INTERVIEW TO DER SPIEGEL April 26, 1972

Interviewer: Mr. President, there have been three wars between India and Pakistan. Now you begin peace talks. Do you think it would mean peace for the sub-continent in the future or is there danger of other wars between Pakistan and India?

President: I can’t look into the future for all times to come, but I hope that we can come to a kind of both the parties, and in conformity with international principles, I believe that we can have peace for all times until the world undergoes some kind of a metamorphosis, which we cannot anticipate. But I do not see why we cannot arrive at a durable settlement.

Interviewer: In spite of all the problems, there is the Bangladesh problem; there is the Kashmir problem; there is the problem of population; all sorts of problems. How could you imagine a durable peace, which would not be lasting for only two years or a few years?

President: Yes, well, to put the same thing in a different way; peace which is not imposed; peace which is not in violation of the established principles. If they want to take their military victory to a logical conclusion by subjugating Pakistan politically as well, in that case there would not be much hope for peace, for a durable peace. And you know there are many problems; far too many problems; but then sometimes when there are far too many problems, a breakthrough becomes simpler rather than when there might be just one problem. So the main thing is the intention to live in peace, and to come to the conclusion that war is not really an answer for the settlement of our outstanding differences.

Interviewer: Victorious states tend to be, let’s say, attempt to try to change their victory into political gains in their own sensibility. What would you propose, what should India do with the prisoners of war or what would you do if India goes ahead and let’s say, there are some war criminals trials in Bangladesh or something like that?

President: Actually victorious states have in the histories of Europe especially tried to take their gains to the ultimate conclusion, but what has that brought about when in 1914, (at the end of the 1914 war, the World War-1) such an attitude was taken. It did not really contribute to a durable peace; and we saw again, the Second World War yet unleashed on Europe and the rest of the world. That is a most striking example of when you impose a humiliating or an insulting peace at the conclusion of the war. And I can give so many other examples.

Secondly, as far as the sub-continent is concerned, there have been so many ups and downs. Today we exist as India and Pakistan but it has been a question of the confrontation between the two major communities, whom our leader, the Quaid-e-Azam later on described as the two major nationalities in the subcontinent – the Hindus and the Moslems. There have been so many ups and downs between these two major communities – sometimes the Moslems have won, some times the Hindus have won. There has been Moslem India for seven to eight hundred years – there has been Hindu India too. So are we going to go around in this vicious circle all the time or should we not have an honorable co-existence between our countries? So I believe that judging from the lessons of our own history and from the lesions that international history has shown, I believe that there should be a new change, a new mood for a lasting peace.

And you have mentioned the question of war trials, of our prisoners of war. I would like to state here quite candidly that apart from the legal rights or wrongs, the international law on this subject is not quite clear, and in any case you cannot apply the analogy of Nuremberg to this or to these trials, so-called trials will generate. It won’t generate a good climate, and it is not going to assist in the settlement of our disputes. As it is, even without this gimmick, and it is a gimmick, we have enough problems.

You mentioned them yourselves; Bangladesh, India equilibrium between India and Pakistan, Kashmir, population, prisoners of war; so many adjustments to be made of trade, commerce and hostile propaganda against one another, restoration of diplomatic relations. All these things are enough as it is. And now on top of that, as if there was nothing on the plate, comes this fantastic demand to try people who were defending their own country.

Interviewer: But, Mr. Bhutto, wouldn’t you say that some of these people who defended Pakistan really did go a step too far? Will they go scot-free?

President: Well, the point is this that much has been made of this. I don’t condone it. I don’t apologize for it. I have myself in difficult times protested against the excesses. But the point is I have also said that those people whom the authorities in Dacca feel they have gone beyond the pale, we are prepared to get their names, we are prepared to try them here, we are prepared to punish them for their wrongs because those wrongs were not committed against outsiders. We are prepared to punish people who commit wrongs against outsiders. If they have committed excess against Pakistanis, and they were Pakistanis, today they might call themselves something else, but if they’ve committed crimes against our own citizens, we are bound to take cognizance of that. It is not that we will not take cognizance of it. And I have publicly stated in Peshawar three months ago that we are prepared to take them to task. There is a civilized method of doing it. There is bitterness as it is, so much of it. We don’t want bitterness to increase and we will do justice. What Mr.Mujib-ur-Rahman wants is that they should be punished. Why should they be punished under his palm tree? They should be punished, they will be punished; that’s the main thing.

