The countries that showed support for Kashmiri self-determination

Statements in support of Kashmiri self-determination

Argentina

“Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations lays down the following as one of the purposes of the United Nations: ‘To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures so strengthen universal peace.’ Now that the disputes between India and Pakistan have been submitted to the jurisdiction of the Security Council, the delegation of Argentina will not be able to vote in favour of any draft resolution which does not leave the solution of the problem to be decided by a plebiscite, freely prepared, freely conducted and freely scrutinized under the authority of the Security Council.”

José Arce, Representative of Argentina to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 240th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.240, p. 366), 4 February 1948.

“In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I wish to make the following declarations: […] Kashmir is not a territory of India – no Power will either propose or accept a plebiscite to surrender a part of its territory, as India’s Government did; […] the cause of the present war is the rebellion of the Kashmir people against their Ruler, and the only remedy is to look to the will of these people….”

José Arce, Representative of Argentina to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 245th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.245, pp. 117-118), 11 February 1948.

Australia

“In an attempt to move towards a constructive solution, the Council has declared the rights of the people of Kashmir to determine their own political future and has placed faith in the recognized democratic method of a plebiscite, to be conducted in conditions that would ensure a free vote without any coercion.”

Ronald Walker, Representative of Australia to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 765th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.765, para. 23), 24 January 1957.

Brazil

“A plebiscite is a well-known and well-defined method of international law. By placing the plebiscite under the direction of the United Nations, the parties reinforced the guarantees of its fair and impartial implementation. The acceptance of the two resolutions of the United Nations Commission not only curtailed the discretion of the opposing sides, but also accrued a right to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, namely, the right to decide by vote, under pre-established conditions, their choice of sovereignty.”

João Muniz, Representative of Brazil to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 538th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.538, para. 27), 29 March 1951.

“The Anglo-American draft resolution [S/2017/Rev.1] embodies certain principles of international law to which Brazil has unswervingly adhered and which fall within the spirit and letter of the Charter. I refer specifically to the spirit of self-determination of peoples which accounts for the provision for a United Nations-sponsored plebiscite whereby the people of Jammu and Kashmir may choose their political status.”

João Muniz, Representative of Brazil to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 538th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.538, para. 33), 29 March 1951.

“As to the question of self-determination for Kashmir, the principle in itself is a cherished one which my Government recognizes as fundamental to the building of world peace. We have been faithful to this principle in all those circumstances in which its application was valid. We are told that a plebiscite would raise more problems than it would solve. We are not in a position to judge what the impact of the full implementation of the principle of self-determination in Kashmir would have throughout the Indian subcontinent. One thing, however, remains true and evident to us: no settlement of any territorial question will last if the will of the people who live and toil in these lands is not fully respected.”

Carlos Bernardes, Representative of Brazil to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1092nd Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1092, paras. 5-6), 15 February 1964.

China

“I should like to say that a plebiscite was not only agreed on before the two parties came to this Council; it was the unanimous belief of the members of the Council that a plebiscite was the solution. Furthermore, what is a plebiscite? A plebiscite, in terms of the Charter, would mean the self-determination of a people. Self-determination is expressed through a plebiscite. […] The setting of conditions should not be allowed to obstruct the main purpose, that is, to allow the people of Kashmir to have the right of self-determination.”

Tingfu Tsiang, Representative of China to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 765th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.765, paras. 73-75), 24 January 1957.

“I think the Charter is a sufficient basis for an appropriate settlement of this [the Kashmir] dispute. The particular principle which would be applicable to this dispute would be the principle of self-determination of peoples.”

Tingfu Tsiang, Representative of China to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 774th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.774, paras. 60-61), 21 February 1957.

“All colonial empires have the backing of law. All of them have been fortified with treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements and what not. The British empire in India had ample legal foundation. In the face of India’s claim to self-determination, all British legal claims were swept aside. These claims were solidly based on treaties duly signed and ratified, and even sanctified by time and tradition. When the Indian people demanded self-determination, the legal documents in the hands of the United Kingdom seemed to have no moral or political relevance. What the Indian people demanded and won from the United Kingdom should, I hope, be granted to the people of Kashmir.”

Tingfu Tsiang, Representative of China to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 797th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.797, para. 51), 25 October 1957.

