhabitants themselves in politicalorgans empowered to formulate and implementdevelopment policies and to vote development bud-gets. While we do not question the good intentionsof the Administering Members and their paternalinterest in the development of the Territories undertheir administrations, we feel that this concept ofpaternalism is out-moded and what is neededtoday is effective participation of the peoplesthemselves in the shaping of development policiesand plans and in their implementation.

In a number of Territories, as the Committee

on Information points out in paragraph 29 ofpart II of its Report, educational and otherpolicies of the Administering Powers havefailed to enlist the understanding, enthusiasmand support of the inhabitants. The reason forthis is that these policies are regulated sometimesby racial considerations, sometimes by the interestsof foreign communities settled in the Territories,and not unoften by commercial interests in themetropolitan countries. The policies often adoptedare not the ones which the representatives of theindigenous inhabitants would have formulated ifthey had the opportunity of participating activelyin their making. It is, therefore, necessary, in ourview, that the administering Members shoulddelegate much of the responsibility for planningadvances in education and in social and economicreconstruction to the local and centralrepresentative organisations of the peoples them-selves. This will mean a transfer of political powerand authority to indigenous inhabitants at variouslevels, but that is also envisaged in Chapter XI ofthe Charter; and though we do not discusspolitical and constitutional affairs of these Terri-tories in relation to the reports of the Committeeon Information, it cannot be gainsaid that econo-mic, social and educational advancement ofNon-Self-Governing Territories cannot take placewithout equal political advancement. Nor can

416one be isolated from the other. In all thesefields, therefore, we would recommend thatthe Administering Members mobilise the.effective participation of the inhabitants bytransferring real power to them at the earliestpossible time.

INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC CAMEROON MALI SOMALIA GUINEA ITALY FRANCEWESTERN SAMOA NEW ZEALAND CONGO NAURU AUSTRALIA BELGIUM PERU BURMAYUGOSLAVIA RUSSIA BRUNEI BAHAMAS ANGOLA ETHIOPIA GHANA NIGER NIGERIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri J. N. Sahni's Statement in Administrative and BudgetaryCommittee

Shri J. N. Sahni, Member of the Indian Dele-gation to the United Nations, made the followingstatement in the Administrative and BudgetaryCommittee of the United Nations on November12, 1959:

Mr. Chairman, speaking earlier on a generalreview of the Budget, my colleague of the IndianDelegation drew pointed attention to difficultiesmembers of this Committee have experienced inmaking a more realistic assessment of budgetarycommitments as a result of the new form ofBudget presentation which was adopted on anexperimental basis in 1957. We note with somesatisfaction the Secretary-General himself is notcompletely satisfied with the present form ofpresentation and we have no doubt that he had inmind some of the difficulties which had beenexpressed earlier in this Committee when he said,and I refer to paragraph 15 of the Report of theSecretary-General, document A/C. 5/776, that, andI quote "a further improvement could be tosupplement the present analysis of the estimateson the basis of (a object of expenditure, (b) fieldsof activity, by an additional annex, which wouldshow the tentative allocation of resources to eachparticular office location."

We also find that the difficulties to whichreference was made by my distinguished colleagueof India are also to a degree shared by theAdvisory Committee. Commenting on the formof the Budget, and I refer to document A/4228,the Advisory Committee, while agreeing that thenew form of the Budget is satisfactory in terms ofthe Secretary-General's experience from an opera-tional and administrative point of view, remarks,and I quote, "It is equally important, however,that the new form should facilitate the under-standing, review and control of the Budget by theGeneral Assembly and its budgetary organs."My Delegation, Sir, attaches very great importanceto this observation.

The fact is pretty obvious to all of us, but issometimes not so very pointedly realised, that theFifth Committee acting on behalf of the GeneralAssembly is the last, but the most vital, and I may

even submit, most decisive point of remote controlin making annual commitments on behalf of theUnited Nations for practically $ 110 million. Irefer, of course, to the Budget of the UnitedNations and of the Specialised Agencies. In fact,the picture will be still more complete if we realisethat the total expenditure of the United Nationsand the Specialist Agencies are made up of ninedifferent budgets, based upon regularly assessedcontributions and almost 35 extraordinarybudgetary funds.

In terms of these astronomical figures withwhich we have to deal, I may state, incidentally,that my faith in astrology has been progressivelyincreasing since I have had the privilege of sittingon this Committee for the last three years. Theonly essential item in my horoscope which lenthope and confidence to my parents, in whatseemed an otherwise pretty dismal but averagefuture, was a statement casually made by theauthor, that in the later years of my life millionswould flow out of my hands. Projecting my mindthrough the periscope of a professional journalist,I could never conceive of such a bewilderingprospect. But sitting here, Sir, during the lastthree years I have had the sense of a prophecycoming true. In fact, I have no doubt that if theauthor of that horoscope had been employed bysome of my other illustrious colleagues on thisCommittee, he would have made the same pro-phecy in their case.

I have not made any serious research on thissubject, but going through it rather casually, thefigures of 1957-and these happened to be at thetime readily available to me, showed that theBudget estimates of 1956/57 were disposed of inexactly seven meetings of the Fifth Committeepractically at the rate of $7 millions per hour. Iassure Mr. Turner that I will be only too glad tomake any adjustments of $1 million or so perhour in case of any miscalculation. Normally,national Parliaments which have to deal withmuch smaller budgets take a couple of months indisposing of annual budgetary grants.

I do not wish to suggest by implication, Sir,that I think that the Fifth Committee consists ofsuper wizards, or that we are in any mannernegligent of our obligations to our countries, or tothe General Assembly; my only purpose indrawing attention to these obvious facts is to say

that even with all the will in the world on thepart of the Secretary-General and on the part ofthis Committee, the time available to this Com-

417mittee is very limited in which it has to exerciseits functions of scrutiny, assessment and control.

Besides, Sir, we do not function here on aPaliamentary pattern. Our functions are noteven those of a Board of Directors or a Board ofTrustees. Considering, therefore, the limitationsof time and the extraordinary pattern of our func-tions, it becomes all the more necessary that theform of the Budget should effectively convey aclear and comparative picture of the manner inwhich expenditures are incurred, the purposes forwhich they have been incurred or are intended tobe incurred, and the resultant maintenance orachievement of targets of programmatical activityat a particular cost rate.

At the time the new form of the Budget wasdecided upon, on an experimental basis, theSecretary General expressed the view, and I amreferring to document AC.5/662, that he had twoobjectives in view. One was, and I quote, "toassist him towards a more flexible administrationof the staff and of credits voted by the GeneralAssembly", and the other was to, and I quote,"improve the Budget presentation" to enable forsupplying as accurate information as possible onthe main fields of activity.

So far as the first purpose is con-cerned, we have the authority of Secretary-General that the new form of the Budgethas permitted him the desired flexibility, andsuch flexibility has enabled him to exercisebetter control of expenditure through utilizationof his resources of money and personnel moreeffectively, and to effect economics which other-wise may not have been easily possible. MyDelegation has already expressed its appreciationat some of the salient results thus achieved. Sofar as the second undertaking is concerned, therehas been an improvement in the manner of pre-sentation of the general heads of expenditure-and I must say to the credit of the authors ofdocument 5A/4110 budget estimates for 1960,there has been genuine evidence of a painstakingeffort to provide valuable. The foreward by theSecretary-General which appears in this document

as compared to the forewards of some of the yearsprevious to 1957, is definitely more elaborate andreveals a very valuable trend in budget presen-tation which should be continued. I am sure astill more comprehensive and detailed elaborationof the foreward indicating comparative figures interms of broader activities to explain variationsor to explain variations in terms of budgetaryappropriations, would be greatly appreci-ated by this Committee as a valuable time savingeffort.

Unfortunately, Sir, my Delegation cannotsay the same regarding the rest of the presen-tation, nor regarding the information annexes.

The Advisory Committee expressed the viewand I am quoting from document A/4228.

"The choice of a particular form for thebudget of the U.N. must be governed first, by theextent to which it facilitates the understanding,review and basic control of the budget by theGeneral Assembly and its budgetary organs;secondly, by the scope which it offers for acontinuing application of priorities and anincreasingly flexible utilization of staff and otherresources; and thirdly, by the simplicity and theeffectiveness which it can be administered by theSecretary-General with due regard to the financialprerogatives of the General Assembly".

As I have already stated Sir, the Fifth Com-mittee is not a national Parliament nor can it func-tion as a Board of Directors or as a Board ofTrustees, but it has to operate to a pattern of itsown, in either laying down the form budget pre-sentation should take, or in adopting effectivemeans for assessment, scrutiny and control. Inthat background I can say that the AdvisoryCommittee has very ably, effectively and withappropriate emphasis enunciated these three guid-ing principles. Wisely enough they have givenpriority and to No. 1 and I quote.

"The extent to which it (the Budget) facili-tates the understanding review and basic controlof the budget by the General Assembly and itsbudgetary organs."

As I have already stated, the new form doesnot facilitate fuller and rapid understanding ofthe various items of expenditure. It does not

easily indicate the separate activities to whichthey relate and does not make a comparativestudy easy, or offer a clear picture of priorities,targets and results.

I am reminded of a story of an indulgenthusband who rarely questioned but often whena new domestic appropriation was required,glanced through the items of expenditure preferredby his better half. One of the items which conti-nuously appeared in the accounts and representeda fairly large appreciation in the domestic budgetwas under the mysterious heading "GOK". Moreout of curiosity than as a complaint, after severalmonths, the husband found courage to inquireas to what was the item listed as "GOK" whichseemed to swallow a great part of the domesticbudget and yet did not seem to have contributed

418in any known manner to domestic bliss. Thewife with remarkable innocence, explained that"GOK" only indicated items of expenditureincurred in moments of forgetfulness and wasan abbreviation of "God Only Knows"!

I do not suggest that despite our love ofabbreviations in the United Nations, there isany item under "GOK" in our budgetary appro-priations but I do want to emphasise that manytimes under the pressure of our obligations inthis Committee, supporting a particular grantof a few million dollars has been more an actof faith than understanding.

The guiding abbreviation in our case being"ACKB" namely, the Advisory CommitteeKnows Best.

I may confess that as an Indian, I sharewith many other delegations who have had tocontend with colonial budgets of imperialistgovernments an allergy for a form of budgetpresentation which does not enable, to use thepurely commercial phrase, cost finding foractivities proposed and programmes carried out.

Having had as editor to deal with severalof such budgets. I remember how it used to bean adventure into the realm of discovery toscrutinise annual budgets, to co-ordinatefigures and create out of a jigsaw puzzle a realis-tic picture. To give a few illustrations, luxury

special trains maintained for the Viceroys andGovernors were shown under the heading of"Railways, sub-heading Maintenance cost forcoaches.' Roads and communication facilitiesrequired entirely for the Army, but not appro-priated under Defence expenditure, were put undercommunications ; palatial club houses set apartexclusively for top civil servants were shown inthe common pool of expenditure for LabourCanteens employees amenities. I have not giventhese illustrations because they have any bearingon sections or items of expenditure with whichwe have to deal here, but only to show howmystifying budgetary presentation can becomeif a genuine, serious and continuous effort isnot made to present it in a manner which isthe most essential factor, so far as this Committeeis concerned, to give a clear, lucid and detailedpicture of the manner in which appropriationshave been utilised, or with sufficient approxima-tion they are expected to be utilised for variousactivities. For specific purposes, quite casuallyon one occasion I tried to trace the pensioncommitments for the ex-Secretary General andfound that this simple item of expenditure wasto be traced, with difficulty, to part 3, Secretariat,Section 7-"Common staff costs", Chapter IISocial Security payments, and Article 2-AnnualRetirement Allowances for former Secretary-General. If again I have to refer to a Secretary-General, it is only illustrative of my curiosity.in the new form of the Budget it is practicallyimpossible to trace at a glance expenditures con-cerning the Secretary-General, his personalestablished allowances, etc., unless one was tospend. In the estimates of 1957 such expensesappear under a single heading.

Section 6 of the Budget estimates for 1960has three chapters-(I) Established Posts, (2)overtime and Night Differential, (3) TemporaryAssistants.

In the Budget estimates for 1957 the expenseswere shown separately : (under) Section 6 forthe offices of the Secretary-General, Section 6 (a)Secretariat, and the Military Staff Committee,Section 7-Department of Economic and SocialAffairs, Section 8, Department of TrusteeshipInformation, and so forth.

It is not merely in terms of sectional appro-priations that the new form is unhelpful, but

it is also not a useful guidance in terms of assess-ing results achieved or costs of activities, atleast, easily, with some amount of certainty andcomparatively over a period of years. For ex-ample, this Committee approved a decision forcurtailment of documentation. While availablefigures might convey an overall picture, it is notpossible to know the effect of this decision withinthe various agencies and sections. To takeanother example, activities of O. P. I. which isbeing appreciated and may need to be extendedfurther. But it is not possible for a delegationto determine as to how far, with the increaseof activity, the overall expenditure of a per hourunit broadcast has decreased or increased and asto what will be possible commitments if anyfurther increase was suggested.

Take television, for example. While figuresconvey the impression that the service is earningits way, it is difficult to find out from the presentform of the Budget as to how much of the over-head expenditure has been assessed to thisactivity, how much has been assessed for accom-modation rent, for depreciation costs, beforereaching the conclusion that it is paying its way.A revenue of $ 49,000 has been shown from theDining Room, Bar and Cafeteria, but it is difficultto find out from the figures in the way they havebeen presented as to how much of overheadcosts, capital depreciation, rental in terms ofspace, have been included in cost finding. Firstly,

419in terms of services on a comparative basis andsecondly in terms of anticipated profits.

Sir, I apologise for having had to take somuch of the time of this Committee, but in doingso I have acted in the belief that the difficultiesexperienced by my delegation are partly, if notsubstantially, shared by other distinguished dele-gates in making a quick, clear, comparative andconfident appraisement of budgetary estimates.

In asking for more details, I would like tomake it clear that it is not the intention of mydelegation to alter the method of appropriationadopted two years ago till the Secretary-Generalhas had sufficient time and this Committee hashad more experience to suggest appropriatealterations.

What we do wish to suggest is that in present-ing the information annexes, a pattern approxi-mating to the 1957 estimates adopted to thealtered form of appropriation should be moredesirable. As my distinguished colleague fromIndia pointed out earlier in his speech and I quote:

"The budgetary decisions which the dele-gations desire to make, are broadly related to thefunctional activities of the organization. Theywould like to know how much is being spent oneconomic and social activities, on trusteeship onpublic information and how reallocation of fundsamong the different appropriations would affectthe programme."

He said further and I quote

"Economies in departmental expenditurecould be enforced only if expenditure is showndepartmentwise, and in comparable form. Com-pensation of departmental expenditure over aperiod of say five years could reveal thetreatment in the department and help in theanalysis of proposals for economy."

I find Sir, that the Advisory Committee alsowhile remarking that there had been some, "butpot enough, progress along the directions in whichimprovements had been anticipated, state and Iquote from A/4228 :"

"At the same time the Advisory Committeewould suggest that the presentation might befurther improved somewhat along the lines of para.15 of the Secretary-General's report A/C.5/776,by the inclusion of more detailed informationannexes, showing analysis of budget proposals,and estimates by organizational, segments and bylocation. This may be done by consolidating theinformation relating to each area of activity oreach office rather than exclusively by a source ofsummary detatils, expenditures and several budgetsections." They further remarked that this wouldand I quote :

"Facilitate a closer and more meaningfulanalysis of future estimates by field of activity."

Sir, in conclusion I will again repeat what Isaid earlier, that considering the enormity offunds involved and the shortage of time, anycooperation the very able colleagues of the

Secretary-General acting in conjunction with theAdvisory Committee could offer, in giving thebudget a more understanding form to lighten thework of this Committee and to increase itsconfidence in the correctiveness of its decisionswould be most welcome.

INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri J. N. Sahni's Statement on Freedom of Information

Shri J. N. Sahni, Member of the IndianDelegation to the United Nations, made the fol-lowing statement in the Third Committee of theGeneral Assembly on November 30, 1959 on free-dom of information :

Madam Chairman:

My delegation has listened with intense in-terest to the distinguished delegates who havespoken earlier, and we are particularly grateful toMr. Lopez and Mr. Barodi, for having given tothis committee the background history of themanner and methods whereby the draft Conven-tion of Freedom of Information took form andshape and is now before us for our consideration.

It is not my intention to recapitulate any partof this history, but in the light of this historicalbackground, it is necessary, among others, toemphasize some of the elements and phases of thisbackground to place the whole position in a pro-per and balanced perspective. Article 19 of HumanRights Declaration was adopted in 1948. TheDeclaration of Human Rights was hailed as theMagna Carta of a free and civilised human society.It was also a declaration of the common aim ofthe United Nations to work out at the earliest,

by mutual consent, measures and covenantsdesigned to implement, to give body and shapeand form, to this Declaration to make it the touch-stone of human relationship and internationalsociety such implementation at the same time be-

420coming a barometer of democratic progress. Arti-cle 19, which in its turn is an amplification ofsome of the clauses and the underlying spirit of theCharter itself, proclaims thus : "Everyone has theright to freedom of information and expression ;this right includes freedom to hold opinions with-out interference and to seek, receive and impartinformation and ideas through any media andregardless of frontiers."

Much water has flowed "over the MidtownTunnel" since the passing of the Declaration ofHuman Rights. Human society has not beenstatic. The caravan of nations has kept pace withthe passing of time. The United Nations hasfound politico], economic and cultural solutionsto many international problems while at the sametime being confronted with fresh ones. Old sys-tems of Government have changed and new freecountries have come into existence. Media ofinformation and communication, of international,contact and communion have been undergoing arapid revolution. So much so that we have beenalmost stretching for the moon. And yet, in con-trast with this propelling dynamism, stands outthe object reality of our still not having been ableto advance far enough to give shape and formto one of the most cherished freedoms of civilisedsociety-the freedom of opinion and expression.

It is not as if the United Nations have notactively pursued this purpose; and here, MadamChairman, I come to the second point which hasto be borne in mind by us, namely how in thepursuit of these purposes the draft Conventionwhich is before us assumes a key almost funda-mental-I would say, imperative importance bothin terms of time and in terms of fact. Side byside with setting up the necessary machinery forthe formulation of the Convention, the draft ofwhich is before us, various agencies of the UnitedNations have been engaged in taking this problemfrom different angles. To sum up briefly, thesehave consisted of firstly, recommendations toMember States to remove specific barriers to thefree flow of news, elimination of political and

economic factors which impair international under-standing, measures to facilitate the functioningof professional personnel within and acrossnational frontiers; secondly, studies by the Secre-tary-General, the specialised agencies and by ex-perts of legal, political or technical hindrances tothe free flow of information; thirdly, drawing upan acceptable code of correction to prevent per-version or distortion of information; fourthly, theelaboration of studies and projects of technicalassistance to under-developed countries in develop-ing their media of information thereby creatingthe material basis for the promotion of freedomof information ; and lastly, the drawing up of anexhortary Declaration embodying and reiteratingthe basic principles of the Charter and the Decla-ration of Human Rights.

The progress in the directions summarisedby me has in some cases been substantial, in othersdepressingly slow, but the important fact whichneeds to be emphasised is that the progress inmost of these directions, if not all, would be con-siderably accelerated, probably is even contingenton the progress we make in drawing up and ingiving form and shape and sanction to the Con-vention of Freedom of Information. I do notwish to take the time of the Committee to go intodetails as to how every single step in the directionsI have indicated depends on the passing of such aConvention, but I would draw the attention ofthe Committee to a very important statementmade earlier by the distinguished delegate of thePhilippines, Mr. Lopez, whose personal contri-bution to the subject to which we are applyingourselves has been considerable namely that theamalgamated Convention, which includes the rightof correction even though it has been adopted,awaits ratification after the adoption of this Con-vention.

This, Madam Chairman, is a second reasonwhy it is imperative that we should go aheadwith the adoption of the draft Convention whichhas been before us for more than three years.There is a third fact deserving our attention, andone which should be taken into account in ourapproach to the draft Convention we are nowconsidering. Mr. Lopez, the distinguishedrepresentative of the Philippines, and Mr. Barodi,the distinguished representative or Saudi Arabia,have already given us a detailed history of thecheckered phases through which the proposals

before us have undergone, an idea of the yearsfor which the subject has been studied, the numberof expert minds drawn from different countries,experts of specialised agencies, and the Com-mittees and Commissions which have bestowedtheir knowledge and have given very seriousthought and devoted hours of discussion inelaborating the text which we are now consideringI emphasize this fact, because in elaborating thisdraft the combined intelligence of exports andrepresentatives from these many countries musthave taken into account the vast disparity thatexists in the laws of different countriesregulating freedom of information andfreedom of expression of ideas, the differentsystems of Government and even their ideologi-cal basis, the disparities that exist between themedia of information in the advanced countriesof the world and in the less advanced countries,

421including the manner in which these mediaoperate and are controlled, they must have takeninto account not only all these factors, but severalothers which add up to the diversity of theproblem in placing before us this very importantdocument. Speaking on behalf of my own dele-gation, Madam Chairman, and having read verycarefully the very interesting documentation onthis subject, the discussions which centre aroundwords and phrases extending over several days,I am willing to assert, not that they must havedone what I have indicated, but that they actuallydid take into consideration every major and minorelement in this diversity. And even though theprogress was slow every effort was made toharmonize differences to find a common languageof approach, to search the greatest commonfactor of acceptance, and to evolve somethingwhich while offending least the needs of themost advanced helped greatly the requirementseven of the very backward. This is an extremelyimportant consideration. It is not like ourconsidering a document prepared in haste by afew well-meaning intellectuals. In its preparationhas gone the knowledge and ability, the resource-fulness and ingenuity of experts drawn fromadvanced and backward countries from the eastand from the west, and from countries withdifferent ideological systems. All these persons, bya prolonged process and patience and mutualtolerance, by generous give and take, have evolvedsomething which should be judged not entirely

in terms of national advantage, or disadvan-tage or for that matter not in termsnecessarily of national benefit, but in termsof the following tests. First, does the draftConvention taken as a whole, offer the mostacceptable basis for implementing the spirit andthe scope of the Charter and of Article 19 of theDeclaration of Human Rights ? That should beour approach to the preamble. Second, freedomif it has not to assume the dangers of licensemust be regulated involving essential butthe very minimum limitations and restrictions.Consequently, as we go along, we have to decidewhether the regulatory clauses, the restrictionsand limitations are essential and in the circum-stances the absolute minimum enabling theacceptance of this Convention by the largestnumber of countries and its operation on a globalbasis.

Just now, Madam Chairman, we areconcerned with the preamble. It may be that intheir superior wisdom some of the distinguisheddelegates may be able to suggest an amendmenthere or there, or an improvement in some expres-sion in one place or the deletion of an expressionin another, and while we would give the mostearnest consideration to any of these suggestions,my delegation feels that the preamble is as perfectin its draft in interpreting and enunciating thespirit of the Charter and Article 19 of HumanRights as any document can be, considering thediversities of the problem, and the global orbit ofits approach. I would even say that we areproud that we have been called upon, through thecoincidences of history, to offer our endorsementto a preamble which if adopted by us, aftermany years will rank conspicuously among someof the great documents enunciating human free-doms which civilised man treasures as the Chartersof a better society and the embodiment of greatideals. It recalls the preamble, Madam Chairmanasks us to bear in mind the Charter of the UnitedNations and the Universal Declaration of HumanRights, reiterates that freedom of opinion expres-sion both in the national and international spheresis fundamental, expresses the desire for interna-tional co-operation to guarantee these freedoms,and while recognizing that in order to achievethe above aims, and this, Madam Chairman, isvery important, I repeat, in order to achieve theabove aims, but not to curtail or restrict any ofthem, and, further recognizing, I quote : "that

the media of information should be free frompressure or dictation, and that these media byvirtue of their power for influencing public opinionbear a great responsibility to the peoples of theworld", accepts the provisions laid down in thenineteen Articles that follow.

By virtue of the first test, therefore, thepreamble is unexceptionable and I would almostbe tempted at this stage to formally move thatit be accepted. This brings me to the secondtest. This applies mainly to the substance of thevarious Articles. Some of these articles, as forexample, Article 1, are intended to secure amongcontracting states for their own nationals andfor nationals of contracting states certain basicfreedoms-the freedom to obtain and impartinformation, freedom of communication and ofmovement, and so forth. It calls for thesefreedoms without discrimination on politicalgrounds on the basis of race, sex, language orreligion. Some of these articles also call forthe preservation of existing freedoms in the formin which they exist. These are positive articlesintended clearly to give form and shape to thehuman right of freedom of thought and expres-sion, to give it substance and reality, to enableit to become a basic principle of all civilised societyrather than remain a privilege for those who livein advanced countries. In our approach to theseArticles, we should not be guided by the fact thatin our own countries we enjoy all these and evenmore freedoms, or even more than those enun-

422ciated in these Articles, but by the fact that inadopting this Covenant, we would be helping toJay down a yardstick whereby people not sopolitically and economically advanced can makeclaim to these freedoms and thereby share andhelp in the overall advancement of all peopletowards a better life, towards better understandingand towards greater goodwill. As I have alreadystated, unregulated freedom can become licensed,and it is for this reason that certain other Articleshave been introduced common intelligence of itsframers to regulate the conduct of those engagedin the gathering and transmission of news recogni-zing that, and I quote again from the preamble"by virtue of their power for influencing publicopinion, bear a great responsibility to the peoplesof the world" and hence should conduct them-selves in a manner which. helps to advance the

objectives of the Charter. Also they be pre-vented from utilising these powers their greatinfluence and their great capacity from actingin a manner prejudicial to the spirit of theCharter, prejudicial to better understandingamong people, races and religions, prejudicial todemocracy, to public order and peace, prejudicialto common morality and social well-being, andprejudicial to national dignity, for otherwise thesefreedoms can become a menace to world society.

The distinguished delegate from Saudi Arabia,in the course of his speech, referred at great lengthto some of these dangers. Nothing that I cansay as a professional journalist who, for 35 years,has functioned as editor of some of the leadingnewspapers in his country, can better illustratethese likely defaults and dangers. But as a pro-fessional journalist, it is my duty also to assertthat the picture drawn by my distinguished colle-ague from Saudi Arabia has too forcefully focussedour attention to the intellectual delinquency-I wasalmost going to repeat his phrase "juvenile delin-quency"-of which irresponsible members of thePress and of media of information are capable.It is a picture which draws attention more, andperhaps even rightly, to the drains, the sewersthe marshes and the cesspools in an otherwisehealthy city. It is not the picture, MadamChairman, of the healthy Press- as it nor-mally functions in democratic society. Everycountry has its yellow journals and its yellowjournalists, who, taking advantage of democraticfreedoms, tried to pander to the sensual,to the sensational and the obscene, andeven would slander to build circulations andacquire material gain. On the other hand, allover the world, in all countries, exist media ofinformation-and fortunately these exist in greaterabundance- which have endeavoured withinhuman limitations to gather correct informationto give objective news of world events and occurrences, which have offered sound leadership tonational and international public opinion Justas-and again, fortunately-there exist, and theyhave existed all over the world and also in greateabundance, writers and journalists who have usedtheir eyes and ears conscientiously to imparinformation, who have spurned temptation andsacrificed attractive opportunities in the searchfor truth. Persons who have risked their lives forgaining more and correct information, who havesuffered imprisonment, who have not compromised

with truth and have many times resisted evertheir own proprietors at the risk of their jobs sothat they would not become the instruments ofmisinformation. In wartime and peace, in thebuilding up of great nations and the building upof national freedoms, the Press of the world, aswe know it today, has played a great and cons-picuous part, and, lest we lose our clear perspectiveit is necessary that we bear this in mind. In fact, it is with the purpose of allowing sucha healthy Press to grow where it has not grown,to mature where it has not matured and to over-power the black legs in our international family,that the Convention for the Freedom of Infor-mation is intended.

The restrictions contemplated in the Articles,or I may say, the regulatory clauses, are notintended to modify, limit or restrain the healthygrowth and development of this major sectionof the world Press. They are intended for theblack legs, the defaulters, those who mix thepoison of propaganda with information, thosewho sacrifice integrity for sensationalism and whouse cheap slander, obscenity, contempt for otherpeople's sentiments as instruments for journalisticgain.

In my country freedom of the Press andfreedom of expression are guaranteed as aninalienable fundamental right. We cherish thisfreedom deeply, but we do not want to jeopardizethis freedom in the Constitution. But we also donot want it taken advantage of by unscrupulouspeople for anti-national purposes. We there-fore have certain regulatory laws. It is for thesame reason that we agree by and large to the veryrestricted-to my mind very important and veryessential-regulatory clauses which have beenincluded in the later Articles. Some of these gofurther than our national laws, but which seem tous desirable for an international development of'freedom of information. I submit, in judgingthese limitations, we should not be guided, andI am speaking of countries where Press freedomis as great as in my own, or even greater, by the

423freedom we enjoy or would like to have in ourown countries, but by the needs of the smallestand the most backward of free countries. It isby their support, their goodwill and their co-operation, that free flow of information on a

global basis can become a reality. I emphasizethis the more so, Madam Chairman, because therehas been a reluctance on the part of some of theadvanced nations to accept on an internationalbasis limitations which their own citizens wouldnot accept. My appeal is, therefore, addressedto them, to the citizens of these countries,to the members of these countries, thatin accepting the greatest common factor ofnecessary and essential minimum limitations, theyare not compromising with their ideals or reduc-ing the scope of their own national freedom, butIndia will are helping to create common standardsin the preservation of which the most backwardand the least developed can cordially co-operate.Madam Chairman, I sincerely apologise for along intervention which frankly was not originallyintended to be long, but which has extended itself,partly on an impulse of spontaneity, partly as anexpression of professional experience and approachand partly because my Government whose leadershave witnessed both the dangers of repressivePress legislation and the uplifting national impactsof a free Press, has been intensely interested inpromoting measures for the implementation ofArticle 19 of the Human Rights Declaration onwhich this Convention is based and which itconsiders the Charter of a free world and a freesociety.

INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ITALY PHILIPPINES SAUDI ARABIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on Border Demarcation

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in the Lok Sabhaon November 27, 1959 speaking on an adjourn-ment motion on India-Pakistan border demarca-tion:--

I enquired into this matter. This area isnear the Patharia forest. It is 178 square miles,and not five square miles as was suggestedyesterday.

This area, according to the Radcliffe Award,falls definitely in Pakistan. This is a fact admittedby both parties, and no one has challenged that.It, however, remained in Indian possession, be-cause we said Pakistan was holding on to otherareas, which it should not ; and if other matterswere settled, and Pakistan gave them up, then weshall do so. So, there was no dispute about the mapsor anything about this area, clearly. When all theseother matters have been settled, there was no pointleft for India holding on to it. In fact, this pointwas so clear that it was not even discussed atthe last conference. It was an admitted fact.

Now, in accordance with that, it is proposedto demarcate this, and then to hand it over. Therehas been no demarcation yet. There is no ques-tion of handing anything over today. Our militarypeople who are in charge had a meeting, and itis proposed to start demarcation on the 15thDecember. I do not know how long it will take;whether it will be two weeks or three weeks, I donot know. Till then, the territorial jurisdiction ofIndia will remain. All that has been done in thisarea thus far is for the removal of one check-postthat we had there. That has been withdrawn.

Even after demarcation, according to theground rules agreed upon at the last conference,necessary time should be allowed to farmers toharvest their crops, before transfer of territorialjurisdiction. Also, there are clauses in thoseground rules about the special responsibility ofthe party concerned for the protection of personand property of the population, so that theirinterests might not be prejudiced.

Now, if any kind of Territory has to be ex-changed and handed over as a result of an award,decision or whatever it is, obviously the peopleliving there are affected by it. Now, three thingshappen. In this case, you will be pleased tonotice that in effect, the decision was taken nottoday but by Mr. Justice Radcliffe many yearsago, but because of various complications andconflicts it was not given effect to as in othercases. Now, the people are affected. The people

can have a choice of three things. One, of course,is that they choose to become the nationals ofthe country to which that little area goes. Thesecond is that they remain Indian nationals butcontinue living there as foreign nationals. Thethird is that they change their habitate. Theseare the facts that I have been able to obtain.

Replying to a question by an Hon.Member of the House whether it is correct that

424there are 370 families in this area, and whetherthey will be given rehabilitation loan or they willbe rehabilitated in other places, Shri Nehrusaid : Till the exact demarcation is complete,we cannot say how many villages or people areinvolved. Normally, of course one does notexpect large numbers of people to come across.They have their lands etc. They should remainthere, even if they like, as Indian nationals ; theycan remain there. If any. come across, whatthe Hon. Member has suggested will naturallybe considered.

Replying to another question whether ifanybody chooses to come over to India, he willbe entitled to the full benefits of rehabilitationwhich the other refugees have received, the PrimeMinister said : No. I am quite clear about it.This matter will have to be considered de novo.There is no question of old benefits being attractedby it. They dealt with other questions, othercircumstances. Here are people, who, I presumeare in possession of land. It is open to them tocontinue in that land, to remain there. If theywant to come away, they may try to sell the landif they like. There is no pushing about, I mean; ingiven circumstances, they can either remain there,as I said, as Indian nationals or as Pakistaninationals or come away. If they come away,they can sell the land-, they can make someprovision, or whatever it is ; conditions are quitedifferent. As I said in reply to the previousHon. Member's question this matter in the shapein which it comes up will, no doubt, be consi-dered by the Bengal Government. But I wantto make it perfectly clear that the old rules etc.,affecting the refugees will not apply to them.

The Prime Minister continuing said:cannot rule out the possibility of their or any-body else's not having fair chances of living there.

But after the agreement that has been enteredinto, the kind of pressures that were brought tobear upon the minority communities will notpresumably be there. Apart from this fact, Iam told that about 60 per cent of the populationof these villages is Muslim. All these factorscome in and there is no particular reason whythose people, at any rate, should want to comeover. I cannot say more on this. If in spite ofthis, some people come over, their cases will beconsidered favourably.

PAKISTAN INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Shrimati Lakshmi Menon's Statement in Lok Sabha on Indo-East Pakistan Border Conference

Shrimati Lakshmi N. Menon, Deputy Ministerfor External Affairs, made a statement in theLok Sabha on November 16, 1959 on the Indo-East Pakistan Border Conference, which was heldboth at Delhi and Dacca from October 15 to 22,1959. The statement says :

The House is aware that the Prime Ministerof India met the President of Pakistan at PalamAirport on September 1, 1959. During their talksit was agreed that a high-level conference atMinister level should be held to discuss thedisputes and incidents on the Indo-East Pakistanborder with a view to eliminating, as far aspossible, the causes of these disputes and devisingprocedures for expeditious demarcation ofboundaries and for dealing promptly withany disputes and incidents that mayoccur.

This Minister-level conference was held from15th to 22nd October, 1959 ; discussions wereheld at Dacca from 18th to 20th October and at

Delhi on other days.

I am taking this early opportunity to placeon the Table of the House the following docu-ments, which embody the agreements reached atthis Conference :

(i) Copy of the Joint Communique issu-ed by the Governments of India andPakistan on 24th October 1959;

(ii) Copy of the agreed decisions andprocedures to end disputes and incidentsalong the Indo-East Pakistan bordersigned by the Secretaries of the twoGovernments;

(iii) Copy of the Ground Rules for-mulated by the Military Sub-Committeeof the Indian and Pakistan Delegationsand other detailed arrangements arrivedat to maintain peaceful conditions alongthe Indo-East Pakistan border areas;and

(iv) Copy of letters exchanged betweenthe Secretaries of the two Governmentson the further follow up of transit andvisa facilities and promotion of tradebetween West Bengal and East Pakistan.

The Principal features of these agreements are:

(i) Pakistani authorities withdraw fromthe portion of Tukergram taken over bythem last year.

425(ii) Government of Pakistan drop theirclaim to the villages in the Kushiyarariver region.

(iii) Government of India agree to adopta rational boundary in the PathariaForest Reserve region so that the currentdifficulties of the residents of EastPakistan regarding supply of bamboo,and small timber are remedied and thereis no dislocation in the life of the borderpopulation. This rationalization of theboundary will give to East Pakistan abouttwelve square miles of the Patharia,Forest Reserve proper and about five

square miles to its north.

(iv) Detailed agreed procedures forexpediting demarcation work, for orderlyexchange of territorial jurisdiction follow-wing completion of demarcation and formaintenance of peace in the borderareas so that there is no dislocation inthe life of the population of these borderareas.

(v) Re-affirmation by both Governmentsof their determination to implement theNehru-Noon Agreement in full and to de-vise legal and other procedures necessaryfor expeditious implementation. Neces-sary preparatory studies for implementa-tion of the various items of the Nehru-Noon Agreement will be undertaken byboth Governments, though field opera-tion, in connection with the implementa-tion of that Agreement, will have to awaitthe advice of the Supreme Court on thereference made to them and the enact-ment of necessary legislation in accor-dance with the advice of the SupremeCourt.

The distinguishing feature of this conferencehas been the spirit of mutual accommodation inwhich agreements have been reached by negotia-tion, This, to my mind, is the best guarantee ofeffective implementation of these agreements byboth sides.

The implementation of the agreements hasalready begun. The Pakistan authorities arewithdrawing this morning from the part of Tuker-gram occupied by them.

PAKISTAN USA INDIA UNITED KINGDOM

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Reply to Lok Sabha Debate on India-China Relations

Replying to a two-day debate in the LokSabha on November 27, 1959 on a motion onIndia-China relations, the Prime Minister ShriJawaharlal Nehru said :

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I must express my gratitudeto you and to Hon. Members of the House forthis debate which has been taking place for thelast two days. May 1, right in the beginning, saythat I am sorry that some words I used on thelast occasion when I moved this motion hadslightly upset some Hon. Members opposite. Italked about a motley crowd with motley ideas orsome such thing. I did not mean any disrespect toanybody. What I meant was that people who ateof entirely different opinions and groups hadgathered together in a resolution, which was nota disrespectful thing to say.

Yesterday, Shri Asoka Mehta referred to afriend of his, Shri M. R. Masani, and said thatShri M. R. Masani's economic ideas would bepushed into the dustbin of history. I would nothave ventured to say that, although I entirely agreewith that statement. Therefore, it surprised methat some remark that I made without any inten-tion of hurting any Hon. Member was resented.Anyhow it was not my intention. I am sorry.

In the course of this debate many things havebeen said, and many criticisms have been made,and yet, the major fact stands out, namely, on thebig issues before us there is practically unanimityin this House. I was a little surprised when AcharyaKripalani accused us of treating this matter light-ly and casually as a small issue. I can assure himthat whatever other mistakes we might have madewe have never considered this question as a smallquestion. In fact, perhaps we might haveattached a little more importance to it than evenAcharya Kripalani, because we had to give earnestthought to all the consequences, to where it wasleading us and to what might happen not todaybut in the months and years to come. In fact, ifI may say so, there came for me one of thesepeak events of history when a plunge has to betaken in some direction which may have power-ful and far-reaching effects not only on our country

426but on Asia and even the world.

It was no small matter that we considered. Ican assure him that it was not casually that weconsidered it. We considered it, keeping all thesefar-reaching aspects in view, keeping in view allthese processes of development in India, and fiveyear plans and everything. All this picture camebefore me and before my colleagues when wediscussed it. So, let us be clear about it, namelythat we are dealing today not with a small or acasual matter but a matter of the utmost signi-ficance to the present and the future of India andAsia. That is the approach.

Another thing that struck me very agreeablyand pleasantly was the almost unanimous affir-mation of what is called the policy of non-align-ment. I think perhaps some Members who haveaffirmed it might have done it may be with some in-hibitions or limitations in their mind. That is possi-ble, even with some different viewpoint. But the factis that barring perhaps one or two Hon. MembersI forget the names-everyone in this House be-longing to every party said that there was noother policy open to us but that of non-alignment.

Even those who perhaps cast some doubt onit seemed to me to be labouring under somemisapprehension. When they talked aboutPanch Sheel or the five principles, they seemed toimagine that that involved our forgetting therecent developments or ignoring them and findingit impossible to co-operate with the ChineseGovernment in many ways and generally to carryon in the old way. But the two points are quitedifferent; the policy of non-alignment and ofhaving friendly relations is, I believe, basically aright policy under all circumstances, whateverhappens. That is true.

But the policy remaining like that, if twocountries fall out, let us say, two countries in theextreme extent, go to war, obviously that policydoes not apply to them. It is absurd to say itdoes. If peace is broken, we deal with the situ-ation in so far as we can. The policy remainsgood all the same, and it applies to the rest of theworld, and later to that part of the world too,because war is a bad thing-anyhow it is not apermanent phenomenon. People think that what

has been happening on our borders and elsewherehas made no great difference. That, of course,is not correct. It has made a tremendousdifference, not only to Government and to ourpresent relations with China, but to what mighthappen in the future too-that is quite obvious-the wide-spread and deep-seated reaction in ourcountry. There is no doubt about that. Fromalmost, you might say, a little child in a primaryschool to a grown up man there has been thispowerful reaction.

I have ventured sometimes to ask people tobe calm about it. That is true. But, I mighttell you that I was proud of that reaction. I didnot wish that reaction to go in the wrong direction,because, I was afraid that we might fritter thevitality and energy that we may have into un-necessary and even undesirable activities, thinkingthat we are doing something. The issue was sograve in my mind, so big. Here we are sittingon the edge of history and all kinds of things aregoing to happen in the future. Are we going tothink that we are solving these problems byorganising students' demonstrations, or comingin front of Parliament House and waving flags?That way, it does not help. That is minimisingthe issue. If we are straight about it and if wereally feel like that, we shall have to change themillions of people in this country. It is not aquestion of some additional armies. These areminor things. If this unfortunate thing occurs,we have to face this and we shall become a nationof armies, every man; let there be no mistakeabout it. But it is not by petty things that weshall do it. Every single activity, every singlething that we do, planning etc., would have to beconditioned by one major fact, because that willbe a struggle for life and death ; not as Hon.Member says-forgive my mentioning it-"goand occupy that land; force them out". I amsurprised at the casual way such things are thoughtover and mentioned.

Therefore, may I point out to Acharyaji thatwe have not casually considered this question,and it is because of its importance and vitaleffect in the future for all of us in this country,that we have given this matter so much attention ?If two of the big countries of Asia, biggestcountries, giant countries of Asia, are involved inconflict, it will shake Asia and shake the world.It is not a little border issue that we are troubled

about. We are troubled about the border issueof course; that is a different matter. But theissues surrounding it, round about it, are so huge,vague, deep-seated and far-reaching, inter-twinedever, that one has to think about them with allthe clarity and strength at one's command and notbe swept away by passion into action which mayharm us instead of doing us good. All these areconsiderations, and we have, in our little wisdom,however limited it may be, tried to consider theseaspects. And we shall continue them.

They are too big for any Prime Minister orGovernment to deal with. We are small men

427facing great events and great decisions'; and wecan do very little without the support, the fullestsupport, of this Parliament and of the people.That support, I believe, is there and will come.

When I appealed to this House two days agoabout united effort etc., I meant it in a verymuch deeper sense. I did not mind all the speechesmade here or there, although sometimes thosespeeches influence public opinion. They indicateto the outside world that we are not united, thatwe are quarrelling and that we are weak, which isa bad effect to create on our people or on theoutside world. They are misled by it, becausethe reality is that on a subject like this India isbound to be united and nobody can break thatunity when the danger comes. But there is thisto be said. If this House thinks-you will for-give me for being quite frank-that the mannerour Government carries on this particular work isnot satisfactory, then of course, it is open to thisHouse to choose more competent men in whomit has faith, in whom the country has faith.That I can understand, for in a crisis there can beno, shall I say, personal considerations by way ofcourtesy when we face these matters. But if, inyour wisdom or in the balance, you feel, thisHouse feels, that this Government has got to facethis challenge, or this Prime Minister has to faceit, then hold to him and help him, and do notcome in his way. I did not mean at all that thereshould be no criticism. Criticism, of course, thereshould be. But there are criticisms and criticisms.In a moment of crisis one should not do anythingto encourage the opponent or the enemy. Oneshould remain on one's toes, I admit, our peopleand this House, certainly, should remain on their

toes and be wide awake to correct mistakes, topoint out mistakes. I do not want any Government,least of all the Government of which I have thehonour to be the head, to be treated as if we areall-wise. We are not all wise ; of course not. Weare rather common mortals facing great events.Sometimes, of course, the mere association ofgreat events makes a person greater than he is, asmany of us grew greater in the old days when weassociated ourselves with the struggle for India'sindependence. Small men and women that wewere, we became bigger in stature because weassociated with those great events.

Now also there is a challenge of those greatevents and if it is your will and pleasure that Ishould serve in this capacity in which I have beenplaced, I am not going to shirk it, and I am goingto serve with all my strength and such competenceas I have. But if you make me the instrumentof your will for this purpose, do not blunt thatinstrument; keep it sharp for the work that it isintended to do.

So, we really have to consider this issue inall its ramifications, to which reference has beenmade in this debate, and many other ramifications.But, in the final analysis, you have to consider itin this much deeper sense of the biggest challengethat they could have, a challenge which may makehistory for good or bad. Let us not boast. Theissues are too grave for boasting. Let us nottalk about how we will go and kick them out.China is no small country, nor is India. They areboth big countries, ancient countries, and in per-haps somewhat different ways, strong countries.It is absurd, I think, for the Government of Chinato imagine that they can sit on India, or crushIndia. It is equally absurd for anyone in Indiato think that we can sit on China or crush China.

Shri Nehru said : I am not accusing anyone.I am making a statement as to what we have toface. If the worst comes to the worst and a con-flict arises between two mighty countries, it doesnot much matter if one country has got a fewmore guns, or a greater army; it may matter in amilitary sense, but basically when these two giantcountries come into conflict in a life and deathstruggle, no one gives in. No one gives in whenhe is being crushed. Certainly India does notgive in. Something may happen here and thereon the borders. We take it. We deal with it as

we think best always keeping in view this distantprospect of what might happen and how we shoulddeal with it. It is therefore an issue of the biggestmagnitude. We should not, I submit, however,big the issue, lead ourselves to cultivate or to en-courage what is being sometimes referred to hereas a war psychosis, because let us realise in allconsciousness that such a conflict, such a warbetween India and China will be bad, terribly bad,a tragedy of the deepest kind-a tragedy for us, atragedy for China too and a tragedy for Asia andthe world. Therefore let us not think lightly ofit. Let us not take steps which automaticallypush us in that direction.

That is one side of the picture. The otherside is that when this challenge comes, when thisdanger comes we cannot be complacent. We haveto be wide awake and prepared and do all we canto face it if it comes. These are the two sides ofthe picture and we have to steer a course avoidingextremes.

I am not going to discuss many of the sug-gestions and proposals made about developing theborder and all that. Of course, it is true. Someof the suggestions made rather surprised me. Dr.Ram Subhag Singh said that we should industria-

428lise NEFA, the Ladakh area and-where else ?

It is a noble ambition of Dr. Ram SubhagSingh. But before we do that we have to thinkof the little country of India also. We have todeal with and industrialise it. We might concen-trate on industrialising India first before we goacross the Himalayas for that purpose. It showsthe enthusiasm of our hon. colleagues here in thisParliament, but it also shows that in their enthu-siasm they sometimes overshoot the marks andthat is not helpful.

Then again, we have been charged : "Why didyou walk out of Bara Hoti ? Why did you dothis ? You made a statement in September lastand in November you tell us that you walked outof there." Well, I venture to explain the matter.First of all, we have always walked out of BaraHoti during winter because, broadly speaking- Ido not say it is impossible to live there-it is un-livable and uninhabitable in winter. Of course,it is a conceivable possibility that if necessity

arises and when there is vast urgency one can doanything. One can go to the North Pole or to theSouth Pole. That is a different matter. But wehave retired and China has retired from therebecause the place is unlivable. So far as we areconcerned, it is, roughly, approachable for fivemonths in the year, that is, the approach routesto Bara Hoti, on China side too, are in othermonths difficult-the high passes which lead toBara Hoti are blocked. A person may live therecertainly, with difficulty, but he just cannot travelto and fro in the rest of India for seven monthsin the, year. As I said, one can always do every-thing if danger threatens and necessity arises.But the idea of living there or putting our peoplethere, cut off from the rest of India for sevenmonths more or less, unless there is urgent neces-sity, did not seem to me obvious at all or some-thing that was demanded by the honour or inter-ests or the defence of India.

Then again, we had arrived at an arrange-ment with the Chinese Government some two orthree years ago-three years ago, may be-parti-cularly about this matter that they would not putany armed personnel there and we would not doso. Of course, you will say "Why did you cometo such an arrangement"? Well, I am sorry thatI disagree. When there are any disputes-I amnot talking about these big scale border troublesand almost a mountainous invasion and all thatthat is a different matter-but when there aredisputes as there are plenty of disputes betweentwo countries they have always to be discussedand arrangements are arrived at. All that is acommon factor everywhere where such disputesarise. So, we agreed with them that neither theynor we will send armed personnel there. We haveboth kept by that in the last two or three years.In summer we go. We did not agree about ourwithdrawal or not-there is no agreement-but itwas by force of circumstances. They withdrew.We withdrew. So, we have been sending ourcivil personnel there-not that the civil personneldo any civil administration there, but they sit thereand they will sit there, of course.

So, I submit that by attaching too much im-portance to these matters and becoming touchyabout them rather distorts the picture in ourminds. We seem to think that we are going todecide these major matters by, let us say, whatthey did in the old days. Two persons would

fight if a moustache was a little longer or shorteror a little higher or lower. That kind of thingdoes not apply to these grave national problems.

Some Hon. Members talked about commondefence with Pakistan. Now I do not wish todiscuss that matter, but I would remind theHouse of the statement that appeared only twodays ago-I think day before yesterday-thatPresident Ayub Khan made when he was askedabout this letter that I have sent to Premier ChouEn-lai. He said that Pakistan would not recognisethis because she had a claim to Ladakh, that is,because Pakistan had a claim to Ladakh, he saidthat I had no business to make proposal to Pre-mier Chou En-lai and that he does not recognisemy letter. I am not discussing this. But I amjust pointing out the inherent difficulties of thequestion of common defence. But people do notrealise fully, what difficulties it involves.

Then, about war-limited war, leave out bigwar-we have had in recent years at least twoimportant but limited wars. One was in Koreaand the other was in Indo-China and great andpowerful nations were involved in it. After last-ing years, those wars ended in some kind of apartial settlement or some kind of a truce : somekind of a settlement, not a complete one, perhaps.The troubles have continued, tension has con-tinued, call it what you like. But even there, therewas a war in which great nations were involvedand ultimately by force of circumstances they cameto some settlements which were not very satisfac-tory to either of them, big nations as they were.I am pointing out that we have to look at thisquestion not lightly, not vain gloriously, not boast-fully, but still firmly and determinedly. It doesnot mean that we have to shout at the top of ourvoices in order to be heard. It is action anddetermination that counts and not a very loud andrepeated assertion as to how we feel, although

429that has to be done when necessity arises,

There is another thing. There has been amisapprehension evidently and people say thatwe are creating a no-man's land in Ladakh-it istrue-and that we are thereby acknowledgingChina's claim to the frontier there. First of allwe are not acknowledging it in the slightest degree.It is patent. Secondly, in effect, we are asking

them to do what, I believe, was the desire of everyMember of this House, that is, to walk out of theTerritory of India, that we consider India's Terri-tory. It is true that we are doing it in a politeway, in a courteous way, in an honourable wayfor both the countries, because that is the onlyway to do it. Of course, otherwise, you aim notat getting them to do something, but at a deadlockand war. Either we come to the decision that allthis is nonsense as some people do say-you mustnot negotiate, you must not talk with them untilthey do this or that. I believe that in this matter,as in some other matters, the Chinese Governmenthas been in error, has behaved badly; it has notbehaved fairly to us, has committed, what I mightsay, a breach of faith on us-not a breach of faithof my particular word or document, but broadlyspeaking breach of faith. I believe all that.

But, do you treat a Government or do youexpect to be treated in a way to be ordered about ?Then, you are in the wrong. No country likesbeing ordered about. A great country to beordered about is not either the way of diplomacyor dealing between two countries. Therefore, tosay as some Hon. Members have said, I am sorryto criticise them, that they must do this or that,-in fact, if you analyse what they say, they mustsurrender and then we go graciously to talk tothem-that is not obviously a feasible proposition.It may please us. We will be very happy if thathappens. But, that kind of thing does not happeneven with small countries, much less with a greatcountry-deliberately asking the other country to dosomething which it considers humiliating. Thereare very very few countries which tolerate that-even small countries, rights or wrongs apart.Therefore, either you aim at a complete deadlockwith no way out except war or you aim at findingsome doors and windows which might help inremoving that deadlock, lessening it and creatingan atmosphere where one can possibly get over itand settle the question to our advantage. It is adifficult matter. I cannot say now whether thiscan be done or not. But, one think I knowabsolutely and definitely : to accept the deadlockfor ever or to suggest something which confirmsthat deadlock and leaves no doors openexcept war, is a bad step, dangerous step, anutterly wrong step, from any point of view.

That does not mean, of course, that we shouldweaken or we should-the word is often used-go

in for appeasement. I do not quite understandwhat meaning people attach to it. It is a badword with bad associations. That is true. But,those Members who used it seemed to think thatthe alternative to any policy of negotiation or anypolicy of trying to find some way out was appease-ment. That means that they believe in no othercourse but war. Let us realise it, because, theymay not have used the word 'war', but the stepsthey suggested, if taken, inevitably lead to that.We must realise the second, third step. Therefore,I do submit that not only in this case, but always,we should be prepared to negotiate, we should beprepared to meet as we have met even when feel-ings were rather tense, representatives and leadersof Pakistan. I am prepared to meet them again.I may meet them if chance comes. I am not goingto allow my sense of any personal prestige to comein the way of meeting any person anywhere if Ithink that the cause of my country is served there-by or the cause of peace is served thereby. It is true that much as one might desire ameeting, that meeting itself, unless it is held underproper circumstances or a proper atmosphere,with some kind of background and preparation,may lead to nothing. It may fail, it may do harm.It is a different matter. It is a matter of judgment.It is true that any such meeting which has thefaintest resemblance to carrying out the behests ofanother party is absolutely wrong.

I have said, in this particular matter, and theHouse will remember, Mr. Chou En-lai suggestedan early meeting, I have said, "I should be gladto meet you." It seems to me that the meetingcould only take place firstly when these proposalsthat we have sent have been accepted, there issome basis for meeting, tension becomes less orsome other preparation is made for it. I do notwish to delay anything. I am not trying to escapethe very idea of meeting. I want it, I welcome itas early as possible. But, as I have stated, theremust be some preparation, some ground for it. Itis a complicated issue. Leaving out the broadquestion of how the Chinese have behaved in thismatter, which, I think, is very bad, even if youcome to the narrow issue of the borders here andthere, it is a fairly complicated issue, full of his-tory, tradition, this and that and maps.

The Chinese Government has recentlypublished a kind of an atlas-atlas is not perhapsthe right word-a collection of maps, plenty of

them. I think about two or three are their ownmaps. The others are maps taken from othercountries, all maps, British maps, American maps,

430French maps, wherever they could get hold of,which they thought, to some extent helped theircase. Sometimes they help them a little, some-times more.- Encyclopaedia Britannica, sometraveller's maps, all that kind of thing. Theyhave done it. We have plenty of maps, very goodmaps. I have no doubt that our case is a verystrong one, broadly speaking. What I mean is,two countries, where there is a dispute, cannotrefuse to talk. That is not a legitimate way inmodern world or at any time to deal with. If youare strong, you can, of course, push aside youradversary, talk or no talk, get away. It is a badhabit even then.

In the present case, things have happenedwhich have come as a shock to us. I have noobjection to talks about Bara Hoti or one or twoother places. These are limited cases of a border.Where there is a dispute, let us discuss it. Howmany Hon. Members here, who have warmlyprotested against our coming out of Bara Hoti,know even the facts about Bara Hoti? But, it isa resentment, a justified resentment because theyfeel that with the Chinese pushing themselveshere and there, we must not put up. I can under-stand that emotional reaction to it. But very fewof us here can discuss the question of Bara Hoti,what the facts are this way or that way, or anyother question. So, I had no objection to dis-cuss Bara Hoti or one or two other matterswhich I might mention. We have inherited thedispute not since the Chinese came but frombefore that.

But the question becomes an entirely differentone as it is today; whether it is the so-calledMcMahon line or whether it is in Ladakh, itbecomes different. Something has happenedthere which is not a minor border dispute, aminor transgression where there may be doubtabout it or not.

Whatever the Chinese Government mightfeel in their minds, as I said the other day, theyhave an one-track mind more so than othercountries. We all have one-track minds to someextent when our national interests are concerned,

but I think more than other nations, the ChineseGovernment has that one-track mind, and thathas been encouraged or developed or conditionedeven more by the semi-isolation in which thisrevolutionary China has grown up in the last tenyears with no contacts with others except alimited circle of nations.

I say this is on a different footing. Here weare for the last ten years talking to them, dealingwith them, discussing the Tibetan Treaty withthem, and so far as we are concerned, openly andrepeatedly declaring what our frontier was themaps are there-declaring in Parliament andelsewhere, so that there was no doubt as to wherewe were.

I am for the moment assuming that theChinese believe in their own case, and believed intheir own frontier. Anyhow, they perfectly knewour stand while the way they put it to us was:yes, this matter, these maps require revision orreconsideration-something like that-whichcertainly did not close this argument, but broadlythe impression created was that they hid someminor rectifications to suggest, no more.

In spite of all this, they suddenly, orgradually if you like, creep up and take possessionof these various areas and Territories, I am notgoing into the whole history which the Houseknows. It does seem to me a definite breach offaith with a country which tried to be friendly tothem. I think we have rightly tried to be friendlyto them not only because of the past. but moreso because of the present and the future, becauseI do not like, my mind rather does not like, theprospect of the future where these two giantnations of Asia are constantly at each other'sthroats. It is a bad future for us, and for them,if I may say so, and for Asia certainly.

Therefore, keeping all this in view, wefollowed a certain policy. There was no questionof appeasement. Certainly it was a policy whichobjected to and disliked the other policy, whatmight be called anti-policies. We do not believein anti-policies, broadly speaking, and we thinkanti-policies are necessarily based on hatred,which is the typical cold war approach to anyproblem. If you have an enemy you have tofight, go and fight that enemy, down him if youcan, but this kind of cold war attitude is, I think,

more pernicious than any straight out war. Itperverts a nation and an individual who indulgesin it. It is far better, as Gandhiji said, if youhave a sword in your heart, take it out anduse it, not nurse it in your heart.

So, there was no misunderstanding on ourpart about what China was as some peopleimagine. Perhaps we had given more thought toit than most Hon. Members here.

Even before the revolution, we developed, wetried to develop, friendly relations with the pre-vious China, the Chiang Kai-shek China, notthat we approved of Marshal Chiang Kai-shek-it was for China to decide who should rule. Butbecause we attached importance to China as a

431great country, our neighbour country, the biggestcountry in Asia, we tried to be friendly withthem, and we were friendly with them; it was nota long period, of course, since we became inde-pendent, because two or three years later camethe success of this revolution there.

Well, when the revolution came, we dis-cussed this matter, thought of it, with ourAmbassador there and others concerned. It wasperfectly clear that this revolution was not somekind of a palace revolution. It was what mightbe called a basic revolution involving millionsand millions of human beings. It was a stablerevolution with strength behind it and popularitybehind it at that time, whatever might havehappened later-there is no doubt above it. Itproduced a perfectly stable Government, stronglyenough, entrenched and popular. That has noth-ing to do with our liking it or disliking it, that isa different matter. And naturally, we came tothe decision that this Government should berecognised, and within two or three months werecognised it.

I might repeat here a phrase which hasstruck in my mind. Soon after the Chineserevolution-I forget, may be a year after, may bea little more, but about that-a very eminentstatesman belonging to the Western Countrieswho did not like the Chinese revolution said inthe course of a talk with some people. "Wemade a great mistake when the Russian revolutiontook place, the Soviet revolution ; that is, for

years we behaved to them, tried to crush them,tried to, you might almost say, put an end to therevolution. We did not succeed in doing so, butwe did succeed in embittering everybody andcreating these terrible conflicts between us ("us"means those people, Western countries) andRussia." He said : "Let us not repeat thatmistake in regard to the Chinese revolution."This was a person who did not like the Chineserevolution. He is an eminent statesman ofthe Western countries, but he was a wise man.

