INTERVIEW TO KULDIP NAYAR, CORRESPONDENT OF THE INDIAN DAILY “STATEMENT” March 27, 1972

Interviewer: How will the future be brighter? There is a good deal of mutual suspicion?

(The correspondent began by saying that they had traveled a long way in order to make what contribution they could to peace in the sub-continent. The President replied that it was in this spirit that he had welcomed them to Pakistan, and expressed the hope that the future will be brighter than the past).

President: There are two ways in which you can do it. First, to learn the lesson from the pre-partition attitudes of our leaders, their failures and successes. They are giants and can be criticized by none. Secondly, the events of the last 25 years and the manner in which that had made or unmade our countries. We have to proceed progressively. Frankly speaking. And it is my evaluation that our people want peace. They want to turn their back on past animosities. This feeling has not generated because of military defeat but because of the economic conditions prevailing in the sub-continent and the people’s desire to improve them. I am going to make a genuine effort, a genuine search.

As for your part, you should take into account that we have suffered because of the outcome of the war. This does not mean that I want to avoid major issues. But time is the vital factor. Mr. Nehru himself pleaded for this kind of approach. He pleaded for goodwill and for moving step by step.

You say the results of Tashkent. When you try to solve all issues in a day, this is what happens. You must understand this. It they had preceded step by step, it would have been different. They tried to clear the decks in one day. It worked for India but it did not work for Pakistan.

However, if India wants to start with the big issues, we will go along. I feel in the first instance, there should be a preliminary meeting between Mrs. Indira Gandhi and myself; the meeting to know each other’s hearts and mind, to assess the situation and feel the nuances. More of a goodwill meeting, to give things a direction, to formulate terms of reference. The second meeting should be held soon. But if you think that the officials should meet first, I have an open mind.

Interviewer: If tangible results do not follow from your meeting with Mrs. Indira Gandhi, there will be great frustration. If officials were to meet first don’t you think it would be better?

President: As I have said, I have an open mind on this. Off the record, however, I can tell you of my experience of the kind of preliminary meetings that you suggest. When officials meet, because of the history of Indo-Pak relations, they tend to set a rigid pace. They come back and brief us and tell us to stand firm on this or that. As for unofficial, who are not in the government, they tend to exaggerate and do not make accurate assessments. They want kudos.

Interviewer: Perhaps you can send a man like Mr. Khar to prepare the ground; because if your meeting with Mrs. Indira Gandhi does not produce results like the return of POWs, things may be difficult.

President: This can be considered but there must be a preliminary meeting. The Soviet Union desires it also.

We should have a quick preliminary meeting. I will bring a good delegation; people who know your country, who have friends in India, whom they would meet. Yes, we will come to India.

Interviewer: What is your assessment of Russian intentions towards the sub-continent?

President: You were the architect of Pakistan’s improved relations with the Soviet Union in the 60’s. What do you think? Much has happened since, for example, the Indo-Soviet pact. Things have moved on from that point. The US and China are talking to each other. It is not China, which is isolated, it is Russia which feels the isolation. It is, therefore, time for the Soviet Union and china to get tighter. China’s isolation was superficial and it has broken after the dialogue between the two countries opened.

I wrote the book in 1960. There was turmoil then. The conditions were not settled. I gave quick dictation. Much has happened in 6 years. After the war there has been a qualitative change in the situation. Not all factors mentioned in the book are germane today.

Interviewer: You told Sulzberger of the New York Times that Russia was interfering from across your Afghan border. Would you like to elaborate?

President: The kind of situation in which we were, everybody takes advantage, sort of jump the bandwagon. The Russians were over interested in developments here. There was unusual activity but we are not alarmed. There were all kinds of stories circulated after the fall of Dacca, such as the imminent collapse of Balochistan and NWFP, Sindh being on the warpath of secession etc.

What do you expect when half the country in severed away. This is one of the challenges I have to face. You will face it too. You have been fortunate. You got constitution, days after independence. You have strengthened your institutions. You can take many knocks. We could not do if for various reasons.

Interviewer: This is something that really bothers me. Do you really think that any one stands to gain by the destruction of Pakistan?

President: No, I know India better than any other country, and I can say that you do not stand to gain. I can say that emphatically. But there are some elements in India, who have nostalgia about the past. They don’t have a deeper understanding of things, but I am sure this is not the feeling of people in responsible positions. If I knew that you were hell-bent on destroying Pakistan, I would not go to Delhi. I am aware of you contact with Bangladesh but you will come down to earth.