“The final word in this whole problem does not belong to any member of the Security Council, or to the Council as a whole, or to the representatives of India or Pakistan who are sitting at this table. The final word as to the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir belongs to the people of Kashmir. When that final word is given to the world through a free and fair plebiscite, the problem will be solved. Until that final word is given, I am afraid that the problem will remain with us.”

Tingfu Tsiang, Representative of China to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 808th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.808, para. 30), 2 December 1957.

“It is only fair to all parties concerned to say that, in the eyes of the Security Council, nothing has happened in Kashmir that changes the legal status of that territory. The status of Kashmir remains what it was fourteen years ago. In the absence of an agreement between India and Pakistan, it cannot be determined without regard to the principle of self-determination. This has been the position consistently taken by the Security Council on the Kashmir question. I do not see how it is possible for the Council to take any other position. The plebiscite elaborately worked out by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, agreed to by the parties and approved by the Security Council, is the means by which the principle of self-determination is to be put into practice in Kashmir. It is the means by which the people of Kashmir are to express freely, under fair and equitable conditions, their will as to the future of the country.”

Y.C. Hsueh, Representative of China to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1012th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1012, paras. 23-24), 15 June 1962.

“The position taken by the Security Council on the Kashmir question is well known. All the relevant resolutions are in the books. The Council has been consistent in all these sixteen years in holding that, in the absence of an agreement between India and Pakistan, the question cannot be solved without regard to the principle of self-determination.”

Y.C. Hsueh, Representative of China to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1115th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1115, para. 102), 12 May 1964.

Cuba

“This statement by the Prime Minister of India [in a telegram dated 8 November 1947 to the Prime Minister of Pakistan; see p. 6 below], which does him very great honour and is fully in accordance with the principles of the Charter and with the right of peoples to self-determination, is exactly what we [the co-sponsors of draft resolution S/3778] propose in the first part of our draft resolution when we say that ‘the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations.’”

Emilio Portuondo, Representative of Cuba to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 765th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.765, para. 38), 24 January 1957.

“The delegation of Cuba therefore considers that the draft resolution [S/3778] is a reaffirmation of the Council’s position, of the clear and binding provisions of the Charter, and of the right of peoples to self-determination.”

Emilio Portuondo, Representative of Cuba to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 765th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.765, para. 41), 24 January 1957.

“As far as the Cuban delegation is concerned, the fundamental element of this problem is that the sovereignty of Kashmir rests exclusively with the people of Kashmir. […] When the Nabob [ruler] of Junagadh decided by a resolution of his own to accede to Pakistan and did so, the Government of India declared that that was illegal because it violated the principle of the people’s self-determination. And when the Nizam [ruler] of Hyderabad also wanted to remain neutral, that is, not accede to either India or Pakistan, the Government of India similarly declared that the Nizam could not do so because he was violating the freely expressed will of the people of Hyderabad. These are recorded facts which in the opinion of the Cuban delegation, have been proven through documents, and we have no doubt whatsoever that the same principle should be applied to the case of Kashmir as a general basis for judging these problems.”

Emilio Portuondo, Representative of Cuba to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 768th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.768, paras. 87-88), 15 February 1957.

“In the opinion of the Cuban delegation, this [statements by the representative of India] proves that the position of the delegation of India is that the offer made previously by the Prime Minister, Mr. Nehru, will be carried out, namely that the people of Kashmir will decide upon their own future. That in short, is the same thesis that the representative of India brilliantly expressed on 12 February in the First Committee of the General Assembly when he vigorously and enthusiastically contended that Algeria also has a right to determine its own future. In other words, it would be unjustifiable, in the Cuban delegation’s view – and I say this with all due respect to the representative of India – that the Algerian people should have the right to exercise freely the principle of self-determination and that the Kashmiri people should not. This is all the more true since in the case of the people of Kashmir, there has been no discussion, as in the case of Algeria, whether it was in effect an integral part of another State, because both parties have recognized that Kashmir has existed as a State for ten centuries, though for many years under the rule of the United Kingdom.”

Emilio Portuondo, Representative of Cuba to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 768th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.768, para. 90), 15 February 1957.

“[T]he resolutions of the Council exist; Kashmir exists; the people of Kashmir exist; the principle of self-determination exists in the Charter of the United Nations….”

Emilio Portuondo, Representative of Cuba to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 768th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.768, para. 93), 15 February 1957.

