বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (দ্বাদশ খণ্ড)/৬০
| শিরোনাম | সূত্র | তারিখ |
|---|---|---|
| বি-বি-সি’তে প্রচারিত মার্ক টালীর সাথে প্রধানমন্ত্রীর সাক্ষাৎকার[১] | ‘দি ইয়ার্স এণ্ডীভার’ | ১৬ নভেম্বর, ১৯৭১ |
A SERIOUS SITUATION
Question: Prime Minister, it has always been India’s point of view in this present crisis over the refugees, that other countries should put pressure on Pakistan to ameliorate the situation in East Pakistan so that the refugees can go back. What sort of pressure do you envisage that other countries could put on Pakistan?
The Prime Minister: Well, Pakistan has been getting help, military and economic, from other countries and I think that had this been made clear at the beginning that they would not get support in this adventure or misadventure that they are indulging in Bangladesh, this matter would never have gone so far.
Question: But do you think there is anything now that other countries can do?
The Prime Minister: Quite frankly, I don’t really see anything very specific myself, but I am one of those people who are born optimists and therefore I feel that the most insoluble problem has some solution if people are only willing to find it.
Question: It is perhaps a little unfair to ask you this before you have been to the United States, but are you particularly worried about the attitude of the American Government in this matter?
The Prime Minister: I wouldn’t isolate the American Government because I think that many Governments are hesitating to take a positive stand on this issue and because of the large number of refugees and the very real economic and other burdens on us, people’s attention is divided to the refugees. We are fun of sympathy for them and we do want help from them, but it would be very unfortunate if all the attention is on looking after the refugees rather than solving, removing the cause of why this exodus is taking place. Because as long as you don't deal with the cause you simply can’t do anything except provide a little bit more comfort to the refugees.
Question: What is the remedy for this cause?
The Prime Minister: Obviously to solve the problems of East Bengal.
Question: But could you be more specific, how would you see them solved?
The Prime Minister: Well, first I think it is for the people themselves and their elected leaders to decide what they want or what settlement they want. But so far as I am able to gather, I doubt very much if they will now settle for anything except their full rights.
Question: By their full rights you mean autonomy within Pakistan or Independence.
The Prime Minister: At this moment there is lot of bitterness and hatred on both sides, but more on the side of the East Bengalis because they are the people who have been killed. They cannot forget what happened on the night of 25th March when there was this entirely unprovoked attack on the university where students and faculty members were killed in large numbers. And even now, although everybody is being killed, the concentration is on the intellectuals, on the young people and on the minorities.
Question: I think there has been universal admiration for the way that India has coped with the problem of looking after the refugees. But I think some people are confused as to why India will not accept a large United Nations presence in the refugee camps as Pakistan has suggested. Why won’t India accept this?
The Prime Minister: If I may deal with the admiration part first. It is a little bit of an irritant because, it is nice to be admired, but if people think you say a few flattering words and that is enough, well it is not because we are getting the verbal admiration and it seems to us the others are getting the more material help. So far as the U.N. observers are concerned we already have ten people. Ours is an open society, no censorship on newspapers, no limitation or restriction on who will visit the camps and everybody does, not only from other countries, but even people from our own country, whom we would rather wish they did not go, but anyway they go there and to the border and so on. What would be the purpose of more U.N. observers? There are ten of them now. It is only a device, I think, of Pakistan to show that India and Pakistan are on the same level. This is what we resent. It does not matter if a hundred U.N. people come. But quite frankly they will be able to do nothing. Apart from that, what we resent is the two countries being put on par.
Question: The guerillas in East Pakistan are clearly one of the reasons why there is unrest there still and yet India is widely reported to shelter them and give them some assistance. Don’t you feel that if you were to withdraw this shelter and assistance then the situation might calm down a little bit East Pakistan?
The Prime Minister: Certainly not. On the contrary I think it would be very much worse. So far as giving shelter and help is concerned, you know our border is such that we cannot stop people coming or going. Even British teams have gone back and forth without our knowing where they left India and where they came back. And so far as help is concerned, you know there are vast numbers of East Bengalis living in England, in the U.S. and various other countries, who are supporting this movement. Furthermore the guerillas are functioning all over East Bengal, not near the Indian border necessarily. And also the bases of them are the paramilitary forces which existed before-the East Pakistan Rifles, the East Bengal Rifles-and they already had quite a fair amount of weapons.
