STATEMENT BY THE INDIAN DELEGATE, Mr. SAMAR SEN, ON UNHCR'S
REPORT IN THE THIRD COMMITTEE OF THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY
November 18, 1971

We have followed with great interest the statement of the distinguished High Commissioner for Refugees on the latest situation of the East Pakistani refugees in India. It is particularly gratifying to us that the High Commissioner has, in spite of his remarkable diplomatic sweep and skill, confirmed in every important particular the account we have been giving of all aspects to this formidable problem. He has just returned from India where he visited some refugee camps of his choice and was given all facilities to put his understandably limited time to the best use. On several occasions, we have expressed our appreciation for the work being done by Prince Sadruddin Agha Khan. His statement here has confirmed once again the full co-operation that he and his representatives in India have been receiving from the Government of India in carrying out their duties. We should not like to recall the tragic course of events in East Bengal which forced the massive number of Pakistani citizens to leave their homes and come and live in India in most difficult conditions. Nor is it our wish to speak about the efforts made by India to deal with the intolerable burdens imposed on us by the actions of Pakistani military junta. A detailed account of these efforts was placed before the recent meeting of UNHCR's executive committee in Geneva. At present, we shall focus our attention mainly on steps to be taken to relieve the misery of the refugees, to the extent possible, through the United Nations.

The tragedy and the immensity of the problem can be described in the High Commissioner's words. At the ECOSOC meeting in July this year he said:

"There is no doubt, therefore, that we are confronted with one of the major population movements of modern history, with all the tragic aspects of human misery and sufferings that such movements entail."

Reporting to his executive committee three months later in October he described it as a:

" challenge of unprecedented magnitude '".

And this month he said in a broadcast message over All India Radio:

" I have no doubt that the influx of refugees from East Pakistan into India, since six months, in terms of its magnitude is the worst problem of uprooted people that the world has ever faced."

It should be clear to all, who have any feelings or objectivity, that never before have so many people fled across an international frontier in such a short period or in such distressing conditions. When we first approached the United Nations on April 23, 1971, for assistance to meet the needs of the refugees, they already totalled half a million. This number continued to increase as Pakistani military regime carried on with murder, loot, rape and other unspeakable atrocities.

On October 26, the Special Consortium of the World Bank meeting in Paris announced that " more than 9.5 million refugees have entered India by now and the influx is continuing ". The latest figure is 9,608,901 on November 5, the daily average influx in

September was 27,000 and in October 17,000.

This meeting in Paris was held to discuss the impact on the Indian economy of this large and continuing influx of refugees from East Pakistan. With your permission, I should like to read the communique issued, it is not long.

" A special meeting of the consortium of Governments and institutions interested in India's economic development was held in Paris on October 26, 1971, under the Chairmanship of the World Bank. It discussed the impact on the Indian economy of the recent large and continuing influx of refugees from East Pakistan, and assessed the cost of relief at dollars 700 million in the financial year ending March, 1972. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Governments of Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Federal Republic of Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, and by representatives of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Representatives of the Governments of Australia and New Zealand attended the meeting as observers.

The meeting heard statements by L G. Patel, Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, and by Charles Mace, Deputy United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and considered a report on the cost of refugee relief prepared by the World Bank. More than 9.5 million refugees have entered India by now, and the' influx is continuing. Delegates expressed deep concern about the situation and its serious consequences for the economic development of India and unanimously recognised the need for special assistance to offset the burden of refugee relief. Members emphasised that assistance for refugee relief should be additional to normal development assistance. Considering the nature of the problem, this assistance should preferably be in the form of grants. To prevent drastic cutbacks of development expenditures in India, commitments of special assistance are required urgently and should be in a form which would provide immediate support to the budget of the Indian Government and the Indian economy generally.

It was the sense of the meeting that the problem of refugees in India was an international responsibility. The meeting noted that world wide contributions pledged to date came to over dollars 200 million. Delegations urged the UNHCR as the Focal Point of the whole United Nations system to continue his efforts to seek contributions from the international community to cover the cost of relief estimated at dollars 700 million. The countries represented at the meeting agreed, because of their special interest in India, that they would make efforts to meet a substantial part of the total need ".

