Nehru was in no mood for such far- fetched claims. He strongly re-
futed Rahman’s assertions that the impending partition would aff ect the
status of India in the United Nations and, therefore, Rahman’s locus
standi in the committee. On July 10, he informed Rahman that the parti-
tion of India
does not aff ect the international status of India as a continuing en-
tity, and all our old obligations continue.... Your position on the
Palestine Special Committee is not aff ected in any way. I might point
out that it is not quite correct to say that you were nominated by the
United Nations. India was chosen as one of the countries to be repre-
sented on the Special Committee. The nomination of the representa-
tive from India was done by the Government of India and not by the
United Nations.^48The matter, however, did not end with this categorical response from
Nehru.
On August 10, less than a week before India’s partition, Rahman ob-
served that some committee members felt that following the division of
the subcontinent and formation of two in de pen dent states India “would
not continue to be a member of the United Nations, and I would conse-
quently not be entitled to represent India on this Committee.” Therefore,
Rahman suggested that he would present his views “in a sealed cover
with the Chairman of the Committee on the 14th August [the day of the
formation of Pakistan], to ask him not to open it until the report of the
Committee was ready.”^49 His doubts over India’s membership were mis-
placed. While Pakistan was admitted to the United Nations on Septem-
ber 30, 1947, India, being a founding member of the world body, emerged
as the legal successor to British India. There was no legal impediment to
either India’s continued membership in the United Nations or the con-
tinuation of Rahman in the committee.
Within days, another problem arose. This time Rahman and New
Delhi diff ered over the future of Palestine. He prepared two sets of re-
ports. In his initial proposal, dated August 14, 1947, the very eve of
India’s in de pen dence, he made a strong case for a unitary Palestine. He
felt that both the binational solution and the cantonal option were
undemo cratic and cumbersome. In his view, there were only two realistic
solutions to Palestine: partition or a unitary state. He rejected the federal
96 the partition of palestine