Question: You were elected Prime Minister, on a platform to, as you describe it, “Garibi Hatao” -to cradicate poverty. Now clearly the burden of the refugees must have set the Indian economy back. What exactly is the state of the Indian economy now?
The Prime Minister: The economy is not as healthy as it should be. All the problems are more acute, but if anybody thinks we are going under with this they are mistaken, because the Indian people have learnt, or just through sheer experience, they have the endurance of bearing enormous burdens. I think the capacity of man to suffer is limitless, and when there is a cause, such as the integrity and stability of the country, this quality, this endurance comes to the force.
Question: Could we just look briefly at India's foreign policy? The Soviet-India Peace Treaty. I this, worried some people in this country, because India, of course, has always been known as a non-aligned country and some people have felt that non-alignment and peace treaty with Russia are not compatible.
The Prime Minister: But only those people have felt so who anyhow were against non-alignment and who did not approve of it. This Treaty has not affected non-alignment in any possible way. We retain our freedom to make our own decision and take our own action.
Question: India has said that she wants to improve relationship with China. Now surely signing a peace Treaty with Russia is not going to help you to improve your relations with China.
The Prime Minister: Why not? Perhaps you have seen what Mr. Chou En-lai said. He said it would make no difference.
Question: And you are not worried about the Pakistani situation-your relationship with China either.
The Prime Minister: No.
Question: What about the United Nations? India has always supported China’s entry into the United Nations. Do you feel that now that China is there, the United Nations is going to function more efficiently or less efficiently?
The Prime Minister:' I think that is hardly a fair question. I really do not know how it is going to function. Only the future can tell. There is no reason why it should be less efficient. You can say it may take another direction.
'Question: Now could we turn finally to aid and trade. President Nixon announced a package decision to protect the dollar, and only at the weekend we bear the Senate’s decision on the Aid Bill. Are you concerned about these general signs of American isolationism and the possible effect of it on trade and a trade war building up?
The Prime Minister: Naturally it will affect our economy, but these are matters for the Americans to decide and we just have to adjust to whatever they do. But there is one fact, which is, that in the last year the whole nature of these loans has been such that, whatever we get, almost seven-eighths of it is used in repayments, so that we don’t get very much anyhow.
Question: I know that India has taken a particularly strong line on the fact that the recent discussions on the international monetary system have appeared to ignore the interests of the under-developed countries. Do you think there is any way of bringing the under-developed countries more into these discussions?
The Prime Minister: We would only like tour interests to be guarded by these countries because if the division between the rich and the poor countries becomes sharper then I think it can only add to general tension in the world, which, in the long run will not be good for the richer countries either. And I don't think these floating currencies are very helpful. We would like to have a more stable situation.
Question: Prime Minister, lastly could I return just to the situation in India and Pakistan and ask you how seriously you view the tensions between your country and your neighbor, Pakistan?
The Prime Minister: I think that the more serious problem is not the confrontation on the border-I have come to this view only in the last few minutes I might and-but this constant effort of people in other countries to divert attention from what is the basic question, because that never solves anything. You can divert, you can find a temporary solution, but if there is an illness and you are not treating the cause of the illness, well, it recurs-and it can recur in a more violent form.
Question: But how long do you feel then that this illness can go on without the situation sliding into something far more serious, even a war?
The Prime Minister: Well, it is sliding into something more serious right now.
* * * * *
Question: Prime Minister, the mass migration of Pakistanis into India has received an enormous amount of world attention. What do you feel the choices facing India now are?
The Prime Minister: The choices are extremely limited. The situation keeps on deteriorating, which will have very serious consequences on the Indian economy, on the stability, the security and even integrity of the country.
Question: But as a result of your visit to Western Europe, do you feel that there is a possibility that the concern which nearly all countries have expressed for India, will be translated into action of some kind?