Now, it is pretty obvious, it was then andit is now, that you cannot deal with these revolu-tions because you dislike them, crushing them upand down, bell, book and candle; they do not ceaseto be. These are elemental things that happen in acountry. You have to deal with them. If youlike, you can fight them, but you cannot ignorethem. That is why we have always been convincedthat it is utterly wrong and harmful and danger-ous for the world for China not to go into theUnited Nations. It is not in keeping with thefacts of the situation, with the facts of life, itcomes in the way. And so, this is what we havebeen saying in the last ten years and now.gradually, even those who have opposed this,have had to admit that it would have been betterto recognise China : progressively they admit it.And indeed, China ought to have been there longago but for certain complications that arise inregard to Marshal Chiang-Kai-shek, it istrue.

Take even the last meeting of the GeneralAssembly of the United Nations. When thisquestion of China being seated there was broughtup by some countries, including India, peoplewere surprised. They said : "Oh, India goes ondoing this in spite of what has happened in Tibet,in spite of what has happened on India's borders.How blind they are !" Well, it is not for me tosay who is blind and who is not, but normally,we have found in the last ten years that what wehave said, and what action we have proposed hasbeen accepted by the other countries year afteryear, after much damage had been done, of coursebecause of their not accepting that advice ; theyhave come round. And you will find that evenin the last voting in the United Nations over thisChinese question, more people voted for it ; morepeople who had opposed it became neutral orabstained ; Those who had abstained voted for it

this time, that is, in spite of all these factors whichhad irritated the countries and irritated us againstChina, yet, the facts of the situation made peoplevote more for that in this last session, becausethere are statesmen there, there are people whothink of the future and of the present; theycannot ignore these facts.

An Hon. Member : Is it because the Chineseare disappointed that the world is opposed tothem that they attack their friends ?

The Prime Minister : I am afraid, with allrespect I say so, that the Hon. Member's mind isastray at the present moment. It has nothingto do with what I am saying or with my line ofargument. Perhaps, I shall be able to clarify thedeep recesses in his mind presently.

Now, I am pointing out that you are dealingwith enormous elemental phenoma in the world,with these big revolutions and others. You haveto understand them and fight them, if you likebut understand them ; you cannot fight withoutunderstanding.

Now, I shall come to another aspect of thisquestion which might perhaps lead the lion,Member to have a slightly better under-standing of the working of our minds. Eversince the Chinese revolution, we naturally had432to think of this major fact of this revolution andwhat this new China was likely to be. We realisedthat this revolution, apart from the changeoverwas going to be a very big factor in Asia andin the world too, and in regard to us. We realis-ed, we knew this much history, that a strongChina is normally an expansionist China.Throughout history that has been the case. Andwe saw, or we felt that the two factors takentogether, the great push towards industrializationof that country, plus the amazing pace of itspopulation increase, would create a most danger-ous situation ; it was obvious ; it did not requiremuch cleverness to think of that ; every intelligentperson in the world more or less thought on thoselines.

The population problem itself, a vast popula-tion and the pace of growth, greater than almostany in the wide world, creates an explosivesituation ; it bursts at the seams, but a big

population may be weak, of course, unless it isindustrialised. And it is this industrialisationprocess that came in powerfully, that gave a push.And I said, the combination of that too, waslikely to create, we saw eight, nine or tenyears ago, that it was likely to create avery novel and a very dangerous situation, not somuch for India, but for India also-that takenalso with the fact of China's somewhat inherenttendency to be expansive, when she is strong.So, nobody was blind to this fact. We realisedit. We have discussed it here, in other countriesrepeatedly, because everybody knew it. Andgradually, as the years have gone by, this fact hasbecome more and more apparent and obvious.So, if any person thinks that we followed ourpolicy in regard to China, without realising theseobvious consequences, he is mistaken. If hethinks that we followed it because of fear ofChina, he is doubly mistaken. It is not for meto say how weak or strong or fearful we are, butI think it may be said that at no time during theselast ten years have we functioned under the urgeof fear; not previous to these ten or twelve years,but since we formed a government, we have beenconditioned not to function under fear. Andsomething of that lesson and experience has stillconditioned us and helped us. There was noquestion of fear of China. Certainly, there wasan appraisal of a situation, of the consequences;-that is a different matter-and further actiontaken, which helps to prevent a dangerous deve-lopment of these steps, of course; every countryhas to take that.

So, I am putting this to the House as thebackground of our thinking, because people seemto imagine that either we live in a world of ourown without thinking of what is happening else-where, without realising it, or that we are shrink-ing in fear. They are mistaken in both ways.

Another point that I might mention is thesegreat revolutions like the Soviet revolution or theChinese revolution, and at the same time, in asense even a greater revolution, that is, the scienti-fic and technological revolution that is takingplace; all these have been round us in ourgeneration. We have seen them, technologicaland scientific. It is only in the last few yearsthat we are really making good. Previously, wehad no chance. And we are doing pretty wellin it, and I have no doubt that considering the

material we have, we shall do well, given anopportunity.

Now, all revolutions, whether it is the Frenchrevolution or the Russian or any other, rathertend to function abnormally, obviously; a revo-lution itself is a departure from normal behaviour,normal development. They become abnormal;they become upheavals; they do not pretend tohaving drawing-room manners; in fact, they goagainst drawing-room manners and break things;they are destructive, although also these bigrevolutions have obviously something constructivein them, something which appeals to people, some-thing which rouses their enthusiasm, obviously.And you see, therefore, these tremendous fermentsand upsets and crude things and cruel thingshappening. Gradually, the revolution subsides,keeping many of the gains of the revolution, butbecoming more and more normal, whether it isthe French revolution or any other. Of course,it depends on other facts how soon it becomesnormal. If conditions, external conditions, pre-vent it, like wars and tumults, it takes a long time;it is bound to, because people cannot live up tothat pitch of excitement of a revolution. Now,we see that normalising process very much atwork. So in the Soviet Union, I do not mean tosay that that means they are going back, on theireconomic theories, although, without going back,they change them; as wise and pragmatic people,they change them somewhat from time to time,the basis remaining more or less the same.

Now, China is very very far from normality,and that is our misfortune, and the world'smisfortune-that is, strength, considerablestrength, coming in an abnormal state of mind.This is a dangerous thing. There it is. One hasto face it, combat it, if you like. I am merelyanalysing the situation.

That is why you find a marked differencebetween the broad approach of the Soviet Union

433to world problems and the Chinese approach. Ido not think there is any country in the world-of course, all countries are anxious for peace-Ido not think there is any country which is moreanxious for peace than the Soviet Union. And Ithink that is the general view of people, even oftheir opponents. But I doubt if there is any

country in the world, if I may put the other thing,which cares less for peace than China today. Seethe vast difference between the two.

One may talk of other things. Shri M. R.Masani may talk still of International Communismand others may talk of International Capitalism.There may perhaps be a grain of truth in whatthey say. But basically and fundamentally, thesecries of these ideas are completely out of date andhave no relation to today's world. However, itis not for me to argue it. I am merely stating afact. The world is changing and I can conceivethe two great colossuses today, the Soviet Unionand the United States, coming very near to eachother, as they are slightly coming. Essentially,these ideas of Capitalism and Communism are, asI said, out of date. You may quote scripture. Ithink Shri M.R. Masani quoted, what ChairmanMao said and somebody else quoted, Marx. Well,it is interesting to know what Chairman Mao saidin the middle of a civil war-many things are saidat such times. It may be that Chairman Maowill say the same today. I cannot say.But the fact remains that all these cries becomeout of date. They are out of date today in thisworld when you have reached the moon andother things happen. The fact of the matter isthat the two countries at the present moment in asense the most advanced technologically, scienti-fically and all that, are America and the SovietUnion. They both worship technology and themachine. They both think that they will get moreand more out of it, and perhaps they both forgetthat there are some other deeper aspects ofhuman life which cannot be ultimately ignored.So this talk about international capitalism andInternational Communism, repeating an oldslogan, merely prevents us from thinking straightand understanding the changing World.

The Hon. Member, Shri Vajpayee, expressedsurprise and resentment at the letter I had writtento Premier Chou En-lai which was sent on the16th November, just the day this House reassem-bled. Could I not have delayed that letter fortwo days and get the sanction of the House ? Iam surprised at this suggestion, as if diplomaticcorrespondence of any type, even of a trivial typeand much more so of an important type, is goingto be considered by Parliament before every letteris sent. It is impossible for us to carry on inthat way. It cannot simply be done. I am

sorry to say so. You have to trust to someextent these people whom you appoint to do thisjob. If they do badly, take them out, of courseBut you have to trust them. There is no otherway. You cannot have these letters communica-tions and despatches all the time put before theHouse. That was the reason also why a number ofthese things were not placed before the Housepreviously. I am accused of keeping things fromthe House, I did not deliberately do so. But I donot wish that before a thing was completed-thecorrespondence-I should put my letter andcreate perhaps a furore before I get a reply.One thing in which this argument or criticismmay be applied was about the news regarding theAksai Chin Road. Now, as I said, we wanted toconfirm it. We sent our men there. It was onlyin October last year-about a year ago-thatwe had known that it was there and they had seenit. It was in our territory. Immediately we wroteto Premier Chou En-lai. We could of course haveimmediately announced the fact. But the possibleresult in such cases is that there is no room fortalk left. Each side becomes rigid-I do not saythey are flexible now. That is not my point,but I am talking of the general practice. Eachside becomes rigid ; publicity is given ; nationalfeeling is roused and the other country reacts toit. Then any talk, any flexible approach,becomes impossible. I may have made a mistakebut I am merely explaining how one cannot allthe time announce or publish these facts in Parlia-ments, the Press and the rest. But the broadprinciple, of course, is there that it is essential forParliament to be kept in touch with events andthere should be no secrecy ; there might be delaysetc. in order to achieve a certain object.

Shri Nehru said : May I just say this torepeat that we have said previously that anyaggression on Bhutan or Nepal would be consi-dered by us as aggression of India. I know verywell what all this involves-what I am saying. Itis a very grave responsibility. But realising allthis and thinking it out, we said so long ago andnow I want to repeat it because not only of widerconsiderations but also because of considerationsof India's security. If you ask, what will be doneif this happens or that happens obviously I can-not say.

Now, the other day, referring to the illtreat-

ment of some of our prisoners by the Chinese, Imentioned in the Geneva Convention. I think ShriAsoka Mehta said something about that and askedwhether China had signed it. I have looked that

434matter up. It is the Geneva Convention relatingto the treatment of prisoners of war, August 12,1949. The Convention applies to all cases ofdeclared war or of any other armed conflict whichmay arise between two or more of the High Con-tracting Parties even if the state of war is notrecognised by one of them. The Convention wasalso applicable to cases of partial or total occupa-tion of the Territory of a High Contracting Partyeven if the said occupation meets with no armedresistance. No physical or mental torture nor anyother form of coercion is to be inflicted on pri-soners of war to secure from them information ofany kind whatever. It applies to this. Prisonersof war who refuse to answer may not be threat-ened, insulted or exposed to any other unpleasantor disadvantageous treatment of any kind. Apartfrom the present Chinese Government acceptingit, Premier Chou En-Lai actually made a statementto this effect-I am not quite sure where but Ithink-in Geneva, recognising the Geneva Conven-tions.

I am very grateful to this House for thecourtesy it has shown me.

I would again repeat that it is up to us torealise the gravity of the situation fully, becauseit is not only an army matter, defence matter, anall that, but it goes much further than that.affects all of us; it affects our production;affects all our planning; it affects the workers ithe factory and the employers; it affects men ievery field. All these and other demands that armade will have to be conditioned by this new posi-tion. Strikes, hartals, lock-outs and all that will haveto be viewed from this point of view. Students, whI am glad to say have shown so much vitality overthis issue will have to realise that that has to beshown in other ways also which would really helpus. So, it applies to all our life.

So far as we are concerned, I cannot functionand my Government cannot function in a big way-it can function normally-when these difficultiesface us if we do not have the fullest cooperationfrom Parliament and the people. I appeal, there

fore, for that co-operation, and I promise themthat we shall keep them in touch with whathappens to the best of our ability. I cannotpromise that every letter I sent shall suddenly orcertainly be placed before them, but it is impossi-ble for us really to function with any kind ofsecrecy when such grave issues are at stake.

CHINA INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC PAKISTAN KOREA RUSSIA MALI BHUTANNEPAL SWITZERLAND

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Lok Sabha Motion on India-China Relations-Prime Minister's Speech

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,moved the following motion in the Lok Sabhaon November 25, 1959 :

"That the White Paper II on India-China relations laid on the Table of the House on November 16, 1959 and subsequent correspondence between the Govern- ments of India and China laid on the Table of the House on November 20, 1959, be taken into consideration."

Continuing, the Prime Minister said

Mr. Speaker, Sir, in September last, about2 1/2 months ago this House debated the questionof Sino-Indian relations, more especially in regardto our border and the developments which havetaken place there. We went into, at that timesome past history and the House was concernedabout the various developments. Since then,other events have taken place and other develop-ments also and I have placed on the Table of theHouse various papers, correspondence, etc. whichhad occurred since our last debate.

The House knows the background of all thathas happened and I do not propose to go intothat except perhaps to fill in some details hereand there because it is important that this Houseand Parliament should have every aspect of thequestion before it. A great responsibility restson us in Government but that responsibility canonly be discharged if the House itself shoulders itin a very large measure, as representing thecountry. Therefore, it is my intention to keep theHouse informed of every development in thissituation and take counsel with Members as towhat policy we should adopt.

For the present, we have specially to dealwith certain recent developments, the proposalsmade by Premier Chou En-lai and my reply toPremier Chou En-lai containing certain other andalternative proposals, and the House will no doubtconsider them and express its views in regard tothem. But behind these proposals lie certainbasic approaches and basic principles; because wecannot act merely in a haphazard or spasmodicway reacting to events that happen. Naturally wehave to react to them but that reaction has to beconditioned and controlled by the basic policiesthat we pursue and the objectives that we have. Ifwe forget it or if we have no anchorage in basicpolicies and objectives, then our reactions some-times may take us in the wrong direction or lead

435us in a direction not of our choice. Therefore, Ithink it is important that these basic policies shouldbe kept in mind.

Naturally, even basic policies have to beimplemented in the light of conditions that ariseand in this changing world and changing situationswe cannot ignore what happens, but we have tomeasure what happens and respond to it in thelight of any basic policy we might have. ThereforeI should like this House to consider in all earnest-ness those basic policies which have governed-usand which, I hope and trust, will govern us in thenear future.

If there is a vital difference in regard to thosebasic policies, then, of course, the steps we maythink of taking may be different and may vary.It is necessary that that should be done moreparticularly now and not merely taken for granted.We have accepted certain basic policies in the past

and the Government, under the directions of thisParliament, has functioned in accordance withthose basic policies. In the old days, perhaps, asI said, they were taken for granted and not putto the test of experience and danger. They arebeing put to the test now and it is necessary,therefore, that we should not merely take themfor granted but accept them or reject them as thisHouse chooses. There should be no half-wayhouse about our thinking when matters of suchimportance are at issue.

We are faced with grave problems. I do notmean to say that there is some immediate dangerof any magnitude, but the gravity of the problemslies certainly in the present but even more so in thefuture, and any step that we might take will there-fore be pregnant with future possibilities. It is aproblem obviously of a much greater, much widersignificance than what might be called partyproblem. It transcends all party issues; it com-prises the whole country and, I may say so, tosome extent, it comprises the issues beyond ourcountry, that is, the issues of war and peace in theworld.

Now it is a tremendous responsibility for anyindividual or group like our Government to haveto shoulder and face these questions and decidewisely and firmly about that policy and about thesteps we should take. No individual and, if Imay say so, no Government even is good enoughby itself to shoulder this grave responsibility,because the consequence that flow from it do notflow to the Government only; they flow to thecountry and to some extent to the world. There-fore, I would beg this House to shoulder thatresponsibility and tell us what we should doabout it. If we can do it, carry out its directions,well, and good for us. If we cannot, then, letothers carry those directions out. But let thedirections be clear. We cannot deal with thesematters in a half-hearted way, in a destructive way,in a party way, because, as I said, the issues beforeus are grave and vital, and every step that we maytake, by that, we sow certain seeds for the futurewhich may bear good fruit or ill fruit. It is in this mood and with this feeling of acertain humility before those grave issues whichaffect the future of our country that I approachthis Hon. House and seek its indulgence if I saywhat I feel about these matters frankly becausefrankness is desirable.

Now I shall discuss in the course of my speechthe particular matters which are before us, but asI have referred to the basic issues, I shall beginby saying something about them. We have stoodfor a policy of peace, for a policy of friendshipwith all nations, even though we differ from themon a policy of non-alignment with power blocsand avoidance of military pacts and the like. Itis not for us to judge what others do about it.May be circumstances may be different or difficultfor them. The other countries have to judge abouttheir policies and their alliances as they thinkbest. Certainly I do not feel myself competentto criticise them as to offer them advice, butcertainly I feel that so far as our country isconcerned it is we who should judge, and we havefollowed this policy.

Now, recently, a cry has arisen in this countryfrom some sources, some people, criticising andcondemning that policy of non-alignment, thatpolicy which has been sometimes referred to asone of Panch Sheel or five principles and the like.It has been said that that has collapsed because ofwhat has happened vis a vis China. Some people haveeven allowed themselves the pleasure of beinghumorous about it. It was not particularlyhappy, being satirical or humorous on issues ofthis character.

As I said, this policy has been our consistentpolicy for the last ten years and indeed, evenbefore; when the words Panch Sheel came into usethey just described the policy that we werepursuing. Some years ago, other great countriesin the world also spoke rather lightly and casuallyabout our policy, imagining or thinking that itwas a policy of weakness, of sitting on the fenceand the like. But as the years have gone by,wisdom has come to other countries, not all, butmany, and the biggest of them, and today it isone of the bright features of the developments

436that take place before us, namely, that basically,that very policy has not only been appreciated inso far as India is concerned but is colouring andconditioning the activities of great nations. Letus not forget that. It is an important fact. Thatpolicy was against cold war and the like, becausecold war necessarily leads in the direction of hotwar and people came to realise that war of that

type in the present age was a disaster, whichcould not have been imagined and therefore, stepsmust be taken to avoid it. Fear, apprehensionand suspicions came in the way, but ultimately aneffort is being made, which has met with somesuccess already and which holds promise ofgreater success in the future, that we must put anend to this cold war and we must come to somekind of settlement, which removes these fears andsuspicions.

There are innumerable hurdles and diffi-culties in the way, but I think we would be justi-fied in a measure of optimism when the greatestnations of the world today, greatest nations notonly in peace but in war, are thinking on theselines and are trying to come together, and I shouldlike this House, even though we are entangledin our own problems and difficulties, to sendits good wishes to the efforts of thegreat leaders of these nations who are workingfor peace.

During the last few years, we find the worldhas been on the brink of danger most of the time,because cold war is the brink of danger. On twoor three occasions, it came very near topplingover the brink. There were talks of brinkman-ship too as a policy. But the world as a wholehas moved away somewhat from that dangerousedge of a precipice, but it is a strange turn offate or circumstance that we in India, who stoodfor this policy of peace and worked for it withall our might, should suddenly be drawn into thisdangerous situation which we face today. I amnot for the moment saying whose fault it was.If Hon. Members or any Member wants to saythat we are partly at fault, it may be, although Ifirmly believe that right policy is right and right-ness should not be judged by the wrongness ofother peoples' actions and that right conductinevitably has right results. If you like, you maycall me an idealist, but I have been conditionedto believe that throughout my life and I am notgoing to change at the age of seventy years. It istrue that some Hon. Members may smile at thisand may think it a sign, perhaps, of senility inme. Whatever it may be, the fact is that by astrange turn of fortune's wheel, fate or circum-stance, we, who stood for peace, are faced by thepossibility even of war.

I do not think war will come. I am merely

talking about possibilities. I do not think thatthe world or any country is foolish enough tojump over the precipice into war. But I say thatthese possibilities come into our minds and thatis certainly strange. Those people who mayimagine that this is due to our policy of PanchSheel or non-alignment seem to me to think in asomewhat distorted and upside down way. I reallydo not understand that. I would say that anyother policy will have brought infinitely greaterdangers and brought them sooner and broughtthem when we would - not have had the prestigewe undoubtedly possess in the world today be-cause of our policies and the wide friendship thatwe possess in the world today.

Some Hon. Members sometimes talk of ournot having any friends. Apparently their idea offriendship is some kind of iron chain that bindsin a military alliance. That is their idea offriendship. It is feeble; that iron chain breaksoften enough. It is not a chain of friendship, buta chain of compulsion of events. We do notwant such chains to bind us. But we have thefriendship of great nations and small, nationswith whom we do not agree in many matters andyet we are friendly.

When people talk lightly, casually andscornfully of Panch Sheel, I should like them totell which of those five principles they disapproveof, which of them they think is bad and which ofthem they think should not be acted upon. Ishould like them to tell that, because nobody hasyet told me that. I say those five principles areright principles, inevitable principles, for right-thinking people, right-thinking individual, orright-thinking world. If you go away from them,you move into a world of conflict and a world ofconflict today is a world of doom. Therefore, Ishould like that to be considered. Let it not besaid merely that this is silly. That is not goodenough. We are dealing with various matters ina serious way and it is just not quite goodenough-not that I mind it-for some kind of partyadvantage to be taken, because the country facesa grievous situation.

I have mentioned all this because I want thisbasic issue to be considered by this House in thisdebate and for a firm and clear opinion to begiven on that issue, which will govern the acti-vities of this Government. Naturally we have

to act according to the directions of Parliament,which means according to the wishes of ourcountry and countrymen, who are represented inParliament. On this matter there should be noquibbling, no doubt. A straight forward direction

437must be given that this is the basic policy that thecountry must follow. In a matter of this kind,I repeat again, whatever internal difficultiesmight be, whatever the internal controversiesmight be, which influence the action of parties,normally a country does not function in a partyway when such problems are raised and theParliament of that country decides something.

So, we have this curious situation that whenin the western world, which means a large part ofthe world, there is a sort of improvement in theirrelations,-although there are doubts still, butnevertheless there is a basic, definite, deliberateand earnest desire to improve them-we have toface this situation. In a sense the danger zoneshifts from other countries to our own borders.

I should like to add a little to the informa-tion I gave previously filling some gaps as to howthis border situation arose. There is nothing newin what I am going to say. Nevertheless, I thinkHon. Members should know it. The Governmentof India recognised the Central People's Govern-ment of China in December, 1949. Eight monthslater, the latter, i.e., the Chinese Government, ex-pressed their gratification over the Government ofIndia's desire "to stabilise the Chinese-Indianborder" and the Government of India replied that"the recognised boundary between India and Tibetshould remain inviolate." Then, some time later,in an informal conversation with the IndianAmbassador, on the 27th September, 1951, Pre-mier Chou En-lai expressed his anxiety to safe-guard in every way Indian interests in Tibet onwhich matter "there was no territorial dispute orcontroversy between India and China."He added :

"The question of stabilisation of the Tibetan frontier was a matter of common interest to India, Nepal and China and could best be done by discussions bet- ween the three countries."

I am quoting still :

"Since the Chinese army entered Lhasa" (i.e. in 1951) "in pursuance of the Sino- Indian agreement of 1951 to take up frontier posts, it was necessary to settle the matter as early as possible."

Now, this was in September 1951. On October4, 1951, the Indian Ambassador in Peking,under instructions from the Government of India,informed the Chinese Premier, that the Govern-ment of India would welcome negotiations onthe subjects mentioned by Premier Chou En-lai.This was previous to the agreement, which camelater, about Tibet. In February 1952 the IndianAmbassador gave a statement of the existingIndian rights in Tibet and reiterated India's will-ingness to arrive at a mutually satisfactory settle-ment. Premier Chou En-lai replied that therewas "no difficulty in safeguarding the economicand cultural interests of India in Tibet." He didnot refer to the frontier question in his reply; nordid the Indian Ambassador raise this questionspecifically then. It was our belief that since ourfrontier was clear, there was no question of rais-ing this issue by us.

When discussions took place for the Sino-Indian agreement on Tibet, seven subjects weredealt with-our mission at Lhasa, trade agencies atGyantse and Yatung, a trade agency at Gartok,the right to carry on trade other than trade marts,postal and telegraphic installations, military es-corts to Gyantse and the right of pilgrimage.

These were indicated to the Chinese Govern-ment as subjects for negotiation and ultimatelyan agreement was arrived at in regard to thesematters. Our clear impression was that we hadsettled all matters relating to Tibet and India andthat no frontier issue remained except some minorones. The question of the frontier did not ariseat all at any other time, except later in relation tosome maps published in China to which we tookexception. The reply of the Chinese Governmentto us was that these were old maps and their revi-sion would be taken up later when they had leisureto do so. This objection was raised by us severaltimes and the reply also was the same every time.

In March last, that is, this year, there wasTibet revolution. In fact, there had been uprisingin the eastern part of Tibet for several years pre-

viously. In March this revolt took place in Lhasaand spread. This resulted in large numbers ofrefugees coming to India and the Chinese forcespursuing them, or trying to cut them off, and theyalso reached our eastern frontier, that is, what iscalled the McMahon line. Later they spread outto some other frontiers on the west. The storyof subsequent events is clearly stated in the corres-pondence in the White Paper.

It was for the first time on the 8th September,1959, that is, about 2 1/2 months ago, that PremierChou En-lai, in a letter addressed to me, claimedthe areas in India which had been included inthe Chinese maps. Up till now there had only beenthis reference to maps and their telling us thatthey would be revised : in what manner, of coursethey did not say. But, for the first time, in thisletter in September last, Premier Chou En-lai

438made the claim on the basis of those maps, thoughhe did certainly express his willingness to discussthe boundary disputes with us, presumably suchdisputes being of a minor character.

Now, in this brief account I have left outAksai Chin developments. I shall now say some-thing about them. In September, 1957, we learntof an announcement by the Chinese Governmentthat a road had been made from Yehcheng toGartok in Tibet and that this would be open totraffic in October. As there were two alternativeroutes from Sinkiang to Western Tibet, we en-quired from our Embassy as to where this roadwas. They could not send any precise informa-tion, but they sent us a copy of the announce.ment which had been published in the People'sDaily of Peking which also continued a sketch ona very rough and small scale. In view of thisuncertainty about the exact alignment, it was deci-ded that before we send the protest to the Chineseauthorities, we should have more reliable informa-tion about the alignment of the road. Two re-connaissance parties were sent to the areas in thesummer of 1958, an army party towards the northand a police party towards the southern extremityof this road. It took some time for the policeparty to return as the journey was a long andarduous one. The army party did not return, andit was suspected by us that they might have beenarrested by the Chinese authorities. In fact, theyhad been arrested and they were released some-

what later. From the police party we learnt thatthere was a part of this road in Indian Territory.This was a year ago, round about the end ofSeptember of last year when we knew with somedefiniteness that there was this road which hadcrossed our territory in Aksai Chin. On the 18thOctober, 1958 a little more than a year ago, wesent a formal protest note to the Chinese Govern-ment regarding this road and repeating that theroad passed through Indian territory and askingfor an early reply. No reply was received then orlater to this note of ours. On the 14th December,1958, I wrote a long letter to Premier Chou En-lai about the incorrect delineation of the Sino-Indian boundary in Chinese maps and the circula-tion of those maps. There was no specific men-tion in this letter of Aksai Chin as this matter hadbeen referred to in the earlier letter. PremierChou En-lai replied to this letter on the 23rdJanuary, 1959. These letters are given in theWhite Paper. I then sent another letter on the22nd of March, 1959 to Premier Chou En-lai.This letter dealt in detail with the boundary in allsectors, including Ladakh. This brings us toMarch of this year when we were trying diploma-tically, through correspondence with the ChineseGovernment, for a settlement over this issue.

It has, been stated and the charge may bejustified-that we failed in informing Parliamentof this. As the House will appreciate, the mattercame precisely in our knowledge in October, thatis, a year ago. And we took immediate steps toenquire from the Chinese Government and wewere corresponding with them for the next threeor four months. We felt, rightly or wrongly, that we shouldclear this up with them and then place the matterbefore the House. Now, in about the middle ofMarch something else happened. The TibetanRebellion took place and a large number of otherissues, border issues and other issues arose, withwhich we have dealt in all this correspondence.That is in so far as this Aksai Chin matter or roadis concerned.

Another complaint has been made that wewere not swift or quick enough to inform thecountry or this House-the House was not sitting-about the recent incident in Ladakh. That, Ithink, is based on a complete misapprehension.The incident took place on the 21st October.We gave the information to the Press, etc. on the

23rd October, that is, two days later. We heardof it for the first time on the 22nd October eveningor late afternoon. It so happened that I was inCalcutta then. So was our Foreign Secretary.We board or we were told that a brief messagehad come, that there had been this conflict andthat some of our persons had died. Furtherparticulars did not come by then. We got it there.We returned early next morning. We got someother messages and we gave the matter aboutmid-day, maybe in the afternoon, of that day tothe Press. There was absolutely no delay there.

People complained as to how did the Chinesesend a protest note to us a little before, a fewhours before. The reason is fairly obvious,namely, that our party had to return from thescene of accident or incident to its own base andthen send the message while the Chinese got themessage from their outpost or check-post, orwhatever it was there. So this involved a fewhours' delay, nothing great. The message cameto us via Shillong. So there was absolutely nodelay in that.

In dealing with these matters, I do not knowhow far the Hon. Members have felt this, but itis important that we should realise an inherentdifficulty in dealings between India and China.May be, to some extent that difficulty arisesin dealings between any two countries, moreparticularly when they are rather unlike eachother. All of us are apt to think or look at the

439

world or look at any problem, naturally, fromour point of view. The other person looks at itfrom his. Even geography becomes different,whether you are at the North Pole or at theEquator looking at the world. But that, tosome extent, has to be faced. But in regard toChina, I feel that we have to deal with, what mightbe called, an one-track mind, very much so. Weall have to some extent one-track minds, ofcourse, although I believe that we in India perhapssuffer from it a little less than other countries.-Not all of us anyhow. I was not excluding theopposition from my remarks, although sometimesI begin to doubt whether they do not have one-track minds. However, it seemed to me indiscussing these matters that one comes upagainst this wall of an one-track mind apart from

other things. What is more-I am not sayingthis as criticism but as some kind of appraisal,right or wrong-this is all a national trait whichhas existed for a considerable time past becauseChina was a great, advanced and powerfulcountry at various stages of history. It spread-and, of course, it spread by the normal Imperialistmethods-by war and conquest and built up agreat empire repeatedly.

Anyhow, from fairly early in history they hada sensation of greatness of the Middle Kingdom,as they called themselves, all the fringes belongingto lesser developed countries and human beingswho paid tribute to them. It seemed natural tothem that other countries should pay tribute tothem. Then I think-I forget the exact date,but long ago-about 150 years ago or thereaboutswhen the British came, they sent an ambassadoror an envoy with some gifts to them. The replyof the then Chinese Emperor makes interestingreading. He addresses them. He thanks themfor their loyalty and subservience to him and heappreciates their gifts as from some country ofwhich, in a sense, they were suzerain powersalmost. Their thinking was that the rest of theworld occupies a lower grade. Whenever anygifts were sent, even in Tibetan history you comeacross cases where these gifts were sent,-theyalways treated that as if it became a sign of theirsovereignty or suzerainty. That was 200 or 300years ago.

Now that has made it difficult for us tounderstand the working of their minds and, whatis more to the point, for them to understand theworking of our minds. It has been very difficultfor me to explain to them that in this country ourstructure of Government is, what we consider,democratic, there are civil liberties and thatcivil liberties include the civil liberty or the rightto misbehave, the right even to say highlyobjectionable things-that is part of civil liberty-that there are parties here which function in theirown way, rightly or wrongly, and that Govern-ment here cannot control them and cannot inhibitthese activities unless they go beyond the pale ofthe law. They (the Chinese Government) cannotunderstand it.

Now take an incident that happened somemonths back-an incident when Chairman MaoTse-tung's picture was set up and insulted and

some tomatoes were thrown for about half aminute or for a minute when the police intervened.Now this incident created a depth of anger inChina, which it is difficult for the people to under-stand because Chairman Mao was a symbol tothem. The picture did not count. The symbolsare more to them than even to us although webelieve more in symbols. It was a symbol to themof everything and that anybody should insultChairman Mao's picture made them livid with rage.

Now I want the House to realise what effectsome things that we say or do unthinkingly orcasually have. Therefore I have been venturingto say that in these matters we should weigh thewords we use, the language we use and as well asthe actions we take. I am not talking of Chinaonly now but of any country. It is a wrong anddangerous thing to deal with individuals there.What I mean to say is that to condemn individualsand Governments, more especially to condemnheads of governments, heads of States, becausethey are symbols, is bad because you create anunnecessary passion on the other side, which comesin the way of calm consideration of any matter,just as, you can well imagine the strength of feel-ing in India if in some country insults were hurledat our revered President. We would resent it,because he is the symbol of the dignity of ourState. Therefore, we should avoid this. But thisbasic fact remains. I only mention this to helpus to understand the situation. It does not solveit, of course.

We now face a situation which is partly apolitical situation, but partly also a military one;not military in the sense of war coming, but mili-tary in the sense that we have to take militarysteps to meet it and be prepared or all conting-encies', in that sense it is a military situation. Now,obviously, this House will not expect me to tellit what arrangements, military and defence arrange-ments, we are making. That kind of thing is notpublicized. But I can tell this House that at notime since our independence, and of course beforeit, were our defence forces in better condition, infiner fettle and with the background of far greaterindustrial production in the country to help them,

440than today. I am not boasting about them orcomparing them to other countries, but I am quiteconfident that our defence forces are well capable

of looking after our security. It is easy to say, but does the House realisethat we have 9,000 miles of frontier? It is apretty big link-not the frontier with China; that is2,600 miles, a little over 2,600 miles-but all thevarious frontiers that we have running to 9,000miles. Some people seem to imagine that ourforces should stand at guard along all our frontiers,nine thousand miles.

An Hon. Member: Not all; nobody saysthat. Only where they are threatened.

The Prime Minister : Quite so, quite so; Iaccept the amendment. So they rush to guardthat place. Then the other party goes to someother place; then we rush to that place; our timeis spent in rushing to all manner of places at thebidding and command of others ! Any personwith the least acquaintance with military matters,of war and other things, would not make sucha suggestion, I can assure this House. It has nomeaning, running about like this, dispersing yourforces over wide areas and getting entangled hereand there and reducing your capacity to hit outwherever you want to. The main thing is to hitout when you want to, not to stand in a row likein the streets of Delhi when some processiongoes by.

An Hon. Member: The best thing is notto guard anywhere so that we can concentrate !

The Prime Minister : This is a matter inwhich I cannot express an opinion, because I donot consider myself an expert in it. I have totake the advice of the experts who advise me orour Government; naturally, discussing it withthem, naturally, putting one's own view-point, butin the final analysis accepting their advice as tohow to use the resources at our disposal.Obviously, the, resources are not infinite, are notjust that you can draw upon them; there is acertain limitation upon those resources, and wehave to use them to the best advantage.

But, apart from. these border conflicts, the realstrength of any army or defence forces, it is well-known, is the industrial background of the country.If you think in terms of war, it is the industrialback-round that counts. If the last Great War,the Second World War, was won by a certaingroup of nations, of course many factors counted,

but it was the enormous industrial productivecapacity that counted most. If some powerstoday, like the United States or the SovietUnion are very great powers, super powers,it is because of the industrial and scientific pro-gress that they have made. It is obvious, theirscientific and industrial progress have made themsuch tremendous powers. We have a greaterpopulation than either of them. Population doesnot make it, or merely giving a rifle to everyindividual. It may help in some matters. And,therefore, the whole question of defence has tobe considered in all these various aspects, andamong them the basic aspect is the growth ofindustry, industrialisation ; and, industrialisationnot meaning merely some kind of defenceindustries-that is important of course-butyou have to create a background to industrialisa-tion all over the place, and more particularlyin matters relating to industry ; but you cannotseparate these things.

In the past we have discussed our defenceestimates here, and this House has seldom wantedthem to be lowered much. Sometimes somecriticism has come. At the same time we haveresisted-I want to be quite frank with you-wehave resisted the normal tendency of our defenceapparatus to spend more and more. In everycountry there is that tendency. We have resistedit. Last year we reduced our estimates, notbecause we wanted our defence to be weak, butbecause we knew that the strength of defence isthe development, the Five Year Plan, and this andthat. That is the real strength of the defence.It is true that when we are certainly faced with adangerous position, well, you have to make thebest of it with whatever you have. But if you arealways making the best of it at the moment, thatmeans that you are never preparing for the morrowwith greater strength.

Coming to these letters, Premier Chou En-lai's letter to me and my reply to him, they areboth before the House and Hon. Members musthave read both of them. It is not my purpose togo into details, and I should not. But I dofeel that the approach that we have made in ourletter to Premier Chou En-lai is a fair and areasonable one. It is an honourable one.It is an honourable one certainly for ourcountry, and I would repeat that it is anHonourable one for China too. Because, unless

you are bent on war and you merely want drum-beating all the time and strong language-well,that is a different matter. I regret to say that Ido not agree with that, and I think it is a wrongpolicy and a dangerous policy. War is a dange-rous policy. But if war is thrust upon one, onehas to defend it. If war is thrust upon us, weshall fight, and fight with all our strength. That

441is a different matter. But I shall avoid war, tryto prevent it with every means in our power, be-cause it is a bad thing, it is a dangerous thing.Shri Masani smiles, because he evidently thinksdifferently ; he likes war, or he may think thatsome of his friends from other countries will comeand help if there is war here. If that is the viewof any person that we should become just a weaknation, shouting loudly and expecting others tocome to our defence, I hope India will neverdegrade herself in this way.

You have to be logical. Either you have tohave a bellicose, warlike mentality, a short ofwhat is normally associated, let us say, with Hideror Nazism. Then you definitely work for war.Of course, Hitler had the strength to do soalthough he was defeated ultimately. I find herepeople exhibiting a strange situation : not havingthe strength and yet talking like Hitler. It wasa most most amazing phenomenon. It was badenough for Hitler who had the strength to do so.Without strength, for a person to talk like Hitlerseems quite extraordinary. However, my pointwas, if you do not aim at war, you have to facea dangerous situation from what you do.

Naturally, inevitably, you take every step toprotect your country, because, war does not comeor not come because of your wishes. Only youmay help or prevent the process. It is the otherparty that may bring it about in spite of you.Therefore, you have to keep that in mind andtherefore you have to prepare for it to the best ofyour ability. That is admitted. If it comes, youhave to fight to the best of your ability. Neverthe-less, you have to work for avoiding it. If youare working for avoiding it, the preliminary stepsthat you take should also keep that in view. Be-cause, if you talk in too loud a voice about thesematters, if you go on denouncing everybody, ifyou create an atmosphere which must inevitablylead to warlike thinking, exciting people in your

own country and irritating beyond measure peoplein the other country, whether you want or not,you are taking that country step by step to thatposition. That is inevitable I do not myself seewhy the strength of a country should be associatedwith the beating of drums. I have heard of thisbeing done in the old days. Nowadays, strengthis represented not by drum-beating or slogans, butby whatever it is, your army, your industrialapparatus or morale-all these things. Buildthem up certainly and stand firmly before anyintruder. I can understand that. But, keep thefacts of life in view. Do not ignore life as it is,the world as it is, everything as it is.

I can recognise one thing. There are somethings which no nation can tolerate. Any attackon its honour, on its integrity, on the integrity ofits territory, no nation tolerates, and it takesrisks, grave risks even, to protect all that. Because,you cannot barter these things, yourself-respectand honour. One has to stand for them, what-ever the consequences. That is all right. But, instanding for them, if one takes some action whichputs the same dilemma before the other countryand the other country thinks that its honour isbeing attacked and its self-respect brought down,you shut all the doors to any kind of approach ortalk. I should like the House to appreciate thisdistinction. Firmness and building up of strengthis obviously necessary and right and inevitablywhen we have to face a crisis of this kind. But,firmness and building up of strength does notmean doing so in a manner which may worsen asituation and which may shut all possible doors toa peaceful settlement. I think, whatever the cir-cumstances, whatever the conditions that mightarise, always there should be an attempt at apeaceful settlement, provided always again that weare not going to barter our honour, our self-respectour territory. That proviso always remains.Otherwise, we are talking childishly-I hope youwill forgive me for using this word-in this worldtalking without understanding the consequencesof our words or what action we are apparentlysuggesting. It becomes then something, the de-fence of the country being put on the level of, letus say, a demonstration in Delhi city. Defenceof a country is something different; not a speechin the Ramlila ground or drum-beating somewhereor slogans somewhere. It is far too serious amatter to be treated in this casual way. So, Ihave endeavoured in my reply to Premier Chou

En-lai, in all my letters that I have sent to him,to state our case with as much clarity as I couldcommand, but always with politeness, alwayswith a view that I might help in solving thisproblem however difficult it might be. If it isbeyond solution, we face that. But, we shallalways go on trying to slove it.

Some people come to me and say "Whydon't you eject everybody from Indian territory?"Occasions may arise in war when one tries to doso. But one does not do so except in war. Ifit is war, then, of course, one tries it. In peace,one tries other means. Otherwise, it is war.People seem to think that we need not go to war.but we may have some kind of petty campaignshere and there. I do confess that this is beyondmy understanding.

There are one or two matters that I shouldlike to mention specially. One is the treatmentof people of Kashmiri or, more particularly,

442Ladakhi origin in Tibet by the Chinese autho-rities. This has been very harsh and unreason-able. Our Trade representatives in Gyantse andYatung, etc. also have had any amount of pin-pricks and difficulties from day to day. It isinteresting to contrast this with the Chinese claimto the Indonesian Government for the treatmentof people of Chinese origin in Indonesia, becausethere is a very great difference between that andthe treatment they are giving to those people ofKashmiri or Ladakhi origin. Also we have beenmuch disturbed by the treatment received by theseprisoners taken by the Chinese in the Ladakhincident According to the accounts that we havereceived, it is bad treatment. Some of thesepeople have got frost-bitten toes and all that,chiefly because of that. Also, it appears fromthese reports, and indeed from the whole accountgiven to us even by the Chinese Government thatthese people were subjected to repeated and con-stant interrogation. Now, there are rules andconventions about these matters. Of course,there are no special rules relating to peoplecaptured in this way. The rules and conventionsapply to prisoners of war. We are not at warwith China, but I take it that it is in our favour.My colleague, the Defence Minister, tells me thatthey apply in civil commotion also.

The Prime Minister said : I was telling theHouse that the conventions and rules of war laydown certain ways of treating prisoners. Theylay down specifically that prisoners should onlybe asked their names, parentage, association orthe unit to which they belong, some specificdetails about themselves, not about any otherquestion. They should not be interrogated inthis way. I merely wish to bring this to thenotice of the House. I do not know, but Isuppose they have not signed that convention veryprobably, but these people were treated badly.Now, there is one thing. I was talking about one-track mind and the like, and I was not under-standing the Chinese attitude and they are notunderstanding ours. But it often happens. Butthere is one aspect of the question which I wishthe Chinese Government and indeed other coun-tries might try to understand. Any bordertrouble, any border dispute raises passions in anycountry. It is so everywhere. But there is apeculiar feature of this particular matter to us,because it deals with the Himalayas. Now theHimalayas are high mountains, of course, but theyare something much more to us and moreintimately tied up with India's history, tradition,faith, religion, beliefs, literature, and culture, than,to my knowledge, any other mountain anywhere.Whatever to other mountains may be, the Hima-layas are something much more than mountainsto us; they are part of ourselves. And I want theother people to realise how intimately this ques-tion affects our innermost being, and quite apart,even from a pure question of border.

I am greatful to you and to this House forlistening to me with such goodwill all this time.I would again repeat that a tremendous responsi-bility rests on this House at the present moment,because it is this House which shall give the leadto the country, and the responsibility is notlimited to some step that we might take today butto see the perspective of the future and how weare to deal with it, because as I said, a step todaymay have good consequences or badconsequences.

Therefore, I hope that this House will con-sider this matter and discuss it, keeping thisperspective in view and remembering the graveissue that are involved and remembering also whatthis country has stood for not only in the recentpast but even in the distant past.

CHINA INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC NEPAL INDONESIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on India-China Border

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehrumade the following statement in the Lok Sabhaon November 16, 1959 on the India-China border,while replying to an adjournment motion :

This motion for adjournment as well- asa large number of others all relate to theseborder incidents and happenings and I entirelyagree with some of the Hon. Members, who haveput them forward, that these matters shouldbe fully discussed in this House. It is not aquestion, as one Hon. Member just asked me,that we will have a debate on external affairs,but I am going to suggest that there should bea special debate on this particular matter of theborder areas, and that this debate should nottake place for one full week for the reason thatI want this House to have all the papers in thisconnection. Then the debate will be morefruitful and Government will have the benefitof the advice of this House on the steps whichit has taken or intends to take.

Some of the papers are going to be placedbefore the House when I place the White Paperon the Table of the House ; but, naturally, eventstake place with such rapidity sometimes thatone cannot keep pace with them. So, the latest

443papers are not included in these. Some haveappeared in the public press, like a letteraddressed to me by Premier Chou En-lai. Nowtoday, a little while ago, an answer by me to

Premier Chou En-lai was handed over to theChinese Ambassador in Delhi to be forwardedto the Chinese Prime Minister. It would be helpful,I think, if the House knew the contents of Govern-ment's reply to the Chinese Government's letter.But it would not be proper for me to publishthe letter or place it on the Table of the Housebefore it has been received by Premier ChouEn-lai. That is not the custom. I have to wait,.therefore, till it is received by him. Then I shouldgladly place it on the Table of the House aswell as some other papers. The House will thenbe in a better position to discuss it. I have noobjection to a discussion at any time, but thediscussion will be somewhat inhabited by thefact that an important document is not beforethe House. That is my only difficulty. I wastherefore, going to suggest to you, Sir, that,we should fix a date convenient to the Houseand to you, Sir, but allowing adequate timefor this letter to be delivered there. Then we canplace it before the House and other papers. Somy own suggestion would be to have the debateearly next week, preferably on Tuesday nextweek. I do not want at the last moment to findthat I have not got the papers ready whichI have to get.

Also on Monday the other House is startingand there are various statements and otherthings to be made there-not in this connectionbut other matters. So, I was thinking thatTuesday might be the proper day for it. ButI am in the hands of the House and you, Sir.I do not think anything will be lost by havinga full debate on this early next week, whilesomething might be lost by our trying to havethe debate before we have all the facts before us.

There are some other factual matters in thisconnection which I intend to say. If you permitI shall state them now. It is not merely ananswer to Acharya Kripalani's motion, but somefacts and statements which I wish to make, mostof which are really known to the House. ButI thought I might put them in order.

Since this House adjourned at the end ofthe last session there has been an importantand tragic incident in the Ladakh area, whichincident had occurred on October, 21 in ChangChengmo valley resulting in the death of ninemembers of the Indian Police patrol and the

capture of ten members of the party by theChinese forces. Apart from this, one constableMakhan Lal is still untraced and unaccountedfor. The news of this incident, as the Houseknows very well, was received in India withgreat surprise and resentment. It was a matterof grave concern to the Government of India.A strong protest was lodged with the ChineseGovernment, who gave a different narrative ofevents in regard to this incident.

Thereafter, the Ministry of External Affairssent a note to the Embassy of China in Indiadealing with this incident and connected mattersin some detail. All these papers are given in thiswhite Paper which I should subsequently or nowplace on the Table of the House.

Subsequently, a letter dated 7th Novemberfrom Premier Chou En-lai was received by me.It has not been possible to include this letterin the White Paper, but the Chinese Governmenthas already given publicity to it and it has appearedin the Press. I have today sent a reply to PremierChou En-lai to this letter through the Embassyof China in India. As I have said, it will notbe proper for me to place copies of this replyon the Table of the House before it has beenreceived by Premier Chou En-lai. I hope,however, to do so within a few days.

I do not wish to discuss at this stage thecontents of my reply as it would be better to do sowhen the full reply is available to Hon. Members.I might mention, however, that Premier Chou En-lai had made certain interim proposals with aview to eliminate the possibility of any borderclash in future. We agree that it is highlydesirable to take necessary steps for the avoidanceof any border clash and to follow this up later byattempts at a peaceful settlement of the disputesrelating to the frontier. But the proposals thatPremier Chou En-Jai has made in his letter, whichhas already been made public, seem to us to beimpracticable. We have, therefore, made someother proposals which, in our opinion, arepracticable and which would put an end to therisk of a border clash.

Premier Chou En-lai also suggested in hisletter that the Prime Ministers might hold talks inthe immediate future to discuss the boundaryquestion and other outstanding issues between

the two countries. I have always expressed mywillingness to discuss any matter in dispute. But,if such a meeting is to bear fruit, as we want itto, we should first concentrate our immediaiteefforts at reaching an interim understanding, assuggested. Further, sonic preliminary steps arenecessary to lay the foundation for our discussions.It should be remembered that there is a mass of

444historical data, maps, etc. in connection with thefrontier.

On the 14th November, the Chinese authoritieshanded over to our police official the ten prisonersthey had taken and nine dead bodies of our men.One constable named Makhan Lal is stillunaccounted for and it must be presumed that hehas also died.

According to earlier reports, we had beenled to believe that Shri Karam Singh, DeputySuperintendent of Police, had been killed in thecourse of this clash. This report has been foundto be incorrect as he is among the prisonersreturned to us. He has been suffering from severefrost-bite. We are expecting a report from him.Communications have been difficult lately owingto bad weather.

After the Longju incident it had been decidedto place the entire frontier of India in directcharge of our army. Further steps have beentaken to this end.

I would submit, therefore, that we shouldconsider this very important matter which hasmoved the entire country, and, of course, Membersof this House, fully in a discussion in this House,instead of dealing with it in a piecemeal way inanswer to questions. The house obviouslyrealises the importance of this matter and thevarious aspects of it and I think we shouldconsider it in all its aspects.

When his attention was drawn to pressreports, that the ten Indian policemen weresubjected to interrogation and confessions of animplicating nature have been extorted from them,the Prime Minister said : Our own informationis, and in fact, it has been stated by the ChineseGovernment that they have received statementsfrom some of these people, Indian police prisoners

with them. That means that they must have beensubjected to interrogation. Otherwise, they wouldnot have received these statements. We have notreceived any full account of these statements.But, some brief accounts have, I think, appearedas far as I remember, in Hong Kong or some-where, and we have also received some briefaccounts. It is, I need not say, a very deplorableprocedure to interrogate prisoners of this type.May I add, we have been anxious naturally to geta full report from these people who were releasedthe day before yesterday, especially fromShri Karam Singh. But, we have not receivedany report yet from him, because, as I saidweather conditions are bad for messages to besent. I do not quite know how severe thisfrost-bite from which he is suffering is. Anyhowwe have, been waiting for a report. That isanother reason why I wanted to wait a littlewhile to get a full report from our ownmen there.

An Hon. Member: The Prime Minister saidthat the defence have taken over the control ofthe entire border. Does it include the borders ofSikkim and Bhutan for whose defence we areresponsible ?

The Prime Minister : So far as Bhutan isconcerned, we have stated repeatedly that anyaggression on Bhutan would be consideredaggression of India, but we keep no forces inBhutan, and there is no intention of sending anyforces. It is for the Bhutan Government todecide when and what kind of help they requirefrom us. We have given them help in the way oftraining sometimes. So far as Sikkim is concerned,of course that is included definitely in ourimmediate liabilities-protection, I mean.

CHINA INDIA USA HONG KONG BHUTAN

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on withdrawal of IndianBorder Police from Bara Hoti

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in the Lok Sabhaon November 17, 1959 in reply to an adjournmentmotion :

There has been for some time past an agree-ment with the Chinese Government in regard toBara Hoti, that is, that Bara Hoti being a disputedarea no party should send any armed troops there.No armed troops have been sent there accordingly.Civil personnel have gone; this year, our civilpersonnel went there. They went there on the 27thof May this year and they withdrew six weeks ago;there is no question of withdrawing them now.They withdrew on the 13th September, conditionsbecoming very difficult. The Chinese sent as theirrepresentative, I suppose, of civil personnel, aTibetan official, but no Chinese came this summerthere at all so that we are functioning in terms ofthat agreement which said that no attempt will bemade by either party to change the status of thisBara Hoti area unilaterally.

There are, of course, quite considerabledifficulties about either, the Chinese or the Indiansremaining there during this period. It was thehigh Himalays from this side and in view of thatwe may, and we shall naturally consider afresh

445whether we should expect any permanent structuresthere which are capable of withstanding climaticconditions. For the present, we have abided bythe treaty or arrangement arrived at with theChinese, and in so far as we know, they are abidingby it also.

The Prime Minister said : In 1958, therewere long talks between representatives of theChinese Government and the Government of Indiain Delhi about this Bara Hoti area. They lastedfor many weeks. The result of the talks was thatthey did not lead to any settlement; they werepostponed, but this was agreed that there shouldbe no unilateral change made there through armypossession, and no armed forces should besent by either party, but only civil personnel. Asa matter of fact, China made a protest on the

7th September last, that is, 1959, protesting againstour personnel being at Bara Hoti. We pointedout in reply that they were civil personnel.I do not think there is any contradiction in whatI have said.

An Hon. Member: Our difficulty is thisthat the Chinese forces advance at some places,and then in the name of status quo, they want tocontinue there. This has been happening at anumber of places, as we know, across our frontier.What is the position at Bara Hoti? Did theyentrench themselves there last year, and if theyhave entrenched, have they moved out of that?

The Prime Minister : Bara Hoti is a placewhich has been in some kind of a dispute for along time past, even before the Chinese came intothe picture. It is a very small area, which is usedfor pasturage purposes during a few months in theyear; otherwise it is almost unapproachable. Inthis place, the Chinese used to send a kind of apolice party or a small party, and the UP Govern-ment also sent their police party. For two orthree years running, both these parties sat theresimultaneously facing each other in that little bitof an area, and it was then that it was decidedthat Armed Forces should not be sent there andthat this should be settled by negotiation and notby unilateral action.

When we made that protest, it was that someof their police party had come earlier and satthere. In 1958, they withdrew and they did notsend any party in 1959, that is, this year. Thepresent position is that there is nobody, no armedpersonnel, Chinese or Indian, anywhere near thatplace.

An Hon. Member; Why has Bara Hotibeen treated in an isolated manner? When theChinese have not vacated their aggression on otherterritories, why should we refrain from sendingour men to the place which belongs to us fromtime immemorial?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry I am not pers-onally acquainted, as the Hon. Member appearsto be, with 'time immemorial.' But I deal withhistorical periods. As regards this particular place,it is a minor dispute with the old Government ofTibet. About this little area it has been going on.We think our case is a good one and, therefore, we

hold by it. But it has been a disputed area and longbefore the other incursions of the Chinese tookplace this matter was being argued. I mean therewere no conflicts, but there were complaints by usto them and by them to us. They used to sendtheir tax-collector who used to collect grazingfees and other fees. This has happened in severalparts of the border for the last half a century-certainly before the change in Government inChina, even in the brief period in 1947-48-49.Then we had to deal with these problems in twoor three places in the border, small problemsrelatively. There they were.

So it was a continuation of that. As I said,this was an isolated thing and we treated this-and there were two other places-as matters indispute which had to be settled by negotiation.It had nothing to do with the major events thathappened since then. In continuation of that,last year a Chinese representative came to Indiato discuss this matter. He did discuss it for along time. It is true that the discussion did notlead to a successful conclusion. It was post-poned further. There the matter stood. But itwas decided, and agreed to, that neither partyshould send armed personnel to that little area,and that has been adhered to. In fact, as I said,we thought the year before they had sent somearmed personnel. We protested against it. Laterthey took them away. This year they have notsent anybody. We sent civil personnel therewhich in the ordinary course has come awaywhen conditions become too bad for it.

Shri Nehru said: The Military are in chargeof the entire border, but the actual people thereare still the police under the military. Theyfunction under the military. For instance, in theAssam border or the NEFA border, it is the AssamRifles who are in charge, but they are under thedirection of the military. In the Uttar Pradesh,Himachal Pradesh and Punjab borders, there arethe" police under the direction of the military.That is, the military direct them, change them ;they can send their own people or keep the police,as they choose. The direction and command is

446that of the military, but the police are there in allthese places. In some places, in Ladakh, themilitary actually are there at the check-posts.

An Hon. Member: Over and over again,this has been China's insistence that we are in-fringing their territorial integrity. We have said :That is not so. You are wrong'. But they havenowhere accepted it. They have said that thestatus quo is to be maintained. Status quo wouldmean that this has been our territory, accordingto us, whatever be the claims they may have.Have they accepted that position ? To everyprotest that we send, there is no reply. Everytimewe have protested, the Chinese Government haveignored our protest. Whenever they have pro-tested, we have tried to make amends ; we havetried to rectify our position. We want to knowwhere precisely the Government of China standon this position.

The Prime Minister: I do not know what isthe confusion in regard to this particular matter.It is quite clear. It does not matter what theyhave said in a particular document. The facts arethere. Just as they claim, we have continued tostick to our claim and we shall hold to thatthroughout. It is an identical position in thisparticular matter-I am not talking about others-and there is no difference. We think our claimis a very good one and we intend to hold by it.Nevertheless, we have decided long ago-manyyears ago-as I said repeatedly, that this is beingtreated as a matter in dispute-I am referring tothe Bara Hoti area-which should be settled byconsultation. We decided about two years agothat neither party should send armed forcesthere. We have held by it, and apart fromone or two doubtful incidents in the past twoyears, they have held by it. There thematter stands.

CHINA INDIA USA PERU

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement in Rajya Sabha on Road Construction by Chinese in Ladakh Area

Replying to a question in the Rajya Sabhaon November 23, 1959 on the construction of aroad by the Chinese in Ladakh area, PrimeMinister Shri Jawaharlal Nehru said:

The Sinkiang-Gartok Highway appears to runapproximately 100 miles through the Indian terri-tory in the Eastern extremity of Aksai Chin inLadakh.

This area is completely uninhabited. Thefirst suspicion that the road actually ran throughIndian territory came to the attention or theGovernment of India in September, 1957. Sincethe exact alignment of the road was not known,the Government of India decided to send tworeconnaisance parties in the following summer.As soon as confirmation was received that theroad actually traversed Indian territory, a protestwas lodged in a note presented in Delhi on Octo-ber 18, 1958.

I have no information in regard to the exactdate but the first information we received was anannouncement by the Chinese Government thata road had been built connecting Sinkiang withGartok. This was, as has been mentioned ear-lier, in the month of September, It was not clearto us then where the alignment of the road was,whether necessarily it passed through Indian terri-tory or not. Therefore, it was decided, as I saidearlier, to send reconnaisance parties to find outthe alignment. They could not be sent during thewinter-it is impossible-and so they went in thesummer of 1958 and we received their report inthe late autumn of 1958, saying that they hadfound the road. Soon after receiving that report,we sent a letter of protest to the Chinese Govern,ment about it. This was in the second half ofOctober, 1959. We waited for answer to thatbut no definite answer came to that precise letter,but soon after-less than two months after or so,less than about six weeks-I wrote to PremierChou En-lai on the entire question of our borderareas. These letters are given in the White Paper.Then the argument was about the entire borderareas between the Chinese Government and us,and a couple of months later, in March; otherdevelopments took place connected with Tibet,the rebellion in Tibet.

As I have said earlier the first informationabout this road came to us through an announce-ment by the Chinese Government. The announce-ment was in connection with the engineering featsthat they were performing. We did not receiveany other report from Gartok or from the Kash-mir Government. I am not aware of what theKashmir Government was doing in previousyears, whether it was collecting any revenues fromthere or not. I had not heard of it. It is true,however, that right in the heart of Tibet, that is,may be a hundred or two hundred mileswere some villages which were a kindof-I do not know what the correct legalterm would be-property of the Kashmir Govern-ment. Whether they were a kind of zamindariproperty or other property, it is notclearly defined but what the KashmirGovernment used to do long ago was to

447send every second or third year some officialsthere to collect a couple of hundred rupees or sofrom there more to justify that those areas be-longed to them. They used to go there everythird year or second year, may be often. I forget,to collect some kind of revenue but that is quitea separate proposition.

Replying to a question Shri Nehru saidThis road is, as many roads there have been, akind of a caravan route for a long time past andwe do not wish to come in the way of the use ofthe road as a caravan route but we object to itsmilitary use or anything like that. We do notwish to come in the way of normal trade incaravans but it should be treated, as I have statedearlier, just on the same basis as any other partof the occupied territory of Ladakh, as an interimmeasure.

