বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (দ্বাদশ খণ্ড)/৬৪
| শিরোনাম | সূত্র | তারিখ |
|---|---|---|
| যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের এন, বি সি টেলিভিশনের ‘মিট দ্য প্রেস’ অনুষ্ঠানে প্রচারিত প্রধানমন্ত্রী ইন্দিরা গান্ধীর সাক্ষাৎকার | ভারত সরকারের পররাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রণালয় | ৭ নভেম্বর, ১৯৭১ |
PRIME MINISTER INDIRA GANDHI’S INTERVIEW TO N.B.C.
TELEVISION (U.S.A.) PROGRAMME ‘MEET THE PRESS’
BROADCAST ON NOVEMBER 7, 1971
MODERATOR: Lawrence E. Spivak
PANEL: A. M. Rosenthal (The New York Times)
- Selig Harison (The Washington Post)
- Pauline Frederick (N.B.C. News)
Mr. Spivak: Our guest on Meet the Press is the Prime Minister of India, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, who is in this country on an official visit.
Miss Frederick: Madam Prime Minister, when you went to Washington you said you were searching for deeper understanding of the situation in your part of the world. Did you find that deeper understanding, particularly among American officials?
Prime Minister: I would way there is a greater understanding since I have come than there was perhaps before I came, of the situation which exists in India which, as you know, is a pretty serious one.
Miss Frederick: You speak of a greater understanding which doesn’t quite extend to ‘deeper’, I gather. What was it specifically you wanted from the Under States to demonstrate that deeper understanding that you sought?
Prime Minister: The situation is so complex that it is very difficult to say what any particular country or government or person can do. We can only say that we can give our assessment of what is happening and we see it as a real threat to Indian democracy and Indian stability. And we in India feel that if what we have gained over the years in order to make this ancient country a modern one and make it stronger in every way, if that is jeopardized even to a small extent the consequences to world peace will be great.
Miss Frederick: You speak of this threat to India democracy, consequences to world peace; the situation is very serious which emphasizes what we have been reading about in the press. Do you mean to say the United States offers you netling to try to avert such a catastrophe which could only rebound to this country, or that United States suggests some plan of action which you felt you could not accept?
Prime Minister: No plan of action has been suggested to us. I think that there is a sincere attempt to try and solve it, but I don’t know whether there is, you know, full understanding of the situation in the sense that in the Western countries-not only the U.S. but the entire West-there is an effort always to cquatc India and Pakistan. Now, whether this will help Pakistan or not I can’t say.
Mr. Rosenthal: Madam Prime Minister. I think the biggest question on anybody’s mind is the danger of war between India and Pakistan. What is your assessment about how close the danger is, now?
Prime Minister: it is very difficult to say. We have been drawing the world’s attention to this question, because we knew that it might escalate to this when the refugees started pouring in and really chaotic conditions began in East Bengal.
Now of course, the threat is not merely in the East, but the armies are drawn up facing each other on our Western borders as well.
India has always been against war, and we feel deeply on the subject of world peace. We have stood for total disarmament in all world forums, but we just don’t know what to do in these circumstances. The Pakistan Army was brought up on the Western border a full week or ten days before we made any move. But we found that did not agitate the world conscience, and the reply the Pakistanis gave to the U.N. observer who drew their attention to this move was that they were merely doing exercises, or for training purposes.
Now, obviously this was not a very believable reply, and therefore we were forced to move up our troops also, and this is where the situation is today.
Mr. Rosenthal: Well, if you have troops on either side in such power, very often there is a danger of an accidental war, a war the people don't really plan. There are some people who feel that it would be beneficial in avoiding accidental war to have more U.N. observers of some kind on either side. I know you haven’t been enthusiastic about this and I wonder if you would tell us why.
Prime Minister: Now, there are two parts of the question, because there are U.N. observes on the western border under the cease-fire agreement with Pakistan over Kashmir you know, so I don’t think the proposal, today, is to have more U.N. observers on that frontier. The proposal is to have them on the eastern border. Now there also we have about ten observers or representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and Mr. Sadruddin, who is the Commissioner for this, has either arrived in India or is due to arrive in a day or two. We don’t object to more people because you know we have a very open society-some people think too open. Your press correspondents radio people, television people, have been on the border in the camps, across the border so have newspaper people, parliamentary delegations. diplomats from many different countries of Asia, Europe and Americas been to this area; so we are not hiding anything. But we do feel strongly that at this moment so useful purpose will be served by more people going. Ten are already there as I told you.
The first step is to have more peaceful conditions within East Bengal which would prevent a further influx of refugees, because more refugees are coming in every single day. So that is the first step. Now, to say they are going to which the situation from our side of the border, we honestly don’t see what purpose can be served, and the harm that is done is that the peoples’ attention of the world is diverted from the real basic issues involved to merely requests-and they try to show it is an Indo-Pak dispute, which is isn’t. The dispute is between the military regime of West Pakistan and the people and elected representatives of East Bengal. India comes in because of the influx of the refugees, the acts of sabotage which are taking place on our side by people who have come in either disguised as refugees or in some other way, and as I said, we believe there is real danger to us.
