বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (দ্বাদশ খণ্ড)/৬২
| শিরোনাম | সূত্র | তারিখ |
|---|---|---|
| ওয়াশিংটনে ন্যাশনাল প্রেসক্লাবে প্রধানমন্ত্রীর বক্তৃতা ও প্রশ্নোত্তর | ভারত সরকারের পররাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রণালয় | ৫ নভেম্বর, ১৯৭১ |
PRIME MINISTER INDIRA GANDHI’S SPEECH AT THE NATIONAL
PRESS CLUB, WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 5, 1971
I am delighted to be here once again with you all. I have met several of you in the meantime in India or in other parts of the globe. You have been given some description of my day. But perhaps all of you, who are acquainted with the life of anybody who is in politics, know that actually no two days are ever the same. And, as much as one would like to mediate and do various other such necessary and agreeable things, more often than not this remains in the realm of desire, rather than practice.
I find my relaxation and recreation when I am with people, and especially when I am with interesting people; such as in this hall today. Our time is limited, so I am not going to make a long speech. I am just going to mention a few points which may help you to formulate your questions. And, of course, anything that you are interested in will crop up in the question.
I was here just five years ago and I spoke to you then of what we have been trying to do in India. Much has happened in that time, not only in India, but in all parts of the world. But naturally, just now I am more concerned with my own country.
Doubts were expressed then in 1966, in my own country and by the world Press, including the Press in the United States, about our unity, our democracy and even our ability to survive. Well all I can say is here I am again. But we have gone through a period of darkness and difficulty, which even for a people accustomed to hardship has been exceptionally severe. We are now self sufficient in wheat and rice and other cereals, which are the staple diet of our people. With increasing expansion in irrigation facilities and fertilizer output break through are expected in other farm products as well. Our family planning programmes have had some impact. The census held this last March showed that our population was fourteen million less had been estimated.
Political changes in our party have taken place peacefully, giving greater coherence and sense of direction to our national life. Our confidence in our people was justified in our general election. On an average, sixty per cent of the people voted, not only in the cities but in the remote areas of the interior and in the mountains. The people gave me and my party a good majority. But what was special about the elections was the enthusiasm with which the people, and especially the young people, made it their own campaign.
The elections aroused new hope in our people and generated new energy and purpose in us. But today, your thoughts and mine are preoccupied with the crisis of Bangladesh, that is, East Bengal. There 100, elections were held. The fact that even under a military regime the people of East Bengal so over-whelmingly voted for the Awami League showed their deep desire for democratic rights. The military rules used the period of negotiations to a mass troops. And on the very day, when the Awami League through that settlement was to be reached, a reign of terror-such as history has rarely witnessed-was unleashed.
I have not hesitated sometimes to criticize the Press, of course, in self defense. But on this occasion, I should like to express appreciation of the manner in which the Press correspondents of many countries have tried to arouse the conscience of the world. They have shown courage and perseverance in lifting the veil around East Bengal and revealing the truth of the grim tragedy being enacted there. Their words have been honest and direct, but the photographs have outdone them in conveying the very essence of sorrow and misery.
What is taking place there is not a civil war in the ordinary sense of the word; it is a genocidal punishment of civilians for having voted democratically. It is a strange and cynical way of getting rid of one’s opponents and of deliberately using helpless millions as a weapon against a neighbor nation. The number of the refugees is equal to the population of some of the countries of Europe, such as Austria and Belgium, where I was only recently.
We feel that this is a new kind of aggression. It certainly casts an unconscionable economic burden on us and has created political and social tensions endangering pure security. This is not a purely internal matter of one country, because the overflow of the political, economic and security consequences are affecting another country, that is, India. This is not an international dispute, certainly not an Indo-Pakistan dispute, for the traditional international instruments to be invoked.
We are told that the confrontation of troops is a threat to peace. Is there no threat to peace when a whole people are massacred? Will the world be concerned only if people die because of war between two countries and not if hundreds of thousands are butchered and expelled by a military regime waging war against the people?
