501.BC Kashmir/9–648: Telegram
The United States Representative on the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (Huddle) to the Secretary of State
443. Comkas 34. Pakistan reply September 61 to proposals Commission’s resolution August 13 received today purports to accept Commission’s resolution as clarified to Pakistan Government by Commission but is qualified by proviso which nullifies so-called acceptance and reads as follows:
“Subject to clarifications and elucidations furnished by Commission to Government of Pakistan being accepted by Government of India and elucidations and clarifications if any furnished by the Commission to Government of India being acceptable to Government of Pakistan and provided Government of India accepts conditions laid down in part B (Articles 6 to 15, both inclusive) of SC resolution of 21 April 1948 as explained by sponsors of resolution UN SC for a free and impartial plebiscite to decide whether state of Jammu-Kashmir is to accede to India or Pakistan.”
Commission has not required acceptance of Government of India to portions of SC’s April 21 resolution specified in foregoing and is convinced introduction controversial details at present stage would simply and needlessly prolong discouraging negotiations while dangerous hostilities continue. Effect, therefore, of Pakistan decision is nonacceptance Commission’s August 13 proposals cease-fire and truce agreement.
In addition Foreign Minister’s letter September 6 states views of Pakistan Government not binding on Azad Kashmir Government nor do they reflect Azad Kashmir views. This is in contravention to assurances previously given to Commission by both Pakistan Foreign Minister and Pakistan High Command. As now presented Pakistan confronts Commission with necessity obtaining independent Azad Kashmir consent to present and future proposals. In other respects Foreign Minister’s communication misstates Commission’s standpoint and endeavors commit Commission to future dispositions regarding which it has advisedly held decisions in abeyance pending effectuation cease-fire and truce agreement.
While acceptance by India of Commission’s August 13 proposals need not be taken at complete face value, it did express agreement of India to cease-fire and negotiations for truce. Pakistan’s proposition introduces subjects for negotiation which have previously been points of controversy and in effect were rejected by both India and Pakistan. [Page 377] This Pakistan fully aware of and it knows, therefore, that injection of controversial features at present stage will effectively obstruct attainment objectives Commission’s August 13 proposals.
Commission today issuing press release correspondence between Commission and respective governments on August 13 resolution which will doubtless create hubbub. Copies all documents have been forwarded Department by airmail with exception Foreign Minister’s letter September 6 and Commission’s reply2 same date which will be sent earliest pouch. Please repeat USUN Paris.
- Letter addressed to the Commission by Zafrullah Khan. For text, see SC, 3rd yr., Suppl. for Nov. 1948, pp. 41–45.↩
- In this letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (S/995), the Chairman of the Commission stated that the Commission was prepared at an early opportunity to consider the questions raised by Pakistan. For text, see SC, 3rd yr., Suppl. for Nov. 1948, p. 45.↩