পাতা:বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (সপ্তম খণ্ড).pdf/২৯৯

উইকিসংকলন থেকে
এই পাতাটির মুদ্রণ সংশোধন করা হয়েছে, কিন্তু বৈধকরণ করা হয়নি।



বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র : সপ্তম খণ্ড
265

 an atmosphere of freedom which he himself hailed afterwards? Was it not far easier for him to crush the aspirations of the Bengali people before the elections, which would not have caused a whimper in the world? Yet, good and honest intentions, if they are prevented from being realized, are denounced and the most vicious motives are ascribed. And, from whom do they come? From India. We know that we can expect nothing better from India than permanent hostility.

 As regards what Senator Church may have said: I regret that Senator Church had nothing to say about subversion and aggression. He expressed himself on a certain aspect of the Pakistan situation, but he chose to remain silent on the very issues which we are now considering here in the Security Council.

 Finally, in reply to the Representative of India, he alleged that Pakistan shouted about aggression and did not ask for a meeting of the Security Council. Ambassador Vinci was the President of the Security Council in August and he knows of the efforts made by me under the instructions of my Government to activate the Security Council to exercise a moderating influence, and to promote a reduction of tension. But why was no Security Council meeting called? Because of the opposition of India and the allies of India. And we know now when we come finally before the Security Council what is the result—a veto, So therefore let us not talk about coming before the Security Council.

 Turning now from the Representative of India to what the Representative of the Soviet Union said yesterday and a little earlier today. I shall, of course, not comment on his amendments, because I believe they are no longer before us, for the draft resolution to which they were submitted as amendments have been withdrawn. We thank the sponsors of that draft resolution for having withdrawn their proposal. But here, with reference to what Ambassador Malik said in explaining his amendments, I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without commenting on one or two points. The Representative of the Soviet Union said that action by the Security Council must be in accordance with the real situation in the Hindustan sub-continent. The real situation in the Hindustan subcontinent now is that brought about by India's subversion, support to armed secession, armed intervention and aggression. In other words, is the Security Council going to legitimize this so-called reality, perpetuate occupation and guarantee the fruits of aggression and the illegal use of force?

 The Representative of the Soviet Union said that the cessation of hostilities must be organically linked to a political settlement. In other words, the Soviet amendments, as explained by the Representative of the Soviet Union, mean that Pakistan must immediately agree to the secession of East Pakistan's and to Pakistan dismemberment and that war and military occupation must continue until it does so.

 I am also constrained to remark that in the statements of the Soviet Representative there is a persistent pre-occupation with the political situation in Pakistan to the exclusion of every other aspect of the situation prevailing today in the sub-continent, and which prevailed in the weeks and months before. And we are most concerned that in addition to the security doctrine to, which I referred yesterday, the pronouncements of Soviet Representative seem to stake a claim to be the arbiter in the internal political and constitutional life of my country.