The Prime Minister: Although people here are concerned, but Europe has always looked at the world from European cyes, whereas all the other countries of Asia and Africa, because of their own compulsion, their own problems, have to deal with them from the point of view of their own interest. Many European countries-not only European, other countries as well-have been trying to maintain what they call a balance of power on the sub-continent. I think this is a question not for me to answer, but for them to answer whether they think that an India which is weak, or not so stable, can serve any useful purpose for peace in Asia.
Question: Would you say then that you are disappointed with the result of your visits and your talks with the Prime Minister, that you don’t feel that they understand the problems sufficient?
The Prime Minister: No, I am not disappointed. Firstly, because I never expect anything and I think they do have an understanding. Now the question is to feel the question or the difficulty sharply enough or deeply enough to want to do something about it.
Question: Given the long history of intractable disputes, like Kashmir, on the sub-continent, do you get the feeling that people somehow believe that it might be easier to subsidies this calamity, to pay for it rather than to solve it?
The Prime Minister: Which people? As you see now, other things may have remained the same, but India has not. We are not dependent upon what other countries think, or want us to do. We know what we want for ourselves and we are going to do it, whatever it costs. We welcome help from any country, but if it does not come, well, it is all right by us.
Question: But can you tell us what is the military situation on the frontiers with Pakistan today-because it docs appear confused. President Yahya Khan of Pakistan last week called for the withdrawal of armored forces and troops to peacetime positions which suggests that you are in a state of war.
The Prime Minister: We are not in a state of war. So far as the troops themselves are concerned, they are on the borders on both sides. But President Yahya Khan should have thought of this before he moved his troops, because they did move long before our troops moved. Our troops moved only when we felt there was a very serious threat to our security. I have no doubt that had we not been prepared, he would have walked in, and I would like to remind you that we have been attached by Pakistan twice before. So for us it is not a theoretical problem at all.
Question: But last week there were reports of battalion-sized actions and aircraft being involved and casualties up in the region of something like five hundred. Is that what is happening on the border?
The Prime Minister: I doubt it very much. We have had the experience also of other statements made by leaders across the border, which they themselves have retracted afterwards in world forums. So this is not the first time that we hear all these things.
Question: But there have been artillery duels across this border for some time now, have not there-in the East?
The Prime Minister: Yes, there has been some shelling.
Question: Are they continuing?
The Prime Minister: I think so.
Question: Broadly then, how would you describe the tension on the borders? Is it..?
The Prime Minister: Well, it is very tense, as I said, it is extremely serious.
Question: And is the momentum towards war, do you feel, still gathering speed, or is it being slowed down?
The Prime Minister: Let us put this in perspective. War is an evil thing. India has always stood out against war, no matter where it took place. But there are things which are more important, and today we feel that not only for the sake of the Indian people but for the peace in Asia and world peace, stability, integrity and the security of India, is of first importance. I don’t think anything should divert the world's attention from this point. This is the major point.
Question: Yes, I was really putting to you that there seems an inevitability about the way things are going-a slide towards war, which-as you say-you are deeply concerned to avoid-at all costs if you can, but is the situation-is it that-is there a momentum towards war, which you feel that you cannot yet arrest?
The Prime Minister: We have arrested it. If I had not been calm and restrained, the fighting would have been bad. What word have I uttered, or anybody from my Government for that matter, which could be constructed as a threat or as a push towards war? But if you look at some statements on the other side, there is no doubt whatsoever, absolutely Public.
Question: Is there a risk that you will be attacked by Pakistan, in your view now, at this moment?
The Prime Minister: One just can’t say, and it also depends on what you consider an aggression. In 1965, thousands of infiltrators were sent and they said they didn’t commit aggression but after all it was an aggression when they were obviously there to occupy the place and make way for the army.
Question: Do you believe that conditions are favorable to secure the return of the refugees by tougher action, either diplomatic or in the last resort, military? Are the conditions now favorable for that?
