Address to the Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on October 11, 1963
The representative of India has stated:
“What grieves us most deeply in this context is the recent tendency of the unprincipled behavior of making friends of erstwhile enemies and of seeking strange alliances for collusion in aggression.”
I am constrained to exercise my right of reply because there can be no doubt of the representative of India’s aspersions against my country. May I ask, was China an erstwhile enemy of Pakistan with whom Pakistan has now become friends? If so, I should like the representative of India to produce evidence of Pakistan’s enmity with China.
Since the emergence of the People’s Republic of China towards the end of 1949, Pakistan has had a correct and friendly relation with that country. We recognized the People’s Republic of China in 1950, about the same time as India did, and also the United Kingdom. We voted for the admission of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations in 1950 and in the following years. We became a member of the Manila Treaty-better known as SEATO-in 1945 but, as this was purely a defensive treaty against aggression, our relations with the People’s Republic of China continued in their normal course.
In 1956 Prime Minister Chou En-Lai visited Pakistan at the invitation of the Government of Pakistan, and his visit was returned by the Prime Minister of Pakistan as a reciprocal gesture of courtesy and goodwill. In December, 1960, two years before the outbreak of the Sino-Indian conflict last October, Pakistan proposed a demarcation of the common border between China’s province of Sinkiang and the contiguous areas the defense of which is the responsibility of Pakistan. The People’s Republic of China gave a favorable indication of its willingness to negotiate a boundary agreement. The preliminary formalities were completed in May, 1962, and the negotiations themselves commenced in Peking before China and India clashed in the NEFA and the Ladakh frontiers.
Does this record of Pakistan’s relations with China establish that the two countries were enemies who became friends only after the outbreak of the Sino-Indian conflict last year?
The Representative of India, in the same passage, has accused Pakistan, by insinuation, of “seeking strange alliances for collusion in aggression”. May I ask the representative of India to produce evidence of these “strange alliances”? Was she referring perchance to the boundary agreement completed last year or to the trade and air agreement? What evidence is there in India’s possession of this “collusion in aggression”? I have already said that we have entered into no such collusion; if we had, we would have taken advantage of the opportunity to attack India last October when India was engaged in a conflict with China. We did not do so; and yet India, instead of appreciating the peaceful conduct and good neighborly intentions of Pakistan, has accused Pakistan of “collusion in aggression”.
It is clear from the allegation of the representative of India that in its pursuit of domination and hegemony of the Indian Ocean region. India cannot contemplate with equanimity the existence of small independent states on its borders and will not permit them the right to conduct their own affairs internally and externally. Only a few years ago, when the cry of Chini-Hindi Bhai Bhai, which means “China-India, our brothers” was resounding from one corner of India to the other, Pakistan was accused of not being friendly to India’s brother, the People’s Republic of China, and of aligning itself as a member of SEATO against China.
Today, when the relationship between India and China has become unfraternal, Pakistan is accused of having changed its feelings of enmity towards China to those of friendship. This kind of self-reversal is psychologically interesting. It indicates, I fear, a paranoid state. Otherwise, why should India expect its neighboring countries to regulate their own relationships with third countries according to the twists and turns of India’s own relations with them? The fact is that India cannot bring itself to recognize that its neighbors have the right, as equal sovereign states, to make independent judgments and conduct their foreign relations with other countries in the light of their own interests and in the interests of international peace and security. Is this not a covert claim to suzerainty of India over its smaller neighbors and the manifestation of neo-colonialism in its most insidious form?
The representative of India went on to state: “It is noteworthy that such collusion extends to the point where one of the parties describes the naked aggression committed by the other as “illusory” as was done in this Assembly only a few days ago.”
Obviously, the representative of India is referring to my reply to her allegations before this Assembly on September 30. Aggression, as this Assembly is aware, is both a matter of law and a matter of fact. What is the principle of international law that was transgressed in the outbreak of fighting between India and China last October? Is the MacMahon Line a legal line? It is so claimed by the Government of India. It is denied by the People’s Republic of China.
It may also be noted that the legality of the MacMahon Line was also denied by its predecessor government the Republic of China.
Have the Colombo Powers, which have been exercising their good offices to bring about a peaceful adjustment of the situation between India and China, given their verdict on this Indian charge of aggression against China? To the best of our knowledge the judgment, the fact of who committed aggression last October has yet to be established. Surely, India’s own word cannot be the final verdict even though India believes that it can do no wrong.