Interviewer: What about a common association between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

President: If there is an imposed arrangement, it would not work. We must have vision and we must learn the lessons of the past. You should not try to turn a military defeat into a political defeat. I am prepared to go far in opening contacts and leave the future to the processes of history and geography. Our two nations have much in common. If we start modestly, the future will take care of the rest. In the past we have gone in the wrong way. We have become prisoners of words like federation and confederation. These expressions cause reactions; every one derives his own conclusions. Why should we use constitutional and legal terms? Why get bogged down by semantics. We cannot find all the answers in a day. Let us leave it to the future leadership, but we must make a beginning.

Interviewer: I was heartened by your BBC interview where you said that many opportunities in the past to make a settlement in Kashmir were not utilized by your predecessors. It is not important for Pakistan to promote the prosperity of its 55 million people rather than to extend support to self-determination for Kashmir?

President: You will have to consider the question in its entirety, the genesis of the two-nation theory, the UN resolution, the internationally accepted principle of self-determination, the pledge to the people of Kashmir by Mr.Nehru. all these factors have to be taken into account. Experience has shown us that revolution cannot be exported; it cannot be inspired from outside either. It has to be indigenous. If the people of Kashmir want a different future you cannot stop them. If I say that there should be no self-determination for Kashmiris, it does not solve the problem. If the people of Kashmir believe in self-determination, no one can stop them. The three wars we have fought have been in one form or another over Kashmir. You cannot divorce Kashmir from India-Pakistan relations. The last conflict was militarily against us but the problem remains. It is for you now to consider this. I am a realist. We have lost the war and I cannot set the peace, but I will discuss everything without inhibitions. I may say that I am attached to the concept of self-determination as a principle of contemporary affairs. Today we are in a different situation. There is misunderstanding in India about my confrontation position. I was a confrontation man, when it was in our interest. Today it is not so. From confrontation, I have come to consultation and negotiation. I will make a deep search for peace on the conference table. But both sides will have to be reasonable. I cannot do anything against Pakistan’s interest, anything injurious. Our people want to turn the corner. They want to embark on the path of conciliation.

(One of the correspondents asked if Pakistan would be willing to demarcate the Kashmir border. The President replied that he could not say anything for the present to the press. “When we meet, we can chalk out a format. You maintain your basic position. We maintain our basic position. Within this, there will be room and scope for improvement.”)

Interviewer: In the communiqué issued after Nixon’s visit to China, the reference to Kashmir made at the volition of China did not refer to the limited choice of Kashmir’s accession to India or Pakistan as provided for, by the United Nation. Resolutions. Do you think it is significant?

President: The Chinese made this reference first four years ago. They used the term national self-determination. I would say this, if the Kashmiris want self-determination, they will determine its shape. If we are in the vanguard, we will determine it. Ultimately, however, it is the people whose wishes prevail. Take Vietnam for example. If the Kashmiris are prepared to make sacrifices, neither India nor Pakistan can do much to stop them.

Interviewer: Is independent Kashmir in the interest of India and Pakistan?

President: It is the wrong approach. Kashmir has become an exception. In India you had to find a special place for it in your constitution. It is not like other Indian states. This has been due to our failure to come to terms. You thought you had settled it, but you have not. It has not become easier. Bangladesh has made things more difficult. If an indigenous province can become independent, it is significant. The situation has changed, but we are not going to set the tone or pace. Kashmir is not a dominant theme in our present situation. I have not mentioned Kashmir in that sense out of the sub-continent. People of the world have been making fun of us. Every few years we run to world chanceries. The world is getting fed up with us. New leadership has emerged in the sub-continent. Take Mrs. Gandhi. She fought the old guard and risked her office. It was a breath of fresh air. Let some of it blow this side too. You must understand if there is one person, for better or worse in Pakistan, it is me. I have a massive public mandate. The people have confidence in me. They know that I would not let them down, nor betray them. I can take some measures for a breakthrough.

Interviewer: Regarding the question of POWs, you know that they surrendered to the joint command of the Indian army and Mukti Bahini. Will you consider tripartite negotiations?

