UNITED NATIONS, N. Y., Dec. 6—The Security Council voted tonight to transfer debate on the question of the Indian‐Pakistani war to the General Assembly. The vote in the 15‐member Council was 11 votes in favor, none against.

The resolution was presented in the Council because of repeated vetoes by the Soviet Union and the threat of further vetoes on various draft resolutions.

The United States and China were among those that voted in favor of the shift, which was proposed in a resolution introduced by the delegate of Somalia. Those abstaining were Poland and the Soviet Union, which side with India, and Britain and France, which have reservations about the wisdom of passing the issue to the 131‐ member Assembly. The Assembly has no veto but its large membership makes debate often confused and inconclusive. It also has no powers of enforcement under the Charter. Vetoes were not permitted on the Somali resolution under special emergency procedures known as “uniting for peace” that were, set up 21 years ago for moving crisis issues to the Assembly, if the Council proved paralyzed.

Urging the shift, the resolution put forward by the Somali Ambassador, Abdulrahim Abby Farah, noted that “lack of unanimity” had prevented the Council from exercising “its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace.”

The substantive part of the Somali resolution read as follows:

“The Security Council, taking into account that the lack of unanimity of its permanent members at the 1,606th and 1,607th meetings of the Security Council has prevented it from exercising its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, decided to refer the question to the 26th session of the General Assembly, as provided for in General Assembly Resolution 377 of 3 November 1950.”

The Council's President, Ismael B. Taylor‐Kamara of Sierra Leone, said after the vote, “I shall immediately communicate this decision to the President of the General Assembly.” Western diplomats said the Assembly might take up the question in the morning.

Thant Reports Shelling

Secretary General Thant, who returned to his office today after an illness, reported that “active” shelling and air strikes by both sides were continuing in Kashmir. Quoting United Nations observers along the Kashmir cease‐fire lines, he said “no ground moves had been made” there by either army, however, in the 24 hours up to 11 A.M. today, West Pakistan time (1 A.M. Monday, New York time).

On the eastern front, a United Nations spokesman here reported, a Canadian C‐130 was shot at by aircraft—which he did not identify—as is was reconnoitering the Dacca airport before landing there to pick up and evacuate United Nations and non‐Pakistani officials and their families.

The spokesman said a temporary cease‐fire in the area had been agreed upon by both the Indian and Pakistani authorities.

In an interview at the Secretariat, he said that the C‐130 transport had caught ‘fire bust that the fire had been put out and that the plane was now flying back to Bangkok, the point of departure for its abortive mercy mission. There was no word about casualties.

The spokesman said that 265 persons, including 45 United Nations employes and 90 wives and children of consular officials, were to have been flown out.

Plea From Nicaraguan

The Nicaraguan representative, Guillermo Sevilla‐Sacasa, expressed the mounting desperation when he called on the United Nations to act.

“Neither the Security Council nor the General Assembly can remain motionless,” he said, “while machine guns do away with thousands of lives in a region where understanding should flourish and brotherly understanding. This is all I wish to say. I wish to say only this, at the hour of grave responsibility which is vested in us, let us do something, distinguished colleagues. Let us do something and do it soon.”

But as the debate went into its third day, Italy withdrew draft cease‐fire resolution and France announced that her efforts toward framing another resolution had failed.

No resolution has been adopted so far, largely because the Soviet Union and China— both of which, as permanent members of the Council, have the veto—have been at logger heads in the packed Council chamber.

The Chinese delegate, Huang Hua, denounced the Soviet delegate, Yakov A. Malik, in harsh terms.

Mr. Huang said to Mr. Malik “I am most willing to listen to you, sir, because this will enable myself and others to see more clearly the true features of. Soviet imperialism.”

Mr. Malik concerned himself largely with procedural issues, which have contributed to, and complicated, the stalemate.

Mindful of this,, Mr. Sevilla Sacasa reminded the Council that machinery existed to transfer debate on a crisis issue to the General Assembly.

Some delegations, Including the British and French, are understood to feel, however, that little can be accomplished by touching off debate in the 131‐member Assembly, even though there is no veto there.

There was no immediate comment from the Indian and Pakistani delegations on two two‐page military reports on the situation in Kashmir that were made public ‘here in Mr. Thant's name.

The more recent report began as follows:

“The chief’ military observer of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan, Lieut. Gen. Luis Tassara Gonzales, reported on Dec. 6, 1971 at 11 hours that no major change in the pattern of air and ground activity had taken place since his previous report. The area along the cease‐fire line had been active, but no ground moves had been made by either the Indian or Pakistan military forces.”

The other report, issued 24 hours earlier to cover the previous 24 hours, said General Tassara Gonzales had reported “that sporadic air activity by both sides was continuing.”

It went on:

“Ground activity along the cease‐fire line was very active during the past 24 hours, with almost continuous artillery, mortar and small‐arm fire.”

The reports drew on data compiled by United Nations observers at field stations in the area. Their listings of “heavy exchanges of artillery fire” and air raids by Indian and Pakistani aircraft spurred the feeling of urgency that has spread here, contrasting as they did with the diplomats’ inaction.

Diplomats who had hoped for Council action on the Indian Pakistani crisis were gloomy as Council members began to take their seats around the great arc‐shaped table for the third straight day of debate.

One pro‐Indian official said, “The discussion has been only a mass of cobweb.” A European diplomat observed edgily that if the Council failed to act effectively, “its prestige is at risk.”

The British delegation appeared to be among the least pessimistic. A spokesman for its jovial chief, Sir Colin Crowe, said in an interview, “While the Council is close to deadlock, it would not be right to give up hope of finding some minimal common ground which would enable it to discharge its responsibilities” for peace‐keep ling.

The French delegation was understood to hold a similar view.

Pro‐American informants asserted that some of the non permanent members hoped that a shift to the Assembly would bring a resolution that would be along the lines of the United States resolution put before the Council Saturday night. That called for a cease‐fire and withdrawal of both nations’ troops to their own soil. It was vetoed by the Soviet Union, as was one the next day.

However, a resolution adopted by the Assembly Is only recommendation and not binding on the nations concerned.

India is considered here to be extremely unlikely to carry out a cease‐fire at present, while her forces appear to be gaining momentum in East Pakistan.

The machinery to shift to the Assembly is set out in three resolutions, approved by the General Assembly in 1950, which are known jointly as the “uniting for peace” resolutions.

Among other things, they make this stipulation:

“If the Security Council, be cause of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to [act] in any case where ‘here appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members.”

The machinery provides that an emergency meeting for this purpose is to be called if re quested by any nine or more of the 15 Council members or by a majority of the 131 United Nations members. Thus no Council veto is permitted.

The “uniting for peace” procedure has been used on five previous occasions, all of which arose when the General Assembly was not already in session. They were October, 1956—the Suez crisis; November, 1956— the Hungarian revolution; Au gust, 1958—Lebanon and Jordan; September, 1960—the Congo crisis; June, 1967 the Arab‐Israeli war.

The general outlook for United Nations action was under stood to have been discussed by the Secretary General in a midday meeting with the Council President. It was Secretary General Thant's first day back in the Secretariat after more than a month spent in a hospital and at his home in Riverdale, recovering from an ulcer.