The Reminiscences of Zafrulla Khan — Page 195
179 REMINISCENCES OF SIR MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLA KHAN the subject of the accession of the state, anything they did in that respect would not affect the Security Council or the obligations that India had undertaken. We had expressed an apprehension, which, unfortunately, has subsequently been proved only too well founded, that once the Constituent Assembly was set up, it would be invited to pass a resolution affirming the accession which the Maharaja had purported to carry through. It would then be claimed that that amounted to a plebiscite. India said no, that wasn't their intention at all. The Prime Minister of India went on saying publicly, in Parliament and outside, that this was an international dispute and that it could not be settled unilaterally by one party, and that in any case, it could not be settled by the Constituent Assembly that might be set up in Kashmir. During the last discussion of the question in the Security Council during the spring and early summer of this year, that position was quite clearly taken up by India, namely that the matter has been settled, there is no longer any dispute, the people of Kashmir have decided, the accession is confirmed, and that the whole business is at an end. If that is not a unilateral decision of an international dispute, I do not know what is. The last draft resolution before the Security Council, dated the 22nd of June, which was vetoed by the U. S. S. R. , and, therefore, was not formally adopted but had obtained seven votes in support of it, proposed that the two parties should get together and try to work out a settlement. The whole matter is in that very unsatisfactory position. The dispute exists. It is keeping the two countries apart and prevents cooperation between them on matters and in spheres in which obviously they ought to cooperate together for their mutual benefit. On both sides feelings flare up. The situation becomes acute. An atmosphere of tension and distrust is maintained. In no sense, can the matter be treated as having been settled. As I stated before the Security Council in the debates that took place earlier this year, "Fifteen years have passed, but even if fifty years were to pass, the people of Kashmir will never reconcile themselves to the present situation. The matter will be settled only when those people can freely decide what they wish to do; accede to India, accede to Pakistan, or whatever else might appeal to them. " Question : What was the role of Sheikh Abdullah during these years? Have you any views on that ?