Pakistan Institute of International Affairs

Admission of Pakistan to the United Nations

Source: Pakistan Horizon, Vol. 9, No. 2 (June, 1956), pp. 94-99
Published by: Pakistan Institute of International Affairs
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41392326 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 18:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Pakistan Institute of International Affairs is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Pakistan Horizon.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:07:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 94

India and Russia at presenthave one thingin common. Both coun-

triesare benton blockingtheefforts of theWestin theMiddle East, which
lies to Russia's southand India's west. Both are hostileto the Baghdad
Pact and interpret it as a move againstthem. Nehru,duringhis speech
in Amritsaron 12 February1956,declaredthatIndia cannotremainindiffe-
rentto SE ATO and Baghdad Pact whichhave effected "the climateof the
region". To this he added: "When militaryagreementsare made, how
can we viewthemwithequanimity? We haveto takecertainsteps. Such
actions impingeon our sovereignty and we have to take stepsto be pre-
pared."1 What stepsIndia is goingto take are not yetknown. All that
is known,as a correspondent of a well knownAmericanjournal observed,
is this: "Russia and India have been cooperatingin promotingruptures
in theMiddle East thatare aimedagainsttheWest,suchas turningAfgha-
nistanagainstPakistan,and turningsome of the Arab countriesagainst
Turkey."2
It is a dangerousmove that may be tragicin the end. Pakistan's
disputewithIndia and Afghanistan overKashmirand 'Pakhtoonistan'res-
pectively,and the Arab-Israeldisputewhichstirs theentireMuslimworld,
are seriousthreatsto peace and stabilityin the Middle East. The sooner
these disputesare resolvedthe better. Obviously,the Westernpowers
are not makingall possible efforts to resolvethesedisputes. They even
failed to give moral and political supportto Pakistan, while Russians
openlysupportedIndia and Afghanistan againstPakistan. It has disillu-
sioned the people of Pakistanto such an extentthatthey,like the Arabs,
are likelyto become positivelyill disposed towardsthe West. As The
Timeshas alreadywarnedthat Pakistan is committedto SEATO and
Baghdad Pact but "it would be follyto assumethatherpeople are of one
mind."3

NOTES
Admission of Pakistan to the United Nations
If it was evergenerallyknown,it has long since been forgotten
that
thecircumstances in whichPakistanwas compelledto apply formember-
ship of the United Nations, in August 1947, were disagreeable,indeed
i Dawn, Karachi,12February
1956.
2 NewYorker , 30December
1955.
з TheTimes, London,23December1955.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:07:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 95

damagingto herinterests. These werebased upon a clear misconception

of Pakistan'semergenceas a sovereign,independentstate. Pakistanwas
requiredto apply anew formembership of the Organisationby reasonof
an opiniongivenby the Legal Departmentof the UnitedNations in which
the view was expressedthat Pakistan had come into existenceas a new
state in consequenceof a secession or breakingaway froman existing
statewhichwas a founder-member of the United Nations. The existing
state here referredto was, of course,India, althoughit should be noted
that this could only mean the pre-partition Indian Empire and not the
independent, sovereignIndian Dominion which came into existence,in
thesame wayas did Pakistan,on 15 August,1947 by virtueof theprovi-
sionsof theIndianIndependenceAct,passed in 1947bythe BritishParlia-
ment.

It does notseem thatthe questionof Pakistan'sclaim to membership

was ever consideredby any of the bodies of the United Nations. The
Legal Department'sopinion was communicatedby the Secretariatto
London and the Secretaryof State for India telegraphedthe Viceroyto
the effectthat it was essentialfor Pakistan to apply for membershipof
theUnitedNationsOrganizationbefore10 August1947,so thatherappli-
cation could be consideredat the next session of the General Assembly
whichwould be heldin September,1947.1 To arguethematterwas to run
the risk of missingthe opportunity and thereforePakistan concurredin
the publicationof the Indian Independence(InternationalArrangements)
Order 1947,wherebyit was providedthatmembership of all international
organisations woulddevolvesolelyupon theDominionof India and it was
leftto Pakistanto make applicationformembership of suchinternational
bodies as she might desire to join.
It maybe said, and doubtlesswithmuchforce,thathavingonce con-
curredin the publicationof thisOrder,it is no longeropen to Pakistan
to complainof thesituationthuscreatedwherebyit becamenecessaryfor
Pakistan to apply afreshto all those internationalorganisationswhose
membership she desired. So faras thisis concerned,it can be said with
is
perfecttruththat Pakistan concurredunderduress,for it quite clear
thattheBritishGovernment wereanxiousthatPakistanshouldagreeto the
adoption of this course and Pakistan was pressedto agree to it. Some
flimsyargumentswereadduced by the BritishGovernment, of whichthe