Mr. Harrison: Madam Prime Minister, last April, in our interview in New Delhi you made the statement that the demand for in dependence currently being made by the East Pakistan government would not have arisen if President Yahya Khan of Pakistan had made more concessions in the negotiations before the fighting started there, and you seem to have the idea that some sort of a loose connection between the two wings of Pakistan might still be possible and some political settlement based on autonomy for East Bengal might be possible.
Do you feel that now a political settlement is still possible or is full independence achieved through guerrilla war the only answer?
Prime Minister: Anything is possible which is accepted by the people of East Bengal. I don’t think we have a right to say that they should accept something or not. It is their country, it is their movement, and they must take the final decision.
Mr. Harrison: How long do you think it would take them to win their independence militarily if the United States were not to give further military or economic aid to West Pakistan?
Prime Minister: I don’t think it is possible to give a date, but from the news we get, the guerrilla activities are being stepped up, and not at all near our borders, but in the heart of the most fortified, the most strongly guarded of the cities of East Bengal, such as the capital city of Dacca, for instance.
Mr. Jhabvala: Madam Prime Minister, there is a lingering suspicion in this country and elsewhere that India is engaged in a diabolical scheme to weaken and ultimately decimate Pakistan. Now, apart from the assistance and the shelter that has been given to the refugees, can you cite some specific gestures or actions taken by your government to dispel that suspicion?
Prime Minister: Now, this is something which the Government of Pakistan has been saying from the very beginning, all these 24 years. But what has been the actual experience? It is that it was Pakistan who was training our tribal people whether the Mizos or the Nagas, arming them. It is Pakistan who sent thousands of infiltrators into Kashmir which provoked the conflict in that year. And you have only to see the speeches now made on radio and other means which are very threatening and provocative. India has made no such declaration, and I can assure you that the Government of India, and I would say the majority of the people of India, have no such desire. We are not against Pakistan and we have only the friendliest of feelings for the people of Pakistan. And we think it is tragic that Pakistan should feel it necessary for their unity and survival to imagine a constant confrontation with India.
Mr. Jhabvala: Madam Prime Minister, you have just said that you think there is a greater understanding now within the Nixon Administration about the situation in the sub-continent. But what would be the reaction of India if this greater understanding is not translated into some concrete meaningful action, as has been suggested by you?
Prime Minister: We are a very balanced people, Mr. Jhabvala, You have noticed that we have had conflicts with people-for instance, China-but we have remained very restrained and balanced, and we have stuck to our basic policy. We shall be unhappy if the U.S. docs anything which is what we consider against Indian interests, but we shall not lose our heads over it.
Mr. Spivak: Madam Prime Minister, obviously you think there is a solution to this very serious problem, and we seem unable to find the solution and the U.N. seems unable to find the solution. What is the solution that you propose?
Prime Minister: The solution which we had proposed earlier, and I think is the only valid one today, is that some talks should be held with the acknowledged leader of the people of East Bengal, who is Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, and we must remember that he was-you know while I have been here references have been made to tremendous victory, majority, that I won in the last election in India. But if I may say so, Sheikh Mujib’s majority was even greater than mine, and his elections were held in far more adverse conditions, that is, under the present military regime. His programme for the elections, his campaign, was put squarely and honestly before the Government and the people, and it is on the basis of that he won this tremendous victory.
Now, you suddenly say that, well you know, he is a traitor. He did not ask for independence, by the way. It was just limited autonomy, trade with India and some points like that. The Government of Pakistan in its wisdom, or unwisdom, whichever you would like to call it, arrested him, declared him a traitor. And they are trying to hold re-elections for the seats where the member still exist. They are there. And what has shocked us is that. I think, about 55 people have been declared elected, unopposed, to these very seats where a fair and free election was held; it seems a strange thing to have an election and then send out, force people who were elected against you out of the country. It is a diabolical-that is the word which one of your colleagues used-way of solving your problems, just sending those who are opposed to one out of the country.
Mr. Spivak: And, are we to understand from what you say that you consider that the only solution to the problem?
Prime Minister: Yes, because how else will you know what they will accept and if they don't accept a solution, whether I think it is right or you think it is right the conflict will continue, because the conflict is theirs the movement, the struggle, is theirs.
Mr. Spivak: But isn’t that an internal problem, though?
Prime Minister: We have said it is an internal problem, but it is overflowing into India. It is affecting our economy. Not is, but has. It is creating political, social tension, and as I said, the most serious of all is we think our security is threatened.
Miss Frederick: Madam Prime Minister, many people wonder why, when the situation is so tense and there is a threat of a major war there, India has not been willing to accept the good offices of someone line U Thant or anybody else, or negotiate directly with President Yahya Khan?
Prime Minister: We are not negotiating directly for the very simple reason that the problem is not one between India and Pakistan; it is between the military regime of Pakistan and people of East Bengal, the elected leaders, representatives of those people. So far as U Thant is concerned, he is always welcome, but we should be clear as to what can be achieved, what the U.N. wants to achieve. It was we who drew his attention to this question first, and we were not able to move anybody were. Now they want to come on what seems to us President Yahya Khan’s terms.
