ON INDO-PAKISTAN WAR, 1965 SPEECH IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, March 16, 1966

Mr. Speaker, Sir. I have heard the debate with great interest, because it is of crucial importance to Pakistan and its future. The views of the Opposition have been taken into account and I will make an endeavor in formulating the Government’s policies to take into account the various issues that have been raised by the Opposition.

One of the eminent speakers from the Opposition, Shah Azizur Rahman, in his statement has said that foreign affairs emanate and originate from internal conditions. This was reiterated by a number of members of the Opposition when they said that there is a direct co-relation between the internal and external relations of a sovereign state. This is a truism and I would like to say that we agree with the members of the Opposition when they say that foreign affairs and internal affairs are inter-connected and that foreign affairs in many ways stem out of internal considerations.

As much as internal considerations affect foreign policy, foreign policy of a country also affects its internal affairs. They both have a relationship of cause and effect. But in order to ascertain what are those relations, what are the motivating factors which bring about an inter-relationship between the foreign affairs and the internal affairs in our own country, it is necessary for us to know what is Pakistan itself. What is our state and what is our status? What are our objectives? What are our motivations?

Pakistan is a great ideal. A member of this House has said that Pakistan was a man-made country. Pakistan is not just a man-made country. It is a God-made country. It is a progressive idea. It is a concrete idea. Ii is a beautiful thought. It is a creation of excellence. That is what is Pakistan—a beautiful idea, a concrete thought and a creation of excellence. It is not just the sandy desert of Sindh or the rugged nobility of Baluchistan and the enchanting lushness of Bengal or the inspiring plains of the Punjab or the raw courage of the land of the Pathans, and it is not just the land of a hundred million valiant and heroic people. Indeed all these things—the desert of Sindh, the lushness of Bengal, the magnificent plains of the Punjab, the raw courage of the North-Western Frontier and the nobility of Baluchistan, go to make Pakistan. On top of all these there is something much more to Pakistan. It is the blessing of Allah. Pakistan is the creation of the surge of Islamic nationhood. Pakistan is the product of an earth-shaking idea. It is a revolution cut out of the heart of history. Pakistan is the struggle of mankind for liberty and equality, much more inspired and much more romantic than the original revolution of man. Pakistan is a live revolution. In order to understand the internal and external policy of Pakistan, you must understand what Pakistan is and what are the motivations which created Pakistan. It is a revolution against repression. It is the handsomest off -spring of self-determination. That is what Pakistan is. That is why Pakistan is not only a physical reality but it has a romantic ideological basis on the teachings of Iqbal as they were translated into actuality by the Quaid-i-Azam.

The French Revolution was inspired by the struggle of mankind against oppression. The Pakistan revolution has inspired the people everywhere throughout the world in their struggle for self-determination. Pakistan is the culmination of an ideology and the incarnation of self-determination. Pakistan is a beautiful thing. There is nothing ugly about Pakistan. Pakistan is a great and glorious culmination of the people’s struggle for emancipation. Pakistan is the product of concrete forces which cannot be mutilated. Pakistan can never be recast, can never be reshaped. Pakistan is never to be amputated or merged. “It is the mercy of God on earth,” as the great German Philosopher Hegel said.

I, as the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, would say that I would not exchange one Masud or one Yusufzai or one Chandio for all the industrial power of India. I would not be prepared to barter one millimeter of the sacred soil of Pakistan for all the industrial arsenal of India.

Pakistan is a mystical idea. It is an idea which we well understand and which only the Pakistanis can best understand. Those who have struggled for the creation of Pakistan, those who know what self-determination really means, will understand what is its motivation. To the foreigners sometimes Pakistan is an enigma. Others say that it is a miracle but miracle is a norm to the Pakistanis. Pakistan is the heart-throb of the people. Pakistan is the culmination of the aspirations of the Islamic Order. Those who were fortunate enough to join the struggle for Pakistan like Shah Azizur Rahman, Mr. Sabur and others, those who were in the forefront of the struggle, to them I should say that glory belongs to you, because you have contributed to one of the richest chapters of the history of mankind. And to those of us who have to defend and consolidate the integrity of Pakistan I say the challenge is an enchanting one and we shall accept it with confidence.

