বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (দ্বাদশ খণ্ড)/৬৮
| শিরোনাম | সূত্র | তারিখ |
|---|---|---|
| বনস্থ বিথোভেন হলে প্রধানমন্ত্রী ইন্দিরা গান্ধীর ভাষণ | ভারত সরকারের পররাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রণালয় | ২১ নভেম্বর, ১৯৭১ |
PRIME MINISTER INDIRA GANDHI’S SPEECH IN BEETHOVEN HALL,
BONN, NOVEMBER 21, 1971
Following are excerpts from the speech:
.... When we thought that the path was cleared-and after the elections, as you all know, we were busy congratulating one another, patting each other on the back, suddenly a new burden, without any warning, without any fault of our own descended upon us, and that is the crisis which took place across our borders. Now, normally, I do not like speaking about other countries, but, in order that you may understand the situation, I would like to say something. When there was the independence struggle in the Indian sub-continent, the movement or the struggle was all over the sub-continent, even in that part which is now Pakistan. But when independence was achieved, the country was divided; we accepted that division, unhappily perhaps, but we accepted it, and we have not by any word or deed done anything to change that situation. In India, those who have fought for freedom stood for elections and have formed the government; but on the other side those who had fought for freedom remained in the prison, by and large, and the Government was formed by those who had collaborated with the foreign rulers, either in the military or in their civil service. This was a major difference between the Governments of the two countries, and this is what has made it so difficult for us to see alike.
India was twice attacked by Pakistan, and today there is a danger of war. We have done, and we will continue to do, nothing which will provoke a war, but the conditions are very war-like even today because our troops are facing each other on the border. I was asked this question a little while ago on TV: Why is it that India is not willing to withdraw her troops when this proposal has been made? It was India which approached the United Nations when the crisis firs began brewing.
You know, just as we had elections in India, there were elections in Pakistan after a very long time, because the people were getting tired of military rule and there was a general demand for elections. In Pakistan, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the leader of the Awami League Party, got a majority that was even much bigger than my majority in India. Almost to a man, the people in East Bengal-man or woman-voted for him. But whereas in India it was a logical conclusion-you win an election, you from the Government-on the other side this did not happen. The six-point programme was not a new programme, it was the programme which Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had put before the people before the elections. This was his election campaign, his election programme. And if anybody had any objection, whether the leaders or anybody else, the time to raise the objections was before the elections. They should have said we cannot have elections on the basis of this six-point programme. But nobody and anything. It was when the elections were won by such a big majority that this was raised; “that this means far too much autonomy than we are prepared to give”. And negotiations began. We thought, and the people of East Bengal thought, that this was a genuine attempt to come to an understanding; but the time was used for bringing across more troops from West Pakistan by sea, and when they thought that there were sufficient troops to deal with the population, on the 24th March, I am told by a leader of East Pakistan, who says he was, if not in the same room, at least in the same house where talks were being held-that they thought that things were going on well and that they were approaching a solution and an agreement. The very next day, a reign of terror, of massacre, and all that goes with it, was unleashed, and this resulted in millions of refugees-the number is now over 9 million-it is the population of Belgium or Austriawho are now sitting on Indian soil in the greatest of discomfort, in the greatest of misery, in very inadequate camps.
Now, even it in a rich country 9 million people were to come suddenly, not a few at a time, but very suddenly in a few weeks, they would not be able to manage the situation. So you can imagine that India being one of the poorest countries, with very limited resources, and in this situation we have 9 million people. You can imagine the pressure on supplies, on the administration, on the resources, on money, on every possible thing. Most of the refugees have come into four States of India in the Eastern region, and in one of them, Tripura, there is hardly room to put a person now. They are occupying the schools and the colleges and parks, every possible public building. In the beginning, the people were very sympathetic. Now the parents say; `well, we are sympathetic but what about our children? When will the schools open? Are they going to miss years of their education? So, all administrative work in some of these States is at a standstill. Every official is busy looking after the camps.
The economic burden is tremendous, the administrative problems are there. but even more so are the social and political problems which have arisen. We have organized trade unions. There is a recognized rate. Now, the refugees can’t-we are trying to keep them in the camps, but because the number is so large and many of them don’t come to camps at all they offer their services at much lower rate. Now, immediately there is trouble, because the labor unions say ‘well, this is our rate and you cannot employ’. But we have people who was to take advantage of such a situation, and so we have great social tensions. I am just giving one example to show the type of problems that can arise but more serious than all of this is the threat to India’s stability; because amongst the refugees there are many who may not be genuine refugees. We have no way of booking them. And we are having acts of sabotage, trains are being blown up, lambs are found in places, and a lot of propaganda is being done in order to their tension between the different religions.