The Prime Minister: I don’t know where conditions are ever favorable to this. Sometimes things just have to be done. We in India are determined that we are not going to be saddled with Pakistan problems. They had a problem-very large number of persons who voted against the present regime, in a free election held under the supervision of the present Government of West Pakistan, who voted democratically, have been either killed or pushed across the border. Now, why should we receive another country's problem like this? Would this make sense to anybody?
Question: But how great is your determination to do this and do you have some time in mind within which you must do it to make it credible?
The Prime Minister: I am not interested in making anything credible. I am interested in the future and the present for that matter, of my country and my people. Now they have faith in me, and I cannot betray that faith.
Question: Now you have spoken of the first steps which are necessary to do something about this inundation of refugees and you have said that first of all continuing exodus must be stopped, but what first steps can be taken to stop that?
The Prime Minister: Well, surely that the massacre there stops, the rape stops, the burning of villages stops.
Question: You have spoken of first steps needed to improve the situation, the first step being to stop the exodus of refugees. Now can it not be fairly put to you that you are contributing in a way to be exodus of the refugees by you support for the Pakistan guerillas who are operating in East Pakistan-Pakistan army takes reprisals against them, against villages which harbor the guerilla fighters and that causes the exodus, or is at least in part responsible for it. Now must not you, in effect, face the question of having to reduce your support for the guerilla armies operating in Last Pakistan?
The Prime Minister: Does that mean we allow a massacre to continue? What happened first? How many people were killed according to your correspondents of British newspapers, of American newspapers, of French newspaper. Canadian Newspapers, Arabian Newspapers? The massacre began long before there was a single guerilla.
Question: But as a contribution to quietening the situation as I say..
The Prime Minister: Now, what does quietening mean? Does it mean that we allow... We support the genocide, and do you think it can be stopped? Do you think people are going to sit aside and watch their women raped in front of them? And say that ‘No, we are going to quieten the situation’. That is not quietness. That is the worst possible type of war, it is the worst possible type of violence.
Question: But how then, without something done to control the guerilla activity in return for greater discipline by the Pakistan army can you secure these first steps?
The Prime Minister: When Hitler was on the rampage, why didn't you say ‘Let’s keep quiet and let‘s have peace in Germany and let the Jews die, or let Belgium die, let France die. Would you say that was quiet?
Question: But how do you propose to bring about these first steps to control the exodus...?
The Prime Minister: It is not for us to this would never have happened if the world community had woken up to the fact when we first drew their attention to it. They knew this was happening the newspaper people were sending reports. We got most of our news from the British, the American and other foreign papers.
Question: So what do you believe are the broad outlines for a settlement?
The Prime Minister: We cannot decide on a settlement for the people of Bangladesh. That is a decision which only they themselves can take. But I, can only say that to have a re-election of all seats which are already occupied to which people have been elected in a democratic and free election, is farcical to say the least.
Question: But you believe that in order to achieve a settlement and secure the return of the refugees, that the people of Bangladesh of what was East Pakistan, are going to have to settle for something rather less than full independence? Autonomy perhaps within a union but less than full independence?
The Prime Minister: Well, it depends entirely on them. This was not our show. It is their show; it is their lives we are talking about. We are not talking about some game where you make a particular move or another move. We are talking about the lives of millions of people.
Question: In one of your recent speeches you have said that you are sitting on a volcano, may I also suggest to you that you appear to be sitting on the fence, that you are standing all of from this problem. You say it is a question to be settled between the two wings of Pakistan, between east and west, but how are they to be brought together?
The Prime Minister: We do not know how they are coming together. It is our concern insofar as it affects us. While the matter is basically between the military regime of West Pakistan and the people and their elected representatives of East Bengal, Pakistan troops are massed on our eastern borders also. So, therefore, we are in no way sitting on the fence and saying we are not concerned. We are concerned. But we cannot decide what the people of East Bengal will do. Only they can take that decision.
Question: But when you stand aside like that, can you really afford to, when India is giving sanctuary and support to those who wish to liberate East Pakistan. You are involved and you have also refused an offer off talks with the President of Pakistan. Is there not a contradiction in your position?
The Prime Minister: None at all. Do you want us to murder the people who come to India. The only way we could have stopped them was to kill them off. There was no other way out at all and nobody has been able to suggest that there was a way out.
