Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Fiery Speech at the UN 1965

[RealNapster]

Lol , its not once can assume , your Army also present the brave face after OBL / AK Khan and after Kargil , but hide Kargil report which expose their lies

Well i am not going to dignify that with a response.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

[




Is that speech was recoded in the Radio station in Karachi? Video please...??

India’s Aggression
Speech in the UN Security Council,
New York, September 22, 1965

Mr. President,

I am thankful to you and to the members of the Security Council for having met at this late hour to discuss a matter of vital importance to my people, to the subcontinent, to Asia, and perhaps to the world at large. It was very kind of you, Sir, to have convened this meeting at this late hour to discuss the grave issues that face us. In expressing my gratitude I would like to address not only the permanent members but also the other members of the Security Council for having taken the trouble to be with us this morning. I have come direct from Pakistan and I have requested this meeting because the issues that face us are indeed so fundamental and important that it is necessary for us to meet to dilate upon them.

I am thankful also to the Secretary-General for his endeavors to bring about a meaningful settlement between India and Pakistan. We are aware of all his efforts; we are grateful to him and to the Security Council; we are grateful to all peace-loving countries for having taken such a direct interest in a war which we do not want, which has been imposed on us by a predatory aggressor.

Pakistan is a small country. You have only to look at a map of the world and see our size to be aware of our resources and our ability.

We are facing a great monster, a great aggressor always given to aggression. During the eighteen years of our independence we have seen India commit aggression time and again. Ever since 1947, India has followed the road of aggression. It has committed aggression against Junagadh against Manavadar, against Mangrol, against Hyderabad and against Goa.

It brought about a situation which has caused the Sino-Indian conflict. It has committed aggression against Pakistan. And Pakistan, according to Indian leaders, is its enemy number one. Pakistan is supposed to be the country which is the fulcrum of India’s fundamental policies.

From 1947 we have been faced with this situation. We have always known that India is determined to annihilate Pakistan.

Pakistan’s basic principle was the bringing about of a permanent settlement between the two major communities. For seven hundred years we sought to achieve an equilibrium between the people of the two major communities, and we believed eventually that the only way to live in lasting peace with India was to establish our homeland, to establish a country smaller in area, but nevertheless capable of having a relationship, a modus vivendi, with a great and powerful neighbor. That was one of the prime factors responsible for the creation of Pakistan. We know that in Europe certain countries have had to separate in order to get closer together: Sweden and Norway, for instance, had to separate in order to get close to one another. We believed that with the creation of Pakistan we would be able to establish a permanent peace, a permanent understanding, between the people of India and the people of Pakistan.

We are a smaller country and as I said, our resources are limited; one has only to look at a map of the world and a map of the subcontinent to see that we are not interested in war. We do not want aggression: we do not want conflict. We want peace in order that our people can develop. This is the age of rising expectations. We should like to see all our energies and all our efforts directed towards economic well-being. It is not the law of God that people in Asia and Africa should be poor. It is not a predestined rule or an immutable law that we should always remain in poverty. We want to break the barriers of poverty. We want to give our people a better life; we want our children to have a better future.

The leaders of Asia and Africa are determined to break the barriers of the past, the legacies of the past, and in order to do so we must channel all our resources for productive ends, for a peaceful and purposeful future. This is a dire need for a small country such as Pakistan.

We do not want conflict. We are not for war. We do not want to see the extermination of peoples. We respect and have regard for the people of India. A few years ago, we were part of the same country, but for the reason which I have stated, we were obliged to separate. But by means of separation we had thought that our people would be brought closer together, that we should bring about harmony understanding and tranquility. The basic idea in the creation of Pakistan was that the areas occupied by the Muslim majority should form Pakistan. This basic principle was accepted by the Indian leaders. All we ask is to live in peace, friendship and goodwill with India on the basis of the understanding and agreements which the Indian Government and the Indian leaders themselves solemnly pledged to my people and my country.

Today, we are fighting a war, a war imposed on us by India: a naked, predatory, unwarranted aggression by 450 million people against 100 million people, a war of chauvinism and aggrandizement by a mighty neighbor against a small country. It is as if, in Europe, Germany committed aggression against Denmark. It is as if a small country in South America were subjected to aggression by Argentina or Brazil. It is as if the United States waged a war against a small country.

We do not want to be exterminated. We cherish life. We want to live; we want our people to live; we want our people to progress. But today our cities are being bombed indiscriminately by the might of India, by the formidable machine of the Indian armed forces.

But we are resolved to fight for our honour, to fight for Pakistan, because we are the victims of aggression. Aggression has been committed against the soil of Pakistan. But, irrespective of our size, irrespective of our resources, we have the resolve; we have the will to fight because ours is a just cause. Ours is a righteous cause. We are wedded to principles. We are wedded to our own pledges. We believe in the right of self-determination—a Wilsonian right, as I told you this evening, Sir, a concept which has inspired the whole of Asia and Africa. It is a phenomenon that cannot be stopped; and that is why we are fighting. We are fighting with our backs to the wall, but we shall fight with all our determination, irrespective of the odds and all the forces that are pitted against us.

The Secretary-General, as I have already said, has made some very constructive suggestions, and we are grateful to him. He is not only the Secretary-General of the United Nations, he is also a great Asian from a great Asian neighbor of Pakistan and of India. And we should like to co-operate with him both in his capacity as the Secretary-General and as a leader of a great Asian country. We have had useful discussions with him in Pakistan, and we told him that we are for peace.

We do not want war; we do not want destruction and we do not want disaster. But it should be a meaningful peace, a purposeful peace, a peace for all time, a peace in which India and Pakistan can live as good neighbours. We are neighbours and want to live as good neighbours. We do not want to have conflict and trouble with India for all time. No people would want that. We are a smaller country. The cardinal principle of Pakistan’s foreign policy has been to establish good neighborly relations with all countries, with all its neighbours—and India is our principal neighbor. All our efforts to establish good neighborly relations with all other countries would be in vain if we are not able to establish good neighborly relations with India, which, as I have said, for historical, political and geographical reasons is our principal neighbor. We will make every endeavor to establish such relations. The Indian representative, whom I know so well and for whom I have great regard, is aware of the efforts we have made to establish good neighborly relations with India. He knows that from the very beginning our President from the time he came into office has made positive gestures to India to establish good neighborly relations with his country. We have taken many initiatives to bring peace, tranquility and friendship between Pakistan and India. These are matters of record, not a question of propaganda, of trying to get kudos. These are tangible and well-known facts of history. The President of Pakistan has gone out of his way to establish good relations with India by co-operation in every field, co-operation in trade, in economics and in politics. Has the world forgotten that in 1959 it was the President of Pakistan who made an offer to India to disengage, to bring about a meaningful settlement so that our armies do not face each other eyeball-to-eyeball?

These are matters of record, matters of history. Thus we want good neighborly relations with India, we want peace with India and we want friendship with India. But that peace and friendship must be peace with honour and it must be peace that only a self-respecting sovereign state can accept. India must know that peace can be established only on the basis of self-respect and honour, on the basis of its own commitments, on the basis of its own pledges, on the basis of its own promise to the people of Pakistan, to the people of India, to the world at large and above all, to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Jammu and Kashmir is not an integral part of India and has never been an integral part of India. Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory between India and Pakistan. It is more a part of Pakistan than it can ever be of India, despite India’s eloquence and all its extravagance with words. The people of Jammu and Kashmir are part of the people of Pakistan in blood in flesh, in life, in culture, in geography, in history and in every way and in every form. They are a part of the people of Pakistan.