Replying to another question the PrimeMinister said : Many of the accounts that comefrom that area are only vague accounts. Thereare two kinds of accounts, our Governmentalaccount or the Chinese Government accounts.The other is gossip in the Srinagar or Leh bazaarwhich it is very difficult to lay hold of and totrace from where it has arisen. It is impossiblefor me to say whether it is true or not and it israther difficult for me to deny it altogether unlessI go and inspect the place. So, I cannot say

about these feeder roads but it is conceivable thatsome such roads might be built. When we talkabout roads in these areas. it means only a slightlevelling up, removing some stones. No regularroad is built there. The ground is very hardbecause on the extreme rigour of the climate. Ifyou have a relatively level place of ground, youput some mark there and it becomes a road.That is done. As for the Hon. Member askingme as to what I am doing about it, to prevent it,if the place is under the occupation of theChinese Government or Chinese forces, Icannot prevent it except by military means andthat is a step which one does not normallytake so long as diplomatic negotiations go on.After that, it is a consideration for themilitary.

CHINA INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC PERU

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement on alleged Chinese airstrips in Ladakh

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in Lok Sabha onNovember 19, 1959 speaking on adjournmentmotions and calling attention notices on the allegedconstruction by the Chinese of an airstrip in theAksai Chin area:

The question raised in these adjournmentmotions is about a report that the Chinese autho-rities have built an air-strip in the Aksai Chinarea. That is one thing. In some reports. it isfurther mentioned that such an air strip has beenconstructed near Chusul. In the third set ofreports, to which the Hon. Member, Shri Braj RajSingh referred, it is said that something washappening in the Malikshah region.

Now the question is one of fact. I shall replywith such factual information as I have got. Theinferences to be drawn from it naturally dependupon the correctness of the facts. I shall not gointo inferences. Hon. Members will have a chancein four or five days' time to discuss this entirematter more fully.

So far as the Aksai Chin area is concerned,we have received no information about the buildingof an air field. We have tried to find out in sofar as we can, and this report has not been con-firmed. I cannot at the same time absolutely saythat it is not so, because none of our people hasbeen there. My information is that some travellersand others have said this in Srinagar. I do notknow on what their information is based. Theutmost I can say is that I cannot give any preciseinformation, about the rumour that an air-striphas been constructed at Aksai Chin. We are stilltrying to get as much information as possible.

So far as the report about an air field nearChusul is concerned, that is definitely incorrect.There is no such thing.

So far as Malikshah is concerned, Malikshahis not in Ladakh at all. It is well within the Sinki-ang region of China.

Shri Nehru said : It is a fact, which we maydeplore, that in the Aksai Chin area there is norepresentative of the Indian Government. Neitheris one there now nor has been there for sometime,except that occasionally patrol parties have gonein the past years; and we are not there. We can gothere only, more or less, at the present momentafter some kind of conflict and after exhibitinghigh mountaineering skill etc; we can, no doubt.There is a question of controversy and disputenow. Anyhow, the only possible way of discover-ing that would perhaps be flying over it and takinga picture-a low flight. That is a matter for ourmilitary authorities to consider, whether that is aright course in the circumstances to adopt or not.

448 An Hon. Member : Is it not a fact thatthe Indian border police have stopped patrollingthe traditional border in Ladakh after the ultim-atum given by the Chinese on the 26th Octoberthat if they continue to patrol on the traditionalborder, they will violate the McMahon Line and

will come into India?

The Prime Minister: The Hon. Memberreferred to an ultimatum by the Chinese Govern-ment. I am not aware of any ultimatum. Butit is true that in one of their communications theysaid something to the effect of what the Hon.Member has said. But that has no bearing onthis matter at all. This is something which hashad no effect on our actions and on whateverdecisions we take.

Replying to a question by another Hon.Member of the House Shri Nehru said : So faras my knowledge goes there is no such air stripon Indian territory. About the place near Chisulwhich I have seen recently, I can say definitelythat it is not there. But about places where I havenot been or any of my informants have not beenfor sometime, I cannot be equally definite. Thatis why I answered in that way. But so far as wehave been able to trace, there is no reliable infor-mation to the effect that there is such an air field.We have not been able to get any person whocan be considered to have any knowledge of it.This report is sometimes circulated by travellersin the mountains. I cannot absolutely deny it.May I also say that the socalled air fields here orair-strips cannot be compared with any otherair-strips. Nothing is done there except theremoval of stones and boulders. It is a concealedthing and without any preparation something can-land there. No man could deny that it may nothave landed but I have no knowledge of it.

CHINA USA MALI INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on Incident before Chinese Consulate

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehrumade the following statement in the Lok Sabha onNovember 30, 1959 while speaking on an adjourn-ment motion and a calling attention notice on therecent incident before the Chinese Consulate atBombay:-

Sir, I can well understand the desire of theHouse to know about this. It is a veryextraordinary occurrence that has taken placeduring the last 2 or 3 days in Bombay. It is anunusual type of thing. I cannot even now giveany correct or official account because I do notknow it. A good deal has appeared in the dailyPress and I can only repeat part of that and canadd to it here and there.

On the afternoon of the 27th November theU. S. Ambassador saw the Foreign Secretary andinformed him that Chang Ching Yu, Bombayrepresentative of the Chinese Import ExportCorporation had requested political asylum atthe U. S. Consulate General in Bombay at 11-30hours, the previous day, that is November 26th.The Embassy had informed the State Departmentand asked for their instructions. In the meantimethe Embassy wanted to inform the Governmentof India. The Foreign Secretary took note of theinformation but said that Government oughtto look into the matter and would reserve theircomments. Late in the evening the Minister(Consulate) to the U. S. Embassy reported to theForeign Secretary that the Chinese who had soughtasylum had gone back to the Chinese Consulate-General in Bombay and that an Americannational was being detained in the ChineseConsulate premises. He added that owing tosome difficulties of telephonic communication hecould not give the latest information.

On November 28, the U. S. Embassy lodgeda formal complaint about the kidnapping anddetention of the American national in the ChineseConsulate-General. On the 27th afternoon, thatis, the same day, as we received the first informa-tion from the U. S. Ambassador, on the 27thafternoon, the Counsellor of the Chinese Embassyin Delhi saw the Director of the Eastern Divisionin the Ministry of External Affairs to complainabout the demonstration in front of the ChineseEmbassy premises. He also mentioned that amember of the Consulate-General of China inBombay Chang Cheng Yu had been kidnapped

by an American the previous day.

On the 27th morning Chang and theAmerican were passing in a taxi by the ChineseConsulate-General when Chang asked the taxidriver to stop and managed to get down. TheAmerican tried to drag him back. A scuffleensued in the course of which the American wastaken into the Consulate premises. The Consulate-General also informed the local police stationat 1.30 p. m. The American was taken away bythe Bombay police.

Further details of the incident were receivedfrom the American Embassy yesterday. TheEmbassy also sent the Ministry a full statementwhich they had issued on this incident. According

449to these reports Chang Cheng Yu had voluntarilysought asylum at the U. S. Consulate-General inBombay on November 26. He was kept at acottage belonging to the Consulate-General on thesea-side where he spent the night. On the 27thmorning he was found walking away with aportion of the tape on which his statement hadbeen recorded. He was, therefore, followed byMr. Armstrong, the Security Guard of the U. S.Consulate-General. Chang is reported to havetold Armstrong that he was going back to theAmerican Consulate-General to get somethingwhich he had left there. They both went in ataxi. As the taxi was about to venter theAmerican Consulate-General Chang objected. Hetherefore went on and stood a few yards from thegate of Chinese Consulate-General. Chang thenshouted to some people in the Consulate-General.Armstrong was then pushed into the Consulatepremises. He was kept bound with a rope thereand the Bombay police got him released at 1. 50p.m. Armstrong sustained some superficialinjuries. The allegations are serious and are nowbeing investigated by the Bombay policeauthorities.

Kidnapping and detention of a foreignnational is clearly outside the functions of a Con-sulate-General and the complaints will have to befully investigated. Meantime Government hadadvised the Consulates-General that the personinvolved in this incident should not leave Indiauntil investigation has been completed, withoutthe concurrence of the Government of India.

These are the facts. It will be noticed thatthe statements made on behalf of the two Consu-lates-General contradict each other in many impor-tant particulars. And, unless fuller investigationis made it is difficult to say which is more correct.In this matter the two principal persons concernedare obviously the Chinese gentleman, ChangCheng Yu and the American, Armstrong. Thusfar neither of these two have met the police orbeen examined although a brief statement wasmade by Chang Cheng Yu in the early stages.

There are, of course, other important witnesses,one of them being the taxi driver who took them.He has, I believe, made a statement to theBombay police. So, this is a matter whichrequires further investigation.

This morning the Chinese Ambassador calledat our Foreign Office and saw the Foreign Secre-tary, He formally complained that Chang Cheng Yuhad been kidnapped by the personnel of the U.S.Consulate-General, at 11 a.m. on November 26and was detained by them until 7 a. m. onNovember 27.

According to the Chinese Ambassador, on the27th morning when Chang Cheng Yu was tryingto ruin back into the Chinese-Consulate-Generalhe was chased with a knife by the personnel of theU.S. Consulate-General in Bombay. The ChineseConsulate-General stopped the American andprotected Chang Cheng Yu. He also informedthe Bombay Police by telephone.

All this sounds more like some piece of fictionthan reality. So, this is quite extraordinary thatsuch a thing should happen. Such facts as areknown to us have been placed before the House.Of course, we shall inform the House of any fur-ther developments when they occur.

Of course, there is a police aspect and aninternational aspect or diplomatic aspect of it.Obviously, the police aspect comes into the pictureif either of the parties puts in a complaint to thepolice for an enquiry. Thus far neither party hasdone so except that they have come to our ForeignOffice and made complaints-both the AmericanEmbassy and the Chinese Embassy here. Theprivileges of Consulates-General are more limitedthan those of Embassies, though a wide latitude

is shown to them normally in regard to theseprivileges.

These are facts, Sir, so far as we know atpresent; whenever further information comes Ishall place it before the House.

In reply to a question whether the U.S.Embassy here sought the reactions of the Govern-ment of India about the grant of a visa-it hasbeen given in the Press that they wanted toconsult the Consulate-General in Bombay-to aChinese national in view of the strained relation-ship which exists today between China and Indiathe Prime Minister said: I have just informed theHouse that on the afternoon of the 27th the U.S.Ambasador saw the Foreign Secretary and informedhim of the previous incidents-the other incidentshad not occurred by then-and the Foreign Secre-tary took note of it. He said that he had cometo inform our Government as he had to informthe State Department and the Foreign Secretarytold him that the Government would look intothe matter, it was a complicated matter and soon and he reserved his comments.

Replying to another question about the plac-ing of an armed guard at the Chinese trade agencyin Kalimpong, Shri Nehru said: May I just say,Sir, to remove any doubts that may be there, thatthe placing of an armed guard in Kalimpong has,

450of course, nothing to do with this. It has littleto do even with the charges that have been madeof Chinese propaganda etc. It is placed therealmost entirely to protect the Chinese Consul inKalimpong because there is a good deal of feelingand therefore it has been placed in order to avoidincidents. The Hon. Member knows thatKalimpong has often been mentioned here inconnection with all kinds of special activities andall that. Also, really, our own trade agents inGyantse and Yatung, for the same purpose, havethe so-called protection as armed guards havebeen placed around them by the Chinese authoritythere.

CHINA INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Shri Krishna Menon's Statement in Lok Sabha on India-China Relations

Intervening in the two-day debate on India-China relations in the Lok Sabha on November26, 1959 Shri V.K. Krishna Menon, Union Ministerof Defence, made the following statement:

Mr. Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister will bereplying to, the debate tomorrow and therefore itis neither necessary and proper for me to traversethe whole ground of the arguments in this debateon various points nor it is my intention to makeany debating points on a matter of this kind.

We are discussing the issue of the integrity ofthis country and the threat that has been imme-diately posed to it by an attitude and action onthe part of a neighbour with whom we have notonly prefessed but practised friendly and neigh-bourly relations. Much has been said about thedefencelessness of our frontiers and that theDefence Ministry is going to sleep about it andsoon. As a member of the Government, andrecognising collective responsibility, the DefenceMinister, like every other Minister, accepts fullresponsibility for whatever that policy was, andso does Parliament. Because, times withoutnumber, it has been stated in this House, and inpublic-perhaps there was not any contradictionfrom anyone-that we have no military develop-ment anywhere on our international frontiers.

It is one thing suddenly to wake up to thefacts when a new situation arises and another, justnot to accept the position that this was the policyof the country. The policy of the country was notto deploy military troops on our internationalfrontiers, whether the frontier is with Goa, withPakistan or Burma or China as the case may be.

So far as China is concerned, my knowledgeof history may be imperfect, but even in the British

days, apart from leading punitive expeditionsacross the Himalayas, I have no knowledge of anymilitary action in that area; so that frontier hasbeen left not to police protection as some peoplemake out, but has been very much like the frontierbetween Canada and the United States in the hopethat neighbourly relations will prevail and nocause for military action would arise. There havebeen checkposts on this frontier but those check.posts were not of a defensive or a military charac-ter. Their main purpose was to guard the traderoutes, protect the merchants and probably dealwith the customs and other matters. I have nodoubt that they would have been used also as ameans to gain such information as they could.Therefore, to regard them as positions inadver-tently left weak would be an error in fact.

Incidentally, reference has been made to thefact that I said there was no aggression on thiscountry. First of all, I have no recollection ofusing the term 'aggression'. The United Nationshave been sitting for seven years trying to definewhat aggression is ! Each year they postpone it tothe next year. All I said was, this country wasnot invaded. It may be wrong, at a meeting whereabout a hundred thousand people are present, tosay anything else. The invasion of the countryis very different from incursions upon the border,even though casualties are inflicted and militaryaction has to be taken.

So, when this new situation arose both inregard to Pakistan some time last year and nowin regard to China, Government came to thedecision that with its limited resources, whatcould be done at that time was to take over whatwas called over-all control of the border, viz., tosee that such police action-State police or Centralpolice-that was taken was not of a character thatwould be wasteful in fire-power, that would bein the wrong places and perhaps taken withoutknowledge of consequences. So, we did that inregard to Assam some twelve months ago, whenthere was serious trouble.

I want the House to be aware of the fact thattaking over border control does not mean displace-ment of all the bodies. It simply means over-alldirections, because the displacement of all thebodies and placing them on a war, footing wouldrequire resources of a character far different fromwhat it is now. The House will not expect me, I

am sure, and it will not be consistent with one'sresponsibility to go into the details of deploymentof troops their numbers, etc. The previous speaker

451referred, to the size of the Indian army. Ihave no desire either to affirm it or contradict it.Many people have been trying to find out what itis. We have not given the figures.

At any rate, when this situation arose nearlyin September, the Government decided that theArmed Forces of India should take over the over-allcontrol of this border. Now that has been done,but it is a progressive position. It is not as thoughovernight something can be done or should bedone, because India has other frontiers as well.Moving the army just does not mean, as Hon.Members very well know, moving a few peopleover there. The ballistics and the logistics con-nected with this have to be taken into account.

It has been the concern of my Ministry,recently at any rate, to recognise the fact that amodern army, even an army as modern as ours,can only effectively function with the necessaryequipment. Our army has been based in the pastupon the United Kingdom; that is to say, theresources in the way of equipment came from theWar Office. If it was not here, we could indenton it. The same applies to our coastal defenceand what not. Therefore, a considerable amountof energy had to be devoted to that purpose, notat the expense, as someone suggested, forgettingother matters; but one thing could not go withoutthe other. So far as border defences are concern-ed, all I can say in the House, consistent, as Isaid, with my own responsibility and what theHouse will expect, and not to give unnecessaryinformation to these who should not have it, is thatthe necessary adjustments are being made. I can-not say whether the best way of defence of thisfrontier is by checkposts or in some other form.Equally it would not be possible for me to affirmor deny whether their number should be hundred,as the previous speaker said, or less or more. Allone can say is that the necessary troop movementsconsistent with our resources have taken place.

If I may say so with great respect, I have nodesire and I do not intend to answer anything of acharacter of personal reference or the question ofone's integrity or patriotism. When the time

comes, when I have to carry the card of patriotismit would not be worth carrying it, though otherpeople think it necessary to proclaim it. At anyrate, the movement of troops is a matter in whicheven the newspapers should not be allowed topublish full information; I mean it should not begiven to them, when I say they should not beallowed to publish it. What I said in Bombaywas that the necessary adjustments in this matterwere being made. I feel sure, Mr. Speaker,responsible members of Parliament wouldappreciate that.

Now, it is not the policy of the Governmenteither to surrender territory or to take actionwhich in the short run and in the long run itcannot defend. We cannot lock up too manytroops in places where they may be wasteful;equally we cannot be too conscious or, what youcall, too concerned about not taking some risks.So, a balance has to be struck between these andthat is what is being done.

Reference has also been made to the positionat the United Nations. I think it was said, yester-day that we lost a number of votes and that showsour lack of prestige. If you contest an electiononly on the certainty that you win, there will beno parliamentary contest at all. Somebody mustfail for us to come in here.

So far as the position of the Governmentcalling for the discussion of the subject of therepresentation of China in the United Nations isconcerned, it would be a mistake to regard thisas though we were oblivious of the new circums-tances or doing something arising merely from ourspecial relations with China. Our China policyin the United Nations and the world is governedby world considerations and the United Nationscould not command the strength and could notachieve the purposes of the Charter, unless, as theformer Secretary of State of the United Nationssaid, the world as it is, and not the world assome would like it to be, is represented in it.

It is not possible, for example, to disarm theworld or take any steps towards it unless Chinais equally committed. Otherwise, it would be asthough those who abide by the law would bedeprived of the arms and those who would notwould have the arms. It would be an unfortunatestate of affairs. So, our attitude towards China's

representation in the United Nations has beengoverned by just considerations. I beg to submitthat if, as a result of the recent position on ourfrontier, we resiled from it, we would have beenregarded as acting wrongly and would have lostvery much the position and the prestige we had.

I do not use the word 'prestige' in the wrongsense. It would be an entirely wrong act, becauseyear after year, we have told other countries,including the Western group of countries, thatirrespective of their attitude to the internal systemin China, we are not asking them to be friendlywith them; but, we have to strengthen the UnitedNations and, therefore, they should be allowed tocome in. Recognition should not mean approval;it simply means, they ought to be there.

452 Secondly, looking from a narrow point ofview, whether in regard to the situation aboutTibet, however, it is interpreted, or in regard totheir attitude towards us or breaking of any Con-ventions-whether the Geneva Conventions or theCharter of the United Nations-we would be in afar better position to deal with it, if China werethere as a member of the United Nations and beamenable to world opinion on the one hand andanswerable for her conduct to a certain extent.That has come into this debate, because I representthis country in the United Nations and alsobecause China is the issue involved. Reference has been made to one of thespeeches I made in Bombay. There about hundredthousand people were present and they did nottake this view. First of all, I did not make anyreference to aggression. I did say that the frontiersof countries have been violated, but the speechmust be read as a whole. The frontiers of othercountries, by and large, are violated; our frontiershave been violated and, therefore, we must takeaction against it.

Our position is that we should not in any waybe intimidated by the Chinese, either by their size,or there capacity for quick movement, being acountry with a different form of Government. It ispossible that they have, in the short time, achievedresult quicker than we can. But we are not to beintimidated by this position. We would maintainthe sovereignty and integrity of our territory. TheDefence Minister, or anybody else, would beeither a fool or a knave, or both, if he were to

guarantee what would be the results of any mili-tary action. All that he could do is to say thatall the resources would be put into it and as wiselyas people concerned understand them. The resultsof deployment of military troops, even in thecase of large countries, are judged by a number ofcircumstances. So far as we can judge at presentit is possible for us with the limited accentuationon our resources, within the time, as progressivelyas possible, to take on this limited task, and tothat task the armed forces are applying themselves.But it would be very difficult for any DefenceMinister, this one or any other, to come and sayto this House "this and this is being done"

Yesterday, some Hon. Member asked: whydid we not bomb the road ? I can answer it.But it is not wise to answer. Therefore, that isthe position in regard to the frontier, and thereis no question of our running away from anyresistance that is required.

The Indian defence forces have been condi-tioned, not for the purpose of a foreign adventureor of marohing into other peoples' territories, butfor the defence of our frontiers, and that task theywill seek to perform as best as possible If theMon. Members were to consider the kind of con-cern-not concern but feeling, I think-that theyexpressed, that is not likely to improve the moraleof the armed forces.

Now three things required in defence in ourcontext are material, men and morale. So far asmaterial is concerned, we, both on account of oureconomic circumstances, our national policy and,what is more, the deficiencies created by our pasthistory, could not concentrate on this. So, wehave gone into production on a comparativelylarge scale, improving some-where from aboutRs. 14 crores of production in 1956-57 to Rs. 26crores this year. So, in a gap of 28 months or so,this has been achieved and, this has not been doneby any increase in the staff of the personnel, or thetotal commitment in regard to ordnance factories.Furthermore, I would like the House to know,that today it is estimated to the satisfaction of thecorrect authorities that for every hundred unitsin money of products we are getting 130 in valuebecause of the re-organisation in this way. Nowespecially because of the present circumstances bya certain modification of our procedures, and therecognition of urgencies, we would probably be

able to improve it better.

Acharya Kripalani yesterday referred to thefact that ordnance factories-I may be mistaken ;I stand corrected if I am mistaken-were beingturned on to civilian production, while they canbe used for something else. I would like to maketwo observations in regard to that. If it werepossible to us in normal times to turn ordnancefactories on to civilian production, it is good fordefence because, if there were a larger capacityit can at once be adapted for defence purposes.But, unfortunately, we have not got that capacity.We have absorbed all idle capacity that existedand all that we have now is, in terms of money,Rs. 9 lakhs worth of idle capacity.

But in those years I am speaking about, in theordnance factories, as production has gone up toRs. 20 crores, out of that the civilian productionhas been Rs. 3 1/2 crores, and that Rs. 3 1/2 croresincludes metal for the Commerce and IndustryMinistry, brass and various other things. Thenthere is a certain amount of by-products which canonly be used by civilian industries, explosivefactories or otherwise. Equally, in the last 12months we have moved away from dependence onother countries from the vital elements of produc-tion and have concentrated on our own. Then,while it may not be strictly relevant to the more

453colourful part of this debate, it would be im-possible for our armies, our fighting forces, to func-tion without any confidence if they were not sureof replacements. Then, I think we have to facethe fact that this is a very hostile terrain, where itis impossible, where it is very difficult-I do notthink I should say impossible-to plan in termsof war positions; and the lines of supply necessari-ly must he long, even if they are not as long as thecrew flies; because, length can only be measuredin this sense, not by the length in the sky but bythe time taken to cover the distance. I will not gointo greater details in regard to this. And no armycan afford to lengthen its line of supply more thanits resources would permit. These are the positionsone has to accept, even though they may not becolourful in many ways.

I have nothing to apologise for in the speechesmade in Bombay, or America, or anywhere else,and I have, to the best of my ability, reflected the

policies of the Government, and these policies ourPrime Minister expounded yesterday and so manytimes before.

Acharya Kripalani asked whether non-align-ment meant non-alignment with ourselves, on theone hand-now I have no desire to split hairs onthat-and whether it also meant that we may nottake equipment from elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, itmust be within the knowledge of this House,from the numerous questions asked and numerousreplies given, that the military supplies-bymilitary I mean all the defence forces in thiscountry-have been received from several places.The only thing is that we do not seek aid in aparticular way.

There is nothing wrong in our policy, thereis nothing wrong in our conviction, to prevent usfrom getting defence equipment, or weapons, orwhatever it may be, from wherever we choose atwhatever time, whether it be the East or the West.The only thing is that we would like to pay for it,and not come under the internal legislation ofthese countries. It is probably not understoodthat the receiving of aid is covered by certaindomestic legislation in that particular land, becausetheir legislatures have to pass them. Therefore,while on the one hand our defence may not bedependent, either on the capacity of any othercountry to shut off supplies, or, on the otherhand, by the conditions that they may impose inregard to procurement we have done everythingwe can to obtain them from wherever they can beobtained, at the most economic prices or what wecall conditions best to ourselves.

Therefore, there is no question of our sayingthat we shall not touch such and such equipmentbecause they come from somewhere else. Andwhat is more, it should be recognised that theIndian Army was not born yesterday, or afterIndependence. It has its equipment and itsstandardisation, and it is committed to a certainpattern, and without considerable expense and thepassage of a fair amount of time, it would beimpossible to alter that situation. Therefore,that alteration takes place gradually withoutimpairment of our defence.

I think it will be a mistake, if I may say so,to convey the impression to our fighting forcesthat there is some lack of confidence on the civil

side of the administration, apart from the armedforces. I have no desire to go into the questionwhich has implications in that direction. So longas there is a parliamentary system, the policy ofdefence would be decided by the Government, andjust as the civil service carries on the civil side,the defence services will carry them on the otherside. That is the only way we can do it now.

Then, in spite of whatever may be said, what-ever you may hear and whatever you may read,with great respect I would like to repeat what thePrime Minister said-I believe he said that yester-day here and in other places too-that the moraleof the services has never been higher at any othertime. The question of emoluments, their hope ofsecurity and the respect that belongs to those whoare prepared to make this supreme sacrifice, theyhave been consolidated very much more than everbefore, because of the changing conditions of theworld.

It would not be in my province, specially whenthe Hon. Prime Minister is winding up thisdebate, to go into the question of higher policyas to how to resolve these border disputes. ButI hope I may be permitted to say that the frontiersof the country can only he settled in two ways,either by conquest, by one party or the other or bynegotiation. There is no other way of doing that.Either you conquer them or they conquer you.

We have never said that these frontiers arenot known. We have said that they are deter-mined by history, as Shri Asoka Mehta said thismorning, I believe, by convention, by practice andby our own experience of what we see. We arequite conscious as to what are our frontiers. Wehave not said that they are not known. We havesaid that it is wrong to say that it is not delimitedIt is not demarcated. They are two differentthings. Demarcation has to be carried on by aprocess of negotiation and it must be left to thewisdom of the Government, if you accept it, as to

454what is the best way of establishing that negotia-tion. Negotiation, on the one hand, cannot bebrought about by an attitude of undue aggressive-ness nor on the other hand by an attitude ofsurrender. I believe the Government is followingwhat the Hon. Prime Minister a couple of monthsago said here, what is called the dual policy. A

dual policy is not a double policy or a double-faced policy. Dual policy is a policy withtwo aspects. Both aspects are equallyimportant and one corroborates theother.

CHINA INDIA USA BURMA PAKISTAN CANADA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC SWITZERLAND

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

POLAND

Indo-Polish Trade Agreement Signed

A new Trade and Payments Agreement bet-ween India and Poland was signed in New Delhion November 2, 1959.

Mr. J. Burakiewicz, Deputy Minister ofForeign Trade, Poland, who led his country'sDelegation to the trade talks, signed on behalf ofPoland. Shri K.R.F. Khilnani, Joint SecretaryMinister of Commerce and Industry, signed for theGovernment of India.

The new Trade Agreement envisages consi-derable increase in the present level of trade bet-ween India and Poland. The Agreement whichwill be in force for a period of three years commen-cing from January 1, 1960, will replace the currentagreement which will expire at the end of thisyear.

Under the terms of the new Agreement pay-ments between India and Poland will be in non-convertible Indian rupees and trade will be on abalanced basis. The Indian rupees, which Polandwill earn by exports to India, will be utilised forbuying Indian goods of equal value.

Poland will supply to India, among otherthings, industrial raw material, pharmaceuticals,ships and tankers and complete machinery plants

like coal mining, machinery, machine tools andmachinery for foundries. Indian exports to Polandwill comprise of items like tea, spices, cotton manu-factures, mica, shellac, coir products, castor oil,oil cakes, iron, palmyra fibre, textile machineryand accessories, shoes, handicrafts and sportsgoods.

In 1958, Indian exports to Poland were valuedat about Rs. 92 lakhs. Imports from Poland du-ring this period amounted to Rs. 2.26 crores.

During the first seven months of 1959, exportsto Poland were of the order of about Rs. 1.04crores. Imports from Poland during the correspon-ding period were valued at about Rs. 2.97crores.

POLAND INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Tax Agreement Signed

An agreement for the avoidance of doubletaxation between India and the U.S.A., was signedin Washington on November 10, 1959 Mr. Herter,U.S. Secretary of State, and Shri D.N. ChatterjeeIndia's Charge d' Affaires in Washington, signedon behalf of their respective Governments. Thesigning of the agreement was announced simul-taneously in Washington and New Delhi.

An important feature of this Agreement, notfound in agreements entered into by the U.S.A.with 21 other countries, is a scheme for affordingcredit for tax spared. This will be a stimulus toU.S. investment in India.

Under the Credit for Tax Spared (C.T.S.)Scheme, the U.S. Government will allow,

against the U.S. tax on income earned byAmerican concerns in India, a credit not onlyfor taxes actually paid in India, but also for thetax which would have been paid, but for the con-cessions given by the Government of India to aidAmerican investors, So far, the U.S.A. givescredit against U.S. tax liability only for taxesactually paid in India.

The Agreement designed to foster inter-national flow of trade and investment and the ex-change of technical, educational and research

455services. It contains provisions relating to businessinvestment and personal-service income, officialsalaries, pensions and annuities, remunerationof teachers and remittances to students andapprentices.

It also contains a provision regarding ad-ministrative procedures including exchange of taxinformation between the two Governments.

The agreement applies, so far as United Statestaxes are concerned, to the Federal income andcorporate taxes. In India, the, treaty is, likewise,applicable to all taxes on incomes of persons andcompanies. The Agreement, after approval by theAmerican Senate, will be brought into force bythe exchange of Instruments of Ratification and willbe effective in the U.S.A. for taxable years begin-ning on or after January I of the year in which suchexchange takes place.

It will be effective in India for previous yearsbeginning on or after January 1 of the year inwhich the exchange takes place.

USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Supplementary Agreement Signed

India will procure 150,000 metric tons of riceunder a supplement to the P.L. 480 agreement orNovember 13, 1959, signed in Washington onNovember 23, 1959. The new supplementary agree-ment is valued at Rs. 8.8 crores ($ 18.5 million)including cost of ocean freight. Together withthe November 13th agreement, the value ofassistance amounts to Rs. 122.2 crores ($257.3million).

Under the agreement earlier this month, Indiawill receive 3 million tons of foodgrains, mostlywheat and 100,000 bales of cotton. The value ofwheat is $182 million and that of cotton $14 million.Other commodities covered by the agreement aretobacco valued at $500,000 and maize worth $4.7million. Ocean transport cost is estimated at$37.6 million.

The agreement signed earlier this month com-bined with today's supplementary agreement pro-vides the largest single grant of assistance to Indiaso far made by the U.S.A. This amounts to $102.9million worth of rupees.

USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Aid Agreement Signed

Under a new P.L. 480 agreement between theU.S.A. and India signed in Washington on Nove-mber 13, 1959 India will receive three million tonsof foodgrains, mostly wheat, and 100,000 bales of

cotton. The value of the foodgrains is $182million and that of cotton $14 million. Othercommodities covered by the agreement are tobaccovalued at $500,000 and maize worth $4.7 million.The financing of ocean transportation is estimatedat $37.6 million,

The total amount of assistance under theagreement is $238.8 million (Rs. 113.4 crores).

Out of this total, a sum of $95.5 million(Rs. 45.3 crores) is the grant component and anequal sum represents a loan, repayable in rupees.Thus, 80 per cent of the total constitutes directassistance for India's development programmes.Of the balance, five per cent will be administeredby the U.S. Export-Import Bank under the CooleyAmendment of P.L. 480 for advances to the privatesector. The remaining 15 per cent is allocated forthe use of the U.S. Government in India.

The agreement provides the largest singleamount of grant to India so far made by the U.S.A.

Note :-- 1. The speech made by Shri Krishna Menon at the SpecialPoliticalCommittee of the United Nations on November 5, 1959, on South Africa'sApartheidPolicy, could not be included in this (November) issue of the ForeignAffairsRecord. It is being included in the December issue.

2. On November 4, 1959, the Prime Minister presented toParliamentWhite Paper II, which contains the notes, memoranda, and lettersexchangedbetween the Government of India and the Government of the People'sRepublic ofChina between September and October, 1959. This volume also contains anote onthe historical background of Himalayan frontier of India and a mapshowing theIndia-China boundary. The White Paper has been published separately.

456

USA INDIA SOUTH AFRICA CHINA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

BURMA

Indians in Burma

Replying to a question whether it is a factthat over 12,000 Indian cultivators in theZeywaddy area in Toungoo district in Burma arefacing the prospect of being prosecuted for non-'compliance with immigration laws of Burma andif so, whether Government of India have takenany steps in this connection, the ParliamentarySecretary to the Minister of External Affairs(Shri Sadath Ali Khan) said in the Lok Sabha onDecember 18, 1959 : "The large majority ofabout 15,000 cultivators of Indian origin in theZeywaddy area have been there for three genera-tions and under Section 4 (2) of the BurmeseCitizenship Act are entitled to automatic grant ofcitizenship. About 8,000 applications for suchcitizenship are pending disposal. There areanumber of cultivators who, although entitled tocitizenship, took out Foreigner's RegistrationCertificates either out of ignorance or a misunder-standing of the rules, and this fact has often beenused against them in regard to their claim tocitizenship. Efforts are being made by suchpersons or by local Associations of persons ofIndian origin to correct these errors through legalchannels. The Government of Burma havealways appreciated the special position of thesecultivators of Indian origin and hitherto theimmigration laws and regulations have not beenapplied rigidly. The number of prosecutionsunder those laws have, therefore, not been large.Recently, however, there have been attempts toenforce these laws pore rigidly, with the resultthat a number of persons of Indian origin, whohave been unable to meet heavy charges forregistration as foreigners, have been put tohardship.

"Informal representations have been made tothe authorities in Burma with a view to expeditingdisposal of the pending applications for Burmese

citizenship and also with a view to more sympa-thetic consideration of the cases of those whotook out Foreigner's Registration Certificatesthrough error or misunderstanding".

BURMA INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

Indo-East German Trade Agreement Signed

Letters were exchanged in New Delhi onDecember 18, 1959 between Mr. Erich Renneisen,Leader of the Trade Delegation of the Govern-ment of German Democratic Republic, and ShriK. R. F. Khilnani, Joint Secretary, Ministry ofCommerce and Industry, Government of India,embodying a Trade and Payment arrangementbetween the two countries. The new arrangementwill be valid for a period of three years fromJanuary 1, 1960.

The current trade arrangement is due toexpire on December 31, 1959. This arrangementwas entered into in October, 1956 and was lateramended by a supplementary arrangement inNovember, 1958.

Under the new arrangement, payments for allcommercial and non-commercial transactionswill made in non-convertible Indian Rupees, andtrade will be on a balanced basis on a higherlevel.

India will export besides traditional items likeiron and manganese ore, tea, coffee, spices,cashewnut, textiles and ready-made garments,jute manufactures, laminated jute bags, coirproducts, handicraft, sports goods, canned fruitand fruit products, shoes, woollen and silkenfabrics, plywood and refrigerators.

Exports of German Democratic Republic toIndia will mainly consist of machinery items liketextile machinery with automatic looms, printingmachinery, machine tools, complete installationsand plants, raw films, precision and optical instru-ments and fertilizers etc. Under the newarrangement now finalised the volume of tradebetween the two countries will considerablyincrease.

457

INDIA USA RUSSIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri Krishna Menon's Statement on Apartheid Policy

Shri V.K. Krishna Menon, Leader of theIndian Delegation to the United Nations, madethe following statement at the Special PoliticalCommittee on November 5, 1959 on the questionof race conflict in South Africa resulting fromthe policies of apartheid of the Government ofthe Union of South Africa:

Mr. Chairman, first it is my pleasant privilegeand duty to congratulate you on your unanimouselection to the chairmanship of this Committee.The fact that you were elected as Chairmanthrows more into relief the subject we are dis-cussing, while it proclaims to the world thatthe people of the continent of Africa are capableof building their own homes and living their ownlives, your ancestors having built what was pro.bably the first African Republic on the Africancontinent. We do not say this merely for thesake of placing the unfortunate position takenby the Union of South Africa in a bad light,but the facts of situation are that here you are

as a representative of the first and well-lovedAfrican Republic of Liberia, presiding over thedestinies of this Committee while it is discussingthe very problem of members of your racialbackground and others of non-European originwho are not regarded as being suitable for first-grade citizenship. We extend our congratulationsto you both in your personal capacity and in yourcapacity as Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman comes from anotherpart of the world where, so far as we are aware,race is not a consideration as regards prefermentor responsibility.

The Rapporteur comes from a part of theWestern hemisphere where, in the very shortperiod for a few centuries, the problem of multi-racial societies has been solved, not in the mannerof tackling a disease but by taking it in its naturalstride. In other words, if evidence is requiredfor the rest of the world that those who comefrom different racial origins can find their newhomes and live in peace with each other, andthat the differences which are the basis of aparth-eid are in no way an impediment to their develop-ment, the republics of South America are anoutstanding example. But there is this difference,that here we are dealing with a problem wherethe adverse impact of the policy is visited uponthe people who are the original inhabitants ofthe territory of the sub-continent itself. Theresult of the policy, in a few words, is to makethem foreigners and strangers in the land oftheir birth.

I hope the Committee will pardon my dele-gation if we try to treat this subject not merelyin a brief intervention, but to deal with theposition of my country, and, I venture to presumeof a great many others, which has to be set outsomewhat more fully.

The explanatory memorandum which iscontained in A/4147 is a very important docu-ment from our point of view. To a certain extentit summarizes the position that should be takenon a draft resolution of this character. That is,it does not seek to. condemn; it does not seek toallocate blame or responsibility, but it only seeksto obtain appropriate recommendations foradherence to the provisions of the Charter.What is more, it finally declares that it is the

purpose that the United Nations should continueto offer its assistance with a view to a peacefulsolution of this problem. I hope we will notregard this as being merely a form of words.I hope that this approach will animate the spiritof our discussions.

It is also not without importance that inthis explanatory memorandum, on page 2 ofthe document is set out the text of a resolutionwhich originated not from a non-Europeancountry but from a European country, and aNordic country at that, where there has notbeen an admixture with non-European peoplesin, shall we say, at least 2,500 years, when Isuppose, a very small stream of Celts came overthe Asiatic continent into the northern parts ofEurope. This resolution is important in the sensethat it is not addressed to the Union of SouthAfrica; it is not addressed to the Europeanpeoples ; it is not addressed to the Americanpeoples ; it is not addressed to the Asian peoples.In the third operative paragraph of this resolutionwhich has been quoted advisedly in this memo-randum, it says :

"Solemnly calls upon all Member States to bring their policies into con- formity with their obligation under the Charter to promote the observance of human rights and fundamental free- doms." (A/4147, page 2).

The importance of this paragraph is first ofall to remind ourselves that we are not dealing

458with an individual evil, we are not acting in asense of bitterness, but we are dealing with theapplication of a principle to all Member States.What is more, it is a reminder to some of us onwhom this doctrine makes an adverse impact thatwe may not practise apartheid in reverse. Racialdiscrimination, the attitude towards rare that isreflected in apartheid would be as much of a crimeif it were to be practised by non-white racesagainst the white race. This was the policy thatanimated the resolution adopted at Bandung,where there was, as was to be expected, a minorityopinion, at least in the corridors, that wanted totake that attitude.

Fortunately for us, all delegations took the

view that we could not practise discriminationin reverse, because that would be applying aremedy that was the same as the disease.

Therefore, this explanatory memorandum,which will form part of the documentation ofthe United Nations, is an historic document inthat sense. It summarizes our approach. Asmy delegation pointed out in its submission onthe problem of South West Africa, it is not ourdesire to see a Member State put in the unfortu-nate position where the overwhelming majorityof delegations here are in total opposition to itsviews, year after year.

Having said that, I should like to expressmy regret that our colleagues of the Union ofSouth Africa are not present with us today.Their absence is regrettable from many pointsof view. There has never been an occasion inthis Assembly when anyone has expressed anyadverse view in regard to the Union's right toexpress its opinion, totally unacceptable as thatopinion is, I dare say, to every Member State inthis Assembly. That provides all the more reasonwhy we should regret the absence of the Union'srepresentative.

Furthermore, the Foreign Minister of SouthAfrica, speaking in the general debate, had merelywanted his reservations on the legal positionto be recorded. Therefore we hope that this willnot be the position if another occasion shouldarise, and that the representatives of the Unionwill be present with us ; they will not be therecipients of any discourtesy of any kind because,even in their absence, that is not the practice ofthis Assembly.

I should like to remind the Committee ofthe history of this matter extremely briefly. Thisquestion was the subject of discussion amongdelegations for a long time before it actuallycame up as a resolution. It was first brought upbefore the seventh session by thirteen countries,including my own. On that occasion, the debatein regard to Article 2 (7), the debate with regardto dividing the Assembly on the lines of race, inwhich my delegation took a very considerablepart, was very sharp and very prolonged. But inspite of that, a resolution which did not seek anycondemnation, but merely wanted us to studythe problem, was adopted by 35 votes to 2, with

22 abstentions. I refer to this because, as Isketch the history, it will be found that there hasbeen a progressive growth of opinion in thisAssembly in regard to South Africa, in regardto apartheid, year after year.

Then came the eighth session, when Mr.Lester Pearson presided over the Assembly, anda similar resolution, providing for continuance ofthe Commission, was adopted by 38 votes to 11,with 11 abstentions.

Then came the ninth session. Again, the resolu-tion was adopted, in much the same way-if anything, opinion more sharply against South Africa.

Then came the tenth session, where thematter was continued. At the eleventh sessionthree years ago, Indonesia and Pakistan andIndia requested the inscription of the item andintroduced a resolution calling upon South Africato consider its position and revise its policies.Ibis was adopted by 56 votes to 5, with 12abstentions.

Then, in 1957, the position became morefully expressed when 59 States voted in favour,with only 6 against and 4 abstentions.

Last year, there was the highest record, whenthis Assembly adopted a resolution by 70 votesto 5 with 4 abstentions. We are not trying tocreate a voting record. But I hope that at theend of this debate, especially in view of theattitude taken by those on whom this policymakes an adverse impact-and it Would be onlyhuman nature to react to it with more hostilitythan we have-I hope that this resolution willhave passed by a larger vote, and with no votesagainst it, even if one or two delegations, for what-ever reasons, should desire to abstain.

I mention this because it is a matter on whichthe Assembly has very strong feelings, feelingswhich are not divided by the boundaries ofcontinent or race or political opinion or by theunfortunate dividing line of blocs.

When our colleagues of the Union do not

459participate in spite of the attitude we take, theiraction is not directed against those who submit this

item, it is not directed against what may or maynot be the decision of the Assembly, but it isagainst the repeatedly recorded decision of theAssembly over a period of years. It is a question--and my colleague from Ireland will understandthis reference-of everybody being out of stepexcept my Johnny.

The Foreign Minister of South Africa, speak-ing in the Assembly, stated his objections on theground of Article 2 (7). I have no desire torepeat the arguments brought in this Assemblytime after time. I believe that it was at theeleventh session that my delegation discussed thiswhole issue of Article 2 (7), with all the documentsof San Francisco, with the arguments for andagainst, with the relevant international law. Atthat time, text-book writers had not referred tothis problem categorically. Since that time,there has been a new edition of Oppenheim'sInternational Law. On page 320 of the firstvolume, that great scholar says :

"Although it is explicitly laid down in the Charter of the United Nations that it does not authorize intervention with regard to matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States, the provision in question does not exclude action short of dictatorial inter- ference undertaken with a view to imple- menting the purposes of the Charter. Thus, with regard to the protection of human rights and freedoms, a prominent feature of the Charter, the prohibition of intervention does not preclude study discussion, investigation and recom- mendation on the part of the various organs of the United Nations."

I would commend this paragraph to theAssembly, and also the various footnotes thatappear on that page in regard to it. Oppenheimthen goes on to say, in another part of the book.

"The exclusion of the right of 'interven- tion' on the part of the United Nations must be interpreted by reference to the accepted technical meaning of the term."

It is a well-known proposition of law thatany document, any word, has to be construedin the natural meaning that it bears.

Oppenheim goes on

"It excludes intervention conceived as dictatorial, mandatory interference, intended to exert direct pressure upon the State concerned. It does not rule out action by way of discussion, study, inquiry, recommendation, falling short of that type of intervention."

Perhaps, so far as this Committee is concernedthis is what might be called pushing at an opendoor. But it is important to have this on recordbecause the matter is of such consequence andbecause the Union of South Africa is not onlyone of the Members of the United Nations butis a country which has taken a very prominentpart in the formulation of the Charter and, whatis more important, has a record of loyalty to theLeague of Nations and to the United Nationsitself except on this issue-and it is a very greatissue. It is also important because of the state-ments made by Mr. Louw. The position orapartheid is regarded by the Union as merely aninternal matter-except that the vast majorityof the people concerned, even in a limiteddemocracy or under a popular government of anykind, would not create laws against themselves.If it is accepted that it is a purely internal matter,then the whole of the Charter and everything thatwent into the formulation of the third paragraph,.I believe, of Article 1, would be simply a scrapof paper.

But what is interesting is that Mr. Louwregards the continent of Africa as being divided,broadly, into two areas. He says :

"There are the countries north of the Sahara, the majority of which border on the Mediterranean"--

the Mediterranean used to be called by theBritish, in ancient times, a British lake, but at anyrate it is a European sea, because on one side isEurope and on the other side is Africa--

"and whose destinies have since the earliest days been closely linked with the countries of Europe. There is the further fact that the countries on the Mediterranean littoral maintain a close

affinity with the Arab world"--

this has to be read with the statement made bythe President of Guinea only ten minutes ago inanother room-that is, this separation of sheepfrom goats is not going to get us anywhere-- "its heritage, religion and culture. Then there is the rest of the continent, gene- rally described as 'Africa south of the

460 Sahara', though perhaps not quite strictly so in the cage of the Sudan and the northern part of Ethiopia." (A/PV. 811, page 12)

Now this is a very important part.

"It is particularly in the sub-Saharan Africa that important and significant changes and developments have taken place during the past two years. Three fully independent States, the Sudan, Ghana and Guinea, have come into being to join the Union of South Africa and Liberia, which until then were the only sovereign independent States south of the Sahara. The status of certain other African territories, including the former French colonies, has also undergone a significant change. Next year the already fully independent African States will be joined by Nigeria, the Cameroons, Somaliland, Togoland and possibly also the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland."

Would it not be right for us to enquirewhether the Foreign Minister of South Africa,who welcomes these new States and does notpreach the policy of apartheid in relation to them,should not realize that, on this continent wherethere has arisen these numbers of Africanrepublics, if a conference of the independent king-doms of that continent were held, the apartheidpolicy would stand in singular solitary minority.

Therefore, how do these policies square withone another? On the one hand, there is thewelcoming of these States. They have beenvoted into membership without adverse vote onthe part of South Africa. They are regarded asadherents of the Charter, accepting its principles.

They come here with a recognition that in thisOrganization and in the activities of this Organi-zation the question of discrimination cannot playa part.

That is the only reference we have from theUnion of South Africa with regard to this matter.I would like now to go back a little into the past,because it is not as though the racial troubles inSouth Africa did not exist.

Somewhere in the last third of the nineteenthcentury, the British Colonial Secretary, in orderto assist the economic development of SouthAfrica, persuaded the British Indian Governmentof that day to send numbers of people to workon the sugar plantations in Africa. From thattime onwards there has been a racial problem inSouth Africa. Perhaps there was even onebefore that, but the newer view is that the Bantustribes came after the Dutch. But I am notgoing into the history of this. There are twoviews about it. There was a racial problem andno one was aware of it more than General Smuts.But in spite of that and after the League ofNations had been founded, at which he madesimilar statements, and it died, and the problemsof racial discrimination had come to the forefrontunder the benighted rule of Adolf Hitler, GeneralSmuts, speaking in San Francisco, in wordswhich should be inscribed in letters of gold,states : "The new Charter should not be a merelegalistic document for the prevention of war. Iwould suggest that the Charter should contain atits very outset and in its preamble. a declarationof human rights and of the common faith whichhas sustained the Allied peoples in their bitterand prolonged struggle for the vindication ofthose rights and that faith." Part of the vindica-tion was the persecution of the semitic peoples inGermany by Hitler and also the rape of countrieslike Czechoslovakia, mainly on a racial basis.

Field Marshal Smuts went on to say: "Inthe deepest sense it has been a war of religionperhaps more so than any other war of history.We have fought for justice and decency and forthe fundamental freedoms and rights of man,which are basic to all human advancement andprogress and peace. Let us in this new Charterof humanity, give expression to this faith in us,and thus proclaim to the world and to posterity,that this was not a mere brute struggle of force

between the nations but that for us, behind themortal struggle, was the moral struggle, was thevision of the ideal, the faith in justice andthe resolve to vindicate the fundamental rights ofman, and on that basis to found a better, freerworld for the future. Never have all peace-lovingpeoples been so deeply moved. This is what ourmen and women feel--meaning the men andwomen of the Union of South Africa-"they arefighting for on the war fronts. and have beenlabouring and slaving for on the home fronts inthese long years of steadfast endurance. Let usput it into the Charter of the United Nations asour confession of faith and our testimony to thefuture. Our warfare has been for the enternal.values which sustain the spirit of man in its up-ward struggle toward the light. Let us affirmthis faith of ours, not only as our high cause andguiding spirit in this war but also as our objectivefor the future. The peace we are striving for,and are taking such pains to safeguard, is a peaceof justice and honour and fair-dealing as betweenman and man, as between nation and nation. No

461other peace would be worth the sacrifices we havemade and are prepared to make again and theheavy responsibilities we are prepared to takeunder this Charter."

It is hardly necessary to say that this was nota sermon for one day of the week. This was astatement made in the formulation of the Charter.But if that stood alone it would not be adequate.At another part of the session, at San Francisco,Field Marshal Smuts said: "Looking fartherafield for precautions and remedies against warbeyond the war machine itself, the Charter envi-sages also a social and economic organization ofthe peoples, intended to raise the levels andstandards of life and work for all, and, by thusremoving social unrest and injustice, to strikeat the Very roots of war."

What other thing can raise greater socialinjustice and unrest than the doctrine of apartheidwhere the vast majority of people who live intheir own countries are foreigners and strangers,outcasts, and where, what is more , any actionwhich they take by not moving out of the houseis crime under the law of the country:

Field Marshal Smuts states: "Great as our

achievement is, I feel that more is needed than amere machine of peace. Unless the spirit tooperate it is there, the best plan or machine mayfail.........And in our faith in the future we expectthat those who come after us--I suppose thisapplies to us. We were here when he was here,but still we are after him now. "......and whowill have to carry our Charter in the generationto come, will also show no less goodwill and goodfaith in their part of the great task of peace."

So what we are doing here now has theauthority of one of the greatest statesmen notonly of South Africa, but of the world, who livedin the context of these racial troubles. I am nota moment saying that racial laws were not passedin his time. But here is a full statement of thecase in which at San Francisco we were enjoinedto carry out these principles into the open and topass them on to posterity.

Last year's resolution stands with us in docu-ment A/RES/1248 (XIII). Since then what hashappened? I shall not refer to all the pasthistory, because that would take all day. Sincethen we have appealed to the Government ofSouth Africa : "Solemnly calls upon all MemberState's to bring their policies into conformity withtheir obligation under the Charter to promotethe observance of human rights and fundamentalfreedoms." A large number of laws have beenpassed, of which I have noted nine. I want topreface my observations by saying that my countrywould be the last to question the right of SouthAfrica to pass whatever laws it wants in its ownterritory. That Government has a sovereign rightto do so. But we as adherents of the Charteralso have equal rights to point out if those lawsare violation of the Charter, and a total violationin the face of this. I must say at this point that it is not sufficientto look merely at the titles of the laws in SouthAfrica. They will be like the headings of itemsbefore the Security Council. For example, youmay recall recently when there was the Egyptianaffair the item was headed, I believe, incursion byEgypt, or something of that kind. Some of thesetides might be misleading. During this period,nine measures had been under consideration ofthe South African Government, and some of themhave been passed.

First, there is the elimination of non-whites

from "open" universities and the establishmentof university-colleges for non-whites : If you lookat it you think it would be a good thing to estab-lish university-colleges for non-whites. But theessential part of it is that they cannot go into thecolleges which they were in. This is in the onefield of education, in the liberal arts, where peopleare discriminated against on the very groundswhich are contrary to the studies of the humanities.

"The transfer of University College of FortHare, which was attached to Rhodes University,to the Department of Bantu Administration andDevelopment;" It would look as though thisgreat University was handed over by Administra-tion by non-European peoples, according to thetitle of the bill. That was not what happened.What happened was that the non-Europeanpeople were taken out of this great Universityand put out in segregation. In other words, thenew arrangement is a ghetto not University ; thatis what it comes to.

Another law is the "abolition of African re-presentation in Parliament and the Cape Provin-cial Council". I shall refer to this, but it is notmerely an objectionable law but a violation ofundertakings given by the South African Govern-ment from time to time.

Another law under consideration is

"The strengthening of the powers of the Minister of Labour, so that he can apply job reservations unhindered by court decision,"

462I am sure that the trade union movement of theworld mill take vote of this; that is, whethercourts decide the job is open for people orThe executive can step in and say that a noEuropean cannot take it. In the course of indus-trialization of South Africa, in order to preventthose who are discriminated against becomingsufficiently skilled and of sufficient force andpower in the industrial community--discrimina-tion of poeple in regard to this applied to certainimperial countries in a different way. But thequestion is not whether there is a man who is aneletrician or an engineer, but the question is:what is the colour of his skin or the colour of theskin of his parents?

Fifth, there is

"The establishment of a Bantu InvesmentCorporation"-another misleading title-"thecapital for which will come from, African savingsand State contributions."

The effect of this is that the Bantu develop-ment must come only from that place. Again,this is putting apartheid into the whole businessof economic development.

Then there is

"The transfer of Coloured special schoolsfrom the Union Department of Education to theDepartment of Coloured Affairs:"

That Also looks very good. It looks as thoughthe so-called coloured people are going to a bigshow and look after their own affairs. Whathappens is this : the State as a whole and, itsresources no longer become responsible for thatbut they are shunted off into an ante-room andbecome a kind of poor relation.

Then there is : "The extension of the conceptof Bantustan to the towns."

That is the real building of ghettos, territorialsegregation. Bantustan, I suppose, means theterritory of the Bantus, borrowed from Indiananalogies.

Next is

"Amendment of the Group Areas Act toovercome difficulties with local authorities in theestablishment of townships for race groups."

The Group Areas Act is an old friend ofours. It was first introduced to remove theIndians from various parts of South Africa. Thegroups who are discriminated against were to bedenoted by the executive. That is, the executivesays, "you are a group that is of objected to, youmust go from where you are". Then they are movedbag and baggage from the place. We have beenasking them to withdraw the Group Areas Actin this Assembly time after time. It has beenobjected to as interference in the internal affairsof South Africa.

In regard to the other problems of peopleof Indian and Pakistani origin in South Africawhen Field Marshal Smuts was handling thisproblem, one of things he told us was, "Donot bring up the question of the withdrawal of theGroup Areas Act. It is in our sovereignty. Wenegotiated it, so forget it", or something of thatcharacter. But, at any rat;, what has happenedis, instead of withdrawing the Group Areas Act,which has been the demand of all concerned, theyamended the Act so as to overcome the difficul-ties of the local authorities in establishing town-ships. It means that the power was given tothem for forcible eviction and pushing them outfrom their original homes to the wilderness.

The last of these is

"The abolition of Native Advisory Boardswhen African representation in Parliament isabolished."

That is to say, any function that Africanpeoples could have in regard to administrationof Advisory Boards is a concomitant of theAbolition of their representation in Parliament.

Legislation in regard to three or four ofthem have been completed, and the other is inprogress. Despite these new measures, it mustbe remembered that not only has there been noprogress in this matter, but also there has beenconsiderable regress and A total disregard of theresolutions. I will not try to analyse each of theselaws, but I will merely quote the opinions ofnon-South Africans in regard to this matter,labour legislation. Mr. C.N. Millard of Canada,Director of the International Confederation ofFree Trade Unions and Mr. P.H. de Jonge of theNetherlands, another official of the Confederation--this organisation has consultative status in theAssembly of the United Nations--came to SouthAfrica in April 1958 to bear part of the debate inParliament on this Bill. Mr. Millard said that pro-visions of the Industrial Conciliation Act and theamending Bill were in conflict both with the UnitedNations Bill of Rights and Convention 87 sought tosafeguard freedom of association and assembly andthe right of collective bargaining for all workers.

463The provisions of the Bill were a challenge notonly to organized labour in South Africa but to

organized labour everywhere.

My Australian colleague win probably re-member that this refusal of the right to form anassociation brought out large numbers of verydistinguished stalwart fighters for freedom tothe Australian continent which at that time wasa penal settlement, and which was the forerunnerof the present advanced Australian civilization.

In an exclusive statement to The NatalMercury, Mr. Millard alleged that natives were

"Taken in the name of justice and law and threatened with gaol sentences unless they agreed to work on farms for 9d. a day."

This is forced labour, and this is theopinion not of the Indian delegation but ofthe International Confederation of Free TradeUnions. He said that the men were virtuallyused as convict labour and he would take allavailable steps to expose "the harsh legislationwhich results in this type of thing going on".He further said :

"While African employees are ignored so far as the definition of employee is con- cerned, they do become employees for purposes of job reservation amendment."

When they are entitled to get something, thenthey are told that they are not an employee.But when they are excluded from something,then they come under the definition. Mr. Millardcontinued :

"This, of course, is completely inconsistenton the part of the authorities. We feel that itis very dangerous thing to allow the formationof African Trade Unions and, on the other hand,deny them the right of registration and the dueprocesses provided by that registration. It isunpardonable discrimination. We feel that therights of the trade unions in South Africa arebeing trampled under foot by the Government".

It is to the credit of the Union that thisnew kind of apartheid finds very considerableopposition and, what is more, opposition againstodds, very courageous opposition from largesections of the white population of South Africa.

In this connexion, I want to read the opinion of aperson who had a special view about it. He is nota crank or anything of that kind. The Cape Timesof South Africa as its name notes, is highly res-pectable. The Cape Times of South Africa,editorially commencing on the Job ReservationBill in its issue of 22 April 1958, said :

"Apart from elementary questions of morals, expediency, commonsense and sanity, the feature of Mr. De Klerk's Job Reservation Bill is its naked authorita- rianism." That is to say, that is one of the concomi-tants, one of the by-products which has becomelarger than the tree of apartheid itself. It isauthoritarianism in this Member State of ourOrganisation. The editorial continued :

"This bill is not a law as that term is understood in civilized countries. It is a naked grant of unlimited power to a politician to control, in general and in detail, the employment of any person by any other person."

If that is not forced labour or slavery in onesense, what it is I do not know.

The Natal Mercury of South Africa, whileeditorially commenting on this bill, said :

"There is no doubt about it that the In- dustrial Conciliation Amendment Bill is intended by the Government to entrench the principle of job reservation beyond challenge, whatever the consequences of this repressive regimentation may be".

I said a while ago that we should not bemisled by the title of this bill. It is "IndustrialReconciliation".

Then I have referred to Bantustan, that isthe territorial segregation. The bill promotedby the Union in April 1959 was called the BantuSelf-Government Bill-that again is entitled theBantu Self-Government Bill. The Bill in its pre-amble says that the Bantu people of the Uniondo not constitute a homogenous people-of courseall the white population do, only they come fromdifferent parts of Europe or elsewhere. As Isaid, the bill in its preamble says that the Bantu

people of the Union do not constitute a homo-genous people but form separate national units-they have national units but they cannot havenational freedom-on the basis of language andculture. It divides the Bantu population into-eight Bantu national States. I will not read outall the names, but they are North Sotho plus alanguage. That is to say the attempt is to splitup the Bantu populations not only as separated

464from the rest of the people of South Africa butto reintroduce tribalism in its worse form.