President: I will make no secret of it. POWs are agitating our minds. In immediate human terms, it is the most important problem. If I were an Indian, I could look at it in two ways; one, to use to it the hilt and milk Pakistan. Use it is a basic trump card. In the other case I will say that Pakistan has suffered enough. After all we live on the same sub-continent. Why not disengage. Why not make a gesture? I made one. I released Mujib. From confrontation we have come to reconciliation. I have taken other initiatives, I will meet Mrs. Gandhi. I will meet Mujib, sooner or later. I have offered rice to Mujib. The Bengalis are safe in West Pakistan. There is no other position; you will strengthen my hands and my ability to negotiate. If you don’t I have two alternatives. First, to capitulate completely and give a race course performance. To come back to Pakistan and say, “to hell with it”. Tell the people to get rid of me because I cannot do it. I cannot accept it. If this happens it will generates tensions and uncertainties. Basically, as I said, you do not want the dismemberment of Pakistan. Instability does not suit you. Therefore, why maintain this legal fiction of the joint command. Our people will not accept that the Mukti Bahini was responsible for our defeat. India fought Pakistan and Dacca fell. Why maintain the fiction? Why speak in technical and narrow terms. I am sure Mujib will be agreeable. There are bigger things at stake. He would not resist. He is not in a position. POWs are in your hands. You formulate the policy.

Interviewer: People in India accept the fact that you have a mass mandate. A democratic Pakistan suits India. The point is how can the state of war come to an end?

President: We can begin a multitude of matters. You can judge our bonafides. The ceasefire has been maintained for some time, although you have augmented your forces in Kargil.

Interviewer: Would you recognize Bangladesh?

President: I cannot say. It is not an insurmountable problem. Mujib knows my difficulties. He understands.

Interviewer: Does delay help?

President: No comment.

Interviewer: What about the Biharis? They are your citizens and feel insecure. What are you going to do about them?

President: It is a complicated and difficult problem. Let Mujib give them the security that they need. After all Bangladesh has been recognized by 40 countries on the plea that Mujib holds effective control. Why cannot he protect the Biharis? East Pakistan was part of Pakistan. Biharis opted for Pakistan. A full generation has grown up since independence. For them that is their home. However, we cannot close our eyes to the Biharis. There is a feeling for them here. But if all of them come, we will go back to shantytowns and nightmare of 1947. I have visions of improving Pakistan, clearing slums, giving free education. We cannot put the country in reverse gear. But I recognize the problem. I have made Herculean efforts to save Bengalis here. No harm has come to them, despite some of Mujib’s protests. He told the Russian Ambassador to come and see. Mujib can do more for Biharis than he has done so far. He should take effective charge. I am sure if that happens, not all would like to come to Pakistan.

Interviewer: Will you send four hundred thousand (400,000) Bengalis back?

President: I will.

Interviewer: Mujib says Bangladesh is a new state, not a successor state.

President: I know what that means. Financial problems can be solved. I am concerned with the non-financial problems, the human problems. We have to establish a new equilibrium. We can tackle the mundane problems when we meet.

Interviewer: Do you accept the reality of Bangladesh.

President: Realities change.

Interviewer: You settlement with Wali was a great day for Pakistan. What about Wali’s idea on constitution making?

President: Internally that is the next biggest challenge. The interim constitution will be no problems. The problem is the quantum of autonomy to be given to provinces. I hope the committee of the House can reach full agreement on this. If it cannot, there will be the unfortunate alternative of the majority passing the constitution. But we would much rather lie a consensus. The Assembly will be sovereign. I will give as much autonomy as feasible. I believe that my concept of autonomy is does to Wali’s. We can reach complete understanding.

Interviewer: Is the army trying to come back?

President: No. That would be complete disaster. If democracy fails, it is possible that the army may try to come back. But if we make a go of it, it would not.

Interviewer; What about the removal of Gul Hasan and Rahim?

President: When I came to Pakistan from New York, I made it clear to everyone that nobody was showing me any grace. It had to be that way. I told Gul Hasan and Rahim this, but since they had been ruling for many years, they found it difficult to take orders. In the past the armed forces were not accountable to the people. We have learnt our lesson.

Interviewer: What about the rumor that there was an attempted coup?

President: Nonsense; but they made silly remarks. There was no concerted plan for a coup, just light remarks. We cannot ignore light remarks.

Interviewer: Mr. Pirzada said that if your return had been delayed, there would have been a civil war. Rehim was buzzing the palace.

President: Nonsense.

Interviewer: Would you like to speak on your mission to Moscow?

President: It is a search for peace. The Russians can help in a constructive manner, but we like it to talk among ourselves. I am allergic to third party interference.