We will wage a war for a thousand years, a war of defence. I said that to the Security Council a year ago when that body in all its wisdom and in all its power, was not prepared to give us a resolution. Even last year the Security Council felt that we had brought a dead horse to this Council that we were trying to make internal propaganda. But the world must know that the 100 million people of Pakistan will never abandon their pledges and promises. The Indians may abandon their pledges and promises; we shall never abandon ours. Irrespective of our size and of our resources, we shall fight to the end. But we shall fight in self-defence; we shall fight for honour. We are not aggressors: we are the victims of aggression. It was the duty of the Security Council to pronounce itself on who is the aggressor and who is the aggressed. It is Pakistan that is the victim of aggression.

I am not referring here to some of the remarks made by countries which have no right to be here; they are not even countries. I am referring to the great powers, I am referring to all peace-loving countries, I am referring to those who believe in the cause of justice, in the cause of righteousness and in the cause of honour. After all, history is not in vain. Wars have been fought in the past and people have upheld great causes. I am referring to the great powers and also to those other countries in the Security Council which have espoused the cause of righteousness. We are grateful to all of you for whatever you have done to uphold the cause of justice, because, finally and ultimately, justice must prevail. We believe more than ever before that justice is bound to prevail for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Five million people must have the right to decide their own future. Why should they be made an exception?

Should the whole phenomenon of self-determination, stretching from Asia and Africa, apply to the whole world except to the people of Jammu and Kashmir? Are they some outcasts of an Indian society? Are they some untouchable pariahs that they should not be given the right of self-determination; that they should not be allowed to have the right to their own future? The great country of France permitted the Algerians to have the right of self-determination. The right of self-determination is a Wilsonian concept. The Soviet Union believes in the right of self-determination of all peoples. The whole world, believes in the right of self-determination. Must it be denied to the people of Jammu and Kashmir merely because power must prevail over principles? Power shall never prevail over principles. Finally and ultimately, principles must prevail over power. This is a Christian concept; it is an Islamic concept, it is a civilized concept. Those nations which do not believe in such a concept must face the ultimate consequences.

India today is isolated. India, in spite of its size and its resources, has no one to support it openly. The whole of Asia and Africa supports the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. The Arab countries in Casablanca have supported the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. The European countries have supported the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. The Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mr. Dean Rusk, said that the historical position is a plebiscite in Kashmir. On the one hand, you have the whole world arrayed on the side of the cause of right and justice and morality, and , on the other hand, you have a war machine, an arrogant and chauvinistic state breaking its pledges, breaking its promises, and wanting to destroy the will and the spirit of a people. The will and spirit of our people can never be destroyed. Let me tell you: you can have one cease-fire, you can have another cease-fire but the 100 million people of Pakistan shall face extermination rather than forsake their principles or allow their principles to be negated and destroyed by sheer force and power.

Having made these remarks, I have the honour to transmit the following message from the President of Pakistan, which I have just received from Rawalpindi.

“Pakistan considers Security Council resolution 211 of 20 September as unsatisfactory. However, in the interest of international peace and in order to enable the Security Council to evolve a self-executing procedure, which will lead to an honorable settlement of the root cause of the present conflict” - namely, the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

“I have issued the following order to the Pakistan armed forces. They will stop fighting as from 1205 hours West Pakistan time today. As from that time they will not fire on enemy forces unless fired upon, provided the Indian Government issues similar orders to its armed forces...”

Thus, in response to the call of international peace and international goodwill we have ordered our troops to cease hostilities, provided India agrees to such a cessation of hostilities.

But a cessation of hostilities is not enough. The Security Council—the most important organ of the United Nations—must now address itself to the heart of the problem. For 18 years it has played and toyed with the future of Kashmir. It can no longer make a plaything or a toy out of 5 million people. It is the moral responsibility of the Security Council to address itself to a meaningful and lasting solution of the problem of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Security Council has been seized of this problem for eighteen years. There are more documents, more resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir—the most fundamental problem facing the world today—than on any other problem. Is it not ironical that, with regard to a conflict that may lead to a world conflagration—and the present situation has shown that it is possible for this conflict to lead to a world conflagration—the Security Council has shown lethargy, its indolence?

I was here a year ago, and the Security Council was not prepared to give Pakistan a piece of paper called a resolution. It did not even want to consider the problem. It thought that this was a dead issue, that it was dormant. This can never be a dead issue; it can never be dormant.

This is the last chance for the Security Council to put all its force, all its energy, all its moral responsibility behind a fair and equitable and honorable solution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. History does not wait for councils, organizations’ or institutions, just as it does not wait for individuals. Ultimately we shall have to be the final determiners of our own course. Let me tell the Security Council, on behalf of my Government, that if now, after this last chance that we are giving the Security Council, it does not put its full force, full moral responsibility and full weight behind an equitable and honorable settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, Pakistan will have to leave the United Nations.

We have decided to give the United Nations a last opportunity to determine what it can do towards a purposeful, peaceful and lasting settlement of the problem of Jammu and Kashmir. We shall give the United Nations a time limit. Within a certain period of time, if the Security Council is not able to act in accordance with the responsibility placed on it, in accordance with its honour under the Charter—which believes in self-determination—Pakistan will have to withdraw from the United Nations.

I am not saying this in the form of an ultimatum; I am saying it as I am honour-bound to respect the very purposes of the Charter. In leaving the United Nations, Pakistan will be fulfilling the Charter of the United Nations, and then, one-third or more of the world will be outside this Organization.


The full speech text of the speech at UN which had been given by indians. It's long speech and gives Pakistan resolve to fight.
Mr. President,

I am thankful to you and to the members of the Security Council for having met at this late hour to discuss a matter of vital importance to my people, to the sub-continent, to Asia, and perhaps to the world at large. It was very kind of you, Sir, to have convened this meeting at this late hour to discuss the grave issues that face us expressing my gratitude I would like to address not only the permanent members but also the other members of the Security Council for having taken the trouble to be with us this morning. I have come to you from Pakistan, and I have requested this meeting because the issues that face us are indeed so fundamental and important that it is necessary for us to meet to dilate upon them.

I am thankful also to the Secretary-General for his endeavors to bring about a meaningful settlement between India and Pakistan. We are aware of all his efforts—we are grateful to him and to the Security Council—we are grateful to all peace-loving countries for having taken such a direct interest in a war which we do not want, which has been imposed on us by a predatory aggressor.

Pakistan is a small country. You have only to look at a map of the world and see our size to be aware of our resources and our ability.

A Great Aggressor

We are facing a great monster, a great aggressor always given to aggression. During the last 16 or 17 years of our independence we have seen India commit aggression time and again. Ever since 1947, India has followed the road of aggression. It has committed aggression against Junagadh, against Manavadar, against Mongrol, against Hyderabad and against Goa. It has brought about a situation which has caused the Sino-Indian conflict. It has committed aggression against Pakistan. And Pakistan, according to Indian leaders, is its enemy number one. Pakistan is supposed to be the country which is the fulcrum of India’s fundamental policies.

From 1947 we have been faced with this situation. We have always known that India is determined to annihilate Pakistan.

Pakistan’s basic principle was the bringing about of a permanent settlement between the two major communities. For seven hundred years we sought to achieve equilibrium between the people of the two major communities, and we believed eventually that the only way to live in lasting peace with India was to establish our homeland, to establish a country smaller in area, but nevertheless capable of having a relationship, a modus vivendi, with, a great and powerful neighbor. That was one of the prime factors responsible for the creation of Pakistan. We know that in Europe certain countries have had to separate in order to get closer together—Sweden and Norway, for instance, had to separate in order to get close to one another. We believed that with the creation of Pakistan we would be able to establish a permanent peace, a permanent understanding, between the people of India and the people of Pakistan.

We are a small country and as I said, our resources are limited—one has only to look at a map of the world and a map of the sub-continent to see that we are not interested in war. We do not want aggression—we do not want conflict. We want peace in order that our people can develop. This is the age of rising expectation. We should like to see all our energies and all our efforts directed towards economic well-being. It is not the law of God that people in Asia and Africa should be poor. It is not a predestined rule or an immutable law that we should always remain in poverty. We want to break the barriers of poverty—we want to give our people a better life—we want our children to have a better future.

