Interview to the French daily, “Le Monde” December 26, 1972

President: I know that some questions are asked repeatedly and we have to answer them repeatedly. One cannot avoid such important questions even if one has to answer them every day. After all, many years ago Shakespeare said, all the world is a stage and everyone has to keep up his performance. I can anticipate some of the questions that are going to be asked.

Interviewer: Is that true that after the agreement on the troop’s withdrawal, the Kashmir problem is solved?

President: Not at all. The Kashmir problem is not solved because the Simla. Agreement itself states quite clearly that the new Line of Control would be delineated without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. This is expressly stated in the document itself. The disputed status of Jammu and Kashmir is thus recognized in the document. Moreover, if the Kashmir problem were to be resolved in this fashion, then it would not be called the Line of Control it would he called the international border. There is a manifest difference between the international border and the Line of Control. This is the second point. The third point is that when we were deadlocked over this little bit of Thaku Chak, we said that we must have some other territory in exchange. We got it in exchange. Now, this kind of exchange does not take place over recognized international frontiers. It was only in a disputed territory that it was possible to make an exchange of this nature. Fourthly, the Indian Foreign Minister and the Indian Government have also made statements to the effect that this is only a new cease-fire line and the question of Jammu and Kashmir is not settled by it. We have made our position abundantly clear on this matter.

Interviewer: What could be the next step according to you, Mr. President? As far as I understand, the Indian position is that you should recognize Bangladesh first and then you should agree on non-aggression pact or something like that. What should be the next step according to you?

