§ 12.42 p.m.
§ Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Waver-tree)I recently had the privilege of being part of the C.P.A. delegation to Pakistan, admirably led by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger). Over 18,000 miles of journeying in all we received the greatest kindness and hospitality. The President of Pakistan talked to us for nearly an hour in Rawalpindi and we met the leaders of East and West Pakistan and realised even though we had to travel round rather than across India, how united the two wings of that great country of Pakistan were.
In order to save the time of the House, I will not mention in detail the many other people whom we met and the places we visited, but it was indeed a shock to see the signs of war, the slit trenches dug, the sandbagged public buildings, the paper pasted over the windows, as here in 1940, the hotels once Indian-owned taken over by the custodian of enemy property, the Indian paddle steamers lying at anchor and locked up in one of the arms of the Brahmaputra.
Yet what is done by man is less important than what is thought by man. It seemed to me that we were back in the days of the religious wars, and civil religious war, as 17th century Europe found to its cost, is the most bitter of all conflicts. We saw refugees at Muzzaffarabad and Mirpur and heard their horror stories and were told that since the cease-fire started about 100,000 had come out of Kashmir with little hope of land on which to settle. We saw them receiving their wheat and dole of four annas and heard their stories of how they had trekked over the mountains, 5,000 to 7,000 a week, avoiding the minefields.
Despite the usual stories of the abduction of all the girls from 10 to 20, I do not think that it would help if I went into details about the much graver reports which we heard from many quarters. I did not actually meet an eye witness of any of the stories. How true in point of fact can they be? No one knows. Foreign correspondents are not allowed on either side. The stories may be exaggerated. But when one of our cars had a puncture on the way to Maugla, there came across the countryside a cavalcade of about 100. 2127 We thought that they were nomads, but we stopped another car and through an interpreter we found that they were refugees 22 days out of Kashmir, the old men and the women with all their chattels, one or two grandchildren riding ponies and donkeys with the occasional lamb sharing the saddle. It was like a miniature Exodus.
Could that have been arranged? Anyhow, we heard from them the same ghastly stories. But does it really matter whether those meetings were prepared or not? What the stories mean is that the cauldron of hate is bubbling and the steam may seep throughout the world.
To put the matter in proper balance, I ought to quote the Indiagram of 8th December:
The Defence Minister recalled that during the recent conflict, Pakistan had used napalm bombs … against the civilian population.A member asked whether the Government had received any information about the fate of the Sikh girls abducted by the Pakistanis. The Defence Minister said that according to the Indian representative in Karachi, thirty girls had been located in one of the camps there".In India there may be similar stories of horrors perpetrated by the Pakistanis. No one knows the truth. Rumour and hate breed together and all must fear their brood.Some of us said that we would like to go to the front at Lahore. It was like going to Waterloo from Brussels—the broken wire, the dust, the derelict villages, 225 near Sialkot and 85 near Lahore. It reminded me very strongly of Normandy, 21 years ago.
It is true that there was the occasional United Nations vehicle, flag, or officer whom one met on the road, but off it through the minefields beyond the canal which with one or two bridgeheads now forms the front line, it was the morale, efficiency and camouflage of the Pakistani Army which I remember best. I wonder whether Great Britain, so obsessed by Africa which in total has only one quarter of the population of the Indian sub-continent, is aware that every night Pakistanis and Indians are killing each other by mortar, machine guns or sniper. On one small sector, which was controlled by a battalion, the previous evening five infiltrating Indians had been killed.
2128 It is not only in the West that there is conflict. Had the train on which we were due to travel along the East Pakistan frontier with Tripura not been shot up two days before, we would not have gone by road to Chittagong and perhaps the Government majority would not longer be one.
What worries me is the sense of mission in all circles; the feeling that a series of semi-miracles has made so many people wish for a second round. Be it the stopping of the Indian attack when one of the 22 bridges of the Lahore canal remained unblown, be it the number of unexploded bombs—and we saw some of the effect of one of them near Peshawar —be it the effect of the favourable weather so that the Pakistani Navy could wipe out the radar station at Dwarkah, be it the spirit of the women volunteers training others with rifles in Karachi, or be it the strength of the syphon which takes the canal under the river Ravi and which was never supposed to take the weight of tanks, yet which did so for the great counter-attack; the stars in their courses seem also to be fighting. Much as one admires the spirit of the 70 Pakistanis who tied anti-tank mines to themselves to make a human minefield and blow themselves to glory, such great spirit may lead to even greater destruction, especially if egged on, possibly without the necessary arms, by the Chinese of whose delegations and activities we were aware almost everywhere we went.
