INTERVIEW TO THE SATISH KUMAR AUTHOR OF BOOK “THE NEW PAKISTAN” December 28, 1973

As a person who has made a significant contribution to the normalization of situation in the subcontinent, what is your perception of the future of South Asia and its role in world affairs?

Its role in world affairs will be determined in my opinion by the equilibrium we are able to establish between ourselves. This includes, of course, Bangladesh as well, and the progress we are able to attain. It is fundamental that we must have in the subcontinent the necessary strength to have our views felt. We see today how the whole world has gone upside down over this oil crisis. And for long people thought that Arabs did not have the power to assert themselves or to get justice for their cause. And now everyone is sitting up and everyone is taking notice of the Arab position. States which were prejudicial to the Arab cause and deridingly they used to, and contemptuously, write about the Middle East, they have suddenly woken up to the immense potential of powers in the Middle East and its great influence on the whole world. And from sand-dunes these countries have now become power centers. This was also true of China before revolution and now there is a dine. rent China. So, basically, we might temporarily find relief in the emergence of a powerful or great personality, someone who makes contribution in the realm of ideas. But there is very little scope for making a contribution in the realm of ideas. New ideas cannot be thrown up, new formulae like in the old days. The 20th century diplomacy is saturated with ideas. It has reached an intellectual saturation point in terms of contribution of new thoughts to world affairs and to diplomacy. There has been a crystallization, and the notions of balance of power or non-alignment and things of that nature which can also give prestige to a country. Thus, as I said, now there is little scope for that. So basically I would say that two things are necessary for the subcontinent or for the States of South Asia to play a role, to play a positive role in world affairs. We will have to find a settlement of our disputes, learn to live in the same subcontinent without the present suffocating atmosphere, and at the same time gain economic and social strength. Today we are going backwards. And this energy crisis and the recent developments that have taken place, they are going to have far-reaching ramifications on our economy, and I can see from here that they are going to knock the bottoms out of your economy. We do not like it at all, and if today we have diplomatic relations we would be able to consult each other and to find out where do we go from here, because this is really a sinking together. More than half of your foreign exchange earnings will have to go now into footing the additional bill, and this is a growing demand, it is an increasing demand. And we also are suddenly saddled with awesome situations. These things of this nature. You see sudden changes, sudden mutations take place and we find ourselves groping in the dark because we do not have a dialogue, we do not have relations with each other. And we are still hankering over the past feuds. Not that we should not settle them, they need to be settled. But the world has moved on, and we in the subcontinent have remained behind. Now this is in contrast with what we had thought in 1947 that we would be the harbingers of a new message to the world. And this was more conspicuous in India because in India Mr. Nehru took upon himself the mantle of non-alignment which made plenty of sense to the Third World at that time. Now it is a different situation, but at that time when the world was pitched between God and Satan, and to say that we will not take sides whichever was God and Satan….

You have doubts about its validity in the present situation in any way.

I do not say that is not valid but it is not of that poignant relevance as it was. Today it is more of a philosophical approach. It does not carry the content of power blocks, such as it did earlier. So this is the point, we must find settlement of our disputes and we must make great strides to get on in the economic and social activities, in the subcontinent.

Given the spirit in which the two countries have sorted out some of the crucial issues after ’71 at Simla and Delhi, and so on, how much time do you think it might take for the two countries to get over the momentary problems which are the consequences of 1971?

It is difficult for me to say this because it is not entirely in our hands. It has to be seen how we grasp the opportunities and whether we allow opportunities to slip out of our hands out of some timidity or some fear or some suspicion. All these factors have been relevant in our relations. Suspicion has had its say and fear and prejudice. All these things have been rolled into our relations. How then can I say whether it will take two years or three years or six months, or a decade. This depends not on Pakistan alone. It depends on India and it depends on Bangladesh to a good extent as well. So it is for all the three to consider the need to seize opportunities and not to lose opportunities. We are excellent in losing opportunities and we are bad in seizing opportunities. We have made progress judging from the way things move in the subcontinent, lackadaisically and slowly. Simla was an achievement and it was an achievement for peace. It was not an achievement of one side against the other. Delhi has also made its contribution and now we await further developments. I would go to the extent of saying that we anxiously await further developments in the process of normalization. But there I would say that sometimes journalists have not been very helpful and nor have the politicians, who by habit, have taken a position. And you see, you cannot take positions by habit in politics. There are events, there are objective conditions, there are circumstances, there are the forces of States, there are the alliances and the counter-alliances, all the factors which are relevant to a situation. On that basis you make an evaluation and on that evaluation you base your policy. But if the basis of that evaluation is removed or disappears, yet you base your policies on certain predilections which are routed in habit or in past notions, that is not making a contribution to your constituency, or to your country. But we have that brand of politicians, both in India and in Pakistan, and I dare say Bangladesh also has chosen types who are given to negativism in their approach. So they have been a kind of a hindrance in all the places. Loss of face; Pakistan has done better than India; Pakistan has got away with this. But there is no question of looking at it like that. If you look at this from that angle, that ‘Oh pagal bana ke le gaya ye, vagaira‘, that sort of stupid approach, it’s tea gup shup you see, and that somehow or the other influences, you know, the thought processes.