President: The next step, according to us, and indeed objectively is this: if you look at the Simla Agreement, it calls for officials of the two countries to meet and to work out the modalities of the meeting between Mrs. Gandhi and myself — the second meeting. We have signed the Simla Agreement and we want to honor it. In its terms, that is the next logical step to take for both the countries — India as well as Pakistan. We hope that, after the withdrawals take place, we can approach the Indian Government if they do not approach us before that, for our officials to meet either in Delhi or here. The officials can discuss the procedure, and the items for the next agenda. There are many items we can discuss, the most important being the return of our Prisoners of War — 90,000 of them — 20,000 odd civilians with women and children and journalists. About 70,000 of our armed personnel are kept in cages as in a human zoo. And the world has got no tears for them. The world had plenty of tears for the so-called atrocities in Bangladesh when the civil war was taking place. Civil wars are always horrid, worse than wars between nations. It was a fratricidal war like the Spanish civil war, which left a very deep scar on human lives. There was also the American civil war; there has been a civil war in Nigeria. Ours was also a civil war and our object was to preserve the country’s unity. I am not an advocate of military government. But basically the object was to preserve the unity of the country. The methods and means adopted might have been deplorable. But Pakistan’s unity had come into being, 25 years ago, through the joint struggle for freedom of both parts of Pakistan. It had not been imposed by colonialists on the contrary. The colonialists indeed had resisted the integration of the two territories in a single state. When Pakistan was fighting for existence as one united state, people started talking about the self-determination of Bangladesh. Where was the question of self-determination? Pakistan was one state, united through a common struggle. The case was one of out-right secession. They called it self-determination and said that poor Bengalis were being butchered. Why should they have been butchered by our own people? Much was said about uncivilized and savage people, but it was forgotten that it is a sovereign duty of every citizen of every state to try to preserve the state’s integrity. If tomorrow the people of Brittany attempt to leave France, we are not going to say that any French action to prevent it is unjustifiable; and we are not going to send our Andre Malraux from here to give a lecture on it. We will say: no, this is a matter within the internal jurisdiction of France and they have a right to try to preserve their national unity. Indeed, we will sympathize with their efforts to maintain their national integrity. Now this State of Bangladesh has been brought about by an act of aggression by India, we do not know how this precedent is going to affect future relations between states. There is a saying in the Bible, “As you sow, so shall you reap.” If one country puts its fingers into the furnace of another, those fingers will be burnt. So those people who thrust their fingers into that fire, those fingers are about to burn, they might be already burnt. If you go to Dacca now, you will see a different attitude towards the Indian ‘liberators’ – the so-called liberators. But we will see that kind of a pattern emerges. The result of this precedent, which was sanctioned by many countries of the world, Western European countries, Britain and some others, is to be seen in future. Many countries have recognized Bangladesh and are trying to make it a member of the United Nations. However, thank God, there are still states which believe in the principles of an international order and they prevented this unholy entrance without the fulfillment of United Nations resolutions. The war ended one year ago. There has been the Simla Agreement. Now, as a result of the Simla Agreement, the withdrawal of forces will, we hope, be completed b the 20th or 21st. What justification is there now to keep these POWs as hostages in Indian cages, the Indian human zoos, as if they are animals? What is the justification? India achieved its objective by armed aggression to create Bangladesh. That state is today celebrating its first year of independence. War came to an end one year ago. There was a cease-fire. As I said, the Simla Agreement was concluded on the 2nd of July. Now on the 20th or 21st of December withdrawals are taking place. There is no reason for keeping our prisoners in India. Once you effect withdrawals, you assume that relations are going to be peaceful and there is no possibility of war; otherwise you do not withdraw your forces but stay on in the occupied territory. In Israel and Egypt, the prisoners of war have been returned, even though withdrawals have not taken place. It is more logical for prisoners of war to return before the withdrawal of forces. But here the cart has been put before the horse. I repeat there is absolutely no justification for the Indians to keep our prisoners, both civilians and military. You know five or six incidents have taken place where they have been killed in cold blood. We did not hear any one crying or any one protesting. The most important point is the existence of the three Geneva Conventions. Is there anything in these Conventions which says that they apply to the whole world except Pakistan? Pakistan was made an exception in the world’s reaction to its dismemberment. If any other state in the world had been dismembered like that, there would have been international protests. Why is it that we are made an exception to the application of international law and international norms? Where is it in the Geneva Conventions that only Pakistani prisoners of war will not be returned after the cease-fire? Where is it in the United Nations Resolutions that United Nations Resolutions will not apply to Pakistan? This is a very important moral and political question. We are doing our best but we do not see the sympathy which was shown for the secessionist cause being aroused for this human problem also. On the contrary, you find the callous indifference to such a basic human problem. So, of course, this is the most important problem–the problem of the prisoners of war. Let me tell you that, as long as prisoners of war remain in India, we cannot even talk about Kashmir because that would be holding discussions in duress. Moreover, we do not like bargaining. If we believed in it, I would not have unconditionally released Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on the 7th of January. I did it because I tried to look into the future. I wanted a better future; I wanted to establish a good climate for resolving all our problems sensibly and at an early time, so that we can engage our attention to other matters. But there was no response to our releasing Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, no reciprocity, no quid pro quo. I do not want a quid pro quo in the narrow sense. What benefit do we expect from recognizing Bangladesh unless there is full and complete adjustment of all problems? Today Mujibur Rahman will tell you that if Bangladesh is recognized, everything will be all right. We heard before that, if only Mujibur Rahman is released, everything