Provision is made in the bill for the imme-diate appointment of five commissioners-generalwho will form a direct link for consultationbetween the Bantu units they represent and theGovernment ; that is on the Central Government,self-government has no impact ; that is what isgoing to be done through an agent of the CentralGovernment. The main feature of this bill isthat it provides for the abolition of the existingrepresentation of Africans in Parliament-thatis what does not come out in the self-governmentbill-and the Cape Provincial Council at theexpiration of the existing terms of office of theserepresentatives. This act of the South AfricanGovernment, we submit, amounts to the direct re-pudiation of the promises made to the Africanpeople by the late General Hertzog, who him-self was a Boer and afterwards, after the BoerWar became Prime Minister. At the jointsitting of Parliament in 1936, General Hertzogjustified the terms of the Representation ofNatives Bill on the ground that it would help toremove the white man's fear of being ultimatelyswamped by a vast black proletariat and that itwas a reasonable equitable quid pro quo for theremoval of the franchise that natives living in theCape Province had enjoyed. The legislationwhich was passed at a joint sitting by 169 votesto 11 gave or promised the Cape natives threenative MP's four senators and two provincialcouncillors, 7 million morgen of land for exclusiveoccupation by them, and the Native Representa-tive Council, a truly elective body. This was inaddition to those members of the Upper Houseappointed by the Government for "their specialknowledge of non-European affairs". The wholeof the Nationalist Party in Parliament at that timerecorded their votes on the bill's third reading infavour-that is the present Government, not

only General Hertzog is committed to all thesethings, and the repudiation of the pledge given tothe peoples in order to violate human rights. Thewhole of the National Party supported the bill.Ten years ago the Natives Representative Councilwas summarily abolished. By 1959 not muchmore than half the 7 million morgen of promisedland had even been bought. And now by a simplemajority, the three MP's, the four senators andtwo provincial councillors are thrown out. Inreturn, the Africans, after 150 years of associationwith the white man, and after eighty years on thecommon roll are judged fit to be given only localcommittees membership of which is at the dis-cretion of the Central Government. From com-mon roll to tribal committees of governmentstooges in twenty-three years is the dazzling visionof progress which South Africa displays at presentin the battle of Africa for the minds of 200 millionmen.

Now, there is another one here from the"Star" of Johannesburg-again, a highly respect-able paper. He writes under the caption "TheGreat Illusion" on 25 March. The GreatIllusion" advertises the considerable plan to pro-mote autonomy for the native population inSouth Africa-that is the self-government bill. Itturns out on a most cursory examination to belittle more than a scheme to take away from thenatives forever the meagre political representationthey have gained after generations of contact with.Western civilization. As a substitute they areoffered self-governing "rights" in their own areaswhich must necessarily be illusory for two reasons.These rights will always remain subject to the willof Parliament-that is, not their Parliament, theEuropean Parliament in which they have no re-presentation. It is not a Parliament so far as theyare concerned. So far as they are concerned itis an assembly with autocratic rights. Theserights will always remain subject to the will ofParliament and the Government in whose decisionDr. Berford's hypothesis, they are irrevocablydebarred from having the slightest voice. Andagain, by the expressed terms, the whole shoddyarrangements, says the Star, the millions of nativesgoing outside their own areas without even thesemblance of self-government unless they solvethe legal fiction of remote control by travel autho-rities with whom they are powerless to influence.

Now, I will readjust one more quotation be-

cause it is in regard to the application of this prin-ciple to universities. I do not want to lay particularstress on the iniquity of racial discrimination inuniversities. The International Committee onScience and Freedom which represents membersof 296 universities-and in order that these namesmay not be misleading, I should say that thisInternational Committee on Science and Freedomwhich represents 296 universities in fifty-twocountries includes such moderate and liberalminded people as Professor Toynbee and Salvadorde Madariaga. I say this because names of theseassociations are sometimes misleading. ThisCommittee said that it is:

"a flagrant denial of human brotherhood which strikes at the roots of genuine university education and menaces the standing of South African universities as members of the world community of learning."

The Natal Mercury, writing on this bill, said:

465 "...... The fundamental objection is that university apartheid means direct inter- ference with the right of access to a common fund of learning and denial of intellectual contact between white and black."

Regarding apartheid for the dead, a reporton cemeteries and crematoria by the City Engineerof Durban published in June 1959, says that "inview of the policy of segregation of South Africaand the natural, racial and social differences inrelation to funeral ceremonies"-how can there benatural differences in ceremonies, I do not know--"it would be undesirable to mix various racialceremonies at the same crematoria." I suppose ifyou are burned, you are converted into phosphatesand gases, whatever your race. Now, those are the opinions of peoplewho cannot be regarded as being in any wayfanatical or extreme, who probably would notsubscribe to an extreme resolution if they were inthis Assembly. But then, I want to go on to theUnited Nations; that is the United Nations whichnever expressed any opinion on anything whichwe can understand normally, has produced some-thing on this question. When I say "the UnitedNations," not us but Mr. Ralph Bunche and his

part of the United Nations. The United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organizationwas asked to make an inquiry to find out-I donot know why this was asked-whether there wasany scientific basis for any racial discrimination.It was stated by the United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization that thescientific material available at present does notjustify the conclusion that inherited genetic differ-ences-I am not going into any argument aboutMendel's theory and so on-are a major factorin producing the differences between the culturesand the cultural achievements of different peoplesas groups. It does indicate on the contrary thata major factor in explaining such differences is thecultural experience which each group has under-gone. Again it reminds me of what the Presidentof Guinea was saying to us a quarter of an hourago. The report states further that the availablescientific knowledge provides no basis for believingthat the groups of mankind differ in their innatecapacity for intellectual and emotional develop-ment. I should like to say, how could it bebecause 500 million years ago our ancestors werethe fish that inhabited the waters of the time-noteven chimpanzees-and I suppose another 500million years before they would want to be calleda virus. The report continues that there is noevidence that race mixture produces disadvanta-geous results from a biological point of view-those who are horse traders know that this is true.The report goes on again to say that the socialresults of race mixture, whether for good or ill,can generally be traced to social factors. Thistext was drafted by Professor Bergman of theRoyal Tropical Institute of Amsterdam, and along list of others whose names I shall not read.I commend this United Nations document, whichis a rather scholarly volume, to my fellow membersof this Committee.

Now, from there, I want the Committee toaddress itself to this particular problem : Whatis apartheid and what is it not in terms of law aswe understand it, and if you like it, moral law ?Apartheid, taken at its best is not a discriminatorylaw against an individual. It is a law against aclass. It comes into the same category of objec-tion that we have two things like guilt by associa-tion, collective fines on villages and others of thatcharacter. Therefore, all the disabilities that arisefrom it have nothing to do with the performance ofthe individual. It is simply, "You were born in

that stable and that is all there is to it."

Apartheid is a direct violation not only ofhuman rights but of the rule of law as we under-stand it; that is to say, you visit penalties whetheror not anything has been done just becausesomeone belongs to a particular group. That iswhat apartheid is.

Now I would like to say what apartheid is not.There may be a case-I would not subscribe to itmyself-as in the case of Liberia when Africanson the one hand whites and non-whites on theother may say, Well, we are equal but we aredifferent. Therefore, let us decide to livedifferently." That is possible. But apartheid isnot that. What it tries to do is to push onegroup into one place and not leave them alone;they are set upon by others on the top. Some-times when we hear all this idea of not interferingwith customs, putting them separately and so on,we would think it is a kind of complete auto-nomy. That is not the idea. If the expressionis not to be misunderstood, it is to create whatthey would call a black Africa which is ruledby white Africa. It is the old, old story, youknow-the white man's burden with the blackman carrying it.

That is what apartheid is-on the one handthe negation of the rule of law and, on the otherhand, fundamentally against the whole idea ofself-government and self-determination. If thecreated a whole South African Republic, anotherLiberia in the South, then I personally wouldreject it because I believe that Africa must have a

466multi-racial society. But there would be somejustification for it. If the Union Governmentwere to say, "There is so much land. You goand prosper otherwise, just as you are going to,"that is a different question. But that is not it.There is no apartheid in trying to control them;I suppose they do it by remote control.

Last year the Independent African Statespassed resolutions in Monrovia, Liberia on 4August. I do not say that any group of States of theUnited Nations gathered here or anywhere elsecan legislate for all of us ; but these are thepeople who wear the shoe more than most of usdo and, what is more, they are fellow Members of

the United Nations. They passed this resolutionwhich notes

"......with concern the relentless manner in which the Government of South Africa is putting into practice its apartheid policy.

"Condemns the practice of racial discri- mination and segregation in all of its aspects all over the world, especially in the Union of South Africa, in the Central African Federation, in Kenya and in other parts of Africa."

If I may comment on this first paragraph, it isnot important for the strong word "condemns",but it is important for the fact that this is aninfection that is spreading. We have seriouslyto consider whether one of the States mentionedhere-it is not for Vie to say which-would notbecome another South Africa, would not be anapt pupil. It may likely be one of the Statesthat apply for admission over here.

"Calls upon all Members of the United Nations and all peoples of the world to associate themselves with the resolutions passed by the United Nations and the Bandung........"

There is an expression of view by the Indepen-dent States who have come into being at thistime. There is also a memorandum circulatedto Members of the Organisation by the AfricanNational Congress which, I am glad to say, is aterritorial congress. It does not exclude anybodyon grounds of race. Not only non-white peoplebut Europeans, courageous people, are membersof the African National Congress, at least theyused to be in my time anyway. This memo-randum has been circulated and while it is notan official document of ours it can provide aconsiderable amount of information. I will readjust two very small sections:

"At this time when more and more African peoples am receiving freedom and independence, the policies of the Union Government are becoming more and more intolerable than ever. Many countries, appalled at the consequences of this policy, are adopting concrete

attitudes towards it. The utter contempt with which the Union treats decisions of the United Nations Assembly constitutes a serious threat to peace in Africa and therefore in the world."

This is the position so far as Africa isconcerned. Now I would like to draw theattention of the Assembly to the hint, which I just,read out about race conflict. This does not comefrom South Africa; it comes from Oslo inNorway, a Teutonic country and, I am glad tosay, without race discrimination. It is as follows:

"The race explosion"-this has nothing to do with the nuclear tests, you know- "in Durban is a sinister omen of the awful things which may happen if the present policy in South Africa is persued further."-The Norwegians will vote for this draft resolution ; they always do -"The systematic and intentional sup- pression by the white people of the black population must sooner or later result in an open clush which there is. reason to fear will take place in brutal forms. "What makes South Africa different from all other regions in Africa is that the negroes are gradually being debarred from every possibility of fighting for an equal position with legal political means."

Part of the parliamentary system, the demo-cratic system of government, is that you can fightevil with the law. But if you are put beyond thepale of the law then there is no redress and thereis no constitutional remedy. That is really aninvitation to violenee.

"The apartheid policy is unfeasible in practice because the whole economy of South Africa is dependent on the work- ing power of the negroes. It is economi- cally completely impossible to separate the races from each other. The negroes would perish of hunger if they were forced into the reservations, and the economy of the white people would break down. The whole apartheid policy is only a

467 desperate attempt at making the supre-

macy of the whites permanent."

This is the occasion for me to deal with thisproblem from the point of view of the world asa whole. The vast majority of the populationsare those on whom apartheid makes an adverseimpact. They have to mine the coal, the diamondsand the gold, cultivate the fields, operate theelevators, cook, nurse the children and do every-thing else. I regret to say that the trade unionsin South Africa are as much guilty of this oreven more so than anyone else. Therefore, thewhole economy of this region, where the worldis short of food production and of all the re-sources that art required, would be affected bythis. On the other hand, the pace of industriali-zation, partly arising from the desire of individuals,to amass profits, cannot be kept back. And whenindustrialization takes place in that way therewill be created a vast proletariat which will haveeconomic power and technical knowledge in spiteof all these reservations, but which will be deniedpolitical power and be the subject of this kind ofdiscrimination. What more is required to createsocial instability ?

These are the reasons why we bring thismatter here. year after year. It is not becausethis is a hardy annual. The draft resolutionbefore us in document A/SPC.L.37 does notexpress the very legitimate indignation of largenumbers of people. It does not express wordsof condemnation. It speaks more in sorrow thanin anger. The reason why the draft resolutionbefore us is drafted in this way is in order thatthe lowest common denominator of adverseopinion may make some impact, if not on theGovernment of South Africa immediately, onthose large numbers of people who, as in Hitler'sGermany, are against racial discrimination assuch, a thing that cannot be worked. What ismore, the other aspect of apartheid is that it placesnot only in the courts, not only in the policeman,not only in the arm of the law, but in the handsof every white citizen the power of coercion. Itplaces it in their hands and therefore convertsevery non-European into a bondsman. That isthe implication of this law. Therefore we havesponsored this draft resolution along with a num-ber of other countries.

I hope that the restraint, the moderation, thatis shown in these matters will not be regarded by

those who do not agree with it as timidity. Ourcountry does not believe that hard words findsolutions, but there should be no doubt in themind of anyone that this disease is fastspreading.

If I may say so, the representative of theSouth African Union has come here time aftertime and told us not only that apartheid isnecessary for South Africa, a necessary evil,something that we cannot avoid, but that it shouldbe a pattern for the world in the solution of racialproblems, that it is the right pattern for placeswhere there are mixed races or multi-racialsocieties. I suppose this is really addressed to theLatin countries and so on where there is no prob-lem of this kind, so if they want a problem theycan create one.

The draft resolution (A/SPC/L.37), therefore,is one that should meet with the approval of theAssembly, although there may be one or twocountries, as we know, which for reasons totallydivorced from the merits of this matter would notregister their votes against it. My delegationdesires particularly to express its appreciation ofthe attitude taken by Belgium, which has a verylarge number of African peoples as its citizenry,but for reasons which I do not hold as justified-but they do, and we must respect it-they at anyrate are not going to oppose the draft resolution.

The draft resolution by itself may not doany good, but it does call upon

"... all Member States to use their best endeavours as appropriate to achieve the purposes of this resolution."

Now in the lobbies the question has beenasked whether this last operative paragraph is akind of punitive clause asking for sanctions ofany kind. On the very face of it, it is an appealthat is made to Member States to do what theycan. It maybe that one Government may talkto the Union of South Africa privately and say"you cannot go on with this in this way". Or theycould communicate to them our reasonableness.

Having said this, my delegation wishes tomake it perfectly clear that we could not solvethis problem merely by setting up Committeesfrom outside, writing the reports about them, not

going into the anthropology or the physics or thechemistry of this business, We would be the lastpeople to promote or encourage any move whichrecreates further hostilities. Our attitude is oneof appeal to South Africa to join in this generalattempt to remove these evils.

Secondly, we do not want it in any way tobe understood by any one that these racial evilsare a bolt on South Africa and South Africa alone.We have plenty of them in our own country.There are not many countries in the world anyway

468where discrimination of one kind or another doesnot take place. But there is not a country in theworld which defies discrimination. We all try,to getaway from the evil. We would not standup on a platform and proclaim that discriminationis a virtue. We know it is with us, we fightagainst it, we organize our public opinion againstit, we, even fight our own countrymen, our politi-cal colleagues, against it. But here not only, arewe told that this has arisen in the context ofhistory, and what are we to do about it.

That is not what we are told. We are toldthat there is apartheid, that there must be,apartheid, and not only that there must beapartheid in Africa, but that it must be every-where else. I am glad to think that it would notbe introduced into the Membership of the UnitedNations, because we have built more places forthe sub-human kingdom separately. So. here weam not discussing merely an individual evil,against a group of people. I did not want tointroduce emotionalism into this matter. I didnot want to refer to the enormous amount ofhardship it has cost the Union territory in theuprooting of peoples and families who have beenin places for generations and yet being turned outinto the jungles and prevented from having theopportunity of earning their livelihood, beingseparated from employers, who are humane people,who do not subscribe to this but who must obeythe law, where bitterness is creeping in. All ofthose processes which make a society unstable isbeing promoted by legislation.

A distinguished South African Judge once said:"There are so many laws that have been made inSouth Africa that if an African gets out of hishouse, he can commit a crime". Because if you

do something or look at somebody, or tilt yourhat in the wrong way, or forget your passbook,or whatever it is, they are statutory crimes. Youcan also create statutory crimes in order to catchcriminals.

We have moved from the time when thepoll tax was the only inhibition in order to obtaincontrol over the African peoples or populationsof that character. We appeal to the Assembly togive full support to the draft resolution, and onceagain we would like to, say to South Africans whoare hereby proxy that in spite of all that hashappened, we fervently hope that whateverprocedures they adopt, whether it be formal orinformal, whether it be through those who arenot so committed as we are, whether it be by anyaction they take themselves, whether it be bynegotiations with their sister States in the Africancontinent, whether it be by some convention', towhich they could agree, that they would make abreach, create some disengagement of this prob-km, so that it will prevent its spreading into therest of the continent and will avoid the horrorsof racial conflict.

In that connexion, I am instructed by myGovernment to draw; the attention of all of its tothe fact that one of the evil by-products of thismay be the division among the non-white peoplesthemselves. An old English. official once spokeof "A subject peoples speaking two languages,one for itself and one for the ruler." Similar, itis possible-it has happened in the questions inwhich we are more intimately related-thatattempts will be made to create divisions amongthe people on whom apartheid makes its impact.There are always those who are prepared to buya junior partnership in imperialism.

So far as the Indian populations on theAfrican continent are concerned, it is thedeliberate policy of our Government to point outto them that nationalism, is territorial. An Indianin Africa is an African-Indian or an Indian-African, just as you put it, the same way as theDutch is an African. It is only on this basis thatwe can proceed. This is an evil doctrine thatwill not be confined to the corners of this conti-nent. What is more, its implications should notbe relevant either in the titles of the bills or intheir present content. Its arms stretch very far.While we shall never be a party to proposals which

inhibit the power of South Africa to function asa Member of this Organization, we would drawtheir attention again to the words of GeneralSmuts, who happened to be a founder of thisOrganization and who deliberately subscribed tothe clauses that operate against apartheid.

INDIA SOUTH AFRICA USA LIBERIA INDONESIA PAKISTAN IRELAND GUINEA SUDAN ETHIOPIAGHANA CAMEROON NIGER NIGERIA MALI GERMANY NORWAY SLOVAKIA CENTRAL AFRICANREPUBLIC EGYPT CANADA AUSTRALIA THE NETHERLANDS KENYA BELGIUM

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C.S. Jha's Statement in General Assembly on Election to Trusteeship Council

Shri C.S. Jha, India's Permanent Representa-tive to the United Nations, made a statement inthe General Assembly on December 12, 1959 on theelection of two members of the Trusteeship Council.

The following is the full text of thisstatement :

We had not intended to intervene in anydebate preceding the holding of the elections tothe Trusteeship Council, since India is a candidatefor election and we would have much preferred

469not to have to speak. But highly important issueshave been raised before the Assembly, not only ofa legal nature but also of a nature which concernsthe whole future of the Trusteeship Council andits continued efficacy and capacity to discharge itssupervisory functions on behalf of the GeneralAssembly in respect of Trust Territories and to-wards the people of these Territories in theirpreparation for independence. We feel, therefore,that we should place our views before the Membersof the Assembly on these issues. This has norelation to our candidature. As a matter of

fact, we would have expressed our views morestrongly were we not a candidate.

To our regret, we find ourselves in oppositionto the views and attitudes embodied in the twodraft resolutions, documents A/L.274 and A/L.-275/Rev.1. These, respectively, are draft resolu-tions of the delegations of the Soviet Union and,Tunisia, for both of whom my delegation hashigh regard and very friendly feelings. We havebeen assured by these delegations that the standthey have taken has no reference to our candida-ture. I can likewise assure them that our viewshave no reference to our candidature either, andwhat is more important, should not be construedas in any way hostile to them or to theirattitudes.

Two proposals have been placed before theAssembly. I do not wish to repeat the facts whichhave been placed before us by the representativeof Tunisia and by the representative of the SovietUnion. These facts are well-known and are not indispute. The proposals, however, are first thatthere should be a resumed session of the GeneralAssembly after 27 April 1960, when the last of theFrench Trust Territories, Togoland, becomes inde-pendent; secondly, that on 27 April 1960 and on1 July 1960, when France and Italy, respectively,cease to be Administering Authorities, the composi-tion of the Trusteeship Council should be redeter-mined either by voluntary retirement or by castinglots, with a view on each occasion to bringingdown the number of non-administering electedmembers, so that parity should be maintainedbetween the non-administering and administeringPowers in the Council.

I shall take the second proposal first. Theessential element of this proposal is that theTrusteeship Council will decide which of the non-administering elected members will cease to bemembers, the decision to be taken by drawing lots.With all respect to the delegation sponsoring thisproposal I must say that there is no legal basisfor it. Elections to the Trusteeship Council areheld by the General Assembly, and it is for theGeneral Assembly to determine the compositionof the Council. The Charter does not permit theTrusteeship Council or any other principal organitself to determine its own composition. It is thetotality of the Members of the General Assemblywhich must perform this function and there is no

provision in the Charter for delegation of theGeneral Assembly's-functions to the TrusteeshipCouncil in this regard. Secondly, there is no provision anywhere inthe Charter for membership to be decided by lot.Such a decision could perhaps be taken with theexpress consent of the Members concerned in anyparticular drawing of lots, but it would be illegaland unconstitutional either to elect the Memberto the Trusteeship Council or any other body bydrawing lots, or to terminate the membership ofany country, lawfully elected by the same procedurewithout the consent of the parties concerned. Ifthat were possible, then we would not havehad the recent repeated deadlock in the elec-tion to the Security Council. It would havebeen easy for the Assembly to decide who shouldbe elected to the Security Council by drawing lots.It is doubtful, even if both candidates are agreed,that is to say, Turkey and Poland, whether theGeneral Assembly would have wished to takerecourse to this procedure or indeed whether itwould have been legal to do so. In the past, as between Yugoslavia and thePhilippines, when a similar deadlock arose forelection to the Security Council some years ago,lots were drawn to decide which country shouldsit during the first year and which during the secondyear, but this again was with the express consentof both countries and behind the scenes. My deleg-ation even on that occasion explained its positionthat we did not recognize any method of electionnot expressly authorized by the Charter or outsidethe scope of the Charter.

My delegation is strongly of the view that amost unhealthy precedent, which will be unconstitu-tional, will be created if the Assembly gives anykind of endorsement to any proposal to determinethe membership of any of the principal organsof United Nations on the basis of a lotteryirrespective of the objections of the partiesconcerned.

Thirdly, there is the basic objection that therecan be no curtailment of the three-year periodduring which a non-administering member iselected and which is mandatory under Article 86,paragraph 1 c of the Charter under rule 149 of therules of procedure of the General Assembly, againwithout the consent of the member concerned.

470

This three-year period is not the upper limit orthe ceiling as some delegations have argued. Rule149 of the rules of procedure of the GeneralAssembly says:

"A non-administering member of the Trusteeship Council shall be elected for a term of three years and shall be eligible for immediate re-election."

The footnote in the rules of procedure, tothis rule, which members will no doubt wish tolook into, says:

"Rule based directly on a provision of the Charter (Article 86, paragraph 1 c)".

It is clear that the Assembly has alreadyaccepted the obvious interpretation of Article 86,paragraph 1 c, namely that the three-year periodis mandatory and fixed. No other interpretationis possible. And, If I might remind the represent.atives, the Assembly's rules of procedure wereadopted not in 1945 when the San Franciscoconference was being held, and the participants inthat conference could not very well foresee whatwould happen ten years later, or that Trust Terri-tories would gain independence so soon, but itwas approved in 1949 when this whole situationwas clear, and as everybody knows, the Assem-bly's rules of procedure were adopted after agreat deal of deliberation in Committees and onthe floor of the Assembly.

Indeed, once a country is elected for a three-year period there is no provision at all in theCharter for premature termination of membershipwithout consent, which would be tantamount toexpulsion of the Member or Members concerned.The compulsive premature cessation or termina-tion of membership would indeed infringe on thefundamental right of an elected member underthe Charter. It is the view of my delegation thatthere is no possibility of reducing the term of theelected membership of the Council except byagreement among the, elected members themselves,including an agreement as to the manner in whichsuch a decision should be made-and thatAgreement may very well be the casting of lots.There is no easy solution and anything that lookslike an easy solution would create complications ofthe most serious nature in regard to the applica-tion of the Charter not only on this particular

occasion, but on future occasions in differentcontexts in the United Nations.

As regards the proposal for a resumed session,there is no provision in the Charter, as I havejust said, for premature termination of member-ship of those elected, under Article 86, paragraph1 c, even under a resumed session or at a specialsession. The premature termination of member-ship without consent, in our view, amounts toexpulsion, as I have just said, but expulsion of AMember from any of the principal organs of theOrganization is a very serious matter, and we donot see how it can be brought about except forpersistent violation of the Charter as contemplatedin Article 6 of the Charter.

There is yet another difficulty of a seriousnature about any resumed session to considerthe question of future composition of the member-ship of the Council; and I think that has beenvery eloquently, described by the representative ofCeylon. Such a session will come up face to faceagainst what after all is the real problem,namely the inadequacy of the Charter to meetthe present situation and the need for amendingthe Charter to meet such a situation now. Act-ually, it is not a short-term problem. we haveto deal with. On 27 April 1960, France willcease to be an Administering Authority; on1 July 1960, Italy will cease to be an AdministeringAuthority; when Western Samoa becomes indepen-dent in 1961, New Zealand can be regarded asceasing to be an Administering Authority; it isarguable that for Nauru, for which New, Zealandis a partner in joint trusteeship, but which isadministered by Australia it is the latter and notthe sleeping partners in the Trusteeship Agree-ment for Nauru which is answerable to theTrusteeship Council and has the capacity to under-take the obligations of administering authority inthe Council. I wish to make it clear that I amnot pronouncing any definite opinion on thisparticular matter, but I am merely pointing outthe difficulty of interpretation that may arise.Later, Tanganyika will be independent, whichwill mean that the United Kingdom will cease tobe. an administering authority. Indeed, if atevery point of time when a situation of this naturearises, there is going to be a resumed session andnon-administering elected members have to dropout one by one, what sort of a TrusteeshipCouncil shall we have left? In the very near future,

within one or two years, there may be no non-administering elected member at all. The matteris really one of extreme difficulty and there is noeasy solution that we can see. Indeed, my delega-tion has every fear that any resumed sessionsuch as contemplated in draft resolution A/L.274runs the risk of becoming a Charter revisionsession. There may be a multitude of proposalsincluding those for amending Article 86 of theCharter and we shall get into the same difficultiesmany times multiplied, as we faced on the agendaitems, increase in the membership of the Security

471Council and of the ECOSOC at the presentsession. These may well five rise to severepressure of various kinds on various memberssuch as the permanent members of the SecurityCouncil, the Administering Powers and others.That would be most unfortunate and might makesuch a resumed or special session prolonged,acrimonious and fruitless.

My delegation's view on the subject ofCharter revision are well-known. We are againstany over simplification of the problem and againstany such pressures being exercised.

So whichever way we turn we come upagainst serious difficulties both of a legal and of apractical nature. It teems to my delegation thatthe best thing to do is not to attempt to solvethis problem now, but only after the events whichafter all still lie in the always unpredictable andmysterious future and which will necessitate areconsideration of the question of compositionafter these events have taken place. The time andoccasion for this will be the next regular sessionof the Assembly. By then, the members concern-ed will have engaged in consultations amongthemselves and with others. At the next session,there will be more time. Foreign ministerswill be present, and we hope that we couldthen settle this matter by unanimousconsent.

It is also the view of my delegation that,though a trusteeship agreement may be termi-nated on a particular date, the obligations of theAdministering Authority vis-a-vis the GeneralAssembly and the Trusteeship Council need notand in fact will not in most cases terminate onthe same date. Article 88 of the Charter makes

it mandatory on the Administering Authority tosubmit annual reports to the General Assembly.These reports must necessarily be examined bythe Trusteeship Council. For the considerationof these reports, the presence of the AdministeringAuthority in the Council is necessary and evenobligatory. In the present situation, the finalreports in respect of the French Cameroons andFrench Togoland and indeed of Italian Somalilandwill not be submitted by the AdministeringAuthority concerned until some time after thesedates when the Administering Authority will beable to report definitively on the termination oftrusteeship and the attainment of independence bythe Territories, including the processesimmediately preceding such independence. Sofar, General Assembly has received theAdministering Authority's reports on Togolandand the French Cameroons and Italian Somalilandonly tip to 1958 and 1957 respectively. Furtherreports of the Administering Authority in respectof these three Territories up to the date of inde-pendence are called for under Article 88 of theCharter. We submit that such reports areindispensable, if only for the record and to con-form to the requirements, legal and other,neccessarily involved in the winding up of UnitedNations supervisory functions and of the trustundertaken by the Administering Authoritiesthrough the Trusteeship Council right up to thedate of independence.

Therefore, it seems to us that them will reallybe no stretching of the Charter if the countriesconcerned stay on in the Council until the nextsession of the General Assembly.

New let us see what the position is underArticle 86. Article 86 comes into play et thetime of the election of non-administering membersfalling in its category, and When the election ofsuch members is to be taken up, the Assemblyhas to look to parity as between the total numberof non-administering members elected underArticle 86 1 (c) and those who are members of theCouncil without election under Article 86 1(b)and the Administering Powers under Article86 1(a). It is arguable that, after election hasbeen made under Article 86 1(c), that sectionmust be deemed to lie dormant until the time forthe next election comes.

Article 86 1 (c) does not support the contention

that the composition of the Council shall bechanged during the three-year tenure of office atevery point of time when a Trusteeship Agreementis terminated and an Administering Authorityceases to be such. If that were the intention,Article 86 1 (c) would not have laid down amandatory three-year election period, and insteadwould have made specific provision for chargesduring the three-year period if certain events tookplace. The Charter could not have intendedsynchronization of the date of independence ofTrust Territories with the date of elections underArticle 86 1 (c), and thus by implication dis-couraged the emergence into independence ofTrust Territories on an intermediate dates. Tosuggest that at every point of time when et TrustTerritory becomes independent and an Adminis-tering Power ceases to be such there should be ameeting of the General Assembly to decide openthe future composition which would inevitablymean expulsion or removal of one or other of theMembers elected for the mandatory three-yearperiod is not a practical proposition, nor is it onestrictly warranted by Article 86 1 (c).

It has been argued that the principle of

472parity in Article 86 1(c) is paramount. I do notknow what the support is for this proposition.We have read and reread Article 86 1 (c) and thereis nothing in it to show that the principle ofparity has to be given precedence over the princi-ple of the mandatory three-year election period.

There is an important precedent with abearing on this issue which has already beenreferred to by the representative of Indonesia andwhich should not be lost sight of. A perusal ofGeneral Assembly document A/PV. 109 will showthat in 1947 the United States of America was anon-administering member of the TrusteeshipCouncil under Article 86 1(b). Subsequently,with the approval of the Trusteeship Agreementin respect of the Pacific Islands on 18 July 1947,the United States became an administering mem.ber of the Council with effect from that date.Consequently, an imbalance was created in theCouncil's composition in favour of the Ad-ministering Members. If the logic or the line ofargument now presented to the Assembly hadbeen held valid at the time, the Security Councilor the Secretary-General should have convened a

special session of the General Assembly on 19 July1947 to take measures to restore the balance inthe Council's composition, or two of the Ad.ministering Authorities should have beenballotted out by the Trusteeship Council. - Neitherof these steps, however, was taken. The pro.cedure adopted was that the Secretary-Generalnotified the Members of the United Nations indocument A/356 of 25 August 1947 to thefollowing effect :

"...The Trusteeship Agreement for the Pacific Islands having entered into force on 18 July 1947, the United States of America, which was already a member of the Trusteeship Council, became as of that date a Member administering a Trust Territory. In accordance, there- fore, with the provisions of Article 86, paragraph 1 (c) of the Charter, which prescribes...it is necessary to elect two additional members to the Trusteeship Council."

Accordingly, on 13 November 1947 theAssembly elected Costa Rica and the Philippinesto the Trusteeship Council thereby repairing theimbalance in the Council's composition at itssession succeeding the event. This happened fourmonths after the imbalance was created.

Now, as is clear from the precedent which Ihave brought to the Assembly's attention, in 1947when the number of administering members of theCouncil exceeded that of its non-administeringmembers by two for a period of four months.. theAssembly did not find reason for undue concern.Why is it then that, when the imbalance is likely toarise in favour of non-administering elected mem-bers, there is such a demand for giving paramountimportance to the question of parity. This issomething which my delegation is unable tounderstand. We should have thought that ifparity at all was to be tolerated it ought to betolerated in favour of the non-administeringmembers and not in favour of the administeringmembers. It is also to be remembered that thepredominance of the non-administering membersin the Council will only be theoretical. For Franceand Italy, after having been administering membersfor fourteen years, will not suddenly becomenon-administering in the sense that the UnitedArab Republic or Burma or Haiti or Paraguay

are such members. They will continue to sit inthe Council qua Administering Authorities inrelation to the annual reports of the Territoriesin their charge prior to 27 April and I Julyrespectively.

Having said all this, I wish to make it clearthat the principle of parity is important and hasto be maintained along with the maintenance ofthe three-year period elections. I do not meanto suggest that this principle should be attachedlesser importance than the other principle of thethree-year period election which is consecrated inArticle 86 1 (c). The mutual reconciliation ofthese principles, which is the real difficulty inthis case, is not an easy matter and will requirea great deal of mutual consultation and agreementbetween the members of the Trusteeship Counciland the General Assembly.

We feel that the best time and auspices forundertaking such consultations and agreementswill occur after and not before the events whichbring to attention the question of future compo-sition have taken place.

The question that has arisen, incidentally tothe election of two new members at this session,is of much greater scope than can be sized up orsettled by us at such short notice, or in such littletime as we have at our disposal now. We entire-ly agree with the delegations of the Soviet Unionand Tunisia and others that full considerationshould be given to the question of the futurecomposition of the Trusteeship Council, in orderto maintain the concept of parity envisagedin the Charter, not only in principle but also ineffect. A fuller consideration of this mattermay necessitate not only a reduction in thestrength of the non-administering wing of the

473Council but equally probably, also a reductionin the administering membership of the Trustee-ship Council through voluntary retirement, orwithdrawal or resignation of one or more perma-nent members who were formerly administeringTrust Territories.

In the light of these views, my delegationis constrained to say that while the draft resolu-tion placed before us by the delegation ofTunisia is inspired by the best of motives, it is

inopportune and premature. We agree generallywith the preamble of this draft resolution, exceptthe second paragraph, thereof. We also havetome doubts about the third paragraph of thepreamble. We agree with sub-paragraph (a)of paragraph I of the operative part, which statesthat the election of two members to the Trustee-ship Council at this session should take placein the normal way for three-year terms. In fact,no other logical or juridical interpretation of theprovisions of Article 86 is feasible. We alsoagree With the last part of this draft resolution,which purports to inscribe this question as anitem on the agenda of the next session of theGeneral Assembly so that a full and careful consi-deration of this whole question can take place.On the other hand, for the reason I have alreadystated, we find ourselves unable to agree withthe purpose and possible effects of sub-paragraph,(b) and (c) of paragraph I of the operative partand the second paragraph of the preamble ofthe draft resolution submitted by the representa-tive of Tunisia.

As regards paragraph 2 of the operative partof the draft resolution, we again find ourselvesin great difficulty. It refers to the principle ofequitable geographical distribution, a principle towhich the Assembly as a whole has subscribed inthe past. There is no objection to that principleitself, but time and again we have found thegreatest difficulty in the application of the princi-ple of equitable geographical distribution. I neednot go into the details of that.

As constituted, this paragraph means that,out of the remaining elected members, the twomain groups would share these two seats, that is,that each would be represented. The "maingroups" are not indicated. Possibly it meansthe Asian-African group and the Latin Americangroup. But it seems to me that any such divisionhas to be thought out very carefully and, speakingentirely for my delegation, we are not in favourof dividing seats on the basis of groups. I donot see why these seats should not be open toa member from the European countries or, forexample, a Commonwealth country. So we findalso great difficulty in accepting this paragraphwhich, besides being related to the other twooperative paragraphs, has some inherent defectsof its own. Therefore we shall also be obligedto oppose this paragraph.

Finally, I should like to assure in fellowrepresentatives that we do not regard any decision,if such a decision is reached by this Assembly toleave over the matter to the fifteenth session of theAssembly, as in any sense a revision of the Charteror an amendment of the Charter. On that subjectour views are well-known. We are for the strictestapplication of the Juridical procedure prescribed inArticles 108 and 109 of the Charter. Indeed, itseems to us that the draft resolution contained indocument A/L. 275/Rev. 1 is the one that by itsterms seeks a revision of the Charter, and it is thataspect which I have tried to bring to light. As far aswe are concerned, we are not agreeable to anamendment of the Charter without careful consi-deration in the right way according to the provi--sions contained in the Charter itself for suchrevision. We should like to assure the represen-tatives, specially the representative of the SovietUnion-who has, I know, strong views on thissubject-that whatever we have said does notamount in any sense to any suggestion for anyamendment of the Charter.

INDIA USA TUNISIA FRANCE ITALY POLAND TURKEY YUGOSLAVIA PHILIPPINES WESTERNSAMOA NEW ZEALAND NAURU AUSTRALIA CAMEROON MALI INDONESIA PERU COSTA!!BURMAHAITI PARAGUAY CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri C.S. Jha's Letter to President of the Security Council

Shri C.S. Jha, India's Permanent Representa-tive to the United Nations addressed a letter tothe President of the Security Council on December22, 1959. Shri Jha's letter was in reply to hisPakistani Counterpart's letter dated December3, 1959 on recent developments in Ladakh.

The following is the full text of the letter

I have the honour to refer to the letter dated3 December 1959 (S/4242) from the PermanentRepresentative of Pakistan to the United Nationsto the President of the Security Council on recentdevelopments in Ladakh and to state that theGovernment of India fail to understand why thePermanent Representative of Pakistan chose tosend this misleading letter, which is full of factualinaccuracies, at this juncture. It appears to theGovernment of India that this letter could havebeen sent only with one objective, namely to putpressure on India and aggravate the situationcaused by Chinese incursion into the Indian

474Union territory of Ladakh.

The question that has been under the consi-deration of the Security Council since January1948 is the resolving of the situation created byPakistan aggression on the Indian Union territoryof Jammu and Kashmir. The Council foundthat the Government of Pakistan, despite theirearlier denials, were involved in this situationfirstly because they aided and assisted the raidersfrom Pakistan territory and secondly because theysent their regular armed forces into the Stateviolating Indian territory and the resolution ofthe Security Council dated 17 January 1948 whichboth Pakistan and India had, accepted. It wasbecause of this background of developments inthe situation under consideration of the Councilthat the United Nations Commission for Indiaand Pakistan formulated the resolution of 13August 1948 and the supplementary resolution of5 January 1949, to resolve the situation that haddeveloped. They, therefore, made a provision inthe resolution of 13 August 1948 for the vacationof Pakistan aggression in the following clear terms:

"As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was re- presented by the Government or Pakis- tan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to with- draw its troops from that State.

The Government of Pakistan made this com-mitment to vacate their aggression eleven yearsago. The Pakistan aggression, however, still con-

tinues and the representative of the aggressor nowputs forward other fantastic claims.

In his attempt to mislead the Council, thePermanent Representative of Pakistan has statedin his letter that the recommendations (which herefers to as "decisions") of the Security Counciland of the UNCIP provide that all outside forcesshall be withdrawn from Jammu and Kashmir.As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, theUNCIP resolution of 13 August 1948 does speci-fically provide for complete withdrawal ofPakistan armed forces from the Indian Unionterritory of Jammu and Kashmir. The sameresolution, however, lays down that the IndianGovernment will maintain within the lines existingat the moment of cease-fire the minimum strengthof its forces considered necessary for the obser-vance of law and order. It is thus clear that thePakistan forces have to be withdrawn in toto fromJammu and Kashmir and the Government ofIndia are entitled to maintain their forces for theobservance of law and order. The Commissionhad specifically assured the Indian Prime Ministerthat "law and order" includes adequate defence.

The Permanent Representative of Pakistanhas made a further attempt in his letter to misleadthe Council by making the suggestion that asovereign authority to look after the security orJammu and Kashmir has still to be evolved andthat the responsibility for the security or theState has been assumed by the Security Council.A reference to the Security Council resolution of17 January 1948, the two UNCIP resolutions of13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, and theassurances given by the United Nations Com-mission on behalf of the Security Council to thePrime Minister of India, would show conclusivelythat the proposals made by the UNCIP and theSecurity Council to resolve the situation createdby Pakistan aggression in Jammu and Kashmirwere based on the sovereignty of the Jammu andKashmir Government over the entire territory ofJammu and Kashmir and on the responsibility ofthe Union of India for its defence includingmaintenance of law and order.

While doing their best to resolve, by peacefulmeans, the situation created by Chinese incursionsinto the Indian Union territory of Ladakh, theGovernment of India will, in pursuance of their in-herent right of self-defence, take all such measures

as may be necessary against any violation of theirterritory. The regrettable fact that the situationcreated by an earlier aggression on the IndianUnion territory of Jammu and Kashmir has stillnot been resolved due to the intransigence of theGovernment of Pakistan does not, in any way,detract from the inherent right of the Govern-ment of India to take all such measures as theyconsider necessary to resolve the situation createdby aggression from another quarter.

It is requested that this communication maybe brought to the notice of the members of theSecurity Council.

INDIA PAKISTAN USA TOTO

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri Govinda Reddy's Statement in Special Political Committee on Treatment of People of Indian Origin in SouthAfrica

Shri Govinda Reddy, Member of the IndianDelegation to the United Nations, made a state.ment in the Special Political Committee onDecember 7, 1959 on the question of treatment

475of the people of Indian origin in the Union ofSouth Africa. He said

Mr. Chairman:

Before I begin my statement on this subject,I would like on behalf of my delegation toassociate ourselves with the tributes which havebeen paid in various Committees to the memoryof Dr. Jansen, the late Governor General of theUnion of South Africa. This question which weare now considering has been on the agenda ofthe United Nations since 1946. It has been

debated by the General Assembly in all but one(the fourth) of its fourteen sessions, and the onlyreason that it was not debated in the fourthsession is because negotiations were in progress atthe time between the Governments of India andPakistan on the one side and the Government ofthe Union of South Africa on the other. Theitem this year is before, us as a result of theadoption by the Assembly on the 10th of Decem-ber 1958 of resolution 1302 which said inter alia,that the parties concerned were to report to theGeneral Assembly, as appropriate, jointly orseparately, regarding any progress which may bemade in negotiations. It is in this connectionthat I have the honour to make a report aboutthe present situation, on behalf of the Govern-ment of India and I am sure that my distinguishedcolleague from Pakistan will also make a reporton behalf of the Government of Pakistan.

In pursuance of Assembly resolution 1302 theGovernment of India wrote a letter to theGovernment of the Union of the South Africathrough their Permanent Representative in NewYork, and the text of the letter is included in theexplanatory memorandum (document A4145) onthis subject. It is of importance to note that thisletter, as previous letters, specifically states thatany negotiations which may be entered into bet-ween the Governments of India and Pakistan onthe one hand and the Government of the Unionof South Africa on the other will be withoutprejudice to the respective juridical stand of thedifferent parties to the dispute. In other wordssuch negotiations would be without prejudice tothe position taken by the Government of theUnion of South Africa that the discussion of thisitem is contrary to article 2, paragraph 7 of theCharter. In spite of the fact that this viewpointof the Government of the Union of South Africais one which has been repeatedly andoverwhelmingly rejected by the General Assembly,the Governments of India and Pakistan have overthe last few years repeatedly expressed theirwillingness to enter into negotiations on thissubject without insisting that the Government ofthe Union of South Africa accept the jurisdictionof the General Assembly on this matter. Wehave done this because to us what is importantis that as a first step negotiations should begin.If the Government of the union were to suggestany manner or any means by which suchnegotiations could take place, my Government

would be happy to consider such a suggestion.

Now what is the subject on whichnegotiations are desired? It is simply the treat-ment meted out to people of Indian origin in theUnion of South Africa. There are today about half amillion people in South Africa who are of Indianorigin-I am using the phrase Indian origin be-cause they went out to South Africa from anUndivided India now India and Pakistan, andactually these people who are in the Union aresome of them, coming from what is now India,and some from what is now Pakistan. It isestimated that about 80 to 90 per cent of thesepeople were born in the Union and are nationalsof the Union. These people are South Africans.Most of the people of Indian origin who are inSouth Africa are descendents from immigrantswho went to the Union at the invitation of theGovernment of South Africa. They went therebecause the Union Government needed labour onthe sugar plantations. At that time the Governmentof India was a responsibility, internationally, of theBritish Government. The Secretary of State forColonies of the United Kingdom Government saidin 1875 in connection with the arrangement tosend these Indian people to South Africa that, andhere I quote, "Above all things we must con-fidently expect, as in indispensable conditionof the proposed arrangement that the coloniallaws and their administration will be such thatIndian settlers, who have completed the terms ofservices to which they have agreed, as the returnfor the expense of bringing them to the colonies,will be free men in all respects, with privileges noway inferior to those of any other class of HerMajesty's subjects resident in the colonies." It isimportant to note that this was the statement ofthe British Minister at the time which was madeon behalf of the British Government. In otherwords, our contention is that as far back as 1875there was an agreement that the people who wentto the Union of South Africa from India would inno way be inferior to anyone else who lived inthat territory.

As the number of permanent Indian settlersincreased, there was some opposition on the partof European settlers, both to the free Indians andthe Indian traders. Such agitation started inNatal towards the end of the last century. Acommission was appointed to inquire into various

476anti-Indian allegations. Not only does the reportof the Commission hold that the anti-Indianallegations were unfounded, but it praised, andhere I quote, "The commendable industry" of theIndians in agriculture. Giving evidence beforethe Commission, Sir J. C. Hulett, an ex-PrimeMinister of Natal, said, and here I quote again"The free Indians at present in the Colony are animmense benefit, being largely engaged in agri-culture pursuits." In 1908 as a result of anti-Indian allegations the Natal Government proposedlegislation to prohibit the issue of licenses fortrading to Asians after 31st December 1918. Asa matter of law this legislation had to be referredto the Imperial Government of Britain. Thislegislation was disallowed by the Secretary ofStates for the Colonies Lord Salisbury, who madethe following observation regarding this matter,and here I quote

"It would be a matter of the greatestdifficulty to enumerate any conditions under whichit would be possible to justify the interdiction ofa particular class in the State from engaging innormal legitimate and necessary occupations; andit would be still harder to justify dispossessingthem from their existing means of livelihood,however Liberal might be the terms of compen-sation. But the imposition of such disabilitieson a class which owes its presence in the Colonyto the Colony's own necessities and whose numbershave been augmented by the voluntary actionand indeed the settled policy of successive ColonialGovernments, over a period of 15 years since theadvent of self-government, would appear on itsmerits to constitute a hardship of a especiallygrievous character."

Before the statement had been made by LordSalisbury, it is important to remember that theman who subsequently became one of the mostremarkable men in history and the world,Mahatma Gandhi, had already on behalf of theIndians resident in the Union of South Africa,carried on a long and non-violent campaign toachieve for the residents of the Union some ofthe elementary rights which they were denied.Our connection with this problem is thus not onlythe legal one of the flouting of repeated interna-tional arrangements but also the very importantone that it was here on the South African soil thatMahatma Gandhi first kindled the fire in the

furnace called Satyagraha. Our emotional con-nection with this problem, Mr. Chairman, canprobably be easily understood and is as importantas is our legal position, which is universally re-cognized.

After the end of the first World War, therewas an Imperial Conference in which questionsaffecting all dominions, as well as India, werediscussed. At this conference, the Governmentof India, that is, the British Government of India,claimed full political rights for the resident Indiancommunity in the various self-governing domi-nions. And in 1921 the Imperial Conferencepassed a resolution recommending "that in theinterest of the solidarity of the British, Common-wealth it is desirable that the rights of suchIndians to citizenship should be recognized." Itis on the basis of this resolution of the ImperialConference as well as all the statements by manySecretaries of State and the guarantees given bythe British Government to our people before theywent to South Africa that we would especiallyask other Commonwealth countries and parti-cularly the UK to consider in what manner theycan help the people of Indian origin in SouthAfrica to obtain at least the elementary humanrights. We would ask them especially to let usknow what they can do in this regard and to sug-gest any manner, any method whereby they canhelp. It is for this specific reason that in theresolution which was adopted last year the spon-sors were good enough to include the paragraphswhich stated "Invites Member States to use theirgood offices, as appropriate to bring about nego-tiations in accordance with the desire expressedby the General Assembly at previous sessions."My Government is not aware of any good officeshaving been used and we would particularly askthose countries which have somewhat of a moralresponsibility in this matter to indicate to us howthey would like to use their good offices so thatwe can have the benefit of their constructiveadvice, instead of merely being told that thismatter should not be discussed in the GeneralAssembly. We say this because we approachthis problem in a completely constructive mannerand would like to know what indeed we can dowhich will enable us to solve a problem which hasoccupied the attention of so many successiveGeneral Assemblies and on which so many reso-lutions have been adopted. We also say thisbecause we particularly want to request those

Governments who have some reason which wehave not fully understood of abstaining yearafter year in the resolutions which are adoptedin this Assembly, to tell us in what manner, theywould like to approach the problem. Let themtell us what they would like us to do rather thanmerely abstain on resolutions which are couchedin what I may be permitted to say are immediatelymoderate terms.

I will now skip over a few intervening yearsand come to the first discussion of this problemdirectly between the Government of India and

477the Government of South Africa. This was in1927 in Cape Town, and the agreements whichwere arrived at as a result of those negotiationsare known as the Cape Town Agreements. Anannouncement was made simultaneously in Indiaand South Africa on the 21st of February 1927of the terms of this agreement and, if I may sayso, the original copy which we have of this agree-ment is printed by His Majesty's Stationery Officeand is therefore to be considered as much anofficial document to which the UK is bound asany other document of the nature of an agreementpublished by official sources in Britain. I willquote the first two paragraphs of the agreement,of as they are particularly germane to the issue; mydelegation is perfectly willing to supply copies thisagreement to anyone who wishes to obtain a copy.The first two paragraphs read as follows:-

"It was announced in April 1926 that theGovernment of India and the Government ofthe Union of South Africa had agreed to hold aRound Table Conference to explore all possiblemethods of settling the Indian question in theUnion in a manner which would safeguard themaintenance of western standards of life in SouthAfrica by just and legitimate means. The Con-ference assembled at Cape Town on December17 and its session finished on January 12th. Therewas, in these meetings, a full and frank exchangeof views which has resulted in a truer appreciationof mutual difficulties and a united understanding tocooperate in the solution of a common problemin a spirit of friendliness and goodwill.

"Both Governments re-affirm their recogni-tion of the right of South Africa to use all justand legitimate means for the maintenance of

western standards of life.

"The Union Government recognizes thatIndians domiciled in the Union who are preparedto conform to western standards of life, shouldbe enabled to do so."

I should like delegations to note that theagreement specifically states that the UnionGovernment recognizes that those Indians domi-ciled in the Union who are prepared to conformto western standards of life should be enabled todo so. I am not aware whether one of themeans enabling people to conform to westernstandards of life lies in refusing to give them eventhe most elementary political, social, economic,or educational rights. Surely no one is willing todefine the "enabling of people to conform towestern standards of life" as that of treatingthem in the manner in which people or Indianorigin are treated in the Union of South Africa.

Paragraph 7 of the Cape Town Agreementof 1927 reads as follows:-

"The two Governments have agreed to watchthe working of the agreement now reached andto exchange views front time to time as to anychanges that experience may suggest."

In accordance with this paragraph of theAgreement there was a further meeting of delegatesof the Government of the Union of South Africaand the Government of India from January 12thto February 4th, 1932. At that time an agreedstatement was issued by both Governments whichsaid inter alia:--

"Both Governments consider that the CapeTown Agreement has been a powerful influencein fostering friendly relations between them andthat they should continue to cooperate in thecommon object of harmonising their respectiveinterests in regard to Indians resident in theUnion."

It was as a result of this agreement, thenegotiation of which was partly conducted byDr. Malan of South Africa, that the Transvaal-Asiatic Tenure Amendment Bill was modified.

It is the contention of my Government thatthe negotiations which had been envisaged by the

Cape Town Agreement of 1927 and its subsequentre--affirmation in 1932 have not taken place ; it isthe contention of my Government that thesenegotiations have not taken place in spite ofrepeated requests by us for negotiations; repeatedappeals of the General Assembly for negotiations,and this is to us simply a question of an interna-tional agreement which has been reaffirmed being,clearly violated.

Now in very short time I would like to givea little background of what has happened in theGeneral Assembly over a period of years. Thereason I find it necessary to do so is becausethis item has been on the agenda so many yearsthat distinguished delegates sometimes tend toforget the history and the background on thissubject. In the very first session of the GeneralAssembly and even before Indian independencewas formally proclaimed-that is at a timewhen the British Government was still formallyresponsible for our external affairs-the Govern-ment of India appealed to the General Assemblyin this connection, and the General Assemblyadopted a resolution which stated inter alia thatthe General Assembly "Is of the opinion thatthe treatment of Indians in the Union shouldbe in conformity with the international obligations

478under the agreements concluded between the twoGovernments and the relevant provisions of theCharter." This resolution was adopted by 35 to15 with 7 abstentions and is- known as resolution44 of the first session. Here is a clear declarationby the General Assembly in its very first sessionthat the treatment of Indians in the Union shouldbe in conformity with the international obligationsunder the agreements concluded between theGovernments of India and the Union of SouthAfrica. Since that time resolution after resolutionhas been adopted by the Assembly. But it isimportant to note that this matter is not merelya question of human rights, vital though thoseare for the purposes of the UN, but also a clearquestion of the unilateral violation of an inter-national agreement.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I can tabulate dozensand dozens of actions which have been taken bythe Union Government year after year whichare against every fundamental principle of theUnited Nations Charter and every provision of

international codes of conduct and internationalrespect for human rights. If I do not do so itis merely because this Committee is already verywell informed about the disabilities from whichall non-whites suffer in the Union of SouthAfrica and I do not think it would be necessaryfor me to categorize them once again. But Imust draw the attention of the Committee tosome of the extraordinary proceedings which aretaking place in the Parliament of the Union ofSouth Africa with regard to the subject of thetreatment of people of Indian origion. On the29th June 1959 discussions were taking place onthe second reading of the Appropriation Bill inthe House of Assembly of the Union of SouthAfrica. Proceedings to which I am now goingto refer will be found in columns 9420 and 9421 ofof the Hansard which has a verbatim accountof these proceedings. During the course of thedebate Mr. Butcher, a member of Parliament,asked about the unemployment among the Indiansand natives. I am using this word even thoughthey appear slightly peculiar in so far as I wouldhave thought that Mr. Butcher was himself alsoa native-otherwise he certainly does not appearto have any business sitting in the Parliament ofa country to which he is not a native. HoweverI presume the term natives' was used in the usualderogatory sense in which it was used in theUnion to the effect that natives are those who livein the Union without the privileges of a white manas officially so defined. In reply to Mr. Butcher'squestion the Prime Minister of the Union ofSouth Africa said, and I quote him in full:

"I shall come to that in a moment. It isperfectly clear that if we in South Africa wereto adopt all the measures which are used in aperiod of large scale unemployment it could beeven more dangerous here than in Britain. Itcould lead later on to the employment of greaternumbers of Bantu in skilled work. What weare going therefore is to follow the sound processof handling unemployment by creating circums-tances to check unemployment but in such a waythat we do not do so too fast and too far, beyondthe limits of what can reasonably be expected.Hon. Members opposite have asked what aboutthe unemployment amongst the natives andIndians? The fact of the matter is that thereare various solutions as far as native labour isconcerned. In particular, we are still saddledwith approximately 400,000 foreign natives who

are not our concern and our responsibility. Ifthose natives were to be pushed out of SouthAfrica-because preference must be given toUnion natives when there is unemployment thenthere would be no suggestion of unemploymentamongst the Union natives. This presents noproblem to us. The same applies to the Indians,although in my opinion the Indians are notour problem in the first place but theproblem of those who are so anxious to takethe care of the Indians on their shoulders. Ifother people are worried about the Indians,let them take the Indians back there, where theywould have better opportunities of employment."

I would ask the Honourable Members totake note of the fact that the Prime Minister ofthe Union of South Africa says officially in Parlia-ment that the problem of the Indians who live inthe Union of South Africa, and who areSouth African nationals, is one which doesnot concern the Government of the Unionof South Africa. I will in this connectionmerely quote what was said by another memberof Parliament in the same House of Assemblyof the Union of South Africa the next day, thatis, the 30th of June. This again will be foundin columns 9599 and 9600 of Hansard. Mr.Mitchell of the United Party said, speaking inconnection with the remark of the Prime Ministerwhich I have quoted above.

"Sir, as has been said here before, this Gov-ernment during the 11 years that it has been inoffice has had no policy whatever with regard tothe Indians in South Africa and here the PrimeMinister comes and extends an open invitationto the Government of India to interest itselfafresh in the affairs of the Indians in South Africa.Indians who through the legislation passed at thebehest of the present Minister of Finance, at thattime Minister of the Interior, were made South

479African citizens by birth. In terms of his legislationthey were made South African citizens by birthand today the Prime Minister comes and saysthat in the first instance they are not ourproblem and he suggests that those peoplewho are interesting themselves in that prob-lem elsewhere should take the care of thoseIndians on their shoulders. After all the yearsthat General Smuts and previous Prime Ministers

have fought against the right of the Governmentof India to interfere in our affairs in South Africais to be left now to a man who admit-tedly is not a South African by birth, tocome here and invite the Government of Indiato interfere with the domestic affairs of SouthAfrica, after all those years of efforts in whichwe have striven in the International Council ofthe world to keep India's fingers out of our parti-cular domestic. pie in this regard and claimedthat these people were our South African citizensmade into first class South African citizens byNations Party legislation ?"

Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not agree withmuch of what Mr. Mitchell said, as is obvious,because I do not believe that the Indians in SouthAfrica were ever made first class citizens, but itis quite clear that the distinguished Prime Minis-ter of South Africa considers that the UnionGovernment has no responsibility whatever fora certain set of South African citizens-bornSouth African citizens-because they happen tobe born of people of the wrong origin. I wouldask all distinguished delegates in this Committeeto consider if they know of any Government inany part of the world where the Prime Ministeropenly states in Parliament that he takes no res-ponsibility for more than half a million citizensin this country because they happen to be ofdifferent complexion, race, origin, colour. Manycountries take poor care of their citizens, butI do not sincerely believe that there is one PrimeMinister in the world who would say what Mr.Verwoerd has openly declared in Parliamentregarding South African citizens of Indian originin the Union of South Africa.

It is interesting in this connection, Mr. Chair-man, to note that the Government of the Unionof South Africa did at one time consider it bothnecessary and desirable to discuss the merits ofthe question regarding the treatment of Indiansbefore the United Nations. Those who wouldlike to consult the records will find that on the31st October 1946 the Union Government sub-mitted a memorandum to the United Nationson this subject. The memorandum will be foundin document A/167, dated the 31st October 1946.It deals with specific and concrete topics regardingthe treatment of Indians in the Union of SouthAfrica and does not appear at all to take thestand that since the matter should not at all be

discussed, there was no need for the UnionGovernment to present its view on the subject.Chronologically it is interesting to observe thata request of India for inclusion of this item onthe agenda was considered by the General Com-mittee on 24th October 1946. At that time FieldMarshal Smuts, who represented the Union ofSouth Africa, moved in the General Committeethat the matter should not be discussed. Thiswas not accepted by the General Committee.Members can obtain a record of this discussionin the General Committee from Journal No. 15 :Supplement B-A/Bur/35. Subsequently JournalNo. 20: Supplement A-A/PV/46 records thedebate at the 40th plenary meeting of the GeneralAssembly held on 31st October 1946. At thattime the President of the General Assembly,Mr. Henri Spaak, said, and here I quote from theJournal, "It now appears that the two delegationsmost directly interested in this item, the delegationof India and the delegation of the Union of SouthAfrica, would now agree on the second proposal,which is that the First and Sixth Committees shoulddeal with this item jointly." This is interesting as itpoints out that at that time the Government of theUnion of South Africa would agree to the dis-cussion of this item before the Assembly. On the15th November 1946 the Government of theUnion of South Africa submitted a further memo-randum on the subject of Indian legislation. Thiscan be found in document A/167/Add.1.