Productive Ends

The leaders of Asia and Africa are determined to break the barriers of the past, the legacies of the past, and in order to do so we must channel all our resources for productive ends, for a peaceful and purposeful future. This is a dire need for a small country such as Pakistan.

We do not want conflict. We are not for war. We do not want to see the extermination of peoples. We respect and have regard for the people of India. A few years ago, we were part of the same country, but for the reason which I have stated, we were obliged to separate. But by means of separation we had thought that our people would be brought closer together, that we should bring about harmony, understanding and tranquility. The basic idea in the creation of Pakistan was that the areas occupied by the Muslim majority should form a part of Pakistan. This basic principle was accepted by the Indian leaders. All we ask is to live in peace, friendship and goodwill with India on the basis of the understanding and agreements which the Indian Government and the Indian leaders themselves solemnly pledged to my people and my country.

India’s Naked Aggression

Today we are fighting a war, a war imposed on us by India, a naked predatory unwarranted aggression by 450 million people against 100 million people, a war of chauvinism and aggrandizement by a mighty neighbor against a small country. It is as if, in Europe, France or Germany committed aggression against Denmark. It is as if a small country in South America were subjected to aggression by Argentina or Brazil. It is as if the United States waged a war against a small country.

We do not want to be exterminated. We cherish life. We want to live—we want our people to live —we want our people to progress. But today our cities are being bombed indiscriminately by the might of India, by the formidable machine of the Indian armed forces.

Fight For A Righteous Cause

But we are resolved to fight for our honour, to fight for Pakistan, because we are the victims of aggression. Aggression has been committed against the soil of Pakistan. But, irrespective of our size, irrespective of our resources, we have the resolve; we have the will to fight because ours is a just cause. Ours is a righteous cause. We are wedded to principles. We are wedded to our own pledges, believe in the right of self-determination—a Wilsonian right, as I told you this evening, Sir, a concept which has inspired the whole of Asia and Africa. It is a phenomenon that cannot be stopped —and that is why we are fighting. We are fighting with our backs to the wall, but we shall tight with all our determination, irruptive of the odds and of all the forces that are pitted against us.

The Secretary-General, as I have already said, s made some very constructive suggestions, and we are grateful to him. He is not only the Secretary-General of the United Nations, he is also a great Asian from a great Asian neighbor of Pakistan and of India. And we should like to cooperate with him both in his capacity as the Secretary General and as a leader of a great Asian country. We have had useful discussions with him in Pakistan, and we told him hat we are for peace.

We do not want war, we do not want destruction and we do not want disaster. But it should be a meaningful peace, a purposeful peace, a peace for all time, a peace in which India and Pakistan can live as good neighbours. We are neighbours and want to live as good neighbours. We do not want to have conflict and trouble with India for all time. No people would want that.

Good Neighborly Relations

We are a smaller country. The cardinal principle of Pakistan’s foreign policy has been to establish good neighborly relations with all countries, with all its neighbours and India is our principal neighbor. All our efforts to establish good neighborly relations with all other countries would be in vain it we are not able to establish good neighborly relations with India, which, as I have said, for historical, political and geographical reasons is our principal neighbor. We will make every endeavor to establish such relations. The Indian representative, whom I know so well and for whom I have great regard, is aware of the efforts we have made to establish good neighborly relations with India. He knows that from the very beginning our President, from the time he came into office, has made positive gestures to India to establish good neighborly relations with his country. We have taken many initiatives to bring peace, tranquility and friendship between Pakistan and India, these are matters of record, not a question of propaganda, of trying to get kudos. These are tangible and well-known facts of history that ever since he has become President of. Pakistan he has gone out of his way to establish good relations with India by cooperation in every field, cooperation in trade, in economics and in politics. Has the world forgotten that in 1959 it was the President of Pakistan who made an offer to India to disengage, to bring about a meaningful settlement so that our armies do not face each other in an eyeball-to-eyeball distance, that we all take care of our own difficulties?

Peace with Honour

These are matters of record, matters of history. Thus we want good neighborly relations with India, we want peace with India and we want friendship with India. But that peace and friendship must be peace with honour and it must be peace of a self-respecting sovereign State. India must accept that, India must know that peace can be established only on the basis of self-respect and honour, on the basis of its own commitments, on the basis of its own pledges, on the basis of its own promise to the people of Pakistan, to the people of India, to the world at large, and above all, to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Kashmir, A Disputed Territory

Jammu and Kashmir is not an integral part of India and has never been an integral part of India. Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory between India and Pakistan. It is more a part of Pakistan than it can ever be of India, with all its eloquence and with all its extravagance with words. The people of Jammu and Kashmir are part of the people of Pakistan in blood, in flesh, in life—kith and kin of ours, in culture, in geography, in history and in every way and in every form. They are a part of the people of Pakistan.

We will wage a war for 1,000 years, a war of defence. I told that to the Security Council a year ago when that, body in all its wisdom and in all its power, was not prepared to give us a resolution. Even last year the Security Council felt that we had brought a dead horse to this Council, that we were trying to make internal propaganda. But the world must know that the 100 million people of Pakistan will never abandon their pledges and promises. The Indians may abandon their pledges and promises—we shall never abandon ours. Irrespective of our size and of our resources, we shall fight to the end. But we shall fight in self-defence, we shall fight for honour. We are not aggressors, we are the victims of aggression- It was the duty of the Security Council to pronounce itself on who is the aggressor and who is the aggressor. It was Pakistan that was the victim of aggression.

Cause of Justice

I am not referring here to some of the remarks made by countries which have no right to be here—they are not even countries. I am referring to the Great Powers, I am referring to all peace-loving countries, I am referring to those who believe in the cause of justice, in the cause of righteousness and in the cause of honour. After all, history is not in vain. Wars have been fought in the past and people have upheld great causes. I am referring to the Great Powers and also to those other countries in the Security Council which have espoused the cause of righteousness. We are grateful to all of you for whatever you have done to uphold the cause of justice, because, finally and ultimately, justice must prevail. We believe more than ever before that justice is bound to prevail for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Five million people must have the right to decide their own future. Why should they be made an exception?

Should the whole phenomenon of self-determination, stretching from Asia and Africa, apply to the whole world except to the people of Jammu and Kashmir? Are they some outcastes of an Indian society? Are they some untouchable pariahs that they should not he given the right of self-determination, that they should not be allowed to have the right to their own future? The great country of France permitted the Algerians to have the right of self-determination. The right of self-determination is a Wilsonian concept. The Soviet Union believes in the right of self-determination of all peoples. The whole world believes in the right of self-determination. Must it be denied to the people of Jammu and Kashmir merely because power must prevail over principle? Power shall never prevail over principle. Finally and ultimately, principle must prevail over power. This is a Christian concept, it is an Islamic concept, and it is a civilized concept. Those nations which do not believe in such a concept must face the ultimate consequences.

India Isolated

India today is isolated. India, in spite of its size and its resources, has no one to support it openly. The whole of Asia and Africa supports the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. The Arab countries in Casablanca have supported the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. The European countries have supported the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. The Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mr. Dean Rusk, said that the historical position is a plebiscite in Kashmir. On the one hand, you have the whole world arrayed on the side of the cause of right and justice and morality, and, on the other hand, you have a war machine, an arrogant and chauvinistic State breaking its pledges, breaking its promises and wanting to destroy the will and the spirit of a people. The will and spirit of our people can never be destroyed. Let me tell you: you can have one cease-fire, you can have another cease-fire, but the 100 million people of Pakistan shall face extermination lather than forsake their principles or allow their principles to be negated and destroyed by sheer force and power.