Interviewer: Didn’t Mr.Mujib-ur-Rahman talks of a panel of international jurists to try these people that he thinks are war criminals?

President; The procedure can always be worked out. The procedure is not important. You see the point is that this raises unnecessary legal points; because once we way international jurists, we accept the fact that there was Bangladesh even at the time when Pakistan was one. We still think it’s one. But at that time, there was no doubt. Why does the international law or international jurists come into it? But I would be prepared to discuss this problem with him. I am prepared to accept the principle that those people who have committed excesses, we will give them an objective trial, and if it is established according to norms of justice that they have committed excesses, they will be suitably taken care of.

Interviewer: Mr. President, you say your Pakistan is longing for peace. Sometimes you speak in other words. I think for example when you say that the honor of Pakistan has to be reestablished, that Pakistan should have again the finest fighting machine in Asia, do you think that’s good for a climate of peace?

President: Well the point is this that every people like to maintain high standards, and especially those people who have had high standards. We are not going to boast about our standards in the military field, especially before the Germans, but we have had high standards and so if we want to retain or restore our high standards, that does not mean that we have aggressive intent in our mind and vindication of national honor does come by so many methods – by economic progress, by making Pakistan really a country, which can show to the world that its people are hard working; that the per capita income here is the highest in the sub-continent, that our people are progressive; that when you come to the sub-continent and you go to any part of it, you’ll find that the best facilities are available here; our roads are good; our schools are good. So we can make our country into a modern, model progressive country. There also we can vindicate our honor and show to the world that well we are a people who have efficient manpower, good manpower, able people.

And it was in that context also that I said that we wanted to restore to Pakistan its standards in the military field; because certainly we don’t want to go down in the world with a bad reputation, and a reputation that we lost one part of our country and that, we were not able to defend another part of our country. This was a fluke, which happened, more on account of the circumstances. We don’t want to go to war with anyone, but we also want to retain those standards, which our people’s traditions and history amply justify.

Interviewer: Well, Mr. President, good armament in such a large scale, in such a massive scale, would harm I think the social and economic progress of the country; so can you have a very fine fighting machine with all the arms you need again and, at the same time, have progress in social and economic matters in the country.

President: Yes, I agree but the point is that now our position is reduced, economically, physically than it was in the past, and nevertheless the Indian government recently has increased its military budget. I can’t understand that because we are now in a small size and our resources are more limited, our foreign exchange has also been cut as a result of our losses of jute and other things. But nevertheless a substantial increase was made in the defense budget of Indians this year when they presented their budget to Parliament. So that leaves us with no choice. Why should India increase her budget in spite of the changed circumstances? So, that answers your question. Secondly, if India reduces her budget then, and if there is, if there is no possibility of war and our disputes are resolved, we will reduce our budget. Also I hope because we are interested more in economic development and in social welfare, and a reduced army can also be an efficient army. We can make it more mobile, we can make it more efficient. We can concentrate on it in such a way that it remains a good army, remains an efficient army, not geared for war, not poised for conflict.

Interviewer: But, Mr. President, as long as there are two outstanding problems, the older problem of Kashmir, the latest problem – recognition of Bangladesh – Pakistan will always be looked upon as wanting revenge.

President: well, we are trying to settle these problems. That’s why I’m keen to meet the Indian Prime Minister. We are not delaying a meeting. We have said from the beginning that we are anxious for an early meet not to see Delhi in its summer months but to settle our problems.

Interviewer: Under what conditions could you recognize Bangladesh?

President: This is a hypothetical question today and secondly; it must come at the right time after I’ve had discussions with Mr. Mujib-ur-Rahman. And it is connected with other problems as well. It’s not a problem in isolation.

Interviewer: Do you intend to meet Mr.Mujib-ur-Rahman.