Miss Frederick: But if the situation continues, there is some fear, and perhaps you even share it, that the big powers could become involved. India has made its first defense pact with the Soviet Union. Pakistan, the political leader of Pakistan, Bhutto. has just gone to Peking, obviously to get some help because President Yahya has said that he can turn to Peking. Now, what is going to happen here? Are the big powers going to become involved, or is there some way to avoid a clash among the big powers? Did President Nixon say that he would take this up in Peking and Moscow when he visits those two capitals?
Prime Minister: I don’t think that such a definite statement was made, but he did say that he was very anxious that a conflict should be avoided and that other people shouldn’t be involved. We, as I said earlier, are against the whole concept of war, and we would not like to do anything which would provoke a war. But to any country, something is always more important. We have fought for many years for our freedom and we are not going to see that freedom threatened by no matter who. We have not signed a defense pact with the Soviet Union. It is merely a Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Peace. We can have discussions with the, but it is not a military treaty in any Sense of the word.
Miss Frederick: Madam Prime Minister, how do you then account for Article 9, which says in the event of Threat to either country there would be consultation on the kind of measures to be taken? Isn’t that a defense treaty?
Prime Minister: It is not a defense treaty in the sense, well, that immediately it is decided that we will have military help from them or not, and whatever we are now-what we have got from them are all in the normal course, which we would have got-taken from any country and which have been agreed to earlier. We certainly hope that should we be in trouble not only the Soviet Union but other countries will also like to help us.
Mr. Rosenthal: You made a reference to China a moment ago, Madam Prime Minister. Although your country does not want war, the fact is that ten years ago you had a war-about ten years ago-with China and suffered, I believe, a rather bad defeat. Are you still concerned about the Chinese military presence? Do you feel that this represents a continuing threat to India?
Prime Minister: I think the Chinese attitude towards the world has changed, and I personally feel that they may not now want to be involved in any such conflict. But of course it is very difficult to prophecy so far as they are concerned.
Mr. Rosenthal: Has that lessened your military problems do you feel you have to keep a lesser, or less powerful watch in the areas?
Prime Minister: I think we have to keep a very vigilant attitude on all out frontiers.
M. Harison: Madam Prime Minister, you have been accused of applying a divided standard toward the Pakistan problem and the problem of Kashmir. On the one hand that accusation has been made by the Kashmir political leader Sheikh Abdullah. On the one hadn he says you criticize Pakistan for keeping the Bengali leaders in prison, such as Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. On the other hand you have restricted the movements of Sheikh Abdullah. He hasn’t been permitted to go the Kashmir for the past nine months, and he wasn’t permitted to take part in the elections in Kashmir. Why are you restricting his movements?
Prime Minister: Firstly I wonder whether you see no difference between the sort of massacre, the suppression of democratic rights, the rape of women, the killing of the students, university faculty, the driving out of millions of citizens of East Bengal onto our territory, do you see no difference between that and a very peaceful Kashmir, where today there is free education, there is progress in every field, and there is an elected government. It is true that we have some restrictions of Sheikh Abdullah, but he is a free man. He can go anywhere he likes except to Kashmir, and that is because it is peaceful there and naturally at the moment-which is politically so sensitive now with the present security problems and so on, we can’t risk any kind of, you know, somebody trying to make trouble there.
Mr. Jhabvala: I would like to come back, Madam Prime Minister, to an answer you just gave to Miss Frederick's question. If the U.S. does halt all military supplies and economic assistance to Pakistan, what would be the immediate consequences in the context of the political solution that you believe might be helpful?
Prime Minister: You mean if they don’t urge talks with Sheikh Mujib or some elected representative?
Mr. Jhabvala: Well, no. What I mean is if there is no military aid given to Pakistan, what would be the solution in terms of the solution? Do you think it would force President Yahya Khan to move into talks with Sheikh Mujib?
Prime Minister: Well, I certainly think that the U.S. and some of the other big powers are in a position to persuade the leaders of West Pakistan to talk to some of the people concerned with this problem in the East.
Mr. Spivak: Madam Prime Minister, the charge has been made in this country, by our press at least, that India gives sanctuary and arms and training to the liberation forces and has even provided artillery and mortar fire for the Bengali guerrillas. What is the charge and what is your answer to that charge?
Prime Minister: Well, quite frankly, we do support the people of East Bengal in their struggle. At I have said earlier, they did not ask for independence or secession. They function in a democratic way and they were asked to function, they were asked to vote honestly and openly and this is what they did, and now they are being punished for that. Even then we have not interfered, until this movement of guerrillas grew on its own. Perhaps you know that it is based on the para-military forces belonging to East Bengal, that is, the East Bengal Rifles and the East Pakistan Regiment. This is the basis of the movement. Today, it is they who are training the young people and so on. They may be coming into India territory. I think they do sometimes, but they are not entirely based in India. The guerrilla activities are all over East Bengal quite far from the Indian border. Obviously, they have the most tremendous and single-minded support of the entire people of East Bengal in spite of the retaliation on these villages by the army.
Mr. Sprivak: Thank you, Madam Prime Minister for being with us today on MEET THE PRESS.