Against this gloom one can mark the exchange of Red Cross parcels and the fact that although internationally accepted conventions and courtesies may have been thrown to the wind, at the Deputy High Commissioner's party at Dacca we were delighted to see the Deputy High Commissioner for India. Yet everywhere we went, from governors to heads of villages, there was talk about Kashmir and the many United Nations resolutions largely unimplemented.
Though history may say that the British option to the princely States, including Kashmir and Hyderabad, was wrong, we are dealing with the present, and I believe that if nothing is done in Washington or in Kashmir there is a major danger of war breaking out again. Next time it will be much more difficult to stop.
President Ayub has said that war is a luxury which neither Pakistan nor India 2129 can afford. Both nations have so much to do to raise their people from near starvation, though before this war Pakistan was going ahead very quickly. Great Britain has massive interests in both countries. Should there be a second round this might not end with only two contestants. It might involve us all. The stakes are very high indeed.
I should like to pay a tribute to India. I was the guest of that country for a month earlier this year. In the last 18 years India has tried to form a secular State from the many tongues and religions which form her vast territory. She is the third biggest Moslem country, and one meets Moslems in high places everywhere —some who have risen from nothing to wealth and prestige. I saw the great new factories of Bangalore and Madras; I saw the new Corbusier-designed Punjab capital in Chandigarh; the reclaimed land of the salt lakes in Calcutta, where an acre and a half of land is reclaimed every day. I wish that we could do the same on Merseyside. I saw the Bhakra Dam, the highest in the world. Over 30,000 people were moved and 366 villages inundated. Wales objects to Liverpool submerging one. These are the temples of resurgent India, and many more need to be built if only there was peace.
India will say, "If one frontier is changed then what about the Nagas, the Sikhs, and those in the South?" Yet, when in India I had the privilege of a one-and-a-half-hour talk with Sheikh Abdullah, at his private house in Srinagar, I could not help wondering, upon seeing a portrait of President Ayub in one corner, and Mr. Nehru in the other, whether India would learn, more quickly than we, our Irish lesson, which took Great Britain so many decades to comprehend. There is an Urdu proverb which says:
If you live by a river do not live at enmity with the crocodile.The problems for both countries are very formidable. Food in India was short last year and this year the monsoon partially failed. Even before the 17 or 22 days' war there were in India many factories operating at only a quarter capacity, such was the shortage of foreign exchange to buy components and raw materials. In Pakistan the agriculture is only a third as efficient as the world average. There is 2130 a great salinisation problem in the West. Despite the great natural gas finds, in the East there are 1,500 people to the square mile subsisting in the biggest delta in the world. This is a huge tropical Holland, where river and mud and rice and people merge together, a foot or so above the tides, and where the cyclones blow—one to our great regret only five days after we left, killing in one day this year 18,000 people. Heaven knows how many were killed in the last few days. Our great sympathy goes out to the Pakistani people.There was little done by us when we were in control and only now are the dykes being built against flood and storm in the hope that Pakistan will grow enough food to do away with present imports. Although Islamabad and Mangla rise in the Western Plains as great memorials to man, landless labourers and illiteracy increase in the East, and the race between co-operative endeavour and Communism may not be won by our friends. It will certainly not be won if there is a second round, desired by so many in Pakistan and I fear in India too.
What should Her Majesty's Government do? The right hon. Gentleman had great success over the Rann of Kutch, but the cease-fire confrontation, and Kashmir, are much greater problems. We are not a super Power and all that we can do is to chivvy America and Russia to take joint action if humanly possible. First, I believe that the armies should be kept apart, either on the present ceasefire line or on the old one. There must be some neutral zone established, if fighting and killing are not to escalate. Secondly, can we not establish some international body, like the League of Red Cross Societies, operating behind the lines, where the United Nations does not go, to ensure that the world knows what is going on? Such a body could inquire into the so-called genocide, and it would stop rumours breeding enough hatred to start the war again.