May I submit, Sir, that to weaken the force of such politicians and, elements on both sides….

And journalists ….

And journalists, and all other elements combined who contribute to freezing the situation, is it not of the utmost importance that communications at various levels are resumed and communication gap, the barrier, is broken somehow? I mean whether we refer to it in terms of para 3 or whatever paragraph of the Simla Agreement, but essentially, objectively speaking, if we allow postal, telegraph, telephone links and newspapers, that to my mind is very basic. I would submit, Sir, in spite of the fact that there is a strong feeling here that diplomatic relations should be resumed first, and after all we have had diplomatic relations for all these years, 25-26 years, that has not helped matters very much either. For taking a stand on that….

I was not impressed, of course, I am not taking a stand on such matters, because these were not matters of principle, I was not impressed by Mrs. Gandhi’s remarks on this matter, that we had diplomatic relations for 25 years and in spite of that we had war. We have had not only war, but wars. Now when you take such a statement, if you take that statement, then there is no need to have diplomatic relations ever.

You are right, but I suppose, the spirit is that let us go after the tangibles, the substance of relationship rather than the form of it.

First thing that happens between States is that they take the diplomatic action. That is the first thing that happens, the first normal thing that happens. Why should we go backward. I am not saying that I am making an issue out of it, but it has been an enigma to me, why India has not agreed to….

I suppose, the sole idea has been, let us go after the hard core of it, the substance of it, communications, trade, cultural exchange, etc. Now trade, cultural exchanges, may take time but let us begin with communications.

That is one way of looking at it. But there is another way of looking at it. I am not ascribing any motives. At the same time there is another way of looking at it, since our relations have been beclouded by suspicions and there has been justification for suspicion on both sides in the past. The other way of looking at it is that India might be interested in encouraging subversive elements, and I shall use the word “subversive” also in quotations. Encouraging “subversive” elements and then, not being here, it has not been having her presence here, so that she can tell Pakistan how can we be encouraging “subversive” elements.

But this is a two-way game, Sir. Don’t you think so?

We are not playing it. We are not playing it. I can tell you quite frankly and it is not because out of any moral greatness, but I have seen from experience of the last 25 years that it has not paid and it does not pay to play this game, and I would suggest, it would not be helpful for the bigger thing.

I would submit in all humility that it does not pay India either. It does not pay anyone.

I would think so. I would think so. But, you know, people are charlatans. If there are bad relations, if there is a mental blockade, then these charlatans, they take advantage, they want some pecuniary benefits, they want something and then they put it in the garb of some noblistic ideal that look I have to fight an election. I need funds. I have to buy cars. I have to pay workers and this is needed to buy this and this is needed to buy that and they make money; it is after all, the point is that there is inflation in the world and people find it difficult to work out a living and so they enchant the people that yes I am a guerrilla leader, I can do this, I can do that. And some countries feel that, well, there is no harm if we can do it. But this kind of subversion, I would not say that it will pay India, I am convinced, it would not pay in the long run and now also you know this is propaganda, the All India Radio has resumed, the nasty outbursts, but I am not retaliating….

It is again the consequence of old ideas and prejudices. I would like to submit to you, since I am having this privilege of meeting you, that some of your media occasionally try to extol the virtues of Islam not by itself, but in terms of attacking Hinduism. I have listened to a radio programme here. There is tremendous richness and wealth in Islam to be extolled by itself which is valid, understandable, and desirable, but why do it in negative terms?