President’s Message

Having made those remarks, I have the honour to transmit the following message from the President of Pakistan, which I received from Rawalpindi at 2 o’clock (which, is 11 o’clock W.P.S.T.) today (September 22, 1965):

“Pakistan considers Security Council Resolution 211 of 20 September as unsatisfactory. However, in the interest of international peace and in order to enable the Security Council to evolve a self-executing procedure, which will lead to an honorable settlement of the root cause of the present conflict”—namely, the Jammu and Kashmir dispute--”I have issued the following order to the Pakistan armed forces. They will stop fighting as from 12.05 hours West Pakistan Time today. As from that time they will not fire on enemy forces unless fired upon, provided the Indian Government issues similar orders to its armed forces.

“Please accept, Excellencies, the assurances of my highest -- consideration”.

That message was sent to Pakistan’s Permanent representative, Syed Amjad Ali. Thus, in response to the call of international peace and international goodwill we have ordered our troops to cease hostilities, provided India agrees to such a cessation of hostilities.

But a cessation of hostilities is not enough. The Security Council—the most important organ of the United Nations--must now address itself to the heart of the problem. For 18 years it has played and toyed with the future of Kashmir. It can no longer make a plaything or a toy out of 5 million people. It is the moral responsibility of the Security Council to address itself to a meaningful, a lasting solution of the problem of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Security Council has been seized of this problem for 18 years. There are more documents, more resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir—the most fundamental problem facing the world today—than on any other problem. Is it not ironical that, with regard to a conflict that may lea to world conflagration—and the present situation has shown that it is possible for this conflict to lead to world conflagration—the Security Council has shown its lethargy, its idolence?

I was here a year ago, and the Security Council was not prepared to give Pakistan a piece of paper called a resolution. It did not even want to consider the problem. It thought that this was a dead issue, that it was dormant. This can never be a dead issue, it can never be dormant.

Last Chance for Security Council

This is the last chance for the Security Council to put all its force, all its energy, all its moral responsibility behind a fair and equitable and honorable solution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. History does not wait for Councils, organizations or institutions, just as it does not wait for individuals. Ultimately we shall have to be the final determiners of our own course. Let me tell the Security Council, on behalf of my Government, that if now, after this last chance that we are giving the Security Council, it does not put its full force, full moral responsibility and full weight behind an equitable and honorable settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, Pakistan will have to leave the United Nations.

We have decided to give the United Nations a last opportunity to determine what it can do towards a purposeful, peaceful and lasting settlement of the problem of Jammu and. Kashmir. We shall give the United Nations a time-limit. Within a certain period of time, if the Security Council is not able to act in accordance with the responsibility placed on it, in. accordance with its honour under the Charter—which believes in self-determination—Pakistan will have to withdraw from the United Nations.

I am not saying this in the form of an ultimatum, I am saying it as I am honour bound to respect the very purposes of the Charter. In leaving the United Nations, Pakistan will be fulfilling the Charter of the United Nations, and then, one-third or more of the world will be outside this Organization and some countries, which call themselves States, will be members of the Security Council.

 

[Solomon2]

@naveedullahkhankhattak Yup, Z.A.B. was a very accomplished liar. More than that, he turned the truth upside-down. This speech should have been a warning to all Pakistanis what kind of a man he was. But news and coverage of the 1965 war was controlled and either the populace was not keen enough to realize that they were being manipulated by a master or else they were happy with his "we-want-to-be-conquerors-but-will-pretend-we-are-the-victim" approach.

 

[HAIDER]

@naveedullahkhankhattak Yup, Z.A.B. was a very accomplished liar. More than that, he turned the truth upside-down. This speech should have been a warning to all Pakistanis what kind of a man he was. But news and coverage of the 1965 war was controlled and either the populace was not keen enough to realize that they were being manipulated by a master or else they were happy with his "we-want-to-be-conquerors-but-will-pretend-we-are-the-victim" approach.

He did damage control, he is not responsible what in the passed was done by our leaders. He was the bravest leader ever seen in Pak history.
Later he paid the price of Islamic Conference Lahore , where alliance of religious parties stand in front of him. That was the first strike on extremism in Pakistani culture. And call it mullah military alliance against Bhutto.

 

[SDS1]

India’s Aggression
Speech in the UN Security Council,
New York, September 22, 1965

Mr. President,

I am thankful to you and to the members of the Security Council for having met at this late hour to discuss a matter of vital importance to my people, to the subcontinent, to Asia, and perhaps to the world at large. It was very kind of you, Sir, to have convened this meeting at this late hour to discuss the grave issues that face us. In expressing my gratitude I would like to address not only the permanent members but also the other members of the Security Council for having taken the trouble to be with us this morning. I have come direct from Pakistan and I have requested this meeting because the issues that face us are indeed so fundamental and important that it is necessary for us to meet to dilate upon them.

I am thankful also to the Secretary-General for his endeavors to bring about a meaningful settlement between India and Pakistan. We are aware of all his efforts; we are grateful to him and to the Security Council; we are grateful to all peace-loving countries for having taken such a direct interest in a war which we do not want, which has been imposed on us by a predatory aggressor.

Pakistan is a small country. You have only to look at a map of the world and see our size to be aware of our resources and our ability.

We are facing a great monster, a great aggressor always given to aggression. During the eighteen years of our independence we have seen India commit aggression time and again. Ever since 1947, India has followed the road of aggression. It has committed aggression against Junagadh against Manavadar, against Mangrol, against Hyderabad and against Goa.

It brought about a situation which has caused the Sino-Indian conflict. It has committed aggression against Pakistan. And Pakistan, according to Indian leaders, is its enemy number one. Pakistan is supposed to be the country which is the fulcrum of India’s fundamental policies.

From 1947 we have been faced with this situation. We have always known that India is determined to annihilate Pakistan.

Pakistan’s basic principle was the bringing about of a permanent settlement between the two major communities. For seven hundred years we sought to achieve an equilibrium between the people of the two major communities, and we believed eventually that the only way to live in lasting peace with India was to establish our homeland, to establish a country smaller in area, but nevertheless capable of having a relationship, a modus vivendi, with a great and powerful neighbor. That was one of the prime factors responsible for the creation of Pakistan. We know that in Europe certain countries have had to separate in order to get closer together: Sweden and Norway, for instance, had to separate in order to get close to one another. We believed that with the creation of Pakistan we would be able to establish a permanent peace, a permanent understanding, between the people of India and the people of Pakistan.

We are a smaller country and as I said, our resources are limited; one has only to look at a map of the world and a map of the subcontinent to see that we are not interested in war. We do not want aggression: we do not want conflict. We want peace in order that our people can develop. This is the age of rising expectations. We should like to see all our energies and all our efforts directed towards economic well-being. It is not the law of God that people in Asia and Africa should be poor. It is not a predestined rule or an immutable law that we should always remain in poverty. We want to break the barriers of poverty. We want to give our people a better life; we want our children to have a better future.

The leaders of Asia and Africa are determined to break the barriers of the past, the legacies of the past, and in order to do so we must channel all our resources for productive ends, for a peaceful and purposeful future. This is a dire need for a small country such as Pakistan.

We do not want conflict. We are not for war. We do not want to see the extermination of peoples. We respect and have regard for the people of India. A few years ago, we were part of the same country, but for the reason which I have stated, we were obliged to separate. But by means of separation we had thought that our people would be brought closer together, that we should bring about harmony understanding and tranquility. The basic idea in the creation of Pakistan was that the areas occupied by the Muslim majority should form Pakistan. This basic principle was accepted by the Indian leaders. All we ask is to live in peace, friendship and goodwill with India on the basis of the understanding and agreements which the Indian Government and the Indian leaders themselves solemnly pledged to my people and my country.