“We have given consideration and study to all the arguments advanced by the Indian Government; but, in our opinion, none of them is sufficiently weighty to prevent the people of Jammu and Kashmir from deciding their own destiny in the final instance.”

Emilio Portuondo, Representative of Cuba to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 798th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.798, para. 19), 29 October 1957.

“These are two Governments worthy of our respect which have always fulfilled their obligations in the United Nations, and which have proclaimed and defended the principle of the self-determination of peoples; inasmuch as our goal is self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir, we believe that the task of the Security Council becomes less difficult.”

Emilio Portuondo, Representative of Cuba to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 798th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.798, para. 23), 29 October 1957.

East Timor

“I therefore urge everyone wishing to bring peace, democracy and social justice to this troubled region to join in supporting a free, fair and binding plebiscite for all the people of Kashmir, that the world may finally know and abide by their long deferred aspirations.”

José Ramos-Horta, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (1996) and Prime Minister (2006-2007) and President (2008) of East Timor. “In Support of the Kashmiri People’s Right to True Self-Determination,” 14 July 1998.

Egypt

“The work of the Security Council and of the Security Council’s Commission for India and Pakistan, and the statesmen-like attitude of both the Governments of India and Pakistan are all to the credit of the structure of the United Nations and its aims of peace, and also to the credit of all concerned in this matter. This is particularly gratifying to my delegation and to the Egyptian Government, in view of the fact that we in a very clear and unequivocal manner, endorse and express the conceptions of democracy of the United Nations Charter, in particular the great principle of self-determination which is one of the main pillars of our Organization.”

Mahmoud Bey, Representative of Egypt to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 399th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.399, p. 8), 13 January 1949.

India

“The people of Kashmir should be asked whether they want to join Pakistan or India. Let them do as they want. The ruler is nothing. The people are everything.”

Mahatma Gandhi, political and spiritual leader of the Indian independence movement. Quoted in Stanley Wolpert. Gandhi’s Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi (2001, p. 239), 29 July 1947.

“I should like to make it clear that question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people and we adhere to this view.”

Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Quoted in Government of India. White Paper on Jammu & Kashmir (p. 46), 25 October 1947.

“[I]t is my Government’s wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people.”

Louis Mountbatten, Governor-General of India. Quoted in Government of India. White Paper on Jammu & Kashmir (p. 47), 27 October 1947.

“Our assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order are restored and leave the decision about the future of the State is not merely a pledge to your Government [Pakistan] but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world.”

Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Quoted in Government of India. White Paper on Jammu & Kashmir (p. 51), 31 October 1947.

“We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharaja has supported it, not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not, and cannot back out of it.”

Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Quoted in Government of India. White Paper on Jammu & Kashmir (p. 53), 2 November 1947.

“It will thus be seen that our proposals which we have repeatedly stated are: […] (three) that the Governments of India and Pakistan should make a joint request to U.N.O. to undertake a plebiscite in Kashmir as the earliest possible date.”

Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Quoted in Government of India. White Paper on Jammu & Kashmir (p. 62), 8 November 1947.

“In order to establish our bona fides we have suggested that when the people [of Kashmir] are given the chance to decide their future this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organisation.”

Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Quoted in Government of India. White Paper on Jammu & Kashmir (p. 71), 25 November 1947.

“In Kashmir, as in other similar cases, the view of the Government of India has been that in the matter of disputed accession the will of the people must prevail. […] The question of accession is to be decided finally in a free plebiscite; on this point there is no dispute.”

Government of India. White Paper on Jammu & Kashmir (p. 45), 1948.

“But, in order to avoid any possible suggestion that India had utilized the State’s [Kashmir’s] immediate peril for her own political advantage, the Government of India made it clear that once the soil of the State had been cleared of the invader and normal conditions restored, its people would be free to decide their future by the recognized democratic method of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices.”

Government of India. Letter to the President of the Security Council (S/628, para. 6), 1 January 1948.

“The question of the future status of Kashmir vis-à-vis her neighbors and the world at large, and a further question, namely, whether she should withdraw from her accession to India and either accede to Pakistan or remain independent, with a right to claim admission as a Member of the United Nations – all this we have recognized to be a matter for unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir, after normal life is restored to them.”

Gopalaswamy Ayanger, Representative of India to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 227th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.227, p. 29), 15 January 1948.

