MISCELLANEOUS

dated 26th December, 1952: Kashmir - Security Council in Cloudland

From the Editorials: Passing the Anglo-American resolution on Kashmir, the Security Council has stultified itself by going back on its own previous resolution and nullifying good work achieved by its Commission and its Representatives to narrow the area of difference. Worse, it has shown itself oblivious of the dangers of deliberately widening the gap between the parties by the new terms set for negotiations. The responsibility for this is squarely on the British and American delegations, who gave a misleading cue to other delegations that could not understand the complicated issues involved, especially with Pakistan's delegate always at hand to confuse their minds with clever and specious sophistries. For, did not Sir Gladwyn Jebb plead unashamedly for a deliberate ignoring of the facts of the problem because, forsooth, neither peace nor a plebiscite was to be gained that way? What did it matter if this was precisely what Pakistan, keenly conscious of her own guilt and the verdict of U.N. bodies and Representatives, was also anxious that the Council should do? In fact, ever since it became clear, from the findings of the U.N. bodies, that Pakistan's aggression could no longer be hidden from the outside world, Sir Zafrullah Khan has been claiming that the very fact of the negotiations for a settlement being carried on (after her act of aggression) was tantamount to his condonation; in any case, he said, there was no point in harping on that. Is it a mere coincidence that this has been echoed in the speeches of the British and American delegates? Striking an attitude of statesmanship, Sir Gladwyn asked whether it would help towards a solution to turn aside from efforts to bring about a plebiscite in order to sift and evaluate facts and apportion responsibility for the events leading up to the outbreak of fighting in Kashmir'. But Sir Gladwyn waited not for an answer. Before anyone could say `Yes', he hastened to tell the Council what his country's right answer was: `The United Kingdom believes it would not, and for this reason hopes most earnestly that he Council and the parties will focus their efforts on giving effect to their agreement, set out in the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission.' And U.S. delegates chimed in to say how `unnecessary, undesirable, and unconstructive' it was to go into the history of the Kashmir case.''