বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (দ্বাদশ খণ্ড)/৭৯
| শিরোনাম | সূত্র | তারিখ |
|---|---|---|
| জাতিসংঘে পররাষ্ট্রমন্ত্রী শরণ সিং-এর সাংবাদিক সম্মেলন | ভারত সরকারের পররাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রনালয় | ২২ ডিসেম্বর, ১৯৭১ |
Foreign Minister Swaran Singh’s press Conference at the U.N.
December 22, 1971
F.M.- I shall not detain you long. I extend you a very hearty welcome. I have no intention of making any opening statement. You can start straightway asking such questions as you may like.
Q.- Do you think that the security Council resolution last night was a useful one?
A. I think it is useful because it highlights and stresses the importance of stabilizing the cease-fire, the principle of withdrawals also is accepted, and, therefore. it is a good resolution. It also indirectly acknowledges the reality of the situation, and there is no call for immediate withdrawal which, in the circumstances is impracticable.
Q.- How does it indirectly recognize the reality?
A.- It does this in this respect that taking the two theatres-eastern and western theatres-in the eastern theatre any call for immediate withdrawal of troops would create a situation which obviously cannot be countenanced with any satisfaction. The situation there is such where a civil government has already been established. It is the latest information that we have got. The entire people are with the elected representatives, those who were elected in December, 1970, and they will take some time to establish, themselves, and it is therefore, necessary that some time should lapse before there can be a withdrawal of Indian troops from Bangla desh.
Q.- Are you taking any steps in consultation with other government in an attempt to secure the return of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to Bangla desh?
A.- I have seen a press report that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is being released from prison and is being moved to a house. Perhaps his physical comfort might improve, But unless he is released, it is immaterial whether he is in a jail or a house, and it is time that he is released and comes back to his people to give them the lead that they badly require at this stage.
Q.- Would you like any of the West Pakistan troops in East Pakistan to return to West Pakistan before he is released?
A.- I have already made a statement in the security Council that West Pakistan troops, as are left in East Pakistan, will in course of time be repatriated to west Pakistan as a result of negotiations that are bound to take place. After, that, the Government of Bangladesh, constituted by the elected representatives, will decide as to what are their requirements, and we do not want to be there in Bangladesh even for a day longer than may be necessary.
Q.- Are you saying, Mr. Foreign Minister, that if West Pakistan did not release Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, you will still return West Pakistan troops?
A.- We attach importance to the release of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, because he is the one man who can stabilize and give the right lead to the 75 million people of Bangladesh, and, therefore, it is necessary anyhow, and we would do our best along with other countries to ensure that he is released and goes back to his people.
Q.- Mr. Foreign Minister, you mentioned last night two conditions that must take place before withdrawal. One was that all the refugees must return to their country. I did not quite get the second.
A.- In fact, I mentioned in my yesterday’s intervention in the security Council, but it was not exhaustive in relation to the factors that might necessitate the stay of Indian troops in Bangladesh. I mentioned some of these considerations. One was the creation of conditions where the refugees could return to their homes and the other important consideration is that the West Pakistan troops in Bangladesh at the present moment face a danger of reprisals, and for their protection and for their repatriation also the presence of India troops in necessary. It is also necessary to ensure that the type of reprisals that are not unnatural in a situation where the entire people have suffered for over nine months in all manner of atrocities; it is to tide over these difficulties that the continued presence for some time of Indian troops in Bangladesh appears to be necessary.
Q. Can you make a guess about how long that will take?
A.- A great deal depends on the international community. The more rapid the recognition of the reality in Bangladesh by the international community the easier will it be for us to pull out our troops from Bangladesh. But if there is no response to the continued assertion by West Pakistan that they have the right to send troops to Bangladesh, that will be a negative factor and this will obviously delay the Indian troops leaving Bangladesh. The sooner the international community recognizes the reality that reality that Bangladesh has come to stay, the sooner will Bangladesh move towards stability, and thus enable India to pull out her troops.
Q. What is your assessment of the delay in action by the United Nations, particularly recalling that the Secretary-General asked the U.N. to take some action last summer?
A.- It is not for me to comment upon that. All of you are fully familiar with it. I think the main reason was that there was reluctance on the part of a number of countries to take some action for stopping the atrocities and stopping the movement of refugees from Bangladesh, treating this as an internal affairs of Pakistan. But in the context of what is any country’s internal affair, if it causes an external problem of the magnitude that India faced when India received ten million refugees, then obviously it ceases to be an internal matter and the reluctance of the international community to tackle this aspect is mainly responsible for inaction which ultimately resulted in encouraging the West Pakistan military regime to go on with the atrocities which were being committed, against the innocent and unarmed people of Bangla Desh.
Q. You must have seen comments in the Press-I have in mind the British Press-which says that that the sub-continent-in the political analysis of the situation-is now wide open to big power-three powers-struggle that may transcend the entire rivalry between Pakistan and India.
A. We in India have never accepted the concept of a balance of power-a subject about which many western commentators have aired their views. It is for the people living in that region to work out their destiny and their future, and I have no doubt in my mind that with her traditions of democratic institutions, with the tradition of working out a federal democratic system, India will definitely provide the stability that is necessary. We have demonstrated even in this Indo-Pakistan conflict that we had not territorial designs against Pakistan, even though we are in full occupation of Bangladesh still we have said from the very beginning that it is for the people of Bangladesh to work out their future, and if the people in the various parts of the subcontinent are encouraged by the international community to decide their own future and to mould their own destiny, there will not be any scope for any outside interference. It is our earnest hope that any talk of external interference would not take any concrete shape.