Today, we are fighting a war, a war imposed on us by India: a naked, predatory, unwarranted aggression by 450 million people against 100 million people, a war of chauvinism and aggrandizement by a mighty neighbor against a small country. It is as if, in Europe, Germany committed aggression against Denmark. It is as if a small country in South America were subjected to aggression by Argentina or Brazil. It is as if the United States waged a war against a small country.

We do not want to be exterminated. We cherish life. We want to live; we want our people to live; we want our people to progress. But today our cities are being bombed indiscriminately by the might of India, by the formidable machine of the Indian armed forces.

But we are resolved to fight for our honour, to fight for Pakistan, because we are the victims of aggression. Aggression has been committed against the soil of Pakistan. But, irrespective of our size, irrespective of our resources, we have the resolve; we have the will to fight because ours is a just cause. Ours is a righteous cause. We are wedded to principles. We are wedded to our own pledges. We believe in the right of self-determination—a Wilsonian right, as I told you this evening, Sir, a concept which has inspired the whole of Asia and Africa. It is a phenomenon that cannot be stopped; and that is why we are fighting. We are fighting with our backs to the wall, but we shall fight with all our determination, irrespective of the odds and all the forces that are pitted against us.

The Secretary-General, as I have already said, has made some very constructive suggestions, and we are grateful to him. He is not only the Secretary-General of the United Nations, he is also a great Asian from a great Asian neighbor of Pakistan and of India. And we should like to co-operate with him both in his capacity as the Secretary-General and as a leader of a great Asian country. We have had useful discussions with him in Pakistan, and we told him that we are for peace.

We do not want war; we do not want destruction and we do not want disaster. But it should be a meaningful peace, a purposeful peace, a peace for all time, a peace in which India and Pakistan can live as good neighbours. We are neighbours and want to live as good neighbours. We do not want to have conflict and trouble with India for all time. No people would want that. We are a smaller country. The cardinal principle of Pakistan’s foreign policy has been to establish good neighborly relations with all countries, with all its neighbours—and India is our principal neighbor. All our efforts to establish good neighborly relations with all other countries would be in vain if we are not able to establish good neighborly relations with India, which, as I have said, for historical, political and geographical reasons is our principal neighbor. We will make every endeavor to establish such relations. The Indian representative, whom I know so well and for whom I have great regard, is aware of the efforts we have made to establish good neighborly relations with India. He knows that from the very beginning our President from the time he came into office has made positive gestures to India to establish good neighborly relations with his country. We have taken many initiatives to bring peace, tranquility and friendship between Pakistan and India. These are matters of record, not a question of propaganda, of trying to get kudos. These are tangible and well-known facts of history. The President of Pakistan has gone out of his way to establish good relations with India by co-operation in every field, co-operation in trade, in economics and in politics. Has the world forgotten that in 1959 it was the President of Pakistan who made an offer to India to disengage, to bring about a meaningful settlement so that our armies do not face each other eyeball-to-eyeball?

These are matters of record, matters of history. Thus we want good neighborly relations with India, we want peace with India and we want friendship with India. But that peace and friendship must be peace with honour and it must be peace that only a self-respecting sovereign state can accept. India must know that peace can be established only on the basis of self-respect and honour, on the basis of its own commitments, on the basis of its own pledges, on the basis of its own promise to the people of Pakistan, to the people of India, to the world at large and above all, to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Jammu and Kashmir is not an integral part of India and has never been an integral part of India. Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory between India and Pakistan. It is more a part of Pakistan than it can ever be of India, despite India’s eloquence and all its extravagance with words. The people of Jammu and Kashmir are part of the people of Pakistan in blood in flesh, in life, in culture, in geography, in history and in every way and in every form. They are a part of the people of Pakistan.

We will wage a war for a thousand years, a war of defence. I said that to the Security Council a year ago when that body in all its wisdom and in all its power, was not prepared to give us a resolution. Even last year the Security Council felt that we had brought a dead horse to this Council that we were trying to make internal propaganda. But the world must know that the 100 million people of Pakistan will never abandon their pledges and promises. The Indians may abandon their pledges and promises; we shall never abandon ours. Irrespective of our size and of our resources, we shall fight to the end. But we shall fight in self-defence; we shall fight for honour. We are not aggressors: we are the victims of aggression. It was the duty of the Security Council to pronounce itself on who is the aggressor and who is the aggressed. It is Pakistan that is the victim of aggression.

I am not referring here to some of the remarks made by countries which have no right to be here; they are not even countries. I am referring to the great powers, I am referring to all peace-loving countries, I am referring to those who believe in the cause of justice, in the cause of righteousness and in the cause of honour. After all, history is not in vain. Wars have been fought in the past and people have upheld great causes. I am referring to the great powers and also to those other countries in the Security Council which have espoused the cause of righteousness. We are grateful to all of you for whatever you have done to uphold the cause of justice, because, finally and ultimately, justice must prevail. We believe more than ever before that justice is bound to prevail for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Five million people must have the right to decide their own future. Why should they be made an exception?

Should the whole phenomenon of self-determination, stretching from Asia and Africa, apply to the whole world except to the people of Jammu and Kashmir? Are they some outcasts of an Indian society? Are they some untouchable pariahs that they should not be given the right of self-determination; that they should not be allowed to have the right to their own future? The great country of France permitted the Algerians to have the right of self-determination. The right of self-determination is a Wilsonian concept. The Soviet Union believes in the right of self-determination of all peoples. The whole world, believes in the right of self-determination. Must it be denied to the people of Jammu and Kashmir merely because power must prevail over principles? Power shall never prevail over principles. Finally and ultimately, principles must prevail over power. This is a Christian concept; it is an Islamic concept, it is a civilized concept. Those nations which do not believe in such a concept must face the ultimate consequences.

India today is isolated. India, in spite of its size and its resources, has no one to support it openly. The whole of Asia and Africa supports the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. The Arab countries in Casablanca have supported the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. The European countries have supported the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. The Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mr. Dean Rusk, said that the historical position is a plebiscite in Kashmir. On the one hand, you have the whole world arrayed on the side of the cause of right and justice and morality, and , on the other hand, you have a war machine, an arrogant and chauvinistic state breaking its pledges, breaking its promises, and wanting to destroy the will and the spirit of a people. The will and spirit of our people can never be destroyed. Let me tell you: you can have one cease-fire, you can have another cease-fire but the 100 million people of Pakistan shall face extermination rather than forsake their principles or allow their principles to be negated and destroyed by sheer force and power.

Having made these remarks, I have the honour to transmit the following message from the President of Pakistan, which I have just received from Rawalpindi.

“Pakistan considers Security Council resolution 211 of 20 September as unsatisfactory. However, in the interest of international peace and in order to enable the Security Council to evolve a self-executing procedure, which will lead to an honorable settlement of the root cause of the present conflict” - namely, the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

“I have issued the following order to the Pakistan armed forces. They will stop fighting as from 1205 hours West Pakistan time today. As from that time they will not fire on enemy forces unless fired upon, provided the Indian Government issues similar orders to its armed forces...”

Thus, in response to the call of international peace and international goodwill we have ordered our troops to cease hostilities, provided India agrees to such a cessation of hostilities.

But a cessation of hostilities is not enough. The Security Council—the most important organ of the United Nations—must now address itself to the heart of the problem. For 18 years it has played and toyed with the future of Kashmir. It can no longer make a plaything or a toy out of 5 million people. It is the moral responsibility of the Security Council to address itself to a meaningful and lasting solution of the problem of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Security Council has been seized of this problem for eighteen years. There are more documents, more resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir—the most fundamental problem facing the world today—than on any other problem. Is it not ironical that, with regard to a conflict that may lead to a world conflagration—and the present situation has shown that it is possible for this conflict to lead to a world conflagration—the Security Council has shown lethargy, its indolence?

I was here a year ago, and the Security Council was not prepared to give Pakistan a piece of paper called a resolution. It did not even want to consider the problem. It thought that this was a dead issue, that it was dormant. This can never be a dead issue; it can never be dormant.