Yes, it is a force of habit. I do not see. I do not see.

I mean this on both sides. The minds of the people still have a hangover of the past. Whereas I suppose, there is need on both sides to get over this.

But on this other question of exchanges, communication, dangerous communication gap, it is not just a gap, it is a dangerous communication gap, so much so that when I was making my speeches in Azad Kashmir, because of the communication gap, they were reported as if I had gone there to train guerrillas, whereas the basic message of mine was that war has not served any purpose and we must settle this problem by peaceful means.

I am glad you say that, Sir, because we got this news from various agencies and particularly the references to hartal and guerrillas created some misunderstandings. Now if the communication gap was not there….

Your ambassador would be here, your journalists would be here. But you know there also we are not defaulters because after I assumed office I allowed Indian journalists to come, as many as wanted, to come here.

Yes, yes, and I suppose more from this side are also going….

But there was no reciprocity for a year and a half. Some of our journalists tried and after one and a half years, two journalists were allowed to go to Dacca via Delhi, and that had a bigger objective, that they were two friendly journalists, Mazhar Ali and Najiullah. So that was the only response.

But now the visas of eight of them have been pending for the last many months and I have been talking to journalist friends here, and they have said that there have been other reasons, making arrangements of this thing and that thing. Foreign office also says that we would now persuade them to go over. Absolutely, in principle, there is no objection from the other side, no obstruction at all, and I think some of them will go now. But Sir, may I draw your attention to the other aspect of it. Suppose we succeed in breaking the communication gap in the next few months by and by, do you think fundamentally there is hope for cooperation at the economic level between the two countries?

Yes. . . .

In a very significant manner.

Certainly, certainly.

Are there any constraints on this side?

No, there is no constraint on our side. But there might have been constraints in the mind of past governments, but no constraints in my mind, in the mind of my government, because I believe that it is necessary for both India-Pakistan and Pakistan-Bangladesh that there is trade between us. It will be beneficial to them. It will be beneficial to us. No political principles are compromised at all and there have been countries who have had worst of relations and in the worst of those times trade had not been stopped. There have been countries who have been trading with South Africa although they are making all kinds of speeches in the United Nations against trading with South Africa. We are not one of those countries. We do not trade with South Africa. But I have given you an example that the countries who have had worst of relations, they trade with each other. There is the case of China not recognized by so many countries and yet those countries were trading with China. They were selling wheat to China much before they recognized China.. And this happened when the Soviet revolution took place. On the one hand there were white Russians and other efforts to try to frustrate the revolution, on the other hand trade was taking place. So I fail to understand why in the past this barrier was built. There :could have been barriers, perhaps., for political reasons in other matters but I cannot understand why we should not have trade. Trade, as I said, compromises no political principles. It will be beneficial to the common man. It will be beneficial to the two countries and-we have no inhibitions at all.

Are there some economic vested interests here which would not be happy….

They would not lose either. I have examined it from that angle also. I do not see how any of our real powerful economic vested interests would lose by it. I do not see it. Our textiles are as competitive as yours, even better in some respects. I do not see why they cannot compete and in any case we are not going to buy and sell textiles to each other offhand. I don’t expect that to be the kind of thing that we will send to one another. But there is a question of food. Sometimes, you know, there are droughts in India, famine in India, sometimes we need food, sometimes yours is surplus, sometime we are in surplus. When we are prepared to sell to other countries far away why should we not sell across the borders?

And then there is natural gas on this side which, probably, can be given to the other side, and iron ore, coal from the other side….

Yes, that I know. I know, we are prepared for trade relations and there is no inhibition from our side.

What can be the similarly more fundamental bases of lasting cooperation between the two countries, by and by.