Thirdly, the rich Western nations could build a new road up into Ladakh where India faces the Chinese. It would be a much better line of communication for her troops than the narrow precipitous road which is prone to landslides, leading from Jammu to Srinagar, and up which the convoys continuously chug. It seems that the problem of Kashmir is 2131 the reverse of Solomon's baby. Jammu is largely Hindu while Azad Kashmir is almost entirely Moslem. Fourthly, would India ever consider offering a three-way plebiscite to the Vale, giving people the option to go to India, Pakistan or to become independent under an internationally guaranteeing council, on which India and Pakistan would serve? It would mean waiving her strictly legal rights, but India would remove a great burden from her shoulders. Kashmir, no longer in the news, might become an Eastern Switzerland, for the enjoyment of man. I agree that the difficulties for India are great but by such an offer she would make a great gesture to mankind and would show that
the voice of the people is the drum of God".Such solutions would be very expensive for the Western world. They would mean the establishment, on the subcontinent, of an international peace force. But since such a force would have no major arms, what better permanent training area than Kashmir, and if the United Nations is powerless to produce such a body, why should not like-minded nations of the Commonwealth do it, to avoid the Commonwealth going the way of the Holy Roman Empire?This would be a small insurance premium against a vast potential loss. The present so-called cease-fire cannot go on indefinitely. If nothing is done, Pakistan and India may fight again, and in the end some such force will be required. Why not get it going before the fight begins again? Such a force would threaten no one and would be a guarantee of the efficiency of the ceasefire. I fear that, after what has happened, the offer made by President Ayub in 1959 for joint defence will be difficult to secure. But could not the great Powers guarantee the frontiers and rely on an international force to name the aggressor?
Not only would India, by offering a compromise, put herself into the van of human progress, but massive aid would go to her and Pakistan, both economic and social. Both are faced by an expansionist ideology and, if the free cooperative ideal is to triumph and not go under, there is not much time. The works of God can so easily and quickly be destroyed by man. Yet the works of man 2132 done in time can in due course become the works of God.
§ 1.0 p.m.
§ Mr. George Jeger (Goole)I must congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on his initiative in raising this Adjournment debate and expressing what I might say are the collective views of the recent delegation to Pakistan so eloquently and in such a detailed manner.
The hon. Member was right to draw attention to the grave danger which exists of the outbreak of a further war between Pakistan and India. It is generally acknowledged that the cease-fire was obeyed by both sides very reluctantly. Both sides claimed to have won a great victory in the 17-day war. It was very interesting to hear from our Pakistan friends—I use the word "friends" advisedly—that they did not fear another attack by India and were prepared, with courage, to withstand any such attack if it came. The mood of the people whom we met at all levels was one of wishing to live at peace with their neighbours but, at the same time, to preserve their honour and independence.
Our task here in Britain is to face the problem of how to prevent a second conflict from breaking out. In both India and Pakistan there is acute poverty and suffering. There is no desire for a war, and, as President Ayub so wisely said, neither country can afford the luxury of a war.
The question which was put to us in various places by various people was, "Why has not the Commonwealth, and particularly Britain, taken an initiative in bringing the war to an end and in settling the Kashmir dispute?" There is much appreciation of the action taken by the Government over the Rann of Kutch dispute. The people appreciate very much the action of my right hon. Friend in achieving that success. But they want to know why we did not go further. They pointed to the fact that a Commonwealth initiative was taken over the Vietnam war, which does not directly concern the Commonwealth and does not take place within the Commonwealth. We were asked in Pakistan," If the Commonwealth Prime Ministers can try to send a peace mission to Vietnam, why has not the Commonwealth, and particularly 2133 Great Britain, directly intervened in what is directly a Commonwealth matter?"
It may be that we are reluctant to intervene in disputes between members of the Commonwealth. The Government should note that other nations are not reluctant to act when there are Commonwealth disputes. Russia has invited the leaders of Pakistan and India to Tashkent next month. Russia is not a disinterested party. It is very significant that Russia is now doing by intervention and by attempting to find a solution to the problem what the Commonwealth is reluctant to do and what the United Nations has failed to do.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to imagine how the prestige of the Commonwealth would go down and the prestige of Russia rise if as a result of the Tashkent discussions an amicable settlement were made between India and Pakistan and Russia were then able to say to the Commonwealth, and particularly to the under-developed nations, that they cannot look to the Commonwealth for any initiative if they have problems but that they can always go to mother Russia who will settle their problems for them in a friendly manner.