Q.- Would you give us your reaction to the change of presidency in Pakistan?
A. Mr. Bhutto is no doubt the democratically elected leader of West Pakistan, because his party did have a clear majority in West Pakistan. It is significant to mention that he was content to be Deputy Prime Minister under. Mr.. Nurul Amin, who was designated as Prime Minister. But there is now recognition of the change in the situation and Nurul Amin now appears to be satisfied in accepting Vice-Presidentship. This indicates that Mr. Bhutto himself realizes that he is the leader of West Pakistan, rather than of the whole of Pakistan, because his party did not get a single seat in Bangladesh. So, we will be prepared to deal with whoever may be the head of government in Pakistan and Mr. Bhutto is as good as anyone else.
Q.- When will these negotiations take place, Mr. Singh?
A. We are prepared to start them immediately and I am not sure whether Pakistan is yet ready to do so. May be, on account of the big changes, the overhaul of their defence forces and the rest, the may take some time before they are ready to start negotiations. On our side, we are prepared to start straightway.
Q.- Do you consider the release of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman a condition which has to be fulfilled before you start negotiations?
A. My own assessment is that, on the political level, things in Pakistan are likely to move quite swiftly. Whereas the military generals always had a military approach, president Bhutto is likely to make swift political moves and obviously the political move which is likely to be made is to try to persuade Sheikh Mujib, and in that connection, I think, the early release of sheikh Mujibur Rahman, cannot be ruled out. We would very much like him to be released.
Q.- Does not the threat of Mr. Bhutto to fight on disturb you at all?
A.- It is not a very happy thought that after becoming President his first speech should be that he wants to continue the fight. I do not know-continue to fight for what? And the fact that the Pakistan Delegation has accepted the security Council resolution that was adopted yesterday, does indicate that their actual approach and response is not the same as the extremist statement by President Bhutto.
Q.- Where do you expect these negotiations would take place?
A.- Any place. We have no strong views. We are prepared to go to any place for these negotiations. We are prepared to go to Islamabad and we will welcome them if they want to come to Delhi.
Q. Would you tell us whether you consider the assistance of a social representative of the secretary-General useful in such negotiations?
A.- So far as the utility of the secretary-General’s representative for tackling the humanitarian aspect is concerned, it will be a welcome more. But these other political talks are a bilateral matter between India and Pakistan, and, in retrospect, let us remember that whereas the international community here in the United Nations was still struggling with the problem, the two parties did bring about a cease-fire arrangements, although the initiative in this case came from Prime Minister Indira Gandhi who offered a unilateral cease-fire.
Q. To what extent do you think the soviets control India? I mean India’s reputation of neutrality.
A.- India’s reputation for being a non-aligned country has increased as a result of the Indo-soviet treaty, because the Indo-soviet treaty definitely recognizes that India is a non-aligned country, and the U.S.S.R. first perhaps in any formal document has also admitted the validity of the concept of non-alignment as a factor for peace and stability in the world. So, the Indo-soviet treaty in fact highlights the importance of non-alignment in the concept of international peace.
Q.- I need hardly tell you that this is not the king of thinking in Washington.
A.- Washington have their own method of assessing situations, and I think as time passes, the Administration in Washington will also realize that India is a country mature enough and big enough to look after its own interests and is not dependent on the particular support of any country, nor is it terribly afraid of the irritations that might be in the minds of other countries. These are things which a country like India has to take in its stride, and things will definitely fall in proper perspective as time passes.
Q.- You spoke about negotiations-bilateral negotiations. Will they be bilateral negotiations or will they be trilateral too?
A.- There will be several points for which there will be trilateral negotiations also, particularly in relation to Bangladesh. But for the western theatre the talks used not be trilateral, they will essentially be bilateral.
Q. We hear, Mr. Minister, it is being said that in this problem it is inheren that the Jammu and Kashmir case may be re-opened with the possibility that administrations may be re-awakened.
A. Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. It is governed by the Constitution of India, and after the atrocities committed by the West Pakistani military regime in Bangladesh, when they suppressed democratic urges of the people of Bangladesh, any talk of self-determination, a concept about which Pakistan has always been stressing, becomes meaningless. At any rate, I do not see why the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent country should have any effect on Jammu and Kashmir.
Q.- How do you assess the role of Britain and France in the Security-Council?
A.- Britain and France have shown a greater understanding of the realities of the situation, and ultimately, in retrospect, their stand appears to be justified, because their main approach was that any resolution which has not got a chance of going through the Security Council is not likely to yield any useful result, and, in retrospect, this approach has turned out to be a realistic approach, and therefore we in India appreciate that they adopted an attitude where they did reality of the situation. The reality was the will of 75 million people of Bangladesh.
Q.- Mr. Foreign Minister, to take you out of such a tense topic..............
A.- It is not tense at all.
Q.- How do you fell about the new Secretary-General as you will have to do a lot of business with him?
A.- I have known Ambassador Waldheim for a long time, and I think that it is a very good choice, and he is likely to play a very useful role in serving the international community.