I now come to the war. So much has been said about it. Members in this House have said, “Why this war?’’ They have accused the Government of irresponsible action. Some of them even assumed that the initiative for war lay with us.

War is a terrible thing. It has rarely been consciously sought, as it is a vehicle of destruction, and yet from the dawn of history there have been terrible wars of destruction. Civilizations half as old as time, have been destroyed, magnificent cities like London, Stalingrad and Berlin have been devastated to the point of nothingness. In the ultimate analysis, it will be found that mankind fared better when it fought on the basis of justice and a more complete dignity and morality. History knows of two wars: one is the immoral war of avarice and exploitation and the other is a war of resistance against domination and exploitation. These are the two categories in which modern man will place wars: one of avarice and exploitation and the other a struggle for emancipation and liberty.

Alexander the Great sought to conquer the world, but the world of his time disillusioned him. Why was he disillusioned? Because his was a war of avarice and exploitation. The Roman legions swept across Europe, Asia and Africa but they were driven back from everywhere because theirs was a war of exploitation and avarice. Charlemagne the Great held sway over Europe, but the people of Europe destroyed his empire because his was a war of conquest and avarice. Chengiz Khan’s hordes galloped across Asia and parts of Europe but the Khan’s conquest had to be halted and defeated because the great Khan’s war was of avarice, Napoleon dreamt of conquering the world but he was driven from Moscow because his war was a war of exploitation. Hitler dreamt like Napoleon, but like Napoleon lie, too, was driven back from Moscow because his war was of domination and exploitation. From Alexander to Hitler, from the colonialist wars of the British and the French and others all wars of exploitation and avarice have been decisively defeated by people struggling for emancipation, independence and self-respect.

The other war is a glorious war, it is a war of liberation, it is a war of national self-assertion. Small powers have stood against mighty empires, little people have had to fight for their freedom and they have succeeded because theirs have been wars which have been called just wars. There is a distinction between a war of exploitation and a just war. A just war cannot fail, no matter how serious the consequences, no matter how great is the empire that is pitted against it. We have to draw a distinction—a clear and precise distinction between, war of exploitation and struggle for independence against exploitation.

In what category does the struggle of the people of Jammu and Kashmir fall? Is the struggle of the people of Jammu and Kashmir a war of exploitation and war of domination or is their struggle for freedom a war for self-respect, for independence, for self-assertion and for self-dignity? This is the basic distinction that has to be drawn in pronouncing a judgment on the subject matter of war. But is it fair for the Foreign Minister of Pakistan to pronounce whether we fought a war of exploitation or whether we fought a just war? Is it fair for the Foreign Minister to say whether the people of Jammu and Kashmir struggled for their independence and liberty against oppression or whether they were exploiters akin to Napoleon or Chengiz Khan or Alexandar the Great? I do not think it is necessary for me to answer the question because perhaps you may say that this is a subjective evaluation of history. I would urge the House to take into account what the rest of the world says on the subject matter of this war.

The whole world supported the people of Jammu and Kashmir during the September war. Have you ever asked yourself, Honorable Members, why is it that the international community supported Pakistan in the September war as against India? The whole people and all the Governments of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe supported Pakistan. They supported Pakistan because the struggle of the people of Jammu and Kashmir was a just struggle. It was a process in the culmination of self-respect of the international community, not because they had any preferential treatment for Pakistan as against India but because objectively they believed that the people of Jammu and Kashmir were struggling against foreign domination. There was no difference between their struggle and the struggle of the people of Algeria, the people of Southern Rhodesia. Asia and Africa and people throughout the world who fought for liberation. This is why the whole world supported the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The world of Islam, perhaps for the first time in its history of 1300 years, was united right from the Maghrib to the Pacific, right from Algeria to Indonesia in support of Pakistan and in support of the people of Jammu and Kashmir because that was a just struggle. Right from Algeria to Indonesia they supported the people of Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan for their just struggle, because ours was a struggle for the cause not only of the people of Jammu and Kashmir but because our fight and our struggle was for a better world order, for a finer society, for greater justice and articulation of right against wrong and that is why 5 million people of Jammu and Kashmir and the people of Pakistan were supported by the Afro-Asian countries, by the world of Islam. They were supported everywhere because they stood valiantly and courageously for a right cause.