President: Yes, I’ve already said it, that I’d like to meet him and I’d like to meet him also as soon as possible, because I can’t take these decisions in isolation. They will have to be taken into the totality of the picture.

Interviewer: But, Mr. President, you talked to Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman before you escorted him to the airport. You must have had detailed discussions. Is nothing of that coming true?

President: well, in the first place, at that time he was in Pakistan, here with us, and he can always take the position that he was in custody, he was not a free man, so I don’t want to mention that conversation. Those two conversations we had, very long ones, on the 27th of December and on the 7th of January. But I want to meet him now in a different situation. He is now styled as the Prime Minister of Bangladesh and will not be on our territory so whatever he says and whatever he’s going to do will be in a different context.

Interviewer: India has been arming herself and has increased its military budget. May be India feels a sort of superpower in South Asia since the last war. Do you recognize this Indian position or the Indian wish for that position in this phase?

President: The wish is there. The wish has been there for a very long time. The wish has been there when India became free which can be judged from Pandit Nehru’s statements, from statements of Mr. Pannikar, who was an Indian political theorist and an ambassador and a distinguished Indian leader, and there are their books right from the old times. So the wish has always been there.

But you know, on this matter of super powers and great powers, I have a point of view, and that is that a superpower does not emerge or a great power does not emerge from the size. If that were the case, well, there are many big countries. Brazil is a big country and Canada is a big country. It could have become a superpower. Smaller countries, like Japan, they’re not superpowers but they have been great powers. Those countries that have had the attributes of greatness in them, even if they’ve been defeated or they have had setbacks, they’ve re-emerged in some form or the other to assert themselves.

Now I’m not trying to preach a theory which you, your country preached. I don’t believe in that theory. I don’t think that there are certain nations, certain people born to be great and others not born to be great. That’s not the theory. I don’t subscribe to that theory. But there are certain advantages certain countries have, certain nations have, of historical accidents, and other things. They take advantage of those and then they are technologically otherwise advanced.

A combination of factors make people great, not size alone not technology alone. A number of factors put together. And that is why China was destroyed; they were called opium-eaters and things like that; but they’ve been great in history and they came back. So also Russia; so also France; so also Germany; so also United States. Now India has been great in that sense also. But India has been great, really great, for a period of time, on two occasions. One was at the time of the Ashoka Empire and the other was at the time of the Moghuls.

Interviewer: And this is, what was Moslem India.

President: That was Moslem India and that was Buddhist India. So I wish India all the luck in the world to become great, but I don’t see those attributes, which you have in mind of a superpower. If India tries to be a superpower, and she’s welcome to make that effort, but I think it will be a futile effort.

Interviewer: But you will not consign yourself and Pakistan to be a minor power, to be a second-class country?

President: I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s possible. If you give us, my people, a decade, you will see that we will reassert ourselves, and we will make our fullest contribution to world peace and to international relations and to the peace in the sub-continent. I am talking in constructive, positive terms and if anyone thinks that they’re going to relegate Pakistan into a status of a small country, and I don’t want to mention them by name because I don’t want to be disrespectful, then I don’t think that historically that is correct because Pakistan has a sense of destiny. Its people feel that sense of destiny. They have achieved great results in the past. They’re a proud people. They resisted conquerors, the British. They have a past. They have a good past and I can’t help it if they have this past and they’re proud of it. They’re confident people and I will not set myself out to take away those qualities of my people and, as such, they’ll again make their constructive contributions.

Interviewer: Would you have that? (Right of self-determination of Kashmir).

President: Well, the world, the whole world would sympathies with them and why should there be international law and why should there be international conduct; why should there be right of self-determination; why should there be United Nations; why should there be Security Council; why should people only support the right of self-determination of the people of Algeria or people of Guatemala or people of Nicaragua?

Interviewer: Or the people of Bangladesh?

President: Bangladesh was a part of Pakistan. It exercised its right of self-determination to become a part of Pakistan. And you can’t have every day the right of self-determination exercised. They were on the forefront of the struggle for Pakistan. So the question is Bangladesh is outright secession through a military conquest.