You know in Simla we agreed to the step by step approach and as I told the Prime Minister of India that it is very difficult to digest everything at one time and I told her, one of the failings, perhaps, one of the failings according to my estimate of the Tashkent [Agreement] was that everything was sought to be done in one go to clear the decks. And you do not clear the decks in the countries that have limited horizons. We have limited horizons. So it was not possible. Now I believe in step by step approach. Off and on there will be speeches made. Please do not think that this would be wrong after all. The other day I got a letter from Karanjia expressing disappointment. I am not making the foreign policy of Blitz. I am making the foreign policy of Pakistan. I did not say anything on which there had been a change. I told him that basically I subscribe to good relations between our two countries. In view of the changed situation, the totality of events that have gone into the situation. This is my objective conviction. And at the same time, I said look, you must not be sensitive. You must also be a little bit —I would say thick-skinned—a little patient and to see how these prejudices mellow out and peter out, because if you think that in one stroke you are going to change the course of centuries, all that will be making no contribution to the settlement of disputes. And today partly why I have been able to take some steps is because people do not consider me to be lackey or stooge or a person who was in the Congress and then later on came in and became some member of a party which is affiliated. Now if any of those people had been in office, they would not have been able to go one step. But here they knew that in national interest, as I saw national interest, I felt at one time that Kashmir dispute was a basic one and first to be settled and in those days perfectly and scientifically justifiable.

The American military assistance was the factor in the consideration which was in the 1965 war. If we had not made some of the mistakes, we could have done much better. There were other factors involved but I don’t have to tell you because you are teaching also at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. You have read your books on strategies of Institute of [Strategic] Studies. So that situation was different from this situation. So all these things that war, or whether we were better prepared or had better opportunity, yet we were not able to make a breakthrough because both India and Pakistan made terrible mistakes. And now who knows that tomorrow even this one country is better placed than the other. If the same kind of assanine [sic] mistakes are made then you might be in an advantageous position. You might find yourself in a disadvantageous position. You would find yourself again in square one. We have seen the Arab-Israeli war. Again they are back to where they began from. So, everything put together I have said that I subscribe to good relations, to building up good relations. But there will be times when we say don’t agree, that this cannot be done, and this remains our position. Sometimes it will be necessary to hide some point of view, some point of difference. But that does not take away from the cast-iron framework of good relations.

Should I presume that you are equally hopeful in this framework of discussion of the solution of Kashmir also in the next few years or….

You know I can’t. I have told this to a number of your colleagues that I can’t take so much together. And I haven’t given any thought to that problem in the sense that there have been so many immediate problems, the legacies of the 1971 war, the prisoners of war issue, the vacation of territory, the economic crisis we have faced, the Constitution, the floods that came, on top of it now the oil problem. I fail to understand why I must expect everything to be resolved in my time when there are certain basic things to be settled in terms of making the basic infrastructure of our society, in terms of seeing that the institutions, they take root, and by the time really we get over these problems and there has been some period of consolidation, we will be more or less at the time of the next elections, and in that period of time I don’t see a problem that has not been resolved for 25 years will be resolved in the next three years. And even if it is possible to give attention to it, I don’t think that with all the problems heaped on us, of a burning and immediate nature, that it would be advisable to go into the heart of that problem straightaway. Now having said that, it does not mean that at any stage I am not prepared to discuss the Kashmir problem. I am prepared for it, because I know the problem, having dealt with it almost from the beginning.

People have to be carried along with it.

Yes, but I feel that there are some immediate problems, hurdles which have to be crossed, and it would be preferable to cross them.

Would you mind elaborating your proposal made in New York about the reduction in defence expenditure?

Yes. It is this that we have found that none of the devices has worked to really make a breakthrough in the economic field. And when you really spin it around, you in your country and we in our country come to the same conclusion that the expenditure on defence is colossal. It is back-breaking expenditure for you in terms of your capacity, and for Pakistan in terms of our capacity. Now, if your Government is committed to social justice and to amelioration of the lot of the common man, like our Government is certainly committed to that programme and we are making every effort to implement it, but the exercise is counter-productive because of the amount that goes into defence. That being the position that at last in both countries you have a government which is sensitive to economic and social matters, Governments which have come into office on the promise of improving economic and social conditions of the people. This was not so important a factor with the past governments, either in India or Pakistan. Nehru came and the Congress came because they had fought for Independence. And one elections after another that was the basic thing. They had won Independence. They have fought for Independence. They had gone to jails. It was the personality of Nehru, heir of Gandhi, all that kind of thing. Communist parties had not come up. Social consciousness had not come up. The rising expectations. But in the last elections certainly this was a predominant factor in your country.