India, in size and in territory, in resources and in diplomatic ingenuity, is a great country. India is like Europe, the whole of Europe without Russia. The size of India and the resources of India are like Europe without Russia and yet it stood alone. It stood completely alone and forsaken India was absolutely isolated with all its resources, with all its power, with all its diplomatic agility, going back to Asoka—no not Asoka, Asoka was a Pakistani, make no mistake about it—going back to all their ancient rulers. So they stood absolutely alone, forsaken and naked in this struggle and the late Lal Bahadur Shastri, at the height of the war, had to say that India is all alone; India is not supported by any country in the world. These are not my remarks: these are, remarks of Lal Bahadur Shastri, Prime Minister of India, who said at the height of the conflict that India stands all alone. India—Europe without Russia—standing against the Denmark of Asia, Why? Because justice was with us, because we were espousing a righteous cause, because we were supporting the right of self-determination, the most noble ideal known to modern man. That is why India with all its resources, with all its might, with all the formidable and invincible armada of its power and strength stood absolutely isolated and alone. And the Prime Minister of India had to say that we stand alone and deserted and Pakistan has the support of the world. This is a phenomenon which is unknown to history. Never before in the history of mankind has such a situation arisen. And that is because we were supporting a right cause and we were fulfilling our commitments and our pledge to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

That India was the aggressor is borne out by statements made by many of the members of the Security Council. If the members of the Opposition would care to look at the statements in the Security Council and its proceedings, they will see that many states said that India is the aggressor. That India was the aggressor was borne out by the September 6th resolution of the Security Council. That India was the aggressor was borne out by the statement of Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Great Britain is no particular friend of Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan are members of the Commonwealth and the Anglo-Saxons weigh the scales of justice evenly between their fellow-Commonwealth members and yet with all due respect, and I must say that Prime Minister Harold Wilson was brave enough to declare that India had committed aggression against Pakistan. We admire him for standing by truth.

And then, Mr. Krishna Menon went to Cairo to plead India’s case and what was Mr. Krishna Menon told in Cairo? Mr. Krishna Menon was told in Cairo that India crossed the international frontier and that Cairo could not support India in spite of all the association and friendship that existed between Cairo and New Delhi. That India was the aggressor was borne out by all the statements that were made by the leaders of Asia and Africa, Latin America and Europe during the Indo-Pakistan war.

It must be clearly understood that Pakistan did not start this war. We had every moral and legitimate reason and justification to support the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their legitimate right for self-determination. We are ourselves the product of self-determination and we had every right to support the people of Jammu and Kashmir for their self-determination as much as we had supported the people of Algeria for their self-determination. In the case of Jammu and Kashmir we had even greater reason to support the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir for self-determination.

It must be clearly understood that in supporting the people of Jammu and Kashmir for self-determination, we did not commit aggression against India. This is a factor which must be clearly understood in order to remove confusion and inconsistency in the minds of some people that if Pakistan supports the people of Jammu and Kashmir for their right of self-determination as the rest of the world has supported the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their fight for self-determination then we are not committing any aggression against India. If the rest of the world, if China, Indonesia, Algeria, Morocco—and I do not want to quote all the other countries—support the struggle of the people of Jammu and Kashmir for self-determination, then they also committed aggression against India if we committed aggression against India. A clear and basic distinction must be drawn in order to appreciate and understand the realities of the present situation.

We had been told that we plunged our country into war, that we risked the future of Pakistan by supporting the people of Jammu and Kashmir for self-determination. I have already explained that in supporting the people of Jammu and Kashmir we are not violating any norm of international law or international morality. We support bellum justunt, a just war of the people for their liberation. In spite of that, many patriotic friends of ours have said our defences were bad and we took a terrible risk, that it was possibly an adventurism and that there was an element of immaturity in it. This is not so. It must be appreciated and understood that this was a heroic struggle. This was a heroic support for a great and noble cause. This is one of the factors which makes Pakistan great and which will make Pakistan a pioneer and a pillar of strength and morality for the whole of Asia and Africa.