This is the last chance for the Security Council to put all its force, all its energy, all its moral responsibility behind a fair and equitable and honorable solution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. History does not wait for councils, organizations’ or institutions, just as it does not wait for individuals. Ultimately we shall have to be the final determiners of our own course. Let me tell the Security Council, on behalf of my Government, that if now, after this last chance that we are giving the Security Council, it does not put its full force, full moral responsibility and full weight behind an equitable and honorable settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, Pakistan will have to leave the United Nations.

We have decided to give the United Nations a last opportunity to determine what it can do towards a purposeful, peaceful and lasting settlement of the problem of Jammu and Kashmir. We shall give the United Nations a time limit. Within a certain period of time, if the Security Council is not able to act in accordance with the responsibility placed on it, in accordance with its honour under the Charter—which believes in self-determination—Pakistan will have to withdraw from the United Nations.

I am not saying this in the form of an ultimatum; I am saying it as I am honour-bound to respect the very purposes of the Charter. In leaving the United Nations, Pakistan will be fulfilling the Charter of the United Nations, and then, one-third or more of the world will be outside this Organization.


The full speech text of the speech at UN which had been given by indians. It's long speech and gives Pakistan resolve to fight.
Mr. President,

I am thankful to you and to the members of the Security Council for having met at this late hour to discuss a matter of vital importance to my people, to the sub-continent, to Asia, and perhaps to the world at large. It was very kind of you, Sir, to have convened this meeting at this late hour to discuss the grave issues that face us expressing my gratitude I would like to address not only the permanent members but also the other members of the Security Council for having taken the trouble to be with us this morning. I have come to you from Pakistan, and I have requested this meeting because the issues that face us are indeed so fundamental and important that it is necessary for us to meet to dilate upon them.

I am thankful also to the Secretary-General for his endeavors to bring about a meaningful settlement between India and Pakistan. We are aware of all his efforts—we are grateful to him and to the Security Council—we are grateful to all peace-loving countries for having taken such a direct interest in a war which we do not want, which has been imposed on us by a predatory aggressor.

Pakistan is a small country. You have only to look at a map of the world and see our size to be aware of our resources and our ability.

A Great Aggressor

We are facing a great monster, a great aggressor always given to aggression. During the last 16 or 17 years of our independence we have seen India commit aggression time and again. Ever since 1947, India has followed the road of aggression. It has committed aggression against Junagadh, against Manavadar, against Mongrol, against Hyderabad and against Goa. It has brought about a situation which has caused the Sino-Indian conflict. It has committed aggression against Pakistan. And Pakistan, according to Indian leaders, is its enemy number one. Pakistan is supposed to be the country which is the fulcrum of India’s fundamental policies.

From 1947 we have been faced with this situation. We have always known that India is determined to annihilate Pakistan.

Pakistan’s basic principle was the bringing about of a permanent settlement between the two major communities. For seven hundred years we sought to achieve equilibrium between the people of the two major communities, and we believed eventually that the only way to live in lasting peace with India was to establish our homeland, to establish a country smaller in area, but nevertheless capable of having a relationship, a modus vivendi, with, a great and powerful neighbor. That was one of the prime factors responsible for the creation of Pakistan. We know that in Europe certain countries have had to separate in order to get closer together—Sweden and Norway, for instance, had to separate in order to get close to one another. We believed that with the creation of Pakistan we would be able to establish a permanent peace, a permanent understanding, between the people of India and the people of Pakistan.

We are a small country and as I said, our resources are limited—one has only to look at a map of the world and a map of the sub-continent to see that we are not interested in war. We do not want aggression—we do not want conflict. We want peace in order that our people can develop. This is the age of rising expectation. We should like to see all our energies and all our efforts directed towards economic well-being. It is not the law of God that people in Asia and Africa should be poor. It is not a predestined rule or an immutable law that we should always remain in poverty. We want to break the barriers of poverty—we want to give our people a better life—we want our children to have a better future.

Productive Ends

The leaders of Asia and Africa are determined to break the barriers of the past, the legacies of the past, and in order to do so we must channel all our resources for productive ends, for a peaceful and purposeful future. This is a dire need for a small country such as Pakistan.

We do not want conflict. We are not for war. We do not want to see the extermination of peoples. We respect and have regard for the people of India. A few years ago, we were part of the same country, but for the reason which I have stated, we were obliged to separate. But by means of separation we had thought that our people would be brought closer together, that we should bring about harmony, understanding and tranquility. The basic idea in the creation of Pakistan was that the areas occupied by the Muslim majority should form a part of Pakistan. This basic principle was accepted by the Indian leaders. All we ask is to live in peace, friendship and goodwill with India on the basis of the understanding and agreements which the Indian Government and the Indian leaders themselves solemnly pledged to my people and my country.

India’s Naked Aggression

Today we are fighting a war, a war imposed on us by India, a naked predatory unwarranted aggression by 450 million people against 100 million people, a war of chauvinism and aggrandizement by a mighty neighbor against a small country. It is as if, in Europe, France or Germany committed aggression against Denmark. It is as if a small country in South America were subjected to aggression by Argentina or Brazil. It is as if the United States waged a war against a small country.

We do not want to be exterminated. We cherish life. We want to live—we want our people to live —we want our people to progress. But today our cities are being bombed indiscriminately by the might of India, by the formidable machine of the Indian armed forces.

Fight For A Righteous Cause

But we are resolved to fight for our honour, to fight for Pakistan, because we are the victims of aggression. Aggression has been committed against the soil of Pakistan. But, irrespective of our size, irrespective of our resources, we have the resolve; we have the will to fight because ours is a just cause. Ours is a righteous cause. We are wedded to principles. We are wedded to our own pledges, believe in the right of self-determination—a Wilsonian right, as I told you this evening, Sir, a concept which has inspired the whole of Asia and Africa. It is a phenomenon that cannot be stopped —and that is why we are fighting. We are fighting with our backs to the wall, but we shall tight with all our determination, irruptive of the odds and of all the forces that are pitted against us.

The Secretary-General, as I have already said, s made some very constructive suggestions, and we are grateful to him. He is not only the Secretary-General of the United Nations, he is also a great Asian from a great Asian neighbor of Pakistan and of India. And we should like to cooperate with him both in his capacity as the Secretary General and as a leader of a great Asian country. We have had useful discussions with him in Pakistan, and we told him hat we are for peace.

We do not want war, we do not want destruction and we do not want disaster. But it should be a meaningful peace, a purposeful peace, a peace for all time, a peace in which India and Pakistan can live as good neighbours. We are neighbours and want to live as good neighbours. We do not want to have conflict and trouble with India for all time. No people would want that.

Good Neighborly Relations

We are a smaller country. The cardinal principle of Pakistan’s foreign policy has been to establish good neighborly relations with all countries, with all its neighbours and India is our principal neighbor. All our efforts to establish good neighborly relations with all other countries would be in vain it we are not able to establish good neighborly relations with India, which, as I have said, for historical, political and geographical reasons is our principal neighbor. We will make every endeavor to establish such relations. The Indian representative, whom I know so well and for whom I have great regard, is aware of the efforts we have made to establish good neighborly relations with India. He knows that from the very beginning our President, from the time he came into office, has made positive gestures to India to establish good neighborly relations with his country. We have taken many initiatives to bring peace, tranquility and friendship between Pakistan and India, these are matters of record, not a question of propaganda, of trying to get kudos. These are tangible and well-known facts of history that ever since he has become President of. Pakistan he has gone out of his way to establish good relations with India by cooperation in every field, cooperation in trade, in economics and in politics. Has the world forgotten that in 1959 it was the President of Pakistan who made an offer to India to disengage, to bring about a meaningful settlement so that our armies do not face each other in an eyeball-to-eyeball distance, that we all take care of our own difficulties?