We in India deeply appreciate the offers of help from wherever they come and I should like to thank all Governments, international agencies, non-governmental organisations, voluntary agencies and private individuals-all of whom have done so much to help. But this response, generous as it is, takes care of only a small part of our needs. Between the requirements as assessed by the World Bank and the pledges so far made, the difference is nearly dollars 500 million. The actual gap is even wider since all the promises of help have not yet been fully kept.

The presence of millions of refugees has brought grievous impact on the economic, social and political life in India and is a continuing threat to India's stability and security. We wonder how many States in the world can receive nearly ten million refugees, with more coming every day, and still survive for six months. The driving of millions over millions of people into neighbouring country in a manner and in such conditions as would endanger the existence of the receiving state is nothing but a civil invasion and an intolerable interference in its domestic affairs.

That is what we are facing today and India has become a victim of a new kind of aggression by the military regime of Pakistan. The High Commissioner has spoken of two principal fields of action: first, urgent relief measures for refugees in India, and secondly, the promotion of their voluntary repatriation. The action so far taken for relief measures has been described fully in the statement of the High Commissioner himself. Voluntary repatriation is the only lasting solution to the problem. We emphasise that this is not only the best but an imperative solution. And that it must come soon. The international community as a whole is responsible for caring for the refugees, and if today India is looking after the massive millions of Pakistani refugees, she is doing so as a trustee on behalf of the international community and strictly for the shortest time possible. Conditions which will persuade them to return home must be created without further delay. We cannot and do not accept their indefinite presence in India. We agree with the High Commissioner that the relief operation should not become yet another permanent political and economic burden on the international community. Since most of the burden has to be borne by India, what the High Commissioner has said is much more true for India herself.

In the introduction to his annual report, the Secretary-General stated that "efforts to bring about the repatriation of refugees have so far been unavailing. Since President Yahya Khan announced his agreement to allow the East Pakistan refugees to return on May 25, the total number of refugees in India has steadily increased. The crux of the matter is that international and Government efforts in East Pakistan are increasingly hampered by the lack of substantial progress towards a political reconciliation".

To this reason for the lack of progress in repatriation, must be added another and more basic explanation of why the influx has continued over these six months. It has been described indeed as a haemorrhage. Unless we can diagnose the disease, we cannot provide any effective cure. Volume of reports from impartial international observers which explain the causes exists, but we do not have time to discuss all the details; chiefly, the basic cause of this unprecedented movement of people is to be found in the massive, systematic and continued violation of the most fundamental human rights, including the right of life itself. It amounts to a genocidal punishment to 75 million people. Seldom before, and certainly never after the U.N. Charter was promulgated, have human rights and fundamental freedoms been violated on such a vast scale and with so many brutalities

and with such cynicism as has taken place this year in East Pakistan. This latter half of the 20th century, when man is striving to conquer space and time, we have had the misfortune to see a gigantic operation of medieval butchery. There has been an attempt to crush and humiliate a people simply in an attempt to suppress their freely and democratically expressed will. I do not wish to recount the events that led to this grim drama staged in East Pakistan since the mid-night of March 25, although we can easily and readily place before this committee unassailable facts of the entire situation as it unfolded from day to day. But we must emphasise that no solution to the problem of East Pakistan refugees in India can be found without discussing the nature and extent of massive violation of human rights in East Pakistan.