“India has repeatedly offered to work out with U.N. reasonable safeguards to enable the people of Kashmir to express their will, and will always be ready to do so.”

Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India. Quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 January 1951.

“So, similarly, the word ‘plebiscite’ embodies the great idea of self-determination and it simply is not to be misinterpreted.”

Krishna Menon, Representative of India to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 769th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.769, para. 110), 15 February 1957.

International Commission of Jurists

“Regarding the right of self-determination: (a) The peoples of the State of Jammu and Kashmir acquired a right of self-determination at the time of the partition of India. (b) That right has neither been exercised nor abandoned and therefore remains capable of exercise. (c) The right belongs to the peoples of the State and not to Pakistan, and is therefore not affected by acts of the Government of Pakistan.”

International Commission of Jurists. Human Rights in Kashmir: Report of a Mission (p. 98), 1995.

Iraq

“When the question was brought to the attention of the Security Council in 1948, the Kashmir situation was no doubt viewed in the framework of the circumstances which surrounded the whole process of the creation of the two Dominions on the one hand and, on the other, in conjunction with the principle of self-determination. […] The idea of a plebiscite no doubt had been in line, on the one hand, with the traditional struggle for liberation conducted by all the people of the Indian sub-continent and, on the other, with the principle of self-determination.”

Hashim Jawad, Representative of Iraq to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 769th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.769, para. 15), 15 February 1957.

“This [a plebiscite] is, in our opinion, the solution to the problem, a solution which takes into consideration, and rightly so, the right of the people of Kashmir to self-determination.”

Kadhim Khalaf, Representative of Iraq to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 797th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.797, para. 71), 25 October 1957.

“We make a special appeal to the Governments of India and Pakistan to facilitate the solution of this dispute by bringing to bear more efforts and more co-operation, so that the right of the people of Kashmir to self-determination may be safeguarded and the

Charter of the United Nations upheld.”

Kadhim Khalaf, Representative of Iraq to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 797th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.797, para. 74), 25 October 1957.

“It would not do justice to the case before us or to the people of Kashmir if we or others were to create or entertain the impression that our judgement was in any way related to or based upon considerations other than the merits of the case, the resolutions of the Council and the principles of the United Nations Charter – the most important of which is the principle of self-determination.”

Kadhim Khalaf, Representative of Iraq to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 797th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.797, para. 80), 25 October 1957.

Ivory Coast

“However, before dealing with the [Kashmir] problem itself, my delegation would like to restate certain fundamental principles. First, we accept all the resolutions of the Security Council and we also recognize their dynamic nature; secondly, we reaffirm our devotion to the sacred principle of self-determination; thirdly, we also condemn racial and religious discrimination.”

Arsene Usher, Representative of the Ivory Coast to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1090th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1090, para. 74), 10 February 1964.

Jordan

“It is not open, at this stage, for either India or Pakistan to claim that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of its territory. This will be decided by the people of Kashmir themselves. They have the right to choose their destiny, and until such time as they do, both parties are stopped from making any claims of sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir. […] Needless to say, self-determination is a right we always support. But annexation which does not stem from the free will of the people is something we do not endorse. It does not convey a right. It imposes a duty – a duty on the people to oppose it, and a duty on us here to protect the legitimate right of the people to choose their own destiny.”

Muhammed El-Farra, Representative of Jordan to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1248th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1248, paras. 21-22), 27 October 1965.

Netherlands

“We are then, we may earnestly hope, in the presence of a common and uncontested desire that the future of the territory and the population which are involved in the dispute should be decided through the free exercise of the right of self-determination by the people most directly concerned. The Netherlands Government has always considered the principle of self-determination as being of primary importance for human happiness and the peace of the world. It continues to believe in that principle, now that the Council is again confronted with the Jammu and Kashmir case.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 538th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.538, para. 54), 29 March 1951.

“In that way the truce agreement could and should finally be effected, that is to say, the demilitarization, which is indispensable to the free exercise of the right of self-determination of and by the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 538th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.538, para. 58), 29 March 1951.

“But once the right to self-determination for the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is – as it has been – recognized, once it is clearly accepted by the parties in dispute – as it has been – that they have no right to impose anything upon these people against their wishes and that therefore these wishes must prevail over the wishes and claims of the bordering States, it must be possible to find a procedure which will create the most favourable conditions for a fair expression of the will of the people, who want to make their choice free from any kind of fear or intimidation. The issue should, in the last analysis, be decided by the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and not by the rulers heretofore placed over them.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 538th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.538, paras. 62-63), 29 March 1951.

