been made by ourselves. Again there has to be an assurance about our getting in a continuous manner whatever supplies we may require for strengthening our defence potential. I would say that both these negative and positive aspects are fully safeguarded in this Treaty. To put it in unambiguous terms; after conclusion of this Treaty, Soviet Union is not now entitled to make any military supplies of any type of Pakistan nor give any help to Pakistan which might strengthen the military potential of Pakistan. Again, as Chavan Jivery lucidly explained, there are very important provisions in this Treaty which are vital for our security. But the central key-note in the Treaty is not war and conflict, but to avoid war and to strengthen the forces of peace. In a nutshell, the essence of these security provisions is that when either of these to countries is either attacked or is faced with the threat of an attack, then the two countries will start negotiation with the object of avoiding that threat or to doing away with that aggression, and steps will be taken-“effective steps” are the words used in the treaty-to ensure that the threat of attack is avoided and attack if any, is prevented or is vacated or done away with. Therefore, these are very important security provisions, in the Treat, and if I may say the Treaty was concluded at a time when feeling in the country was fully receptive to a concrete step of this type, as it was often said that in moments of test, in moments of trial, who are our friends? It is very interesting that those voices which used to remind us: “where and who are your friends;” they themselves has started, picking holes in the Treaty. I would like the country and this great organisation to be reminded of the immediate reaction even from the leaders of parties who are traditionally opposed to the Congress. Even they, as the first reaction to the conclusion of this Treaty, did not have the courage to oppose this Treaty and their spokesmen on the floor of the House did support the Treaty and did not raise any voice of dissent. They did, however, try to raise doubts. but they knew that the feeling in the country in favor of the Treaty is so strong that they would be completely isolated if they attacked the Treaty and therefore they did not have the courage even though they may have different political motivations to oppose the Treaty. Later on, however. I do not know what may be the considerations, uncharitable interpretations can perhaps point out to some wire-pulling, but they did try later on to alter their original stand of support to the Treaty and started in some form or other to offer some voice of criticism. But the more we consider the terms of the Treaty the impact produced in the country and the effect produced in the international community, there is no doubt, and there should be no doubt in the mind of anyone, that the Treaty is sound in content, is practical, safeguards our independence and non-alignment, and at the same time it binds us to constructive course of mutual co-operation, safeguarding the sovereignty and independence of the contracting parties and at the same time providing enough of safeguards from the security angle, to preserve the sovereignty and security of the two countries, without the automatic involvement of either of the two countries.
Voices-latest about Bangla Desh?
As a matter of fact, I am coming to that. To be able to speak about this important matter, was the main object of my speaking after the resolution on Treaty was adopted. Having said this much about the Treaty. I would now with the President’s kind permission, like to say something about my recent visit to several capitals and the United Nation. I will give my assessment of the general feeling amongst the international