We cannot draw upon precedents to deal with this unprecedented variety of aggression. We have to devise new patterns of response. It is in order to impress on world leaders the nature of the crisis and the means of resolving it that I wrote to heads of governments several months ago and sent some of my colleagues to meet them. We informed them that the only way out of the mess which the military rulers of Pakistan have made for themselves is to have a political settlement with the elected representatives of East Bengal, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, if he is alive, and his colleagues who embody the will of the people.
Had the world realized it then, much of this mounting misery and the migration of many more millions could have been avoided. The chances of such a settlement have grown more slender with each new day of neglect. But there might still be time if world leaders appreciated the reality of the situation.
In the various capitals I have visited on this tour, I have been asked what solution India would like. The question is not what we would like or what one or other of the big powers would like, but what the people of East Bengal will accept and what solution would be a lasting one.
I should like to plead with the world not to press me for a solution which leaves out the people of East Bengal. It is an illusion to think that the fate of a country can be decided without reference to its people. Once again, we see the old habit of underestimating the power of nationalism in Asia and of the demand of the people of Asia to make their own choice. Those who subscribe to the belief that democratically reached decisions are the most viable should recognize that the process of democracy admits no geographical disqualification. If democracy is good for you, it is good for us in India, and it is good for the people of East Bengal.
The suppression of democracy is the original cause of all the trouble in Pakistan. The nations of the world should make up their minds who is more important to them, one man and his machine or a whole nation.
I am asked what initiatives India will take. We have taken the biggest possible initiative in remaining so self-restrained and in keeping in check the anger within our country. We have endeavor strenuously to see that this does not become an IndoPakistan issue. Any direct talks between the two countries would immediately be converted into such a dispute and make the solution more difficult. Pakistan has been trying to create conditions in which the world would think that Pakistan in threatened by a more powerful neighbor. As I have said, the threat to Pakistan has come from its own rules, not from us. When the regime there found out that its calculations will not succeed, it moved its troops to our western frontier, knowing full well that we would be forced to follow suit.
Pakistan’s pleas for observers from the United Nations, for bilateral talks with India, and for mutual withdrawal of troops, seemed very plausible at first sight. But these are only methods to divert the attention of the world from the root of the problem to what are merely by products. We cannot be side tracked. We cannot have a dialogue with Pakistan on the future of East Bengal, because we have no right to speak for the people of East Bengal. Only Sheikh Mujib or the elected and accepted representatives of East Bengal have that right.
I have merely touched on certain points and on what I thought would interest you the most. I should like to leave the time now for questions. But I want to add only one thin g, because the President of your Club said that I had come here to ask for aid, I have not asked for any aid, neither in this country nor in any of the other countries which I have visited. I believe that it is not the task of anyone country to say to another what they should do even if it is a question of helping. It is my duty to put the situation in my country and its neighborhood, to give my assessment of the situation to the leaders of the countries I visit. It is for them, then, with their own assessment and what they hear from me, to make up their mind what they think about this and what they should do about it.
My intention in coming here was, of course, primarily in response to President Nixon’s invitation, which was extended to me about a year ago, long before these events took place, but also because I believe that in our fast changing world it is important for heads of governments to keep in touch with leaders of other nations to find out their thinking and to be better educated about this changing world:
Following are some of the questions by the press, and answers given by the
Prime Minister, during the function:
Question: Madame Gandhi, could you give us some description of the subjects covered in your talks with President Nixon? And what do you think the talks accomplished, if anything?
Prime Minister: This is the sort of question that I thought I would only make on the fifteenth of November when our Parliament meets and which one has to circle around a bit because you could not have useful talks with heads of nations if you were immediately to divulge exactly what was talked about.
I think the talks have been useful. They have been very wide ranging, practically all over the world: Europe, Asia; bilateral matters, international matters. And what they have achieved is what I said in any remarks: I think the President knows now what we are thinking in India, and I have a better appreciation of what the American Government thinks about all these matters. I don't think I can go into greater details on this occasion.
Question: May be you won’t answer this, but let me ask Initial reports suggested there was firm disagreement between you and President Nixon over the ways of reaching a political solution with Pakistan. Are these reports correct and would you elaborate?
Prime Minister: No this report is not correct. As I said, that it is for the U.S. Government and the President to see what they can do in the matter. I was certainly impressed by the President’s sincere desire to try and help in this very difficult situation. I think this report was largely based on the fact that we met for longer than was expected or scheduled. But that is only because we had so much to talk about. And that is why the talks overflowed to this morning also.