Interviewer: Mr. President, could you visualize a solution for Kashmir in the style of Bangladesh? What happened in Bangladesh last year could happen in Kashmir if the peace talks fail in Delhi?

President: I am not in a position to answer that because for one thing that might spoil our negotiations with India; secondly, it’s really a hypothetical question.

Interviewer: Well, we will insist a little. You know that the main part of your army is stationed along the Kashmir border. Now do you feel that the Indians will try something or would you like to try something?

President: No, no we’re not going to try something. You can print that and you can take it from me that we’re not going to do something silly like that, and under no circumstances we would take any (adventurist) steps of that nature. We have had enough of adventurism. We’ve suffered too much for adventurism. No, that’s out of the question. We have our army poised there for two reasons. One, because Indians are concentrating their forces there, and they have taken a lot of actions, atavistic position; they have taken on the ceasefire line over there and so since the Indians are so active, we are trying to take precautions. Secondly you see, Kashmir is a disputed territory and India, if it attacks Pakistan’s frontiers again after having got such a bad name for its intervention in Pakistan and well in the eyes of the world or anyone else.

Interviewer: Who will help Pakistan?

President: The people of Pakistan will help themselves for a change and on that, of course, we will have a completely new thinking in our country and we are going to see to it that everyone defends Pakistan.

Interviewer: Why youngsters and old people between the age of 18 and 35, I believe, are all drafted, and in the Army in Kashmir?

President: That’s what Azad Kashmir President said the other day. I saw it in the paper where he said that this is happening. I don’t think it is on such a large scale but it will have to be done on a massive scale. I haven’t yet even begun to move in that direction fully but I have to make Pakistan impregnable; its defense impregnable, every part of my country should become a fortress.

Interviewer: that’s why you started the People’s Guard?

President: Well that was beginning but everyone will be a guard; everyone will guard our sovereign integrity.

Interviewer: Mr. President, you started some reforms on the social and the economic sector. Let’s say the land reforms, I think, you did a lot but is it working? Is it beginning to work?

President: Well, you see, the implementation has barely started. Take land reforms. The forms are being filled by the landowners, and by the 15th of May they’ll have to submit. Naturally it will take some time for the implementation to show its results.

Interviewer: Isn’t there some deadline for beginning of these actually?

President: Yes, we have set down very rigid deadlines and given no margin of complacency. I mean it is a full-time operation. In four months, I think it’s very difficult to have the reforms that we have had, and thank God, when we were not in office our Party had done quite a lot of home work and research and prepared some papers on these subjects. If we hadn’t done that, I don’t think we would have been in a position to do much in three months.

Interviewer: But, Mr. President, the so-called vested interests in Pakistan have also done their homework so they claim they have split up the lands, they have taken the money outside – the industrialists. What can you do about that?

President: Well, you see, there has been some land transferred. As a result of it, I’ve reduced, the other day, further ceiling by almost 25 percent even more; and I have stipulated in the land reforms very drastic punishment for those who give wrong forms and give wrong information. So I do admit some have tr4ied to circumvent the reforms but you see we have said that transfers must be genuine, made only to one’s sons, daughters, wives. We have not made it collateral to cousins, aunts and all. And I don’t think people in Pakistan have so many concubines and so many children that hundreds and thousands are being redistributed. So that also is exaggerated. So when we have restricted it to just the children, the children of the person or the wives, or the husband doing it for the wife or the wife doing it for the husband.

Interviewer: But will land gained from these land reforms actually go into the hands of the small peasants or the laborers? Will they be given enough chance to hang on to this land, to make it fertile?

President: Yes, certainly. And some very good land is going to come to them and they’re getting it free. They won’t pay a penny and 12½ acres in the Punjab, in certain good areas, to get that free, they couldn’t have had it in their best dreams. And secondly, those tenants who are going to remain tenants will no longer have to pay any tax liabilities. That’s all been transferred to the landowner. So even they will benefit vastly.

Interviewer: I have one question. President Bhutto is the son of a former landlord, landlord himself, millionaire, socialist himself. Did you give away some of your land?

President: Yes, of course, in 1958 and now also.