Pakistan has raised a question about the number of refugees; we say they are over 9 million. They have given the figure of 2½ to 3 million. Now, there is some logic in their argument, because 2½ to 3 million is the figure of the Muslim refugees, but we have not only Muslim refugees, we have Hindus, we have Christians, we have Buddhists. In three of the States, Tripura, Meghalaya and Assam, everybody is fully accounted for, for there every individual has a ration card. It is true, in West Bengal things are not so well organized because the larger numbers are there. But after this question arose, we are having a recounting at all the Camps and it may be over by now, because it started some time before I left the country. It may be a little less, it may be a little more, but I don’t think there will be a great difference in the figures which we have given.
Now the question is: (1) about the United Nations observers, and (2) about the withdrawal of the troops. When we had asked the United Nations to look into this maller, we were told that it is an internal matter the United Nations cannot do anything. This was right at the beginning of the crisis. We kept on reminding them that it may be an internal matter, but its consequences are overflowing into India creating great problems, and the United Nations should take an interest. Now the United Natio observers want to come, not to deal with the cause of the crisis which is in East Bengal, but to see who is crossing over the border. They want to tell the refugees to go back. We are telling the refugees, to go back and if some more people will tell them, well, they are welcome. But Indian society is an absolutely open one. All the journalists from your country, from Canada, from the U.S.A. from the United Kingdom, many other countries have gone there, both sides, to East Pakistan, to India, to West Pakistan; they are free to report; the Diplomatic Corps is free to go where it wants to go. We have had Parliamentary Delegations also from both the AmericasLatin American countries, North America-Japan, New Zealand, the different counties of European the Scandinavian countries; all these people have been free to go, to report, to talk to the refugees. So it makes no great difference. And we have also 10 people from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. So it is no great problem if a few more people come from the United Nations or from anybody else. Of course, then there are the international organizations; there is CARITAS, there is UNICEF, there is CARE. “WAR-ON-WANT”, OXIAM, and some others. So it wouldn’t make much difference if some more were so come. But we do object, we object because these people are coming not to deal with the problem as a whole but to try to deal with a part of the problem. When we say to the refugees. as I have been consistently saying, that India cannot keep these refugees as a permanent burden, they must go back to East Bengal, they can stay for a few months, if there are a few children who are orphans or few women who have no home, we could keep them, but we are not going to keep millions and millions of foreign nationals in our country, no matter what we are absolutely determined about it. Their reply is “we want to go back, but how can we go back when the massacre is continuing”, when every day-first there were 30 to 40 thousand, then the figure went up to 62 thousand everyday-now I am told that it has come down slightly, but it is still in the region of 16 to 20 thousand. But still so many people are coming with the same stories of barbarity, of horror, of murder, of rape. How can we ask the people to go back? And who will listen to us, even if we do ask? First, the condition should be created on the other side which should assure the refugees that they can go in safety and in dignity. This is what we have said to the United Nations.
Now, with regard to troops, it is Pakistan which first brought their troops to the borders; they came first on the Eastern border because they are para-forces. We have an agreement with them that they would not be troops, they would be only paramilitary forces-East Bengal Rifles, East Pakistan Regiment-on the side, and what we call the Border Security Force, on our side. Their people, i.e. this Regiment and the Rifles, have left the Pakistan service in March, as soon as this happening started, and they joined the Movement of Liberation of East Bengal. So, their border was left in a way unprotected. Either they left it or they did not trust these people in the check-posts and they moved their army to the border. So, after some time, we were forced to move our troops also. Now there was no trouble whatsoever on the Western Front, i.e., Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, but one day they moved their troops there also. Now, there we have got U.N. said, “Oh, this is merely a training exercise”. Obviously, it is not something we could believe. Even then, we did not do anything for more than a week, but at the end of that time we saw that their troops had no intention of withdrawing, we were compelled to bring our troops up to the border.
ow, what does withdrawal mean? People say, even though it was their fault, what harm is there in withdrawing the troops? Well, the question is that their cantonments are right near the border, but ours are not; ours are very far away and if we withdraw, there is no way we can really adequately defend our country if they change their mind. And, we have had no cause to trust them, I mean, we have been attacked twice and on each accession for many months they have, “we have nothing to do with It, we have sent no infiltrators”, and then they themselves have admitted this in public forums, such as, either the Security Council or somewhere else. This is the history and the background. As any head of Government-although India is deeply committed to peace, to total disarmament. India believes that war does not solve problems-but we cannot leave our borders undefended in the present circumstances, especially as all the news coming from Pakistan state that since they are bound to lose East Bengal, why should they not grab a piece of the West. This is the situation which we face. Seeing India from a long distance, it may seem to you: “well, it does not make any difference”. But the people who live on the borders, and ours and inhabited right up to the very edge-in fact, in East Pakistan we have houses where, the houses are in India and the kitchens arc East Bengal or vice-a-versa. We have no natural border; there is no river or road or anything like that. To the people who live in the border, it means a great deal whether they are properly defended or not, whether they can trust the Government to defend them. So, this is what the position is.