will be all right. As you know, there is a saying, “once bitten, twice shy.” We cannot again go by these fairy tales. We hear the world is not interested in us. They are interested in everyone else. They are interested in people on the moon, they are interested in Mars, -they are interested in Malta, they are interested in Le Monde, they are interested in Singapore. But this nation of 60 million people, still bigger than most of the states in Europe, adjoins the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean becomes important when it touches India, not important when it touches Pakistan. The Persian Gulf becomes important when it touches the Emirates, not when it touches the Mekran coast. It is not known that we are neighbors of Afghanistan, the Soviet Union and China. Who can deny the importance of Pakistan? But this is how the world looks at it. So we can’t listen to fairy tales any more. We must now have had discussions for settlement. We are prepared to consider the recognition of Bangladesh at the appropriate time provided we get our prisoners of war back, and there is full and complete guarantee, and a mechanism for their repatriation. We are not going to allow our prisoners of war remain there. That means tomorrow they will link up the prisoners of war with some other problem and after that with yet another problem. As I have said, we have had a bad experience. We have acted in good faith; the other side must reciprocate. We must be perfectly assured, first, that our prisoners of war will come back; second, that no trials will take place — the so-called trials that Mr. Mujibur Rahman is contemplating in East Pakistan; and, third, that all questions of foreign debts, the assets and liabilities between Pakistan and Bangladesh will be settled satisfactorily. The legacy of the past must be removed before we can take the step of recognition. In other words there will have to be a total bilateral undertaking—nothing unilateral. It will have to be in the totality. That is as far as the question of prisoners of war and recognition is concerned. With India, we can discuss so many other problems. Since 1965, we have had no trade between the two countries, even though we are neighbors. They have suffered, we have suffered. We are prepared to discuss the resumption of trade, civil aviation agreements, and restoration of communications, post and telegraph and of diplomatic relations. All these are quite substantial things, especially after war having taken place a year ago and the most morbid methods having been used to dismember our country. India has split our country into two. India has grown very big at our cost. It took away Hyderabad in 1948, Junagadh and Manawadar and a part of Kashmir and now East Pakistan. So the point is, it is not pleasant for us to do even these things, you understand. That is why you find our people reacting in a certain way. We believe it is rational and sensible to establish neighborly relations between Pakistan and India. We cannot leave each other; I can’t cut out Pakistan and take it to Europe or to America. We should have the inter-changes of neighbors. But our people in the last 25 years have been subjected to so many traumas and tragedies that they are not in a mood to be rational. That is why I have been having this problem. I go to them and tell them that they must put their feet on the ground, control their emotions, and build Pakistan again into a powerful state in the subcontinent, not for aggression. You do not fight Germany. You want strength in the scientific sector and strength for your people. You are proud of the fact that your economy has progressed better than some other countries. In the same sense, we can make Pakistan the most prosperous state in the subcontinent. We have got resources. Our biggest asset is our manpower. You must not judge it by the experience of last year. The 1971 battle was a terrible blunder from beginning to end. The country was in an abyss. We lost not because of any lack of our people’s ability to safeguard their interests. If you leave everything to a mad man, a situation like this might arise anywhere in the world. It was stupidity. You could see from the outside that it was an invitation to disaster. So, leaving that aside, you can see that our manpower is one of the finest, at least in Asia, very hard-working, devoted and fond of the machine. They can master the machine. You go to small little huts in Sialkot and you find them producing surgical instruments which are bought even in Europe. And they are good farmers. Secondly, our agricultural resources are such that with a little more effort and a little more cooperation from the more prosperous countries, we could become self-sufficient in all our requirements. You have made Bangladesh an international basket. A vast amount of assistance has gone to Bangladesh, economic assistance, food, and everything else. But you know that they are not touching their foreign exchange. With American assistance, Western European assistance, they are keeping it at home. If we had got one-third or one-tenth of theirs–utter all we were dismembered and we should have been the recipient of that kind of assistance – we could have achieved a lot. But while our talks with the Consortium have to start in March next, we devalued heavily; we were given to understand that there would be positive responses. I have yet to see the positive responses. With your country, I mean, now we have to negotiate again after one year of negotiations. If we had some international responses, we would have been jumping today. Our foreign exchange earnings is now 830 million dollars. This is more than it was with East and West Pakistan put together. We had labor trouble; all sorts of problems. But now we have got relative industrial peace and our production is picking up. Our exports are also going up and our people are at their jobs. As I have said, if we were not short of fertilizers, we could have become self-sufficient in wheat. We are going to make a war effort to set up more fertilizer factories and we will become self-sufficient in wheat. I am quite confident, if not next year, the year after that. Then in sugar also we are going to be self-sufficient and we have taken some drastic steps. We are already exporting rice. We are exporting cotton, raw, semi-manufactured and manufactured. We will try to ensure that we export more of the manufactured and semi-manufactured than of the raw cotton. In hides and skins and leather also, we are doing extremely well. I think we are mobilizing our resources very well. Now the point is that we have got a dual responsibility of defence and development. If defence was not of slightly more importance than development, we would have been able to clear the slums within two years, to electrify all our villages, to build all the important roads and projects, and to build low-cost houses. We have already started on that in a rather big way we have Rural Works Programme and we are building agrovilles. But then of course we have to take into account our defence needs as well for the reasons I mentioned to you. Our burden is very heavy, taking into account both our defence needs and our development requirements. In Bangladesh, they don’t have a big army. They don’t need one. If we had that sort of position, you would have seen a vast difference.