Interviewer: Now also with the new land reforms?

President: I’ll give you the details. I’ll give you the details by the 15th because I haven’t been to my estate by now. Even before this change I would have had to give something. One of my sons was going to give quite a bit; but my other children, I think, were not giving as much. That’s how I came to know. I said, no, we must get more cut. We must be axed more. So I reduced the ceiling further.

Interviewer: In your first days as the President you aimed at the big capitalists of Pakistan – the industrialists. You even arrested some of them and you say they should bring some of the money back they took outside the country in the last five or ten years. Did this bring any results up till now?

President: Yes, but I’m not fully satisfied. And now we have been working on our scheme and by the 30th of April they have undertaken to give us money which we think will be quite fair. I forget at the moment the figure because I don’t know the latest position.

Interviewer: Is it cores or…?

President: Yes, I think so.

Interviewer: In dollars?

President: Yes. You see on the one hand the business community talks about restoration of confidence and on the other hand it is dragging its feet. The sooner it finishes with these matters the better it is for them, the better it is for everyone. And if they settle down, we are quite prepared to give them assurances, a kind of a charter. Now this is what we’ve done and we want to stop for the time being and concentrate on consolidating these reforms.

Interviewer: Mr. Bhutto, your party is called People’s Party. Its program is some sort of a socialist program. Do you have any examples to cite about it, or is that an all-Pakistani socialism? If it is so, could you just define it in a few words, would you describe it?

President: Yes, of course. But then you have got in Europe also Christian democrats, and Democratic Socialists. Our Party’s socialism is that we are a Muslim people; we have our faith; we have our values; we have our traditions and we stand by those and as far as socialism is concerned, we accept only that part of Marxism, which is, and which concerns economics. We don’t have to accept the totality of Marx, the whole theory of Marxism from beginning to end; it’s dialectics, its classless and stateless society. With fifty years of Marxist state, one can’t become a stateless society, nor for that matter classless society. Nor do we accept that world is entirely material, there is no God, there are no spiritual values. Why should we accept all that? We accepted the limited part confined to its scientific economic doctrine. They’ve become a little obsolete by time. So we don’t have to be rigid. We’re not rigid. We say it’s a very deep and penetrating study on economics. And whatever remains valid in our light and whatever remains beneficial to our country we must, with the passage of time, try to accept. Use it as a yardstick.

Interviewer: How did the millionaire and landlord become a socialist?

President: Well, why do you ask me that question? Why it is that only Asians (who have a background) cannot accept principles? You see, in Europe, you don’t ask this question.

Interviewer: Well. Sometimes we ask.

President: Here you make it your main theme. But in Europe and in England you accept the fact that principles to a person are more important. And in Asia, I suppose you doubt that politicians in Asia can stand by principles.

Interviewer: No, but I think it is not as often in Asia or in the underdeveloped countries as it is, may be, in industrialized countries?

President: But at the time when Europe was not all that industrialized, even so there were people who stood by socialism of that day, of those times, because after 1848 the question really began on these modern lines. But then there were people who felt, there were individuals who felt for the people, who revolted against the status quo, who felt that cruelty and exploitation was too repugnant to bear even if they had to suffer themselves in the process. French Revolution produced many people from the aristocracy who also revolted against the system. So I don’t think that it is something, which is exceptional, or something, which is surprising. After all, if you serve the country, if you serve the people, if you serve the community, what better wealth is there than making people happy? What better wealth is there than to get their blessings and to know that they feel that you have bettered their lot. Now it depends on one’s approach, one’s outlook and one’s philosophy of life. So I’ve always thought that more important. Money has never been an important factor to me because partly I think I came from a background where I didn’t have to beg; I didn’t have to starve. But even otherwise there are rich people who worship money, and I don’t think so; I don’t feel there is that much value on it. I place my values on other things, which are more important in my book and in my conscience.

Interviewer: Is Power included in one of those values?

President: I was telling you the other night that power by itself in politics is axiomatic. People are in politics to attain power and nobody’s in politics to preach. Politics means to get into power.