We next come to the discussion of thismatter jointly by the First and Sixth Committeeson tha 21st November 1946. This will be foundin Journal No. 40 and its Supplement No. I and6. In this journal members will find that thoughField Marshal Smuts still objected to the discus-sion of this item on the grounds of Article 2,paragraph 7, he said and here I quote from theJournal, "The Government of the Union of SouthAfrica, however, denied that it had in any wayinfringed any of these elementary human rights.It had no desire to stifle any debate on the factualaspect of the Indian protest."

It is therefore the submission of my delega-tion that at the beginning of the discussionof this matter by the United Nations, theUnion of South Africa took the positionthat it was willing to discuss this subjecteven though it felt that the Assembly should notdiscuss it. This point is also proved by a refer-

ence to Journal No. 44 regarding the joint meetingof the First and Sixth Committees held on25th November, 1946. In this Members will

480find that Mr. Nichols, representing the Govern-ment of the Union of South Africa, says and Iquote the journal, "Mr. Nichols proposed to dealwith the factual aspect of the Indian complaintbut did not admit the right of the, United Nationsunder the Charter to concern itself in any waywith the domestic affairs of the Union of SouthAfrica."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I could go through therecords of the UN of 1946 and point out how theGovernment or the Union had repeatedly spokenabout the substance of the matter before the UN.It is interesting to note from Journal No. 54:Supplement A/A/PV/59, which reports on the50th plenary meeting of the General Assembly,held on 7th December 1946 that Field MarshalSmutts moved an amendment to the resolutionon this subject by the General Assembly. Theamendment was in the name of the South AfricanDelegation. My delegation therefore claims thatall we are requesting today is that the Govern-ment of the Union of South Africa which has inthe past discussed most of this matter in theAssembly and has even moved amendments toresolutions, should re-adopt that practice. Wewould view any amendment they moved to anyresolution on this subject with considerable sym-pathy as, as I have said before, our only interestis to see how we can start negotiations with theGovernment of the Union of South Africa.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Assembly asked uslast year to report to the Assembly regarding pro.gress made in negotiations. All I can say is thatno negotiations have taken place, and as is usual,not even a reply has been received to our com-munication offering negotiations. This past year,we even took the step of writing simultaneouslyalong with our letter to the Permanent Represen-tative of the Union of South Africa to the UnitedNations an exactly similar communication fromour High Commissioner in London to the HighCommissioner of the Union Government of SouthAfrica in London. This step was taken becausewhen we had withdrawn our diplomatic represen-tation in the Union of South Africa for reasonswhich are so obvious that I will not enumerate

them it has been agreed to by the two governmentsthat the official channel of communication wouldbe between the two High Commissions in London.It was for this reason that we wrote in Londonalso. That too did not help. No reply of anykind has been received to our communications.All therefore we can report to the Assembly isthat nothing has been done by the Governmentof the Union, which is not at all different to whatthe Government of the Union has been doing forthe last few years, that is refusing to listen to allpleas, and appeals and requests either from theGeneral Assembly or from us.

The question then arises what can be done ?My Government has consistently held the viewthat no avenue should be left unexplored andno stone unturned to ascertain how negotiationscan be brought about in this matter. We stillhold this view. We appeal to all members in theAssembly to assist us, to tell us, how in whatmanner, can we bring about these negotiations.My Government does not wish to indulge in anyrecriminations. My Government would not favourany resolution which condemned any one becausewe believe that such resolutions do not facilitatenegotiations nor do they lead to solutions. Wedo, however, feel that if people genuinely believethat something should be done, the Assemblyshould keep on saying that it should be done.No ears are so deaf that they can never listenand we feel that the greatest service that can bedone to all the Governments and all the peopleconcerned in this matter is that the Assemblyshould unanimously appeal once more to theGovernment of the Union in what I called pre-viously, "immoderately moderate" language toenter into negotiations with us and our colleaguesfrom Pakistan. Members of this Assembly canhave no doubt about the depth and strength ofour feelings in this matter; we choose to restrainourselves very much every year when this subjectis debated and I hope we shall continue to do so.But it is because we are so restrained and becausewe have so many reasons, so well-known to be high-ly agitated, concerned, worried, and even if I maysay so, angry, that we particularly appeal to allthose delegations which in the past have been unableto join in the unanimous appeals in this Assemblyto join us this year. As I said before, my Govern-ment is perfectly open to any suggestions anyonemay have, but until someone makes a constructivesuggestion the least they can do is to join a

unanimous appeal. A unanimous appeal to theGovernment of the Union has an influence and animportance which cannot be underestimated.I referred once before rather specifically to mycolleagues from the Commonwealth. I would doso again, because this is a matter in whichtwo members of the Commonwealth are openlyand repeatedly saying that they are willing totry anything which will lead to negotiations.

Let us not just be told that what you aredoing is not quite right. We would say that eitherlet everyone join in this unanimous appeal or tellus what they would like us to do.

Mr. Chairman, this is our report-a dismalone in which our only hope lies in the continuous

481moderate but unanimous expression of opinionby this Assembly. This is what we ask of theAssembly. We feel that the Assembly can donothing less than this, which if I may say so, asthe absolute minimum of what can be done bythe Assembly and every member of it.

INDIA SOUTH AFRICA USA PAKISTAN CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC UNITED KINGDOM

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri R. Venkataraman's Statement in Trusteeship Committee on Transmission of Information onNon-Self-Governing Territories

Shri R. Venkataraman, Member of theIndian Delegation to the United Nations, madea statement in the Trusteeship Committee onDecember 2, 1959 on general questions relatingto the transmission of information on Non-Self-Governing Territories under Article 73 (e) of theU.N. Charter.

The following is the full text of the state.ment:

Mr. Chairman,

At the outset my delegation desires to touchbriefly on a general question that has arisen inrelation to a Territory in respect of which thetransmittal of information was ceased some yearsago on the ground that the Territory had becomeself-governing. The Committee is aware that atthe First Session of the General Assembly theUnited Kingdom declared its intention of trans-mitting information under Article 73 (e) of theCharter on a number of territories includingMalta ; and in pursuance thereof transmitted in-formation on Malta for the year 1946. Later onthe proclamation - of the new constitution for theIsland in 1947, the transmission of informationwas ceased by the United Kingdom. I do notpropose, nor is it necessary at this stage, to go intothe lengthy debates that followed this unilateralaction on the part of the United Kingdom Govern-ment. However, I desire to bring to the attentionof the Committee the justification pleaded by therepresentative of United Kingdom for ceasing totransmit information on Malta. The distinguishedrepresentative of the United Kingdom stated,and I quote from paragraph 31 of the SummaryRecords of the 124th meeting of the FourthCommittee :

"In ceasing to transmit information about Malta the United Kingdom Government did not claim that the territory had attained a fall measure of self-govern- ment for the purpose of Chapter XI of the Charter....However, there might frequently be a stage as there was in the case of Malta when although a full measure of self-government had not yet been attained responsibility for economic, social and educational matters-no longer rested with the metropolitan government but was vested by the Consti- tution in the government of the territory. Mr. Chairman, a new situation would seemto have arisen in 1959 with respect to Malta.The Constitution of the Island was revoked by anAct of Parliament of the United Kingdom-on16 February, 1959 as a result of which the MaltaLegislative Assembly, which had a measure ofresponsibility for economic, social and educational

matters, was abolished. The Island is now ruledby the Governor assisted by an Executive Councilcomprising a majority of ex-officio official mem-bers and a minority of nominated non-officialmembers. There is no local self-government. Onthe basis of available information it would appearthat Malta has reverted to a non-self-governmentstatus. In any event, the justification pleaded bythe representative of the United Kingdom for thecessation of transmission of information no longerexists. It is the earnest view of my delegationthat the obligation to transmit information underarticle 73 (e) in respect of Malta should be re-sumed by the United Kingdom Administration.We are sure that the Committee will greatlywelcome a statement from the United Kingdomdelegation in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, you may recall that last yearmy delegation had warmly complimented theSpanish Government for offering to place in-formation at the disposal of the Secretary-Generalon the development in the overseas territoriesunder the administration of Spain. However, noinformation was furnished to the Committee onInformation. It would appear from the recordsof the proceedings of the 43rd session of theInternational Labour Organisation, held at Genevain June 1959, that as late as June 1959 no legis-lation had been adopted on the legal status of theSpanish Overseas Provinces. For, the represen-tative of the Government of Spain made thefollowing statement before the Committee on theapplication of conventions and recommendations:

"The Spanish Cortes is at present dis- cussing a bill on the legal status of the Spanish overseas provinces".

Even before the adoption of the law, the

482Government of Spain appears to have decidednot to transmit information on their overseasterritories. We are sorry to see that in theircommunication dated 28 July, 1959, (DocumentA/C. 4/406) the Spanish Government has nowindicated its unwillingness to transmit informationto Secretary General. We hope that it will bepossible for the Government of Spain to reoconsidertheir position and transmit information to theSecretary-General on the Territories under itsadministration.

It is often argued here by some of theAdministering Members that it is for them todecide whether they have any Non-Self-GoverningTerritories under their administration and as towhether or not they will submit informationconcerning those Territories under Article 73(e).I do not wish to go into these arguments at lengthbut I would like to draw the Committees atten-tion to a significant expression in Article 73 ofthe Charter. This article speaks of Members ofthe United Nations which have responsibilities forthe administration of Territories whose peopleshave not yet achieved a full measure of self-government, and of members who assume suchresponsibilities. It is necessary, in our view, toanalyse and understand carefully the full importof this expression-members of the UnitedNations which have or assume responsibilities etc.That when the Charter was drafted certain,members of this Organisation had responsibilitiesof administration is a matter of fact: there cannotbe any dispute about that; and the obligation totransmit information under Article 73(e) flowsfrom this fact. Assumption of new responsibilitiesof colonial administration after the signing of theCharter was a hypothetical matter. It would bedifficult to contemplate a situation in whichcertain members might assume new responsibili-ties of this character through conquest or in anyother way. The Charter cannot possibly beinterpreted to have contemplated possibilities ofthat character. For, its purpose was to eradicatecolonialism through the progressive expansionof the areas of freedom and not to encourage orperpetuate colonialism in any way whatsoever.Since Chapter XI mentions "Members of theUnited Nations which have or assume responsi-bilities", it would be argued that a Colonial Powerwould be required to submit information on itscolonial possessions only after it became a Memberof the United Nations, but no interpretation ofthe phrase "who have or assume responsibilities"would enable a Colonial Power to set aside itsobligations to the inhabitants of its colonies or tothe world organisation or to arbitrarily constitutethese colonial territories into an integral part ofits metropolitan territory.

Now, Sir when some Members argue herethat their overseas possessions are integral partsof their metropolitan territories and that, therefore,they have no responsibilities or obligations of the

kind mentioned in Chapter XI of the Charter, itmust be remembered that these territories, as anyother colonial territories, came to them as the resultof colonial conquests. That is true as much ofBritish Territories as of French Territories, andof Territories under the administration of Portugalor any other Administering Member. If, there-fore, the Governments of the U.S.A., the UnitedKingdom, or France, or Belgium come to theAssembly and say that they have certain responsi-bilities and obligations towards the peoples oftheir colonial possessions or towards the GeneralAssembly acting under Chapter XI of the Charter,how can the Assembly accept a contrary argumentfrom other Colonial Powers. For, that would,indeed, amount to perpetuating conquest whilethe whole trend of the Twentieth Century sincethe inception of the League has been towards theliquidation of the conquest of preceding centuries.

If the people of the Territories, which wereNon-Self Governing at the time of the advent ofthe United Nations era, for the administration ofwhich Members of the United Nations haveresponsibility-if these peoples have not attaineda full measure of self-government, then certainobligations fasten themselves of such members.The cardinal test, therefore, is whether thepeoples have or have not attained full measure ofself-government ; and this test has to be appliedin the light of the factors enumerated by theGeneral Assembly in the annex to its Resolution742 (VIII). This question whether these Terri-tories form integral parts of metropolitancountries or form overseas provinces thereofwould appear to be irrelevant so far as article 73is concerned.

Furthermore, there is no justifiable groundfor discriminating between the worth, aspirationsand rights of one people and of another. In itsaspirations for freedom and independence allhumanity is one and equal. If the formercolonies of the United Kingdom or the UnitedStates have become, or are in the process ofbecoming independent, on what ground can it beargued that Mozambique or Angola or any otherdependent Territory must not aspire to the destinyof Nigeria or the former Gold Coast or theformer British Indian Empire, and that they mustremain content only with being integral parts ofthe Metropolitan country concerned ? As regardsPortugal, there are several official pronouncements,

which prove beyond doubt that the so-calledoverseas provinces are, in fact, colonies. In an483article in the April 1956 issue of the ForeignAffairs' written by the Prime Minister of Portugal,Dr. Salazar states and I quote :

"Apart, from 4 or 5 independent states which are to be found in Africa and apart from the Mediterranean sea-ports of that continent where there is a movement to hasten the process of evolution towards a system of autono- mous government or associated indepen- dent states, it may be said that Africa lives and must continue for an unforesee- able time to live under the control and guidance of a civilised State."

"Notwithstanding the political experiments whichBritain has recently permitted in limited areas,the major sections of Africa consist of territorieswhich depend on Europeon States. and lack theconditions necessary for existence as independentdemocratic nations, Public administration andthe guidance of labour is unavoidably in thehands of a small minority of Europeans. Theirtasks cannot be abandoned or handed over tothe indigenous elements indiscriminately and allat once."

It is obvious from this passage that thepeoples in these territories have not yet attaineda full measure of self-government. It is equallyobvious that they can do so. The Prime Ministerof Portugal says that these "sections of Africaconsist of Africa which depend: on EuropeanStates", that is to say, they are dependent Terri-tories or in the language of the Charter they arenon-self-governing Territories. Then adds thePrime Minister : "They lack the conditionsnecessary for existence as independent democraticnations". They may lack the conditions, butthey do not, in our view, lack the potential ofbecoming independent democratic nations, and itis the obligation of the Administering power toactivise that potential That is why we ask themto let the fresh winds of independence blowacross these Territories, to throw them open tothe permeating ideas of the Charter, and to letus see what the incidence of European civilisationhas been on these people.

What is being said of these AfricanTerritories today was said, once upon a time,also of the colonies of this continent, which rosein revolt against colonial domination, and haveheld aloft for all these decades the beacon-lightof freedom to the world, And there may yetbe other lights ; for, there are yet dark recessesof this earth to be lit. Self-Government may bedifficult to define, but it is very easy to under-stand, and it is easy to see where it exists. It isunderstood well by the suffering masses ofhumanity. The question whether the peoples ofa Territory have attained a full measure of self-government is a question of fact and not amatter for legal or juridical disquisition. It doesnot depend on legal subtleties though legal sub-tleties may be resorted to for the purpose ofsmoke screening the facts. In a 1959 publicationentitled PORTUGUESE AFRICA, James Duffy,commenting on the legal changes in PortugueseAfrica, (on page 293) says as follows

"The colonies have become provinces and the language used in the latest legislation has more than a vague similarity with that of nineteenth century decrees but it would be rash to suggest that any real change of attitude is taking place in the Overseas Ministry. It is more likely that Portuguese Govern- ment is preparing legalistic. fortress against the anti-colonial attacks it must surely face."

Mr. Chairman, it is the accepted philosophyof the twentieth century that a country belongsto those who inhabit it and not to those whoconquer or exploit it. It is as simple as that,and let us make no mistake about it. If as aquestion of fact that the peoples of certainoverseas territories do no possess a full measureof self-government, the obligations under article 73accrue regardless of the fact whether they are des-cribed as integral parts or overseas provinces ofmetropolitan countries or in any other legal term-inology.

It is possible to write a voluminous treatieson the legal aspects of this problem but no wisdom,no learning and no argument can convince sub-jugated peoples that they are free or possess self-government in these territories unless there is realfreedom.

If we now surrender to the quibbles of lawthe protection given to the people of Non-Self-Government Territories under the Charter, theposterity sitting in our places will mock at us forour naive acceptance of the spacious pleas overthe hard and heart-rending facts prevailing inthese areas.

What we are told, and what we are expectedto believe, is that there is a "State of India" thatis Portugal; that there is a Guinea that is Portugal,and that the vast African Territories of Angolaand Mozambique-many many times the size ofPortugal-are parts of Metropolitan Portugal. The

484distinguished representative of Guinea dwelt oftsome length the other day on certain contitutionaland legal provisions which are intended to consti-tute these Territories as integral parts of themetropolitan State, and I shall not take theCommittee's time by going over those details onceagain. But I would like to submit to the represen-tative of Portugal that he is unfair to himself and,what is more important, he is unfair to the peoplesof these Territories when he says that these arenot colonial Territories, and that therefore theirpeoples may not aspire to their birth-right of.independence. If the Government of Portugalwere to transmit to the United Nations infor-mation as other Administering Governments do, adifferent story of the true status and the trueaspirations of these people may come to light.We submit to the distinguished Representative ofPortugal, therefore. that his country is under anobligation to submit information concerning theseTerritories in accordance with article 73 of theCharter, and we would appeal to him and hisgovernment with all the earnestness that we cancommand, to recognise the realities of the dayand to join us all in our common endeavour tobring the peoples of Africa and Asia to theirnatural aspiration of independence.

Our approach in this matter is not arbitrary,nor one of condemnation We come here andargue our case year after year in the hope thatthe day is, perhaps. not far, when Portugal itselfwill recognise that independence cannot be deniedto any people for long and that the properfunction of colonial powers in this latter half ofthe 20th century is to recognise that fact and to

work together with us, who hold a point of-viewdifferent from theirs, for the liberation of subjuga-ted humanity. It is in this hope that my delegation,along with several others, has placed before theCommittee a resolution circulated in paper A/C.4/L. 627, which we trust will receive universalsupport, including that of the distinguished dele-gation of Portugal.

Mr. Chairman, we have before us threecommunications concerning the cessation of thetransmission of information in respect of Non-Self-Governing Territories; two of these comefrom the Government of the United States ofAmerica concerning Hawaii and Alaska and thethird one from the Government of France.

Thanks to the co-operation of the Gonernmentof the United States, which has been voluntarilytransmitting information concerning political andconstitutional developments in Hawaii andAlaska, we are aware of the rapid strides thatthese two Territories have made in the last twoyears towards the achievement of a full measureof self-government. And I am glad to say thatwe find ourselves in agreement with the viewtaken by the Government of the United Statesthat the people of Hawaii and of Alaska haveattained a full measure of self-government-equalto that enjoyed by the people of all the otherconstituent states of the United States. Weshall, therefore, be happy to support the resolutionwhich has been tabled by the delegations ofArgentina, Canada, the Federation of Malaya,Iraq, Japan, Liberia and Sweden, giving theGeneral Assembly's approval to the communica-tion of the United States Government concerningthe cessation of information with regard to thesetwo Territories. We would like to congratulatethe Government of the United States on its suc-cessful efforts in bringing these two Territoriesto a full measure of self-government. We wouldalso like to express our admiration for the achieve-ments of the peoples of these two Territoriesthemselves and to offer them our felicitations ontheir accession as constituent states of the UnitedStates of America-a status in every way equalto that of any other state of the AdministeringPower. The communication of the Government ofFrance, on the other hand, raises numerouscomplex issues. In its letter of 23 March 1959the Government of France has, once again, re-

asserted that it is for the Administering Statealone to determine which are the Territorieswhose peoples have not yet attained a full mea-sure of self-government under the terms of theCharter. That, in our view, is tantamount tosaying that the Charter is a unilateral instrument,which the Government of France or the Govern-ment of any other Administering Power has theprerogative to unilaterally interpret or apply.This view is not in consonance with the viewsheld by other members of this Organisation, andit disregards several resolutions adopted by theGeneral Assembly in this connection. We begto differ from this view of the Government ofFrance. We believe that communications fromGovernment concerning the cessation of infor-mation should be analysed in the light of thefactors listed in annex to resolution 742 (VIII),and that only the General Assembly is competentto decide whether the transmittal of informationshould cease.

In its resolution 334 (IV) the GeneralAssembly declared that "it is within the respon-sibility of the General Assembly to express itsopinion on the principles, which may in futureguide the members concerned in enumerating theterritories for which the obligation exists to

485transmit information under Article 73 (e) of theCharter". Three years later the Assembly went onto define a number of factors to be used for itsown purposes and by the Administering Membersas a guide in determining whether any territory,due to changes in its constitutional status, remainedwithin the scope of Chapter XI. Operativeparagraph 3 of the Factors resolution states, andI quote: "A decision-and I should like toemphasise this word: decision-may be takenby the General Assembly on the continuation orcessation of the transmission of informationrequired by Chapter XI of the Charter". Wesubmit, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that theposition now taken by the Government ofFrance is not in conformity with these decisionsof the General Assembly.

In its letter, to which I have referred earlier,the Government of France has communicatedits decision to stop transmitting information withregard to French West Africa, French EquatorialAfrica, Madagascar, the Comoro Archipelago,

French Somaliland and the New Hebrides."Under the loi-cadre of 23 June, 1956, and underthe decrees issued in application thereof", theletter of the Government of France states, "aseries of reforms were instituted which had theeffect of granting these Territories internalautonomy." The letter goes on. "This autonomyand the liberal trend of the evolutionary processesmarked by the enactment of the loi-cadre wasstrengthened in 1958 by the establishment of thecommunity," The Government of France isthus basing its decision to cease the transmissionof information in respect of several of the Terri-tories under its administration on the loi-cadreof June 1956. I wish, therefore, to begin with,this law of 23 June, 1956.

It cannot be denied that the enactment ofloi-cadre marks the beginning of an evolutionaryprocess. At the same time, it cannot be main-tained that the loi-cadre brought the processes ofevolution to their proper culmination, namely,"a full measure of self-government", which meansindependence and not merely "internal auto-nomy".

Article I of the loi-cadre contemplates thegrant to "the overseas peoples a more direct sharein the management of their own interests." Itpurports, and I quote again, "to grant broadeneddeliberative powers noticeably for the organisa-tion and management of the territorial services tothe Assemblies of the Territories". The decreesto be issued in the implementation of this Lawwere subject to modification or rejection by theFrench Parliament, and they would come intoforce only in the form in which that ParliamentWould adopt them.

So much for the contents of this law. Thecircumstances under which it was enacted werehardly less important, and, perhaps, may be, men-tioned here. In introducing this Law in theFrench Parliament, the French Minister ofOverseas Territories, M. Caston Defferre, statedin March 1956, and I quote:

"A deep uneasiness prevails, nevertheless among the indigenous peoples and among the Europeans. The indigenous. peoples are discontented. Plenty of promises have been made which have not been kept. The impatience of these

peoples has increased since the British endowed Nigeria with a Council of Ministers and. granted internal self- government to the Gold Coast. For their part, the Europeans are disturbed about their future and the maintenance of the presence.

This bill for a loi-cadre proves to the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Terri- tories that the Government is determined to keep its promises. To the Europeans it declares that there is no question of our leaving the Territories"-mark these words, Sir "but on the contrary a question of making warmer and deeper our understanding with the peoples in the new climate which the reform of the institution will create."

The Minister added. "The Government isnot thinking at all of changing the statusenvisaged by the constitution"-he was referringhere to the constitution of 1946--for the terri-tories but only of modifying institutions." Mr.Chairman, the text of the loi-cadre and the state-ments accompanying it amply confirm the impres-sion that the reforms did not substantially alterthe status of the overseas territories. They alsodemonstrate that it was not intended to endowthe territories with what the Charter describes asa full measure of self-government'. The Lawwas intended to provide for 'measures of adminis-trative decentralization and deconcentration',---which are scarcely synonymous with "a fullmeasure of self-government". More specifically,the loi-cadre and the decrees issued thereunderwere intended mainly to establish a GovernmentCouncil in each territory and to endow theexisting territorial assemblies with enlarged deli-berative powers, especially in respect of theorganization and management of territorial

486services, to determine the functions and powersof district and other local government bodies, toreorganize the public services, and to improvethe economic and social conditions.

Decree 56-1227 offers a good illustration of,the extent of the affairs which remained in thehands of France. External Affairs, defence, theprotection of public freedom-and I would like

to emphasize this in particular-the protection ofpublic freedom, monetary and financial regulationsthe administrative services having anything todo with external affairs, immigration, security.and customs services, the labour and welfareinspectorate, treasury, financial control, planning,higher education and broadcasting. All of then,were, and still remain, despite the installation ofthe community, services of the French State,proper. And this is not all. Decree 57-458 relating,to French West Africa and French EquatorialAfrica mentions the very considerable authoritythat remains with the High Commissioner of theRepublic in each of these groups of territoriesDecree 57-460 defines the role of the Governor,or Chief Administrator, in each individualterritory, including his functions as President ofthe Government Council. I do not wish to gointo details, but these decrees need very carefulattention of the members of the Committee; asthe measure of self-government on which thedecision of the Government of France to ceasethe transmittal of information is based is greatlylimited by these decrees. Financial and monetaryaffairs, higher education, and a great manyactivities in the social sphere of the territorieslives still remain in the hands of the metropolitangovernment. The basis of a "full measure ofself-government", on which the transmittal ofinformation could be ceased, in our view, is notthere as yet.

There is no reason, Mr. Chairman for us orfor anyone else, to belittle the distinct advances,which these measures represent in comparisonwith the situation prevailing in French Territoriesbefore 1957. These are important steps in thedirection of self-government. That however, isnot the issue. The issue is whether these stepsrepresent the grant of a full measure of self-government and whether the immediate cessationof transmission of information is justified on thatground. It would not be inappropriate torecall that in the case of the two trust territories,the Assembly did not agree to the terminationof the Trusteeship Agreement on the basis of theloi-cadre when the Government of Francerequested it to do so. The context may be some-what different but the considerations applying inboth cases are more or less of the same nature.

Since France has not: kept the Assemblyinformed of the political and constitutional

growth of these Territories. A is not easilypossible to assess the extent of the internalautonomy that is exercised by these territories orto examine the nature of the democratic processesat work there. Occasionally, reports have appearedin the press giving information, which, thoughperhaps not typical of all territories, gives reasonfor dismay. For example, the New York Timesof 6 April, 1959, reporting the election in theFrench Territory of Dahomi, stated that whilethe Rally Party with 144,038 votes gained 37 ofthe 70 seats, the Democratic Rally Party with62,132 votes gained 22 seats, the DemocraticUnion with a majority of votes, 172,179 woundup with only II seats in the Legislative Assembly.I am referring to this example only in order toillustrate some of the basic drawbacks in theloi-cadre and the decrees issued thereunder.

It is stated that the evolution set afoot bythe loi-cadre of June 1956 has been strengthenedby the establishment of the community and bythe adoption of new constitution in October 1958.That perhaps, the case. But community ismerely a form of relationship between France andher Non-Self-Governing Territories. Its consti-tution does not annul the loi-cadre or thedecrees issued thereunder. It cannot, therefore,,be regarded as giving the inhabitants of these.Territories a fuller measure of self-governmentthan that accorded them by the loi-cadre. On theother hand the preamble of the new constitution,which was subject of a referendum in Non-Self-Governing Territories as in France, and shouldtherefore, be deemed to apply to them also,solemnly proclaims attachment to the principlesof national sovereignty of France and not of thecommunity as a whole or of the members of the,community. The President of the community isnot elected as such. He is elected as the Presidentof the Republic of France, though the Non-Self-Governing Territories take part in his election invarious ways. The President of France, onceelected as such, automatically becomes thePresident of the community also. The votingin the election of the President, according toArticle 7 of the new constitution "shall begin atthe summons of the Government"-in which casethis article would appear to constitute anotherlimitation on the extent of self-governing powersof the Non-Self-Governing Territories.

Under Article 13 of the constitution "the

representatives of the government"--the Govern-ment of France--"in the Overseas Territories"are appointed by the President. Under Article35 the French Parliament is entitled to authorize

487the declaration of war. This, in our view, is adefinite limitation on the self-determination ofmembers constituting the community. Again,by Article 78, these States are excluded fromjurisdiction over foreign policy, defence, currencycommon economic and financial policy, as wellas-and this perhaps is the most importantlimitation-over policy on strategic raw materials.

The community is vested with institutionalorgans of its own, which are-an executivecouncil, a senate and a court and a court ofarbitration. The senate consists of 150 oddmembers chosen from the French Parliament andfrom the African Assemblies. Representation isbased on population, with the French holdingabout 60% of the seats. French predomi-nance in the community is apparent both in thecomposition of the three main institutions, andin the organization of community matters. Aservice of external security has been set up, and.it operates under the French Committee ofDefence, called the Community Committee. Themilitary forces to be placed at the disposal ofeach State will be under French command.

Now, Mr. Chairman, here we have a situationwhere several potential African States, with theirlimited autonomy are brought together into arelationship with the Administering Memberwhich ensures the latter's predominance in themanagement of the affairs of the collective entitythus created.

It can be justifiably argued that thereferendum of September 28, 1958 gave theseterritories the option either to stay in the com-munity with their institutions based on theloi-cadre or to become independent States ;but the alternative of independence was notplaced before them in its most attractive form.The alternatives were offered in strikingly differentterms ; continued association with France as aguarantee of financial, economic and culturalassistance in a supposedly dangerous world, andindependence in terms of abrupt cessation, asa step into the dark unknown into isolation and

insecurity. President De Gaulle, at Brazaville, onAugust 24 said:

"A given Territory will shortly be able totake independence by voting 'No' in the referen-dum on 28 September ; that will meanthat it does not want to form part of theproposed Community and that it is, in shortseceding. That will mean that it wants to go itsown way, in isolation, at its own risks and perils."

With their institutions, their economics andtheir social systems just what they were, couldthus be regarded as a fair choice I Also, is it anywonder that the Sudan and Senegal, having firstopted for the community--are now thinking interms of full national independence. In the lightof these circumstances, can it be said, Mr. Chair-man, that France has fulfilled its obligation "todevelop self-government, to take due account ofthe political aspirations of the peoples, and toassist them in the progressive development of theirfree political institutions according to the particularcircumstances of each Territory and its peoplesand that she should no more transmit infor-mation on these Territories to the UnitedNations. In what way are the circumstancesof the Ivory Coast with a population of 2 12 million,of Dahomey with a population of nearly 2 mil-lion, of Upper Volta, Madagascar, Niger and Chaddifferent from those of the Former British Togo-land or the Trust Territory of French Togolandor of any of the other newly independent states?

Now let us view this situation in the light ofthe Factor's Resolution. It does not meet anyof the factors indicative of the attainment ofindependence dealt with in the first part of theannex : namely, international responsibility ;eligibility for Membership in the United Nations ;power to enter into direct relations of every kindwith other governments ; sovereign rights toprovide for national defence ; the freedom of thepeople to choose the form of government whichthey desire and freedom in respect of internalmatters such as judiciary and economic affairs, etc.

Of the second and third part the importantfactors relating to geographic considerations andethnic and cultural considerations are also notsatisfied. Geographically and ethnically, theseterritories form part of Africa and not of France.

In the light of all these considerations, itwould be our humble submission that the Govern-ment of France, as the Administering Memberconcerned should, for the time being, continue totransmit information concerning these Territoriesunder Article 73 (e) of the Charter.

INDIA USA MALTA SPAIN SWITZERLAND CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC PORTUGAL BELGIUMFRANCE ANGOLA MOZAMBIQUE NIGER NIGERIA GUINEA ARGENTINA CANADA IRAQ JAPANLIBERIA SWEDEN MADAGASCAR MALI PERU SENEGAL SUDAN CHAD

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Shri R. Venkataraman's Statement in Political Committee on Algeria.

Shri R. Venkataraman, Member of the IndianDelegation to the United Nations, made thefollowing statement in the Political Committeeon December 4, 1959 on the question of

488Algeria.

Mr. Chairman,

Though the General Assembly has been dis-cussing the question of Algeria since 1955, weare approaching this problem this year withgreater faith and hope for finding a just solution.Our faith arises out of the recent pronouncementsmade by the Government of France and theProvisional Government of Algeria in regard tothe application of the basic principle of self-determination to Algeria. The Committee willrecall that this question was also considered atthe Bandung Conference of Asian-African coun-tries in April 1955 and the Conference. declaredits unanimous support of the right of the Algerianpeople to self-determination in the followingterms "In view of the unsettled situation in

North Africa and of the persistent denial to the peoples of North-Africa of their right to self-determination, the Asian- African Conference declare its support of the rights of the people of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia to self-determina- tion and urge the French Government to bring about a peaceful settlement of the issue without delay."

The unanimous conclusion of the twenty-ninecountries that met in Bandung and which repre-sented more than half of the peoples of the world,was clear evidence of the deep and widely feltconcern of the international community in findinga just and satisfactory solution to the Algerianproblem.

The question has been discussed at successivesessions of the General Assembly since 1955 andalthough the discussions in the United Nationsdid not result in any solution of the problem, itwould be incorrect to state as the distinguishedForeign Minister of France said on September 301959, in the course of his intervention during thegeneral debate, that he was convinced that theintervention of the United Nations in the pastdid not contribute to facilitate the solution of theAlgerian problem but that effect was quite thecontrary. My delegation does not agree with thisand we are convinced that the discussions hereduring the past few years have helped in bringingthis unfortunate issue before the eyes of the world.

It is unnecessary for me to recount theseveral efforts made in the United Nations andoutside for the solution of the problem. Mydelegation would, in particular, like to express ourappreciation. to His Majesty the King of Moroccoand His Excellency the President of the Republicof Tunisia who had offered their good offices tohelp in finding a solution of the problem ofAlgeria. At the eleventh session and again mat thetwelfth session, resolutions were passed by theAssembly, without dissent on both occasions, butwith little result. I should like to refer in particu-lar to the resolution adopted by the Assembly atthe eleventh session, Resolution No. 1012 (XI),by which the General Assembly expressed thehope that in a spirit of cooperation, "a peaceful,democratic and just solution" would be found.Today we ask for the same thing, that is, for apeaceful, democratic and just solution of the

problem of Algeria.

It is the duty of my delegation to expressbriefly the views of the Government and thepeople of India on the problem of Algeria. Wehave repeatedly stated in the United Nations andelsewhere that in Algeria, there is a nationalmovement in which there is a great mass upsurgeand in which great passions, hopes and aspirationsare involved. We have always stressed the needto recognise this tide of nationalism and thefeelings of the Algerian people, feelings whichcannot be suppressed by force of arms. We haverepeated that no country, no Member State ofthe United Nations could afford to ignore thelessons of history and disregard the experiencesparticularly during the last quarter century duringwhich time many countries have become indepen-dent and taken their rightful place in the inter-national community. We have always felt and wecontinue to feel that the liberation of nations andthe establishment of national liberty is not merelya national concern but also the concern of all thepeople of the world. Early this year, Prime MinisterNehru expressed the hope that France, under thedistinguished Presidentship of General De Gaulle,would acknowledge and accept the demand of theAlgerian people for their freedom and put an endto the war in Algeria. Reiterating India's sym-pathy with the Algerian people, Prime MinisterNehru said, "India's policy towards colonialdomination and racial discrimination and sup.pression remain what it was during her fight forher own freedom and India would hold to thatpolicy. We are friendly with France. We willcontinue to be friendly. But in this particularmatter our sympathies are with Algeria. Wewant that Algeria should be independent andthat its personality should be recognised".

Though the French delegation participatedin the discussions on Algeria during the eleventhand twelfth sessions they withdrew lastyear from the discussions on this item at the

489thirteenth session. This year again they havechosen to absent themselves from the debate.I feel certain and I speak for almost every mem-ber present here when I say, that the absence ofthe French delegation is a matter of great regretto us. It is a matter of regret because a MemberState that can help in finding a solution to the

problem is not among us here when the Assemblyis discussing ibis vital issue. More so becauseFrance is one of the five Permanent Members ofthe Security Council, which is charged with theresponsibility for security and the maintenanceof international peace. We believe that in thelight of the recent developments which give somereason for hope, the presence of France amongus today would have provided the confidenceand moral strength which are needed more thanever at present. We do not say this by way ofreproach but more by way of expressing ourdisappointment that France felt compelled tokeep away from the discussions on the Algerianquestion. It is not perhaps too late for Franceto reconsider her decision but in any case we hopethat the views expressed in this Assembly, viewswhich represent good part of world opinion onthis question will be given the consideration theydeserve by the Government and people of France.

Many distinguished delegates have spokenon the developments since the 16th Septemberwhen General De Gaulle, speaking in the name ofFrance, solemnly recognised the rights of Algeriansto self-determination, This was indeed the mosthopeful and promising event during all theseyears. Speaking at a press conference on October8, 1959, Prime Minister Nehru said "PresidentDe Gaulle's latest offer was certainly a markedadvance on previous suggestions coming from theFrench Government, and (they) acknowledge theright of self-determination, which was the basicthing."

The delegation of India would like to placeon record its appreciation of the Government ofFrance for its acceptance of the principle of self-determination as a basis for the solution of theAlgerian problem. This, in the present circum-stances does France great credit and, as has beenstated by several speakers, we believe that GeneralDe Gaulle has by his courageous and far-sightedaction done a great service to France.

Though the French proposals mark an im-portant step forward towards the solution of theproblem, there are many questions for furtherclarification and examination. There are aspectsof the proposals which are in bare outline andeven vague. For instance, the French schemeconfines their offer only to twelve Algerian depart.ments and leaves out the two departments of

Sahara; the period of four years suggested for thereferendum after the actual restoration of peaceappears to be too long ; the procedure for ratifi-cation or confirmation of the choice of the Algerianpeople by the French contained in De Gaulle'sproposals may cause doubts and anxieties.

We do not think that the General Assemblyshould at all go into the details of this scheme.It is really a matter for negotiations between theparties concerned. Once the parties sit togetherthey would be able to hammer out an acceptablesolution by negotiations and discussions. If wehave referred to a few points in the French pro-posals, it is only to emphasise the need for furtherdiscussions and negotiations between the Govern-ment of France and the the Algerian Representatives.

We were happy to note the conciliatory natureof the reply of the Algerian Provisional Govern-ment to the proposals made by General De Gaulleon September 16 and in particular the statementthat the Provisional Government was ready toenter into pourparlers with the Government ofFrance to discuss the political and military con-ditions of the cease-fire and the conditions andguarantees for the applications of self-determina-tion. We believe that what is clearly indicatedat the present time is the getting together of thetwo parties because we have a great deal of trustin the wisdom of France and also in the goodsense of the Algerian people and we believe thata peaceful, democratic and just solution of theAlgerian problem will be found before long.

We have been told that there is some unwill-ingness on the part of the Government of Franceto agree to negotiate with Algerian representa-tives who are at present in detention in France.The persons named by Algerian ProvisionalGovernment are well-known leaders of the libera-tion movement who possess the confidence of thepeople when they would represent. It wouldseem to us somewhat surprising that the Govern-ment of France should hesitate to negotiate withthese persons merely because they happen to bein detention in France and not fighting in Algeria.I should like to draw the attention of this Com-mittee to the fact that in my own country similarsituations had arisen during our own fight for in-dependence. When the British administrationdesired to negotiate with the leaders of the CivilDisobedience Movement in the nineteen-thirties,

the Viceroy of India released Mahatma Gandhiand the members of the Congress Working Com-mittee. He said "My Government will imposeno conditions on these releases for we feel that thebest way for the restoration of peaceful conditions

490lies in the discussions being conducted by thoseconcerned under the terms of unconditional liberty......... I am content to trust those who will beaffected by our decision to act in the same spiritas inspires it." Not only were the British pre-pared to negotiate with the leaders who were thenin jail but they were also prepared to release themwithout conditions to enable them to conduct thediscussions in liberty. The spirit which animatedthis grand gesture found ready response. amongstthe nationalist leaders. There were several suchoccasions in our history and on each occasion theBritish accepted the claim of the people of Indiathat our leaders who were in detention shouldbe the ones with whom the British authoritiescould negotiate. International press reactionsalso favour discussions with the Algerian leadersin prison. The Daily Telegraph of London datedNovember 21 states as follows : "As we all know,Mr. Nehru who negotiated India's independenceand Dr. Nkrumah, who became the Prime Minis-ter of independent Ghana, were at some - timedetained in English prisons. Thus we may wellask why France should put-forth such uselessobjections regarding Benbella. It is very possible,in consequence that world opinion which havebacked France during the recent weeks will findin the latest offer of the F.L.N. and in the refusalopposed it by France a good reason to againchange its sympathies." In any case, Mr. Chair-man, it would seem somewhat unrealistic to haveone party to a negotiation choosing the represen-tatives for the other side. As the Chairman ofthe Indian delegation said during the discussionof the same question at the thirteenth session.- Ifyou pick and choose the people you are talking toin a sense you are talking to yourself." How-ever, we would like to hope that this matter wouldbe settled satisfactorily.

Much avoidable hardship and misery isallowed to continue in Algeria causing distress tothe people. When the parties are agreed on theright of the Algerian people to determine freelyits own destiny there appears to be no justificationfor further human sacrifice. The urgency for the

need to negotiate is, therefore, all thegreater.

In connection with the war in Algeria mydelegation would like to reiterate the viewsexpressed by us at the thirteenth session in connec-tion with the application of the Geneva conven-tions in respect of treatment of the prisoners.We believe that these persons are entitled to betreated as belligerents in strict conformity withthe Geneva conventions, providing for their hous-ing, for their rights of internment, medical atten-tion and so on.

The committee has before it a draft resolu-tion which we have sponsored along with severalother African delegations. We believe that thedraft resolution in its present form reflects thegeneral view of the members of the Assembly.

Doubts have been raised in this Committeeabout the wisdom of the Assembly adopting aresolution on the question of Algeria. it hasbeen suggested that a resolution-any resolutionfor that matter-at this juncture would not helpbut on the other hand might have the oppositeeffect in that it may adversely affect the encourag-ing and hopeful trends arising out of the accept-ance by the parties concerned of the principle-ofself-determination as the basis for a solution ofthe Algerian problem. Mr. Chairman, I am sureeveryone will agree that nothing should be donehere that would in any way endanger the chancesof the parties concerned getting together as earlyas possible and discussing the conditions necessaryfor arriving at peaceful solution of the Algerianproblems. My delegation is one of those whichwould not do anything either in the UnitedNations or outside which would in any wayhamper the peaceful solution of problems. Aftera close examination of the resolution contained inDocument A/C. I /L.246, we feel convinced thatthis resolution contains nothing to which eitherthe French or the Algerians could take any excep-tion. On the other hand, the preambularparagraph, and I quote "Noting with satisfactionthat the two parties concerned have accepted theright of self-determination as the basis for solutionof the Algerian problem" contains a tacit tributeto the generosity and farsightedness of theGovernment of France and the sense of responsi-bility and realism displayed by the ProvisionalGovernment of Algeria. The operative paragraph

gives expression to the view held universally thattalks and discussions should begin as early aspossible. In effect, this resolution offers the goodwishes of the eighty-two nations and the peoplesof the world to the parties in their endeavour tofind a peaceful solution to this unfortunate chapterin our history. Many of the preambular para-graphs are more statements of fact or are thosewhich have been adopted without opposition in theprevious years. My delegation finds it difficultto read anything in the resolution which couldor would in any way discourage either party toproceed with the talks and discussions. That iswhy no mention is made in the resolution of thedetails of the offer made by the Government ofFrance or the views held by several delegationsin respect of the terms and conditionsor any other matter touching the substanceof the matter to be discussed. To say thatno resolution should be adopted at all or

491that even good wishes and sympathy and supportof the United Nations should not be expressed isto accept the argument that the subject matteris beyond the jurisdiction of the UnitedNations.

France has a glorious chapter of helpingdependent peoples to grow into freedom andindependence and we are sure that the samespirit will animate their dealings with Algeria.My delegation sincerely trusts that the Govern-ment of France will accept the objectives under-lying the resolution in the same spirit in whichwe the authors of the resolution have offered themviz the desire to achieve a peaceful, democraticand just solution of the problem of Algeria.

INDIA ALGERIA USA FRANCE INDONESIA MOROCCO TUNISIA UNITED KINGDOM GHANASWITZERLAND

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INDIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

India's Shan of Contribution for U.N. Emergency Force

In reply to a question by an Hon. Memberof the Rajya Sabha on December 1, 1959 ShrimatiLakshmi Menon, Deputy Minister for ExternalAffairs, said that in his report the Secretary-Gene-ral expressed the fear that in the absence ofproper contribution from the member countriesfor the U.N. Emergency Force, a financialcrisis might arise.

Replying to another question, she said

At present Brazil, Denmark, Norway,Sweden, Canada and Yugoslavia have forces servingUNEF, in addition to India whose present contin-gent consists of II 74 officers and other ranks. Suchcountries while liable to contribute to the expensesof the Force as members of the U. N. are alsoentitled to claim from the U. N. expenditurewhich they would not have incurred if they hadnot sent contingents. They continue to bear thecost of the normal pay and allowances of theirforces; all other extra and extraordinary expendi-ture including the entire cost of maintaining aTerritorial Army unit as a replacement for theforces sent to UNEF is recoverable from theUN. The general principle is that participationin the Force should not involve any financial lossto the countries concerned."

She said : India's share of the total UNEFexpenditure uptil the end of 1959 has beenassessed at Rs. 73,03,867, but our own claimagainst the U. N. for the same period is likely toexceed this amount and therefore no payment byIndia can be made.

"Upto the end of August 1959, Rs. 1,09,56,000have been debited by us on account of the opera-tion most of which is recoverable from the U.N.A partial claim for Rs. 58,33,813.45 for theperiod upto June 1959 has been lodged by us andother claims are being prepared."

INDIA BRAZIL DENMARK NORWAY CANADA SWEDEN YUGOSLAVIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

India's acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction

Replying to a question in Rajya Sabha onDecember 1, 1959, Shrimati Lakshmi Menon,Deputy Minister for External Affairs, said:

"India deposited on the 14th September,1959 with the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations, a fresh declaration, in accordance withArticle 36 (2) of the Statute of the InternationalCourt, accepting the compulsory jurisdiction ofthe International Court of Justice."

She laid on the Table of the House a copy ofthis Declaration, which includes six conditions.

The following is the full text of the Declara-tion :

Excellency,

I have the honour, by direction of the Presi-dent of India, to declare on behalf of the Govern-ment of the Republic of India that they accept,in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 ofthe Statute of the Court, until such time as noticemay be given to terminate such acceptance, ascompulsory ipso facto and without special agree-ment, and on the basis and condition of recipro-city, the jurisdiction of the International Courtof Justice over all disputes arising after the 26thJanuary, 1950 with regard to situations or factssubsequent to that date, other than :-

(1) disputes in regard to which the Parties to the dispute have agreed or shall agree to have resources to some other method or methods of settlement ;

492

(2)disputes with the Government of any State which, on the daft of this Declaration. Is a Member of the Com- monwealth of Nations;

(3) disputes in regard to matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of the Republic of India;

(4) disputes concerning any question relating to or arising out of belligerent or military occupation or the discharge of any functions pursuant to any re- commendation or decision of an organ of the United Nations, in accordance with which the Government of India have accepted obligations;

(5) disputes in respect of which, any other party to a dispute has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter- national Court of Justice exclusively for or in relation to the purposes of such dispute ; or where the acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction on be- half of a party to the dispute was depo- sited or ratified less than twelve months prior to the filing of the application bringing the dispute before the Court:

(6) disputes with the Goveranment of any State with which, on the date of an application to bring a dispute before the Court, the Government of India has no diplomatic relations.

USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

NEPAL

Agreement on Gandak Project

India and Nepal have signed an agreement onthe Gandak irrigation and power project, whichwill confer benefits on the peoples of bothcountries on an equitable basis.

This agreement symbolises the close partner-ship and cooperation between two sovereigncountries-India and Nepal-in utilising thewaters of the Gandak-a river flowing throughtheir territories.

The origin of the project can be traced to aproposal made immediately after independenceby the President, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the thenMinister for Food and Agriculture in the Govern-ment of India. He, at that time, had suggestedto the Bihar Government to investigate the,possibilities of taking out canals from the riverGandak for meeting the chronic food shortagesin the scarcity areas of the State.

Between 1948-54, investigations were carriedout and the first project report prepared. Sincethis project was to be a joint Indo-Nepalventure, discussions with His Majesty's Govern-ment in Nepal were initiated by the IndianAmbassador at Kathmandu in 1955. Thesediscussions were held with two successive NepaleseMinistries, headed by Dr. K.I Singh and, subse-quently, by Gen. Subarna, while meetings werearranged between Indian and Nepal engineers atofficial levels.

After two years of negotiations, conducted ina friendly and cordial spirit, a settlementsatisfactory to both India and Nepal has banreached on the project.

The project envisages construction ofbarrage at Bhaisalotan with one end in Nepaand the other in India. The two main canalon the western and eastern banks also takeoff within Nepalese and Indian territories res-pectively.

The total area irrigated by the Project itNepal and India will be 37 lakh acres.

There will be two power houses-one on theNepalese and the other on the Indian side, eachwith a firm capacity of up to 10,000 kw.

The project will further provide additionalemployment opportunities and better tradefacilities for the peoples of Nepal and India.

The total cost of the entire project, to bewholly borne by India, is estimated at Rs. 50.crores-the tentative apportionment being Rs 39.crores to Bihar and Rs. 11 crores to UttarPradesh.

It is hoped to complete the project in 10years.

Under the agreement, compensation will bepaid by India and Nepal for the land acquiredfor the project. Similarly, India has agreed to

493pay royalty for quarrying materials taken fromNepal.

The sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction ofHis Majesty's Government in Nepal also remainsupreme in the agreement.

Nepal will have the right to withdraw forirrigation or any other purpose supplies of waterfrom the river Gandak or its tributaries so long asthe water requirements of India and Nepal forpurposes of irrigation or power generation on theGandak-project are not prejudicially affected bysuch withdrawals.

In the event of supplies in the river beingshort of the total requirements, it has beenagreed that the shortages will be shared betweenthe Government of India and His Majesty'sGovernment on a pro-rata basis.

All other rights of both countries have alsobeen adequately safeguarded.

On completion of the project, Nepal willget, free of cost, flow irrigation for about 1.5 lakhacres, which fall within the command area.Further, water supplies for an additional area of2 lakh acres in the Rapti Doon or elsewhere inNepal in the upper reaches of the Gandak andits tributaries have been reserved for future useof Nepal.

The Government of India have agreed toconstruct, at their cost, all the canal and distri-

butary systems up to a discharge capacity of 20cusecs for providing irrigation in Nepal.

Moreover, India will contribute up to Rs. 15lakhs for the construction of water courses belowthe capacity of 20 cusecs. The Government ofIndia will spend about Rs. 230 lakhs over theirrigation facilities for Nepal.

The power house in Nepal, together withtransmission lines from it to the Bihar border atBhaisalotan and, thence, to Raxaul via Sagauli,will be constructed by the Government of India,at a cost of Rs. 451 lakhs, of which about Rs. 350lakhs are for works benefiting Nepal.

From this grid, Nepal would be assuredsupply of firm power at actual cost of productionand transmission.

The agreement also provides for transfer of theCanal System together with service roads and alliedworks to His Majesty's Government in Nepal.It is also open to His Majesty's Government inNepal to take over the Western power house,free of cost, after the full load of 10,000 kw hasbeen developed in Nepal.

Other indirect advantages to Nepal from theProject will be improved communications as aresult of construction of a bridge over the barrage,Service roads, and telephone, telegraph and radiolinks. The foremost benefit to India from thisproject will be insurance against famines in Saran,Champaran, Muzzaffarpur and Dharbhangadistricts of North Bihar and Deoria and Gorakh-pur districts in Uttar Pradesh.

This area is densely populated and suffersfrom chronic food shortage, and the rainfall in it isundependable.

The additional area assured of irrigationfacilities in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh from thisproject will be roughly 33 lakh acres-27 lakhacres in Bihar and 6 lakh acres in Uttar Pradesh.

The power supply from the power house onthe eastern canal will be available for India.Further, firm power not utilised by Nepal andall secondary power from the power house on thewestern canal, will also be available for use in

Bihar.

NEPAL INDIA LATVIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Passport Restricitions on Minority Community in East Pakistan

Shrimati Lakshmi Menon, Deputy Ministerfor External Affairs, made the following state-ment in Lok Sabha on December 15, 1959 in replyto a "calling attention" notice on the restrictionsimposed on members of the minority communityin East Pakistan in respect of issue and renewalof their passports:

Government of India have, during the lastfew months, seen reports in the Press that nofresh passports were being issued to the minoritycommunity in East Pakistan, that the passports

494presented for renewal were being seized and thatthe applicants for India-Pakistan Passports werebeing asked to pay a security deposit of Rs. 100/-.

From enquiries, it has been ascertained thatthe Government of East Pakistan have:

(i) undertaken a rigorous check of theantecedents of passport holders, particularly:those belonging to the minority community, as a,part of the drive against smuggling and largenumbers of passports are held up with the districtauthorities pending the conclusion of necessaryenquiries;

(ii) directed that those applying for newIndia-Pakistan passports should deposit Rs.. 100/-before issue of the passports and those whoalready hold a passport should deposit Rs.100/-

before undertaking travel to India; and

(iii) issued instructions that the members ofthe minority community should be asked to givedetailed information about their income, taxespaid, the members of their family living outsidePakistan, remittances made etc.

These measures taken by the Governmentof East Pakistan and the consequent delays inthe renewal of old passports and the issue of new,passports have been causing serious hardship tothe members of the minority community in EastPakistan. This, in some measure, explains themonthly average figures of migration whichhave gone up from 411 in 1958 to 609 duringthe first ten months of 1959.

Our representatives at Dacca and Karachihad taken up this matter with the Pakistanauthorities concerned. The Government of East.Pakistan have told our representative thatthe scrutiny of antecedents of passportholders has been undertaken with a view tocheck smuggling and to detect forged passports,large numbers of which have been in circulation.As regards the deposit, the Pakistan authoritieshave stated that deposits have been askedfor to enable the East Pakistan Government,in case of need, to arrange for repatriation oftheir nationals who have travelled to India, andthat larger deposits have been asked for fromthose applying for passport facilities to travel tocountries other than India. As regards the detail-ed information about income, taxes paid etc.,the East Pakistan authorities have stated thatthese enquiries are being made with a view tocheck illicit transfer of funds in violation of theforeign exchange regulations. The Pakistanauthorities also informed our High Commissionerin Karachi that the measures taken by them applyto all Pakistan nationals and that there is nobasis for the allegation that there is any discrimina-tion against members of the minority communityin East Pakistan.

When this matter was raised informally atthe last meeting of the Chief Secretaries of theEastern Zone held in Calcutta in August, 1959,the East Pakistan authorities promised to issueinstructions to expedite the enquiries and relievethe hardship caused by the delay in the renewalor issue of passports. Our representatives at

Dacca and Karachi are following up this matterwith the authorities concerned in pursuance ofthis assurance given at the conference of ChiefSecretaries.

PAKISTAN INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PAKISTAN

Interrogation of Minorities in East Pakistan

In reply to a question whether Government'sattention has been drawn to the news itempublished in the Tribune of December 5, 1959, tothe effect that the persons belonging to theminority community in East Pakistan are beinginterrogated in respect of their income and bankaccounts etc. and that a large number of passportssent for renewal are not being returned to themfor months together, and if so, whether Govern-ment have made any enquiry about the reasonsfor such interrogation and what its effect is on theminorities there, the Prime Minister Shri Jawahar-lal Nehru said in the Rajya Sabha on December17, 1959 : "According to reports received fromthe Indian High Commission and the DeputyHigh Commission, Dacca, from time to time,passports belonging to the minority communityin East Pakistan were being held up and notreturned to the holders. The Indian HighCommission in Karachi and the Deputy HighCommission in Dacca were accordingly instructedto take up this matter with appropriate authori-ties in Pakistan. This matter was also raisedinformally at the last meeting of the Chief Secre-taries of the Eastern Zone-held in Calcutta inAugust, 1959. The representative of the Govern-ment of East Pakistan then explained that theyhad detected a large number of forged passportsin circulation and that they were, therefore,obliged to exercise a check on all passports in

order to ensure that these were genuine. Theyhowever, promised to issue instructions to theauthorities concerned to expedite the checking.A Note by the Pakistan Foreign Office to the

495Indian High Commission also denied the alleg-tion regarding the stopping of issue and renewalof passports of members of the minority com-munity and added that no discrimination wasmade in this regard.

"No authentic information is availableregarding the number of passports withheld byPakistan authorities, particularly as this is amatter affecting Pakistan nationals who do notapproach the Indian Missions. It is estimated,however, that nearly 70,000 passports belongingto members of the minority community are stillheld up in East Pakistan. The matter is beingpursued with the authorities of East Pakistanin pursuance of the assurances given by them atthe last Chief Secretaries' Conference.

"It is also understood that the authorities ofEast Pakistan are making enquiries from a largenumber of members of the minority communityregarding their income, taxes, accounts, membersof family outside Pakistan, remittances, etc. Itis understood that these enquiries are being madein order to tighten up the operation of foreignexchange restrictions and to ensure that Hinduresidents do not send currency abroad throughillegal means."

PAKISTAN INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on India-China Relations

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,

made the following statement in the Lok Sabhaon December 21, 1959.

Three days ago, on the 18th December, Ireceived through our Ambassador in Peking,Premier Chou En-lai's reply to my letter of the16th November. This letter has already appearedin the Press and so I need not give any detailsabout its contents.

I read this letter with regret. It does notaccept the reasonable and practical proposalswhich I had made to Premier Chou En-lai inorder to secure an immediate lessening of tensionalong the Sino-Indian border and thus to createthe necessary atmosphere for a peaceful settlementof the border problem. It is merely a reiterationof claims to extensive areas in our territory whichby history, by custom or by agreement have longbeen integral parts of India. It does not containany reply to the detailed letter which I had sentto him on September 26 and the note of November4 in which some salient facts bearing on thesituation had been mentioned. Premier ChouEn-lai has stated in his letter that he would senda reply to this previous letter and note of minein the near future.

I have today sent a reply to Premier ChouEn-lai referring to the above facts and stating thatI am sorry to find that he had based his claim onrecent intrusions by Chinese personnel into partsof Indian territory. It is, in fact, these intrusionswhich had brought about the present situationand created apprehensions. I have furtherstated that I cannot accept the allegation thatIndian forces had occupied any part ofChinese territory, or committed aggression atKongka Pass or at Longju, where our establishedcheck-post was attacked by Chinese troops.

Premier Chou En-lai in his letter has spokenof the "friendly manner" in which Indianpersonnel who were captured in the ChenmoValley were treated. I have referred him againto the statement of Shri Karam Singh about thetreatment that he and his colleagues receivedwhile they were prisoners in the custody of theChinese border forces. This statement clearlyindicates the deplorable treatment to which theIndian prisoners were subjected.

Premier Chou En-lai had suggested that he

and I should meet on December 26 so as toreach an agreement on the principles which arepresumably to guide the officials on both sides inthe discussion of details. I have repeated, whatI have said previously, that I am always ready tomeet and discuss with him the outstandingdifferences between our countries and explore theavenues of settlement. I have, however, pointedout that I do not see how we can reach anagreement on principles when there is suchcomplete disagreement about the facts. I wouldprefer to wait for his promised reply to my letterof September 26 and our note of November 4before we discuss what should be the next step.I have added that it is quite impossible for me toproceed to Rangoon or any other place within thenext few days.

In my reply I have expressed my agree-ment with him to the sentiments which he had

496expressed in the last paragraph of his letter, tothe effect that the principal concern of out twocountries should be "with the programme of longterm peaceful construction to lift ourselves fromour present state of backwardness, and that weshould not be parties to the increasing of tensionbetween our two countries or in the world."India has welcomed the fact that there is somelowering of world tensions and that "the worldsituation is developing in a direction favourableto peace". It is for this reason, even apart from theimperative need to improve the relations betweenour two countries, that in spite of recent events,I have continually stressed the need for a peace-ful settlement of our problems.

An Hon. Member has said that it is not good tonegotiate and that is a trick for time to pass on thepart of the Chinese Government. Well, I do notknow what the Hon. Member has in mind. Butso far as I am concerned and so far as this Govern-ment is concerned, we will negotiate and negotiateand negotiate to the bitter end. I absolutely rejectthe approach of stopping negotiations at anystage. That, I think, is not only a fundamentallywrong approach, but, if I may say so, with allrespect to the Hon. Member opposite, it is afundamentally anti-Gandhian approach. Thatdoes not mean that any action which is necessi-tated should not be taken. That is an entirelydifferent matter. But negotiations will go on so

long as this Government functions, to theend.

That does not mean, as I said, any actionthat we intend should not be taken. If the Hon.Member means a declaration of war, well, the Hon.Member, if I may suggest to him, might considerthe question a little more carefully as to what warinvolves and how we attain our object by a dec-laration of war.