Interviewer: But do you mean Mr. President that India is really a challenge for Pakistan or is it an expansionist power?

President: You can see for yourself what it has done during the last 25 years. In 1947, Junagadh and the Kashmir war; in 1948, Hyderabad then Goa; in 1960, I think, Pondicherry. And then, of course, there was the Sino-Indian conflict; everyone knows who started it. The forward policy of India and the threatening attitude towards Ceylon, not settling boundary disputes with Burma for such a long time, the hegemony over Bhutan, Sikkim and then trying to keep Nepal in their grip. And then the 1965 war with us, then again the 1971 war. Now all this in 25 years is something which should make even Chengiz Khan blush. They call themselves peace-loving with a straight face. They call us the aggressors and say they are worried about Pakistan’s aggression. What inch of Indian territory are we occupying? Then why don’t they hold plebiscite in Kashmir, if they think they are not occupying it against its will? So we have to be on our guard. As I told you earlier, “once bitten, twice shy.” We can’t take any risk with what is left of us. We do not want war but we cannot take risks. As far as Indian expansionist policies are concerned, I have just told you that past history speaks more eloquently than words. Now, recently the Indian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister are reported to have stated that America should recognize the reality that today India is a dominant power in the subcontinent. We do not accept that for a variety of reasons. In the first place, it violates the principle of the sovereign equality of states. Secondly, it carries an overtone of threat and hatred. We can’t accept the hegemony of any country even if it means further sacrifices. We can’t accept their hegemony or dominance. Equal sovereignty, yes, we are prepared for co-existence as equals, as friends, as good neighbors, on a basis of non-interference in each other’s affairs and honorable settlement of disputes. That all we are prepared to accept good friendship, peaceful co-existence, cooperation whenever necessary, both in the subcontinent and international forums. That is all right, that we understand. But that they should be a dominant power, with their shadow over us, we will never accept. It would be better if the Indians did not talk in those terms, because it comes as a provocation to our people. The power of a state is not measured by its bigness; Britain was not all that big itself when it had the biggest empire in the world. How can India call herself a dominant power? She would be facing famine if the United States did not pour out food to her. The strength of a country does not lie in the trickery and deception and in committing aggression. The strength of a state really lies in the prosperity of its people in the final analysis. And when the per capita income of India is the same as that of Pakistan and when the Indian farmer or Indian citizen is more dependent on food from foreign assistance than the Pakistani, how could we accept any position of subservience? When the people of Calcutta sleep on the streets, why should there be the urge to be called the dominant power? When the Americans entered into NATO, did they tell the states of Western Europe to accept them as the dominant power and only then they would forge the alliance? Certainly not, in fact, even when America refrained from doing so, a big man like General de Gaulle said that he was not prepared to accept the American hegemony. So the point is that India must learn to live as a peaceful neighbor without arrogance. They should not talk in terms of superiority to us. We don’t talk in those terms. We should meet and live as equals.

Interviewer: Do you still believe in one thousand years of war?