Now in our country also in the past when every big Sardar got elected, and he didn’t have to go to his constituency, there were pocket-boroughs and things like that. Well we smashed all that. We smashed all that again on the central economic theme. And now this is a new development in our mutual history, firstly, and secondly, as far as you are concerned, now you are moving into a new relationship with China. This is quite clear. I don’t have to elucidate this. You accept this position. In the past you took the position, rightly or wrongly, that you had to cater for two threats. One was the Pakistan threat the other was the China threat. Now when you are making determined efforts to improve relations with China, and you have frozen that problem of Mac Mahon Line and all that, and in any case you have decided in your minds not to go to war over it.

But that is up to the other party now….

About that, you will have no problem once you settle problems with Pakistan. You can take it from me in fact. So that is one thing which is out of the way. Secondly, Pakistan is dismembered. What I was telling you earlier, that the objective conditions were different earlier when I was preaching confrontation. Objective conditions were different. Now Pakistan is in two parts. One is Bangladesh, the other is Pakistan. You know that our military position after the stoppage, and I don’t see why you don’t want any American assistance to come to us. It does not mean we want to fight with India. We have our own problems. We have this problem which has been reactivated in the north by Afghanistan. We have to think of our territorial integrity, and by territorial integrity does not mean India alone. This whole Persian Gulf region has become an excitable place. Indian Ocean is attracting the attention of the great powers, and after the energy crisis and all that has taken place, we are located in such a position that we have to think of our security. We have to have our borders secure. And there is also a psychological factor after the separation of East Pakistan. So we are not getting all that assistance and your country is unnecessarily a hindrance. In that we don’t raise a howl when you get so much military assistance from the Soviet Union. I really fail to understand why the Indians are so touchy about getting some of our commitments, which, under obligation from the United States. But taking all these factors into account, if India and Pakistan were to say alright, if we can’t sign the “no-war” pact because “no-war” pact has a dirty history, because it was involved. . .it means almost the surrender of Kashmir in the minds of the people, the way it was brought about. And one phrase was used all the times, “no-war” pact, “no-war” pact, and it was said no, no, no, no “no-war” pact. So that has got a bad history. Now if there can’t be something like that, then taking into account your requirements and taking into account our requirements, certainly our experts can sit across the table, and if they can devise a method whereby we can feel secure and you can feel secure and there need not be any change in the preponderant outlook for your needs and our needs, rather than keep on escalating. Even if we can find some method to freeze in the first instance, that in itself makes a contribution. So it was made in that spirit. It was not made in the spirit that there should be disparity and the fact that….

India’s only objection can possibly be that there can’t be parity because of the….

Parity not in that sense. Parity in the sense of your position and our position. But the logical way to clear the point would be to sit across the table….

Surely, certainly….

And to accept in principle, accept in principle.

Yes, we accept this very much in principle. Another question is, of late you have been taking increasing interest in West Asia. Do you think this would be compatible with your deep links with South Asia, or how far South Asia will also continue to be relevant to Pakistan.

No. No, no, not at all. We are parts of the subcontinent. You see, the point is that we are a part of the subcontinent, and we cannot in any case be a part of any other part of the world. No matter how much I might hate India, I might despise India, I might loath India, but we are in the subcontinent, and it is like a European State on the Mediterranean shores. It has to have good relations with Algeria. It must have good relations with Algeria, but it is a part of Europe. It is a part of continental Europe. Now these States which are very close to us, if you throw a stone you can get across to .0man, they are so close to us. And they are Muslim States. And they have got this economic potential which is vast and unimaginable. They have relations with us. There are so many Pakistanis living there, serving there, working there, immigrants, and all that. There are many common factors between us and them. But this does not mean that we say that we have opted out of the subcontinent because we cannot opt out of the subcontinent. So of course there is nothing incompatible.

May I ask you a question on the internal situation? What do you perceive to be the role of religion in your national life in future?

Well, we had this problem during the elections, a great deal of it when we were accused of all manner of things, but Pakistan’s basis, Pakistan’s history, being religious and ideological, whatever name you want to give it, it will always have an important position. But the position will not be in its reactionary sense in the way it was used in the past. I hope that it will have, what we have tried to give it, that it is a progressive thought, a progressive influence, and does not come in the garb of wanting to perpetuate exploitation and prejudice. After all it is our religion and we are very proud of it. But we have never preached chauvinism. We have said that of course we are Muslims and we are very proud of being Muslims. We consider ourselves to be as good Muslims if not better Muslims than these people who have tried to capitalize on this aspect of the problem, to keep things where they are, or to perpetuate the status quo and all that goes with it. In other words, we hope that it will be what it is—a progressive and enlightening message, an enlightening thought, an enlightening influence. This is our concept of it, this is our reading of religion, in the light of society. There are others who have not given it that interpretation. and they have tried to keep it as if it were a factor which would keep things exactly. But that is not the position. We consider it to be a dynamic force. Religion will always be a force in our society. But the point which is more important today is what kind of force. Is it going to be a force in the hands of reactionaries and those who want to perpetuate the abominable status quo, or is it going to be a factor in the pace of bringing salvation, enlightenment to the peasants, and ending feudalism, allowing the forces of egalitarianism to spread, and we are trying to use it—not use it but interpret because we can’t use it, interpret it in that way, and we believe that is the correct interpretation.