However close any two countries are, each country must have its own point of view, because that point of view is influenced by the geopolitical situation of the country, by the historic background, and many other experiences which can never be duplicated in two countries. So, although I would say that we have a similarity of approach with the United States, we could never have an absolute identical approach either with the United States or, for that matter, with any other country.
And in this, of course, we could only put to the President and his colleagues our assessment of the situation on our borders, its likely impact on India. And we do think that peace in India, stability in India, is of utmost importance, not to us only, but to Asia and, I think, the world.
Question: Did you expect President Nixon to speak up, to stand up and be counted when democracy was suppressed in East Bengal? As a result of your talks here, do you expect a change in American policy?
Prime Minister: Well, I don’t think it would be fair for me to tell President Nixon what he should do. This is for him to judge, keeping very many aspects in view. Now, you see, to say whether there would be a change in American policy as I said, I think that the President is trying to find a way. But the whole thing has got so entangled that it isn't easy for anybody to find a way.
Question: Madame Gandhi, why does India not agree to the proposal of Yahya Khan for the withdrawal of both India and Pakistani troops from the frontier?
Prime Minister: I have just touched on this point in my earlier remarks. When the refugees first started coming into India, we drew the attention of the United Nations to this fact. And at that time we were told that this was an internal problem and nothing could be done, even though we had said that the repercussions would be far-reaching. After that, it was Pakistan who brought its troops right up on our western border. It was not India who moved then. The attention of the United Nations observers there was drawn to it, and they, questioned this. And they were told by the Pakistanis that they were merely-what is the world? -training or doing exercises, military exercises.
Obviously, this was not a very convincing reply. But, presumably, it was accepted as the truth. But we couldn’t accept it as the truth. And we waited a week or so until we were convinced that our security might be in danger. You may all of you remember that we have had three aggressions on our soil, one from China and two from Pakistan. And also our lines communication with all these border areas are not too good. It was my duty as head of the government to see that we should not be found once again unprepared. And that is why we moved our troops up also.
By speaking about withdrawal of troops, it is again a question of diverting the world focus from the problem of East Bengal, which is the main problem. Even if troops are withdrawn-we don’t really trust this-the question is of how far they are withdrawn. There also the question of the irregular troops. In 1965 conflict, we had the experience of thousands of infiltrators being led into Kashmir in an effort to weaken the country from inside, hoping that this would give support to the later aggression by the Pakistani Army. That didn't happen, because although the infiltrators came in, our people-we don't have any army there-the ordinary people, the farmers, the nomadic tribes who look after their goats and their cattle, these people stood up to the infiltrators and helped us to control the situation.
So, there isn’t only one type of confrontation. And in this particular situation. the major question is what is happening in East Bengal. And I don’t think you can separate what is happening on the west from this basic question.
Question: A pair of questions, Madame Gandhi. Is India willing to accept the good offices of the U.N. Secretary-General for defusing the dangerous India-Pakistan tension? Also, even thought India is not to blame, why can’t you allow U.N. observers in your area if it would bring peace South Asia?
Prime Minister: To take the second question first. I would say that we do have United Nations observers. There are some on the western front for many years, and there are ten representatives of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in the East. So, it’s not as if there are no observers or no foreigners.
Also, ours is a very free and open society. And Ambassadors and other members of the diplomatic corps, representatives of the Press, radio, television from many countries, parliamentary delegations from Canada, the United Kingdom, countries of Europe, Scandinavia, Latin American, Japan, New Zealand all these people have been and are going to the border, as well as to the camps.
So, there is no question of our hiding anything or preventing anybody from going. But the question is, as this person has said, if it would bring peace to South Asia. Now, we don’t see how can it bring peace to South Asia. Something is happening in Last Bengal. People are still being killed. Refugees numbering thousands are still coming in every single day. Now, if you want the refugees who are already in these very uncomfortable, overcrowded camps to go back, the first question that they will ask is, is it safe? And if it is safe why are more people coming? So, this is a question that you have to be able to answer.