President: That is for the people to decide. You see, if I had given the people a wrong expression, they would have rejected it. Why did it linger on? Two expressions have lingered on and on, but don’t we remember other words? We say hello also. Why don’t people ask me whether I still believe in hello? We say good morning. People don’t ask whether I still believe in good morning. But two things stuck in memory because they vent to the heart of the problem. The expressions lodged in the ear and the soul. One is the thousand-year war, which I didn’t mean physically. I meant it metaphorically. I meant it in terms of the whole historical process in the subcontinent. After all, the confrontation has lasted for a thousand years in the subcontinent. After all, the confrontation has lasted for a thousand years in the past. Now, if there could be a past of thousand years, there can be a future of a thousand years also. You see our countries are very old. They are five thousand years old. So a thousand years for us is like a few decades for the Americans. Evidently, it was a figurative expression. Now it is for the people on both sides to abandon that concept. I would like to abandon the confrontation. If you ask my personal opinion, I would not have used that expression, if India had not attacked us. If India had not adopted a forward policy, we would not have adopted the policy of confrontation. What do you do when a state adopts a forward policy? Capitulate? If tomorrow, God forbid, the Germans want to march into France, what will you do? Would you choose confrontation and resistance or capitulation? So it is really for the other side to determine whether the policy of confrontation or of cooperation should prevail. If they had not wanted to commit aggression, if they had not wanted any more of Pakistan’s territory, if they are now reconciled to living in peace, not as a dominant power, well we will like to cooperate. But if they think that now they can employ some subterfuge rather than use violence, people will choose confrontation, whether or not I want it. The point is that if you can’t commit aggression, you don’t hear such expression. Perhaps it was an expression in war. Why had Churchill to say, we shall fight them on the beaches, we shall light them on the streets, but we shall never surrender? If the Germans had not committed aggression, if they had not come to Dunkirk and if they were not on the verge of invading the British Isles, such language would not have been necessary. Likewise, it was because we were subjected to aggression, the Indian Commander-in-Chief Chaudhry was saying that the next day they would be sitting in Lahore, having scotch and soda. Then I had to pour it full. In such situations, leaders have to rally the people. So that is the expression everyone keeps repeating to me and I have explained to everyone. I did not say that for 1,000 years you stand by machine-guns and keep shooting: nobody has got ammunition to keep fighting so long.

Interviewer: Mr. President, do you suppose that the Simla Agreement could lead to a condition of permanent settlement and thus be a historic turning point for peace with India?

President: Yes, I have said that repeatedly as far as the Simla Agreement is concerned. I keep saying this to the Indians but it takes two sides to bring that situation about.

Interviewer: Do you see, Mr. President, some sign from the Indian side?