There was another question which was asked me a little while ago and which was what about Kashmir? Now, what about Kashmir? Pakistan has spread the propaganda that Kashmir is pro-Pakistan, and I am afraid some other people have helped them in this propaganda. In 1965, they sent a lot of infiltrators, trained people. They thought that these people would we welcomed by the locals. But they were not welcomed. The local population was the first to inform us, because, as it happened, at that time, we did not have very many forces there, we did not even have sufficient police in the city of Srinagar, which is the capital city. It was a very great weakness. This was so because, in the meantime, in 1962. we had been attacked on the other border and we had concentrated all our forces there. But when this attack took place in 1965, it was the unity of the local people, who not only kept us informed, but who formed the front lines almost- till the army came to defend their country. This is how we not only not allowed the Pakistani Army into Kashmir, but took a large portion of territory which has most of the vantage points which were under Pakistan's occupation previously. Now, Kashmir has lived in peace all these many years. There are voices of dissent there, I am not saying that there are not, but so are there in practically every country. There is hardly any country in the world, which has not some voices of dissent. The way to judge a situation is there peace or not, is the Government there going on normally, is education expanding, agricultural programme improving, industry expanding in Kashmir; all these things are happening. Everybody is free to go there. It is true that we have recently put some restrictions on one or two of their leaders. They are free to go anywhere, but not to enter Kashmir, because things are peaceful there and we thought that at this moment for some body to start trouble is not in the country's interest.
So, we have nothing to hide and, as I said, we shall not, certainly not, be the people to provoke a greater confrontation. But to think that the present situation can last is unrealistic. To think that the bitterness and hatred in the hearts of the East Bengalis can go without any positive action, is to be unrealistic. And, as a politician, one has to face the reality of the situation; it is not a question of what I think or what I want, it is a question of what exists, and what exists is that the people of East Bengal want to decide their destiny themselves. They do not want advice from me, and they will not take it even if I want to give to them. They are imbued today with the spirit of nationalism. It may be good. it may be bad, that is beside the point. But this is a situation which nobody can ignore. And that is why we think that the world should take interest, to try see that a political settlement is reached which will be lasting, and nothing will be lasting unless it is accepted by the people of East Bengal and their elected representatives.
Now, the Pakistan Government has announced that they will have re-elections. We certainly cannot understand it. The people who won the elections are here, they are alive. You can’t suddenly say these seats are vacant. Not only do they say the seats are vacant, but 55 people have been declared elected unopposed to some of those vacancies. It is an extraordinary position, and I don’t think any body who is concerned with democracy, with liberty, can accept this situation.
Further, the burden on India, not the economic burden, is tremendous. As I said a little while ago to another audience, when you are poor, you know you can be poorer. If you have not enough to eat, you are always willing to share what you have. We found that in our country and our experience has been that whether there is drought or whether there has been war, it is the poor people who have helped the most. Today, although the burden is a tremendous one, it is going to cost us a great deal, not just in moncy, it will cost us in development it will cost the promises we made to our people, of the programme of employment, every single programme; we are trying not to cut it, but I don’t see how it can remain whole, everything will have to be pruned. We have very heavy taxation already, and about a few days before coming, we had to put extra tax burden on every possible thing we could think of. And we just sat and thought, now what can be possible taxed, and we taxed. So, we have this enormous burden but I have confidence in my people. They have shown their capacity to endure any burden, to bear any type of suffering or sacrifice, and. today, if we have to do it for our unity, for our stability, for our freedom. I know that the people of India, and even the political parties which are otherwise completely opposed to me, I know that on this question, we stand as one. And we have the determination to bear this burden. We are not going to go under, however heavy the economic burden is, or any other burden.
But we may have to take steps which are necessary to safeguard our freedom and our stability, and, I think, that this is not only in the interest of India, it is in the interest of Pakistan itself. Pakistan cannot remain if India is unstable. If Pakistan becomes unstable for a while and India is stable. Pakistan will come back to stability. But if, in the larger part of the sub-continent, there is trouble, then certainly nobody can save Pakistan or any other smaller countries there. and, I think, if there is instability in India, it will have an effect on all of Asia, and perhaps in other parts of the world as well.
