minority chose to use the occasion for the very opposite, and it was clear that the language of force could only be met by force and that unless this was done even elementary law and order and security of life and honor could not be restored.
The sudden change which took place in March, 1971, in East Pakistan surprised not merely the caretaker administration and people in other parts of the country, but also those in East Pakistan who had voted in the elections on the understanding that the candidates and parties they were voting for were pledge to maintain the integrity and ideology of Pakistan.
The complete surprise of all these elements when the Pakistan flag was dishonored is an eloquent comment on the secrecy with which the anti State minority element had concealed its true aims, and how it had deceived people who had never imagined that their desire for decentralization would be utilized to throw them into the clutches of the very people they had liberated themselves from in 1947.
This then is the background to a consideration of the role of Pakistan's neighbor, India, in this internal crisis in Pakistan. In" order to place India's role in its proper perspective let us recall the obligations placed upon states within the International community; by International Law: by the United Nations: and by the common commitments existing in various regional groupings of countries.
II INTERNATIONAL LAW ON INTERVENTION
With regard to International Law there is a clear obligation on all states to respect the territorial jurisdiction of other states. In the 1927 Lotus Case, the Permanent Court of International Justice described this obligation that a state refrain from exercising its power “in any form" in the territory of another state as “the first and foremost restriction imposed by International Law upon states."
Closely connected with this obligation is the obligation placed upon every state to prevent injurious use of its territory. Here again there are cases of long standing which have affirmed and re-affirmed this principle
For example in the 1949 Corfu Channel Case the International Court of Justice repeated the well-recognized principle establishing “every state's obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other States"
So firmly established is this principle to the effect that each state has a legal duty to prevent the organisation within its territory of activities calculated to foment Strife in the territory of any other state that many states have enacted legislation declaring such acts criminal
Then again, the Commission of Investigation (established by the United Nations Security Council regarding border violations by Greece's neighbor during the Greek Civil War) concluded that “the existence of disturbed conditions in Greece in no way relieves the three northern neighbors of their duty under International Law to prevent and suppress subversive activity on their territory, aimed against another government, nor does it relieve them of direct responsibility for their support of the Greek guerrillas."