Let us look at history. If the whole world can be plunged into the war of 1914 for the assassination of an Archduke whose name, I believe, very few people in this House and even in the galleries will remember should we not be committed to the five million people of Jammu and Kashmir and support them in their struggle for independence? In 1939 Britain and France declared war against Germany, because there was a commitment on the part of Britain and France to support the international frontiers of Poland and in order to fulfill their commitment Britain and France plunged the whole world into war and the international community was faced with obliteration because Britain and France had to honor their commitment to Poland and millions of people had to die because the commitment had to be honored. A commitment had to be honored in order to respect treaty obligations and that is why Britain and France are great powers because they fulfilled their commitment to the people of Poland. If they could fulfill their commitments in spite of its terrible consequences, should not Pakistan fulfill its commitment to the people of Jammu and Kashmir?

Let us come closer to our times. United States of America is a great and prosperous country. It has much more to lose by war than any other country. If we are at war, some Dawood Mills may be destroyed, some Adamjee Mills may be destroyed. But if United States is at war, that means destruction of a saturated society, yet the United States have the courage and the honor to tell the Soviet Union to remove their missiles from Cuba, otherwise there will be a third world war and the United States of America under that great President, John F. Kennedy gave an ultimatum to the Soviet Union to remove their missiles or face a world war. President Kennedy said, “We are also prepared to face destruction; we are prepared to face all consequences of war”, not peace gentlemen, but war—”if you do not remove your missiles from Cuba.” And what happened in Korea? Again nations fought against each other because each one of them felt that they were fighting a war of liberation and a just war. What is happening in Viet Nam today? The whole world is on the brink of disaster, moving the way of total destruction. Yet there are nations—great powers on both sides saying that we must support war of liberation. Can Kashmir be an exception? How is Kashmir an exception? The right to self-determination of the people in Viet Nam or anywhere else in the world is the same. Is there any difference in the case of Kashmir? What is the difference? If one single member of the House wants to tell me, I will sit down. Let him say what is the difference.

The argument, that the future of fifty million people of East Pakistan was jeopardized for five million people of Jammu and Kashmir is a pathetic and false argument. That the future of fifty million people of East Pakistan was jeopardized for the future of five million people of Jammu and Kashmir is only, Sir, a false argument. It is a bankrupt and an immoral argument. If that is to be the criterion of a just struggle of supporting the right of self-determination that fifty million must not be sacrificed, it is an assumption, in any case, that fifty million were being sacrificed for five million, but if you carry it to its logical conclusion, then in the end only Mymensingh district will remain as a part of Pakistan, because Mymensingh district is the most populated district of Pakistan. You will say all right, do not sacrifice fifty million for five million. They cannot say do not sacrifice. Do not sacrifice fourteen million people of Sindh. Then you will say, let Baluchistan go, let Sindh go, and parts of Pakistan will be slowly and gradually swallowed up by India because fifty million or twenty million or ten million will be running the risk of destruction. And then only the Mymensingh district will be left, and then the most populated thana of the Mymensingh district will remain as a part of Pakistan. Can that be the argument that a heroic and great nation of Pakistan is going to put forward in this National Assembly—in this august House—in this supreme legislature which has heroic people who have fought for Pakistan—men like Mr. Nurul Amin and Shah Azizur Rahman and others? Nations and their destinies are not judged by mathematical calculations. There is no arithmetical formula. It may be true—it may be five million—it may be three million—it may be one million. We have heard this argument in Pakistan that why should five million people be sacrificed? I must say to the credit of India—and the House knows and the people of Pakistan know that I am not an apologist for India—I never heard this argument from the Indian leaders. I have never heard from a single leader of India why should four hundred million people of India be sacrificed for the five million people of Kashmir? Why should four hundred million people of India sacrifice so much in terms of economic resources for the five million people of Jammu and Kashmir whose loyalty is with Pakistan? Why should the people in Calcutta suffer from starvation? Why should the people of Kerala who are crying for a bowl of rice suffer for the five million people of Jammu and Kashmir? Why should Pakistan not adopt a similar attitude with greater fervor ? Is it not a disservice to our cause not to do so? In the advancement of her chauvinistic and colonial ambitions India wants to hold on to Jammu and Kashmir irrespective of the riots in Calcutta, irrespective of the starvation and irrespective of the other consequences and knowing that the people of Jammu and Kashmir in due process will become part of Pakistan. But this argument is a bankrupt argument.

Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory. It has been a disputed territory for the last eighteen years and it continues to be a disputed territory and all the people everywhere and most of all the people of Pakistan have a legal and moral right to support the struggle of the people of Jammu and Kashmir for emancipation from foreign bondage. Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory. Even for India Kashmir is a disputed territory. The support for the people of Jammu and Kashmir as I said, has been forthcoming from all over the world.

India invaded Pakistan as a result of the struggle of Jammu and Kashmir. India should have invaded Pakistan when Algeria was fighting France for its self-determination. India should have invaded Pakistan when Tunisia, Morocco and other countries were fighting for their self-determination. There was no justification in law and in morality for India to invade Pakistan as a result of the culmination of the fight of the people of Jammu and Kashmir for their self-determination. But, Sir, why did India invade Pakistan? India invaded Pakistan because it used Jammu and Kashmir as a pretext. It must not be forgotten that it is not just Jammu and Kashmir which is at stake. It is not for the people to say here that Jammu and Kashmir is a thousand miles away because West Pakistan is a thousand miles away. India cannot tolerate the existence of Pakistan and that is why on the pretext of Jammu and Kashmir war was unleashed on Pakistan. India on the pretext of the struggle of the people of Jammu and Kashmir wanted to destroy Pakistan and that is why twelve or more of India’s finest divisions, whose guns and wheels were greased by great powers, made an onslaught on Sialkot and Lahore to destroy Pakistan, because in the destruction of Pakistan lay India’s most sublime and finest dreams. But the aggressor was brought to a halt.

It was an epic struggle. It was a most glorious chapter in the glory-studded history of Pakistan. It stood like a formidable and impregnable wall. This nation stood to a man against the terrible onslaught. Ours was a mighty victory. It was a victory of the people of Pakistan, a glittering crown was worn by the armed forces of Pakistan. It was a victory in which the whole nation shared. The people of the Punjab will no longer have to tell the world that this is the Punjab, this is Lahore, this is where the Shalimar Gardens are; this is where Iqbal was born. The world will be told that these are the people of Punjab who resisted 12 divisions of India and destroyed the might of India. The people of Sindh no longer will have to tell the world and refer them to the battle of Miani in 1847. The people of Sindh have only to tell the foreigners that these were the Hurs who went right into India and occupied vast regions of Indian territory with their bare hands. The people of Bengal no longer will have to say that this is the cultural renaissance of the subcontinent. They will tell the world that this is the region against which India dared not lift its little finger. The people of Swat and the people of Dir and the other gallant regions do not have to say that this is the land of brave Pathans, because they showed their bravery in the way they carried their muskets and they fought a great war against the hordes of India and against predatory and wanton aggression against Pakistan. The whole people of Pakistan everywhere, in the Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, North West Frontier, Bengal, all rallied as one man against India. And what is India? India is Europe without Russia. Such a formidable and mighty force flung itself against a small and heroic nation, and why did we succeed? We succeeded because God was on our side. Because Pakistan is a God-made country, and not a man-made country.

Sir, we are told that war is a terrible thing. You do not know the consequences of war. Those who have fought any war know what war means. For 200 years we have not fought a war, and now we have just seen a glimpse of war; we have just seen a glitter of war. For 200 years the people of this country did not fight a war of self-defence, a war of dignity. Our people have fought in Tripoli; they have fought in Italy. They have died in other foreign lands, fighting for their foreign powers. But what a magnificent and beautiful difference there is in fighting for your own country as against fighting for foreigners. For the first time in 200 years, these people, gallant and glorious people, fought for their own homeland and no sacrifice can be measured in a balance of equity. This is the greatest equity to fight for your own homeland and to fight for your own country.

We are talking in terms of losing five thousand men or so. One hundred million of the people of Pakistan have fought a war and a million can sacrifice themselves for a greater cause and can face any consequence or any disaster. We have fought for foreigners and more people have died for their cause. Has that been a greater honour for us? Do we recount their services, the services of the people who died fighting for the British earlier? Let us take a balance-sheet of the past and the present, and we will find that we have fought for our homeland, for the great soil of Pakistan. There is a great difference in fighting for the foreigners and in fighting for your own country, and yet we are told we do not know what war means. Those who have known wars, they know what war means. Let us take the case of Germany. Germany fought a war in 1864; it fought a war in 1866; it fought a war in 1870; it fought a war in 1914 and in 1939. It was destroyed after Hitler’s plunder of Europe in 1939 and yet we are told that Germany must be contained because Germany wants to fight against those who have fought war more successfully and continuously. Destroyed and decimated, they are prepared to go to war, but we who have not fought for 200 years a war of liberation should not say that a great disaster has taken place and we have lost so many people.