Do you think that after the separation of one wing your problem of national identity has been to some extent made easier?

No, I don’t think so because in some ways it has given a very big jolt to us. I can see what you are aiming at but at the same time I don’t think that it has made the task easier. And if the task had been made easier, there would not have been Pakistan in the first place. There was a basis for Pakistan, East and West Pakistan, and that basis now stands altered by what we consider to be an act of aggression, not by a natural process. If India had not intervened in the conflict, and if there had not been this intervention, perhaps, you might have been more correct. But in the minds of our people the separation of East Pakistan was not a result of the differences that developed between the two parties, between East and West Pakistan. In the minds of our people it was brought about, the severance was brought about by an act of war.

But don’t you think Constitution-making would have been far more difficult if one were to reconcile the interests of that wing also when your new Constitution was made?

No, in 1954 there was an agreement on the Constitution, and it was broken not because there was no agreement but because Mr. Ghulam Mohammed sought to perpetuate himself. We were able to do it….

One Call see certain amount of violence being perpetuated our national political life, and given the sort of democratic framework, there is hardly a scope for that, hardly a need for that. Actually it is counter-productive. Are you making serious efforts.

Yes, I know. But there are two or three things here. First of all, unfortunately, and it is a very bad trend, bomb-throwing, cracker-making, violence has become a part of a world-wide cycle you know. It is taking place every day. You read about bomb blast in London. You read about Belfast. The Prime Minister of Spain recently was tragically assassinated, and this trend is something which influences one society from another. Secondly, these things have become easily available. In the past they were not so easily available. And then people have read a great deal about these things. There is an element of romanticism in the minds of the younger generation. So that is also there. Thirdly, we are dealing with the legacies of the past. And in our society, in our temperament, sometimes democracy to the Opposition means installation of themselves in power. And if they are not in power there is not democracy for them. So all these things have come into play. But I am not disturbed by this trend. I hope to be able to resolve the basic political problems. Once the basic political problems are resolved, and they will take time. It was idealistic to expect people that in their first flush everything be settled and people will learn a lesson from the traumatic experience of East Pakistan. People don’t learn lessons so easily. If they did, politics would be a much simpler affair. Now they say to you, we gave him a vote of confidence. But you see, we also do that. When we get a crisis immediately there is some element of panic or something or the other and confusion and people immediately rally. You must have seen it as a student yourself of your own society that immediately after rallying they also fall apart very soon. They don’t have that sustaining effort to pursue a policy which is a good one for long because there are so many forces pulling them in different directions. It becomes unfashionable not to preach violence. It becomes unfashionable not to make a hard speech. If someone says, no, you know we must have negotiations with the Government, it is regarded that he has become a stooge, surrendering to the Government, that sort of thing. So they did give me that vote of confidence, of course, before I went to Simla, and all that, and I am thankful to them. I also arrived at certain agreements with them, on the Constitution, on restoration of provincial governments. It is not that it was a one-sided cooperation. But I had no illusion that they will continue to do this, because they said that no this must be done, that must be done, and they started falling apart, going hammer and tong making all kinds of nasty speeches, abusive speeches, we will do this, we will tear him apart, we will give his flesh to the dogs, and all this sort of thing. So, on the one hand I am very keen to establish democracy and I have full faith in democracy. If I did not have so much faith in democracy, I would not have taken on a struggle against Ayub Khan. I know that our people like freedom. Now the matter does not end there, that they like freedom, that they don’t like to be suppressed. Obviously, they are freedom-loving people. But when you have to institutionalize that also. And in trying to institutionalize it after so many years we haven’t been able to, as you said yourself, we haven’t had a Constitution, haven’t been able to institutionalize it. You were able to have a Constitution soon after Independence, but you also had many knocks. So many problems. Nehru was accused of being a dictator, by so many of his opponents. But he wasn’t a dictator. I knew Nehru very well. I knew he wasn’t a dictator. He was wedded to the idealistic thoughts. He was wedded to the western concepts of democracy, his writings, everything else. But nevertheless, people said he was a dictator, he had thrown out Tandon, he has done this to this problem, he is using his heavy hand on so many problems. But no, in the beginning you have to try and give shape to things. Then they crystallize. I hope that we go through this transition. It is a painful transition. The thing is that the other side must also see the objective conditions carefully, and see that we are going through a transition. In the beginning, we had parliamentary system in the provinces, but in the Centre I retained the presidential system. Now it wasn’t that I wanted to become President of Pakistan. And they said this is anomalous. It was not anomalous, because we had just gone through a terrible onslaught. We had 15 years of the presidential system and overnight it couldn’t be just changed. And we had an Interim Constitution to keep things a little tight, see the provinces all are slowly given their provincial autonomy, establish parliamentary democracy. Then in five or six months when we had the permanent Constitution, I stepped down and became the Prime Minister. But in the beginning it was necessary to keep the driver’s seat firmly in my hand and it was easier in that way. Now that there has been more consolidation, more progress, this has happened.