That’s not important; that is the objective of politics. What is important is what I said at dinner the other night, what you do with that power, if you abuse that power, if you use it to tyrannies, if you use it to destroy people, then, of course, that’s terrible to desire power for that purpose.

But if you desire power to put your people right, to create a new climate, a new era, to see that children go to schools, that people can get basic amenities of life, to make your country, to make it blossom, to make a contribution to good. That’s what power for a purpose is. And that’s the difference.

Interviewer: Mr. President you abolished Martial Law yet you govern under emergency law. Why does there have to be an emergency? Is it because of India or is it to avoid the remainder of Pakistan from splitting up?

President: Pakistan is not going to split up in a hurry and even the other Pakistan would not have split up without foreign intervention. So sometimes when I see amusing, exaggerated stories in some sections of the western press, and, incidentally, I haven’t seen any in the German, as if it’s a peach melba; the Frontier is the peach and is going to fall, and the melba is going to come this side. I don’t think that’s going to happen in a hurry, I can assure you. It is the wishful thinking of some people who have conjured up the fact that this country must not last. So if a little thing happens they exaggerate and magnify it. Overnight they create great leaders and overnight create great forces. Pathans have always carried a gun on their shoulders. Suddenly their eyes have opened to the fact that the Pathans are carrying a gun on their shoulders.

Interviewer: Then did you see Pathans before?

President: Oh, they have, they have. You see it’s like one American journalist, a fried of mire Selig Harrison who long ago wrote a book called “The Dangerous Decade”, on India. And his prognosis was that India was going to split up.

Interviewer: Well, he’s such a fine journalist otherwise?

President: And so you see that it’s a thing there of the people now, after the fall of East Pakistan, after the fall of Dacca, many people said well this country should never have come into being. Pakistan is not going to fall in such a hurry. That’s out of the question. But as far as the emergency is concerned, first of all, which country of the world has not been under an emergency which is at war, which has remained at war, when there has been no cessation of hostilities, not a peace treaty, when the country, half of it gone and the other half threatened. There are people inside our territory; the enemy is inside our territory; activities on the ceasefire line. That there should be emergency powers, emergency powers have been exercised by all countries when they want. Even in India they have an emergency. She has not lifted it. Mrs. Gandhi has not lifted her emergency. And she can have more reason to lift the emergency because they’re the victorious country. If Pakistan had been the victorious country, perhaps I might have lifted the emergency. It’s a constitutional exercise of constitutional power by the National assembly itself and every constitution in the world contains emergency provisions. And when is it more valid to implement those emergency provisions than in a situation like this.

Interviewer: In Western countries, or among western people, the western pressmen, you over-estimate the freedom of press, Mr. President. Why did you censure, let’s say why did you censure some of your newspapers and even put some of the editors in Jail?

President: The first person we arrested, and put behind bars was not a journalist; he was a civil servant, a bureaucrat who sat in a journalist/editor’s chair for two or three days to claim that he was a journalist. We have got some very good ground for his detention.

Number two, these other little people, these papers because they’re not really important; if it were some important paper one can understand that with their wide circulation they’re playing havoc. But you know what they did was they said nothing but indulged in filthy abuses; absolutely, the dirtiest possible abuses. No country, no society, no decent people would tolerate that kind of thing and let this pass as journalism. Now we didn’t take action although there was Martial law. We called for those people. We told them that look, this is not right. This is not done. This is not decency. You don’t write like that against a people, against a country, against a government, against the head of state, against governors, who have been directly elected by the people, just abuse them left, right and center and then we have a code of conduct for journalists. Now come before this body, comprising journalists and explain whether this is not a flagrant violation of the code of conduct. Some of them refused to come. One of them came and made even more abuses. So you see the point is, there is a law. There is a law of defamation; a law of decency, there is a law like that in all countries. And so it was for these reasons that we were compelled to.

Interviewer: Well, let’s go to what I feel more important matters – the foreign policy of Pakistan. I think in your speech at the assembly you mentioned China, United States, the Arab countries and United States are friends of Pakistan. And you took office and you went to China, you went to Russia; you have been to America and the other Arab countries. How are the external relations of Pakistan nowadays?