We never lost anyone. Each one is a martyr to the greatness of Pakistan. Each one of them has contributed to the glory of Pakistan. Each one of them has shown to the world that this is a great and glorious nation. These lives have never been lost; they can never be forgotten. Those lives which fought for an imperial power will never be remembered, but each single life, each jawan, each officer, who fought for the soil of Pakistan has a place in our hearts and we shall cherish them.

War is a terrible thing, but this war was thrust on us. It was not of our choosing. It was not an aggressive war. It was thrust on us and we had to accept the challenge. There was no alternative to the challenge of a predatory and habitual aggressor who since 1947 has repeatedly committed aggression in Junagadh, in Mangrol, in Manavadar, in Hyderabad. in Jammu and Kashmir, in Goa, against China; that great aggressor whetted by his appetite for aggression, launched his final attack against Pakistan. We had no alternative but to face the aggressor. This was our irrevocable commitment to the people of Pakistan. And yet, Sir it is a tragedy, a shameful slander, I would say, not just a tragedy, but shameful slander, that there are those amongst us who have been brainwashed and who ask why we started the war. We did not start war. You have all the evidence in the world to know that we were the victims of aggression. The British Prime Minister, who is not elected by the Basic Democrats of Pakistan, did say that India committed aggression against us. The great leaders of Asia and Africa, not beholden to any privilege or to any import license told us that India committed aggression against us. The whole world says that we were the victims of aggression. We faced a great challenge.

We were a smaller country pitted against a powerful one; and we could not only hold that country at bay, but ours was the victory.

And I am told that some of the Members of the House have a grievance that this policy of war which, as I have said, was thrust on us, and was not of our making, it was such that it left East Pakistan defenseless; it left East Pakistan isolated. Now, these are very important statements, that East Pakistan was left defenseless, and that East Pakistan was isolated. I would like you to share my thoughts on the subject.

To the extent to which I can reveal the facts, for the satisfaction, not only of the Members of this House, but for the fifty million of people of East Pakistan, who constitute the majority of the people of Pakistan; and they must know because it is not fair to them to think that, although this war was thrust on us we did not anticipate it; and that we did not take necessary safeguards. You must know for one thing that you were isolated, that is true; and this is inherent in the scheme of Partition. But I would like to ask you: Is it not preferable to be isolated than be subjected to aggression? Which part of the country was subjected to the aggression by 12 divisions of the Indian Army and the onslaught of the finest armaments and materials? It was West Pakistan. I think it was a blessing that the majority of our people were safe from aggression. Isolation is preferable to being victims of aggression, to be overtaken, God forbid, by India. General Chaudhri is said to have remarked that by the evening he and his jawans would be sitting in Lahore, and that they would indulge in rapine and plunder. These were the remarks that we heard in West Pakistan, and we had to face that situation. We were the direct victims of aggression, and I would say, objectively speaking, it is better to be isolated than to be a victim of aggression.

Secondly, Sir, in so far as the defence of East Pakistan is concerned, I am not going to reveal any secrets. What I say is not a revelation. It is known to the great powers, it is known to the United States of America, it is known to the People’s Republic of China, and perhaps it is known to the Soviet Union, why East Pakistan was insulated from the conflict. East Pakistan was not insulated from the conflict because India had some special love for East Pakistan. East Pakistan was regarded to be a territory over which the Indian armies could just walk through.. We were always told that in the event of a war between India and Pakistan, East Pakistan would be in the Indian bag before we get up to load our guns. Then why, ask yourselves, why did India not attack East Pakistan? Why was not East Pakistan attacked? What were the reasons? These are important considerations. These are considerations of basic importance to the future of this country.