Therefore, Sir, I am in your hands. I merelystate that I think a further discussion at this stage,when we are obviously in the middle of this corres-pondence-the correspondence may not be to theliking of the Hon. Member or to my liking, theletters that we receive, but that is the way howcountries function short of war. There is no otherway. The other way is war, and that way is tobe avoided as far as one can avoid it. That hasbeen our policy and that is the policy, at any ratethe declared policy of every civilised nation. Forus to jump into something without exhausting allpossibilities, something which will be disastrousnot only for the countries jumping into it but forthe whole world, is not a matter lightly to beundertaken, and we know this Governmentwill not undertake it in that way. But thereare many other things which this country hasto do in the way of preparation, in the way ofstrengthening our defences, etc., and those thingscertainly should be expedited, undertaken tothe best of our ability and as speedily as possible.

CHINA INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Reply to Lok Sabha Discussion on India-China Relations

Replying to a discussion on India-China

relations in the Lok Sabha on December 22, 1959the Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, said:

Mr. Speaker, Sir, I do not exactly rememberthe date of our last debate in this House. I thinkit was in November, towards the end of November.A little before that, a few days before that, I hadsent a letter to Premier Chou En-Jai which theHouse knows. In that letter we had made certainproposals and we had a full and instructive debatein this House. The House had that letter beforeit and the whole situation, and the House waspleased to give its support, and if I may say withrespect, its enthusiastic support, to the action wehad taken in that matter.

Since then we have had a reply from PremierChou En-Jai, and I have sent a brief reply to himto his letter. In effect, the new points for consi-deration are Premier Chou En-lai's letter and myreply. On the whole, however, the debate hasproceeded more or less on the same lines aspreviously, though references have, no doubt, beenmade to Premier Chou En-lai's letter.

Hon. Member Acharya Kripalani complainedor remarked that I was allergic to suggestions be-ing made to me or criticism being made. I hopeI am not, and that I am always very willing tolisten to any suggestions or criticisms. Naturally,when a criticism means a reversal of a policywhich I believe in, then, I find it somewhat diffi-cult to accept it, unless I am prepared to acceptthe reversal of that policy; it is not a question ofminor changes or anything, but a basic reversal ofthe policy, and, therein, naturally, I have somedifficulty.

Now, I have listened, as I should, with veryconsiderable attention to the various speechesmade, and made rather long notes about what hasbeen said. I shall not say much in regard to themany this said, because much of that was said,though no doubt justified from some point of viewwas not particularly helpful in understanding the

497situation or what should be done. There werenaturally exhibitions of resentment and anger atwhat the Chinese had done. One can understandthat, but they are not helpful by themselves infinding any particular way out of the difficulty.

May I say that I entirely agree with ShriJaipal Singh when he said that this matter shouldnot be treated as a party issue? Of course not; itis not a party issue. Many things have been saidby Hon. Members opposite with which I am inhearty agreement; some things have been said byMembers sitting with me on this side, with whichI am in hearty disagreement, so that it is not aparty issue- at all; it is a national issue, and in-deed, it is something more even than a nationalissue, because it impinges on all kinds of inter-national issues, but certainly, so far as we areconcerned, it is a national issue.

Now, let us be clear about certain basic fac-tors, so that they need not be thought to be indoubt. We are committed from every point ofview, to defend our country, to preserve its integ-rity, to preserve its honour and self-respect. Thatis not a matter for argument, I thought. Opinionsmay differ as to how to do it. That is a differentmatter. But the basic thing is clear, and in doingthat, in the ultimate analysis almost any price hasto be paid. One cannot proceed on the basis ofbarter, haggling and the tactics of the market place,where a nation's honour and self-respect are con-cerned. That is clear. But when you come tothe next step about what one should do, muchhas been argued about negotiation or war or some-thing in between. I said the other day that if youreally stop negotiations, the alternative is some-thing which is either war or leading up to war, orof course, it may be just sitting tight and doingnothing, which seems to me a very feeble way ofmeeting the situation.

Shri Jaipal Singh referred to what he consi-dered the many intermediate or middle stages,such as, he said, South Africa or Portugal. WellI would hardly have thought those instances helpedthis argument in spite of all that has happenedin South Africa, every year, we have put forwardthe proposal to negotiate with them in the UnitedNations, and it has been passed there by a con-siderable majority. It is South Africa that hasrefused to negotiate, the word may not be right,anyhow, to talk about these matters. which havecreated so much trouble there.

In regard to Portugal, we have always beenwilling to talk to Portugal; naturally, the talk hasto be about the basic matters, not about somesuperficial matters. So these examples are not

very helpful.

Then, Acharya Kripalani mentioned econo-mic sanctions. Another Hon. Member talkedabout a punitive police action. Now, with allrespect to them, I do not see how economicsanctions have the slightest effect on anybody inthe present situation. We have very very littletrade with-China. We had some trade with Tibetwhich has dwindled chiefly because of Chineseactivities on the other side. We may considerfurther as to whether we should continue it orstop it or take another step in the economicsphere. That is a matter for consideration. Onemay do that, but it has no real effect on the situa-tion. It is obvious.

As for the idea of a police action, I am rathersurprised that the Hon. Member who., he himselfhas reminded us, has been a gallant soldier,should put forward this idea of a police action.What exactly it means in this context is not cleartome. You can have a police action againstsome very very weak adversary where the policethe whole meaning is that the police canfunction there and get results-can get results.Whether the police is represented by some littlearmy or not, essentially it is a police actionagainst a small adversary. We do not take policeaction against a larger force of police, if you liketo call it, or whatever it is. It is a misnomer.Let us not confuse ourselves.

Then I found in the speeches of many Mem-bers a desire to make it clear that they do not wantwar, but they suggested various other things. Ihave mentioned some. Acharya Kripalani asked:Why do you always talk about a world war? Itmay be a local war.' Yes, it may be, of course. Butanyone studying the question in the context ofwars today-possibility of wars-knows very wellthat local wars do not take place, are not likelyto take place, between two great countries withoutdeveloping into big wars and the big wars withoutdeveloping possibly-not certainly-into a worldwar. I am merely trying to clarify these, mattersso that we may indulge in clear thinking. Merely,in our resentment saying, as an Hon. Memberjust said a little before me, that we must do thishere, we must take Tibet or Tibet must be this-all that may be a pleasant thought, but it has norelation to reality.

Here are two countries, both strong in theirrespective ways, both huge, both-I say-incap-able of being defeated by the other. It is quiteabsurd to imagine for anyone in China or else-where that China, however powerful she may beis going to ultimately defeat India in case of war.

498I do not accept that, and I think China! knowsthat too. It is equally absurd to imagine thatIndia is going to defeat China in a great war.

First of all, for some things a country pays-it does not count the cost. If its honour, self-respect and freedom are involved, no cost is toogreat. It is better to perish in the attempt thanto submit or surrender. That is the basis of ourthinking, and I hope, of this House and ourpeople.

Having said that, it does not mean that weshould give up thinking in regard to the stepsthat we take in order to justify whatever ourposition may be. If we have to think of problemsof war we have very much to think of what theviews of experts may be. I do not mean to saythat experts are only people wearing the militaryuniform. Civilians like Acharya Kripalani maybecome experts in military matters: for oughtI know he may be able to give an opinion aboutwhat should be done.

Normally, when one talks about war or evenpolice action one does so after logically thinkingas to what those steps should be one after theother. What is more important and what everyGeneral has to think is this. A General has toforget himself for a while and think that he isthe enemy's General and what he will do. Thenhe should devise his policy. That is the way: tothink. One cannot imagine any General who hasany experience at all imagining that he has a clearfield and the other fellow is a fool and he willrun away before him. That does not happen inwar or in any circumstances like this. Everyonethinks about these matters in the strictest practicalway. In addition to that he may think in anidealistic way. I hope we think in both ways,idealistic and practical. But if you give up oneof them it will be unfortunate. But if you giveup both idealism and practicality then where arewe? There is no anchorage to hold on to.

As I said, apart from strong expression ofopinion etc., broadly speaking, I believe thatthere is a very large unanimity of opinion in thisHouse on this issue. It may be expressed diffe-rently with greater emphasis or less emphasis.There is a large unanimity of opinion about thismatter, even though some people may differ hereand there about the steps to be taken, thetiming of it.

Much has been said about timing. AcharyaKripalani is apprehensive that time may run againstus and the Chinese authorities may Consolidatetheir position in these areas. In fact, he usedthe word 'colonise them'. I do not know whatthe Chinese mayor may not do. But as RajaMahendra Pratap managed to say before he satdown--and he speaks with experience having, Ibelieve, wandered about some of these territoriesit is not a particularly easy matter to colonise, or,if I may say so with all respect to Dr. RamSubhag Singh, to industrialise these territories.I do not know what modem science may not doin future. I cannot say. I am merely referringto the present, that for the last 2000 or 3000 yearsnobody has succeeded in that in Ladakh. I amtalking about Ladakh for the moment becausethere are different areas. At the present moment,in all this wide area, I think, possibly one or twotiny villages or a few huts are there. Otherwise,there is no inhabitant

In summer some shepherds come to grazetheir sheep and they walk away in winter. Weare now--I need not remind Hon. Members-inwinter. It is exceedingly difficult except forsome daring explorers or that type of personsto function with ease in those territories. Nobodylives there. I do not deny the possibility of,with great effort, creating conditions for peopleto live there. They live there not by pro-ducing anything there because the territory isnot that way-for thousands of years it has beenlike that. If it is going to be changed by scientificeffort, that will take a very considerable time.It does not change suddenly like this.

I was talking about the colonisation of theseterritories. I am merely pointing this out asRaja Mahendra Pratap wanted to do. This maybe done, I do not know, with the resources ofpeople but it is not a practical proportion. I amtalking about the time element. The Hon. Mem-

ber has rightly pointed out that a road has beenbuilt. Mr. Chou En-lai has in his letter referredto this road being built with 3,000 civilian per-sonnel and all that from 1955-57. That is perfectlytrue. The House knows that-the road that wasbuilt, I am not talking about the subsequentdevelopments. Mr. Chou En-lai's statementpresumably refers to this road through AksaiChin area ; that is perfectly true. In thatcorner of Ladakh that road was built and fortwo years or so, we knew nothing about it. Itis perfectly true; it may be our fault. We knewnothing about it. Whatever has happened inLadakh, so far as we know, apart from theAksai Chin area, the wide area that they havetransgressed has been done mostly in the lastsummer--this last summer--as part of the con-tinuation of their efforts to suppress the Tibetanrevolt. I cannot say of any corner but broadly,this, I think, is true.

499 Replying to an Hon. Member, Shri Nehrusaid : "I do not know what in this age of atomicenergy can be done or what might not be done.But take the NEFA area, I think that we havedone a rather good piece of work in the NEFAarea, an area in which the British failed to doanything at all for decades and decades. Theyjust failed completely. We have done a goodpiece of work not only in spreading our adminis-tration there but in communications, in schools,hospitals, agriculture, etc. among the peoplewho are my difficult to handle. That was doneand that no doubt will continue.

We want those areas to develop and naturallywe cannot expect them to develop in the realindustrial sense. It is far better to develop in-dustries where they can easily develop thanacross mountains and other; places where it isa much harder task but those areas shoulddevelop in that sense and may be, where we findgood minerals, etc. they will certainly have tobe developed and exploited. But the main thingis this. If you do not go back to the past whichwe had discussed so often, what is to be donein the present ?

Now, I repeat that whether we talk aboutnegotiation or whatever we talk about, it is clear,and, I thought there would be no doubt in anyHon. Member's mind, that any kind of further

step that the Chinese may take will obviouslybe resisted wherever it may be-that is obvious-to the best of our ability.

Shri Nehru said : Because an Hon. Memberput me a straight question I am giving him thisanswer that, as a matter of fact, that has beenour policy-whether it was fully and properlyimplemented or not is a different matter. Thatpolicy has not changed. And, as a matter offact, in NEFA, of course, apart from that verytiny enclave of about three or four miles, Longjuit is because of our strength there and our deter-mination to resist that we have prevented theirentry to NEFA except, as I said, in Longju. Inall these areas, whether it is the border,Uttar Pradesh or Himachal Pradesh or Punjab,we have prevented their entry and we will pre-vent it.

Now the real question is that difficulties havearisen in regard to this fairly large area in easternLadakh which, as I said, a part from the AksaiChin area, which they have entered mostly duringthe last summer. It may be said, rightly, that weshould have been in a position to prevent that. It isa difficult task, but it may be that if we had directedall our attention to it previously it might have beendone. I do not wish: to argue that-point. Anyhow,here is this present position and this present positioncan be resolved basically in two ways: one is by anattempt at negotiation yielding some kind offruitful results, a peaceful settlement, land theother is by compulsion and coercion which may beless than war or war itself. Any attempt at com-pulsion or coercion is really-in these circum-stances economic sanctions do not count-if notwar call it police action if you like, that is, theuse of armed people. Now, when Hon. Membersrefer to this, no doubt they have to bear in mindthat there are armed people on the other side too,it is not a one-way traffic. Therefore, if one hasto take that, principles apart, one has to do so-infavourable circumstances when one thinks - thatit is likely to yield substantial results. One doesnot do this merely in a huff or because one isangry. That may lead to something the oppositeof what one desires.

Therefore, while one tries to settle it alwaysby negotiation one, at the same time, strengthensoneself to deal with any situation that might ariseor has arisen. These are normal platitudes-the

House will forgive me for repeating them, but Iwant a little clear thinking on this issue. We followboth these policies. We tried to negotiate becausethat is not only right but inevitable and I wouldsubmit that no country in the wide world wouldnot negotiate, does not matter how much they areopposed to each other. If they are dead opposedto each other, even then they talk. We have hadin recent months or may be in the last year veryserious incidents between powerful countries likethe Soviet Union and the United States of Ame-rica-shooting down bombers, aircrafts, etc. Well,they have talked about it. They have not declaredwar. They have talked about it; settled it andsometimes not settled it; it is still there unsettled.Sometimes they have given compensation, orwhatever it is. But countries, whatever the situ-ation may be, always negotiate. It is an inevitablething in international affairs. Otherwise, therewill be a complete law of the jungle. You may saythat one party is functioning as if it was the lawof the jungle. It may be. It is deplorable and oneshould naturally do what one can to stop that. Butone negotiates even then. Negotiation always carriesweight if there is strength behind it. A weak countryor a weak person cannot negotiate at all. Therefore,strength is an essential factor. The building up ofstrength, the addition to your strength, is obvious.It has to be done.

Then, Hon. Members might ask, "What willyou do if your negotiation does not yield results?"I cannot, and it would not be right for me now,to lay down what one does; but, as I said, in any

500event, we have to build up strength to meet suchcontingencies at a suitable moment. For us tosay, as some Hon. Members hinted at, that "Donot talk to them; do not negotiate" is a thingwhich, I would venture to say, will not be under.stood by any country in the wide world. The Hon.Member, Acharya Kripalani, seems to think thatthis is the fault of our publicity. Countries gatherinformation, and their foreign offices, even if weare at fault, do keep themselves informed aboutthese matters. They are interested in a matter ofthis kind. It has excited world-wide interest natu-rally because of the possibilities in it; becauseof the potentialities of big scale trouble in it. Everycountry has watched it, studied it; we have helpedthem to study it and all that. If those countries donot immediately accept, let us say, Acharya Kri-

palani's view-point on it, it is not necessarily truethat we are at fault. It may be that AcharyaKiripalani's viewpoint may be at fault.

The Prime Minister said: One seems, toimagine that if we shout loudly enough aboutwhat we feel the other party or other country willagree to it. Publicity goes a very small way inthese matters. It really consists, as far as possiblein placing the material. In judging of any matteroutside India-many matters come up-do wedecide, because somebody's publicity hits us onthe head, in his favour? We judge these thingsfrom our own sources and our own informationas to what has happened in Europe or SouthAmerica or Africa or Asia or South-East Asia.The countries have their ambassadors, ministers,agents of publicity, and what not, to get infor-mation. They judge from them. We may failcompletely in some small matter; this may happenif there is a not somewhere here; but in big mattersconcerning two countries, other countries aredeeply interested and are very well informed. Theyhave to be. They cannot afford to be not fullyinformed about matters like this between twogreat countries like India and China. They maybe right or wrong. That is a different matter. Butthey attempt to keep themselves informed and, weattempt to keep themselves informed too. I haveno doubt the other: country also keeps them in-formed. There it is.

To imagine that what we think is inevitably ahundred per cent, right is not necessarily correct.Sometimes we may be a little wrong too. We arehuman beings subject to error, just like others are.I think it comes in the way of clear thinking. Ifwe decide and if we have come to the conclusion,that we are a hundred per cent in the right, nofurther thinking is required. Only some kind ofstrong action is necessary. Action, or rather thecapacity for action, is always necessary, becausewithout that, words do not count. But that actionmust think of the consequences and every actionthat is indulged in surely is indulged in with aview to achieve results. To indulge in action notto achieve results obviously has no good resultitself. So, these factors have to be considered.

When you discuss the border of any country,wherever it may be, which has historical back-grounds, all kinds of past incidents are broughtup, which are discussed. I think the Chinese

case is a very weak one. They go back, whichis very wrong, I think, to past periods of history.That is a different matter. But whatever it is,you have to deal with it, you have to answer it. Mypoint is, I cannot deal with them by saying, Allthat you say does not require an answer". Weare right, but that is not the way. We may beright 100 percent or 99 per cent, but I have toanswer their case, as I insist that they shouldanswer mine. Otherwise, there can be no deal-ings at all. Otherwise, you decide in an, armedway or coercive way-they or we-and whicheverhas the longer lathi possibly produces a greatereffect. The whole thing cannot be dealt with inthis easy-going way, as if it does not require anyargument. It does require argument to convincethem to convince the other countries and all that.

There is so much said about the McMahonline and we have strongly stressed our case. Ihave not a shadow of doubt in my mind that notonly the McMahon line is right from our pointof view, but I would go further and say thatbefore the McMahon line was made, theMcMahon line itself was the laying down ofsomething that existed before it; that is justificationof the traditional border there. It is not theMcMahon line that created the border. It is onlyafter a conflict it was laid down. That is so.Take Ladakh. The history of Ladakh, thepresent history of Ladakh goes back to 1842 whenafter war between the ruler of Ladakh, MaharajahGulab Singh, and the ruler of Tibet both beingfeudatories of others-the ruler of Tibet beingthe feudatory of the Emperor of China and theruler of Ladakh being the feudatory of the rulerof Punjab at that time-the war between themended ultimately in the victory of Gulab Singh'sforces, and that resulted in a treaty acknowledg-ing that Ladakh was part of Kashmir State terri-tory. Later this area, this boundary, was notdemarcated on the ground, but laid down in mapsby some English surveyors.

Now I can understand some dispute beingraised about some country here and there. ofcourse, it is not marked, and its territory is notinhabited. There is no administration, no pay-

501ment of tax, no proofs-the only proof is travel-lers' accounts-the normal thing that has beenunderstood by people who pass that way, and

maps; these are the two or three ways of provingthese things. So that, the question may ariseabout minor points here and there, but the majorpoint is the basic boundary of Ladakh which waslaid down 112 years ago, not today. It is notmarked there; it is marked in maps.

Now some maps differ. There is doubtabout it. Maps differ, travellers' accounts differand travellers' books differ, and all these matterscan be argued about. One cannot say that wewill not talk about these matters. But the basicthing is not about these border troubles, but thisrather massive infiltration into Ladakh which haschiefly taken place, to the best of my knowledge,during the last summer, apart from the AksaiChin area.

The argument-if it is raised-that "we arehere and we have taken possession of this terri-tory; therefore, it is ours" of course, is an utterlywrong argument. The sovereignty of a countrydoes not change because somebody comes and sitsin a corner of it. It is obvious it cannot. Nocountry has an army spread out all along itsborders to protect it from people coming in.Anybody can come in, but the sovereignty of thatcountry remains over that territory, even thoughsome people may sit on a little partof it.

Therefore, if I may say so the basic pointtoday is not, I submit, that we should not nego-tiate; let us consider that, because one has alwaysto negotiate, and to say that negotiations will notbear fruit, if I may say so, has no relevance in thismatter. Even if it did not bear fruit, even thenyou will have to negotiate, because that is a wayof procedure. The moment you refuse to do so,you are wrong before the world, and the worldwill think you are afraid of negotiation; you areafraid of that. They will not accept yourword for it-you are afraid of talking to theother parties; that is the impression created. Butthe negotiation has some value only if it is backedby strength.

In the final analysis, it comes to this that wemust build up our strength and, as I have saidpreviously-I think on the last occasion-this is nota matter which we can dispose of by a discussion.It may take a few months or a year or more.Whatever the issue of this is, the issue of this

matter may come or may not come in a fewmonths or so, I do not know, but what I amsaying is that the situation that has arisen on ourborders is of such historical significance from along-term point of view. India and China, thesetwo great countries, for the first time face eachother on a long border which is a live border, andeven if we are friends, even then, we have a liveand dangerous border ; if we are not friends thenit is worse. Therefore, this tremendous historicaldevelopment is taking place in Asia affecting notonly India and China, but all the countries ofAsia, necessitating, quite apart from other deve-lopments, the building up of our strength. Thenwe can consider using it whenever it isnecessary.

Building up of our strength means certainlydefence forces and the defence apparatus, butremember that defence means today industrialstrength; it is industry that gives real strength.So, while we keep our Army etc., as strong as- wecan make it and as well-equipped as possible, thereal basis, the real strength, will come from rapidindustrialisation.

We come back really not only to industriali-sation; it means better agriculture, better industry,in order to meet these crises, because it is onlythen that countries become strong. That is howother counties are strong today. The so-calledGreat Powers or the middling Powers are strongbecause they have become a modernised State,because they take advantage of the modernmethods which increase their production, givethem strength, all kind of things. Therefore, thebasic thing is that we become a modern State,not remain in a backward condition economicallyand socially.

These are the basic things that we have toface, and this is a challenge to the country, not achallenge in the present of course which we haveto meet, but much more so a challenge for thefuture, because ultimately unless proper balancesare created in Asia, all our wishes may not leadus to what we want to have.

Therefore, I would beg this House tolook at this matter from this wider point of viewas well as from the immediate danger point ofview, and to consider it not a party matter,but a national issue of far-reaching conse-

quences.

502

CHINA INDIA USA PORTUGAL SOUTH AFRICA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Reply to Rajya Sabha Discussion on India-China Relations

Replying to a discussion on India-Chinrelations in the Rajya Sabha on December 22, 195the Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, said :

Mr. Chairman, I have always welcomed dis-cussions on foreign affairs in this House andprofited by them. On this occasion I was some-what reluctant for a discussion, though I bowedto the wishes of the House and your wishes, Sir,because I felt that having regard to the presentsituation, nothing new, so far as discussion isconcerned, had really emerged and it would berather an odd course of events or precedent toestablish that whenever I send a letter there is tobe a discussion and whenever I receive a letterthere is to be a discussion. As a matter of fact,such letters are, normally not published. Butowing to the peculiar circumstances of the casehere, we have decided, and I think rightly, to placeall correspondence that takes place before parlia-ment and the public. And yet it is obvious thatdiplomatic correspondence can hardly go very farif this took place and if it is continually discussedin public. Some new methods of diplomacy willhave to be evolved. That was my difficulty, notof keeping back any facts from this House or thecountry, because when we place all our cards onthe table and all our letters, then there is nothinghidden, and if we are to proceed through diplomaticmeans, they have to be somewhat different fromthe procedure often adopted in a debate. The

facts may be the same, the course of events maybe the same. As Mr. Dayabhai Patel said, andno doubt, others have said or realised, the issuesbefore us are of the highest moment and impor-tance and require not only great effort of themind, but, if I may say so, other efforts too. Itis a situation which, as was pointed out in the lastdebate here, is a new situation in India's historyof two thousand years. It is not some mereborder incident that has happened, althoughborder incidents have happened. It is not some-thing which can be brushed away by a littlestrong language as our friend from Ladakh justused. It is a conflict between two of the biggestnations of Asia coming up face to face on a longborder after thousands of years of history. There-fore, we have always to keep in mind where weare and what we can do and what we will have todo. At the same time, keeping in mind all thisdoes not mean that we would approach thisquestion with an apprehension of not being ableto do much or with weakness. I do not believein that. But weakness or strength comes frommany things and in many ways. It is not merelya question of strong resolutions that we may pass.There is the military test of weakness or strength,and there is the industrial test of weakness or stren-gth, and there is the test of the morale, of thepeople, the discipline of the people. All these aretests and we are going to be tested in every way.And whatever may be the outcome in the next fewweeks or few months or whatever the periodmight be of these border troubles, this testing willcontinue for years to come. I should like thisHouse to realise this. Now, I do not understandwhen Hon. Members ask, "How long are wegoing to put up with this kind of thing?" Whatexactly does this kind of thing mean ? I do notunderstand it. I say, as long as the circumstancesrequire it. It may be a week, a year, ten yearsor a hundred years, because you cannot changeall these factors that go to make world changes.I use the words "hundred years" in a metaphericalsense. It may happen. But the point is, thewhole outlook has to be fitted into the enormouschanges that are taking place in the world.

Here are two mighty nations of the Westernworld, the United States of America and theSoviet Union opposed to each other in manyways, fearful of each other, arming against eachother and yet holding their hands realising theconsequences of not holding their hands, realising

the consequences that once they let lose the dogsof war, nobody can stop them. In strength ormilitary might, neither India nor China can comeup anywhere near those tremendously powerfulnations but we are big nations, strong nations,determined nations and each nation is having itsown strong sense of self-respect and honour. Ifwe honour, as we do, our own self respect and aregoing to stand by it whatever happens, let us re-member that China is not a small or a mean coun-try. It has also a strong idea of its self-respect andhonour and let us not throw words which withoutdoing us any good do a lot of harm by attackingthe self-respect of a country. This is quite apartfrom what they may have done or we may do.Of course, we have to talk warily as we have toact warily but with strength. Here this positionhas arisen due undoubtedly to certain activities,advances, and I think, aggression by the Chineseauthorities in Ladakh chiefly and a little bit inNEFA. Now, there is a history behind it whichcan be traced to some extent from the WhitePaper that had been circulated, the correspon-dence. etc., and we can try to understand and findout what has happened more or less and whatmight take place but again, I would say, behindall this are bigger and more historical changesthat are taking place in the face of history. Tworevolutions come into contact, the Chinese revo-lution and the Indian revolution. They are of

503different types but nevertheless revolutions whichhave changed the face of these countries andwhich go on changing them, may be in somewhatdifferent ways and it is a major fact of historynot only of India and China but of Asia and theworld that these two revolutions come across eachother on a wide field. That is the problem beforeus which cannot be dealt with by merely gettingangry or petulant about it. Let us be Angry byall means but let us think as to how we can dealwith this matter. We cannot, of course lay downevery step because each step has to be conditionedby events, each step has to be conditioned by newcircumstances, but broadly speaking one can laydown and one can prepare for it so far as onecan because whatever step we may take can onlybe successful in so far as it is backed by strengthand a people's will and determination to shoulderthe burdens of that step. Each step involvesburdens and each step involves grave difficultiesfor the country. When there is a conflict between

two countries, big or small, there are, broadlyspeaking, two ways of dealing with it. The normalway which every country follows till somethingelse happens is the diplomatic way, by diplomacyof correspondence; diplomacy of personal meetingsand discussion. The moment any country re-nounces the diplomatic way, there is no otherway except war. There may be perhaps a middleway of nothing happening, just sitting at homeand being angered with each other but the mo-ment you say that you will not have the diplo-matic way, it means that you close the door ofmeetings, of talking and of correspondence. Thereit is and then the other forces come into play.It may be a way or it may be, for the moment,not doing anything if you like,- but a situationwhich drifts towards war. I should like to knowwhat other third way there is. That is one pointto be realised when people talk about, "Howlong are we to wait ?" I say, you will have towait as long as you have to wait. I cannot mea-sure that time and I cannot limit it. Do we dealwith a situation like this, or does China deal witha situation like this by issuing an ultimatum toIndia, "Do this" or "Do that"? Is India going todeal with a situation like this by issuing an ulti-matum to China ? Think of the meaning of thesewords and the consequences that lie behind thosewords. It means shutting the door with no otherway open except the way or war. Now, all of uswant to avoid war, I presume all of us, may benot some but let us realise that this imaginingthat one can have a little scrap here and a littlescrap there and then adjust with the other partyis rather infantile thinking. Two great nationsdo not have little scraps and then frighten eachother by scraps. Scraps grow. In fact, the chiefdifficulty at the present moment which the Housefaces and the country is angered at is, as every oneknows, because scraps have occurred. It is notour fault, may be, but it does not matter but thepoint is it is the scraps that rouse passions andif there are a few more scraps, the period of smallscraps will end and the period of big scraps andother things will come in. One thing leads toanother. One has to look into this not onlyfrom the context of our border and of two mightycountries coming into conflict but its consequenceselsewhere, what will happen. I am being perfectlyfrank with this House which normally a personin my position should not be, but I think thatwe should be frank with each other and not loseourselves in fine phrases. Any kind of warlike

development between India and China will bean indefinite war because we will never give inand they will never give in. Realise that. It isnot like what the Hon. Member from Kashmirsaid, "Go and teach them a lesson. They willthen behave". It is amazing, and this kind ofapproach, I am sorry to use the word, is rather in-fantile. It means that throughout our life we will bewarring and warring because India will not give in.Are we going to allow China to conquer India.or will they allow themselves to be conquered ?All these facts come up. Have you thought ofthem ? Of course, if they try to push into India,naturally we have to fight and fight regardlessof the time taken, it may be a few years or ahundred years, That is a different matter andwe have to fight because there is no choice left.From our side or from their side, in bringingthis decision about one thinks not once but manytimes before doing it. When there is no escapefrom it, well, there is no escape from it. There-fore, one tries naturally the way of peaceful settle-ment. We have been talking about these things notonly in our case but in the case of every quarrel inthe wide world. We have talked about this inregard to big international issues and we stillgo on talking about it. Was that meant for othersonly, this talk that we indulged in, and was notto be applied to our own case when it came ?That would be a strange commentary on whatwe say and what we do when faced with a difficultsituation.

Therefore it is inevitable that we should-call it what you like-negotiate, deal with thisquestion diplomatically, deal with it by corres-pondence, by meeting when necessary, because insuch a matter it is far more important to getresults if results are obtainable than to allow somekind of false prestige to come in and refuse totalk. That is not becoming when major issuesare at stake involving the future destiny of acountry, of hundreds of millions of people, andI should say quite frankly that in this letter which

504we have been discussing-the letter of PremierChou En-lai-there is, so far as facts are concernedno giving in. It is a reiteration, repetition andre-affirmation of their claims and yet there is onething in it which I welcome, whatever the reasonfor it may be, and that is, as I see it, certainly astrong desire to meet and discuss. There is that

and I welcome it, although I must say I do notunderstand how Premier Chou En-lai expected mewithin four or five days or a week to be able tomeet him in a third country. It seems rather oddto me but the fact remains that there is that andwhatever the reason behind that may be-somepeople may say there is a special motive behindthat ; it does not matter. May be, but the pointis that throughout that letter this point is broughtout-so far as I am concerned whenever the timecomes, whenever it is suitable, I shall avail myselfof that opportunity because the issues are tooserious for any other course to be adopted. Thatis the broad approach to this question.

We have sent a reply to Premier Chou En-laiwhich has not been published but in fact I hadgiven the substance to this House yesterday,because I wanted it to reach Premier Chou En-laibefore it is published. It will be published in aday or two, perhaps two or three days.

Now I think in the last two or three lettersthat we have sent we have stated our case, I won'tsay in all its details but broadly they have beenstated and this House should realise that merelyrepetition or strong repetition of certain phrasesdoes not make a case when you are dealing withinternational matters, just as the Chinese Govern-ment should realise that their mere repetition ofstrong phrases does not make a case for them.A case is something different whether it is lookedat from constitutional, legal, historical, geographi-cal, or other points of view, uses etc. We havebroadly stated our case ; it is a good case and Ithink the facts and the history behind it and allthat are very much in our favour. But it has tobe dealt with in that level. If I or the ChineseGovernment merely deal with it at a level of hur-ling strong speeches at each other or ultimatums,well, then there is no discretion. Then we enterinto a field of conflict which from a merely verbalconflict may go on to physical conflict and from asmall physical conflict to a big physical conflictand so on and so forth. All these step-by-stepconsequences come.

So I have ventured to place these variousconsiderations before the House. I am gratefulto the House for their kind expressions of confi-dence in the policy we are pursuing and theirassurance to support this policy to the hilt. Ofcourse without that faith and confidence and

assurance, I could do little ; nobody could doanything. In such a grave matter we require thefull direction and confidence of Parliament andof the people and we have to tread the straightand narrow path of building up strength as soonas and as rapidly as we can in all ways, alwaysalso restraining ourselves from doing the wrongthing which will bring about wrong and evilresults which may become irretrievable. It is adifficult position for anyone or for any countryjust as the world in the last few years has lived-not under a balance of strength or balance ofpower but it has lived-under a balance of terror.That has been the state of the world. Thesegreat mighty countries, mightier than any countrythe world has ever seen, have lived in a state ofterror of each other-the atom bomb, the hydro-gen bomb and all that-and in spite of theiranger and passion and disgust of each other, theyhave restrained themselves because they know theconsequences of not restraining themselves. Andhere now we see this great attempt being madeby two of the most powerful nations in the worldsomehow or other to find a way out of life underthis terror, a way of peace which won't comequickly. It will take time. It is not a questionof a meeting, call it summit meeting or whateveryou like. Even now they envisage a successionof summit meetings but it is by far the mosthopeful sign the world has seen in the last tenyears, this meeting of people who have beenrivals and who have been opponents trying andcoming together to find a way out and that wayout is not merely something that will apply tothem or something that will apply only to Europe.Obviously in the circumstances as they exist, itwill apply to the wide world directly in someplaces, indirectly to others if tension goes down.Now, even in an extreme case like that the Housewill see how countries have functioned even whenthey are full of passion and anger and strengthand all that ; yet they have restrained themselvesrealising the consequences. Are we not to showeven that much restraint here and not think ofthe consequences of this or that action and tobecome impatient and say, 'we cannot wait' ?Well, if we cannot wait, what do we do ? I donot know. anyone has in mind when he says,I cannot wait ; something must be done'. AndI should like that aspect to be developed as towhat should be done. Mere anger I can under-stand and I should like that anger to be translatedinto strength-giving elements in the country.

That I can understand. Of course we have tobuild up strength-that is the basis of it-inevery way ; as I said not only in the militaryway but even more so in the industrial way, andthis strength has to do far more than the sword

505or the small gun. It is the industrial machinebehind it that counts and above all it is thestrength of the morale of the nation which counts,a nation which will not surrender to evil, surrenderto invasion, surrender to any threat and stand upwith head high whatever happens. That is thething we build up meanwhile always trying tofind a way out of the deadlock, to find a solutionconsonant with the integrity and self-respect ofthe country-because anything which goes againstself-respect should be ruled out of course-at thesame time remembering not to say or do thingswhich make it difficult for the door to remainopen. which put the other side-not a weak sidebut a powerful side-concerned also angry andthinking-wrongly you may think but rightlyaccording to their thinking-that they are beinginsulted and all that. It is a very dangerousthing when the iron enters the soul of a nation.In war time it enters it and they, go ahead simplymotivated by hatred and anger and a desire todestroy. It is a dangerous thing and till it worksitself out in terrible destruction ; well, the war pro-ceeds-somebody is defeated or nobody isdefeated-whatever may happen.

Now I should like some difference, somedistinction to be made in India between what Iwould call a grim determination to preserve ourfreedom, our integrity, our honour and self-respect because there can be-I entirely agreewith one Hon. Member-no bargaining aboutthese things, it is true, and at the same timeavoiding that iron entering into our souls andour saying something or doing something whichmakes the iron enter into the other party's soul.Then a situation is created out of which there isno way out, except dreadful conflict, indefiniteconflict, uncertain conflict, spreading possibly toother countries, spreading possibly all over theworld. These are serious possibilities which maycome about by some action of ours or China'sor somebody else's. We feel wronged by China.I feel that the way they have acted has beenwrong and unfair to us. I am not for the momentgoing-it is up to the House and Hon. Members

into the question of how far we have been atfault, our Government here in the past. But wecannot go on repeatedly discussing the past. Wehave to discuss the present and the future. Andin the future the only two courses open to us areto strengthen ourselves in all these ways that Ihave mentioned and at the same time to try ourbest by friendly approaches dignified and friendlyapproaches, to find a way by settlement.

Now, sometimes Mr. Dahyabhai Patelsometimes others talk about the "Bhai-bhai"approach. I really do not understand what thiscriticism means. I hope that our approach toevery country will be a "Bhai-bhai" approach.I am very glad that in regard to China it wasa "Bhai-bhai" approach. What does it mean?I fear the significance of the words is not realised.It is a very common thing in India, a friendlyway of approach. Each country has its own wayof approach. It is not a bad approach. There isnothing derogatory about it. And this "Bhai-bhai" has been used for almost every countryfrom which people have come here. We mayhave used it more for some countries, becausethey took it more, and for some less, andit is quite a right approach. That does not meanof course, that our eyes are closed, that wesurrender anything that we value. That, ofcourse, is wrong. More especially while Govern-ments deal with each other, the people's approachtowards another people should always be friendlyand they should not consider the people of theother country enemies, even though we are inconflict with the Government. Surely even inthe days of our national struggle, the lesson welearnt was to fight against imperialism, Britishimperialism, and not against the Britisher. I ammerely mentioning this in passing, because I amanxious that the resentment that there is in Indiaand which has been caused rightfully and justlyshould be directed into right channels of strengthto build up, because it is a matter of our survivalnot of phrase and of not being able to wait or notwait. It is a matter of India's survival. That isthe question we have to face. It is a big question.It is not a border issue. Of course, there is theborder issue. We shall deal with it to the bestof our ability, but behind that border issuestretches out this future which might be andought to be a good future for us and whichmight also be a dreadful future by countriesfighting for survival. So, it is in this context

that I would beg of this House to consider thesematters and deal with them and even advise us.

Now, I am not dealing with Premier ChouEn-lai's letter. But there is one particular matterwhich I should like to correct. First of all, mayI point out-I think it was Diwan ChamanLall who said something about it-that theChinese have agreed to withdraw from Longju.Yes, but they have made conditions. There areconditions attached to that. You withdraw fromsomewhere else. So, it is not simply a case ofagreeing to withdraw. You withdraw fromplaces in the U. P. border, Himachal Pradesh andseveral other things. It is not such a simplething. Now, they have caught us in a small matterin regard to a name. They have pulled us up.They have caught us in an error. In Ladakh, inthe papers you might have seen, there is this

506question of a place called Pulingsumdo. Now,we have got mixed up. It was an error in one ofour letters between two places-Pulingsumdo andPulamsumda. And they have caught us in thatmistake in this last letter. No doubt you did notknow anything about it and Hon. Members couldnot judge. They have said with great force thatthis place you have mentioned is in our territory,Well, it is undoubtedly. It was a misprint orerror. It is a place twenty miles away. ThisPulamsumda is in our territory. So, that istrue.

May I express my gratitude, again to Hon.Members for the confidence they have reposed inthe policy we are pursuing.

CHINA INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Opening Speech in Rajya Sabha Debate on India-China Relations

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement opening the debatein Rajya Sabha on India-China relations onDecember 8, 1959 : I beg to move, Sir:-

That White Paper No. II and subsequent correspondence between the Governments of India and China, laid on the Table of the Rajya Sabha on the 23rd November, 1959, be taken into consideration.

Almost exactly three months ago, Sir, therewas a debate in this House on the difficultiesand conflicts that had arisen on our border, theborder between India and China. Since thatdebate, there has been a serious incident inLadakh about which the House knows fully. Afterthat there has been some correspondence betweenthe Chinese Prime Minister and the Governmentof China. All this has been placed on the Tableof the House. The Chinese Premier, Mr. ChouEn-lai, made certain suggestions to our Govern-ment in a letter dated the 7th November. On the16th of November, I sent him a reply puttingforward certain proposals-interim proposals.The whole object was that before any furtherstep could be taken to find a way out, there shouldbe some interim arrangements to prevent anyconflicts on the border. Now, that letter of minewas sent on the 16th November, and we havereceived no answer to that yet. In fact, there-fore, there has been no major development sincethis exchange of correspondence. Our Govern-ment have received a letter from the Chineseauthorities in answer to a previous letter. Thisrelates to the treatment of prisoners after theLakakh incident. We had complained of theill-treatment of these prisoners, and in their reply,they broadly said that this was not true and thatthey were treated as well as could be expectedin the circumstances, there. That is how thematter stands so far as the correspondence, etc. isconcerned.

Now, Sir, after the last debate that we hadhere, chiefly because of the Ladakh incident andpartly because of other developments, there hasbeen a worsening of the situation, and I mightsay, both actually and in the public mind, andit is natural that there should be this strong public

feeling when such things happen on our borderand a neighbouring country intrudes and pushesinto our areas that have been in our possessionfor a long time. The questions that arise todayfor the consideration of this House are broadlytwo-of course, there are off-shoots of thesequestions. One is, this House might again consi-der and give its opinion and advice as to thebroad policies that we should follow and secondly,what steps should be taken in the implementationof these policies. On the last occasion, muchwas said by other members and by me aboutthese broad policies. Now, it is important, firstof all, that this House should give its clear direc-tions about these policies, because after all thesteps that we take or follow are the results ofthese policies If the policies are not agreed to,then naturally the steps may also not fit in. Itis important. therefore, that there should be thisclarity of thinking. The situation that has arisenis one of great difficulty and complexity and asituation in which passions-public passion-areroused, quite naturally, and it becomes all themore necessary, when such strong feelings areroused, that there should be calm and clearthinking as to the broad policies and in regardto their implementation. The implementationindeed has many aspects. One is the purely militaryaspect, others connected with it and yet anotheraspect and a very important aspect is ultimatelyhow we build up the country's strength for thepurposes of defence. Now, in regard to the broadpolicies, Sir, we have followed, as the House wellknows, a policy in foreign affairs of what is callednon-alignment or to put it in another way, ofnot tying ourselves with any military arrangementor bloc, and trying to be friendly with all nationswith whose policies we may or may not agree.We follow that and we have raised our voicewhenever we could in the councils of the nationsin favour of the policy of peace and against thecontinuation of the cold war mentality which auto-matically leads to a worsening of the situationeverywhere. It is a curious paradox that today when

507we are facing certain grave dangers on our ownborders, that the very policy for which we havestood for so long is meeting with a large measureof success in the important centres of the worldand that apart from perhaps a few lone voices,broadly speaking, the world is moving towardsan attempt to put an end to this cold-war and,

possibly, even to these military blocs ultimately.

I do submit, Sir, that the broad policy wehave Pursued in the past has been a correct policyand is a correct policy today. A policy of non-alignment or a policy of peaceful co-existence, orPanch Sheel, call it what you like, is not a policywhich is followed regardless of changing circums-tances; the policy remains but! it is adapted tochanging circumstances. I say this, I repeat thisand I have said it previously too, because someHon. Members on the last occasion had statedthat this policy of non-alignment or peacefulco-existence, had collapsed, had failed. I thinkthat while it is true that in so far as our relationswith China are concerned, that policy has notsuceeded, that is, in the sense that our relationswith China are not the embodiment of peace atthe present moment so far as our thinking andour actions are concerned. What are the reasons,we may seek for them, and according to ourthinking, the fault lies with many things thatthe Chinese Government have done, with acertain expansive, aggressive attitude that they haveadopted and that actual fact that they have in-truded on our territory. Therefore, that policyhas to be met, that action has to be met. Butthat has little relation to the basic policies that wepursue. I say this because, presumably, somepeople imagine that this has been the result ofthat policy. That of course, is, I would submit,completely wrong. In fact, the big fact of themodern world today is the success, the world-widesuccess, of the policy that this country hasventured to put forward and tried to pursue. Iworld repeat this because I should like clearthinking on this issue and clear directions because,after all, we in the Government necessarily haveto fellow policies which are laid down or approvedof by Parliament. The ultimate judge is Parliament,if I may say so, the ultimate judge is thepeople of India represented in Parliament, and wehave to take our directions from Parliament andwhat Parliament decides, that the Governmentwill follow, will pursue, if it finds itself capableof doing so. If not, some other Governmentmakes charge and follows that policy. It is impor-not therefore, that there should be clear thinkingand clear directions on these issues, these broadissues, so also, to some extent, in regard to theimplementation thereof, although, obviously, imple-mentation of a policy like this, especially in themilitary sphere, can hardly be discussed in Parlia-

ment Now, Sir, when we consider theimplementation of these policies, there is a purelymilitary aspect of it and there is an aspect of it,which has always to be borne in mind. We meGreat Powers today, and unfortunately thegreatness of a nation today and, perhaps, pre-viously too, is counted in terms of the armedmight of that nation. Other factors come in nodoubt but a great power is a power which has abig army, navy, air force, etc. That army, navy,air force, etc. today have been built up becausethat country has a big industrial apparatus, be-cause it is what is called a technologicallyadvanced country. In fact, defence today dependstremendously upon the industrial and technologi-cal background of a country. All the worldknows it. Therefore, in order to strengthen acountry for its defence, the major effort is not inmerely enrolling people for the army which, ofcourse, is done in a measure but in building upthat technological and industrial background inthe country. Otherwise, that country is weakfrom the military or defence point of view.

Now, not today, but ever since we came intoexistence as an independent nation twelve yearsago, this factor has been before us. If any Hon.Member thinks that we had forgotten the questionof defence or ignored it in our enthusiasm forPanch Sheel, then I would submit that he is mis-taken. We may have made many mistakes butthe fact of strengthening the country from thedefence point of view was always before us. Wedid not know, and I confess today that I didnot expect that there would be an aggression onthe part of China. Anyway, it has taken place.But the circumstances being what they were noGovernment could ignore the aspect of Defenceand we came to the conclusion then, as nowthat the basic factor in defence is the industrialgrowth of the country, and all the armiesin the world without an industrial back-ground could not function adequately in thematter of modern defence. To some extent ourFive Year Plans and the like were based on that,not directly on defence but on building up thisindustrial background. As the House well knowsin the last few years, more especially since theSecond Five Year Plan came into being, greaterstress has been laid on the foundations of industry,that is, basic industries, heavy industries, in thecountry. It is on them alone that defence canultimately rest, apart from petty methods of

defence. There are other things, of course-communications, roads and other things whichare important, but all this follows really thedevelopment of heavy industries in a countrywhich not only provide the wherewithal for

508defence but which are supposed to raisethe economy of a country to higher levels,thereby making the country and the peoplestrong, putting them in a stronger position, forany emergencies that they might have to face. I am stating these rather simple facts becauseI want this whole question to be considered in thatcontext. A country does not normally go abouttalking about the steps it takes for defence, partlybecause one does not want to Jay stress on it beforethe world at large and partly because our stress,our public stress, has always been on peace and willcontinue to be on peace, but Oat stress does notmean, cannot mean and should not mean, any kindof forgetfulness of the country's basic requirementsin regard to defence. Always the question comesup before countries who are in danger or whomay want to endanger others. The question hasnow been put as to whether they should haveguns or butter. Well, we have very little butterin this country. As it is, it is difficult enough toresist the temptation to give more butter, of coursemeaning not butter only but the necessities of lifeof our country, the necessary amenities of life. Butwhen this test comes, this problem arises-gunsor butter. Where a country is industrially ad-vanced, it has got a broad apparatus either tomanufacture the good things of life, or guns andwarlike equipment. That choice has to be madeas it had been more or less made, let us say, inHitler's Germany, and he decided in favour ofguns and he got them and fought a great war.In our case that question, guns or butter, arises,not in that same way, because, as it happens, andperhaps fortunately for us the same thing, thesame basis has to be laid, the same foundationhas to be laid, whether it is for guns or for butter.The choice really comes after the foundation islaid, as to how to use that foundation for thefuture, whether to produce consumer goods, letus say, or the amenities of life for our people,or warlike material. Therefore whichever waywe proceed in our thinking, we come to the con-clusion that both for guns and butter we have tolay, as rapidly and as firmly as we can, theseindustrial foundations and that is ultimately

heavy industries. Of course that does not meanthat other things do not count. Obviously, whetherit is for war or for peace, one wants adequate foodIt is obvious one cannot fight with an emptystomach or one cannot work hard even for peace-ful purposes with an empty stomach. So what Iventure to point out to this House is that thatparticular choice in that way does not come tous at the present moment even though we arethreatened on our borders. The choice as towhether we can give up all progress, that we areenvisaging, in favour of guns and guns alonethat would come to us if we decided to give up that,building-up process and to rely on guns, which webuy or import from abroad within our resources.Of course we can go and buy to meet a tempor-ary emergency-war like material and equipment,but thereby we cut short all our planning and theother schemes that we have in view. I hope itwill never come to that. In a very small measure,of course, it may come but not in a big measure,because that itself then would be wrong thinkingor rather a very short-term thinking.

But the kind of crisis that we have to facetoday is not a short-term crisis-let us realisethat. It cannot be, in the nature of things ashort-term crisis, whatever the next developmentsmight be, it is a long-term affair. And whateverway we may think, we cannot ignore certain factsof geography. If we are concerned today withChina, and China is concerned about us, well,whatever our feelings may be, India and Chinaare neighbouring countries bordering on eachother for thousands of miles. That border isgoing to continue and the two countries are goingto be next to each other not only now but infuture ages; neither country is going to run awayfrom that geographical position. Therefore wehave to think in long-distance terms also apartfrom the short-term objectives that we have.The short-term oppresses us, because we have tomeet the questions of today and we have to findanswers to these questions. Nevertheless I wouldbeg of Hon. Members to remember that theshort-term leads on to the long-term, and if inapproaching the short-term we weaken ourselvesin the long-term, that is not a wise policy. Thereis a tendency sometimes in the public mind, natur-ally, to think in terms of the short-term, becauseof powerful reactions, because of anger and thedesire to do something quickly and effectively.Well, naturally one has to give adequate impor-

tance to this short-term business and take ade-quate steps. Nevertheless, whether it is in war orin peaceful development, it is the long-term thatcounts, and not the short-term as a reaction ofstrong feelings or anger. Therefore we have toconsider this question. In so far as the short-term is concerned certainly we must, and thatbecomes largely question of military strategy,tactics, call it what you will. But the momentwe get back to the long-term, which is so impor-tant, we have to consider two aspects of it, ourbroader policies, broader policies in regard toother nations, other nations meaning all nations,and how to strengthen the country basically toface those long-term developments, whatever theymight be.

Now in that long-term process one has to

509realise. I repeat what I have said-that the strengthof a nation comes from the technological develop-ments of that nation; everything else is not realstrength; it is some kind of a temporary orlimited strength. Of course I need not say aboutthe other factors that are well-known-strengthcomes from. discipline and unity, and all that, ofcourse. That is so essential. But apart fromthese basic qualities that a nation should possess.it comes from the technological progress of anation, and all the courage in the world does notultimately take the place of technological progressin the modern world. That fact I should like theHouse to remember, because we have to makevital choices, basic choices. We cannot merelyreact to circumstances without thinking of thefuture results of our reactions. I said also thatour future policy includes not merely this businessof building up the nation, technologically,industrially and otherwise, but in our relation-ships with other countries and our policy haslargely been directed towards building up goodrelationships in the last many years, and I believeit has borne very good fruit so far as we areconcerned, good fruit not only in the sphere offriendship, etc., but in more practical domainsalso. And if it is said, as it is said, sometimes,in criticism or disdain, that we talked aboutHindi-Chini-Bhai-Bhai and went on talking aboutit and ignored the realities of the situation, well,I do not know who exactly started this Hindi-Chini-Bhai-Bhai, but however did it a good thing,because that should be our attitude to every

country. If the House will remember, that thesame Bhai-Bhai business is repeated whoevercomes here from any country often enough. ofcourse it may be over-done; it may be done at thewrong time and the wrong place, which is irritat-ing,.... But my point is that the friendlyapproach is always the right approach.whatever happens. I make no exceptions.To the friendly approach must necessarybe allied the watchful approach, the vigilantapproach and a preparations' approach. But themoment you lose that approach or desire forfriendly settlement, you loss yourself in a forest,in a most dangerous forest, where anything myhappen, and which is had both from the nationalpoint of view and the international point of view.

Today, of course, there is this developmentof mighty weapons which we have not got, betwhich the Western world and Russia have got.We have moved into a new phase of history.We have wars, cold wars, and cold wars havebecome abnominations, which everybody wants toavoid. Therefore, only tomorrow we are goingto welcome the great leader of a nation. Why dowe welcome him? For many reasons. Not be-cause he is a great leader of a great nation, butfundamentally because he is a messenger of peacetoday in the world, and the heart of our country,which is so devoted to peace, goes out to himbecause he comes here with this message on hislips and in his heart. We have welcomed otherstoo in that spirit. It may be that our ideas orviews were not reciprocated from the other side,about peace or about friendship. Would this Houseadvise, therefore, to function in a bellicose man-ner, aggressively, to show that we are strong andwe can talk loudly? That surely is not the signof strength. Strength comes in other ways.

Now, sir, this is the background. I want tomake it clear-let there be no mistake in theminds of Hon. Members here-as to what themotive forces of our action and our basic policiesare, because we believe firmly that peace is betterthan war, that war is unutterably bad. Neverthe-less, if a country's freedom or its integrity, orits honour is attacked, we have to defend it withwar, if necessary, and we have to defend itwith all our might and have to prepare forthat. In the ultimate analysis we came to thesame conclusion either way. But it does make adifference whether the particular mental and

other approach is for peace or for war. Howthat is from a larger point of view.

If you look at it from the strictly narrowestpoint of view of practical affairs, you arrive atthe same conclusion. There are certain facts ofthe modern world which we cannot ignore, andone cannot, therefore, behave in a rather imma-ture and juvenile way of shaking one's lists ateverybody and threatening everybody even thoughthat threat may be justified or the fist may bejustified. That is one side of the question.

The other and the more practical side, asthings are, is our preparation for meeting thiscontingency, this crisis in an adequate way withall the strength so that we can gather and increasethat strength. That, as I said, is a military pro-blem to some extent to make the most of ourstrength today and tomorrow, but it means ulti-mately-and let this be fully realised that it is nota purely military problem-it becomes a problemof utilising every ounce of energy in the nation. Itmeans putting an end to every species of indiscip-line that weakens the nation. It means-I use thephrase which I used in other place-a nation inarms, not in arms going about with a gun in handof mental and physical arms for the affray, what-ever happens. It means many great things thatpeople have not thought of or talked of. It meansour fashioning, whatever it is, our Five YearPlans, our budgets, our everything, in a different

510way. It means austerity and hard living andhardship. I shall not quote the words of a famousEnglishman about blood and sweat and tears, butit does mean that blood and sweat and tears toeveryone of us if we have to face this contingency.Therefore, let us not do so light-heartedly, butwith clarity of thought and firmness of decisionand realising that at this moment these pettyquarrels and criticisms are singularly out of placeeven though they might have their place at othertimes, because I find that curious contradiction inall the people so often, in what they aredoing.

I find a contradiction in all our young menwho sent me letters written in drops of blood tooffer their lives for the defence of our country,and these young men behaving in a manner whichwould ruin any country if that behaviour went on

for some time. It is utter indiscipline. It doesnot fit in with a crisis. It does not fit in with any-thing, crisis or not, but certainly at a time ofcrisis, it shows utter ignorance of or understand-ing of what is Happening. So, let us realise whatwe are in for. We shall work for peace. We shallwork for settlements. We are not, I hope, goingby a spurt of anger to be compelled to take wrongsteps, but we shall work with all our might alsofor the strengthening of the country, and for thedefence of the country.

If there appears to be in the minds of someHon. Members some conflict between the twoapproaches, I do not agree with them. I do notthink there is any real conflict. Both are essentialapproaches.- And if this House or Parliamentthinks that these basic approaches are not correct,that some other approach has to be followed, thenobviously the will of Parliament must prevail. ButParliament should then find means of enforcingthat will or implementing that will. That is broad-ly the question.

Now, some little time back I mentioned whatour responsibilities were, apart from the obviousresponsibilities of defending India and Indianterritory, I mentioned some names of some neigh-bouring countries. It is undoubtedly true that ourresponsibilities extend to these neighbouringcountries, and it is not in a light-hearted mannerthat I mentioned them which add to the burdensthat we carry, heavy as they are, but because theseresponsibilities were undertaken by us many yearsago. We have to stand by them whatever theconsequences-our neighbouring countries-Sikkim,Bhutan and Nepal. Now, each one of them standson a separate footing and let us not mix them up.Nepal, of course, is an independent country justlike India is independent and whatever it choosesto do in the exercise of that independence, wecannot come in the way. But, if I mentioned Nepalon the last occasion, it was because nearly nineyears ago, there was a clear understanding betweenthe Governments of Nepal and India on this point

There was no military alliance. It was aclear understanding which has been advantageousto both and in order to remove any doubts fromHon. membars' minds, I shall readout the wordsof that understanding. This treaty between Indiaand Nepal, a treaty of peace and friendship, wassigned on the 31st July 1950. I shall read the

first two articles. Article I states

"That the two Governments agree to acknowledge and respect the complete sovereignty, territorial integrity and inde- pendence of each other."

Article 2 says

"That the two Governments hereby undertake to inform each other of any serious friction or misunderstanding with any neighbouring State likely to cause any breach in the friendly relations existing between the two Governments."

Now, apart from this treaty-but it is anessential operative part of that-there was anexchange of letters between the two Governmentsin identical language, as was the custom. In theseletters there is this sentence:

"Neither Government shall tolerate any threat to the security of the other by a foreign aggressor. To deal with any such threat, the two Governments shall con- sult with each other and devise effective counter-measures."

This was the clear understanding arrived atand therefore I thought it desirable to state that.In fact I was a little surprised that people didnot know this. The words may not have beenknown but the position itself was pretty well knownand I want to make it perfectly clear that thisunderstanding has nothing to do with any kind ofunilateral action on our part. We cannot do it,we will not do it. We are going to take no stepin regard to Nepal or in Nepal. That is for theGovernment of Nepal to decide but it is in mutualinterest-it is stated in these letters and the treaty-for us to associate ourselves, first of all inknowledge as to what is happening, and secondly.in the counter-measures that might have to betaken. The Prime Minister of Nepal, the otherday, said something on this subject and may I say

511that I entirely agree with his interpretation of thisposition ?

Now for the last many years, we have labour-ed through Five Year Plans and the like, to

build up the prosperity of this country as well asits strength because the two are allied. You can-not separate them, though of course you can Jayfar greater stress on one aspect than on, the otherbut the base is the same, more or less. One maylay greater stress on arms production and less onsuch measures as may bring some relief to ourpeople but the foundation is the same. We havearrived at a stage now when some kind of words,which have lately come into common use are oftenapplied to India. That is, we are approachingwhat is called the 'take-off' stage, 'take-off' into amore or less modernist economy. Out of tradi-tional economies, we march through variousstages into an industrial and technological stageof production, etc. It is a very basic stage and astage which, by the very virtue of the fact of ouradvance, brings all kinds of new problems. Theproblems that we face in our economic world areevidence of the progress we have made and aremaking and you will find that type of problem inevery country which reaches that stage. When youcross a river, your hardest effort is when you arein the middle of the river facing heavy current,not when you are near one of the banks. That iswhere we are, and it is recognized, I think, in thegreater part of the world that the progress we havemade has been rather remarkable. We are notcomparing with other countries like China. Itmay be, it probably is, that the progress Chinahas made industrially, I mean the rate, is fasterand the results are greater . I do not exactly knowand I am not prepared to accept that as a fact butwe have also, tied up with our industrial andeconomic progress, certain other conceptions ofhuman dignity, individual freedom and all thatand I take it that we are not prepared to give upthose conceptions which we value. It is not forme to say what China or some other countrymight do but it is for us to lay down our ownbasic conceptions. Now one has to pay a certainprice for these conceptions of human dignity andfreedom. In fact those conceptions can onlyflourish, broadly speaking, in peace time. Oneof the first things that a war brings is thesuppression of much that an individual stands for,and the progressive degradation of the humanspirit. That is the result of a war, not only amongthose who fight but among others becausenowadays wars are total wars, affecting everyhuman being. In peace time one may argueabout controls and all that. In war time theyinevitably clamp down on everything because it is

a matter of life and death for the nation. Noindividual counts, no individual's freedom evencounts except within limitations. It is not a goodstate of affairs. Let us realize that. The twogreat wars, the World Wars, have undoubtedlybrought in a good deal of degradation in humanrelations, towards violence and hatred and all that.So we have to try to hold to our anchorage andto the ideals we hold and yet make good. Thatis the basic problem before us and that problemcomes up before us at a time when there are newhorizons all over the world. We live in an extra-ordinary and in a most exciting time when thesenew horizons are opening out, scientifically andotherwise. Old conceptions even, whatever theywere-whether they were conceptions of militaryor other conceptions-are out of date withmodern weapons. Economic conceptions are outof date in the modern world with new forcescoming into play. Whether they are conceptionsof the capitalist world or communist world, bothto-day are out of date in this new horizon that isopening out and the new horizon that is cominginto play.