The representative of India also said, with all the authority of her government that she would like to deny categorically my assertion that the central issue in Kashmir is that of self-determination. Let me remind her of the statement of the Prime Minister of India, made on November 25, 1947, in the Indian Constituent Assembly: “The issue in Kashmir in whether violence and naked force shall decide the future or the will of the people.”
Does the representative of India deny the statement? The representative of India also referred to the genesis of the Kashmir dispute and alleged that Pakistan is embarrassed by facts relating to its origin. She mentioned the acts of “plunder, arson, rape, and murder” alleged to have been committed by the tribesmen who entered Kashmir through Pakistan territory. But she passed over in complete silence the acts of plunder, arson, rape, and murder committed by the feudal tyrant, the Maharajah of Kashmir, and multiplied a thousand-fold in his campaign of genocide against his own people-the same tyrant from whom India claims to derive sovereignty over Kashmir. Let me cite the report of the London Times of October 10, 1947, that “237,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated, unless they escaped to Pakistan, by the Dogra forces, headed by the Maharajah in person. “
The representative of India gave her own version of the United Nations Commission’s resolutions on Kashmir, according to which she tried to fasten on Pakistan the obligation to affect an unconditional and unilateral withdrawal of its military forces from Kashmir. But the essence of these resolutions is that the obligations of withdrawal of forces by the two sides are reciprocal and that the withdrawals should be concurrent. Moreover, these withdrawals had to be governed by the Truce Agreement between the parties. It is India which has consistently refused to co-operate in the formulation of this agreement and the modalities of its implementation. Then it turns around and accuses Pakistan of failure to comply with the United Nations Commission’s resolutions.
The representative of India maintains that India’s sovereignty over Kashmir is complete and total and cannot be questioned. Not so long ago, we used to hear in these very halls similar reiterations of the unquestionable sovereignty of France over Algeria, and we continue to hear them from Portugal. These “unquestionable” claims have not only been questioned but unsettled by the irrepressible force of the principle of self-determination enunciated by the Charter.
But we find from the statement of the representative of India that India has, as it were procured proof of its claim to sovereignty from the fact of its involvement with China in Ladakh. I confess that it is hard for me to comment on a statement of this kind because the only inference to which it can lead is that India chose to provoke China into conflict so that it might thereby consolidate its title over Kashmir. Then the Indian representative opposes self-determination in the following terms; “It does not, however, apply to the present case, since it is not applicable to a section of a people. It applies to all those territories where, by force of arms or by the vicissitudes of history people are held under an alien power. If the policy of self-determination were to apply to parts of constitutionally created states most of them would be broken up. The plea of self-determination in a plural society could mean nothing but disruption. And may I add that most of the new states in Asia and Africa fall into this category. That is why, I venture to suggest, that United Nations tried so hard to prevent the secession of Katanga on the plea of self-determination.”
The representatives will note the attempt made here to denounce self-determination by trying to relate it to the question of Katanga’s secession. The Katanga question had nothing to do with self-determination. In fact, the secession of Katanga was aimed at the destruction of the self-determination of the Congolese people. Had Mr. Tshombe consulted the wishes of the population of Katanga, is there any doubt that the majority of the different tribes inhabiting that province would have voted against secession? What he did in fact was to substitute his own arbitrary will, as the Maharajah of Kashmir did, for the people’s right of self-determination. We trust that the representative of India will refrain from attempting to establish similarities where none exist.
In regard to the contention that the right of self-determination is not applicable to a section of the people and that if applied to parts of constitutionally created states most of them would be broken up let me remind the representative of India that the people of Kashmir are not a section of the people of India. Nor is Kashmir a part of the constitutionally created state of India. Let me remind the representative of India of the statement of the Prime Minister of India made in the Indian Parliament on March 31, 1955; “Kashmir, while a problem between India and Pakistan, is not a thing to be bandied about between India and Pakistan for it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own. “
Let me remind the representative of India also of his statement of January 2, 1952: “Kashmir belongs to the Kashmiri people. If they tell us to walk out. I would have no hesitation in quitting Kashmir.”