How can the Kashmir question be settled? I accept the possible charge that by going to Pakistan and having so friendly and amicable relations with the Pakistanis those of us on the delegation may be biased. But I was biased in favour of self-determination for small nations without ever having considered the Pakistan point of view. When it comes to self-determination for Kashmir, which is, after all, what Pakistan is demanding, I am on Pakistan's side right from the beginning on general principles.
It should be borne in mind that Pakistan is not asking for Kashmir to be handed over to Pakistan. She is asking for the right of self-determination to be applied to Kashmir. She is prepared to accept the result of a plebiscite in Kashmir, whether it be that Kashmir decides to remain with India, or to cede to Pakistan, or to become an independent State, or to submit itself to partition. If India wishes to enhance its reputation as a peaceful nation which it spent many years under Nehru building up, she should agree to accept the holding of 2134 a plebiscite and agree to accept in advance the result of it. If she did, there would be a sigh of relief over the whole sub-continent and over the whole civilised world, for the danger of war between these two neighbours, with all the results coming in from outside if a war should break out, would be removed. India and Pakistan could live at peace with each other and their neighbours with world respect and build up their economies which is so vitally necessary. I am sure that, as a result of the relief engendered, there would be an increase in world aid to both countries.
Would India learn from history—British history and even the history of India itself and how she achieved her independence? It is not possible to keep an unwilling people down by force and by continually refusing negotiation. That has been British history, and India should learn from it and not commit the same mistakes made by British imperialism and colonialism. Is the Indian Government far-sighted enough arid big-minded enough to accept this lesson of history? I am encouraged to think that she might be, because there is a paragraph in The Times of today which gives great hope. It reads:
Mr. Shastri, the Indian Prime Minister, said in Rangoon that he was going to Tashkent … 'with an open mind'".If he sticks to that, and if the open mind does not exclude discussions on the future of Kashmir, the consequences of the Tashkent talks may be favourable, not only to India, but to Pakistan, and may be favourable to the British Commonwealth. The consequences of a war would be so horrible that we might well be involved in a third world war unless some agreement can be reached. I must, however, express my disappointment that the Commonwealth Relations Office has not intervened but has allowed Russia to take the initiative in these peace talks.
§ 1.8 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon (Wells)I shall be very brief, for I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. As a member of the delegation which recently returned to this country, I should like to add a few words to what has been so ably said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) and the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger).
2135 The late President Kennedy once spoke of people voting with their feet. He referred, of course, to the refugees and others escaping from Eastern Germany through the barbed wire and across the wall through Berlin. We have seen just this in Pakistan, with refugees coming out of occupied Kashmir with what they could barely carry in their hands, braving enormous physical difficulties and great danger in the minefields and across the mountains. All the people we saw were hale and hearty. They could not have undertaken such a journey had they not been so. But we also heard of the horrible atrocities which always accompany these sorts of political upheavals. As my hon. Friend has said, it is difficult for us to judge how much of these stories is true and how much is exaggerated; but if only one tithe of them were true, it would still be a very terrible situation.
I ask the Secretary of State to do his utmost to get a responsible international body into Kashmir on the ground, in order, by its very presence, to restrain people from doing horrible things and, in a more practical manner, to help people who are destitute, injured or persecuted. I cannot think of a better body to undertake this task than either the Red Cross League or, alternatively, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Either of those two possibilities could fruitfully be followed. I know that a great deal of persuasion would be needed on both sides, both Pakistanis and Indians, to accept such a proposition, but there is no harm in persisting and going for it.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Goole has just said. It is a matter of shame for us in Britain and in the Commonwealth that we have allowed this dispute to go on festering for 18 years. I know very well that great efforts have been made to solve it. Eminent men have come from various quarters of the world, including the Commonwealth, to try to persuade both sides to a reasonable conclusion.
More recently, however, we seem to have given up hope. I urge the Secretary of State to take hope from the success that he and the British Government achieved in the Rann of Kutch and to do something likewise about this intolerable state of affairs, which could break out once more into a real fighting war 2136 all along the borders between India and Pakistan.