“What he [the United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan] in effect is expected to do is to bring into shape and being the indispensable prerequisite for a just, fair and free plebiscite by which the people of Jammu and Kashmir must be enabled to exercise their uncontested right to self-determination. […] The issue, I said, should in the 1ast analysis be decided by the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir themselves. Their right of self-determination had been recognized by both the parties to this dispute and the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir must therefore prevail.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 543rd Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.543, paras. 27-28), 30 April 1951.

“The very serious issue before us, which has endangered the relations between two great nations of the Asiatic subcontinent for almost four years, has not yet found a just and reasonable solution acceptable to the parties. As a result of this absence of agreement it has remained impossible for the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as a whole to exercise their fundamental right of self-determination, although this right is not contested by the parties. On the contrary, the right of self-determination for the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has been clearly and formally recognized and accepted by all concerned. The lack of agreement therefore does not concern this right of self-determination.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 566th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.566, para. 32), 10 November 1951.

“But I submit that the issue before us should in the first place be determined by the need of self-determination of the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir themselves.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 571st Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.571, para. 57), 30 January 1952.

“Our only interest in this matter is one of principle, namely, that the right of self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir must be respected and implemented.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 571st Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.571, para. 61), 30 January 1952.

“[O]ur final and essential aim, in the present approach to this problem, is to secure for the people of Jammu and Kashmir their right to self-determination, that is, their right to choose which way they want to go, a right which is not contested by anyone and which we must therefore, after all these years, find a means to implement.”

D. J. von Balluseck, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 611th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.611, para. 1), 23 December 1952.

“As is well known, the attitude of my country has always been that the Kashmir question should be solved on the basis of the free self-determination of the people of Kashmir and Jammu and that the decisions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan and the Security Council on that subject offered a just means to achieve that aim. Therefore, we can sympathize with Pakistan’s apprehension on this aspect, namely that the basic political conflict might be left unsolved. If that were done, the Council would only be dealing with the symptoms of the disease and not with the disease itself, the underlying cause of all conflicts between India and Pakistan.”

J.G. de Beus, Representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1241st Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1241, para. 74), 18 September 1965.

Philippines

“In the view of both the Council and the Commission, neither India nor Pakistan can bring into question the sovereignty of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This position is crystal clear in the assurances given by the Commission to the Governments of India and Pakistan and which forms the basis of their resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949. Under the circumstances and pending the holding of a plebiscite, neither India nor Pakistan can claim sovereignty over the State of Jammu and Kashmir.”

Carlos Romulo, Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 773rd Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.773, para. 46), 20 February 1957.

“All countries, great and small, have a stake in the principles involved in the [Kashmir] dispute: considerations of justice and equity, the honoring of international agreements, respect for the principle of self-determination of peoples, the integrity of decisions of the Security Council and its organs, and support of the Council’s efforts to comply with its primary responsibility under the Charter to maintain international peace and security.”

Carlos Romulo, Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 804th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.804, para. 17), 20 November 1957.

Soviet Union

“The right path towards settling the Kashmir question […] can only be found if the settlement is inspired by the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples proclaimed in the United Nations Charter.”

Yakov Malik, Representative of the Soviet Union to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 570th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.570, para. 97), 17 January 1952.

Syria

“It is correct to say that the Maharajah of Junagadh, in declaring his accession to Pakistan, was not acting within the rules of our Charter, and that the people of Junagadh were not given the opportunity for self-determination, the chance to determine the fate of their future government. It was the same case in Kashmir.”

Faris El-Khouri, Representative of Syria to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 286th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.286, p. 4), 21 April 1948.

United Kingdom

“First, I wish to reiterate my Government’s position on the status of Kashmir and on the question of self-determination. This was made clear most recently by our sponsorship of the resolution adopted by the Security Council on 24 January 1957. According to that resolution, the Council ‘reminded the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions of 21 April 1948, 3 June 1948, 14 March 1950 and

30 March 1951, and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.’ My Government stands firmly by the principles enunciated in that resolution today.”

Patrick Dean, Representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1090th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1090, para. 99), 10 February 1964.

United Nations

“[T]he final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations….”

United Nations Security Council. Resolution 91 (preambular para. 4), 30 March 1951.

