UNITED NATIONS, N. Y., Dec. 13—The Soviet Union tonight vetoed in the Security Council a United States resolution calling for an immediate cease‐fire and withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani forces to their own sides of the border. It was the third Soviet veto of such a resolution in nine days.

Yakov A. Malik, the Soviet delegate, said he rejected the American text mainly because it did not include a call for a political settlement acceptable to the East Pakistani insurgents. Eleven Council members voted for the resolution; Britain and France abstained. Poland joined the Soviet Union in opposition.

The resolution, submitted last night by the United States delegate, George Bush, was similar to one approved last Tuesday in the General Assembly, which India failed to accept.

Italy and Japan immediately after the vote submitted a new resolution that they hoped might bring a break in the deadlock between the big powers.

Their proposal called for an “immediate opening of negotiation [for] a comprehensive political settlement” as well as for a cease‐fire “as a first step” and for “operations of disengagement and withdrawal” without any allusion to borders.

In the short debate that followed, Mr. Malik called the Italian‐Japanese text a “serious” proposal, implying that it would be given serious consideration by the Soviet Union. The Council adjourned at 10 P.M. until 3 P.M. tomorrow.

At the start of the meeting the Soviet delegate tried in vain —as he had a week ago—to get the Council to hear a representative of the secessionist movement in East Pakistan.

The new Soviet veto of the American resolution had been predicted during the day by European and other Western diplomats who had conducted private consultations with both the American and the Soviet delegates.

Several of these diplomats were privately critical of the American decision to request a Council meeting yesterday and to press for a vote on a resolution that was known to be unacceptable to the Russians.

Some Sought Delay

These delegates would have preferred to wait for a few days. They felt that the changing military situation — especially the expected fall of Dacca—might induce Pakistan to accept a political settlement with the Bengali insurgents and lift the certainty of another Soviet veto.

The Council has been paralyzed because the veto‐wielding big powers have been divided. The Soviet Union has given allout support to India, while China and the United States have been backing Pakistan.

United States officials, however, indicated they thought it essential that both India and the Soviet Union be kept under visible pressure.

The American attitude was believed to be caused partly by concern that India, in the flush of victory, might take large‐scale military action in Kashmir. Western sources said that while India had given formal assurance, that she would not attack West Pakistan, her representatives had given elusive answers concerning their intentions toward Kashmir.

An Indian attempt to take by force the part of Kashmir that is occupied by Pakistan would cut Pakistan off from her common border with China and could provoke a Chinese military intervention, the sources said. This in turn could lead to a military confrontation between the Soviet Union and China.

The abstainers, Britain and France, have questioned all along the wisdom of what they considered an American tendency to “provoke” Soviet vetoes.

In order to get the support of 11 non-permanent members of the Council, Mr. Bush had to agree to soften the American text.

He deleted a paragraph calling on India to accept “forthwith” the appeal for cease‐fire and withdrawal issued by the General Assembly last Tues. day. Instead, he inserted a paragraph regretting that India had “not yet accepted” the Assembly's recommendation.

The change was made at the request of Toru Nakagawa, the delegate from Japan, and foreshadowed the efforts by Italy and Japan to find a compromise formula.

The Council again heard lengthy statements from the Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan and the debate was marked by several bitter clashes between Mr. Malik and Mr. Bush and Mr. Malik and Huang Hua, the Chinese representative.

This month's Council President, A. J. Pratt of Sierre Leone, ruled that Abu Sayeed Chowdhury could not appear before the Council because he was identified as a representative of “a new state called Bangla Desh,” as the East Pakistani secessionists refer to the nation they have proclaimed. The President said he was not satisfied that such a new state existed under international law.

After Mr. Pratt's first ruling Mr. Malik rephrased his motion in favor of Mr. Chowdhury, saying that the visitor, who was watching impassively from the gallery, should he heard as an individual who had important information to convey.

Mr. Pratt was ready to rule in favor of the second Soviet resolution Huang objected. The President then decided to put the issue to a vote. Mr. Malik, anticipating defeat, withdrew his motion.