But if the Secretary-General, or whoever is taking an interest, is able to ensure that this stream, which is still pouring in, can be stopped, then as the next step, he could say, “now we will consolidate that position and create conditions in which the rest can go back”.
Question: In bringing the world’s attention to the present crisis, why did you not schedule a visit to the United Nations?
Prime Minister: Well, I didn’t think it would serve much useful purpose.
Question: Some observers say that the new Indian-Soviet treaty definitely takes India out of the camp of the neutrals. Would you comment?
Prime Minister: India has never been in the camp of the neutrals, because while in America you have used the word” neutralism", in India we have never used that word. Non-alignment does not mean being neutral or unconcerned or ignoring what is happening in the world. It merely means that we do not belong to a military bloc, and that we reserve the right to judge each international issue on its own merits. not because the U.S. is supporting it or the U.S.S.R. or anybody else. We like to see these things from our own point of view and in the light of our own national interests and also, of course, of world peace.
So far as the Indo-Soviet treaty is concerned, it does not affect our position of being a non-aligned country. So, we are not allowing military bases to any country. And while, under the treaty, we shall consult with the Soviet Union should any dangerous situation arise, it is entirely a matter for India to decide by herself what decision we take, what steps we take.
Question: In assisting elements in Last Pakistan to achieve independence, are not the Indians playing into the hands of the Soviet Union, which has sought to obtain an outlet on the Indian Ocean?
Prime Minister: I don't really see how the Soviet Union gets an outlet in the Indian Ocean by anything happening in East Bengal. I don’t think this makes any difference.
The question is now whether India is assisting elements or not. I think all that India is doing is to make a very realistic assessment of an existing situation. What can be a lasting solution? What solution or what agreement will the people of East Bengal settle for? That is the question. Our assessment is that the bittern as and the hatred have grown so much in the last months that it will be very difficult to have any solution which comes short of their aspirations.
Now, this is the reality of the situation. It is not whether we like it or we want it, as I said in my earlier remarks...
Question: Does the fact that you see no useful purpose in visiting the U.N. reflect an assessment of the significance and strength of the United Nations?
Prime Minister: Well, the United Nations has its weaknesses. But we have always supported it, because we feel it is essential to have such a forum. When there was a League of Nations, everybody felt that it was not doing what it should do, and so it was done away with. But you had then to have something else and it came up under the name of the United Nations. If we now get rid of the United Nations, I am sure we shall have another body which will be practically identical under a new name.
So, it is important to have some such body. But we all know that is docs suffer from certain weaknesses. It is not always able to assert itself. And, quite, often. national policies play a part within the United Nations, instead of being able to lift it above to higher plane.
Question: When Australian Prime Minister Mc Mahon was in the Press Club the other day, he said there must be no war between Pakistan and India. He said he would tell you this. Did he talk to you, and what was said?
Prime Minister: I did meet the Australian Prime Minister, but I don’t remember his using these words. Naturally he is concerned, just as President Nixon is concerned and the Russian leaders and all of us are concerned, that war is not a good thing, and that war creates many new problems and entails a lot of suffering for all the people. As President Nixon has said, and others have said, in today’s world there is no such thing as complete victory.
So, we fully appreciate this. I myself am fully in agreement with this. But, it is a question of the freedom, the security and the stability of our country. Those must be saved at all costs.
We are trying everything possible for this problem to be solved in a way other than war. We will not stop trying to look for some solution. Had notice been taken of this developing situation earlier, I am sure it could have been solved. But now, many other elements have come in. First, I would like to take this opportunity to say that India has no quarrel either with Pakistan or the people of Pakistan. But we feel that because of one person’s mistakes Pakistan is suffering. And, if we try just to bail that one person out, it will not be at the cost of India; it will be at the cost of Pakistan itself....
Question: If Pakistan were to succeed in ousting its remaining Hindus, what would happen to the sixty million Moslems in India?
Prime Minister: I trust and hope that they will be perfectly safe. Although we do have people who have some very wrong ideas, and we have had riots, which we feel a cause for great shame, the Government has been very firm on this matter. And I think that today all Indians, even those parties who do not normally support us in this. are supporting us in ensuring that peace is maintained in India and our minorities feel that they enjoy the rights and privileges which are theirs under our Constitution.