So, today, we feel that very much more is at stake than people are realizing; and I have come here not to ask for anything from the Government, from any of the countries where I have been, but merely to give my assessment of the situation as it exists. And it is then for these countries, these governments or the people, to decide what they should do in such a situation, whether they should help or they should not. Naturally, everybody welcomes sympathy, everybody welcomes friendship, everybody welcomes support, but we know that in life, in the ultimate analysis. everybody-even a parent, or a child, or a sister, or a brother, each individual is alone; each country is alone; and India must learn to stand on her feet; she is going to stand on her feet and deal with the problems herself.
Following are some of the questions asked by the audience and the replies given
by the Prime Minister:
Question: You speak about humanity for the East Pakistanis. How will you explain the construction of Farraka Barrage which certainly is going to destroy the agriculture and economy there?
Prime Minister: I don’t know whether the young lady knows the geography of the place. East Bengal does not suffer from a shortage of water but of too much of water.. (applause). This matter has been under discussion for a long time. Unfortunately, Pakistan is now trying to make it into a political question, whereas it is not. It is not in any way harming East Pakistan or East Bengal.
Question: Excellency, Mrs. Gandhi, I want to tell you that I am Vice President of the Committee of Migration in the International Council of Women. We have made a resolution in our meeting in Amsterdam about the very great problem of refugees in you country, to urge all 60-member councils to take more care for your problems and urge the United Nations to look after the minorities in the world.
Prime Minister: Thank you very much.
Question: Madam, you said in the course of your speech that East Pakistani people are imbued with nationalism. Do you think this nationalist spirit is absent in West Bengali people, and because Bengalis are a nation, therefore, they should have one State? How would you preclude the people of West Bengal, who are as much Bengalis, from forming the same State?
Prime Minister: It is a very good question; thank you for asking it. I should have actually dealt with it in my speech. Well, the first answer is that there is no feeling in West Bengal to separate from the rest of India. Secondly, it is not only a question whether what West Bengal would like to do, but whether the people who live in East Bengal would like West Bengal to join them. Obviously, nothing is impossible in the world and it is a remote possibility. I personally do not think that such a thing can happen, because West Bengal is far more developed, whether industrially, educationally or in any other way, than the East is. We know from own experience of what has happened in Vietnam, that they would not like to have a bigger brother attached to them who should dominate them.
Question: You mentioned something about the six-point programme of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. But I think you should inform the audience that the division of the country was not in his six-points. And it would be the same thing as if Candidate Strauss would win the election for Chancellorship and he would like 10 separate Bavaria from Germany. I don't think that the people of Germany would accept that.
Prime Minister: I think I made it very clear that the six-points were announced before the elections. They were accepted, presumably, because otherwise why should the elections have been held on that programme? That was the basic programme put to the people of East Bengal and it is not only the people of East Bengal but also some of West Pakistan who voted for Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s Party.
Question: The six-points did not give him the mandate to divide the country.
Prime Minister: We are talking about whatever the six-points did. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman did not ask for any 7th point at all. Whatever the programme was, as I said, if anybody disapproved of it, the time to raise that point of disapproval was before the elections and not afterwards.....
Question: Relating to Indo-Soviet Treaty and detente in Europe.
Prime Minister: Well, our Indo-Soviet Treaty is unconnected with this matter. We welcome the détente here and we wish that there would be détente in all such disputes anywhere. So far as the Indo-Soviet Treaty is concerned, well, it is just what it says, its name says, the “Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Co-operation”.
A lot of people who have never supported non-alignment are now trying to say that this Treaty is going against the interest of non-alignment, India is no more nonaligned, and so on. We are naturally not at all impressed by this argument because we know what our policy has been and we are determined that it is going to remain the same.
Question: Hon’ble Prime Minister, Mrs. Gandhi, my question is almost identical with the former question, but I just want to elaborate one point. It is a fact that our Treaty with the Soviet Union is not intended to affect our policy of nonalignment; but I think the influence of Russia is getting more and more in our part of the world. As far as I am informed, the Soviet Navy has approached some of our ports, at least party. And Russia is too big a power, too strong a power, that in a long time, I mean, in a long period of our relationship, whether India can really remain sovereign and non-aligned?
Prime Minister: This indeed is a very extraordinary question, if I may say so. Perhaps the gentleman has been out of India for a considerable time and he does not know how we feel. If the Soviet Union is on the Indian Ocean, well, so are many other Navies, there. He has not suggested that any other Navy, being there is also going to influence us. So, therefore, why should the Soviet influence be more than the others? Every country in the world, small or big, does try to influence others countries. The question is whether we are going to withstand that pressure or not. We have always withstood pressure. We have fought for our independence. We have not appealed or begged for it. We have fought for it with our lives (Prolonged applause).