§ 1.13 p.m.
§ Mr. Julius Silverman (Birmingham, Aston)I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on raising this subject. I was a member of a delegation which visited India shortly before the visit of the delegation to Pakistan and I regard it as a good thing that the House should have both sides of the coin.
Wherever we went in India, there was a feeling that Britain had been rather partisan in the recent war. I have to be frank with the House and with my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary in saying that almost daily, whether at breakfast, dinner, tea or any other time, and wherever we were, we had complaints about the B.B.C., about the British Press and even about the statements made by spokesmen of the British Government. Whilst it may well be that some of this was put on for our benefit, there was not the slightest doubt that this was a genuine feeling on the part of Indians.
We were not taken to the war front. One cannot get a picture of the battle situation by visiting a war front when the battle is over. Therefore, whilst it would have been a matter of interest and curiosity for me to have gone to Kashmir, I do not suppose that we would have learned very much. We did, however, learn something about the feelings of the Indian people on the subject of Kashmir. They were rather cross with this country. They thought that if anything, if any sides were to be taken, we should have taken their side.
The Indians said to us, "After all, we are a democracy. Pakistan is a military dictatorship. Surely, you are on the side of democracy. We are a secular State embracing many religions living in peace. Surely, that is a point which should have entered into your consideration. After all, it was Pakistan which started the war by infiltration and then, in early September, by a massive tank attack over the frontier. What we did was merely a response to military action which the Pakistanis had initiated. They were the aggressors and, therefore, Britain should have taken our side."
2137 I shall not comment upon that except to say that it was said to us. At least, there is no doubt that, whatever might be the rights or wrongs of Kashmir, it was the Pakistanis who commenced the war. This indeed was mentioned by our representative at the United Nations, Lord Caradon, who said that he accepted the decision of the United Nations that the infiltration was by regular forces from Pakistan.
Perhaps I may briefly state the attitude of the Indian people on the question of Kashmir. It is not generally realised, perhaps, that if the question of Kashmir could be taken separately, it would not be too difficult a problem. The trouble is that it cannot be taken separately.
India is a secular State with Hindus, Sikhs, Moslems and Christians living together in one community. There are 55 million Moslems living in India. That is to say, it is the third greatest Moslem Power in the world. There are 30 million Christians, apart from the masses of Hindus who live there. Perhaps the greatest achievement of Nehru is that this State exists at all, that this secular State has been maintained and that all these people can live in peace together.
The feeling of the Indians is that what is involved in Kashmir is not simply a question of the self-determination of one country. It is the existence of India. Wherever I went, we found that the people, whether Hindu or Moslem—in some respects, perhaps, Moslems more than Hindus—felt strongly about the question of Kashmir. To them, the cession of Kashmir or part of it to Pakistan was not just a question of a plebiscite, whatever a plebiscite might mean in those circumstances. It was a question which involved their personal security.
After all, 1947 is not very far away. The decision to create a theocratic state in Pakistan contained, in a sense, the seeds of the sort of trouble that has occurred since. Some of it occurred immediately. In 1947, there was the movement of refugees in both directions and the massacres, on both sides. I am not in the least surprised at what the hon. Member for Wavertree has told us about refugees. Nineteen forty-seven is only 18 years away and whatever happened, whether there were atrocities or not—and I should discount most of 2138 the stories of atrocities—the fear is still present on both sides.
There is, for example, the fear of the people of India, and of the Moslems particularly, because they were stronger about this than the Indians, that, "Here we are, living at peace together with the Hindus, in the same towns and villages. If the question of Kashmir is decided upon a religious basis, and suppose that the Hindu refugees begin to come out of Kashmir, as will inevitably happen"—it is happening now— "out of Bengal, what will be the position of the secular State of India? What will be the position of the Moslems?"
The question of Kashmir is tied up with the existence of India as an integral State and with the whole question of the possibility of Hindus, Moslems and Christians living in peace. Whether the State would disintegrate if there were any cession of territory I do not know. I can only tell the House that from my experience it is not on, from a practical point of view. No Government of India which made such a cession would survive for a moment. Mr. Shastri has established himself as a national figure in India mainly upon the basis of resistance to the Pakistanis, whom the Indians accuse of aggression.