“With respect to the value of a settlement to the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the first significant result which would proceed from an agreement would be the exercise by the people of Jammu and Kashmir of the promised right of self-determination for which they have been anxiously waiting for three years. […] As a practical matter, without fulfilment of the promised right of self-determination through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite to be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations, the continuing dispute, as has been well said, would become a running sore, which would tend to drain away resources and energies to the damage of the State and the peoples of both nations.”

Frank Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. Verbatim Record of the 564th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.564, paras. 32-33), 18 October 1951.

“The plebiscite would keep the promise made to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who are worthy of the right of their own self-determination through a free, secure, and impartial plebiscite. […] These people, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians, as farmers, craftsmen and artists, small shopkeepers, boatmen, bearers and other workers in areas now on both sides of the cease-fire line, have been, through the centuries, the victims of exploitation and conflict. The recognition of the rights and dignity, the security and the self-determination of these historic people, under the auspices of the United Nations, might well become a challenging example of the progressive values of self-determination to the dependant peoples of the earth.”

Frank Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. Verbatim Record of the 570th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.570, para. 60), 17 January 1952.

“The sub-continent is the place for a timely example of demilitarization and self-determination.”

Frank Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. Verbatim Record of the 570th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.570, para. 70), 17 January 1952.

“A settlement of this [the Kashmir] dispute would mean that the status of the people of the State would be finally determined not by the sovereignty of princes but by the sovereignty of the people, not by the might of armies but by the will of the people, not by bullets but by ballots, through the self-determination of peoples by the democratic method of an impartial plebiscite conducted with due regard for the security of the State and the freedom of the plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations.”

Frank Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. Verbatim Record of the 605th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.605, para. 73), 10 October 1952.

“The co-operation of India and Pakistan in the demilitarization of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, in the self-determination of the people of the State, and in the allocation of larger budgets for constructive programmes, might become one of the turning-points in the history of our times towards the co-operation of all nations for the larger self-determination of all peoples….”

Frank Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. Verbatim Record of the 605th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.605, para. 77), 10 October 1952.

“The transformation in the situation which comes from the simple fact of his [the Plebiscite Administrator’s] induction into office is most important for the great objective of the self-determination of the people of the state [Kashmir] under the agreements between the two Governments.”

Frank Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. Fifth Report to the Security Council (S/2967, para. 23), 27 March 1953.

“The peoples of the sub-continent have an unprecedented opportunity for providing the leadership, setting the example and mayhap turning the direction of human affairs, away from the tendencies to self-destruction, to the ways of self-determination, peace, and co-operation.”

Frank Graham, United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan. Fifth Report to the Security Council (S/2967, para. 56), 27 March 1953.

“[T]he final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations….”

United Nations Security Council. Resolution 122 (preambular para. 2), 24 January 1957.

United States

“Regardless of whether execution of the instrument of accession should be considered inconsistent with any of Kashmir’s obligations toward Pakistan, the contested instrument of accession was not effective to settle definitively the rights of the parties, in view of the circumstances under which the instrument was executed.”

Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State. “Accession of Kashmir to India” (p. 1), 30 January 1950.

“The Security Council has from the beginning held that the issue of [Kashmir’s] accession is one which is to be settled by a fair and impartial plebiscite under United Nations auspices, and both parties, in the language of their own commitments, have accepted this view.”

Ernest Gross, Representative of the United States to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 537th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.537, para. 30), 21 March 1951.

“Certainly there can be no misunderstanding of paragraph 1 of the UNCIP resolution of 5 January 1949 which reads as follows: ‘The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.’ Furthermore, this is in full conformity with the principle of the self-determination of peoples which is enshrined in Article 1 of the Charter as one of the very purposes for which the United Nations exists.”

Adlai Stevenson, Representative of the United States to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1012th Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1012, para. 10), 15 June 1962.

Uruguay

“[T]he Security Council is on the eve of facing other problems concerning the self-determination of peoples. Its legal, moral, and political authority depends on its subsequent acts and conduct. What the Council says and does now regarding this lamentable situation [the Kashmir dispute] will constitute a precedent for the situations with which the Council may have to deal tomorrow.”

Paysee Reyes, Representative of Uruguay to the United Nations. Verbatim Record of the 1251st Meeting of the Security Council (S/PV.1251, para. 18), 5 November 1965.