i Partition Volume
Proceedings, bytheGovernment
III, published ofIndia,p. 292,

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:07:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 96

principalone appearedto be thata precedentmightbe createdby whicha

dishonestgovernment could finda wayof repudiatingits debts.1 It does
notappear fromhistorythatdishonestgovernments have been waitingfor
thisprecedentin orderto evade theirliabilities- hithertotheyhave suc-
ceeded withoutit. Be all thisas it may,Pakistanwas obligedto accept
theposition,butstipulatedthatbothDominionsshouldassumeall interna-
tional obligationsand enjoy all rightsarisingout of treatiesand agree-
ments negotiatedby the then existingGovernmentof India or by the
BritishGovernmentactingon behalfof the Dominionsoverseas.2 Nine
yearshave elapsed since this transaction. But it is still importantfrom
thepointof viewof its effectupon Pakistan'sinternational statusand the
administrative procedureof the United Nations involved in it.
When these matterswere being discussed prior to partition,Lord
Mountbatten,at thattime Viceroyof India, expressedthe view that if
India took over all past internationalobligationsand liabilitiesas at 15
August1947,thiswould notaffectPakistan'sinternational stature. Later
eventsgive rise to the beliefthat Lord Mountbattencared littlewhether
Pakistan's internationalstaturewas affectedor not, but, in any case, the
expressionof his viewwas meaninglesssince,in practice,it was inevitable
thatinternational staturemustbe affectedby the arrangement.Pakistan
feltthis stronglyenough,for her Foreign Minister,when thankingthe
General Assemblyof the United Nations for Pakistan's admission in
September,1947,emphasisedthat, in truth,Pakistanwas not a newmem-
ber,but a co-successorto a member-state whichhad beenone of thefoun-
ders of the organization. Sir Zafrulla Khan said: "In one sense,the
admissionof Pakistanto theUnitedNationsis notthe admissionof a new
member. Pakistan as a part of India participatedin the San Francisco
Conferencein 1945 and becamea signatoryto the United Nations Char-
ter. Therefore,Pakistanis nota newmemberof the UnitedNations,but
a co-successorto a member-state, whichwas one of the foundersof the
Organization."3
The questionof co-successionis an importantone. The beliefwas
thatthe new Indian Governmentwas the successorin titleto theprepara-
tion Indian Governmentand thatPakistanwas a newcreation,formedby
1Partition yVolumeIII, published
Proceedings bytheGovernment
ofIndia,p.292.
2 Ibid.
3 Official
RecordsofthePlenary Sessionof UnitedNationsGeneralAssembly,
September1947,p. 317.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:07:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 97

makinga sovereign,legal entityout of fragmentsof the sub-continent

whichchose to break away. This seems to have been the basis of the
opiniongivenbytheLegal Departmentof theUnitedNations. If itwas so,
itwas wrong. Besidesthisopinionwas damagingto Pakistanin a material
sense. It went far, for example, towards substantiatingthe erroneous
view,held by manyHindu opponentsof PakistanthatIndia was the true
and onlysuccessorin titleand Pakistan had, therefore,
no claim to any of
the assets of the pre-partition
Indian Government.When, therefore, it
was proposedto pay thesum of fifty fivecroresof rupees*beingtheshare
of the Pakistanin preparationGovernment'scash balances,to whichshe
was entitledas a co-successor,therewas widespreadresentment in India
and theassassinationof Mr. Gandhi is directlytraceableto it.
The languageof theIndian IndependenceAct,as well as of all Orders
made by virtueof thatAct prove,beyondanydoubt or cavil,thatthesuc-
cessors in titleof the pre-partition
Governmentof India were two new
Dominions,one named Pakistan and the other,India. The factthatthe
concurrence of Pakistanwas considerednecessarybeforetheInternational
Arrangements Order could be made, itselfproves the statusof Pakistan.
The newlycreatedDominion of India uses the name"India" forconveni-
ence, but, according to its ConstitutionAct it has another name, i.e.
"Bharat".
If one reads, for example,the language of the Indian Independence
(Rights,Propertyand Liabilities) Order of 1947,it becomes at once ob-
vious that the property,land, money,rights,etc. vested in His Majesty
wereforthebenefitof the two new Dominionson theprinciplethatthe
rightsetc. runningwith the land, would devolve on the Dominion con-
cernedand wherethe questionof divisionarose, thatwould be settledby
an ArbitralTribunal. It followsthateverything accruingto Pakistandid
so in preciselythe same wayas India's shareaccruedto India i.e. through
His Majesty. The position was preciselythat of two persons inheriting
thepropertyof a deceased father. No one eversuggeststhattheyounger
inheritsthroughthe elder or that the child receivingthe smallershare
acquires title throug' the child receivingthe larger share. The same
principleappliesto thesovereignty devolvingupon thesetwo newstates.
But ecausc Pakistanadopted a differentname,because of erroneous
opinion ch as thatof the United Nations' Legal Department,to which
i Equaltoabout$170million
at thethenrateof exchange.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:07:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 98

referencehas been made and becauseof measuressuchas theInternational

Arrangements Order,the impressionhas been createdthatPakistan is a
new stateand that new India is continuationof the old one. The harm
thatwas done becuase of thisimpressioncannotnow be undone,but the
happeningdemonstratesthat it is a matterof greatimportancethat the
internaladministrationof the United Nations shall not straybeyond
definedlimits.
strictly