The so-called argument about India being a plural society which should not be disrupted by the application of the principle of self-determination, if logically followed, would give a new lease on life to imperialistic establishments. It would mean that empires should never be dissolved. Then the representative of India referred to the “two-nation” theory on the basis of which British India was partitioned into India and Pakistan. This was never a theory. It was also a fact embedded in the history of the sub continent for a thousand years and its logical consequence-namely, the Hindus and Muslims are entitled to separate sovereignties in their respective majority areas-was accepted as much by India as by Pakistan.
It did not mean any division of classes of citizenship between Hindus and Moslems either in India or in Pakistan. By bringing it into controversy the Indian leaders are only trying to question the principle of the establishment of Pakistan, thus making it impossible for relations between the two countries ever to be stabilized. This notwithstanding, we welcome the pronouncement of the representative of India in seeking the friendship and co-operation of my country. Pakistan has always demonstrated its sincere willingness to be a partner in the peaceful pursuit of a more prosperous and happier sub-continent. As I said on September 30, it is not the law of nature for our people to live in perpetual poverty. We are willing to share our talents and resources for a better life for our people, for the people of India and the people of Pakistan. What a great and glorious vista can be opened up only when India vacates its aggression in Kashmir and permits the unfortunate people of that strife-ridden region to share and participate in the mutual benefits as a people who have determined their destiny.
Pakistan has sedulously striven by peaceful means to achieve this honorable end. Unfortunately, India persists in holding the people of Kashmir in bondage. Let the chains of incarceration break, free the Kashmiris and have the friendship and good will of Pakistan. In so doing, India would be the greater for it. It would have then truly contributed to a peaceful order in the sub-continent.
Pakistan is one-third the size of India. We would, therefore, welcome from every consideration the complete amelioration of tension and bitterness between us. It has always bee Pakistan’s effort to establish cordial relations with our neighbors, but in establishing this relationship it is wiser to break the barrier of injustice and aggression that divides us in Kashmir and which India has erected in defiance of the United Nations resolutions and its own solemn pledges.
Co-operation does not flow from words. It is rooted in conduct and in positive action. Let India’s words be matched by its actions. Neither India nor the world will find Pakistan faltering in its fullest response to a positive gesture recognizing the norms of justice and equity in the world.
It is rather astonishing that the representative of the Government of India should question the right of the delegation of Pakistan to exercise its right of reply. The representative of India opened her statement by saying that the Pakistan delegation did not have this inherent right which is recognized in the Charter, in the rules of procedure, and in the practices of the United Nations. This is the inherent right of every member, and it is a duty which every country owes to its people.
In my general policy statement of September 30 my references to the fundamental dispute and to the question of the deportation of Muslims from the States of Assam and Tripura were brief and, objectively speaking, unprovocative. Kashmir is a matter of fundamental importance to Pakistan. It is the great divider between India and Pakistan. Therefore it was my duty to make reference to that dispute, if disputes are to be settled between states in a peaceful manner and in accordance with the norms of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. It was the leader of the Indian delegation that chose to enter into a battle of words, into polemics, and made various references to Kashmir and to other matters and also touched upon questions which are entirely within the domestic jurisdiction of Pakistan. Therefore it was again my duty to my country and my duty to this body and to the world at large to place the facts, the true facts on record. The representative of India this afternoon has questioned my right to do so. Herein lies the attitude of the Government of India on disputes and matters that concern it. When it comes to the disputes of other states. India always takes the role of a preacher and admonishes countries that have dispute and tells them how to settle their disputes; but when a dispute affects India it refuses the right to a country that is also a party to the dispute even to mention the dispute or to exercise the right of reply. This is the attitude which unfortunately persists and it does not permit a settlement on the basis of negotiation, on the basis of understanding, and on the basis of mutual accommodation.
So great is India’s tradition of interfering in the affairs of other countries that this evening the representative of India said that the Hindu population of Pakistan should have increased by two-and-on-quarter per cent and the fact that this population had not increased by two-and-one-quarter per cent was something equally surprising. The Indian government would now like to tell other states how their population should increase within a given period of time and it wants to interfere in the exercise of the conjugal rights of citizens of another country. I think this shows the Indian government’s attitude in interfering in such fundamental issues which are entirely within the domestic jurisdiction of another country. We have 10 million Hindus living in East Pakistan and about a million or so living in West Pakistan. Now we have heard the Government of India tell us that population is not large enough and should increase by two-and-one-quarter per cent. In acquiescence to the demand of the representative of India. I shall convey this demand of the Government of India to my authorities and we shall try to oblige it in this and any other way in order to bring about mutual accommodation based on a common understanding between states.
