NO U.N. SOLUTION OF KASHMIR DISPUTE

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28265, 1 May 1957, Page 13

NO U.N. SOLUTION OF KASHMIR DISPUTE

(Rec. 11 p.m.) _ i NEW YORK, April 30. e Mr Gunnar Jarring, the United J Nations Security Council’s special ' envoy to India and Pakistan on ‘ the Kashmir problem, today reported that his mission had failed } to produce “concrete proposals” for resolving the long-standing , dispute. But in a 1700-word document 1 submitted to the council president, 1 Sir Pierson Dixon, of Britain, he added that in spite of the dead- j lock, indications were that both j nations still jvanted to find a solu- ( tion. ~ | Mr Jarring, a former Swedish . Ambassador to India and Pakis- j tan, was president of the 11member Security Council, key ( organ of the United Nations, , when, on February 21, it sent him ' to the sub-continent to examine with the two governments “any proposals which, in his opinion, are likely to contribute towards a settlement of the dispute.” Mr Jarring noted the council’s resolution of January 5, 1949, envisaging a free and impartial plebiscite to decide the future of Kashmir, and he added that "on exploring this question of a plebiscite, I was aware of the grave problems that might arise in connexion with and as a result of a plebiscite. “Not Acceptable” "I therefore felt it incumbent on |pe,” he added, "to devise ways and means by which these difficulties could be met or at least be substantially mitigated. "Consequently, I made a number of suggestions to this end to both governments which, for different reasons, however, did not prove to be mutually acceptable.” Mr Jarring reported that from the beginning of his mission he directed his efforts towards finding a solution for problems which had arisen over two resolutions of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, which the Indian representative (Mr " r . K. Krishna Menon) had told the i council were “the only ones which • bound his Government.” • He said the Indian Government ; claimed that Pakistan had not implemented a key part of one reso- : lution and that, therefore, it was. • in India’s submission, premature • to discuss other parts of it or of ! the second resolution. The two resolutions were those » of August 13, 1948, and January 5, , 1949. ? Mr Jarring said that in the case . of the first, India considered that Pakistan, in particular, had not!

implemented the proposal not to augment the military potential of forces under her control in Jammu and Kashmir and the proposal to appeal to her peoples hel P create and maintain “an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations.” He inquired of the two governments if they would be prepared to submit to arbitration the question whether this key part had been implemented. “While the Government of Pakistan, after a certain hesitation, fell in with my suggestion in principle, the Government of India, however, did not feel that arbitration, as outlined by me, would be appropriate,” he said. He referred to the “expressions of sincere willingness to co-oper-ate with the United Nations in the finding of a peaceful solution,” which he received from both governments. In Tokyo, the Pakistani Prime Minister (Mr H. S. Suhrawardy)commenting on the Jarring report, said it was “the result of Mr Nehru’s intransigeance, exactly what I expected.’’ Direct negotiations had failed, India had refused arbitration, so it was now up to the Security Council, he said.