Peace with Honour

These are matters of record, matters of history. Thus we want good neighborly relations with India, we want peace with India and we want friendship with India. But that peace and friendship must be peace with honour and it must be peace of a self-respecting sovereign State. India must accept that, India must know that peace can be established only on the basis of self-respect and honour, on the basis of its own commitments, on the basis of its own pledges, on the basis of its own promise to the people of Pakistan, to the people of India, to the world at large, and above all, to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

Kashmir, A Disputed Territory

Jammu and Kashmir is not an integral part of India and has never been an integral part of India. Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory between India and Pakistan. It is more a part of Pakistan than it can ever be of India, with all its eloquence and with all its extravagance with words. The people of Jammu and Kashmir are part of the people of Pakistan in blood, in flesh, in life—kith and kin of ours, in culture, in geography, in history and in every way and in every form. They are a part of the people of Pakistan.

We will wage a war for 1,000 years, a war of defence. I told that to the Security Council a year ago when that, body in all its wisdom and in all its power, was not prepared to give us a resolution. Even last year the Security Council felt that we had brought a dead horse to this Council, that we were trying to make internal propaganda. But the world must know that the 100 million people of Pakistan will never abandon their pledges and promises. The Indians may abandon their pledges and promises—we shall never abandon ours. Irrespective of our size and of our resources, we shall fight to the end. But we shall fight in self-defence, we shall fight for honour. We are not aggressors, we are the victims of aggression- It was the duty of the Security Council to pronounce itself on who is the aggressor and who is the aggressor. It was Pakistan that was the victim of aggression.

Cause of Justice

I am not referring here to some of the remarks made by countries which have no right to be here—they are not even countries. I am referring to the Great Powers, I am referring to all peace-loving countries, I am referring to those who believe in the cause of justice, in the cause of righteousness and in the cause of honour. After all, history is not in vain. Wars have been fought in the past and people have upheld great causes. I am referring to the Great Powers and also to those other countries in the Security Council which have espoused the cause of righteousness. We are grateful to all of you for whatever you have done to uphold the cause of justice, because, finally and ultimately, justice must prevail. We believe more than ever before that justice is bound to prevail for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Five million people must have the right to decide their own future. Why should they be made an exception?

Should the whole phenomenon of self-determination, stretching from Asia and Africa, apply to the whole world except to the people of Jammu and Kashmir? Are they some outcastes of an Indian society? Are they some untouchable pariahs that they should not he given the right of self-determination, that they should not be allowed to have the right to their own future? The great country of France permitted the Algerians to have the right of self-determination. The right of self-determination is a Wilsonian concept. The Soviet Union believes in the right of self-determination of all peoples. The whole world believes in the right of self-determination. Must it be denied to the people of Jammu and Kashmir merely because power must prevail over principle? Power shall never prevail over principle. Finally and ultimately, principle must prevail over power. This is a Christian concept, it is an Islamic concept, and it is a civilized concept. Those nations which do not believe in such a concept must face the ultimate consequences.

India Isolated

India today is isolated. India, in spite of its size and its resources, has no one to support it openly. The whole of Asia and Africa supports the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. The Arab countries in Casablanca have supported the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. The European countries have supported the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. The Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mr. Dean Rusk, said that the historical position is a plebiscite in Kashmir. On the one hand, you have the whole world arrayed on the side of the cause of right and justice and morality, and, on the other hand, you have a war machine, an arrogant and chauvinistic State breaking its pledges, breaking its promises and wanting to destroy the will and the spirit of a people. The will and spirit of our people can never be destroyed. Let me tell you: you can have one cease-fire, you can have another cease-fire, but the 100 million people of Pakistan shall face extermination lather than forsake their principles or allow their principles to be negated and destroyed by sheer force and power.

President’s Message

Having made those remarks, I have the honour to transmit the following message from the President of Pakistan, which I received from Rawalpindi at 2 o’clock (which, is 11 o’clock W.P.S.T.) today (September 22, 1965):

“Pakistan considers Security Council Resolution 211 of 20 September as unsatisfactory. However, in the interest of international peace and in order to enable the Security Council to evolve a self-executing procedure, which will lead to an honorable settlement of the root cause of the present conflict”—namely, the Jammu and Kashmir dispute--”I have issued the following order to the Pakistan armed forces. They will stop fighting as from 12.05 hours West Pakistan Time today. As from that time they will not fire on enemy forces unless fired upon, provided the Indian Government issues similar orders to its armed forces.

“Please accept, Excellencies, the assurances of my highest -- consideration”.

That message was sent to Pakistan’s Permanent representative, Syed Amjad Ali. Thus, in response to the call of international peace and international goodwill we have ordered our troops to cease hostilities, provided India agrees to such a cessation of hostilities.

But a cessation of hostilities is not enough. The Security Council—the most important organ of the United Nations--must now address itself to the heart of the problem. For 18 years it has played and toyed with the future of Kashmir. It can no longer make a plaything or a toy out of 5 million people. It is the moral responsibility of the Security Council to address itself to a meaningful, a lasting solution of the problem of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Security Council has been seized of this problem for 18 years. There are more documents, more resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir—the most fundamental problem facing the world today—than on any other problem. Is it not ironical that, with regard to a conflict that may lea to world conflagration—and the present situation has shown that it is possible for this conflict to lead to world conflagration—the Security Council has shown its lethargy, its idolence?

I was here a year ago, and the Security Council was not prepared to give Pakistan a piece of paper called a resolution. It did not even want to consider the problem. It thought that this was a dead issue, that it was dormant. This can never be a dead issue, it can never be dormant.

Last Chance for Security Council

This is the last chance for the Security Council to put all its force, all its energy, all its moral responsibility behind a fair and equitable and honorable solution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. History does not wait for Councils, organizations or institutions, just as it does not wait for individuals. Ultimately we shall have to be the final determiners of our own course. Let me tell the Security Council, on behalf of my Government, that if now, after this last chance that we are giving the Security Council, it does not put its full force, full moral responsibility and full weight behind an equitable and honorable settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, Pakistan will have to leave the United Nations.

We have decided to give the United Nations a last opportunity to determine what it can do towards a purposeful, peaceful and lasting settlement of the problem of Jammu and. Kashmir. We shall give the United Nations a time-limit. Within a certain period of time, if the Security Council is not able to act in accordance with the responsibility placed on it, in. accordance with its honour under the Charter—which believes in self-determination—Pakistan will have to withdraw from the United Nations.

I am not saying this in the form of an ultimatum, I am saying it as I am honour bound to respect the very purposes of the Charter. In leaving the United Nations, Pakistan will be fulfilling the Charter of the United Nations, and then, one-third or more of the world will be outside this Organization and some countries, which call themselves States, will be members of the Security Council.

“Pakistan considers Security Council Resolution 211 of 20 September as unsatisfactory. However, in the interest of international peace and in order to enable the Security Council to evolve a self-executing procedure, which will lead to an honorable settlement of the root cause of the present conflict”—namely, the Jammu and Kashmir dispute--”I have issued the following order to the Pakistan armed forces. They will stop fighting as from 12.05 hours West Pakistan Time today. As from that time they will not fire on enemy forces unless fired upon, provided the Indian Government issues similar orders to its armed forces.


This is slap on the face of those who said India did ceasefire first.