The representative of India today and on-September 30 made references also to the system of government that exist in Pakistan and contrasted them with the system of government in India. The representative of India referred to India as a democracy and said that in Pakistan democracy does not exist and that, because democracy does not exist in Pakistan, the people of Kashmir should have no right to self-determination. That is weird logic which we cannot understand. As far as democracy in India is concerned, I am not going to go into that matter in detail, for it is not my concern what form or system of government exists in India. Nor am I going to quote any of the Indian leaders on whether or no democracy exists in India or on whether there is only a form of democracy and in substance a dictatorship there. I will not refer to the patina of evidence in that respect. I will only mention what the President of the Republic of India said on October 1, 1963, as was reported in The New York Times. The President of the Republic of India, that great philosopher, said:
“What we have in India today is not real democracy but only a phony democracy. If we were real democrats-which, I may say, we are not-there would not be so much discontent and ill-will.”
That statement was made by the Head of State of India only a few days ago on the brand of democracy that exists in India.
Then we are told that I protested from this rostrum against the incarceration of that great Kashmiri leader, Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah. To justify the imprisonment of Sheikh Abdullah the representative of India said that at one stage or other Pakistan called Sheikh Abdullah a quisling, The question here is not what Pakistan at one stage or other called Sheikh Abdullah. Is Sheikh Abdullah in prison because we called him a quisling? This is a very interesting situation. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the great leader of the people of Kashmir, has been rotting in gaol for the past ten years. It is true that he is having a trial-a trial after a fashion. Here, again, the Indians excel in forms. Both of us have learnt something or other from the British, and in this matter I think the Indians have surpassed us: to maintain the forms of democracy but in substance to have a dictatorship and to have arbitrary authority. Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah is undergoing trial, we are told-a trial that has been going on for ten years. In ten years, out of 3,000 witnesses, only 30 witnesses have been examined. It must be a complicate3d trial, and obviously it will take time for the proceedings to end but when the proceedings will end is something that neither you nor I can contemplate, for the patience of the Indian people is well known in history. This trial will go on indefinitely. Sheikh Abdullah will receive justice, because so far 30 witnesses have given evidence in a trial where 3,000 witnesses are involved.
I refer to this unjust incarceration of Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, not because we wish to interfere in the internal affairs of India; I refer to it because Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah is not an Indian citizen. His nationality has yet to be determined. Therefore I have a right to refer to the imprisonment of Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah. However, the Indian representative, again with a logic which the Indians can best understand, has referred, by way of defence or by way of an answer, to the imprisonment of a Pakistani national, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. As the latter is a Pakistan national, this is a matter which is entirely within the domestic jurisdiction of Pakistan, and India has no right to make reference to his imprisonment. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s brother was a Chief Minister of our province recently-right up to 1955. It is not that he has something inherently wrong with him. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan was against the two-nation theory. He was against the establishment of Pakistan. India has no right to refer to the imprisonment of a man who is not a national of the Indian Government and who does not come from a disputed territory.
Again distortion reached its climax and apogee when we were told a few moments ago that I said that we had held the MacMahltos Line in dispute. One can imagine the justice and the fairness with which India analyses the situation, because I had hardly left the rostrum when this utter distortion took place. I did not say anything of the kind. I said that the Indian government claims the MacMahon Line to be the dividing line between India and China and that this is denied by the People’s Republic of China. I said that the dispute arose because the Government of India recognizes it as the legal dividing line between India and China and the People’s Republic of China does not recognize it. How did establish in any way that Pakistan has pronounced its opinion on the MacMahon Line?
We were told that India made no reference whatsoever to Kashmir and as India had made no reference to Kashmir, and then it was our bounden duty also to make no reference to Kashmir. It is very convenient for India not to make reference to Kashmir. It is obvious why India would not like to make any reference to Kashmir. It is because India has grabbed Kashmir, because India has been holding Kashmir in bondage, and because India does not want the world to know the facts about Kashmir. India wants no light to be thrown on this ugly problem, whereas it is our duty, a duty that we owe to our people and to the people of Kashmir, to mention the Kashmir problem.