So also the Press. I am quite prepared to slowly stop giving Press advice and things like that. But our Press also, generally speaking, they haven’t learnt much. Not a single lesson from 15 years of martial law. Either they have had to cope with no freedom at all, or they want excessive freedom. So I said our trouble has been either there has been too much government or there has been too little government. And it will take a little time before we strike that golden mean.

You referred to the political problems which you have yet to tackle. Can you indicate what are those?

Basically, one of the basic problems I would say is to see how the Sardars reconcile themselves to the changes we are making. That is really the way it has emerged. They have given different colors to make it a noble cause. But it is how the Sardars of Baluchistan can reconcile themselves to the changes we are bringing.

But the instrumentality again has got to be the Sardars themselves, either the one or the other.

Well, in a different position in the sense that they would not have their little kingdoms. Now you see the quarrel is whether the writ of the Central Government should go into the Marri area or not. Now there are Sardars not only in Baluchistan, there are Sardars in Sindh. Why are the Sardars of Baluchistan more important than the Sardars of Sindh? Not because the Sardars of Sindh are not important, but because the British had in their time taken the administration, the rule of law, the writ, to the Sardars of Sindh They didn’t take it to certain parts of the Sardars of Baluchistan, Kalat, Marri-Bugti areas. These are special areas. After Independence none of our leaders had the courage, Quaid-e-Azam excluded, to take it on because you know the line of least resistance is the best line. “Bhai kyon takleef paida karein? Ab chhoro. Is baat ko kyoi chherna chahte ho? Baad men dekha jayega.” But I don’t have that approach because I think first we must solve the internal problems. We can’t have such anomalies left over. Then there should be schools and hospitals, and electricity, and roads in all the areas. There should be a deputy commissioner or a political agent in these places. That is also why I have taken our writ to the forward positions and Afghanistan is making a lot of noise about it. It is not for that reason. I believe that we have to serve the people. We can’t serve the people in a vacuum, and with parallel governments running, one of the Maliks and the Sardars, and the other of the Central Government where by proxy they come and represent their people by their single individual selves. Now that position will change. The Sardar will still be there as a member of the National Assembly. But what is the position of the Sardar? Does he have a deputy commissioner where his tribesmen can either go to him for khanagi faisala or they can go to the deputy commissioner and superintendent of police. Today there is no deputy commissioner, no superintendent of police. So he is their ma-baap really speaking, lord and master. I can’t allow that to happen no matter how much trouble there is, and no matter what the rest of the world will say that Baluchistan is becoming another Bangladesh and things like that which is not true. It is the penetration of civilization into these areas. Sardar Khair Bux Marri met me in Murree and we had discussions and I told him that I can’t compromise on this matter. He said to me, and these are his words in front of Wali Khan and others, he said: “This country you say is a poor country.” I said: “Yes, it is a poor country.” He says: “If it is a poor country, then why don’t you build these roads in certain other areas. Why do you want to bring them to Marri areas.” Now, I mean that is no answer. That all the bounties of the poor country must fall on the Marri. If that is the way they look at it then naturally they will clash. But I believe that they got the message, because they also made the mistake. “Aji dictatorship thi. Military rule tha. Ham unke sath. Yeh to democracy hai. Ya ke ji, sab kutchh hai. We will be able to deal, show this Government how we can deal with, when we could deal with Yahya Khan and Ayub Khan.” So they thought they could take me on. “Me” means not personally but the Government. When they tried, I said no you can’t do that. And now they are under detention since August, and of course I haven’t put them in jail. They are living in guest house of the Government. But that means nothing, neither here nor there. Not that they are afraid of jails. They are brave people. But I think they got the message that they can’t just get away.