Ever since the tragedy started, there have been attempts to mislead and confuse the basic and root cause of this unprecedented movement of population. We understand these attempts by desparate and unwise men, and we cannot and will not sympathise with them. At first, all was sought to be hidden and protested by citing domestic jurisdiction and internal affairs. Subsequently, persistent efforts have been made to present the problem inside East Pakistan as an India-Pakistan dispute. Yet another argument is that India is preventing the return of the refugees, as if India could afford, under any circumstances, to feed or look after nearly ten million refugees for any length of time, and now established facts are perversely challenged in the hope that impact of public condemnation will be diffused, and so, reduced. But truth is hard to conceal; Pakistan's propaganda figures for refugees have been contradicted by President Yahya Khan himself who the other day, when discussing the question, said: " two or three million, there may even be four million. " The President is obviously in doubt and is aware of the canard whose only purpose is to involve India in a process which has never been followed in any refugee problem, and yet his delegation continues to give figures as if they are based on anything except political imagination. It would indeed be a remarkable feat to count absent people. It is also noteworthy that Pakistan's figure of 200,000 refugees having returned to their homes has remained unchanged over the last three months. And then the figure is nicely divided and rounded upto 140,000 muslims and 60,000 Hindus, at the same time as the High Commissioner has been informed that 640,001 passed through reception centres and 136,000 came back on their own. Here again is another instance of counting people who, no one knows, how they came; but then people, who first described all the refugees as "criminals", who define all free voters as " anti-state " elements, who call all freedom-fighters as " miscreants " or now " indian infiltrators ", cannot be expected to be too scrupulous about facts.

To discuss the mechanics of repatriation before creating the basic conditions for making repatriation possible and practicable, is unrealistic and inaffective. For facilitating the repatriation of the refugees, the High Commissioner made a pertinent comment to his executive committee in Geneva last month. He repeated the same comment today when he said: "In our past experience, if and when a settlement had occurred in the country of origin, a system of mutual co-operation and help was established with the active participation of UNHCR which facilitated repatriation. Until this stage is reached, substantial and well organised repatriation cannot make any sense and the trend is difficult to reverse. "

We return once again, therefore, to the fundamental cause of the crisis in East Pakistan and the ceaseless flow of refugees. " The basic problem ", writes the Secretary-General, "can be solved only if a political solution based on the reconciliation and the respect of humanitarian principles is achieved". The international community is entitled to ask if any solution to the basic issues which accompanied this man-made disaster, is being worked for. We see no effective attempt being made in that direction; on the contrary, much evidence is available that sophistry and confusion between great right and great wrong are being encouraged to conceal a lack of courage and to justify inaction. Events of the past months, with the understandable popular resistance to the discredited regime and its methods which is increasing steadily inside East Pakistan, should now make it clear that a climate of confidence can be created in East Pakistan only through reconciliation with the already elected and accepted leaders of the people of East Bengal. It is less than a year back that the East Pakistanis voted almost to a man for a certain leadership and a well defined programme, and they are 75 million of them-the majority of the population of the whole of Pakistan. Regrettably, the only attempts which have been made by the Government of Pakistan in this direction are propaganda measures to beguile increased international concern for a political solution. This concern was widely and unmistakably expressed during the General Debate of the Assembly. At the same time, military repression continues with the burning of whole villages as reprisals and on wrong information even in areas next to the capital of East Pakistan, and other brutalities are periodically and frequently reported in the Foreign Press.

Diverting attention from this main cause of the trouble will not solve the problem before us. To hurl accusations against India and deliberately to create tension through military concentration on the Indian borders, are totally negative and dangerous policies. We deplore these as much as the violation of human rights in East Pakistan.

We agree with every word of the distinguished Foreign Minister of Denmark when he said on November 16, 1971, before the first committee: " The Danish Government appeals, as others have done, to the Government of Pakistan for moderation and restraint, with a view to bringing to an end the violence in East Pakistan. Only a political settlement based on respect for human rights and the freely expressed will of the people can solve the problem of East Pakistan. " Can such an expression of view in the larger interests of the sub-continent and the world be termed as an act of non-co-operation or of political motivation? No propaganda can change a problem, which is wholly and essentially a problem between the Government of Pakistan and the people of East Pakistan, into one of a dispute between India and Pakistan. The basic problem lies inside East Pakistan and must be solved there itself so that the refugees can go back under credible guarantees for safety of life, property and honour.

My delegation has also noted with deep interest the statement on the activities being undertaken by UNEPRO-United Nations East Pakistan Relief Operation.

Suffering people are everywhere the same-refugees who seek shelter in a foreign land or the victims of the man-made disaster in their own country. But I should like to make, very briefly, one or two points regarding UNEPRO. First of all, certain circles in East Pakistan have expressed concern that the U.N. relief operations there might inadvertently assist the military regime. For example, let me refer to a report by Mr. Browne of The New York Times written from East Pakistan that appeared in its issue of November 17 : “…..once the supplies reach the final depots the responsibility of foreign relief organisations ends and distribution is handled by the army or its politically reliable 'peace committees ', subject only to occasional spot checks by United Nations officials. It is widely charged that the army is using the aid more as a political lever than for genuinely humanitarian purposes, withholding it from rebel areas.... "

Mr. Browne also noted: " The problem of helping feed the East Pakistanis «as underscored by a foreign relief worker recently visiting the northern district of Rangpur, where pockets of near famine have been reported, due largely to lack of transportation.

'We had to stop at a bridge to wait for a column of trucks to pass from the other direction', he related. These trucks were headed south, away from Rangpur, and they were loaded with Basmati Rice.

" Although East Pakistan always has a rice deficit, the province grows this very high quality Basmati rice which enjoys a good market abroad. Ordinarily, Pakistan exports this rice and sells it for hard currency, importing cheap rice from China and elsewhere for its own consumption.

" But now it certainly does not look very good for donor nations to be struggling at great cost to bring rice into East Pakistan so that the Islamabad Government can go on making a profit on home grown rice.

" Bengalis argue, in fact, that continued foodgrain and other assistance to the Government is nearly as much resented as the recently discontinued United States policy of providing Pakistan with the spare parts needed to maintain her military air-lifts from West to East. "

These aspects of the operation have to be constantly watched and reviewed. We are glad that the representative of the UNEPRO in his statement has given recognition to some of these important problems. The news coming from East Pakistan is however not at all reassuring.

Secondly, we doubt if the present impression of relationship that exists between the UNHCR operation in India and the UNEPRO is altogether relevant or wise. The Secretary-General launched UNEPRO as a humanitarian operation and this was never intended to be, nor can it ever be, a substitute for the political solution inside East Pakistan. Should the donor Countries come to consider that the UNEPRO is a way of solving the refugee problem in India it would be both unrealistic and unfortunate. This committee will, I am sure, avoid such an impression. Even if East Pakistan was over-flowing with rice and other foods, people will continue to take refuge outside it and refuse to return to their homeland as long as political persecution continues. People have fled to India because they have been terrorised and are full of fear of being killed and maimed and humiliated in a variety of ways.

To sum up, Madam Chairman, the burden on India imposed by the political refugees from East Pakistan continues to grow and is becoming intolerable. We all know the reasons for this most massive movement of population in human history in such a short time, and judging from the statements made by the numerous delegations in the General Assembly during its 26th Session, it would appear that our organisation as a whole is clear on the steps that should be taken by the Government of Pakistan to reverse the present trends. There is, however, deep disappointment that neither the United Nations nor individual States have yet been able to persuade that Government to take steps towards a solution. We in India, who are facing the most vicious impact of the problem created by another country, have tried to deal with it as humanely as possible, and at a great cost to ourselves. It is not by skirting round the problem, not by expressing sympathies alone, not by rendering financial or other assistance-however urgent such assistance certainly is-and not by evading the responsibility for taking forthright decisions, that the international community can act justly towards 10 million helpless and unfortunate refugees taking temporary shelter in India. It is by clear reasoning, a clear grasp of the basic causes of the problem and by a determined effort to make the Government of Pakistan see reason and act in conformity with the acknowledged principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms, that this committee, or for that matter the U.N., can truly discharge their responsibility towards suffering millions of East Pakistanis. Before I conclude, I repeat that all the causes of the crisis lie in East Pakistan, and it can be solved only in co-operation with the elected and accepted leaders of the people of East Pakistan and in accordance with their freely expressed will. Meanwhile, as long as we eat, the refugee will eat also.

Source: Bangladesh Documents, vol-II, p. 102-108