Some Members of the House have said that there were three considerations which prevented Indians from attacking East Pakistan—God, monsoons, and the ultimatum from China. As Muslims we bow to the mercy of God; we forget the monsoons; and we talk about the ultimatum from China. And this was the subject matter of discussions which took place between the United States’ envoy and the Chinese representative at Warsaw. The defence of East Pakistan and the attack on East Pakistan was the subject-matter of consideration between the United States’ representatives and those of the Chinese People’s Republic at Warsaw, and it was during this period that the United States’ Ambassador to Pakistan came with the proposal that East Pakistan should be insulated and quarantined from the war. Why? After all, the attack was on the whole of the country. The whole country was subject to attack. Why should East Pakistan be insulated and quarantined from war? You people are not more pious than we are; you people are part and parcel of our country; you people have all the greatness and the failings of our country: but why should East Pakistan have been quarantined from war? What was the reason? Why was India so anxious not to invade East Pakistan? I say with all the responsibility at my command that India could not dare to lift its little finger against East Pakistan.

All this notwithstanding, all this one day will come to light. The whole of the people of Pakistan will know everything in its fullest detail, with all the commas, semi-colons and full-stops. But what I have said today is what is known to the Great Powers, and what was reported by The New York Times, that this was the subject-matter of discussion in Warsaw. Therefore, I am not revealing any secret. If it comes to The New York Times, that at Warsaw it was discussed, then I am not revealing something which is secret. But one day the whole country, the nation, the people of East Pakistan will know that the leadership of West Pakistan thought more of East Pakistan than of West Pakistan.

At the same time, I can understand a sense of some frustration. I can understand it, because the people of East Pakistan are very patriotic; and they must have felt a sense of frustration, not because they were isolated but because they were not merged in the conflict. They wanted to be a part of the aggression. Frustration would not have been there if India had attacked East Pakistan. They feel frustrated, not because they were isolated, but because they were not attacked. But there should be no misgivings because at the end of all wars there is an element of frustration. But when the dust of war settles, reality becomes clearer. There should be no frustration because it must be remembered that the blood of East Pakistani martyrs was merged with the blood of the Punjabi martyrs in the defence of Sialkot and in the defence of Lahore. This is the blood that has come together to sanctify and solidify the nation for all times notwithstanding Six Points or Twenty Points. The people of Pakistan have come together. There has been a consummation of the blood of the martyrs on the soil of Pakistan. Therefore, we are not concerned with these problems of distance. Political issues can be discussed at any time. This war has proved that Pakistan is indivisible. imperishable, and it stands united as one force and one factor, as the great redeemer, as the beacon light of the right of self-determination of the people, and as a nation committed to an ideological struggle for the emancipation of mankind and for the end of exploitation.

Now, I came to the famous Tashkent Declaration. I have already said that this declaration is a declaration of intent; and one of my learned friends. who I am sure is a scholar of jurisprudence, knows what is the difference between a declaration of intent and a contractual obligation A declaration of intent is this that both the leaders of India and Pakistan declare that they would like to see an end of disputes between India and Pakistan; that they would strive to put an end to disputes. The Tashkent Declaration did not stipulate the various measures which should bring those disputes to an end. if the Tashkent Declaration had said that the dispute of Jammu and Kashmir will be settled on the following lines, stipulated stage by stage all the steps for settlement, it would have been a contractual obligation. But it was only a declaration of intent.

And now I would like to trouble the House with a reference to Tashkent Declaration. As a token of our appreciation of the Soviet efforts, I am reading from a Soviet document given to me by the Soviet Ambassador. I would like to read the nine Articles if you would permit me. Article I says, but I will try to be as brief as possible, so please do not be impatient. Article I says: “The Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan agree that both sides must exert all efforts to create good neighborly relations between India and Pakistan in accordance with the United Nations Charter.” Mind you, note the words “in accordance with the United Nations Charter.” Each is required through an obligation under the Charter not to have recourse to force and to settle their disputes through peaceful means. They consider that the interest of peace in their region and particularly Indo-Pakistan subcontinent and indeed the interest of the people of India and Pakistan were not served by the continuance of tension between the two countries.