President: I might be mistaken because it is hard to tell from one encounter, but at Simla the attitude of the Prime Minister of India appeared to be sincere for peace on the basis of equality. I do not know what has prompted that attitude in her mind. I found her sincere; she seemed to have vision of peace. This is my impression as a politician who has to be an observant person. I recall that whenever Ayub Khan used to tell a lie, he would pull off his socks; when he did that, I knew that he was telling a lie. You have to observe the responses and reflexes; you have to quickly turn and see people react to a certain point. Now I did see — of course, I might be wrong and it might have been very good acting that she wants a future of peace for whatever reasons, Who knows if someone from Pakistan had gone and attacked Delhi, he might have felt that after 30 or 40 years, Lahore would be ransacked in revenge. As I said, whatever the reasons, the Indian Prime Minister did seem to want peace. I have not mentioned it before. But I don’t see the same kind of vision in some of her Ministers. Not that I want to create the impression that she is for peace and so and so is for war. The Simla Agreement is a fact and I would be the last person to try that kind of diplomacy. A government’s point of view is collective. In the subcontinent, they used to say even in Ayub’s time, oh! send Mr. X, he is more reasonable; do not send Mr. Y; and oh! the Foreign Minister of Ayub Khan is very bad. Ayub Khan is very good; I do not say that kind of thing. But after all there is the human element also in a collective decision. In your own country, in France, for instance, there may be some of the people in the Government whose approach to the question of having special links with your former African colonies is different from that of others. This is, after all, why Cabinets are formed. Only from that point of view I would say that there were some who did not seem to have caught the breath of fresh air. They seemed to be still in the past; they were older names and their reflexes and responses at Simla were not exactly jubilant. They belong to the 1947 to 1950 era and that determined their reactions. But a whole new generation has now come up; there are new thought-processes, an entirely new style, and a new approach to contemporary politics. It may be I, too, am getting a little ancient because, after all, I have been dealing with international affairs since 1958. During this period, so many men, big men, have gone. I had to deal with Nehru, de Gaulle, Macmillan, Eisenhower, etc. Only Premier Chu En-lai is still there and I hope he lives for a long time. You see mainly the new ones now. I was fortunate to be young when I became a Minister. But a difference in approach has occurred even in my own experience. I first entered the United Nations in 1957 as a delegate. The attitude and methodology was different in 1957 from what one saw in 1965 and 1971. In India, there are some men who attended the Congress Sessions before Partition, sitting then in the third or fourth row behind Gandhi, Patel, Bose and Nehru. They have heard those speeches which proclaimed to the whole world that only over their dead bodies would Pakistan be established. There might even be new leadership in India which has not heard those speeches but which might still be busy in secret sessions, thinking of other methods of undoing Pakistan, though openly they might say, well, Pakistan has come into being it is a reality. Some in the newer generation of people may be sensitive to the qualitative change in the times but they may yet be living in a half-way house, not fully rid of the past, not fully reacting to the present. The India Prime Minister was close to the scene with her father and his colleagues but not as an active decision-maker. In a sense, therefore, she also has corn into this phase, the one that we are in, with a potentiality of approach not entirely different from ours. Perhaps a decade from now, the freshness of approach might be clearer. I don’t say that principles and basic ideas will be abandoned. But things might appear in different colour, and be looked at from a different angle. Personal commitments might not be so tenacious but principles, for instance, those involved in Kashmir, cannot change. The Kashmir question was there in Liaquat Ali’s time; it is there in my time. It is not settled. In 1948-49, everyone here jumped with joy that they had got two resolutions passed by the United Nations, and the Pakistan Government felt that the Kashmir problem had been solved. There were many in-built catches in them but everybody expected the plebiscite to be held. If such a resolution had been passed in 1971 or 1969, our reaction would have bee different because we would have realized that it was only a resolution. We have understood a little more how the United Nations works. We know that unless there is unanimity among the Great Powers, the Security Council cannot implement its resolutions, and that the General Assembly is only a recommendatory body. But at that time we thought that the resolutions would resolve the Kashmir dispute. One Prime Minister said that he was not going to attend the Commonwealth Conference unless they discussed the Kashmir problem. Their reply was that they would discuss the Kashmir problem but, though there was a big riot, nothing happened in those days that might have been the right thing to do, not now. But the point is that, though the conditions change, one doesn’t abandon the dispute and the principles. Of course, one feels that change has come and different methods may be employed to achieve a solution. A breakthrough might come.

Interviewer: Does that mean it is a question of delineation?

President: I think we could have ended by saying that a breakthrough might come. It can come in our time but if it does not, we are not going to spoil the atmosphere. That way we suffer also. A country must have confidence to stand by principles, even if there is no progress. Ayub Khan’s problem was, and I asked him very often, that he somehow felt that it must be solved while he was President. I am told that his predecessors felt the same way. Feroze Khan Noon, who was our Prime Minister, might have said, “It must be done in my time, because I know Nehru and Nehru know me.”

I know Ghulam Mohammad felt the same way. I don’t feel that way. I don’t think that God has ordained that it must be done today under so and so’s Government. These matters are linked with the historical process. My duty firstly is to see that our position is not weakened or compromised as sometime in the past. Some of the former governments weakened our position morally with the kind of statements they made. They did not hold on tenaciously to self-determination and plebiscite. By offering to consider methods other than the plebiscite, you sometimes discover that you have come no nearer to a solution and that all you have done is to make a hole in your own position. So we are not going to do that. But we are not going to say, “if that does not happen we are going to have a fight, we are going to war, we are going to break our diplomatic relations.” Sometimes, if you hold on to your principles, may be with the passage of time new factors come into play, a new situation arises and new attitudes are engendered. To repeat, we cannot abandon our principles; if we abandon one we might abandon all. Moreover, we are the smaller country. We are supported not because Pakistan is prettier than India but because we stand on the right principles. If we give up the right principles, then the weight of India which is bigger and larger will keep falling on us. Isn’t that so? You may ask, what is the principle? If I go to France and ask you to support us on Kashmir, notwithstanding your friendly relations with India, I do so on the basis of the principle of self-determination which you conceded to Algeria, which de Gaulle accepted even against metropolitan France. This is a principle we cannot abandon. But this does not mean that we mean to ignite the atmosphere. If I am a victim of aggression, I will seek your support and if you extend it, you will be supporting not Pakistan but the principle of non-aggression.

