DISPUTE ON KASHMIR

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26633, 19 January 1952, Page 7

DISPUTE ON KASHMIR

Soviet Charges U.S., Britain

PARIS. January 17. Russia alleged in the Security Council to-day that the United Nations Kashmir representative (Dr. Frank Graham) was paving the way for the entrance of British and American armed forces into Kashmir under the guise of United Nations forces. The Soviet delegate (Mr Jacob Malik) said that Britain and America were seeking to prevent Kashmir from settling its own fate and trying to make it into a war base. Mr Malik said that the aim of British and American strategy was to turn Kashmir into “trust territory,” and get their troops in there under United Nations auspices. The council had heard Dr. Graham admit wide and basic differences between India and Pakistan on the issue, but he expressed the belief that a free plebiscite might “signal through the darkness of the times a ray of hope." Dr. Graham, in presenting his report. suggested that the number of the armed forces on each side at the end of a demilitarisation period should be as small as possible, and that they should be based in proportion on the number on each side of the cease-fire line on January 1. 1949. He said that not only were there differences regarding the stage required for demilitarisation, but there were also fears and emotional tensions and obstruction. Withdrawal of Troops He said that India had agreed to withdraw an additional 7000 of its armed forces, and this would bring the Indian and State forces down to 21,000. exclusive of the State militia of 6000, which would be a proportion of more than 75 per cent, of the Indian and State armed forces present in the State at the time of the 1949 cease fire. Pakistan maintained that at the end of the period of demilitarisation there should be about 4000 armed men on each side of the cease fire line, but for the sake of agreement she would accent a slight disparity in favour of India. The wide differences in the number of armed men proposed by the two Governments to be left on each side of the cease fire line made it clear that no agreement could be reached now. Dr. Graham said that negotiations for demilitarisation would find almost insurmountable obstacles unless an agreed solution were found for: (1) A definite period of demilitarisation. (2) Hope of demilitarisation and the quantum of forces that would remain at the end of the period of demilitarisation. (3) The date for the withdrawal of the forces that would remain at the end of the period of demilitarisation. (4) The date for the formal induction into office of the plebiscite administrator. Mr Malik said that though the Security Council had been discussing the Kashmir question for four years no progress had been achieved whatsoever. Dr. Graham had asked the two governments whether they would he prepared to accent the armed forces of members of the United Nations to heln in demilitarisation of the State. Who had authorised him to ask the question? Mr Malik answered: “It was from Washington, from the Pentagon.” British-U.S. “Interference” Dr. Graham had tried to pave the wav for the entrance of British and American armed forces into Kashmir under the guise of United Nations forces. A blatant examtile of British and American interference was shown in 1949 when President Truman and Mr Attlee exerted pressure on India and Pakistan to accept arbitration of the dispute. * “The onlv true solution nf the Kashmir problem is for the United States and Britain to discontinue their interference in Kashmir affairs.” he said. “The Soviet Government feels that th" Kashmir question may be successfully solv"d only through granting to the Kashmir people an onnortunity to settle alone, without 'oreien interference, the of the status and structure of Kashmir. This would mean the setting up of a constituent assembly elected bv the Kashmir people. Such a solution would be in keeping with the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter.” The chairman. Mr Jean Chauvel, of France, thanked Dr. Graham for his report and said that the interested parties had made no complaint of pressure exerted on them. He adjourned the meeting to give members more time to consider the report, and said he was ready to reconvene the council when they considered they were ready to make further observations or submit proposals.