I mention this because it is necessary that the Indian point of view should be understood. Much more could be said upon the issue of Kashmir, but this is the basic fact for the Indians. They fed us with all sorts of legalistic arguments, some good and some not so good, but the House should understand the basic fact that, in a sense, the problem originates and emanates from the time when the division took place, to a large extent upon a religious basis.
I look forward to the time when it will be possible to get some sort of union of the whole Indian peninsula. The division may have been inevitable at the time but it contains the seeds of danger. I believe that unification must be the eventual solution. Any short-term measures which will help to stop the fighting should be taken in the meantime. I do not deny the usefulness of sending Red Cross people to both sides in order to obtain the strict operation of the ceasefire and to see that the kind of things that have been taking place—whoever is 2139 responsible—do not continue. But any attempt to impose a final solution upon India and Pakistan—and certainly the imposition of any cession of territory—would be the wrong solution at the wrong time.
I hope that the Government will be prepared to adopt an attitude of nonpartisanship in this matter. If they can get the Indians and Pakistanis to stop their small skirmishes it will be a progressive step. I do not believe that a second round is likely to take place, but what rather frightens me is the military feeling which exists on both sides. There are the same stories of great heroism in India and Pakistan. I am frightened by the enormous resources on both sides, but which both countries can ill afford, which are being diverted from purposes of development to preparation for war. I am sure that the Commonwealth Relations Office has done what it can, but I am anxious that there should be no attempt to pressurise India to accept a final solution. If such an attempt were made it would be disastrous.
§ 1.23 p.m.
§ The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) for having given the House an opportunity to review the tragic conflict which broke out between India and Pakistan this autumn. I am pleased to have the chance to talk about the part which we might play in the period of uneasy truce which now exists. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for his graphic description of the scene that he found in Pakistan.
I say to all hon. Members on both sides who went on the C.P.A. delegations both to India and Pakistan that they did a very useful job. It was very successful Hon. Members have been able to inform themselves of the situation in the subcontinent—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) has said, in some cases rather adverse reports were made about the British Government. What the hon. Member has heard from the Indians has also been said to me by some Members of the party that went to Pakistan. I am confident that hon. Member on both sides were able to assure the Governments and peoples of both India and Pakistan of 2140 our continuing good will and determination to continue to help them in their urgent task of reconciliation and of nation-building.
We were very distressed by the conflict. It seemed to us to be a tragedy of the first magnitude that these two Commonwealth countries should be waging war against each other. When we think of villages in India and Pakistan where the people live at subsistence level we realise the real and meaningful struggle which faces the Governments both of India and Pakistan today. The battle against poverty and disease in both countries is daunting enough, but that is a real struggle and one worth fighting. It is one which both Government have, to their eternal credit, done much to wage. But, as they both recognise, there is still a lot to do.
The history of the conflict is well known to the House and it is not necessary to repeat it. I will only say that it has been our policy, since its outset, to give our utmost support to the efforts of the United Nations, first to bring about a cease-fire and then to arrange a disengagement and the withdrawal of the opposing armies. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) who led the mission to Pakistan with distinction, has told me how unfortunate it is that the Commonwealth did not take the initiative. I can tell him that we considered earnestly, in consultation with our other Commonwealth colleagues, whether the Commonwealth should undertake some initiative to try to stop this tragic war between two of its members. There were several reasons why we decided at the time not to suggest such an initiative.
First, the United Nations Security Council became seized of the conflict at a very early stage, and it was clear that all the countries represented on the Council—including, I am glad to say, the Soviet Union—were determined to do all in their power to bring about a prompt end to the hostilities. Then, a United Nations observer group, under the able and experienced command of General Nimmo of Australia, was already on the spot in Kashmir. This needed only expansion and reinforcement in order to be able to operate over all the sectors of hostilities. Finally, we thought it right not to cut across the personal efforts of the Secretary-General, who visited the 2141 sub-continent and dealt directly with both Governments.