It mustnot be thoughtthattheactionof theSecretariatof the United

Nationsescaped withoutcriticismor remark. Indeed,at thesame Session
of the General Assemblyat whichPakistan was elected to membership,
the representative of the Argentineexpressedthe view that the opinion
givenby the Legal Departmentwas manifestly wrongand theactionof the
ActingSecretary-General in informing thePakistandelegatethatPakistan
was a new,non-member state,constituteda seriousblunder. The Argen-
tine representative pointed out that the Secretariathad gone beyond its
jurisdiction and had soughtto exercisepowerswhichbelong only to the
General Assembly. It must be added that the Argentinerepresentative
was not alone in his views. The Frenchand Polish representatives on the
Security Council had, when the Council consideredPakistan'sapplication,
respectively expressedthe opinions that Pakistan was alreadya member
of theUnitedNationsas a partof India and thatthecontinuation ofIndia's
membership should not be taken as a precedentfor the in
future, case an-
other state should split up and to
therebyattempt deprive the Security
Council of the privilegeof makingrecommendations withregardto new
members. Accordingto the Polish representative, both India and Pakis-
tan should have been compelledto apply formembership.

That the position of Pakistanin this matterhas neverbeen properly

understoodis madeapparentbytheremarksof Mr. StephenM. Schwebel
in his book, The Secretary-General of the UnitedNations.Mr. Schwebel
asserts that the circumstancesof Pakistan's admission prove that the
opiniongivenby theLegal Departmentof theUnitedNations was correct
and thatthe SecurityCouncil tacitlyupheld the SecretaryGeneral's right
to take a stand on the question.1 In fact,all thatis provedis thatin or
about July1947,theLegal Departmentevidently knewnothingabout Indo-

1 TheSecretary-General
oftheUnited p. 103.
Nations,

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:07:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 99

i and that the formof admission of Pakistanwas made

Pakistan affairs
possible only by reason of the factthat under pressureof circumstances
and otherpersuasions,Pakistan made a formalapplication, sometime
anteriorto 10 August1947,foradmissionto theUnitedNations (using the
good officesof the Viceroyof India for the purpose, since on that date
Pakistan had no legal existence),her fear being that if this were not
done,admissionmightbe delayedforanothertwelvemonths.

Afghanistan, Pakhtoonistan and Russia

Of late,Afghanistanhas becomeveryvocal in advocatingPakhtoonis-
tan. How faris she justifiedin doing so on the credentialsof the advo-
cate; thatis exactlywhatwe should endeavourto examine.
In area Afghanistanis biggerthan France. Althoughno census of
the countryhas ever taken place, it will be rightto say thatthe country
has approximately twelvemillioninhabitants. These inhabitantsare of
variousraces, cultures,languagesand traditions. The amalgamationof
theseheterogeneouselements was neithervoluntarynor based on an
ideology.
Until 1750,Afghanistan did not existas a state. However,afterthe
death of Nadir Shah, Ahmad Shah Abdali proclaimedhimselfAmir of
Afghanistan. In the strictlegal sense the countrywas not even absolu-
telyindependentuntil 1919. It receiveda subsidyfromthe BritishGov-
ernmentwho also controlledits foreignpolicy. The onlyjustification for
thisvassal statelay in its positionas a bufferstate,separatingthe British
and Russian Empires. AftertheThirdAfghanWar in 1919 a treatywas
negotiatedbetweenGreatBritainand AmanullahKhan, whichon the one
hand reaffirmed the Durand Line as the boundarybetweenAfghanistan
and theBritishIndian Empireand on theothersecuredforAfghanistan for
the firsttimein historyrecognitionof its independence.2
If we drawa straightline fromKabul to Herat,northof thisline,and
rightup to RiverOxus or theU.S.S.R. border,is thearea knownas Afghan

Lie thatone of his

thatit hasbeensaid of Mr. Trygve
i It is worthnothing
weakpointswas thathe had a senseof isolationismand knewnothingof the
ofIndiaetc ibid. p. 173.
affairs
2 "Conflictin Pakhtunistan",The Egyptian and PoliticalReview
Economic ,
September 1955.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:07:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions