Seventy-SixthYear
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

The Pakistan-Indian Struggle:

n: _ , :

na Are Free. 420 MAYNARD ST ANN ARBOR MYCH
1 Prevail'

NEWs PHONE: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1965 NIGHT EDITOR: SUSAN COLLINS
Colleges Should Provide
Contraceptives for Students . ..

THE EMOTIONALLY charged contro-
versy. over birth control, sex on the
campus and morality has been rekindled
this week by the revelation that Brown
University's health clinic has been pre-
scribing coritraceptives for unmarried co-
eds at Pembroke, Brown's undergradu-
ate women's college, who are over 21
or have parental permission.
The college campus, with its unique
set of social pressures and tensions, is a
natural focus of attention for the sexual
"revolution" which ,is said to be sweep-
ing through American culture. Increas-
ingly vocal demands are being made upon
university- administrations to liberalize
rules of conduct, sanction increased pri-
vacy for students living in dormitories
and make available contraceptives for all
coeds who desire them..
HOWEVER, the University takes a pe-
culiarly hypocritical position on the
issue of privacy. Dr. Morley Beckett, di-
rector of the University's Health Service,
says the clinic does not distribute birth
control information or devices because
this is a "private" area of concern. Yet,
Nthey
Shouldn't
HAT IS SENSITIVITY? The question
itself is sensitive, frightening ac-
tually to me. There was a time when I
was angry when my friends came out
of movies and told me how much they
had cried. (They think they're sensitive.
But if they really are, how can they bear
to flaunt it?) But now I wonder if per-
haps my refusal to show my feelings
was as bad as someone else's genuine
nonchalance; for on the surface the ap-
pearance is the same. Now I knoW' one
must not hide sensitivity, lest it become
lost. For everywhere we turn, someone
is saying that people do not feel anymore.
But perhaps this is why so many to-
day, in their efforts to regain sensitiv-
ity, claim that you must not let your
emotions go' unfulfilled or they will
freeze untapped and never flow. Since
sex is what people feel, they say, no one,
must stifle a feeling so strong.
AND SENSITIVITY and these attitudes
are relevant to today's problems. The
health center at' Brown University has
begun to prescribe birth control pills to
unmarried coeds.-Girls over 21 can have
them upon request, while girls under 21
must show proof of intending to marry.
By distributing the pills, Brown is in
a way expressing approval of their use.
The free choice of the person is all they
say they are endorsing; but are all stu-
dents ready for that choice? I must
think again of sensitivity. The pills will
surely slip down, to those who will use
them to strengthen their weak and loos-
ening ties. They will eventually .come in-
to .the hands of many who are killing
sensitivity as they strive so hard to find
it.
Mahy intellectuals say that sex is often
a necessary part of affection between
unmarried individuals. But how long can
it feasibly remain on this exalted plane?
With pills available for everyone to try,
sex cannot help but degenerate for many
into something they clutch at madly for
its own sake because everyone is doing
it. How many lives will be broken before
the people realize that sex without a
lasting commitment can ultimately give

nothing but pain, how soon before they
realize that their sensitivity is gone?
For feeling must extend deeper than,
the fingertips. I do not understand why
the same people who deplore the lack
of sensitivity in the world go on to advo-
cate sex as a way of attaining it. They
don't care that people can take pills and
commit themselves, to no person and no
ideal except what they think is emotion.
They do not think about the day when
many will become bored with it and
face a worse sterility. And when this
happens, how will they convince those
who follow not to find this out the hard
way?

by denying dormitory residents an ade-
quate degree of freedom and privacy, the
University Is intruding into the student's
private area of concern by setting itself
up as an arbiter of . personal morality.
The administration is, in effect, denying
to students the right to conduct any
kind of relationship which involves sex-
ual activity within dormitories - their
temporary home at the University.
Thus, those students who recognize
that a healthy sexual relationship be-
longs within the contexvt of a mature
and responsible emotional commitment
are condemned along with the many stu-
dents who adopt a more frivolous atti-
tude toward sexual activity.
These latter students have been led
astray by American society, which is to
psychologically adrift in its sexual code
of conduct. Rampant hypocrisy, consist-
ing of the still prevalent double stand-
ard for male and female sexual behavior
and a refusal to acknowledge the possi-
ble validity of alternate codes or morali-
ties, persists in this culture to an alarm-
aing degree. American "freedom" and
"democracy" has little if any tolerance
for individual sexual codes which may
be perfectly valid for that individual but
may differ from the accepted standard
within the peer group or subculture.
The unique combination of sexual re-
pression at most levels of society com-
bined with the blatant, exploitative use
of sex in its crudest, most meaningless
forms within the mass media results in
an increasing preoccupation with the no-
tion of physical, gratification devoid of
emotional meaning, responsibility or in-
ter-personal communication. The result
is a confusion of physical sex with emo-
tional fulfillment or love. A sexual rela-
tionship without emotional involvement,
while it may be better than no relation-
ship at all and thus should not be con-
deinfed by society, rarely brings as great
emotional fulfillment ad rewards as
one which is a part of deeper emotional
commitment between two individuals.
THE UNIVERSITY should not take it
upon itself to control or limit intimate
relationships. between students, nor
should it or any other social institution
dictate moral standards for the individ-
ual. The decision whether or not to en-
gage in premarital relations must be left
to the. Individual, and should not be an
object of coercion from any source.
Those students who are involved in
what they consider as a meaningful re-
lationship with another individual should
have knowledge of and access to contra-
ceptives. No one can possibly judge
whether or not the relationship is
"meaningful" except the two people in-
vo'ed. Even if they are wrong, they have
the right to make a mistake, since learn-
ing from one's own errors is one of the
most important parts of the learning
process in any area of life.
However, the University could go far
toward minimizing the tragic conse-
quences of some otherwise beneficial re-
lationships by providing birth control
information and contraceptives to wom-
en on this campus. In all states women
aged 18 or over are entitled to marry
without parental consent. Surely college
students, who may in many cases be
more emotionally mature and ready for
deep emotional involvements than non-
students, should not be unnecessarily
hampered in forming meaningful sexual
relationships because of the lack of ade-
quate safeguards against unwanted preg-
nancies.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN that the Uni-
versity will eventually dispense con-
traceptives the way flu shots are issued
-on a mass distribution basis. This
would not be desirable or even necessary.
There is little likelihood that students
not now engaging in sexual relationships
would be decisively swayed to do so just
because of the increased availability of
contraceptives (which are, after all, ob-
tainable from other sources).
But by dispensing contraceptives
through Health Service, the University
could take an important step toward
recognizing the need for students to be

In order to print the above
articles on the Kashmir crisis,
we are postponing the third
part of John Meredith's series
on the University's Flint branch
until tomorrow morning.
By J. SHANKAR
Secretary, Indian Students' Association
THE SECURITY COUNCIL of
the United Nations has ob-
tained a cease-fire in the Kashmir
war between India and Pakistan.
It is not an end for the 18-year-
old history of India-Pakistan con-
flict on Kashmir; however; it is
but , the beginning of another
chapter.
To appreciate and understand
the Kashmir problem one has to
look into the historical background
of the emergence of India and
Pakistan as independent countries
-their constitutions, governments
and aspirations.
As the British were leaving India,
in 1947, the majority of Muslims
in India, suspicious and fearful
of Hindu domination, insisted on
a separate state. It was decided
Pakistan would be carved out of
India to unify many Muslim-ma-
jority areas and create a home-
land for about 100 million Mus-
lims. This still left, however, about
50 million Muslims in India who
did not bother to migrate to Paki-
stan.
Pakistan established itself as
an Islamic State where a non-
Muslim is barred by law from be-
coming head of the state and
where a non-Muslim'is, by impli-
cation and treatment, a second-
class citizen.
The country went through several
crises of government and after two
coups now has a "controlled de-
mocracy," ruled by an autocratic
army general who esized power by
force. It has not held a single free
election under universal franchise
in the 18 years of its existence.
INDIA, on the other hand, has
adopted for herself a secular con-
stitution where no state religion is
recognized and where the freedom
to worship according to their own
wishes is guaranteed to all citi-
zens. True, Hindus form an over-
whelming majority, but there are
about 100 million in minority
groups, including Muslims, Chris-
tians, Jews, Parsees, etc.,
The present Indian vice-presi-
dent is a Muslim, and there are
many important dignitaries in the
Indian government who do not be-
long to the majority religion.
Three general elections have been
since 1951, the largest free elec-
tions in the world.
With different cultures, reli-
gions and more than 200 lan-
guages, India continues to exist as
a free democratic nation, setting
an example for "unity in diver-
sity."
THE PARTITION of India at the
time of independence was con-
fined to that part of the country
which was directly under the
British rule. About a third of the
country was ruled by a large va-
riety of princes. They were, under
the law of independence, given
the right to join either India or
Pakistan or, indeed, remain free if
they could.
Many acceded to India and
some to Pakistan, depending on
the religion of the state and on
geographic contiguity,
The land of Kashmir had been
ruled by a series of Buddhist and
Hindu dynasties until the 14th
century. It was under the control
of Moghul and Afghanistan rules

until 1819, when it was conquered
by Hindu Maharaja Ranjit Singh
of Punjab. In 1946, the Hindu rul-
er was defeated by the English,
and the new ruler, Maharaja Gu-
lab Singh, had to pay $2 million
to the English to continue to gov-
ern Jammu and Kashmir.
AT THE TIME of partition, the
then-Hindu ruler of Kashmir
could not decide what the status
of his land would be, for he was
entertaining the idea of an inde-
pendent Kashmir and was nego-
tiating with both India and Paki-
stan. At the time, he signed a
"stand-still" agreement with Paki-
stan. The Indian government de-
layed such an agreement while it
considered what the implications
would be.
Very soon, however, the Paki-
stani government could wait no
longer and cut off all supplies of
essential commodities to the state.
.Military pressure was also applied
in the form of hit-and-run border
raids on the Pakistan-Kashmir
frontier.
When these methods failed, an
all out invasion of Kashmir was
started by Pakistan in October,
1947.
THE KASHMIR Maharaja asked
for India's help two days later. On
the advice of then Governor Gen-
eral Lord Mountbattan, who had
remained in India to oversee the
transition to full independence,
the Maharaja readily acceded to
India (under the power given to
him by the British) to enable the
Indian Government to intervent.
He also unilaterally volunteered to
ascertain the wishes of the people
of Kashmir to confirm the acces-
sion.
The Indian army was sent to
Kashmir to start pushing back the
Pakistani invaders. At the same
time,. March 31, 1948 the Indian
Government took the matter to
the United Nations.-
The UN was able to arrange a
cease-fire to take effect from
January 1st, 1949, which left
about one-third of Kashmir un-
der Pakistan control and about
two-thirds under India's control.
THE UN resolutions of August
31, 1948. and Jan. 1, 1949, re-
quired that
Pakistan shall withdraw its
troops from the States of Jam-
mu and Kashmir and will use its
best endeavor to securesthe
withdrawal from the states of
Jammu and Kashmir of tribes-
men and Pakistani nationals who
have entered the state for the
purpose of fighting.
When the commission shall
have notified the Government o
India that the tribesmen and
Pakistani nationals have with-
drawn, thereby terminating the
situation which was represented
by the Government of India to
the security council as having
occasioned the presence of In-
dian forces in the states of
Jammu and Kashmir, the Gov-
ernment of India should begin
to withdraw the bulk of their
forces from the state in stages
to be agreed upon with the
commission.
The question of the accession
of the states of Jammu and
Kashmir to India or Pakistan
will be decided through the
democratic method of a free
and impartial plebiscite, and it
will be held when it shall be
found by the commission that
the cease-fire and truce ar-
rangements set forth in the
Aug. 13, 1948, resolution have

been carried out and arrange-
ments for the plebiscite have
been completed.
BOTH INDIA and Pakistan ac-
cepted the two resolutions, but
Pakistan refused to give up its
part of control in Kashmir and
India refused to be bound by its
pledge to hold a plebiscite uless
the first part of the resolution--
that Pakistan should vacate its
part of Kashmir-was fulfilled.
Each country has held on to
its position for the past 18 years,
and the process of Kashmir ac-
cession to India has been gradu-
ally completed.
India has taken the stand that
Kashmir is an integral part of
India. Pakistan, however, has in-
creasingly become restless, for it
did not achieve its objective of
annexing Kashmir. It started
sending armed infiltrators into
Kashmir in the early part of Au-
gust, 1965, to begin guerrilla war.
The plan appears to be that
Pakistan would later bring pres-
sure on the UN for an early solu-
tion of Kashmir issue. This was
halted by the Indian military
counter-action and this in turn
has led to a major, undeclared
war.
It was proved by the UN ob-
servers that the Pakistanis started
this new series of inicidents, and
world pressure has forced Paki-
stan to accept this second cease-
fire.
THE PAKISTANI government is
now stating, for the first time in
18 years, that it would withdraw
from Kashmir completely-to be
followed by an Indian withdrawal'
and a plebiscite. One very im-
portant point which Pakistan ig-
nores, however, is the Communist'
Chinese troops who also occupy
parts of Kashmir and should also
be withdrawn.
The state of Jammu and Kash-
mir has a total area of roughly
84,000 square miles-divided be-.
tween India, Pakistan and China.
India occupies approximately 36,-
000 square miles, Pakistan occu-
pies about 31,000 and China holds
17,000.
The Chinese-occupied territory
consists of 14,000 square miles tak-
en forcibly and 3000 square miles
granted by Pakistan in 1963..
One of the results of this grant
was to bringChinese territory into
direct contiguity with the Kara-
koram Pass, the gateway to the
Indian subcontinent. India has
never accepted China's right to
this land.
Does Pakistan have the right to
give 3000 square miles of Kash-
mir to China if it accepts that
Kashmir belongs neither to Paki-
stan nor to India? Can Pakistan
force the Chinese to vacate this
land so that Kashmir is com-
pletely cleared of foreign armies?
The answer to both questions must
be no.
THE QUESTION now facing the
world is to how this problem can
be solved and how justice and
peace can be restored in the sub-
continent.' A number of further,
more general observations relat-
ing to political developments in
the two countries for the past 18
years are relevant to this question.
Since 1951, India has held three
general elections in its part of
Kashmir, as in the rest of India.
All parties, including pro-Paki-
stani groups, were freely allowed
to contest, but each time the pro-

The Indian View

Indian parties were elected with
great majorities.
The assembly so elected rati-
fied the accession of Kashmir to
India, and the Indian Government
feels this satisfies its guarantee'
to ascertain the wishes of the peo-
ple of Kashmir. Therefore, as far
India is concerned, the accession
of Kashmir is complete, legal and
final, and the Kashmir question is
once and for all solved.
Although India considers that
the part of Kashmir held by Paki-
stan is also Indian, it is willing to
settle for status quo in the in-
terests of peace.
PAKISTAN, WHICH has not
conducted a single free electibn
under universial franchise in its
country, insists on a plebiscite in
Kashmir in the hope that it will
have a chance to appeal to fan-
atic religious elements of the state
with the cry of "Islam in danger."
It hopes todsow seeds of suspicion
against 'Hindu India' and to get
the Kashmiris to opt for Pakistan.
Pakistan joined the western
block to gain western support on
the Kashmir issue (not to oppose
Communism). When it did not get
any material help from the West
on the Kashmir issue, it turned
to Communist China, and with
China's support and American
military equipment (intended for'
use against Communism), it has
turned against India. When Com-
munist China attacked India in
1962, Pakistan alone outside the
Communist world (except Rus-
sia) called India the aggressor.
The Chinese, who were neutral
tral in Kashmir until 1962, have
now suddenly chosen to support
Pakistan. To get further help from
China, Pakistan hts allowed Chi-
nese planes to stop at Pakistan
airports on their way to Africa,
where the Chinese are trying to
build up their image.
Pakistan has been attempting
everything possible just to get the
Kashmir issue settled to its ad-
vantage.
INDIA, AS A secular state re-
sponsible for the safety of about
45 million Muslims outside Kash-
mir, does not want a contest where
raw religious hatreds are fanned.
Any action such as the plebiscite,
which is designed to prove that all
of the 5 million Muslims in Kash-
mir are Pakistani at heart, would
make the 45 million Muslims in
the rest of India suspect and put
theirysafety and positions in jeo-
pardy.
An election such as this could
only result in the type of turmoil
that followed te partition of Inlia,
with all its massacre and forced
migration of minorities fo fear of
their lives.
"PLEBISCITE" is a nice word
which appeals to everybody. By
opposing a plebiscite, India ap-
pears to be in a position of op-
posinc a plebiscie, India appears
posing the principle it preaches.
But 50 million Muslims in India
are equal and honoured citizens,
and India does not accept the
principle that every Muslim in In-
dia is a Pakistani at heart.
Pakistan, on the. other hand, is
a theocracy, and its claim to have
jurisdiction over the loyalty of all
Muslims outside Pakistan is fale.
It is ruled by a military dicta-
torship 'which calls Pakistan a

basic democracy. Its call for a
plebiscite in Kashmir would be a
joke if it weren't for the tragic
armed conflict Pakistan has pre-
cipitated in the wake of this de-
mand.
IT IS A MATTER of regret that
the Indian viewpoint on Kashmir
is not given accurate publicity by
the United States media. For ex-
ample,.a good portion of the U.S.
press writes continually of India's
opposition to a plebiscite. The
press ignores, however, the fact
that Pakistan never observed the
first part of the 1947 United Na-
tions resolution-it never removed
its armies from Kashmir.
Moreover, India has declared
that in the present Kashmir strug-
gle it has not used any of the
American military equipment giv-
en to it during the Chinese aggres-4
sion of 1962. Pakistan has not de-
nied this contention. 'Yet the
American press continues to state
that American weapons given as
aid to India and Pakistan are be-"
ing used by both countries.
It is perfectly justifiable if the
U.S. government and press take a
different view on this issue, but
if the news media suppress facts
and give very biased viewpoints
to the public, little is being done
to solve the international prob-
lems. On the contrary, this com-
plicates matters more and certain-
ly does harm to the principles of
democracy.
This makes the U.S. no different
from the Communist countries,
where it is known that news will
reach hte public only when it does
not differ from the government
policies.
FOR ALL practical purposes,
India feels the Kashmir issue is
closed. Kashmiris have always
been peace-loving people and have
never revolted against Indian rule
at any time-not even at the time
of the present conflict.
If Pakistan should attack In-
dia to solve this problem, it would
most certainly lose the war, for it
is a relatively small nation. And if
"friendly" countries should inter-
vene on behalf of either Pakistan
or India, there might well be a
third world war.
Unfortunately, there now seems
to be no other way except by force
for the problem to be solved. As
John Grigg, well-known British
commentator for the London 
newspaper "The Guardian," says,
If the conflict were only ov-
er a piece of territory-it would
have been solved long ago. But
Kashmir is the symbol of a
much deeper conflict-a conflict
over . fundamentls. IUotb sides
are fighting for national survi-
val and for the very principles
of their national existence.
Pakistan has to assert the com-
munal idea; India has to resist
it.
One or the other must win.
There will, be no permanence in
a cease-fire until one or the
other has established a clear ad-
vantage. Only when the under-
lying issue has been decided-
and decided in favor of secular-
ism-will there be any hope of
lasting peace in the subcontin-
ent.
If India loses, the fissiparous
tendencies in thhe country wil
soon get out of control, and the
light of freedom will be extin-
guished in Asia. Either way,
those in the West who are now
failing to support India will
have massive cause for regret.

4

4

Shorn Defends Voice Policy, Hits Daily Coverage

To the Editor:
AS AN "INBRED" and "hier-
archical" leader in Voice-SDS,
I must respond to the many un-
just and exaggerated criticisms of'
the present structure and leader-
ship of Voice Political Party.
It must be said that Voice has
not been the most successful stu-
dent group in the nation, nor the
most successful activist group on
campus. Its failings are partially
due to the fact that those people
who are now forming a second
"chapter" of SDS have not made
a serious attempt to join and work
towards building the type of SDS
chapter they would like to see at
Michigan. Indeed, they have play-
ed virtually no role in Voice nor
have they tried to impliment their
philosophy through Voice due to
preconceived notions of elitism in
Voice and due to their own lack
of conviction regarding their own
philosophy.
Voice membership is open to
anyone, and those who have cri-
ticized it have failed to join and
participate in discussions. To be-
come active in Voice does not even
require going through the physical
act of joining. All one has to do
is come to meetings. Those who
wish to engage in discussion, work
on projects, or formulate pro-
grams are not prevented from do-
ing so. Voice has always been open
to those who wish to involve them-
selves in any project within the

Thursday's election meeting until
9 p.m., one and one-half hours
after the meeting began. Stan
Nadel and Alan Jones, candidates
for chairman, failed to appear, yet
all three knew the time and place
of the meeting. In fact Mr. Nadel
had informed Mr. Jones that he
was not planning to run for the
post. yet Alan Jones failed to
appear at the meeting to inform
the group of this and speak for
himself as a candidate.
FAILURE of Voice to fulfill the
constitutional requirements for an
election had already caused the
postponement of two previous
elections. Last Thursday's meeting
was advertised in The Daily, and
a mailing was sent to every mem-
ber as well as every person who
had signed the Voice mailing list.
In addition signs were posted on
the Diag. This meeting had been
announced at the Voice member-
ship meeting preceeding the elec-
tion. Nominations were made and
amendments were proposed at the
meeting.
In all people knew of the meet-
ing and its amendments at least
one week before the election. Even
though Alan Jones and Stan Nadel
did not show up for the meeting,
people were asked to speak for
them. Robert Thorson, member of
the new dissident group, spoke for
Alan Jones, while no one was will-
ing to speak for Stan Nadel. Ques-
tions were asked of Robert Thor-

up to the actual election. He fail-
ed to do so.
VOICE POLITICAL PARTY is
the University SDS chapter and as
a chapter of SDS and a unit of
that democratic group, feeds into
its philosophy and its own values.
SDS philisophy is derived from
the values and ideas of its mem-
ber chapters. Voice's philosophy is
different from SDS in that it is
contributing to that philosophy.
Certainly if it followed any SDS
line, if SDS had a line, Voice
would be less democratic than it is.
We are not a cadre of select SDS-
lovers. We are individuals, radicals
and liberals. We are not a mono-
lith. We are of varying philoso-
phies. We are intellectuals and we
are nonintellectuals. If we have
failed to appeal to the intellec-
tuals of the Ann Arbor Commun-
ity it is because those intellectuals
have failed to become a part of
Voice and develop a more "ad-
vanced" philosophy. If some of
those who are in the dissident
group would come to Voice meet-
ings and plan and participate in
the decisions that they make, they
could initiate many of the pro-
grams that they would like to see
Voice sponsor.
The present actions of the dis-
sident group have accomplished
nothing but create more factional-
ism on this campus. Certainly there
were avenues open within Voice
for them to create change. They

"You Fellows Want To Get Into The Ball Game
Or Sit In The .Gra-id-tands?"


G.


-0