 

[Solomon2]

He did damage control, he is not responsible what in the passed was done by our leaders -

He was Ayub's political brains. The U.S. dealt substantially with Bhutto, not Ayub, on the 1965 war and its justifications, as the declassified U.S. diplomatic record from earlier in the month, just before India took to the offensive, makes clear:

...Bhutto said time is of essence. We cannot go by stages when fate of nation hangs in balance. India has violated pledges and promises to people of Kashmir and violated UN resolution. India has embarked on aggression, in East Pakistan by economic aggression, expelling Muslims, infiltrating Jammu. India has perhaps over-reacted. India has committed aggression against Kashmir. Pakistan cannot commit aggression there, they are our own people. India reoccupied Kargil posts August 30, and on August 24 undertook Poonch offensive. GOP had to react but only did so in disputed territory. At every stage India has escalated; by crossing CFL, by launching Uri-Poonch offensive. But nobody, even our allies, came to us and acknowledged those actions as provocative. As self-respecting people we had react. India then determined to react anew and invade Pak territory.

I asked about GOP position of implementation cease fire and withdrawal as first step. Bhutto replied this happened in past with very same language, cease fire, UN resolution and promises to bring full weight to bear. Now people have made sacrifices and India has committed aggression. With all that should we repeat mistakes of past and accept cease fire? What is different element to assure India would take different position? Eighteen years ago it was easier accept cease fire, now it much more complicated. We want cease fire but are not going to permit surrender our vital interest. India has no vital interest in Kashmir. Pakistan has vital moral, ethnic, religious interest. Am afraid matter not being looked at objectively. Cease fire must form part of final Kashmir settlement along lines: a) India and Pakistan vacate territory, b) UN administration of law and order for period approximately six months, c) plebiscite within precisely stipulated time. Without that there can be no solution.

I said India not able to agree to that now and Bhutto responded, “Then let them destroy Pakistan!”

Bhutto is still pretending the Pak Army didn't infiltrate IOK in early August. And note the bold. Bhutto relied on an empty linguistic trick here: Pakistan could not be called the aggressor, simply because Pakistan defined IOK as its own territory and people.

Here, we see that Bhutto pushed the 1965 war not to seek a military victory but to set up a military stalemate: a situation for diplomatic negotiation where he, as Foreign Minister, would be prominent and in effect the leader of the country. And if the Pakistan military's goals had been achieved, then he'd still look good in the party of the victors, and as the aggressive FM be well-placed as Ayub's successor.

What Bhutto may not have anticipated was that India's armed response resulted in a desperate battle for Lahore and seizure of strategically important territory by India; the desert regions the Pak Army seized in response, while greater in area, were worthless. Bhutto could not long afford to be associated with such losers and thus resigned a year or two later.

 

[SDS1]

He was Ayub's political brains. The U.S. dealt substantially with Bhutto, not Ayub, on the 1965 war and its justifications, as the declassified U.S. diplomatic record from earlier in the month, just before India took to the offensive, makes clear:

...Bhutto said time is of essence. We cannot go by stages when fate of nation hangs in balance. India has violated pledges and promises to people of Kashmir and violated UN resolution. India has embarked on aggression, in East Pakistan by economic aggression, expelling Muslims, infiltrating Jammu. India has perhaps over-reacted. India has committed aggression against Kashmir. Pakistan cannot commit aggression there, they are our own people. India reoccupied Kargil posts August 30, and on August 24 undertook Poonch offensive. GOP had to react but only did so in disputed territory. At every stage India has escalated; by crossing CFL, by launching Uri-Poonch offensive. But nobody, even our allies, came to us and acknowledged those actions as provocative. As self-respecting people we had react. India then determined to react anew and invade Pak territory.

I asked about GOP position of implementation cease fire and withdrawal as first step. Bhutto replied this happened in past with very same language, cease fire, UN resolution and promises to bring full weight to bear. Now people have made sacrifices and India has committed aggression. With all that should we repeat mistakes of past and accept cease fire? What is different element to assure India would take different position? Eighteen years ago it was easier accept cease fire, now it much more complicated. We want cease fire but are not going to permit surrender our vital interest. India has no vital interest in Kashmir. Pakistan has vital moral, ethnic, religious interest. Am afraid matter not being looked at objectively. Cease fire must form part of final Kashmir settlement along lines: a) India and Pakistan vacate territory, b) UN administration of law and order for period approximately six months, c) plebiscite within precisely stipulated time. Without that there can be no solution.

I said India not able to agree to that now and Bhutto responded, “Then let them destroy Pakistan!”

Bhutto is still pretending the Pak Army didn't infiltrate IOK in early August. And note the bold. Bhutto relied on an empty linguistic trick here: Pakistan could not be defined as the aggressor, simply because Pakistan defined IOK as its own territory and people.

Here, we see that Bhutto pushed the 1965 war not to seek a military victory but to set up a military stalemate: a situation for diplomatic negotiation where he, as Foreign Minister, would be prominent and in effect the leader of the country. And if the Pakistan military's goals had been achieved, then he'd still look good in the party of the victors, and as the aggressive FM be well-placed as Ayub's successor.

What Bhutto may not have anticipated was that India's armed response resulted in a desperate battle for Lahore and seizure of strategically important territory by India; the desert regions the Pak Army seized in response, while greater in area, were worthless. Bhutto could not long afford to be associated with such losers and thus resigned a year or two later.

Care to tell the how many KM these area which capture by PAK from the Border (Punjab / Raj) and Lahore is?

 

[Ultima Thule]

“Pakistan considers Security Council Resolution 211 of 20 September as unsatisfactory. However, in the interest of international peace and in order to enable the Security Council to evolve a self-executing procedure, which will lead to an honorable settlement of the root cause of the present conflict”—namely, the Jammu and Kashmir dispute--”I have issued the following order to the Pakistan armed forces. They will stop fighting as from 12.05 hours West Pakistan Time today. As from that time they will not fire on enemy forces unless fired upon, provided the Indian Government issues similar orders to its armed forces.


This is slap on the face of those who said India did ceasefire first.

terrorist always remains a terrorist

 

[Solomon2]

Care to tell the how many KM these area which capture by PAK from the Border (Punjab / Raj) and Lahore is?

There are various claims, but former Pakistan Ambassador to the U.S. Husain Haqqani in his 2005 book Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, wrote, "Pakistan had occupied 1,600 square miles of Indian territory, 1,300 of it in the desert, while India secured 350 square miles of Pakistani real estate. The Pakistani land occupied by the Indians was of greater strategic value, as it was located near the West Pakistani capital, Lahore, and the the industrial city of Sialkot as well as in Kashmir."

 

[SDS1]

There are various claims, but former Pakistan Ambassador to the U.S. Husain Haqqani in his 2005 book Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, wrote, "Pakistan had occupied 1,600 square miles of Indian territory, 1,300 of it in the desert, while India secured 350 square miles of Pakistani real estate. The Pakistani land occupied by the Indians was of greater strategic value, as it was located near the West Pakistani capital, Lahore, and the the industrial city of Sialkot as well as in Kashmir."

Well,
The border Pic your friend post of Rajasthan , is a border town @ on the IB itself ,
Khemkaran is 5km from IB and it retaken after the battle of Asal Uttar which was turning point in the war.

Official India claimed :- Land area won 3,900 km2 of Pakistani territory
Official PAK Claim :- 650 km2 of Indian territory

Natural :- India held 1,840 km2 of Pakistani territory and Pakistan held 210 sq mi (540 km2) of Indian territory

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

“Pakistan considers Security Council Resolution 211 of 20 September as unsatisfactory. However, in the interest of international peace and in order to enable the Security Council to evolve a self-executing procedure, which will lead to an honorable settlement of the root cause of the present conflict”—namely, the Jammu and Kashmir dispute--”I have issued the following order to the Pakistan armed forces. They will stop fighting as from 12.05 hours West Pakistan Time today. As from that time they will not fire on enemy forces unless fired upon, provided the Indian Government issues similar orders to its armed forces.


This is slap on the face of those who said India did ceasefire first.

Provided India also do the same is a slap on the face of those who think pakistan begged for ceasefire and India never wanted one.
We put a condition to cease fire,India found an opportunity and ran away from war by taking advantage of the walk through gate.
That's what it all meant.