I am mentioning all this because you have toconsider every problem and more especially agrave problem like this, in this wider context of achanging world. We are changing in our owncountry. We are perhaps not so conscious of thatchange because we are in the middle of the change.Others see it better but we ought to be able tosee the changing world at least and not be ledaway by old slogans and older concepts becausepeople are in the habit, nations are in the habit,of repeating certain concepts and slogans to whichthey are used. They go on using the old rhetoricwhen the reason for that rhetoric is past. So youfind in the world to-day a great ideological con-flict that was taking place between the so-calledcommunist world and the non-communist worldstill being referred to in brave phrases and wordsand yet progressively losing its edge. Countriesadapting themselves to the new world when it isgrowing, go on using the old rhetoric sometimes,if I may respectfully say so, as men of religionsometimes go on using their old rhetoric, whetherit is to the point or not. Although they adaptthemselves to the new conditions, the words re-main the same. So we find it here. Now in thisstate of affairs, when the world is in a fluid state,changing and new ideas and horizons are openingout, it is a peculiar misfortune that me should be

confronted with a situation which threatens mili-tary conflict and war. It is not our seeking, asthe world knows. But whether it is of our seekingor not, we have to face it and we have to prepareourselves for it with all our strength, all thetime trying to find peaceful methods of solving allthese problems. If those are denied and if those

512are denied and if those are not available, thenthere is no choice left and we shall face that. Butwe shall face that, I hope, even then keeping theultimate objective in view and not entirely lettinggo the old anchorage which has held us together.Great wars take place, bloody wars, but after thewar comes peace. Nations come together to findsome kind of peace, for they can not fight for ever.I remember a phrase which Mr. De Valera longyears ago said in my presence. He said it wasvery odd how after each war people came togetherfor peace. Why don't they come together beforethe war and settle it? It seems a simple way out,but it is a very wise thing. You first go throughblood and disaster and then you come togetherand talk of peace. Anyhow, in the world as it isdeveloping to-day, it would be a great misfortuneif there was a world war. And that is why the majorcountries of the world and particularly the leadersamong those countries, seeking peace to-day arethe United States and the Soviet Union, and Ibelieve the United Kingdom. These countries,all powerful countries, all highly developed coun-tries, have come to this conclusion that the wayof war is not a good way, and I believe that allthree of these are determined to find a way out.We welcome that, and I would not like to doanything which comes in the way of that. It maybe that some other countries are not so keen onthese settlements. They live in some kindof fever or excitement. They have developeda kind of neurosis because of the fever,may be. But I do not want my country todevelop any neurosis of that kind becauseit is not only bad in itself, but it is reallydiscarding everything that we have stoodfor, and if we discard that, then webecome without roots, national or anything.So I hope that however we may face thiscontingency and these dangers, we shallremember that basis, that root of ourswhich has helped us so much in the past.

CHINA INDIA USA RUSSIA GERMANY CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC BHUTAN NEPAL

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's reply to Rajya Sabha Debate on India-China Relations

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in the Rajya Sabhaon December 9, 1959 while replying to the debateon India-China relations :

Mr. Chairman, Sir, I am grateful to Hon.Members for all that they said in the course ofthis discussion even though some of it was incriticism of our policies and what I may havedone. I am glad of their criticism. because itenables me to deal with certain aspects of thismatter and to remove, possibly, some doubts thatmay remain in Members' minds. Naturally it israther embarrassing for me to discuss personalmatters, whether the personal matters refer to meor to a colleague of mine.

Now the Hon. Member opposite, Mr. GangaSharan, after paying me some compliments, most-ly undeserved, said that-well-I was sufferingfrom a certain rust, mental or otherwise, or bodi-ly. Well, I am no judge of my mental or othercondition, and if I have, in this opinion, lost thelustre that I once possessed, that is my misfortune.But Mr. Ganga Sharan perhaps wrongly thoughtthat I was endowed with certain qualities or mis-judged me in the past. I cannot function today asI functioned forty or fifty years ago. That is anatural result of the lapse of time. But so far asthe policies are concerned, which I seek to pursuehard, I believe that they are in line with all that Ihave said and done in the last forty years, whetherit was in the course of our struggle for our inde-pendence or later. I am too much rooted in thosethirty years of our struggle to start on a new linein the later years of my life. Nevertheless, whether

it was twenty or thirty or forty years ago, I wasalways trying to look to the future, trying to lookto the future for which we were attempting toprepare India. That question always loomed beforeme-what of India's future, what do you wantIndia to be, what do we want the world to be, al-though I was involved very deeply in the then din.Nevertheless, the future occupied at least half of mymind. I wonder how far that is the case withMr. Ganga Sharan or Dr. Kunzru.

Mr. Shiva Rao gave a very relevant quotationfrom a speech by Sir Winston Churchill, the firstspeech he delivered when he became the warpremier because of the last great war, when hesaid: "If the present sits in judgment on the past,it may lose the future". It is a wise saying froma man of great experience of war and peace, both.It does seem to me that the Hon. Dr. Kunzru isalways so wrapped up in the past that he hardlyhas any idea of the future. Now it has been mymisfortune not to have been able to agree withDr. Kunzru in the course of the last forty years. Iam not talking about minor agreements or dis-agreements; they may occur anywhere-but of arather basic approach to life and its problems, abasic approach to India and its problems, a basicapproach to national and international problems;for forty years we have differed, and forty yearsago the Hon. Member differing from these newpolicies left the great organisation to which I hadthe honour to belong and have belonged all this

513time. He did not agree, he had every right not toagree of course, as everybody has the right. Buthe cut himself away from the national current ofthe day because he did not look at the future; hedid not look at the currents of life that were con-vulsing Indian humanity.

He judged me, Mr. Ganga Sharan, and tellsme about public opinion. I should bow to publicopinion, of course. What am I here except as arepresentative of public opinion, and the momentI do not represent them, I shall bow my way outand seek some other occupation-that is obvious.Of course opinions may differ as to what publicopinion is. Naturally; and there is no single publicopinion; it varies and agrees very seldom. Thereare varieties of public opinion as there are varietiesof groups and classes and occupations and all thatin a great country. Undoubtedly Shri Ganga

Sharan represents a body of public opinion. Un-doubtedly Dr. Kunzru represents a body of publicopinion. Whether that body is small or big isanother matter. The question therefore is-when we talk about public opinion-to whatpublic we refer to. Is the opinion ofthe masses or the city folk ? Is it theopinion of a number of intellectuals ? Is it theopinion of a small group or a big group ? Allthese things arise. Is it the opinion of a few news.papers ? All that arises. I venture to think thatI have, among my many failings, one quality, andthat is judging public opinion having my hand ormy mind on the pulse of public opinion, affectingand changing public opinion. Of course, it iswrong to be swept away by public opinion. If youconsider it wrong, you have to resist it. Butbroadly speaking I try to keep in touch with publicopinion and the public have been generous to mein this matter, not only in their affection but alsoin accepting often the advice I gave them. There-fore, I would submit let us not discuss here inbalance what public opinion is. What I am afraidin the present instance, and I shall be quite frankwith this House, is that here we are facing thegravest problems that a country can face. There wasa brief but very important reference to this in Mr.Panikkar's short speech yesterday. We are facingone of the major historical changes of the world,of Asia, and of India. That is what we are facing,It is not a minor matter. Some people argue, somepeople say that it is a minor matter, a borderraid, some killing. It is something very big, notin terms of that invasion or aggression or borderraid. I am not going now into semantics and legal,wordy quibbling, as Dr. Kunzru was pleased to doyesterday as to whether any violation of the fron-tier is more or less not expansionism. Is that theway we deal with major problems of the day whenthe whole picture of the world is changing so faras India is concerned and India's borders are con-cerned ? That is a major issue that we have toface, to which reference was made by Mr. Panikkar.Here is a historical change of the greatest magni-tude. For the first time two major powers of Asiaface each other on an armed border. For thefirst time a world power or would-be world powersits near our borders and frontiers. It is quiteimmaterial whether we are friendly or not. Evenif we are hundred per cent friendly with them, thefact remains that here is a mighty power sitting onour borders. That itself changes the whole context,the whole picture. That we have to observe and

see. And we are not a mean country or a weakcountry. So, we face each other there and weface each other in anger at the present moment,and we are going to face each other, not today ortomorrow but for hundreds and hundreds of years.Neither China nor India is going to walk out ofAsia. That is the question of the present andthat is the broad aspect. And I am glad thatMr. Panikkar, with his great experienceof both these countries, drew attention to thismajor historical fact; that is, we are sitting or weare looking at these problems at a turn of history'swheel, a major turn which has never taken placein the past. Look at it from this point of view-not this petty, quibbling point of vew of a littlearea being here or there, of what some body hassaid and somebody has not said.

Behind this, look at this other picture-bothChina and India trying with more or less successto move out of a traditional form of society withtraditional structures as they used to be, into some-thing new, because all over the world for the lasthundred years, 150 years if you like or more,there has been this change from traditional formsto what might be called modern forms-I am usingthe word 'modern' rather technologically modern,scientifically modern-which has changed the faceof the world, which has made the great powers asyou see them today because of the technologicaladvance. Now, I am not going into another anda deeper question as to whether technologicaladvance, scientific advance, is enough for a countryI should say not. The other forms, call them whatyou like, ethical, moral, spiritual, are necessary togive a country any sound foundation. And surelyin the case of India, a country which has believedin that kind of thing, it is important. But I amgoing to discuss that. The major fact that I ampointing out is that here is this mighty changewhich has come over the world, over the Westernworld to begin with and now spreading over theAsian world--the advance of science and techno-logy changing the ways of living, the methods oflife and bringing the problems of higher standards,more food, more clothing, more of everything

514that a man needs. And in the course of all thisnot only a nation's prosperity increases, but itsarmed power increases. Armed power to-day isabove all based on technological advance. Itdoes not matter how brave the people are in a

country. If they are technologically backward,they are supposed to be weak and they are weakin that sense. Now, we see those changes comingover Asia, tremendous, mighty waves of changecoming over every part of Asia in various degrees.You see in China a revolution one of the mostbasic and fundamental in history, taking place,something convulsing 600 millions of people.We see mighty changes in India, In the 400millions, not in that violent way, not with thoseabrupt and violent methods, which we have seenin China, but nevertheless big changes, tremen-dous and revolutionary changes taking place inthe whole structure of life here. And I doubt ifeven we who are to-day sitting in Parliament fullyrealise how the base of life in India is changingby a variety of things, by the spread of educationby the spread of industry and all that. Now, inthis background each of these countries is gropingforward and when a country like India or acountry like China gropes forward, it makes achange-too big not to affect the world-wherethese two mighty countries come against eachother and face each other in an armed way, inanger. That is a major event of the world,

What is happening to-day perhaps in theworld is that the centre of gravity of conflict isshifting from Europe to Asia. All these are majorhistorical things and cannot be disposed of by pettyarguments, petty criticisms and this or that. Hereis the future unveiling itself, unravelling andbringing tremendous new problems which cannotbe answered by any traditional way of thinking,whether in war or peace. Therefore, I would begof Mr. Ganga Sharan Sinha to keep this in mindbecause I have great respect for Mr. Ganga SharanSinha. But do think that he is too rooted intraditional ways of thinking to realise the presentor think of the future. And as for Dr. Kunzru,whom I have respected always and respect now, Ihave always somehow felt this difficulty that heloses himself in innumerable details and the bigthing passes by unnoticed. So this is my difficulty.I shall deal with some of the points that Dr.Kunzru raised in so far as I can. But I do wishthis House and this country to realize what. hashappened and what is happening-I dislike it, thisHouse dislikes it. I appreciate and I welcome thesurge of emotion that has passed through thiscountry because of these border troubles. Ahealthy community ought to react in this way, andhaving reacted in this way we should turn this

energy, this enthusiasm in the right, constructivedirection, to build up and strengthen the countryto face any peril or adventure that might come ourway. But what troubles me is this turning of thisenthusiasm into wrong channels, into effervescentchannels which do not last, and sometimes criesare raised which I have fought against all my lifewhen they were raised in other countries. And Iam not going to accept those cries being raised inIndia because I am an Indian. I dislike jingoism,whether it is in England or America or Russia orChina or India. I am not a jingoist; I do not wantmy country to be jingoist, and especially when thejingoism has not even any basis of that greatstrength to enforce it, it becomes ridiculous totalk in that way. We are not weak. I do notaccept it when anybody says we are weak. Weare strong enough to face any contingencypartly because we have developed industrially andotherwise; we are stronger than we were someyears before, much stronger, and may I say thatthe principal strength to which I attach importancehas come to us, to our war machine, during thelast two or three years.

Our war machine, as all war machines,depends on an industrial apparatus behind it. Iam not talking about the general industrial appara-tus of the country, but of the specialised, broadindustrial apparatus. That has progressed morein the last two or three years than at any previoustime, because more attention, organised attention,has been given to it. That is a thing which comesfrom a new approach. In this country in what-ever line we move we are restricted, limited, con.strained, cabined by our old habits of govern-ment and everything. Whether it is the army,whether it is the civil structure-we have the ad-vantage of carrying on with every kind of structurebut-there is a very grave disadvantage of beingcabined and confined by all this structure. It takesup all the time and we have to consider this mattertoday, more especially when we talk about policiesand other things. But the real difficulty that comesin our way is the delay in the implementation ofany policy, whether in the States or the govern-ment here because of procedures, all kinds of pro-cedures. It has to go through so many grades ofofficials and others to get through, noting and allthat. We all complain against it and yet, we findit exceedingly difficult to get out of it. This kindof thing does not apply, of course, to the ChineseGovernment. There is no Parliament to discuss

anything there. They decide and they order andit is done. And I am not talking that Parliamentshould not discuss it-of course not-and I wasreally talking about the difference in the wholeapproach there, how things can be done rapidly,whether rightly or wrongly. Our procedures havebeen inherited from the old British times. The

515delay is there. Good procedures are there, goodin the sense that theoretically they are good, goodin the sense that they aim at perfection, perfectionof the official procedure, checks and counter-checks, this must not go wrong, that must not gowrong. But they result in great delay and that isa very vital matter when we have to do thingsquickly whether in a peace situation or in a warsituation. In a war situation, of course, all thathas to go in a chain. So we are tied up. In thesame manner, I submit, we are tied up in ourmental processes, most people are. It is difficultto adopt ourselves to a world which is rapidlychanging, and we are tied up in our mental pro-cesses also, because we represent, by and large, aswe should, not only the urban people, the techni-cal people in India, the new type of human beingthat has risen in this technological world in India,but we represent above all the rural masses ofIndia. They require representation, of course.That is the principal problem. But we bring withthat also the traditional mind. We see that greatforces are at work which are changing India,changing China, changing Asia, changing theworld. Therefore, we have to look at these pro-blems in this wide perspective and realise that wehave to prepare not for some trouble on theborder to-day. But of course, we have to, to thebest of our ability, protect our integrity, but thisis the major problem of the future, of two nationsarmed facing each other. People say, why don'tyou drive them out ? "Why don't you ?", as ifit is some kind of a children's game and not realis-ing what this means. If we can drive them out,they can drive us out of some place and we enterinto theirs. So, I do beg of this House to get thisbroad picture of the vast historical change thathas come in and that has to be faced.

We have got here to face a situation which canonly be faced by strength. If that is so, we haveto build up that strength as rapidly as possible,and we have to find out how to build up thatstrength. That strength can be built up in many

ways-armies, etc.-but basically again, it has tobe built up by the industrial background that youhave. And remember always, that is not a ques-tion of today or six months or a year; years aheadwe shall have to face this problem, peace or war.Apart from peace or war, whatever it may be, thefacts are that two great nations face each otheracross a tremendous frontier and they are bothpretty strong, stronger than in the past. Then boware we to live ? Are we to live in permanent hosti-lity or are we to find some way of existence asfriends, if not as friends, as people who tolerateeach other ? Now, look at this picture even in thewider context of the world. What is happening ?All the world is talking about President Eisen-hower's visit here. The visit of President Eisen-hower would have been important at any timebecause he represents a great nation. He is a greatman. But particular importance attaches to hisvisit today here, not because of our trouble onthe border, but because he is moving about allover, at great trouble and inconvenience, is visitinga number of countries in Europe and Asia, becausewe feel that he is pursuing an ideology of peace.And that is why wherever he goes, he finds atremendous welcome, not only from governments,but from the people, and that is why I have nodoubt that this afternoon or tomorrow or the dayafter the people of Delhi will welcome him intheir vast numbers, but not a formal welcome, buta welcome from the heart, because we welcomethe messengers of peace, the builders of peace,and we feel that he is trying his utmost to achievepeace in spite of great difficulties. Why is all thisturn taking place in the Western world? Whysuddenly-not suddenly; but nevertheless, veryrapidly-has the cold-war mentality graduallychanged ? It has not gone, of course-of course,not-but the change has been remarkable in theselast year or so. And everybody is hoping that asmonths pass, more progress will be made on thequestion of disarmament, on the question ofstoppage of nuclear tests which is so vital, and inputting an end to this cold war. All over the worldthe masses of people hope that this will happen.They have had that hope, of course, for a longtime past. But today a change is taking place witheven governments; stolid as they are, they havebeen moved somewhat by popular emotion andby the facts of life facing them, and so, govern-ments are also moving in that direction. Now.they are doing so, I take it, not because of, shallI say, humanitarian reasons or just love of every-

body, and I hope this element of humanitarianreasons enter into them. But really govern-ments function, shall I say, not for hum-anitarian reasons. That is supposed to be rathertough-the government way of dealing with anational question.

A minister may not be tough but Govern-ments are tough and I suppose they have to betough but Governments have come to the con-clusion that this toughness in the present day doesnot pay. Toughness leads to consequences not onthe other party but on themselves. Toughnessmight lead to utter destruction of themselves andtheir countries. Here is a great power, England,a nuclear power. What is the fate of England ina nuclear war ? Every Englishman knows that.They are brave people, they do not shout andcomplain. In a major nuclear war, England isdestroyed just like any other country-of coursenot only England, I am merely mentioning England.

516Here is one of the greatest countries in the world,a most advanced country, one of the most pros-perous countries and even a member of the so-called nuclear club. Even that country cannotprotect itself if there is a war. They can destroyothers but they cannot protect themselves. Acurious situation has arisen in this world. There-fore, these statesmen of the world of many coun-tries are trying their hardest to get rid of thesefears and suspicions and find some way of livingwith the people across their borders, some way ofco-existence. There is no other way. And let ushope that they will succeed. Now I refer to thismatter because you have to consider even yourproblems from the context of these larger develop-ments because these larger developments will affectus, will affect China. It is not a question of, assome people. say, `How can you put your trust inChina'? It is not a question of trust at all. Frank-ly, first of all no country finally puts its trust inany other country. They may be more favourablyinclined or less but in the ultimate analysis,they have always to keep a loophole in theirminds that the other party will not playup or that other things may happen or nationalinterests may come into play. The safer thing isfor the national interests to be more or less inline with international interests. Where they con-flict, you do not quite know what will happen. Soit is not a question of my trusting China or not

trusting it but it is a question, nevertheless, of myrealising that China and India, two great countries,are going through enormous changes which arestrengthening them, making them powerful, modernpower-States and they will be and they are nextto each other and have to remain for millennia tocome, for geological ages, next to each other. Allthese questions come up. This does not mean, ofcourse, that we should think of what will happenhundred years hence and forget what is happeningtoday. In the context of today, you have to takeevery possible step to protect your integrity, yourfreedom and your self-respect. That of courseis so. That is common ground. I need notargue that. You may go into details as to howyou do it but it is common ground that we shouldface this position and protect our country'sterritories, to the best of our ability and in thatcomes again a certain morale of the nation, acertain discipline, a certain unity and not constant-ly nibbing at each other and nagging at each otherand blaming each other, because that is just thething which undermines that very basis when youhave to face a national crisis. Then you preparefor tomorrow also by our developing industrialgrowth and the rest. That is admitted. I do notrefer to it because it is no good going on repeatingthe same phrases, but the basic thing remains.What is your picture of today, and what will bethe picture tomorrow and the day after and youhave to prepare for it because basically and funda-mentally I know that we must work for peace inthe world, we must work for peace on our bordersand we must work but at the same time not talkabout peace-if I may be forgiven for saying so-in an Utopian way, just reciting a Mantra ofpeace and doing nothing. I do not believe thatthe weak can do anything worthwhile. A weaknation cannot do and even the cry of peace froma weak nation or individual has no influence onothers. It is only when there is strength behindit, the strength of will and the spirit of the nation-and organized strength of the nation, that its voicecounts.

It has been an amazing thing and a surprisingthing that India's voice has counted for so muchin the councils of the world in the last severalyears since independence. Progressively it hascounted for more and more without the materialbackground of strength behind that voice. It hasbeen a surprising thing how that has happened.We may have been taken in by it that we are

getting bigger and bigger. We may have becomeconceited about it-there was some room forconceit, I admit-but the fact is that a countrylike India which in the modern world is in termsof physical might not to be compared with thegreat powers or with many of the armed nations,which cannot be even called great powers, acountry which is poor and which is strugglinghard to get rid of its poverty, how has thiscountry's voice, with no great military might, withno financial or other resources, counted forso much in the world for the last few years.Whether it is in the United Nations or whether itis elsewhere, we are respected all over the world,let us remember that. Now there must be somereason for it. May be, you may say-well, I amnot saying it but somebody may say that-that it,is clever diplomacy, it is cleverly putting ourselvesacross to others. May be, there is something in itnot wholly. It may be due to the remembrancein the world of a mighty personality like Gandhijiand we shine by it or we have got something ofthe radiance that he possessed. It may be thatwe have spoken with conviction and earnestnessand sincerity about peace and our desire forpeace and our desire for tolerance and when wehave talked about coexistence and all that, it wasnot a phrase in our mouths and lips. It was a deepfeeling from inside our hearts and it was a deepunderstanding of the world as it is today becausethere can be nothing else but co-existence in theworld. I do say it-because the emphasis isdeeper-that there can be nothing else but PanchSheel in this world. I say it with all the emphasis atmy command. It may be broken by individuals or

517nations. They will suffer if they break. The worldwill suffer. It is a different matter. So we havefollowed a policy not of the day, not of themoment, but a policy which looked into the futureand millions and millions of people in othercountries were affected by that. That looked upto India in a sense-they could get nothing out ofus, not money, not arms-they looked up to usbecause they feel that India did have the courageto stand for something even though it was a poorcountry and a lightly armed country. There wassomething in that. It was the policy we pursued,the policy of non-alignment, the policy of co-existence, the policy of Panch Sheel, call it whatyou will, basically. It was-I will not say im-material-largely immaterial all the same what

China did or some other country did about it. Inso far as China is concerned, if China breaks thatpolicy, that type of contact with us breaks-be-tween China and India, but the policy is not wrong.We attained a measure of stature among nationsSo which normally nations do not attain unless theyhave financial power, industrial power or militarypower. We had none of these three, to any largeextent. We attained that because of the policieswe have pursued. Now so far as the world is con-cerned, the world judges of that policy not bysome Sastric document preserved in our ancientarchives. The world has heard of this policy fromwhat the Prime Minister has said about it and theworld has reacted to it from learning of it frommy lips, from my writing and from statementsmade by me. Therefore the world has fallen outof step with Dr. Kunzru. That is my humblesubmission.

Now, Sir, I would beg this House to keep thesebroad pictures in mind. I shall briefly repeat them.There is the broad picture of the world undergoinga tremendous change. As I said yesterday, newhorizons, new visions, come up, something almostgoing outside the scope of physical existence, whenyou talk of going to the moon and of scientificdevelopments today. They almost take you tosomething which I do not know how to describe.I may call it the fourth dimension. We live in athree dimensional world and now we might almostbe on the verge of the fourth dimension for aughtI know. Anyhow there are two types of existence,two types of the experience which are beyond thenormal experience of humanity, individuals apart.That is happening in the world today. Science saysmatter and energy are one and the same thing al-most. We do repeat these phrases, not understand-ing them. So there is this change. Then there is thisbig change in the world, the change away from thecold war, in which the lead has been taken by thesetwo great, the two biggest and strongest nationsof the world-America and the Soviet Union. Thatis one aspect of it. The other aspect is this parti-cular problem that is raised when China and India,if I may say so, come to grips with the problemof historical significance. That is represented todayby the aggression or invasion of our territory, orcall it what you like, by the violation of our territ-tory and all that. But behind that question-thatis important enough and we have to face it butactually behind that stretches this vista of thefuture which I see all the time and I try to evolve

or meet this equation or see how to solve thisproblem. But I want this House and not onlythis House but millions of our people must havesome glimpse of this, for otherwise they willdecide wrongly. Otherwise they will lose all theenthusiasm and energy that they possess by takingshelter in jingoistic and chauvinistic cries. Thatwould be a tragedy, a very grave tragedy, becausewe shall become a nation not of depth but ofeffervescence. We shall become a nation whichhas lost its anchorage. I am afraid of that kindof thing and that is why I talk about this some-times in public and elsewhere. People think I amafraid of China or I am afraid of this or that, be-cause I do that. I am elsewhere. People think Iam afraid of China or of this or that, because Ido that. I am not afraid of anything of that type,I am only afraid of our nation losing grip of thefundamentals in which it has believed. That is theonly thing I am afraid of.

Now, may I refer briefly to some of thepoints raised. Dr. Kunzru referred to a certainBorder Committee that was appointed. I shalltell the House about this committee. But Isuppose enough facts have come out in the papers,in the White Papers and in the speeches here andin the other House to indicate that right from1950, or at any rate from 1951, when the Chineseforces came into Tibet, we have had this problembefore us. It has not suddenly come up beforeus this year or last year We have had this prob-lem before us and this developing picture which Ihave put before you, of two power States emerging,two power States coming face to face with eachother on a tremendous border. Ever since 1950,this has been the picture before us. We may havediffered as to the timing in our minds, as to whenthis will happen, whether in 5 years, 10 years, 15years, 20 years, it was difficult to say. But wehad that picture. And looking through my oldpapers when this occurred, I was surprised my-self to see how we had referred to thesecontingencies, 8-or 9 years ago, in our papersand how we had written to our Ambassadorsin Peking and others, especially at Peking andasked for his reactions. In those early years of thispresent-day Republic, the Chinese Republic, Mr.Panikkar was our Ambassador there and I read

518through his notes on the subject and our notesto him and our decisions. From the very first

day and all the time this problem came before us,about our: frontier. It is not a new problem. Thequestion was whether we should raise it in anacute form at that stage. We decided whether itwas right or wrong you can judge now, it is easyto be wise after the event, for hind sight is alwayseasy to take. We decided not to, and still we donot see how we could have decided: otherwise.We might have done so, of course, but I do notsee any reason yet. But with all the materialthat was before us at the time, we decided that wemust make clear in every possible way that ourfrontier was in our opinion,: clear in our maps,clear in our statements, clear to the world andclear to China and clear to our own people, ofcourse, and hold by it. stick by it. Why shouldwe go about asking China to raise this questionwhen we felt sure about it? Why invite discussionabout a thing on which we had no doubt? But asI said, we might, with hind sight say that thatwas not a very wise policy, that is a differentmatter. The point is, this was discussed re-peatedly in our notes, in our papers, and dis-patches, I believe, if I may say so, Mr. Panikkarhimself advised us at that time, "Yes, you neednot raise it; but declare it openly." . We declaredit in Parliament. We declared it before the ChineseGovernment and all that. And during all thisperiod, remember, the only way this question cameup before us was because of the Chinese maps.When we saw the Chinese maps, we protested andthe answer always was "These are old maps whichrequire revision and we shall, when we haveleisure, revise them." But at no time during thisentire period did they challenge our maps. Theydid not accept it in so many words but theynever challenged it. And they never raised thisquestion themselves and all that they said abouttheir own maps was that these had to be revised.Now, I wish to admit that a lingering doubt. re-mained in my mind and in my Ministry's mind asto what might happen in the future. But we didnot see how we were going to decide this questionby hurling it in that form at the Chinese at themoment. We felt that we should hold by ourposition and that the lapse of time and events willconfirm it, and by the time perhaps, when thechallenge to it came, we would be in a muchstronger position to face it. I may be perfectlyfrank to the House. It is not as if it was ignoredor that it was not thought about. After thelongest and clearest thinking and consultationswith those who were concerned, between our

Ambassador and others, our Foreign AffairsCommittee and others, we came to this decision.This was discussed again and again, after twoor three years, whenever a new contingency arose.

Then came the period of the Tibetan Treatyor the Tibetan Agreement of 1954. Again weconsidered it at length. Should we bring thisquestion positively into the front-the recognitionof the McMahon Line? An Hon. MemberI forget who, asked, "Why did you not ask themto recognise it?"

Well, what exactly was the quid pro quo ?They were sitting in Tibet. Our telling themthat we did not recognise it-would mean nothing.What were we supposed to say ? It is not clearto me. Was it a question of non-recognition ofthe Chinese Government ? Were we going thatfar ? "All right, we do not recognise you. Webreak off relations with you because you do notrecognise the MacMahon Line" or, as somepeople going on saying, we do not recognise theChinese sovereignty or suzerainty over Tibet.They were sitting there and our saying anythingto them would make no difference. It is ratherinfantile to think that they would have beenfrightened by our saying something. The resultwould have been that they would have achievedtheir dominance over Tibet completely andthe only thing is that we would have quarrelledwith them and we would have come near breakingpoint with them. The trouble on the frontier wouldhave come immediately, not now but years backwe would have had to face it. So, this businessof saying that we should have insisted on thisand insisted on that, we should have asked themto guarantee this and guarantee that we shouldhave made them commit themselves to this orthat envisages all. kinds of ultimatum and thelike being issued by us and their being compelledto accept that ultimatum. It does not fit inwith the facts of life, with the facts as they arein Asia, in India, in China and in Tibet. I canimagine some argument being based on somehigh moral principles, regardless of what happensto India or Tibet or to anybody. That, of course,may be advanced but such an argument usuallyby itself does not infiuence Foreign Offices.

Now, Sir, some Hon. Members seemed tohave an idea that there has been negligence andsaid that past negligence should not be repeated

I really am not ashamed to confess errors; maybewe had been negligent here and there in variousplaces but in our broad policy in regard to ourfrontiers, I do claim that we have not been negli-gent keeping this broad picture in view becauseany other step of a major character wouldhave created a crisis earlier than we wouldhave been prepared for it. You may say, andyou would be right in saying, that we could havepushed ahead with more of road building orbuilding lines of communications, etc. I think

519we have been going on fast there.

But then, you should remember anotheraspect. It always becomes a question of balanc-ing things. Here we are struggling with ourFive Year Plans and the like. We have tobalance and to see whether we should spendso much more on the development of a frontierarea or in some other area which will bring inquicker results, say a steel plant of a fertiliserplant. One has to balance all these things.Maybe the balancing is wrong. One makes aguess; one has to judge. There is the dangerof slow progress in one direction and the dangersin the frontier. All these things have to be doneand one makes a guess About the future andgoes ahead.

Now, Dr. Kunzru referred to the BorderCommittee Report. There was another Commit-tee also. Last evening I got the report andlooked through it again. The North and theNorth Eastern Border Committee was appointedin 1951. This committee made a large numberof recommendations and these recommendationswere examined by an ad hoc committee of Sec-retarics and finally by the Defence Committeeof the Cabinet. An overwhelming number ofrecommendations made were accepted and im-plemented. Among the major recommendationswere the re-organisation and expansion of theAssam Rifles, the extension of administrationin the NEFA area, development of intelligencenetwork along the border, development of theborder areas, development of civil armed police,development of communications and check posts.Our position in regard to Nepal was consideredseparately. All these recommendations, barringa few, were accepted and they have been imple-mented some time ago. So far as the develop-

ment of the border areas was concerned, theMinistry of Home Affairs took up this questionwith the State Governments concerned andprovision was made for these in the Five YearPlans, the Centre giving substantial help. Thisdevelopment included road communications,schools, hospitals, tribal welfare, animal husband-ry, etc. The construction of a number of roadswas entrusted to army engineers, especially inNEFA. The Ministry of Transport was alsoentrusted with making a number of roads. Someof these roads have been completed, some arebeing constructed and a few were not acceptedor not proceeded with, either for tactical reasonsor because expenditure on the construction ofsuch roads was colossal and out of proportionto the good that they may do. So, Sir, broadlyspeaking, it may be said that nearly all the re-commendations made by the Committee wereaccepted and implemented.

Dr. Kunzru referred to what our represen-tative said in the United Nations in regard toTibet. He was surprised at it. First of all, Iam afraid, our representative did not say thewords which were quoted by Dr. Kunzru. Thatis neither here nor there but our policy in regardto Tibet was laid after full discussion in Parlia-ment long before the question came up in theUnited Nations. I stated it-I am not quitesure if I stated it here or in the Lok Sabha-inanswer to questions. We have discussed thisclearly and we have laid it down also. We dec-lared it publicly, in Parliament, in Press Confe-rences and the like and that is exactly what wasrepeated there. You might disagree with thatpolicy ; that is a different matter. I think thatwas a right policy and the only policy to bepursued but to state that this is something newevolved there is not correct. There is, Sir, anintimate relation between the domestic policiesof a country and the foreign policies of a country.Sometimes they diverge a little but broadly speak-ing-presumably because there is the same mindbehind both--they act and interact against eachother and I have a feeling that the difficulty thatsome Hon. Members may have in appreciatingmy argument for the foreign policy we pursuereally relates back to their difference in viewabout the domestic policies we pursue. I haveno doubt about it in my mind. Not always, butin varying degrees it is there and you will findthat even today, while I have ventured in all

humility to say that the foreign policy that wepursue is supported by the widest measure ofpublic opinion that you can have in India-it hasbeen supported and it is supported-there areminor criticisms.

The critics of that foreign policy, you willfind-the major critics-are critics of our domes-tic policy also. They are tied up-the two thingsand I can understand that. That happens; somepeople think differently; it is not necessary foreveryone to think alike in the country. Thereare parties that think differently, honestly, sincere-ly. But we must realise the urges behind it, theroots of the thoughts which govern their domesticoutlook as well as their international outlook.And if they are different, they can convert me; Ishall be happy. I try to convert them, sometimeswith success, sometimes I fail.

Now, Sir, I have ventured to take up nearlyan hour of this House and for the rest all I wishto say is that so far as the present situation isconcerned, obviously we have to prepare for it tothe best of our ability. On the one hand I have

520referred so much to our industrial developmenteven from the defence point of view. Now Iwant to expedite it, to hurry it up; I want Govern.ment procedures to become quicker in doing thesethings. I try to do it but it is a very difficult thingin a machine, in a huge machine, that has grownup from generations to-change it quickly. Wehave been changing it; we have changed it partly;we will change it more, I hope, and make it aswift-moving machine. We have to think againof the future, the next few years, how we are to facethat future. We cannot deal with the issue today;we have to deal with it in the military sense todayand we propose to give opportunities to our youngmen to be trained in the N. C. C., the TerritorialArmy or the Special Force that we may raise.

Sir, there is one fact which might be remem-bered when- people think so much sometimes ofobtaining outside aid. Maybe they imagine thatin my conceit I say that I will not take outsideaid. Well, it is not for me to judge myself but Icertainly have a little conceit about India's stand-ing on its own legs. Of course I cannot say whatin an eventuality we may do; that is a differentmatter but I do not want this idea to go out to

our people that others will preserve our freedom,that others will help us, I do not want India togo on crutches. We have faced grave difficulties,grave crises, and survived them and I have nodoubt at all in my mind that we shall survive notonly because of the development we have got nowand the way we are developing but more so be.cause I have got a fundamental faith in the Indianpeople. Therefore I am not worried; certainly Ihave to think and I have to take counsel inParliament and we have to devise general ways ofmeeting such tests. So what I was saying was, itis an odd thing you talk of aid. The type of war-fare we are dealing with is warfare which requiresstout men, not machines very much. Certainly,some machines you want, not big machines. Thetype of aid that one gets from abroad are machinesand in these mountain areas those machines donot reach. It they are big machines there is littlegood. We want stout and trained men, not onlystout and trained men, but men of the mountainswho are used to high altitudes, who are used toterribly cold climates, who are used to hardship.We want young men who physically are in A-1condition. From the physical point of view ourconditions are not generally A-1 or A-2 even. Sothis is the type of thing we want and we have gotenough of them, I am sure, and I hope that weshall build up for the present our defence as muchas possible in this way and build up our industrialapparatus for the future and while doing all thatalways aiming at a peaceful settlement, alwaysaiming at peace, and not losing ourselves in somekind of vague chauvinistic or jingoistic ideas whichwill do enormous injury to our country and to thelarger causes that we have supported.

CHINA INDIA USA RUSSIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC NEPAL PERU

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on Maltreatment to Karam Singh by Chinese

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in the Lok Sabha onDecember 11, 1959 while speaking on an adjourn-ment motion on the bad treatment given to KaramSingh by the Chinese :

This is a matter on which I can very wellunderstand the desire and anxiety of the House toknow what exactly the facts were. The first infor-mation that reached us, that is, 2 or 3 weeks agowhen Shri Karam Singh reached Leh, I think, orSrinagar, was to the effect that he had been badlytreated. It was a relatively brief report of whathe said : not one sentence, it was longer than that-It was not a very full report. Immediately we sentthat report to the Chinese Government and pro-tested against this treatment. This House willremember, in the course of the debate, referencewas made to the treatment of prisoners, GenevaConvention, etc.

Then, the reply to that was received a fewdays back, as I informed the House, I think, inwhich they said, no, we treated him well andgenerously, which of course, was directly contraryto the report we had received from Shri KaramSingh.

As the original report of Shri Karam Singhwas relatively a brief one, without details we want-ed to have an amplified and full report from him.We did not wish to trouble him too much imme-diately, because, the poor man was suffering inhospital. But, in the course of the last few days,some further particulars have been obtained fromhim. In fact, they have just reached us-I receiv-ed the report just ten minutes ago. I have notbeen able to read it even. There is no doubt thefirst general impression is that the treatmentaccorded to Shri Karam Singh and others wasbad : in fact, very bad. It seems rather a grimstory of bad treatment. I should like, naturally,to consider his report which I have not read yet-I just got it 10 minutes ago-fully and to take suchother steps in regard to it so far as the ChineseGovernment is concerned. It would be right andobviously desirable that I should take the Houseinto our confidence in this matter. But, at the

521present moment, I have not yet even read that

report, and it is rather difficult for me. I wouldsuggest, if you will permit me to make a statementabout this a few days later.

CHINA USA SWITZERLAND

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Treatment to Indian Police Party by Chinese Troops--Papers Laid in Lok Sabha by Prime Minister

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,presented to the Lok Sabha on December 15, 1959the following papers relating to the treatment ofthe Indian police patrol party captured by theChinese troops at Chang Chenmo Valley onOctober 21, 1959 :

(1) Unofficial memorandum of the Chinese Government on 14 November, 1959.

(2) Note of the Indian Government on 24 November, 1959.

(3) Note of the Chinese Government on 28 November, 1959.

(4) Note of the Indian Government on 13 December, 1959 along with statement of Shri Karam Singh.

The following is the text of the unofficialmemorandum presented by Vice-Minister ChangHanfu to the Indian Ambassador in Peking onthe 14th November, 1959.

The following are the main facts about theborder incident of October 20th and 21st in thearea south of Kongka pass as admitted by theDeputy Commander of the Indian forces KaramSingh and the other eight Indian soldiers,Mohd. Khalil, Sonam Dorje, Rulia Ram, Tsring

Nalbu, Gur Bahadur, Abdul Majid, Rudar Man,Shiv Dayal who were detained or captured in theincident. These main points fully confirm theaccount of this border incident given by theChinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in its memo-randum of 22nd October, its note of 24th Octoberand its statement of 26th October.

The Indian Military personnel involved be-longed to the Indian Tibetan Boundary Forceunder the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs. Theywere led by Commander S.P. Tyagi and DeputyCommander Karam Singh. They started fromLeh towards the end of September for Tsogstsalu,Kiam and Shamal Lungpe and the North Eastof Kongka pass to set up check-posts there andarrived at Kiam on 19th October. They had neverbeen to the place before where the present clashoccurred at south of Kongka pass.

On 20th October Mohd. Khalil, SonamDorje and a guide called Chadan were sent fromKiam to the area south of Kongka pass. Khaliland Dorje were each issued a rifle, ten round anda field glass. They admitted that they were sent forthe purpose of reconnoitring the conditions ofChinese troops within Chinese territory. At1300 hours that afternoon they were discoveredby three patrolling Chinese Frontier Guards. TheChinese Frontier Guards shouted to them andwaved to them to go away. The Indians failed todo so and were then detained.

On 21st October Tyagi and Karam Singh tookmore than 60 Indian troops to the area south ofKongka pass to search for the three missingarmed Indian personnel. Before starting Tyagiexpressed he had a mind to fight against Chinesetroops. The Indian Military personnel carried withthem four bren guns and about 50 rifles as wellas two or three sten guns and 25 hand grenades.

When the Indian Military personnel approa-ched a hill in the area south of Kongka pass theydiscovered six Chinese soldiers on the hill. Tyagiordered Karam Singh to take 30 men to surroundand capture the Chinese soldiers. They saw oneor two Chinese soldiers waving their hands forthem to go away. Instead of going away theypressed forward.

Then Indian soldier Ali Raza fired first. An-other Indian soldier Manohar Lal caught a horse

of the Chinese Frontier Guards. Thereafter firewas exchanged. Chinese soldiers were equipped with nomortar and other artillery. They were armed withrifles, tommy guns, light machine guns and handgrenades.

The 9 Indian Military personnel were killedwhile they were attacking up hill target but thedetained and captured Indian military personneladmitted that they had been given good treatmentby the Chinese officers and soldiers during theirdetention.

The following is the Text of the Note handedover to the Chinese Embassy in India on 24thNovember, 1959 :

The Ministry of External Affairs of the Govern-ment of India present their compliments to theEmbassy of the People's Republic of China and

522have the honour to refer to the note which theMinistry handed to the Embassy on November4, 1959, in regard to the incident, in the ChangChenmo Valley. A first-hand account of the inci-dent, received from the second-in-command of theIndian Police patrol party, was attached to thatnote. The Government of India have sincereceived further accounts of the incident from theIndian personnel who had been captured by theChinese forces on October 20 and 21 and releasedafter several reminders on November 14. Theseaccounts corroborate the earlier reports which hadbeen given by the members of the Indian policepatrol party who had retured to the base after theclash.

The Government of India would also like torefer to a Constable named Makhan Lal whoremains still unaccounted for, According to thestatement of Shri Karam Singh, he and ConstableRudra Man were made by the Chinese forcesafter the clash on October 21 to carry MakhanLal who had sustained injuries for a distanceof two miles. They were then made to leave behindMakhan Lal on a river bank. What happenedsubsequently to him is not known to any of the re-leased personnel. The Government of India wouldlike to have any further information which theChinese authorities might have about Makhan Lal.

The Government of India are surprised andshocked to bear of the treatment to which theIndian prisoners were subjected by their captors.The prisoners were kept in torn tents in bitterlycold weather and without any bedding for fourdays. As a result of this, the leader of the party,Shri Karam Singh, and three Constables wereseverely frost-bitten. One of the prisoners,Constable Abdul Majid, who had a bullet woundon his back, received no medical attention untilthe fourth day. Besides, the prisoners weresubjected to continuous interrogation from thetime of their arrest till the time of their release.They were asked under threats and pressure to makestatements to the effect that the Indian party hadgone forward knowingly into Chinese territoryand that they had sent two Constables and a Porterthe previous day to carry out espionage there.The Government of India have no knowledge ofthe statements which the prisoners are supposedto have made to the Chinese authorities, but,obviously, statements made under such circum-stances cannot be regarded as voluntary.

The Government of India protest stronglyagainst the deplorable treatment to which theIndian personnel were subjected while in Chinesecustody. Under article 17 of the Geneva Conven-tion of August 12, 1949, relating to the treatmentof prisoners of war, a prisoner of war is onlybound to give his surname, first names and rank,date of birth and army regimental, personal orserial number, or failing this, equivalent informa-tion. No physical or mental torture, nor anyother form of coercion, may be inflicted onprisoners of war to secure from them informationof any kind whatever. Prisoners of war whorefuse to answer may not be threatened, insultedor exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treat-ment of any kind. Whether or not the GenevaConvention applies to the Indian personnel takenprisoners by the Chinese forces on October 21, itis obvious that they should not have been subjec-ted to treatment worse than that to which priso-ners of war are entitled. It is most regrettablethat the Chinese authorities should have subjectedthe Indian prisoners to interrogation, threats andharsh treatment in order to compel them to makestatements desired by their captors.

The Ministry of External Affairs take thisopportunity to renew to the Embassy of thePeople's Republic of China the assurances of

their highest consideration.

CHINA INDIA CHAD CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC USA SWITZERLAND

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

The following is the text of the Note handed over to the Embassy of India in Peking on 28th November 1959

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People'sRepublic of China presents its compliments to theIndian Embassy in China and, with reference tothe note delivered on November 24, 1959 to theChinese Embassy in India by the Indian Ministryof External Affairs, has the honour to reply asfollows:

In its memorandum of October 22, its note ofOctober 24 and its statement of October 26, theChinese Government gave detailed and incontest-ably correct accounts of the border incident whichoccurred at the Kongka Pass on October 20 and21, 1959. The facts admitted by the capturedIndian military personnel are in agreement withthe accounts given by the Chinese Government.On November 14, the Chinese Government hand-ed over to the Indian Embassy in China a writtenmaterial setting out the facts admitted by thecaptured Indian military personnel and drew theattention of the Indian Government to it. It isproved by the material that the report of thesecond-in command of the Indian police patrolparty attached to the Indian Government's note

523of November 4 is completely inconsistent with thefacts.

Out of traditional Sino-Indian friendship andhumanitarian considerations, the Chinese Govern-ment on the third day after the Kongka passincident already took the initiative in notifying

the Indian Government that it was prepared tolet the Indian side take back the captured Indianmilitary personnel and the bodies of the Indiansoldiers. The Chinese Government is gratifiedthat they were handed over to the Indian sidesmoothly on November 14. However, the ChineseGovernment cannot but be surprised that, at atime when the Kongka pass incident is drawingto a close and the two Governments are activelyexploring avenues to eliminate border clashes, theIndian Government should create a side issue bylevelling a groundless charge and even lodging astrong protest against the Chinese Government onthe pretext of so-called "deplorable treatment"of the captured Indian personnel. The ChineseGovernment categorically rejects this protest ofthe Indian Government.

Throughout the period of their custody, theIndian military personnel were given friendly andgenerous treatment by the Chinese frontier guards.The Kongka pass area was difficult of access andhard to get supplies, yet the Chinese frontierguards did their utmost to look after them invarious ways. A few of the captured Indianpersonnel got frost-bitten. That was becausetheir own outfits were very thin. As soon as theChinese frontier guards obtained supplies, theyissued to them cotton-padded suits, felt boots,beddings and articles of daily use, and gave themnecessary medical treatment. In respect of boardand lodging, they were treated in no way inferiorto the Chinese frontier guards themselves. Theywere quartered in warm underground rooms or incomplete new tents. The assertion that theywere kept in torn tents is a pure fabrication. TheIndian Government's statement in its note thatAbdul Majid had a bullet wound on his back andwent without medical attention for four days is alsoinconsistent with the facts. Majid never indicatedthat he was wounded or ill. As a matter of fact,his movements showed that he was whole andsound. The captured Indian military personnelall expressed more than once during the periodof their custody that they were well treated.When they were handed over to the Indian sideto be taken back, they all expressed warm thanks.

It is normal that the Chinese frontier guardsconducted necessary interrogation of the capturedIndian personnel to make clear the facts aboutthe armed Indian personnel's trespass and provo-cation, as this was their duty. The captured

Indian personnel were finally interrogated onceagain ; this was only because there were importantdiscrepancies between the report attached to theIndian Government's note of November 4 receivedby the Chinese Government and the facts as toldby the captured personnel, and it was necessaryto check it up with them. It is also merely forthis reason that their handing back was postponedseveral days. The interrogations of them by theChinese frontier guards were always made in afree and unrestrained atmosphere; so-calledpressure or threats was completely out of thequestion. The Indian Government's allegationin its note that the Chinese frontier guards subjec-ted the captured personnel to threats and pressurein the interrogations and gave them harsh treat-ment is an utterly unwarranted charge.

The Indian Government in its note expressedthe hope of receiving any information which theChinese side might have about an Indian militarypersonnel who was unaccounted for. On Novem-ber 13 when the representatives of the frontierguards of the two sides discussed on the border atthe Kongka pass the concrete steps of handingover the captured Indian military personnel and thebodies, the Indian representative also made therequest that the Chinese frontier guards searchfor the body of that Indian military personnel forthe Indian side. The Chinese representative agreedthen to make a further search. The Chinesefrontier guards made an active search at andabout the spot of the incident but still foundnothing. It could be affirmed that this Indianmilitary personnel was not on Chinese territory.The following day the Chinese representative in-formed the Indian representative of the result ofthe search, and expressed the hope that the Indianside might search on its own territory. The Indianrepresentative agreed to this.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itselfof this opportunity to renew to the Indian Em-bassy the assurances of its highest consideration.

CHINA INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

The following is the text of the Note handed over to the Chinese Embassy in India on December 13, 1959

The Ministry of External Affairs of theGovernment of India present their compliments tothe Embassy of the People's Republic of Chinaand have the honour to refer to the note of the

52428th November presented by the Ministry ofForeign Affairs of the People's Republic of Chinato the Ambassador of India in Peking. The Gov-ernment of India have now received full detailsfrom the released Indian police personnel as to theincident at Kongka pass and the subsequenttreatment to which the Indian personnel weresubjected while in Chinese custody. These detailsconfirm the account of the incident contained inthe earlier notes. The statements of the releasedprisoners entirely contradict the assertion in theChinese note that the Indian personnel weregiven friendly and generous treatment by theChinese frontier guards. On the contrary thetreatment which the Indian prisoners received wasmost harsh and inhuman and opposed to allcanons of civilised behaviour. A text of the state-ment made by Shri Karam Singh, who was theleader of the Indian police party, is attached tothis note. This statement is corroborated insubstance by other members of the Indianparty.

It will be seen from Shri Karam Singh's state-ment that the Indian prisoners were deniedadequate food and shelter. It also appears thatShri Karam Singh was subjected to interrogationon 12 days for a total period of nearly 70 hours.Under threats and prolonged interrogation, he wasmade to subscribe to certain statements which hiscaptors wanted him to make. He was furthermade to repeat similar statements on subsequentoccasions so that these statements could be tape-recorded. Attempts were made by the Chinesefrontier guards to re-enact the incident at Kongkapass with the forced participation of the Indian

prisoners with a view to taking photographs whichcould be used presumably as evidence in supportof the Chinese version of the incident. Similarly,photographs of the prisoners arranged in variousposes were taken presumably to show that theprisoners enjoyed certain facilities and amenitieswhile in Chinese custody. The Government ofIndia must state that no credence whatsoever canbe given to any statement made by Shri KaramSingh or any other Indian prisoners in thesecircumstances. The certificates of good treatmentwhich the prisoners might have given their captorsat the time of release are equally valueless.

The Government of India are also surprisedat the statement in the Chinese Government'snote that Constable Abdul Majid was "whole andsound and never indicated that he was ill". Infact, Constable Abdul Majid received a bulletinjury in the encounter and even now he has asplinter in his back. No medical attention wasgiven to him for the first few days, and terrifiedat the treatment to which the arrested personnelwere being subjected, he did not ask for medicalcare.

The note of the Chinese Government suggeststhat they are unaware of the whereabouts ofConstable Makhan Lal who still remains un-accounted for. It will be seen from the statementof Shri Karam Singh that Constable Makhan Lalhad received abdominal injury and was helped byhim and Constable Rudar Man to walk a distanceof nearly two miles. He was then left by theChang Chenmo river in the custody of two Chinesesoldiers as ordered by the Chinese escort. It isextraordinary that the Chinese authoritiesshould now profess ignorance as to the where-abouts of Constable Makhan Lal. The Govern-ment of India would request that enquiry bemade of the Chinese frontier guards once againas to the circumstances in which ConstableMakhan Lal was left behind on the ChangChenmo River on the 21st October and whathappened to him subsequently.

The Government of India once again recordtheir emphatic protest against the deplorabletreatment to which the Indian personnel weresubjected while in the custody of the Chinesesoldiers. This treatment which the Indian person-nel received was much worse than that to whicheven prisoners of war are entitled under the

Geneva Convention of 12th August, 1949. It isobvious that the reports which the ChineseGovernment have received from their frontierguards, both about the incident and about thesubsequent treatment of the Indian presonnel, areentirely unrelated to facts. The Government ofIndia would urge that adequate action be takenagainst the persons responsible for subjecting thehelpless Indian prisoners to such inhuman treat-ment.

The Ministry of External Affairs take theopportunity of extending to the Embassy of thePeople's Republic of China the assurances of theirhighest consideration.

CHINA INDIA USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC SWITZERLAND

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

The following is the full text of the Statement made by Shri Karam Singh

I reached Hot Springs on the 19th October,1959. On the 20th morning, two parties of twoConstables each and the third of two constablesand a Porter were sent out to reconnoitre thearea. Two parties returned but the third one,consisting of Constables Khalil and Sonam Dorje

525and Porter Chettan failed to do so. The sameevening search parties were sent out to look forthem but they returned without any success.

Next morning (21-10-59), I decided to go outand search for the men myself. Shri Tyagi alsoaccompanied me. We left with a party of about20 men, including a section and some personnelof the ITB Force. We left instructions for themain party to follow on foot.

After I had gone about five miles to the eastof Hot Springs, I noticed hoof marks whichappeared to be those of the Chinese horses. Wefollowed these hoof prints for a few hundredyards. We also observed the area through bino-culars but we noticed nothing of special interest.After the main party had joined us, we advancedfurther into the plain which was overlooked by ahill. The hoof prints appeared to be runningalong the right of this hill. I , therefore, decidedthat I would, with about 20 men, follow them tofind out whether there were any Chinese intrudersin the vicinity. I told Tyagi to wait with the mainparty until I returned and to keep a look out forany signs of the Chinese; if he saw any, he wasto demand the return of our missing members andto ask them to leave Indian territory.

I along with Jemadar Rulia Ram, Head Cons-table Man Singh, Head Constable Babu Wadkarand Constables Abdul Majid, Gur Bahadur, etc.,followed the hoof prints which went along a trackskirting the hill on our left. As we did notapprehend any danger, we were not marching inany order but were moving in twos and threes.I was not even carrying a weapon. When I hadcovered about six to seven hundred yards, andhad almost passed the hill on the left, one of myconstables noticed some movement in front alonga nullah and shouted "Chini, Chini". I lookedat all sides but before I could spot anything infront, I noticed on my left a Chinese soldier onthe hill shouting something and waving his handsupwards as if he was asking us to raise our handsand surrender. I shouted back at the top of myvoice that it was our area. Instead of receivingany answer, we were fired upon both from thefront as well as from the hill top. We weretaken by complete surprise and so all the membersof the party made for such cover as was availableand returned the fire. Some retreated towardsthe hill on the right. Jemadar Rulia Ram, Cons-tables Abdul Majid, Ali Raza, Gur BahadurBeg Raj and Norbu Lama ran with me and wetook shelter behind a mound. Some of the othersran towards the hill on the left but were struckdown with bullets and hand-grenades. Our firingwas ineffective as we had inadequate cover and theChinese were in a favourable position. Aftersome time I ordered those who were near me todiscontinue firing as their firing was having noeffect and the ammunition was being wasted.

The Chinese continued to fire on us almostincessantly. We could also hear firing on theother side of the hill. Constable Ali Raza madea bid to get away in the afternoon and althoughhe was fired upon, was able to escape. TheChinese used LMGs, rifles, tommy guns andhand-grenades. At about 5 P.M., firing from thefront increased in intensity and a few bren-gunbursts were fired at us from our right and Cons-tables Beg Raj and Norbu Lama were killed.,Realising the overwhelming superiority in numbersof the Chinese soldiers and their fire power, Ithought that it was futile to resist any furtherand, therefore, decided to surrender. We raiseda white handkerchief after which the Chinesestopped firing and asked us to drop our: weaponsand advance towards them with our hands raised.I, accompanied by Jemadar Rulia Ram, Cons-tables Abdul Majid and Gur Bahadur surrenderedto the Chinese. Later, Constables Shiv Dayal,Rudra Man and Tering Norbu, who were apparent-ly lying concealed elssewhere, also surrenderedand we were all herded together.

When we were being searched etc., I lookedaround And I thought there were about 30 Chinesesoldiers in position on the hill. The soldiers thatwere on the side of the nullah were no longervisible to me. After our search, we were sent toKongka Pass with an escort of 11 Chinese soldiers.

From the place of the encounter, five of uswere made to carry the dead-body of a Chinesesoldier who had been killed. Constable RudraMan and I were asked to help Constable MakhanLal, who had been injured seriously in the abdo-men. His condition was really very bad. Wecarried him for two miles, where the Chinesesoldiers ordered us to leave him on the bank ofthe Chang Chenmo river. Two of the Chinesesoldiers stayed back near Makhan Lal and nineescorted us to our destination. From this place,I and constable Rudra Man were made to carryheavy loads. We were completely exhausted andwere finding it extremely difficult to walk withthis heavy load but we were repeatedly proddedby rifle butts to move on. We reached the ChineseKongka La Post (above 16,000 ft.) at about 2 A.M.on the 22nd of October, 1959. We were all puttogether in a pit, 6 feet deep, 7 feet wide and 15feet long, normally used for storing vegetables.It was covered with a tarpaulin which left severalopenings through which ice-cold breeze pene-

trated. We had to spend the night on the frozen

526ground without any covering. No water fordrinking was provided nor were we permitted toease ourselves during the night and the followingday. The sentries adopted a menacing attitude.

On the morning of October 23rd, all of uswere taken out of the pit for the first time andtaken to a place about two miles towards LanakLa. We remained there the whole day andreturned to the pit at night. We do not know whywe were kept away from the camp that day. Dur-ing the day, I was merely asked through aninterpreter to write out the names of the capturedpersons but I expressed my inability to do so forwant of spectacles. I told the Chinese officer totake down the names, which he did.

On the evening of 24th, I was again takenout in a truck to a distance of about one mile,where the dead bodies had been laid out and I wasasked to indentify them. As I could not identifyall of them, I suggested that some constablesmay be called to help me in identification. Theybrought me to the camp and asked me to select acouple of constables. We went back along withtwo constables. Shiv Dayal and Gur Bahadurand identified the bodies. After this, we rejoinedthe others in the pit.

For the first 3/4 days, we were given only drybread to cat. The intensity of the cold and ourconditions of living were more than sufficient tor-ture to demoralise us. By then I and 3 constableswere suffering from frost bite and our repeatedrequests for medical attention and hot water weredisregarded.

At about 4 A.M. on the 25th of October,1959, I was called by two Chinese officers andtaken for interrogation. I was removed to a tentabout 50 yards away, where 5 Chinese officers,including an interpreter, interrogated me. One ofthem, at the very outset, threatened that I wasP.O.W. and that I could be shot dead any moment.He also warned me that they did not want anyarguments or discussions. They asked me towrite out my statement, to which I pleaded myinability as I did not have my spectacles with me.At first, they asked me to narrate entire incident.As soon as I came to the point that firing was

opened by the Chinese, their senior officer presentbecame wild and shouted back that it was in-correct, and that I must confess that the Indiansfired first. I refused to accept this despite repeatedand constant threats that I would be shot dead.Ultimately, they made me to say that I could notjudge at that time as to who fired first.