Interviewer: On Bangladesh, may I ask you, Mr. President, what kind of relations you would like to establish after recognition?

President: The most fraternal, the closest possible. They and we are one at heart. A situation arises when enmity is born and brothers fight. But I think when the dust settles down, they will want to come here and see the Indus again; and we will want to go there and see the Ganges again.

Interviewer: You have made some basic reforms and you have come forward. But there is some trouble in Karachi. Do you think that people are not happy with reforms?

President: People are very happy with the reforms. But there is the internal politics of those defeated parties who want to rehabilitate themselves on the emotional issue of Bangladesh. Of course, the Bangladesh issue is laden with emotion. But, if I were in the Opposition, I don’t think that I would have done what they are doing. I would still have wanted to have good relations with East Pakistan – with Bangladesh. But these people are arousing the emotions of the people simply to embarrass the Government, to weaken it, to make it unpopular. That is their main object. They want the students to come out into the streets, to stage demonstrations and start violence because they don’t like the PPP; they don’t like Mr. Bhutto because he defeated them in the elections very badly. They want to take revenge. There is morbidity in this last effort of theirs; it is pathetic and it has to be pitied. I pity them because they are really hollow men. They are derelict, senile, and completely decrepit and now they are trying to administer the last kick. They are doing it badly. I know them. You see, I have worked with them. I know their outlook. I know their courage. I know in what waters they can swim and in what they cannot. I know the moles on face. I knew how they were going to react. I tell you why? Immediately after the Simla Agreement, they wanted to divert public attention by trying to create language trouble in Karachi. I knew that when the withdrawals take place, they would try to obscure the success by some diversionary tactics. But we have dealt with them most effectively. Effectively does not mean by violence. Wherever demonstrations had to be halted, well we naturally stopped them. In all countries you have got to put a stop to rioting and violence —in Britain, in France, everywhere. When tribesmen start coming on horseback with machine-guns to invade Quetta, I could not ask people whether I should paint my nails green or red, I had to stop them. The whole of Baluchistan is a tribal society, so is at least half of the Frontier. There are tribal societies in Punjab and in Sindh. We have democracy but, like you people in France, we find it difficult to establish the form. In substance, we also are independent-minded and freedom-loving. However, we have now arrived at a constitutional settlement, which is a very big thing. Incidentally, at one time we had a thought, just a thought why not look at the French pattern. It is rather strange that, in 1947, even the Quaid-i-Azam said that the French system might be worth trying. But we came to the conclusion that, while the French system might work in France, the duality between the President and the Prime Minister would cause difficulties here. I think you too are having some second thoughts on this matter. I have seen certain trends in your Parliament and in your Press after the disappearance of the tall figure of General de Gaulle. Even when de Gaulle came on the scene in 1958, there was so much comment in France about whether he should he the President or Prime Minister. Remember that time you also were wondering whether he would take the Presidency or the Prime Ministership. Realizing that duality at least will not work in Pakistan, we have concentrated the executive authority in the hands of the Prime Minister. Our President will be a ceremonial one, more or less on German pattern.

Interviewer: Is it a fact that disagreement on the distribution of subjects between the Centre and the Provinces has been resolved?

President: We have resolved the question of autonomy. We have adopted an interim constitution and now we are on verge of having a permanent constitution. We have restored Assemblies in the Provinces and at the Centre. We have established Provincial Governments. We have moved fast on the political front on the basis of democracy, and we have moved rapidly towards projecting a more balanced and more organised economy. In the field of foreign affairs also, we have our achievements: the Simla Agreement, the withdrawals, the fact that many states have still not recognised Bangladesh and the Chinese veto on admission of Bangladesh into the United Nations.

Interviewer: May I ask you, Mr. President, what kind of Pakistan do you want to build?

President: A people’s Pakistan, prosperous, towering in it progress and strength, having a viable economy, vital as a social entity, a model for the subcontinent. A state which should be humming with activity, where there is social justice, where there is a flowering of all our cultures in a pluralistic society.