If the people of Kashmir had exercised their right of self-determination and if the matter had been settled, I too would have made no reference to Kashmir. So India has not shown any magnanimity in not making reference to Kashimr. It is understandable why India would not make any reference to Kashimr.
And then we are told that instead of responding to a gesture, we have talked about it and have entered into a dialogue on the subject. Here again today another very invidious accusation was made against Pakistan. It was said, and I quote again-“What grieves us most deeply in this context is the recent tendency of unprincipled behavior, of making friends of erstwhile enemies and of seeking strange alliances for collusion and aggression”. We are accused here of unprincipled behavior, of making friends of erstwhile enemies and of seeking strange alliances for collusion and aggression.
These are very serious charges. These are charges which have to be refuted. The representative of India has accused Pakistan of unprincipled behavior, of making friends with erstwhile enemies and of seeking strange alliances for collusion and aggression, and has said that the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, representing his country, has no right to exercise his right of reply.
Now I ask you, Mr. President, if this is to be the conduct of India, if these are the edicts with which the world has to comply, then I am afraid that justice will never truly be achieved.
Other consequences were also embodied in the statement. It must not be forgotten that the Sino-Indian conflict took place on the Ladakh front. Ladakh is a part of Kashmir. There are three subdivisions of Ladakh: Skardu, Kargil, and Ladakh-and fighting took place in Ladakh. Ladakh is a part of Kashmir and Kashmir is a territory held in dispute. With all the consequences flowing out of these sinister charges, we are none the less told by the representative of India that we have no right to exercise our right of reply.
It is not only a question of the exercise of their right of self-determination to which India is a party and has pledged its word, it is not only a question of denying the people of Kashmir their inherent right, but the tragedy has become all the more painful because these poor Kashmiris who have nothing whatsoever to do with the disputes of the giants that are involved in a clash of today became the battlefield of India’s clash with China. If the poor people of Kashmir had been allowed to exercise their right of self-determination and if they had determined their destiny by now, they would not be involved in that clash which does not really concern them today, because the Kashmiris are not truly a part of India. They have been made into guinea pigs, because India is waging its war and conflict with the Chinese in Ladakh, which is a part of Kashmir. These peaceful people, who have always known peace and tranquility in their land, have today become the guinea pigs of a conflict which does not concern them in any way. If they had exercised their right of self-determination and had chosen to be a part of Pakistan, they would have lived as peacefully in Pakistan as the rest of the people of Pakistan.
So this adds painfully to the tragedy that is taking place. In this clash of two great giants, this tiny little spot, this beautiful vale of Kashmir has been unnecessarily involved.
We have also been told that the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus applies to treaties but not to commitments. Now a treaty is also a commitment. It is the commitment of a state. If we are told that the resolutions of the United Nations can be flouted, that the resolutions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly can be flouted because there is a difference between a treaty and a commitment, this shows grotesque and flagrant contempt for the Charter of the United Nations. It was recently said that Charter or no Charter, when India embarks on its aggression, then whether there is international law or not it is nobody’s concern and the world must take what India wants, and there is no international law in that event. It is a terrifying statement that regus sic stantibus means that you can break your word in the United Nations with respect to resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, but that perhaps you cannot break your word with respect to treaties.
So today we have been told that as far as the United Nations is concerned, whether it is the General Assembly or the Security Council, upon which rests the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, commitments made by states do not have to be honourd. How then are we to proceed if the United Nations is no longer a forum for adjudication and settlement of disputes? Commitments are made in the United Nations and confirmed and reiterated by the Prime Minister of a country, and a few years later we are told that these commitments are not honorable commitments and are therefore not pledges which have to be honored. But with respect to treaties perhaps it is a different story.
This places the world in a great state of confusion. This shows an utter lack of respect for the United Nations. This shows that all our efforts to build a better peace through the peaceful role of the United Nations is null and void. This is a matter which causes us grave concern.