They asked me to admit that Indian soldiersseized Chinese horses, which were standing nearthe foot of the hill towards Chang Chenmo river.As I was on the other side of the hill, I told themthat I had not seen anybody taking away thehorses. Despite this, it was recorded that mymen had disclosed to me that some Indian cons-tables had taken away the Chinese horses.

Utmost pressure was used to extort from methat Tyagi and I knew beforehand that the placewhere the incident took place, was within Chineseterritory. I told them that I could not make thatstatement because that place was miles withinIndian territory but they continued to assert thatit was Chinese territory and was in Chineseoccupation. In this connection, it was finallyrecorded that "I have now come to know that thearea, where the encounter had taken place, isunder Chinese occupation".

The Chinese wanted me to acknowledge thatno member of the ITB force had ever visited thatparticular area. I told them that only in June thisyear, an ITB patrol had gone upto Kongka Passand stayed there for a day or so. They wantedto know if I myself had ever visited Kongka Laand when I said that I had not, after a consider-able discussion, they recorded----"I and my men(who were prisoners with me), had never visitedthis area." I insisted that they should also writethat I camped several times at Hot Springs andhad toured the adjoining areas, but they did notagree to include this.

As regards the objective of our patrol, theywanted me to admit that we intruded into theirterritory to attack and capture the Chinese as wellas to establish a checkpost. I stated that we hadno such intention. In any case, it was our terri-tory and the question of intrusion into the Chineseterritory did not arise. On this assertion, theythreatened me, but I stuck to the position that wewere in Indian territory and were out looking outfor the missing men. They then said that when

fire was opened on us Tyagi and the main partywere on the left of the hill and were advancingfurther in order to surround it. I told them thatI could not see anything on the other side of thehill, and, therefore, there was hardly any point inobtaining a statement to this effect from me.As far as I remember, they finally recorded thatthough Tyagi did not tell me anything, it mightbe that it was his intention to send us from theright side and himself proceed on the left side inorder to surround the hill and capture theChinese.

The Chinese were emphatic that I shouldadmit that they had gesticulated to us from the

527hill to go back. I told the senior Chinese Officer,through the interpreter, that my party wasadvancing in small groups following the hoofmarks and that the forward group with me hadnoticed some Chinese in front. Whereas it wasquite correct that for a moment I noticed somegesticulations from a Chinese on the hill to myleft, no time was given by the Chinese soldiers, tounderstand and to respond to the gesticulations.In fact, I had, at the top of my voice, shoutedthat it was our area. The answer to this wasfiring from in front and the hill to the left andrear. The Chinese officer lost his temper on thisand said I was a cunning liar and threatened totake out his pistol and shoot me. I tried toargue that if their intention was to ask us to goback then they should also have allowed thepatrol party to return and not have capturedthem. I told them that, in fact, the Chinesesoldier was gesturing to us to raise up our handsand surrender and that is why I had shouted backthat it was our area to which the reply was a hailof bullets. In the statement, however, the Chineserecorded that one of the Chinese soldiers on thehillock had waved his hand indicating that weshould go back and not adopt a hostileattitude.

I was asked to admit that our action wasagainst the spirit of 'Panch Sheel'. I told themthat it was they who had opened fire on us ; it wasthey who had violated the principles. Ultimatelythey recorded that "the incident was against thespirit of "Panch Sheel'."

When they asked me my rank, I told them

that I was a Deputy Superintendent of Police andwas the Second-in-Command of the I.T.B. Force.Shri Tyagi was the Commander of the ITB Force.I had already decided to conceal the fact that Iwas the leader of the party to avoid interrogationabout the Police and Army dispositions 'and Ihad warned those captured with me to refer tome as the Deputy Commander. The total numberof men in the party that had left Hot Springs inthe morning was about 60 and this was recorded.

This interrogation lasted from 4 A.M. to about4 P.M. with short breaks for meals, etc. By thistime, I was almost frozen and mentally and physi-cally exhausted because of cold, persistent interro-gation, intimidation, threats and angry shoutings,and the lack of sleep. In this condition I wascompelled to sign the statement recorded by theChinese. At the end of this interrogation, theChinese then brought all the other captured per-sonnel before me and read out the statement,sentence by sentence. I was asked to translateeach sentence in Hindustani. All the capturedPersonnel were Asked to append their signatureson the back of the statement and several photo-graphs were taken.

After this interrogation, I was separated andput in a tent where insufficient bedding was pro-vided. The tent had a big opening at the topround the central pole to act as a chimney but asthere was no fire in my tent, this hole made thetent unbearably cold.

My interrogation was continued in my tenton the 26th from 0730 hours to 1700 hours. I wasalso told that my interrogation would continuethe next day and until it was concluded, I wouldnot be provided with a proper bedding.

On this day I was made to sign the followingstatement, as far as I can remember :-

Tyagi returned after having a meeting with Mr. Sharma in Now Delhi on the 22nd September, 1959. I returned from Srinagar on the 24th September, 1959 Tyagi informed me that a decision had been taken to establish check-posts at Tsogstsalu, Kayam (Hot Springs) and Shamul Lungpa. We left Leh for patrol- ling the border area and for establishing check-posts at these places. Tyagi

left Leh on 27th September, 1959 while I started on the 29th September, 1959. Tyagi had about 40 men with him. Three constables accompanied me. I reached Phobrang on the 4th October. Tyagi arrived on the 5th of October, 1959. Tyagi started from Phobrang for Tsogst- salu on the 7th October. I left Phobrang on the 14th October and arrived at Tsogstsalu on the 16th October, 1959. A check-post was established at Tsogst- salu and we left for Kayam. We estab- lished a check-post at Kayam and we had to establish one at Shamul Lungpa. On 20th October, 1959, our two men missed. On the morning of 21st October, 1959, Tyagi took 60 men and reached the hill (battle field). When we were at a distance of about 400 yards from the hill, some Chinese were seen. Tyagi ordered me to take some men on the back side of the hill and to surround the Chinese and himself went in front. There were some 30 men with me and about the same number with Tyagi. We surrounded the hill. A Chinese was seen waving his hand so as to say "go away and do not adopt hostile attitude." I have heard from my men that the Indian soldiers fired first.

528 Some Indian soldiers took away the horses of the Chinese."

I protested that as regard firing, none of mymen had told me that Indians fired first but theyrejected the plea and said that they had obtainedconfessions to that effect from other-captured per-sonnel. When requested to confront them withme, I was told that as I was a prisoner I had nosuch right. Similarly, I pointed out that the storyof surrounding the hill etc. was also not correctbut to no avail.

My interrogation started next day (27-10-59)at about 0800 hrs. and it lasted for about threehours. The entire period was devoted. to ascer-taining from me the details of the ITB organisa-tion.

My interrogation was resumed at 0800 hrs.on the 28th October, 1959, in my tent by threeChinese, two of them were officers and the third

an interpreter. The interrogation lasted 5 hoursand was confined to ascertaining the details of thecheck-posts.

Information was also obtained from me inregard to the strength of the checkpost, arms andtheir functions and was only noted down in theirown language.

The same afternoon, all of us were take notthe Chang Chenmo river where the dead bodieshad been laid out. We were asked to removetheir uniforms and wrap a muslin cloth in accor-dance with Indian custom. At our request hotwater was supplied to give a bath to the deadbodies. A number of photographs were takenwhile we were busy in this operation.

In the evening, they issued as the following

Item of clothing :

(i) Cotton-padded coat. (ii) Cotton-padded pant. (iii) Cotton-padded caps. (iv) Namda Gum boots.

I did not take these because items offered tome did not fit. Either on this day or the next adoctor examined my feet which had swollen upand administered an injection. Photographswere taken.

On the 29th Morning at About 0900 hrs.the interpreter came to my tent and deliveredsome sweets as a gesture of goodwill. After sometime, a new face together with the previous officersand the interpreter came to me. This lime, twoStenographers had also been brought to takedown my statement. This officer introducedhimself as Commander of the Tibetan area. Hisquestions were confined to details regarding ourcheckposts and thier strength. I repeated thedetails as given on the previous day. He alsoenquired about the strength of the army. TheChinese disclosed to me, for the first time, thatthe Foreign Ministries of both the countries werein correspondence with each other about us (cap-tured persons). The interrogation lasted forabout 2 hours. I was not made to sigh anystatement.

At about 1300 hours on the same day

(29-10-59), I was taken out of may tent togetherwith Constable Shiv Dayal and escorted by threeChinese soldiers to the scene of the incident ina truck. The new officer, who had examined mein the morning, occupied the front seat of thetruck and four other officers sat with us in therear. After reaching the place, I was made tostand, even though it caused me intense pain,near the base of the hill on the Hot Springs sideand was ordered to point with my hand towardsthe hill and a photograph was taken, (as if I waspointing towards the Chines who were on the topof the hill), I was then taken to the base of asmall mound behind which we had taken shelterwhen fire was opened on us. Constable ShivDayal was asked to take a lying position about50 paces away from me towards the hill. I wasgiven a handkerchief and asked to wave it as if togive a signal to the men to open fire. A snap wasthen taken. Constable Shiv Dayal was then takento the place where one of the killed ponies werelying and another photograph was taken togetherwith the dead pony. Then, the senior officerdrew a sketch of the hillock and the adjoiningarea showing positions of the Indian and theChinese soldier at the time of the encounter accor-ding to the Chinese version and got the samesigned by me and Constable Shiv Dayal. Photo-graphs were also taken of a few Chinese soldiersgesticulating from the hill. Late in the eveningwe returned to the camp.

My interrogation was resumed on October30 morning at about 0800 hrs. and it lasted upto1300 hrs. They questioned me again about thestrength of each post. They also obtained mysignature on a statement to the effect that thepost at Hanley was established in June this year.

On November 1, interrogation started in themorning as usual. The senior officer had by thengone away. The other Chinese officers and theinterpreter pursued the interrogation. I was asked

529how we could claim this area when we had nevervisited it. I told them that I had myself gone be-yond Lingzi Thang with about 10 persons in 1957and upto Shamul Lungpa in 1958 where we hadestablished a checkpost which remained therethroughout the summer and was withdrawn duringthe winter. They asked me if we had set up anybounday pillar at Shamul Lungpa or Lingzi Thang

and I told them that we had not done so becauseour boundaries extended hundreds of miles fur-ther. The interrogation lasted for about 5/6hours. The following statement was briefly record-ed and signed by me :-

"In 1957, I visited Lingzi Thang with 10 men and stayed therefor a few days. In 1958, I visited Shamul Lungpa, where we stayed for four months. On this occasion also there were about 10 men with me. We did not construct any huts at any place nor did we construct any boundary pillar at these places."

The Chinese said that Phobrang was our last post,and that we had no right to cross Marsimik Labecause the entire area beyond the pass was apart of Sinkiang and that this could be verified evenfrom the older residents of Ladakh. I told themthat our claims were based on authentic docu-ments and, therefore, our maps were correct.They disposed of my argument by saying thatour claims were based on demarcation by theBritish, who had usurped a lot of territory ofSinkiang and Tibet. They ridiculed our maps andsaid that these could be drawn by anybody whilesitting at home. It was on this day that I wasrepeatedly asked about my maps and documents.I told them that I did not bring any such paperswith me because I was well conversant with thearea. The Chinese showed great anger duringthis discussion.

On the morning of November 2 at about10.00 hrs., all the captured persons were broughtto my tent. The interpreter then asked them inmy presence whether it was a fact that all thedead had received bullet injuries in front whichindicated that they were wounded while advancingtowards the Chinese. To this, they replied inthe affirmative. They said that they had wrappedup the bodies themselves and had actually seenthe wounds. I was asked to attest their state-ment. I resisted, but was made to sign thefollowing :-

"All of our men had received wounds in the front during the battle which indicated that they were wounded while advancing towards the Chinese."

Afterwards those who had bathed the dead

bodies disclosed to me at the first possible oppor-tunity that in fact the injuries sustained by ourmen were on the front, back and sides and somehad had parts of their heads blown off.

The same afternoon we all were taken out inthe sun and made to sit in a semi-circle. Twowatermelons were cut and distributed amongst usand a photograph was taken.

On November 3, the Chinese asked me to signthe following statement :-

"Chinese troops were armed with rifles, tommy-guns, LMGs and hand-grenades only. No heavy artillery or mortars were used by them during the battle."

I appended my signature as automatic wea-pons and hand-grenades had been used againstmy party and I was not aware whether any mortarhad been used.

There was no further interrogation. In theafternoon we were taken out in the sun and givena lecture on the Sino-Indian friendship. On thisoccasion, I was pointed out to a new persondressed as a Chinese soldier. This person repliedin the negative after looking at me. Later, thisman was heard conversing in Ladakhi and remain-ed at the camp throughout our stay there.

On the morning of Nevember 4, interrogationstarted at about 0800 hours. Only the interpreterexamined me. He insisted that I should record inmy own hand-writting the main points of thestatement I had already signed. I pleaded I couldnot do so without my spectacles, but when heurged me again and again, I told him that as Iwas a prisoner they could force me to do anything,but it was not fair in view of their professedfriendship for India. Ultimately, I scribbleddown the following prepared statement which theinterpreter had brought with him:-

"On 20-10-59, two of our men missed. Tyagi took about 60 men with him. I accompanied him. When we were at a distance of about 400 yards from the battle field a few Chinese were seen. Tyagi ordered me to take some men on the back of the hill. He himself proceed- ed to the front. We surrounded the hill.

I have heard from my men that Indian soldiers fired first. Some horses of the Chinese were taken away by Indian sol- diers. I have nothing but to thank the Chinese officers and soldiers for the kind

530 treatment that they had given us. Medical facilities were provided to us and we were neither beaten nor coerced."

The same afternoon I was again interrogatedby the Chinese Officers and the interpreter. Theybrought a statement for my signature which in-cluded a sentence that on the 21st October, 1959,when we left our camp, Tyagi had disclosed thathe was determined to fight the Chinese. I refusedto sign it. They then took me down to a nullahthreatening me on the way that they woulddipose of me there. They threatened that I andmy men were guilty of having killed theirSecond-in-Command and, therefore, it wouldbe quite legal for them to shoot me. When I didnot yield, he compromised to change the wording"Tyagi might have had an idea to fight the Chi-nese". It was extremely cold in the nullah. I wasalmost dying with pain in my feet and so I agreedto sign the amended statement which was asfollws:--

"On 20-10-59, two of our men missed. Tyagi took 60 men with him with heavy arms including four bren-guns, four sten- guns, about 50 rifles and hand-grenades. I also accompanied him. Tyagi might have had a mind to fight against the Chi- nese. We surrounded the hill where a few Chinese were seen. According to our men, Indian soldiers fired first. Accord- ing to Shiv Dayal, constable, it was Manohar Lal, constable, who took away the Chinese horses."

After that I was taken back to my tent and Iwas given a quilt. But in spite of this quilt thecold in the tent, where I had been kept sinceOctober 25, was so intense that I requested thatI should be sent to the pit and this wasconceded.

Right from the 25th October, 1959, pressurewas brought to bear on me daily to confirm thatConstable Mohd Khalil and his companions had

been sent to Chinese territory for spying and thatour object was to establish a checkpost in Chineseterritory. After the first two or three days, theydropped the question of the checkpost and saidthat I might confess to the espionage mission. Itold them that this was not a fact but that thepatrol had been sent out to ascertain whetherthere were any Chinese patrols on Indian territory.They told me that they had already obtained aconfession to this effect from Constable Mohd.Khalil and all that they needed from me wasconfirmation. I did not have to sign any state-ment to this effect.

On the same day, the Chinese Officer drew asketch of the encounter on the same lines as wasdone by their senior officer on October 29, buton a bigger scale. After completing the sketch,signatures of all of us were obtained. My photo-graph was taken as I was signing.

On the afternoon of November 5, I was againtaken out for interrogation which lasted threewere ascertained, On this day, the interrogatoraddressed me as the famous man of Ladakh.

On November 6, they took us all to the ChangChenmo river. I sat on the bank of it and theothers were asked to stroll along the river in aleisurely manner. The escort was kept away anda movie picture was taken in order to show thatwe had freedom of movement.

On the morning of November 7, we were againtaken to the bank of the river where a ChineseOfficer using a Ladakhi interpreter and ConstableShiv Dayal as Hindi interpreter, gave a lecture oncommunism, condemning landlordism and capita-lism. A rosy picture was painted of the com-munist regime. During the same lecture, it wasprominently brought out that even now whenIndia was a free country, the British and theAmericans owned a number of industrial concernsand that there were still a number of Indian capita-lists and landlords. The lecturer said that he hop-ed that India would get rid of these evils and pro-sper on the lines of China.

In the evening (November 7), I was taken outfrom the pit to a tent and informed that ConstableAbdul Majid had confessed that the first shot wasfired by Constable Ali Raza of our force. I refutedthis and said that Constable Abdul Majid be call-

ed to state this in my presence. Consequently.Abdul Majid was summoned and when questionedin my presence, he said that what he hadactually stated was that Constable Ali Raza hadfired back long after the Chinese had opened fire.On this, the Chinese Officer got enraged andthreatened to thrash Abdul Majid. He lost hisnerve and admitted that Ali Raza had fired first.I was then forced to sign the following state-ment : --

"Constable Abdul Majid had stated that it was Constable Ali Raza who fired first. I believe that his statement is correct.

Then constable Shiv Dayal was broughtbefore me and was asked to confirm his statementthat the Chinese horses had been taken away by

531Constable Manohar Lal. Shiv Dayal insisted thathe had not said so rather he had stated that hesaw Constable Manohar Lal touching a Chinesehorse. On this, the Hindi interpreter was sent for,who also confirmed the statement of ConstableShiv Dayal. Therefore I refused to sign theprepared statement in possession of the Chineseinterpreter which was that according to ShivDayal, Constable Manohar Lal had taken away theChinese horses. Instead, I signed a statement asfollows :-

"According to Constable Shiv Dayal, Manohar Lal, Constable of the ITB Force was seen touching a Chinese. horse. I believe what he states is correct."

Another lecture on Communist indoctrinationwas given on the morning of November 8.

At about 6 P.M., I was segregated from mycompanions and taken to a tent nearly 50 yardsaway. They then disclosed to me that the Govern-ment of India in their note to the ChineseGovernment had admitted that I was the OfficerCommanding of the ITB Force. As I had fromthe very beginning given myself out as theDeputy Commander, I tried to modify the state-ment by giving the following explanations :

(a) That I was a Deputy Superintendent of Police and so was Shri Tyagi. In his

absence, I was always called as Officer Commanding.

(b) My promotion was due and it was possible that my Government may have promoted me since.

I was not made to sign any statement inthis regard.

After this I was returned to the pit andJem. Rulia Ram and Constable Shiv Dayal weretaken to the tent for further interrogation about myexact designation. Jem. Rulia Ram on returninformed me that the Chinese tried to argue withthem that I was older than Tyagi in age andso how was it that Tyagi was senior in rankto me. They maintained that I was the Second-in-Command.

In the afternoon of November 9, we wereinformed that another senior officer had arrivedand that we would be produced before him tomake our statements.

It was either on November 9th or on the10th morning that at about 0800 hours theChinese took away Jem. Rulia Ram, ConstableShiv Dayal, and Abdul Majid and Mohd. Khalilinforming them that they were to be released.In fact, they were not being released but weretaken to the place of incident where a numberof snaps and a cine film were taken to showthat the Indian party had attacked the Chinese.They also took along the dead body of theChinese soldiers in a coffin and it was used duringthe filming,

At about 8 p.m. on November 10th, I wasagain taken out of the pit and escorted to a tentby two Chinese sentries who threatened toshoot me. Only one mattress was provided. Myinterrogation was immediately begun by oneofficer and an interpreter. They repeatedlythreatened me to accept that I had sent the patrolinto Chinese territory for spying but I refused toagree. They kept on interrogating me the wholenight through ; and I was given insufficientbedding, I was in great agony from the cold andpain in my feet,

At about 0700 hours, I was compelled towrite out the following myself :-

"I and Tyagi started for patrolling of the border for establishing checkposts at Tsogstsalu, Hot Springs (Kayam) and Shamal Lungpa. on 29th and 27th Sep- tember, 1959. We established a check- post at Tsogstsalu and arrived at Hot Springs where also we established a checkpost. On the morning of 29th, our two men missed. Tyagi took about 60 men, 4 bren-guns, about 50 rifles, 4 sten-guns and grenades. I accompanied him. Tyagi may have had mind to fight against the Chinese. (They wanted me to write that Tyagi was determined to fight but I did not agree). I went to the back of the hill. We surrounded the Chinese. A Chinese was seen waving his hand so as to say "Go away ; do not adopt hostile attitude". According to Constable Abdul Majid it was Constable Ali Raza who flred first. According to Constable Shiv Dayal, Constable Manohar Lal was seen touching a Chinese horse. Chinese troops used only rifles, sten-guns, LMGs and hand-grenades during the fight. They did not use any heavy artillery or mortars. ITB Force knows that area north, south and east of Kongka Pass, is a part of China. I and my men had never visited this area (battle field) before."

532 The interrogation was continued till about11.00 hours when I was made to add the followingparagraph to my statement :-

"I and my men have good treatment by the Chinese Officer and soldiers. I will never do anything which is against the five principles of the Sino-Indian Agree- ment any more nor I will enter Chinese territory again."

Before concluding, I was told that my state-ment would be tape-recorded some time that dayand that I must answer questions exactlyas in the statement written out by me.I was feeling very depressed and did not refuse tocomply.

In the evening at about 16.00 hours, a newface, reported to be their senior officer, came intomy tent together with the interpreter. He alsobrought a doctor along who dressed my frost-bitten feet and movie and still pictures weretaken. After this, a tape recorder was broughtin my tent and the following conversation wasrecorded :-

Q. Give brief details of the incident.

A. On the morning of 20th, a few of ourhorses were found missing and we sent twoconstables and a coolie in search. They did notreturn. On the morning of 21st, Tyagi and Istarted for their search with about 60 men. Wehad four bren-guns, three or four sten-guns,about 50 rifles and hand-grenades.

Q. What was Tyagi's intention ?

A. He did not express his intention to mealthough inference could be drawn that he mayhave had an intention to fight.

Q. Who fired first ?

A. According to Constable Abdul Majid,Constable Ali Raza fired first.

Q. Do you know some Chinese horseswere taken away by the Indian soldiers ?

A. According to Constable Shiv Dayal,Constable Manohar Lal was seen touching aChinese horse.

Q. Did the Chinese use any heavy artilleryor mortar ?

A. Chinese soldiers had rifles, tommy-guns,bren-guns and hand-grenades. No heavy artilleryor mortars were used by them.

Q : Did you and your soldiers surround theChinese soldiers ?

A: Yes.

Q : What did the Chinese do when they weresurrounded ?

A : The Chinese soldier was seen waving his

hand.

At this stage, I was told that further question-ing would be done the next day.

On the night between November 11 & 12, allmy companions were taken out one by one fromthe pit for tape-recording their statements. Beforethey were actually, taken each one of them wasproperly tutored and warned that he must stick tothe statement that had already been signed.

After my statement had been tape-recorded, Iwas returned to the pit on the 11th evening andproper bedding was provided.

There was nothing of particular interest thenext day.

On November 13, at about 1500 hours, wewere all taken of the pit. All of us were given asmall towel each, sweets and cigarettes in the pre-sence of a senior officer. Both movie and stillpictures were taken. Then we were taken to anothertent where a meeting was held. A tape-recorderhad been fixed in this tent. The senior officer saidthat we would be released the next day but beforethat we wanted to hear our ideas and views,especially about the incident. I was asked to speakfirst in Hindustani. When asked about the inci-dent, I said "One cannot clasp with one handalone, and there is no fight without mistake onboth sides. Both sides should be careful in future".

After that Rulia Ram and Shiv Dayal spokebriefly. There was nothing of interest in RuliaRam's speech. Constable Shiv Dayal said, if theChinese had not captured their men, this encounterwould not had taken place as they had no plan tocome in this direction. At this stage, as theChinese felt that in my presence the men were notmaking statements to their liking, I was asked togo back to my pit and rest there. On the 13thevening, I was persuaded to accept the Namdaboots which I did.

On the morning of November 14, we were

533worked up at 0400 hrs. and asked to get ready. Ameal was served at 0430 hours. We were informedthat we would be released at 10.00 hours, Pekingtime. We were taken in trucks to the place of

handing over. The dead bodies and our arms andammunition were also taken.

CHINA USA INDIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Prime Minister's Statement in Lok Sabha on Chinghai-Tibet Highway

The Prime Minister, Shri Jawaharlal Nehru,made the following statement in the Lok Sabha onDecember 1, 1959 on the Chinghai-Tibet highway:

On the 27th of November the Hon. Member,Shri R. Goray, tabled an adjournment motion inthe House, based on the newspaper report aboutthe Chinghai-Tibet highway. In that news, paperreport it was suggested that this was across Indianterritory. I stated in the House that, accordingto my information, this did not pass throughIndian territory, that it was an entirely differentroute and had nothing to do with the other routewhich might be in the people's minds, which goesacross the Aksai Chin area. In fact, theChinghai-Tibet highway goes through the northeast of Tibet. We have enquired about thismatter further, and what I have stated in thisHouse has been confirmed. The Chinghai high-way is nowhere near Indian territory.

CHINA USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

SWEDEN

Swedish Prime Minister's Visit

At the invitation of the Government of Indiathe Swedish Prime Minister, Mr. Tage Erlanderaccompanied by his wife paid a visit to Indiaduring December, 1959. On December 19, aState Banquet was held in honour of Mr. Erlanderby Prime Minister Nehru.

Welcoming the Swedish Prime Minister,Shri Nehru said :

Mr. Prime Minister, Your Excellencies,Ladies and Gentlemen, a few days ago we had theprivilege of welcoming with great warmth andcordiality the distinguished Head of a great nationToday it is a peculiar pleasure to us to welcomeyou, Sir, and Madame. Your country is notnearly as big as the United States of America orIndia, but we have long learnt to attach value notto bigness but to other qualities in a nation. Andamong those qualities your country appears topossess many in an abundant measure. Youhave built up a society which is free, demo-cratic, progressive, and which has ensured toits people a high standard of living andsocial security. Two and a half years ago Ivisited your country and you were goodenough-and your people-to give me a warmand a cordial welcome. I saw that beautifulcountry, little bit of it, and more especially, Iwas naturally interested in the scheme of socialsecurity and the great advance you have madein the co-operative movement and in so manyother things in which you are disting-uished.

I said then, I remember, that in this changingworld where Governments change, frequently andPrime Ministers come and go, the Prime Ministerof India had managed to stay-on for a long time.In that matter, you, Sir, as Prime Minister, are ayear ahead of me. I believe you have been PrimeMinister for over 13 years now, and I have beenPrime Minister only for 12 years. Before that formany years you were a Minister also, and it isduring the period of your stewardship in Swedenthat great reforms have been introduced moreespecially in the realm of social security and high

standards have been obtained, All this has beendone in a society, in a structure of government,which is as free as any in the world and whereeveryone has opportunities for progress andadvancement.

I venture to compare your long period ofstewardship in Sweden with mine, which is some-what lesser, but when I think of thisI would wish that the tremendous achievementswhich you have brought about in Sweden duringyour period might have been ours also. But ourachievements naturally cannot compare ofcourse, the backgrounds have been different-andwe had to stand and start at a very much lowerlevel. But I believe it is true to say that in somany things, in some of our basic policies,whether external or internal, in our outlooksthere has been a very great deal of similarity.Indeed, if I may say so we look upon your countryas a model State to which kind of State we wouldlike to aspire in India in many ways. Your people

534have had one rather unique experience which, Idoubt, if many countries or any country has had.You have been free from war for 150 years. Eventhough tremendous and disastrous wars raged allround you, yet you kept yourself out of them, notthrough any weakness, but through strength of willand policy and strength of the nation. As a resultof that and your other qualities, you have built upSweden as she is today, and now you follow apolicy which is dear to us and which we have triedto follow firmly and propose to follow in the future,that is, a policy of non-alignment which is some-times rather mistakenly called neutrality-non-in-volvement in military alliances and non-alignment.And so, wherever we have had occasion to worktogether, whether in the United Nations or else-where, there has been a great deal of co-operationbetween our representatives and delegations onthese border matters, whether it is this policy orwhether it is a policy of the banning of nuclearweapons or of progressive disarmament, or something in regard to which your country has declaredits policy with the greatest firmness-its opposi-tion to racial inequality.

So we have worked together in many fields,and we have tried to learn many things from yourcountry's example and the way you have built upsocial democracy in that country.

I hope the time may come when we mightalso take some pride and pleasure in advancingmuch more along that line. In that process I amsure we can learn much from you and we proposeto do so. So, for a variety of reasons, we welcomeyou and Madame here. And one thing also whichhas struck us is that, in spite of your high stan-dards, in spite of the many things you haveachieved in agriculture and industry, yet, in asense, if I may say so without disrespect, you area simple people, not pompous as some of us are,dignified and there is certain graciousness aboutthe life of your people which is not always evidentin the world today. For all this and for yourown self, Sir. who has been such a builder-up ofmodern Sweden, we welcome you.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, I askyou to drink to the health of the PrimeMinister of Sweden and Madame Erlander.

SWEDEN INDIA USA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

SWEDEN

Mr. Erlander's Reply

Replying to the toast, His Excellency Mr.Tage Erlander, Prime Minister of Sweden, said :

Mr. Prime Minister, Your Excellencies, Ladiesand Gentlemen,

May I just say a few words thanking you forthe kind words you addressed to my country justnow, Mr. Prime Minister. If we Swedes havesucceeded in some way to build up a social welfareState, you have yourself given the explanation.We had peace for more than one hundred andfifty years, and this has given us the chance, not

our own ability and cleverness.

I believe it is a very good idea, for not onlythe Prime Minister of that little Sweden to comehere, but even for the statesmen from the bigcountries, the United States and the Soviet Union,who have come and tried to learn from thewisdom of India or the wisdom of the PrimeMinister of India.

You have given us a great honour by invitingmy wife and myself to come to India, I wish toexpress our sincere gratitude for that gesture ofgoodwill and friendship. We recall with greatpleasure the visit you paid to Sweden more thantwo years ago. That visit made a deep impressionon the minds of my countrymen and stirred ourinterest in the life and work and beliefs of thegreat Indian people. If I say that we do, indeedfollow your national developments with keeninterest and warm sympathy. The first is that weare aware of the important role which India hasto play owing to her key position in world affairs.We find that your approach to internationalproblems, be it inside or outside the United Na-tions, often coincides with our own. As yourrelative weight and influence is much greater thanours, it is only natural that we study your wordsand actions with particular interest.

The second reason is our knowing that whatyou do under your five-year plans-that greatexperiment of speedy economic development, socialwelfare and democracy in action-may well beone of the most significant contributions to ahappy and peaceful evolution in the whole ofAsia. And there are features of those plans whichwill have an inspiring effect on political develop-ments in many other countries. I am thinking ofthe expressed purpose of the plans to engage theenthusiasm of the whole people and to mobilisedormant energies in the broad masses for itsrealisation.

Just because we feel this kinship with yourideals and your strivings, I think I have the rightand also the duty, to share with you some of our

535thoughts, hopes and misgivings in the face of thegreat problems that beset the modern world.

One used to say in the 1920's and the 1920's

that peace was indivisible, This statement mayhave been true or not at that time, but todaythere is no doubt whatsoever that it is a correctdescription of the kind of world we live in. Thegrowing interdependence of all nations is dramati-cally demonstrated by the man-made planets thatcircle our little planet. None of us can nowescape the consequences of any conflict in howeverremote a part of the world we have a commonstake in peace everywhere we have a collectiveinterest in a system of collective security. Wedon't have that system yet, for the simple reasonthat the powers have not been willing to give upenough of their sovereignty.

There is a long road ahead of us before theprinciple of the rule of law will guide internationalaction as it now guides internal developments incountries like yours or mine. Instead, the securityof the world rests on the modern version, ofthe old concept of the balance of power. Thismodern version, the nuclear equilibrium, is uns-table and precarious. If it is to be preserved atall and, even more, if it is to develop into an orderwhere we may really live free from fear, twoconditions have to be fulfilled. One is that weall consciously strive to look objectively and withgoodwill at each other. Nations can't afford anylonger to misunderstand each other and to letnecessary caution be degraded into absolutedistrust. The risks are too great. We may notbe certain that trust creates trust with the sameautomatic precision that mistrust breeds mistrust,but we have to try again and again the road ofconfidence, of understanding, of trust, of franktalk and of direct contacts between responsibleleaders. In that way we may at least be able toremove some of the causes of international fric-tion, knowing well that there will remain manyother conflicts where national interests can onlybe harmonised by careful negotiation and corn-promise.

The second condition I am thinking of is thatany use of armed force to settle internationalconflicts must be avoided. No spark should beallowed in a powder house. Political pressureand military incidents can easily lead to conse-quences which are neither foreseen, nor desired byany party. War no longer solves any problem.If we carry this painfully acquired knowledge withus into the future, then we may face even thenuclear age with confidence.

I thik, Mr. Prime Minister, I may be allowedto say this although I represent a country whichhas built up and maintained, by considerablefinancial and personal sacrifice, a relatively strongdefence preparedness. However, there is noinconsistency here. Only if our territorial integrityor national freedom is attacked, do we intend tomake use of armed force as is the right of everycountry.

I am happy to know that the Indian people,by instinct and by cold reasoning, share ourconviction about the need for an internationalorder based on peaceful cooperation and theavoidance of violence. It is my sincere hope thatthe future trend of events, both in the West andin the East, will reflect . these principles in agrowing measure. Some recent developments inthe world, but by no means all developments,seem to indicate that this hope is not entirelywithout foundation. I have in mind the agreementon the Antarctic which has just been concludedbetween all the interested parties. I also think ofthe decision of the General Assembly of theUnited Nations to set up a committee on outerspace where India and Sweden serve together withseveral other countries including the Soviet Unionand the United States of America. Finally Iwant to refer to the hopeful development of thetalks in Geneva on the cessation of atomic tests,which incidentally is another matter on whichSweden and India have worked together in theUnited Nations.

Agreements such as these provoke a feeling ofsolidarity and companionship between the parti-cipating countries and produce a climate favoura-ble to further cooperation for common aims.They create, as it were, vested interests in peace.We should, I believe, approach the economicproblems of the world in the same spirit, recognis-ing the close interdependence between nations andcontinents also in this field. We should start andkeep up the momentum in the direction towardsa world of peace, security and prosperity.

Let me finish these few remarks by saying onceagain how grateful I am at the warm welcomethat is given to me.

May I ask all of you to join me in a toastto the health of you, Mr. Prime Minister, to a

happy future for the Indian people and to thefriendship between our two countries.

536

SWEDEN USA INDIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC SWITZERLAND PERU

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President Eisenhower's Visit

At the invitation of the Government of IndiaHis Excellency Dwight D. Eisenhower, Presidentof the United States of America, paid a visit toIndia from December 9 to 14, 1959. OnDecember 10, President Rajendra Prasad held aState Baquet in honour of President Eisenhowerat Rashtrapati Bhawan.

Speaking of the occasion, the PresidentDr. Prasad said:

Mr. President, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen.

May I on behalf of the people and theGovernment of India extend to you once again ahearty welcome to our country. Our PrimeMinister had the privilege of visiting your greatcountry, Mr. President, two years after Indiaachieved independence, and then again in 1956.Through all these years it has been the hope ofthe people of India that the President of theUnited States of America would be able to visitand honour us with his presence, and see forhimself the high regard in which the people ofIndia hold the American people. It is for thefirst time in history that a President of the UnitedStates of America is visiting our ancient land andwe are indeed happy that you have been able tocome.

It has been our pleasure and privilege to haveyou, Mr. President, amidst us only for a little over24 hours and I may assure you that within thisshort time you have been able to create animpression the impact of which is going to be ofa far-reaching character in cementing the bondsof friendship that exists between your country andmine.

Between the United States and India friendlyand cordial relations existed even before Indiagained her independence. No Indian can forgetthat in the days of our struggle for freedom wereceived from your country and your people afull measure of sympathy and support.

We have, Mr. President, much in commonin our aims and ideals. Like yours ours is ademocratic country, a Federation and a Republic.Our two Republics have a common faith indemocratic institutions and the democratic way oflife and are dedicated to the cause of peace andfreedom. We admire the many qualities whichhave made your country great, and moreespecially, the humanity and dynamism of yourpeople and the great principles to which thefathers of the American revolution gave utterance.We wish to learn from you and to enlist yourco-operation and sympathy in the great task wehave undertaken in our own country.

Our struggle for freedom was based on theprinciples of peace and non-violence and behindus is the centuries old tradition of peaceful living.We believe in the message of peace and freedomin the right of every man and woman to peaceand happiness in life. In international affairs, wehave endeavoured to follow these principles.In the United Nations and in other internationalforums, whenever freedom has been menaced orjustice threatened, we have raised our voice in thedefence of these sacred principles, principles whichenshrined in the consciousness of our nation asthey are in the hearts of the American people.We believe that the interest of mankind lies innot resorting to war and bloodshed to settledifferences. Indeed, today when distance betweencountry and country has almost been eliminated,security could only lie in a warless world.

We are happy that you, Mr. President, whosehumanity and whose distinguished and devo-

ted service to the cause of peace have won foryou a unique place among the statesmen of theworld, and the leaders of other great and powerfulnations have been meeting and will be meetingsoon in an endeavour to end the cold war and toachieve world cooperation, so that the tremendousadvances in science and technology could bedirected towards the economic and social progressof the people all the world over. For us, as indeedfor all others, it is imperative that world peaceshould be assured; that there should be no morewars, great or small. It is gratifying, therefore,to discern indications that the great nations andtheir state men are applying their minds and bend-ing their energies in the direction of discoveringmeans and creating conditions for lessening tensionand, in due course, eliminating war. You, MrPresident, are making your own invaluable contri-bution to it and it will be a happy consummationwhen we could all sing in joy that "peace hath hervictories no less glorious than war."

We in India are engaged in an economicrevolution of vast dimensions. This is a stupendoustask which, because of our arrested growth,demands that we catch up more rapidly withthe advanced nations in an effort to raise the

537standards of living of our people. We value theco-operation and assistance we have received fromthe American people. We greatly appreciate thefriendship and goodwill which your great countryhas always extended to us. These have strengthenedthe invisible yet unbreakable bonds of unders-standing between your people and ours.

I thank you again, Mr. President, for havingfound the time to come to our country.I earnestly hope that you will see glimpses of thechanging face of India. I feel confident that yourvisit will enrich further the deep friendship bet-ween our two countries. May I ask you to takeback with you a message of affection, friendshipand goodwill from the people of India to thepeople of the United States of America ?

May I, Mr. President, also thank you for thenoble and inspiring message which you deliveredto our Parliament this afternoon ? I was listeningto it and as I was listening to it, I was feelingwhat a great impact it was going to make on notonly the relations between India and your country

but on world politics at large. I felt all the time as Iwas listening to it that you have come at a very veryopportune moment in history and I hope that yourvisit will bear all the fruit that you expect of it.

USA INDIA OMAN

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President Eisenhower's Reply

Replying to the toast. President Eisenhowersaid:

Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, YourExcellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen-ladies andgentlemen that I hope from this day forward Ican call my personal friends:

First, Mr. President, may I thank you sin-cerely for the over-generosity of the remarks youhave made about my country and about me. Iassure you that with whatever talents the goodLord may have endowed me, the effort that I shallmake for the peace of the world shall nevercease.

As you say, I have been in your great countryonly a little more than twenty-four hours, butthe welcome accorded me, the things I have seenand the places I have gone, the distinguishedcitizens with whom I have talked, make this shorttime an unforgettable experience for me.

In the hours I have been here, I have had theprivilege of paying my tribute to your late greatleader Mahatma Gandhi and feeling the serenebeauty of the Memorial erected to him. I havetalked with you and your colleagues, leaders inthe victorious struggle for political independenceand in the present striving for economic well-

being. I have visited your Parliament and havespoken with the men and women there who aretogether working for the common goal of Indiaand America: peace and friendship, in freedom.

Everywhere I recognize a remarkable unityof purpose as the people of India work togetherto build the sort of country envisaged by herConstitution. Of course, Ambassador Bunkerand others who have lived here had already toldme about some of these things. I suppose I hadgrasped the significance of their words as well asone could who had not himself seen and felt whatthey had felt and seen.

But, in a scant twenty-four hours, thestrength of India's spirit, which seems to me tobe compounded of faith, dedication, courage andlove of country, has been borne in upon me in amost remarkable way. It is a spirit which willnot be denied-no one who has felt it could failto be uplifted by it.

And Mr. President, I should say, too, thatthis idealism that I felt is not merely one ofacademic theory, it is a practical idealism. Allaround me I see evidences of India on the march.I hear of fertilizer plants being built, productionin your agriculture multiplied. I hear of studentsbeing sent abroad so that they may come back toyou with new techniques and disciplines-pro-fessors and other technicians have been brought inby your government to help in this whole greatwork.

To my mind this is the kind of idealism thattranslates itself into the good of people, to givethem the opportunity for the fulfillment of theirown destiny in the best possible way.

And you, Sir, are the Head of a great Republic.To its present world position you have contri-buted much. Distinguished lawyer, devotedfighter for independence, and President of Indiafashioned out of years of struggle and nowadvancing in the light of a grand vision, yoursis a life upon which a man may look with satisfa-ction and a feeling of accomplishment.

Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to raiseyour glasses and drink with me to the health ofthe President of India and Mrs. Prasad.

538

USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President Eisenbower's Address to Parliament

President Eisenhower delivered the follow-ing address before a Joint session of Parliament onDecember 10, 1959. With a sense of high distinction I acceptedthe invitation to address you. I deem this a greatpersonal honour, and a bright symbol of thegenuine friendship between the two peoples youand I represent.

I bring to this nation of 400 million assurancefrom my own people that they feel the welfare ofAmerica is bound up with the welfare of India.America shares with India the deep desire to livein freedom, human dignity and peace withjustice.

A new and great opportunity for that sort oflife has been opened up to all men by the startlingachievements of men of science during recentdecades. The issue placed squarely before us to-day is the purpose for which we use science.

Before us we see long years of what can bea new era; mankind in each year reaping a richerharvest from the fields of earth...gaining a moresure mastery of elemental power for humanbenefit ..sharing an expanding commerce in goodsand in knowledge and wisdom...dwelling togetherin peace.

But history portrays a world too often tragi-cally divided by misgivings and mistrust. Timeand again, governments have abused the fields of

earth by staining them with. blood and scarringthem with the weapons of war. They have useda scientific mastery over nature to win a domi-nance over others ... even made commerce an ins-trument of exploitation.

One blunt question I put to you and to alleverywhere who like myself share responsibilityassigned us by our people:

Must we continue to live with prejudices,practices and policies that will condemn ourchildren, our children's children, to live helplesslyin the pattern of the past-awaiting possibly atime of warborn obliteration ?

We all fervently pray not. Indeed, there canbe no statesmanship in any person of responsibilitywho does not concur in this world-wide prayer.

Over most of the earth, men and women aredetermined that the conference table shall replacethe propaganda mill; interternational exchange ofknowledge shall succeed the international trade inthreats and accusations; and the fertile works ofpeace shall supplant the frenzied race in arma-ments of war.

Our hope is that we are moving into a betterera. For my part, I shall do all I can, as onehuman working with other humans, to push to-ward peace; toward freedom; toward dignity anda worthy future for every man and woman andchild in the world.

If we give all that is within us to this cause,the generations that follow us will call us blessed.Should we shirk the task or pursue the ways ofwar-now become ways to annihilation and racesuicide-there may be no generations to followUS.

I come here representing a nation that wantsnot an acre of another people's land; that seeksno control of another people's government; thatpursues no program of expansion in commerce orpolitics or power of any sort at another people'sexpense. It is a nation ready to share its subs-tance in assisting toward achievement of man-kind's deep, eternal aspirations for peace andfreedom.

I come here as a friend of India, speaking for

180 million friends of India. In fulfilling a desireof many years, I pay, in person, America's tributeto the Indian people, to their culture, to theirprogress, and to their strength among the inde-pendent nations.

All humanity is in debt to this land. But weAmericans have with you, a special community ofinterest.

You and we from our first days have sought,by national policy, the expansion of democracy.You and we, peopled by many strains and racesspeaking many tongues, worshipping in manyways, have each achieved national strength out ofdiversity. You and we, never boast that ours isthe only way. We both are conscious of ourweaknesses and failings. We both seek the im-provement and betterment of all our citizens byassuring that the state will serve, not master, itsown people or any other people.

Above all, our basic goals are the same.

Ten years ago, your distinguished PrimeMinister, when I was his host at Columbia Univer-sity in New York, said

539 "Political subjection, racial inequality, economic misery-these are the evils we have to remove if we would assure peace."

Our Republic, since it founding, has beencommitted to a relentless, ceaseless fight againstthose same three evils: political subjection; racialinequality; economic misery:

Not always has America enjoyed instantsuccess in a particular attack on them. By nomeans has victory been won over them and, in-deed, complete victory can never be won so longas human nature is not transformed. But in mycountry, through almost two hundred years, ourmost revered leaders have exhorted us to giveour lives and our fortunes to the vanquishment ofthese evils. And in this effort for the good of allour people we shall not tire or desist.

Ten years have passed since Mr. Nehruspoke his words. The pessimist might say that,not only do the three evils still infest the world-entrenched, and manifold; but that they will never

lose their virulence. And the future, he mightconclude, will be a repetition of the past; theworld stumbling from crisis in one place to crisisin another; given no respite from anxiety and ten-sion; forever fearful that inevitably some aggres-sion will blaze into global war.

Thus might the pessimist speak. And werewe to examine only the record of failure andfrustration we all would be compelled to agreewith him.

We Americans have known anxiety andsuffering and tragedy, even in the decade just past.Tens of thousands of our families paid a heavyprice that the United Nations and the rule of lawmight be sustained in that Republic of Korea.In millions of our homes there has been, in each,the vacant chair of an absent son who gave someof the years of his youth that successful aggressionmight not come to pass. The news that, throughthese ten years, has reached us in America, fromnear and distant places, has been marked by along series of harsh alarms.

These alarms invariably had their source inthe aggressive intentions of an alien philosophybacked by great military might. Faced with thisfact, we in America have felt in necessary to makeclear our own determination to resist aggressionthrough the provision of adequate armed forces.They serve, not only ourselves, but those of ourfriends and allies who, like us, have perceivedthis danger. But they so serve for defensivepurposes only. In producing this strength webelieve we have made a necessary contribution toa stable peace, for the present and for the futureas well.

Historically and by instinct, the United Stateshas always repudiated and still repudiates thesettlement, by force, of international issues andquarrels. Though we will do our best to providefor free world security, we continue so urge thereduction of armaments on the basis of effectivereciprocal verification.

Contrasting with some of our disappointmentsof the past decade, and the negative purposes ofsecurity establishments, Americans have participa-ted, also, in triumphant works of world progress,political, technical and material. We believethese works support the concept of the dignity

and freedom of man. These hearten Americathat the years ahead will be marked by like andgreater works. And America watches, with friendlyconcern, the valiant efforts of other nations for abetter life, particularly those who have newlyachieved their independence.

Ten years ago India had just achieved inde-pendence; wealthy in courage and determinationbut beset with problems of a scale and depth andnumber scarcely paralleled in modern history.Not even the most optimistic of onlookers wouldthen have predicted the success you haveenjoyed.

Today, India speaks to the other nations ofthe world with greatness of conviction and isheard with greatness of respect. The near con-clusion of her second five-year program is proofthat the difficulty of a problem is only the measureof its challenge to men and women of determinedwill. India is a triumph that offsets any worldfailure of the past decade; a triumph that, as menread our history a century from now, may offsetthem all.

India has paced and spurred and inspiredmen on other continents. Let anyone take amap of the earth and place on it a Rag whereverpolitical subjection has ended, racial prejudicebeen reduced, economic misery at least partiallyrelieved--in the past ten years. He will findevidence in the cluster of these flags that the tenyears past may well have been the most fruitful inthe age-old fight against the three evils.

Because of these ten years, today our feet areset on the road leading to a better life for all men.

What blocks us that we do not move forwardinstantly into an era of plenty and peace ?

540 The answer is obvious. We have not yetsolved the problem of fear among the nations.The consequence is that not one Government canexploit the resources of its own territory solely forthe good of its people.

Governments are burdened with sterile ex-penditures...preoccupied with attainment of adefensive military posture that grows less meaning-ful against today's weapon carriers.

Much of the world is trapped in the samevicious circle. Weakness in arms often invitesaggression or subversion or externally manipulatedrevolution. Fear inspired in others by the increa-sing military strength of one nation spurs themto concentrate still more of their resources onweapons and war-like measures. The arms racebecomes more universal. Doubt as to the truepurpose of these weapons intensifies tension.Peoples are robbed of opportunity for theirown peaceful development. The hunger forpeace justice and goodwill inevitably becomemore intense.

Controlled, universal disarmament is theimperative of our time. The demand for itby the hundreds of millions whose chief concernis the long future of themselves and theirchildren will I hope, become so universal andinsistent that no man, no Government, canwithstand it.

My nation is committed to a ceaseless searchfor ways through which genuine disarmament canbe reached. And my Government, even as I saidmore than six years ago, in April of 1953, still"is ready to ask its people to join with all nationsin devoting a substantial percentage of the savingsachieved by disarmament to a fund for world aidand reconstruction."

But armaments of themselves do not causewars...wars are caused by men.

And men are influenced by a fixation on thepast, the dead past, with all its abuses of power;and its misuses of responsibility; all its futile- con-victions that force can solve any problem.

In the name of humanity, can we not join ina five-year or a fifty-year plan against mistrustand misgiving and fixation on the wrongs of thepast ? Can we not apply ourselves to the removalor reduction of the causes of tension that existin the world? All these are the creations ofGovernments: cherished and nourished by Govern-ments. Nations would never feel them if theywere given freedom from propaganda andpressure.

My own experience in the past ten yearsconvinces me that much of the world's fear,

suspicion, prejudice, can be obliterated. Men andwomen everywhere need only to lift up their eyesto the heights that can be achieved together; andignoring what has been, push together for whatcan be. Not one wrong of years ago that still rankles;not one problem that confronts us today; not onetransitory profit that might be taken from another'sweakness should distract us from the pursuit of agoal that dwarfs every problem and wrong.

We have the strength and the means and theknowledge. May God inspire us to strive for theworld--wide will and wisdom that are now ourfirst needs.

In this great crusade, from the history of yourown nation, I know India will ever be a leader.

USA INDIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC OMAN KOREA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Dr. Radhakrishnan's Welcome Speech

Welcoming President Eisenhower on behalfof the Members of Parliament the VicePresident, Dr. Radhakrishnan, Chairman of theRajya Sabha, said : Mr. President, YourExcellencies, Members of Parliament, Ladies andGentlemen:

My first duty is to offer a most cordial wel-come to President Eisenhower on behalf of thisParliament, the people and the Government ofIndia, Yesterday evening we had a memorableexperience; the reception given to him wasimpressive beyond words. It shows how thepeople of this country have warm and friendlyfeelings towards him, whom millions regard assymbol of democracy, peace, and freedom.

Our relations with the United States havebeen friendly all these years.- The United Statesherself emerged from colonial status to inde-pendence after a struggle; so she had sympathyfor all nations who struggled for independence.During our struggle, we had the moral sympathyand support of the people of Americaand the Government of America. AfterIndependence, in our attempts to build aneconomy suited to the new expectations of ourpeople, we have received assistance from them

541also.

Even as social disparities resulting frominequalities of wealth and opportunity affect thestability of a nation, the gaps between advancednations which are rich and the desperately poornations are an obstacle to the security and stabilityof the world. So it is we who have to look upon theworld as a single unit for economic affairs. Thisis admitted in theory, but not implemented alwaysin practice. We, in our country, have beenattempting to raise our standards of living, in-crease employment opportunities by the encouragement of business, agriculture and industry. Wedo so within the framework of free institutions.

If you look at our Constitution, Mr. President,you will see there echoes of your Constitution,equality of opportunity, respect for law, individualdignity, social justice and progress. The bond ofshared ideals is stronger than military pacts, Mr.President.

As a great General with a knowledge of thenature of war and a knowledge of the modernweapons of destruction, you know the unintelli-gence, the futility, the stupidity and the waste ofwar as a method of settling international disputes.You are new, therefore, attempting with all yourwisdom and great authority to reduce internationaltensions and bring about disarmament.

But recent events in the East as well as inthe West may not encourage optimism, but theydo not forbid hope. It is with that hope you haveundertaken this long journey, visiting distantcountries and explaining to our people, the peoplesof the different countries you visit, the passionateinterest which you and your country have in

peace and human welfare.

Of course, there is only one way for peace,-that is, co-operation and understanding betweennations. We should not lose heart, we shouldnever despair, we should never lose patience.Human nature is not unchanging. Politicalinstitutions are not exempt from the law to whichall other things are subject. If you understand theresilience of human nature, the mutability of socialand political institutions, the healing power oftime and the mercy of Providence which keeps aconstant vigil over the fortunes of thistormented troubled and turbulent world, we mayyet be spared the fate of nuclear annihilation,universal death, and step into a new and betterworld.

We greet you, Mr. President, as the servantof that new and nobler world. We assure youof our wholehearted co-operation in your attemptsto secure peace. We wish you god-speed inyour efforts.

USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Vote of thanks by Shri Ananthasayanam Ayyangar

Shri Ananthasayanam Ayyangar, Speaker ofthe Lok Sabha, extended a vote of thanks to Presi-dent Eisenhower after be addressed the Membersof Parliament :

The following is the text of his speech:

On behalf of the Members of Parliament, Iexpress our grateful thanks to you, Mr. President,for the very inspiring and reassuring address thatyou gave us this evening. As the SupremeCommander, you won the Great War. We pray

to Almighty that He may give you health andstrength to win peace equally well.

The world is anxious and is looking to youand some other friends to establish permanentpeace on the globe. So far as we are concerned,we are an ancient nation. For ages we have beenwedded to peace. Lord Buddha, the apostle ofpeace, was born in our country. He was followedby Asoka, the Emperor who, for the first timein the world's history, established the rule of lawas superior to the rule of force, and he adoptedpeaceful methods both in internal administrationand in his relations with foreign countries. Inmore recent times, Mahatma Gandhi followedthis example. His instruments for winningfreedom were truth and non-violence. Manya doubting Thomas was doubting if after allsoul force would succeed. He did succeed andwon us freedom by peaceful means.

We assure you, Mr. President, in the nameof the 400 millions of our countrymen that we allstand by those honest men in the world who strivehonestly for peace. We wish you godspeed inthat direction.

You, Mr. President, have referred to manyparallels between your country and ours. Yoursis a great democracy. Ours is equally one. Thereare some persons who doubt. I can tell themthat in the recent two elections that we had, asmany as 180 millions of our population--equalto your population-were enfranchised and nearly70 per cent of those voters voted, and there wasnot a single incident. I believe that there will be

542no more, proof necessary to show that we arewedded to democratic institutions.

I can assure you, Mr. President, that we willbe the bulwark of democracy and you can go backwith this assurance that with your cooperationand our continued friendship we will establishpermanent peace in the globe.

You have stayed in our country only a shortwhile. I wish you had been able to spare somelonger time to go from end to end of our countryand have an idea about our ancient culture, how ourpeople live and how democracy has entered intoour veins and how we have adopted it as our way

of life. But all the same we trust that you willgo back to your land with very happy memoriesof your short stay and carry to your people andconvey to them the greetings of 400 minions ofIndians, and our desire for our continuedfriendship and cooperation and for your ever-increasing prosperity.

USA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Press Communique

On the conclusion of President Eisenhower'svisit to India, lasting from December 9 to 14, 1959,the Ministry of External Affairs, Government ofIndia, issued the. following Press Communique onDecember 14,1959 :

At the invitation of the Government of Indiathe President of the United States of Americapaid a visit to India, lasting from December 9 to14. President Eisenhower received on his arrivalin New Delhi a warm and cordial welcome,marked by popular enthusiasm and goodwill.Throughout his stay and wherever he went, thesefriendly manifestations of goodwill were repeatedby millions of Delhi citizens and others who hadcome to Delhi to join in this welcome. Duringhis strenuous four-day visit, President Eisenhowerfulfilled a number of public engagements. Headdressed Members of the Indian Parliament,received an Honorary Doctorate of Laws fromthe University of Delhi, participated in theinauguration of the World Agriculture Fair,attended a civic reception on behalf of thecity of Delhi and visited rural areas nearAgra.

In thus fulfilling a desire of many years,

the President was deeply touched by the warmthof the welcome extended to him by the people ofIndia, by the generous hospitality of the Govern-ment and the excellence of the arrangements madefor him.

The President was impressed by the vitalityof India's democratic institutions, of Parliament,Press and University, and by India's strength ofspirit combined with practical idealism. He sawhow India, like the United States, has creatednational strength out of diversity, neither countryboasting that theirs is the only way. He con-firmed the bond of shared ideals between Indiaand the United States, their identity of objectives,and their common quest for just and lastingpeace.

President Eisenhower met the President ofIndia, the Prime Minister and other members ofthe Government of India. He and the PrimeMinister had intimate talks in which they reviewedthe world situation and exchanged views onmatters of mutual interest. Among other things,the President told the Prime Minister that he washappy to report to him that all the leaders of thecountries he had visited during his recent journeyhad expressed to him the hope that problemsinvolving one form or another of conflict ofinterest or views could be solved by peacefulmethods of conciliation. He said that this wastrue in Italy, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan.The President found-this heartening and in har-mony with his own thinking. He did not wishin any way to minimize the importance of, or theinherent difficulties involved in, some of the pro-blems. The spirit he found was good and forward-looking.

The Prime Minister expressed gratificationand pleasure at President Eisenhower's visit toIndia, and thanked him for the warmth andgenerosity of the sentiments he had expressed. Heassured the President of the whole-hearted supportof India in his unremitting efforts in the cause ofworld peace. India herself is dedicated to apolicy of peace and has been steadfast in herconviction that difference between nations shouldbe resolved peacefully by the method of negotia-tion and settlement and not by resort to force. Shehas consistently pursued this policy in relation toproblems of this nature affecting her and othercountries. The Prime Minister gave President

Eisenhower a review of the major aspects of someof these problems and of recent developments inregard to them.

The Prime Minister also referred to the greateffort that India was making, through her FiveYear Plans, to develop the country, both inregard to agriculture and industry, so as to raisethe living standards of the people as rapidly as

543possible. To this great task, involving the 400million people, India was devoting herself with allher strength and will.

The President and the Prime Minister ex-pressed their deep satisfaction at the friendly andcordial relations existing between their twocountries, and their firm belief that, their commonideals and objectives and their quest for peacewill ensure the maintenance and development ofthe strong ties of friendship between the twocountries.

President Eisenhower's visit to India hasafforded the welcome opportunity of a meetingbetween the Presidents of the two countries, andfor the renewal of the friendship between him andthe Prime Minister of India. He was happy tomeet other members of the Government, as wellas men and women, young and old, in city andvillage, in Parliament and University, and tobring to them, personally, assurance of thegenuine friendship of the people of the UnitedStates for the people of India and their sincereand continuing interest in India's welfare. Tothe people of India, this visit, which had beenlong hoped for, has given the opportunity for thedemonstration of the sincere friendship, goodwilland sympathy which they feel for the people of,the United States.

USA INDIA AFGHANISTAN ITALY PAKISTAN TURKEY

Date : Jan 01, 1959

Volume No Volume V

1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Indo-U. S. Agreement Signed

The U.S.A. and India signed an agreementin Washington on December 7, 1959 whichprovides additional encouragement for investmentof private American capital in business enterprisesin India.

The Agreement, which was signed by Mr.G.O. Lewis Jones, Assistant Secretary of Statefor near Eastern and South Asia Affairs, and ShriD.N. Chatterjee, Charge d' Affaires of the IndianEmbassy, amends the Convertibility GuaranteeAgreement of September, 1957.

This amendment provides that Americaninvestors, for a premium, will be able to receiveinsurance for reimbursement in dollars- by theUnited States Government, of losses which maybe incurred because of nationalisation.

The U.S. investment guarantee programmein India has been in effect since the signing of theoriginal Agreement of September 1957. Untiltoday's Agreement, the programme was limited toguarantees that capital invested and Indian recei-pts (rupees) from new or expanded Americanprivate enterprises in India could be convertedinto dollars.

544

USA INDIA

Date : Jan 01, 1959