Question: No, of course, I don’t suggest that and I don't really see that that follows, but....
The Prime Minister: It does follow.;
Question: But I wonder why you do refuse the offer of talks. Isn't it important to talk sooner rather than later?
The Prime Minister: Talk with whom-and about what? Up to now, President Yahya Khan is telling everybody and he may be telling it now for all I know, that the situation in Bangladesh is absolutely normal. Now, either he does not know what is happening or he is telling a deliberate untruth. Either way, where is the foundation for a talk?
Question: More broadly do you feel therefore in the light of what you have just said that the whole idea of two nations on the sub-continent of India set up as a result of partition has failed?
The Prime Minister: We said so very clearly before this took place and mode of the Indian people I would say were against the whole thing. But our leader and I think perhaps rightly thought that this would bring peace. It would give the opportunity for India to go forward and build a better life for its poor people. They wholly accepted this and we are in no way against Pakistan or the people of Pakistan for whom I have the friendliest of feelings. But I do feel that the Governments of the world today are not helping either Pakistan as a country, or the people of Pakistan. They are bolstering up a military regime, which is not interested in the welfare of its people.
Question: Does not the whole reparative tendency as shown in East Bengal, pose great dangers to you in India?
The Prime Minister: None whatsoever.
Question: Won’t it excite separatist tendencies within India.....?
The Prime Minister: No No. Because we deal with our people and we see that their legitimate grievances are diminished and the problems solved.
Question: You don’t see an increasing tendency for power to be devolved from the Centre throughout the sub-continent and the lingual division of states and so on as something which will be harder for you to control?
The Prime Minister: Well it is difficult for you people to understand. We don’t have any divisive tendencies we have sixteen languages, we may have, twenty languages, but we are one people. India, with a strong basis of unity which is always there. But in times of crisis whether it is a crisis of this nature which is across our borders, or the kind of crisis which we had three years ago which was drought the people are one and nobody is going to be able to weaken them or disrupt that unity.
Question: Well, you can make a tremendous case for what you have just said. A week or so before the deluge of refugees descended on you, you I received a massive new mandate from the people of India which many saw as the revitalization of India democracy. You won on a programme promising radical change and reform in India. Now all that is in jeopardy because of the refugee problem. What are the consequences of your inability to fulfill your election pledges likely to be?
The Prime Minister: The Indian people, strange as it may sound to people of the West are quite mature in their judgment. They all have grievances they all have demands. But if it is a time of difficulty. I think we would stand together. We have tremendous capacity to suffer and to endure and if we have to do it we will do it.
Question: I was wondering whether the consequences might not be rather greater than that, I mean would you feel democracy itself is jeopardized unless you can fulfill your......?
The Prime Minister: Not in India. Democracy can go anywhere in the world but it will not be jeopardished in India. It is only foreign people who thought the democracy was in danger. I have never believed that for a single second.
Question: But you yourself, how do you personally feel having been elected on radical platform of change in India, to see it all jeopardized now rather than see it sacrificed, rather than see it continue to be jeopardized what would you ask the Indian people to do as a last resort to solve this problem for you?
The Prime Minister: Well, it is very important that we lessen our poverty, that we right against the various social and economic injustices and inequalities but something is more important and that is the freedom of the country and I have no doubt not a shadow of doubt that every political party right left or centre, will be solidly with us in anything which they consider is threatening our freedom and our security.
Question: Very briefly, Prime Minister, finally, you’ve spoken of a need to reassess the relationship with this country. After all, our destinies have been intertwined for something like two three hundred years now. How would you wish to see it reassessed?
The Prime Minister: Firstly to forget the past. I think that there is too much harping on what the relationship was. That relationship snapped with independence and I think it was because in the earlier years we tried to hang on to it that we had a period when there was not such friendship but I think we can now make a friendship on a new basis with a far more rational approach to the different problems of both the countries and what each of us gains by such a friend ship and I think that these is considerable ground for such mutual benefit.
- ↑ Interview of B.B.C. by Mark Tully, November, 2, 1971.