On Accusations by the Ayub Regime Address to Young Lawyers’ Circle Lahore, February 25, 1967

I am grateful to the Young Lawyers’ Circle for the honor they have conferred on me by inviting me to address them this evening. The day before yesterday I addressed a similar function of young students here in this hotel, in this place and in this very room. This indicates stability!

We all want political stability and want to contribute towards it. What exactly is meant by political stability? Stability in a political sense is an important term. It means stability in policy, a particular point of view which is tested and whose results are known. What the nation and the people need now is a permanence in policy, a permanence in ideology and a permanence in approach which cannot be found in elusiveness. It would not be a permanence in approach if we want a unitary government and end up with a federal or quasi-federal type.

All of us would welcome stability in principle, ideology and a singleness in national purpose; not in perpetuation of personalities but of policies. And our policies should be put to the people. They should be taken into confidence and then the people will follow them. There will be a sense of direction; there will be a motivation; there will be a political framework which has the approval of the people ensuring their future, their economic well-being, and the education of their children.

I have been accused of turning somersaults and singing the song of democracy. A gentleman has accused me of being undemocratic. For eight years, I was a member of the Government and am now accused of being undemocratic. Thus by inference they are accusing the Government of being undemocratic. I have not yet spoken about democracy here.

After all, you must have a principle, a system, either democratic or authoritarian, but from the time of Plato no one has been able to find a combination of both. You cannot dictatorialise democracy or democratise dictatorship within a democracy or a dictatorship.

If the system is to be authoritarian, it must be for a national purpose. It must be put to the people and if the people believe in the objectives, they will sacrifice their liberty. If tomorrow we go to the people of Pakistan and ask them to accept dictatorship for the liberation of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, they may consider making this sacrifice. In any case the people will have to be taken into confidence. These are elementary matters and there can be no confusion about them. You have to run the system properly. There can be no half-way house. There was a revolution in Turkey and as the acting Foreign Minister I was asked to comment on it. I said Menderes wanted to dictatorialise democracy.

When we had Martial Law I said there should be a parliament. You cannot run a policy without party or parliament. It is through the party that you can mobilize public opinion and in all systems the party is essential. If we did have Martial Law, there were certain aims and objects. Change is inevitable in policy. Events moved. Time changed. Martial Law was replaced by a Constitution. There was no contradiction. It has been said by a gentleman that I have Fascist tendencies. I ask this gentleman what tendencies has he got? Sometimes I am accused of being a communist and there is another gentleman who swears by everything under the, sun that I am a card-carrying communist. I swear by God, I am nothing but a Pakistani. If it becomes necessary to defend the national interests, we have to take certain positions uncompromisingly. These are not normal times nor normal circumstances. You can expect moderate leadership for normal times. These are extreme times and extreme and difficult times are to be met by extreme leadership. Application of moderate leadership in extreme times does not pay. There are great upheavals, old concepts are exploding and new aspirations taking place. It is only in a period of change that we move with the times. The status quo will only produce surrender and subjugation and Asia cannot be an exception to it. In 1848, there was a revolution in Europe and everybody now wants a revolution in Asia and Africa. You will find a common pattern in Europe during 1848. National leaders were thrown out and they are now being thrown out and being replaced in this part of the world. Mighty imperialistic forces are operating against nationalism but nationalism will gain ascendancy. Just as in France, where revolution after revolution took place, so it will be in Asia. It is only a setback that arouses national consciousness. Sacrifices will have to be made. If you choose a wrong path there will be an upheaval. Ideas are natural. Ideas germinate. I will take the example of a non-controversial country. There were Lumbumba and Tshombe but it is only Lumbumba who is remembered. Only good ideas and good deeds remain behind. Everything else goes.

Every country has to pass through many crises irrespective of odds but the people will surmount the crises, no matter how great the challenge.

