UNITED NATIONS, N. Y., Nov. 18—The head of the United Nations’ relief operation in East Pakistan warned today that active opposition from “any quarter” would compel the aid program to cease.

The warning, by Assistant Secretary General Paul Marc Henry, was known to reflect rising fears here that the humanitarian activities directed by 85 United Nations officials were jeopardized by stepped up military activities, in particular by the East Pakistani guerrilla forces. One relief ship flying the United Nations flag was blown up in Chittagong harbor and supply trucks have been attacked.

[In New Delhi, The Associated Press reported that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had turned down U Thant's offer to help relieve tensions between India and Pakistan. She suggested, instead, that he concentrate on ending the civil war in East Pakistan]. At the General Assembly's Social Committee meeting, the underlying theme of Mr. Henry's remarks was that the col lapse of the United Nations’ relief program would be calamitous for all political factions.

Earlier, — at the committee meeting, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, declared that voluntary repatriation of the East Pakistani refugees who have fled to India offered the only “viable and lasting solution” in the present crisis.

Prince Sadruddin, attempting to pursue‐a neutral course, remarked that the Indian Government said 9,744,404 refugees now were on Indian soil, while Pakistan put the figure at 2,002,623. He also quoted the World Bank, authorities as having said that there would be 9,000,000 in refugee camps by the end of the year.

He said that the relief needs of the refugees would come to $700,000,000 in the year ending March, 1972, and that only $247,600,000 had been contributed or pledged.

Pessimistic Picture

The High Commissioner, whose office has become the focal point of all refugee aid funneled through the United Nations, drew a pessimistic picture.

“The suffering is not over, but continues,” he said. “The number has not lessened, but has increased; the gap between needs and resources, which has consistently been adverse, threatens catastrophically to become a chasm.”

Today's debate was seen by many here as a necessary effort to underscore the needs of the refugees and the predicament of the famine‐threatened people of East Pakistan if United Nations aid, amounting to 200,000 tons of grain monthly, should cease or if the expected harvest should fall short of predicted goals.

However, all sides agree that the situation along the India‐ Pakistan border is deteriorating dangerously. There appears to be no prospect here of tackling the root causes of the situation that arose in the spring when West Pakistani troops moved into East Pakistan to quell the Bengali separatist movement and touched off the flight of refugees into India.

In August, Secretary General Thant warned members of the Security Council that peace would be threatened if India turned for help to the Soviet Union and Pakistan to China. However, the major powers show little interest in airing the issue here, partly because they feel that an acrimonious debate would raise tensions. It has also been suggested that they do not want to take sides publicly with either party.

India opposes a council debate because she contends that the conflict is an internal Pakistani affair and the only way it can be settled is by a reconciliation with the leaders of the people of East Bengal. India's position was reiterated today by Samar Sen, the chief delegate, who accused Pakistan of continuing terrorism and genocidal punishment of the people of East Pakistan.

Pakistan, which has accused India of fomenting and aiding the separatist movement, repeated in the committee that she was willing to accept United Nations observers along the border to facilitate repatriation if India Would also accept them.

Pakistan has been sounding out council members on the possibility of a meeting, apparently counting on the new support of China‐ in the United Nations. However, some Western sources suggested that China was not eager for such meeting because of the prospects of an emotional and angry debate among the big powers.

These sources also suggest that China would not want to come out in opposition to the separatist movement, which has attracted to its ranks some so called Marxist Communists friendly to Peking.

Chinese representatives had expressed interest in attending the debate, but none showed up for the speeches.