As the hon. Member for Wavertree rightly said, the cease-fire which the Security Council secured at the end of September has been an uneasy one. The United Nations observers, over the past weeks, have catalogued a succession of breaches by both sides. In the early days of the cease-fire, before the United Nations observers could be deployed over the widely spread battlefields, it was natural that incidents should be provoked. The desire of local commanders to improve their tactical positions and secure themselves against a recurrence of hostilities was understandable. That stage has passed, but the incidents still occur.
Neither side has a desire to see a fresh round of large-scale hostilities; on the contrary, I believe that both are only too well aware what a disaster this would be for them. But I am sure that as long as the two armies are face to face in their present positions—often only yards apart, and both in possession of areas of the other's territory—there is a danger of the renewal of more general hostilities.
This is why it remains so urgently necessary that there should be a disengagement of the two armies and a withdrawal of the positions which they held before the conflict began. Here again, we have thought it right to give our fullest support to the United Nations to try to reach this solution.
The House will know that the Secretary-General's representative, Brigadier-General Marambio, of Chile, is now in the sub-continent, charged with drawing up a withdrawal plan for agreement by both Governments, to be implemented at the earliest possible date. I hope that, in a spirit of wise statesmanship, the two Governments will feel able to give their unstinted co-operation to General Marambio so that a plan for complete and simultaneous withdrawal in all sectors can be drawn up and executed in accordance with the directions of the Security Council.
The hon. Member for Wavertree mentioned encounters with refugees while the C.P.A. party was visiting the sub-continent. As he rightly said, the difficulty is to distinguish fact from rumour and I agree with his comments about the dangers which these rumours in them- 2142 selves entail. War always brings refugees in its train and there are many personal hardships. Of course, the refugee problem is not confined to one side alone. According to published figures which we are unable to check, about 200,000 people on each side of the border have been forced to leave their homes.
All these people, on whatever side, deserve our sympathy and material support in the short term, through organisations like the Red Cross. The International Red Cross is aware of the problem and I was glad to learn that the British Red Cross has, in response to an appeal from the International Committee in Geneva, already made a contribution of £16,000 for relief purposes.
Although there is much for refugee organisations to do to relieve this hardship, the best way to help the refugees in the longer term is to create conditions in which they can return to their homes. This underlines the necessity I have mentioned for early agreement by both armies on withdrawals from the areas which they have seized since the start of the conflict.
The hon. Member for Wavertree referred to the need for a final settlement of the differences, notably those over Kashmir, which have so unhappily persisted between the two countries since their independence. While the present bitterness and tensions remain, and the armies still confront each other in their battle positions, there is little hope, I fear, of establishing an atmosphere of trust and good will.
But this atmosphere is essential if there is to be any progress over the political problems which underlay the recent conflict. When the withdrawals have taken place, however, the Security Council will be able to proceed in accordance with the resolution of 20th September, which calls for a consideration of the underlying political problems. I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will play a full part in that consideration. We shall, as in the past, do whatever we can to assist India and Pakistan to come to a peaceful accommodation with one another.
There may yet be a rôle for the Commonwealth to play. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Goole that we shall keep the possibility in mind and 2143 pursue it if suitable circumstances arise. I am sure that the House will agree that we welcome the interest of the Soviet Government in this matter and the readiness of Mr. Shastri and President Ayub to meet at Tashkent on 4th January on the initiative of the Soviet Government. We understand that both sides have agreed that the whole range of India-Pakistan problems should be discussed at this meeting.
We hope that this will be the first step towards a happier relationship between India and Pakistan. If normal diplomatic relations can be resumed and there can be an early agreement on a withdrawal plan, this will be a great step forward. We hope that both countries will be able to agree to repair the damage done to each others and to neutral interests by the measures they have taken against shipping, maritime trade and property, both during the fighting and subsequently.
If these areas of agreement can be widened, if both sides exercise patience and restraint in what are bound to be uneasy times, I am confident that the two Governments will be able to create an area of peace and stability in the subcontinent. Then their efforts can be devoted to the political and economic advancement which their peoples so earnestly desire. Britain has done a great deal in the past to help further this advancement and we shall continue to show in a practical way as far as we can that we retain a deep concern for the well-being and development of these two countries, with whom we have had such a deep and long historical association. Many of us on both sides of the House have had a personal association with them. I am sure that it is in this spirit that both sides join together today to resolve to do whatever we can to restore this friendship between these two great Commonwealth countries and so end the conflict which at present exists.