I said something about our not being against Pakistan. The Foreign Secretary has very rightly drawn my attention that I should make it clear that India has no designs on any territory of Pakistan. And I will add: or on any part of East Bengal. We certainly don’t want to provoke a war with Pakistan.
Question: What is your reaction to the defeat of the U.S. foreign aid bill?
Prime Minister: I think this is an internal matter which affects many countries.... (Laughter). I can’t prophesy the future. So I don’t really know what is going to happen to this. So far as India is concerned, we have welcomed help, and the help which we have received from this country has enabled us do many things which we could not otherwise have done. But little by little, we are becoming self-reliant and able to stand on our own feet.
And the real burden of development has been increasingly and overwhelmingly our own, built on the endeavor and the sacrifice of the people of India. Also, today, the foreign aid we get largely goes to repay what we got before. So, it does not really help us to do very much more.
Question: What impact will the improvement of United States relations with China have on India and on other Asian countries?
Prime Minister: It should have a good impact. Any relationship, if it is not against anybody else, increases the area of peace. And that is why we have welcomed this move. And we sincerely hope that one by one the various areas of tension in the world will be reduced.....
Question: Is your recent treaty with the Soviet Union completely compatible with the policy of non-alignment, such as was promoted by your father, Prime Minister Nehru?
Prime Minister: We think it is. And a few people who have commented on it-President Tito when he was in India, just before he came here-he also told us that he fully realized that it did not impinge on our non-alignment. And I believe that our friend Chou En-lai has also said in an interview to some foreign correspondent that it did not prevent us-that he thought it was not a change in our position.
Question: Should East Pakistan be made an independent and sovereign nation?
Prime Minister: As I said, I think this question should be put to the people of East Bengal.
Question: A follow-up question on the Indian Ocean. Both America and the Soviet Union are sending increasing naval forces into the area. How do you feel about this?
Prime Minister: We can only hope that this will not increase the tensions there........
Question: If a solution cannot be imposed on the people of East Bengal by the big powers, what reason is there to believe that the big powers can impose a Mid-East solution on Egypt and Israel?
Prime Minister: At this moment, I think that the situation in Egypt and Israel and the Middle East is not very hopeful. But we know from experience that sometimes the tightest and most complicated of knots can be cut through. This is the only hope that some way can be found.
Earlier on, there was a question on the Soviet Treaty. Perhaps you know that one of the articles-I think it is Article IV-was especially put in which the Soviet Union has expressed its own application and respect for India’s policy of non-alignment. As regards the question of refugees going back and whether the presence of somebody from the U.N. would help this, perhaps the whole problem would come more alive for you if I give you a comparison. For instance, we had the problem of the Jews in Hitler’s Germany. Suppose you had said. “let us send some observers there”. How would it have helped the situation for the Jews there? Would it have enabled the Jews who were forced to come out because of the discrimination and the killing and the concentration camp-would it have caused the situation for them? It is a very similar situation today in East Bengal.
Question: Knowing East Bengal as you do, would you believe it to have the capability of nationhood, economically primarily, in the event they opted for independence and were granted it?
Prime Minister: This is a question which we had to face when we were fighting for our own independence. We were constantly told that the British would very happily give us independence but India was not ready for it. Until you try and do a thing yourself, nobody knows whether you are ready or not. And I think we have certainly shown-and so have many other countries-that although once free they make mistakes, but they have to make those mistakes and learn through them and stand on their feet.
Question: In keeping with the importance you attach to a candid exchange of views between heads of states, wouldn’t it be a good idea for you to meet with the President of Pakistan?
Prime Minister: I have said that if the President of Pakistan would like to meet me to discuss the problems which exist between India and Pakistan, I would be very glad to do so. But not to discuss the problems which are not basically concerned with Indian problem; it’s a problem which concerns the people of East Bengal and their elected representatives.
But there is one more aspect. You can only meet a person if there is a two-way trust. I said in London that I may want to shake hands with everybody. But if there is a clenched fist, well, you just can't shake hands with it. And this is the situation. If you have been noticing the sort of remarks which the President of Pakistan is making, either about me personally or in general it is not an attitude which shows that there could be a very friendly conversation. From my side I am always friendly. I have never said a rude word about anybody. (Laughter and applause)....