No fight if Pakistan quits Kashmir
The President, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, declared to-day [September 11, New Delhi] that India would always be prepared to give the fullest consideration to any suggestions that result in the return of peace between India and Pakistan. “But since the conflict started with Pakistan sending armed men into Kashmir they must be withdrawn no less than Pakistan’s regular army and Pakistan armour. And the U.N. Security Council must ensure that these acts of aggression are not repeated again and again in Kashmir,” the President said in his broadcast to the nation.
The President referred to the U.N. Secretary-General, U Thant’s efforts to bring about a settlement in terms of the U.N. Security Council resolutions of September 4 and 6 and said, even now “Pakistan has declined to promise the Secretary-General that it will respect the cease-fire line.” Dr. Radhakrishnan reiterated that India had no desire to escalate the conflict. At every stage it was Pakistan that took the first step in widening the conflict. In a reference to President Ayub Khan’s declaration that Pakistan was at war with India, Dr. Radhakrishnan said, “We in India do not regard ourselves as at war with Pakistan. India had been careful to do precisely no more than what was required to safeguard its territorial integrity. “In contrast to Pakistan, which was bombing Indian cities and killing civilians, Indian attacks had been confined to military installations and Pakistan troop movements.” The President affirmed that India was fighting to-day [September 11] not for a piece of territory but for fundamental principles. “Victory in our struggle for the maintenance of India’s freedom and federal union, which includes Jammu and Kashmir, is vital to the saving of free institutions,” he said. India had a freely elected Government and a free Press and was a non-communal State which respected all religions. “We are resisting a military dictatorship, a controlled Press and a theocratic State. We believe in freedom even for those who think differently from us.” Dr. Radhakrishnan added, “the interest of democracy demands our victory, otherwise the lamp of freedom will go out in Asia.” In a reference to the country’s magnificent response to the defence effort, Dr. Radhakrishnan said, “It is a matter of profound satisfaction that in this crisis, we have also closed our ranks, set aside the superficial differences of creed and caste and behaved, first and last like Indians.”
New Peking-Russia row brewing
Indications that a new row between the Soviet Union and China may be brewing behind the scenes are being followed with interest in London diplomatic circles. The Soviet leaders, like some Western observers, seem to have believed at one stage – or at least hoped – that China would be in no hurry to take a hand in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. Not only has this expectation not being fulfilled, but there is even sign that China is trying to use this opportunity to build up another major confrontation with the United States in Asia. So far as the Soviet Union is concerned, the Chinese tactic is to accuse it of siding with America and India – only Chinese fantasy could bracket these countries together in the present context – and prodding and provoking it in every possible way to declare itself in favour of Pakistan, and thus automatically fall in line with China. The Russians have so far been resisting this pressure. However, like the Americans – though possibly for different reasons and to a lesser degree – they have been concerned to retain friendly links with Pakistan, and have accordingly been giving an impression of “neutrality.” They have been moderate and discreet in their support of India, concentrating on urging both sides to bring a halt to the fighting. It is this very attitude that is now under attack by China and its satellites. Russia, they say, must no longer sit on the fence but come out openly against the alleged aggression committed by India and back the Pakistani demand for a Kashmir plebiscite. The further evolution of Soviet policy necessarily remains a matter for speculation, but there is already some evidence that Moscow and its allies are refusing to be bullied by China into changing their line. Prague Radio the other day singled out China for criticism as being the only one among the great Powers to oppose a cease-fire and pacific settlement. And speaking at a Moscow reception yesterday [September 10], Mr. Brezhnev, the Russian Communist Party leader, said pointedly: “There may be third forces, and they certainly do exist, who would be pleased with, and would try to profit from the aggravation of Indo-Pakistan relations, and sometimes even add fuel to the fire. “The conflict,” he added, “would only play into the hands of those who dream of subjugating these two major Asian Powers to their influence.” Since the U.S. has been fully supporting U Thant’s peace efforts, which the Soviet Union is also backing, these remarks have been taken everywhere as a clear reference to China.
Andamans’ merger ruled out
Mr. Jaisukhlal Hathi, Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs, to-day [New Delhi] rejected a suggestion for a merger of the Andamans with West Bengal.
Mr. Hathi who was replying to the debate on the Union Territories (Direct Election to the House of the People) Bill in the Lok Sabha, said the Centre was spending a lot of money on the development of these islands and if “they are under the direct eye of the Centre”, they would be better administered. Mr. Hathi said that Government was willing to consider a change in the name of the islands. The Bill was later passed by the House. A demand for renaming the Andaman and Nicobar Islands after Subash Chandra Bose or the ‘Swaraj and Shahid Islands’ to keep in tune with the current mainstream of national opinion was voiced by Mr. H.V. Kamath, Mr. D.C. Sharma and others. Introducing the Bill, Mr. Hathi said the Bill provided for direct election to fill the seats in the Lok Sabha allotted to the Union Territories of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, The Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands and Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Each of these groups of islands would elect one member to the Lok Sabha. At present these seats were filled by nomination under Section 4 of the Representation of the People’s Act. He said the reason for not introducing direct elections earlier was insuperable difficulty of transport and communications. ‘Now communications have improved, and there is also a demand from people to have direct elections.’ Before the discussion could start, Mr. H.V. Kamath raised a point of order and said the Bill was not in accordance with the rules of procedure in that the financial memorandum did not mention the recurring and non-recurring expenditure involved but merely gave a ‘rough estimate’. The Speaker ruled that ‘normally the member’s case is right’, but the Government could find some figure during the debate and the objection could not result in throwing out the Bill altogether.