Are you hopeful of some solution

I hope so, I hope so. But I have not yet established any contact.

There is lot of speculation here about the Soviet interest in the Pakhtoon-Afghanistan situation. Concretely speaking, what would Soviet Union gain out of all this?

I can’t say. I can’t say. We want to have good relations with the Soviet Union. We want to have good relations.

Finally, about the economy. What are the serious bottlenecks in the economy, the price rise, etc.

That is a terrible thing. Eaten up so many of our achievements. It has been a great disappointment. It is again an international phenomenon. God knows now whether we are going towards a recession. So that one doesn’t know. But many of our achievements have been lost in this spiral of prices. But at the same time the position is not as bad. I admit it is bad. But it is not as bad as it is being made out.

It is bad in India too….

Oh, it is worse.

But talking of Pakistan, what are the basic issues involved.

But now the question is basically one of larger investment. We must now invest more to increase our production, and to increase the employment opportunities. In the public sector we are going full steam ahead. The private sector is shying away from it for the fear that we are going to nationalize industries and things like that. But we will have to again resist these pressures because we are determined to establish a socialist order. But we don’t want to make a lot of song and dance about it, and make a lot of noise about it. Because it is much better if you believe in these things to do it properly. I will just give you one small illustration of my approach to it. Some of these industrialists and others came to me once and said: “You know your television and radio is doing nothing but talking about class difference and other things,” I said I will stop it. They thought it was a great victory. But when the others came to me and said why have you stopped it, I said look the basic thing is to do these things, and to have certain progress towards a planned democratic socialist economy. And we will go ahead in our programme according to our manifesto. And I think we will on the whole achieve good results.

You took over about 18 industries, their management, and now probably are in the process of taking over their majority shares. Do you think it has made a difference to production?

Certainly it has. It has. It has increased and improved production, both.

But at the same time it has created some problem with the industrialists, some uncertainty, and probably you are in the process of clarifying the position, the Government policy in the matter.

Yes. But this is, now you see, they are trying to take more commitments from Government than we can give. And you can’t really give, in the world of today, any cast-iron commitments. Tomorrow something can happen to me and a new government can come, and anything can happen. There was an industrialist, a Pathan industrialist. He came to me and said, in the time of King Zahir Shah, that he would like to go and invest in Afghanistan, because and prospects of free enterprise were better in Zahir Shah’s time which is true. Now within three months Daud Khan came into power and Daud Khan also talks about socialist changes, and all. So, you can’t get cast-iron guarantees.

How about the land reform programme. Is it making good….

That is making good progress. Now it is being implemented, and its effects are being felt. It has been a good programme. We have given land to the tiller without taking a soo [sic] from him, and no compensation to the landowner. The landowner is now responsible for seeds and all other encumbrances. And I think it has made a fairly good impact.

So the manifesto of the party on the whole is being….

Yes, and now it can be subjected to scrutiny, and it can be seen that in two years the steps we have taken have been all in compliance with the pledges we made, and we have got still time to complete the rest.

Do you hope to or wish to hold the general elections before the due date mentioned in the Constitution, 1977, or there is no need for it?

There is no need for it, but the point is, now in the parliamentary system the advantage is that you can hold it at any time within the period of five years. And I won’t spring a surprise on the Opposition that they have the general elections tomorrow. I won’t do anything like that. There is no need to do that. Because if we want to establish democratic traditions, if we play such a trick, the same trick can be played against us. But of course I think we will not be able to give a one year campaign like Yahya Khan gave. In no country in the world has there been a one-year election campaign, specially for a country that has had no elections for 15 years.

Thank you, Sir.