It has also been said that Pakistan has not implemented the resolutions of the United Nations. Here we have time and again said that a third party should determine who has and who has not implemented the resolutions. We are still anxious to settle through the United Nations this unfortunate dispute that divides the two countries, or through any other acceptable principle of international law. Is this an unreasonable stand? If we are charged by India with not complying with the resolutions, we say let the United Nations or let an impartial international body determine whether or not we have complied with the resolutions. It is India that does not comply with the resolutions and then charges Pakistan with not complying with the resolutions. Why should w not want to comply with the resolutions? We want to see and end to this problem and dispute, because we want to live in peace with them. We are a small country and India is a large country which has ambitions from the Hindu Kush to the Mekong River. But we are a small country and would like to live in peace with them. We would not like to leave a dispute with them. But justice must be done in order to live in peace with them, and peace can only come through respect for international law and adherence to international obligations and commitments, and not by the dictates of a great power against a small power. The world would be menaced if the great powers or the semi-great powers were to dictate to the small powers. We resent the dictation of the great powers-all of us resent it-and why should Pakistan be an exception in this case? We equally resent this dictation. We do not expect India to determine whether or not we have complied with the resolutions-let the United Nations decide or let an impartial third party decide whether or not Pakistan has complied with them.
Again I make this offer here: let us break the impasse. It is not beyond the scope of ingenuity or the efforts of men to find an honorable and equitable solution of this problem. We were told as far as Tripura is concerned, that an exodus is taking place there, that Pakistan has been avoiding a settlement of the problem, and that at the bilateral negotiations on behalf of Pakistan, conducted by me over there, we refused to accept a settlement of this issue. This also, with due respect, I would say is not the correct position. At those bilateral negotiations we submitted that as Kashmir was the fundamental problem, efforts should be made first to settle Kashmir and then the other issues, because Kashmir is the root of all evil and if that problem were to be settled, then all these symptoms would almost automatically subside. This is not an unreasonable submission. But when we found that the intransigence was as complete as it had been in the past we said: since we cannot make progress on this matter, let us go to the other question and have it at a ministerial level. But again the Government of India refused to have it at the ministerial level, but to have it considered by other officials. But if it is left to the officials, we know what happens; the question drags on ad infinitum.
On September 30 I said that Pakistan was willing to accept the adjudication of the United Nations or of an international commission, even a commission composed of Commonwealth countries or any other third-party countries acceptable to both India and Pakistan. On behalf of my government, I again renew that offer, that the question of Tripura can be settled in this fashion because this is the only proper and correct fashion in which it could be settled. We are disappointed and aggrieved that all our efforts to bring about a settlement with our great with our great neighbor have so far been refused by India.
We have accepted every proposal that has been made so far for the settlement of the problem of Kashmir and the other questions. But India does not seek to settle them because India wants to continue its hold and its oppression of Kashmir.
We are told of collusion with China. What collusion? When India was in conflict with China and had to withdraw the bulk of its armed forces for the first time for the Chinese front, Pakistan did, nothing at all, did not lift a finger, did not move a single soldier, did not fire a single bullet. And yet we are told of collusion with China against India. If these gestures of goodwill and neighborliness are to be flouted and not appreciated, where can Pakistan go? What alternative have we got?
In the last decade or so Pakistan has stood for the peaceful settlement of all disputes. We have seen former colonies become independent. In our own small way we have contributed to the efforts to decolonize them. We stand for decolonization. For Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria it was Pakistan that made every effort to see that there should be justice and decolonization. In the case of Algeria, Pakistan offered recognition at a time when India had not. And the reasons were obvious-because of the Kashmir dispute and because of India’s stake in the Security Council where France is a permanent member. France, of course, has always supported the right of self-determination, and for this we are grateful, and we are grateful that that great country and its leader did not change that stand when we accorded recognition to Algeria, even risking perhaps a turn of events. But India did not accord recognition to Algeria because India thought that such a move might have some repercussions in the Security Council.
Pakistan has tried in every way to enhance international peace and security. We have welcomed all countries which have come here and become members of the United Nations through the exercise of the right of self-determination. This is our contribution to the exercise of the right of self-determination for other countries. How can we not be concerned with the right of self-determination?
The people of Kashmir are our blood and therefore we will struggle for this right, and this right is bound to be achieved because it is a right which cannot be denied to the people of Kashmir. Some voices may be silent today on this issue but we know that international opinion will spread concerning this matter and that it will become the concern of the world because it is a grave issue which divides two great powers and holds the people of Kashmir in bondage.
Site created and designed by Sani Hussain Panhwar