President: I think external relations are getting better. I think a better understanding of Pakistan point of view is being felt and we have again re-activated our foreign policy. Our foreign policy had fallen into the doldrums. It was not projected properly by the former regime partly because they didn’t understand foreign policy as such. But I think we’re getting back into the stride, and I have made certain visits to other countries, to Muslim countries, Soviet Union and china and I intend to complete my visit to the other remaining Muslim countries.

But, of course, if Mrs. Gandhi does not release our prisoners of war and keeps them as hostages in spite of the fact that I might release her prisoners of war unilaterally……

Interviewer: Did, did she respond to your offer?

President: Not yet. Not yet. But if she doesn’t do that then I intend to go on a very long international mission. I’ll go everywhere. I’ll go and mobilize international opinion on this matter and it will have to be done with a very effective team. I’ll take people with me. Some of them I’ll send somewhere else. The world now must also do right to Pakistan. We have partly suffered because of the hostile international climate that was created by India on the refugees, which now the whole world knows that there were not ten million refugees. So if we are going and I have our nationals as hostages, then we’ll have to mobilize international opinion very strongly.

Interviewer: You have been in Russia. Russia was India’s friend during the War. How did you get along with the Russian leaders?

President: Well, I think we have got a better understanding of each other’s position, and I believe that some of our misunderstandings have been removed and I think in the future our relations will be better.

Interviewer: I think at the dinner you said some very interesting things, about China. That, your relations with Russia are fine but your relations with China are the most important for Pakistan. So you think China is the most important friend and patron of Pakistan? It was, has been and will be?

President: Yes, but the point is that China has stood by us in every crisis. They have been good friends of Pakistan and we want to have friendship with others as well. It is you who have even taken a different position. But we can’t do that on any condition. We can do that independent of conditions. It doesn’t mean that in order to have good relations with the Soviet Union, we must have bad relations with China. This is the condition that I did not accept when I was foreign Minister.

Interviewer: Well, even Mr. Nixon goes to Peking and to Moscow?

President: But even as Foreign Minister I didn’t accept that position. When the Americans at that time were so allergic to China and I said that it’s not possible for us to not have good relations with China in order to have good relations with the United States. That, we could have good relations with the United States as well as with China. At that time President Kennedy and, of course, afterwards President Johnson simply couldn’t accept that position. Now the American Government accepts that position. President Nixon has also gone to china. So the Soviet Union also must accept that it is possible for us to have good relations with the Soviet Union without having detrimental relations with China.

Interviewer: May be two last questions. The first one: let’s be frank, I think Pakistan is sort of broke in economics or foreign exchange you know. Who’s helping you just now over this very difficult period? Could you tell us who is helping you?

President: No, we have been giving, we have been making what we can out of what we have got. We haven’t got very much but nor have we done very many fantastic or great things, and I don’t know why the problem should arise because the point is that we want to honor our debts; we want to have good confidence of our relations with other countries. And if Indonesia could get a moratorium and certain other terms for the foreign debt, then of course, we are prepared to also continue to abide by our obligations. But if the whole world keeps telling us that we are dead broke and we have a very big debt to pay, then we won’t be able to pay that debt.

Interviewer: May be a last question. You are going, I think you are going soon to Delhi to speak with Mrs. Gandhi. Do you know; have you had any talks with her before?

President: Yes, I know her quite well. We have had meetings before. Of course, I had more meetings with her father, the late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who was Prime Minster. I had a long discussion with him over the Kashmir dispute because I was leading Pakistan delegation on the Kashmir dispute. Then I had a discussion with him on other matters. I’ve met her also. I’ve had meetings with her in the Common Wealth Conference; but the detailed negotiations I’ve not had with her, like I had with her father.

Interviewer: How would you judge her if you want to say anything?

President: You can’t say, It’s very difficult to say unless you meet. Let us see if she has got peace in her heart; then, of course, I’ll be able to see to it. As I said the other night, politicians have got a sixth sense in which you can feel, and if that feeling is there, if I can feel that she has peace in her heart, I think we can make progress.

Interviewer: Mr. President, Thank you.