I have been accused of unbalancing the foreign policy. I am accused of taking the country too far towards China and thus unbalancing the foreign policy and bringing about a deterioration in Pakistan-USA relations. In fact, from the time Pakistan became a member of SEATO, CENTO and the bilateral treaty with the United States and up to 1962, our foreign policy was unbalanced as it had only one dimension. We had no relations with USSR and China. The pendulum was made to come to the middle. In reality it was coming to the centre and not unbalancing the foreign policy. Another gentleman has accused me of having ignored the United States. The fact was that before the Sino-Indian conflict we forgot the USSR and China and did not realize our geographical position. It was after the Sino-Indian conflict that the situation changed and the USA shifted its policy. It is in defence of Pakistan’s national interest that I have brought about this balance. If it is a crime, I am proud of it. The world keeps on changing. USA and USSR now have reached an era of understanding. They have signed a test ban treaty. Barriers between East Europe and West Europe are gradually disappearing. The Berlin Wall will remain of academic value and France is challenging the United States on NATO. If great powers can make accommodation then there is no reason why there should be no accommodation reached here in the national interest. Even the Vietnam war cannot go on. It is bound to come to an end. And after Vietnam, USA will make a reappraisal and then we will have to make a readjustment. The period of readjustment is always a period of test. We will have to go through a difficult time of upheaval. Even Nehru in his lifetime was very critical of USA’s conditions on aid. Now everything is forgotten. India is on good terms with the United States. There is no such thing as permanent enemies or permanent friends.

Difficult times of upheaval are a challenge to the leadership. They should mobilize public opinion. Our power is the power of the people. We should take them into confidence, especially when we are challenged and pitched against big powers. Then we can go to the people asking them for sacrifices. There was famine in Nehru’s time. He went to the people and asked for their cooperation but he did not accept terms against India’s national interest. Similar conditions were being imposed on the supply of wheat to UAR but Nasser refused to accept those conditions.

When the World Bank Consortium postponed the aid we took the people into confidence. The matter was taken to the National Assembly. Then they came to us saying it was only a question of Congressional authorization. Now they are asking for joint ventures between India and Pakistan on the plea that they cannot give separate aid. Perhaps, this may be considered or taken into account. But I say it is wrong and preposterous. We can have joint ventures with Iran, Turkey or Indonesia, but not with a country that has usurped other people’s territory. We cannot accept joint ventures with such a country. These problems have to be faced with unity and a positive and constructive approach. You have to be firm in dealing with your opponents and show a spirit of accommodation while dealing with your own people. You want to be pragmatic with the people and not show accommodation. Internally you are intolerant and firm but externally you are not. I will not like to complicate national problems as we are going through a terrible and difficult period. It is too bad if I am not understood. What is at stake is very grave.

Then there is a courtier from Karachi who asks me how to deal with the Indian menace. I have spoken many a time in the country, at the United Nations and in Delhi but this gentleman does not know my attitude towards India. Events are moving fast. India has many problems and little sense of direction. It is because India has perpetuated injustice and defied the laws of morality, but God will do justice. We cannot be intimidated in negotiations that we have three tanks and they have twenty tanks. We must remember that India is in a dilemma. Her problems are not capable of solution while our problems are with proper leadership. We can play a heroic and honorable role but this cannot be by surrendering the Pakistan ideology but by upholding vigorously the ideals of Quaid-i-Azam and the policy of confrontation with India. Confrontation leads to vigilance, unity “and unleashes great energy, cooperation and enthusiasm. We cannot settle our issues with India on the master and servant, or an aggressor and aggressed, basis.

We have to be prepared for a long struggle and I tell you that you have a long and arduous way to go. There is no alternative. If we yield to the demands of India, the demands will keep multiplying.

I am asked why I went to lunch at the Indian High Commission. If I abuse India and still they invite me to their functions, who is dishonored, I or India, that despite my abuses they invite me? Did I call Nehru my elder brother? I have told India several times to vacate aggression. Going to the enemy camp and telling them of their injustices is not an easy thing.

I have never claimed any credit or any honor for the authorship of the foreign policy. Why is the Government so apologetic about it?

It follows that there is no consistency in the charges against me. Some say I did not initiate Pakistan’s relations with China; that relations with China were already there. And yet some say that I am responsible for the deterioration in US-Pakistan relations. Instead of making these charges the Government should rather attend to problems, more urgent national problems and leave me in peace. I am after all a small “wadera” who can be easily tackled by a district magistrate or a sub-inspector. What was the necessity of the Information Minister coming out after a year with a statement on Tashkent, a year after the event, as if he had seen some vision in the night? Why do they add tension to tension? Mobilize your energies to attend to urgent problems of inflation, food and rising prices. Who are we? We are small people and insignificant mortals.

If I wanted, I could have gone abroad or I could have taken some ambassadorship but I want to do my duty to my people. I want to serve my people and be with my people and to express my views on national problems.