It was against this background that Jammu and Kashmir was discussed and each side set forth its respective position. Now, my submission is that Article 1 is the most important Article. 1 am not an expert in jurisprudence though I went to Oxford to study law. I think the Law Minister will be able to explain it better. Article 1 says that in the background of tension the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir was discussed. How and why was Jammu and Kashmir discussed? Because Jammu and Kashmir is the main factor and the main bone of contention between India and Pakistan and that is why in the background of conflict and trouble it was discussed; and it was in accordance with the United Nations Charter. Therefore, we did not enter into a new commitment. There is no new commitment. We are already a member of the United Nations—both India and Pakistan. Therefore, in declaring our intention to act in accordance with the United Nations Charter, we have not entered into a new commitment. As members of the United Nations and in accordance with the provisions of the Charter we are seeking peace. The dispute over Jammu and Kashmir is the most important problem and the most important dispute that plagues India and Pakistan. What is the United Nations commitment? Let us go through the United Nations Charter. First of all, the preamble of the United Nations Charter, “To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in our life time has brought untold misery to mankind.” This is a pre-existing obligation. The obligation is not on us; it is on India because there are existing treaties between India and Pakistan for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. So, we have not entered into a new agreement, whereas India has reconfirmed its agreement for the settlement. This is not a commitment which is against us. This is a commitment which is against India because in its confirmation it has committed itself to settle the Jammu and Kashmir dispute according to International Law and Treaties. Then, to practice tolerance, to ensure by the acceptance of principles and institution of method that armed force shall not be used. This is a pre-existing understanding. So, in the interest of world peace armed force shall not be used. This is a principle which is existing. Now, Article 1: “To promote international peace and security and take effective measures for the prevention and removal of threat and for the prevention of acts of aggression”. India is the aggressor. It went against India; not a commitment against Pakistan…. ”and to fulfill its commitment as laid down in Article 1, para 2.”—but most important, it says: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect and self-determination of people.” This is again directed against India, because they have to respect the people’s right of self-determination. Therefore, what are the commitments of India? The commitments are that they will not resort to aggression and that they will fulfill treaty obligations and that they shall respect the people’s right to self-determination. How can this Article No. 1 become a liability to Pakistan? Everything stems from this basic article, and India has been under a moral commitment and a legal commitment under the Tashkent Declaration, sanctified by the United Nations Charter, to fulfill its treaty obligation to respect the peoples’ right of self-determination and not to wage aggression as is India’s habit.

Article 2 says that the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan agreed that all armed personnel shall be withdrawn to August 5 position. This again is not a new commitment. This is in the September 20 Resolution. The September 20 Resolution of the United Nations says that the armed forces personnel of both countries shall be withdrawn. So, here again is reconfirmation of the United Nations obligation.

Now the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan agree—Article 3—that the relations between India and Pakistan shall be based on the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of each country. I again go back to the Charter and the Charter says in Article 2, para 7. “nothing contained in the Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of any State or shall require the Members to submit.” Article 2, para 7, has already enjoined us not to interfere in each other’s internal affairs. Now, has the Charter of the United Nations ever come in the way of the right of self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir? So, why should the Tashkent Declaration come in the way of Pakistan? In spite of the Charter which was signed in 1948 in San-Francisco, there have been wars between India and Pakistan in 1947 and 1948 and in 1965. The Charter already said that member countries shall not interfere in the internal affairs of each other, but Jammu and Kashmir is not the internal affair of India; it is not an integral part of India irrespective of what they say. Therefore, we are fortified here by the context of the past. This Article 3 has no relevancy whatsoever to our right to support the people of Jammu and Kashmir and that is why the Charter of the United Nations has supported the Resolution of August, 1948 and 5th January, 1949. If we were to interfere in India’s internal affairs, then there would have been no Resolution of August, 1948 nor of 5th January, 1949. The Security Council would have told us that you are interfering in India’s internal affairs, but that is not the position. The Security Council knew that Jammu and Kashmir was a disputed territory; the whole world knows it. India has occupied and usurped the territory of Jammu and Kashmir against the wishes of the people. Therefore, it is not an interference in India’s internal affairs and the Tashkent Declaration only reiterates our obligation of the United Nations Charter. It is not a forecloser and it is not a bar.

Article No. 4 says that the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed that both sides will discourage any propaganda against each other. Now, as far as the propaganda is concerned it is a different thing to pursue one’s legitimate right to support the right cause and indulge in propaganda. Propaganda means vilification. propaganda means slander, propaganda means abuse. No respectable and self-respecting country would like to indulge in propaganda. This is not our policy. We do not indulge in propaganda. We are not going into India’s affairs that they should have one Prime Minister or the other, that India should give food to its people or buy armaments and all that. That is a separate question. But as far as Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, as far as the question of liberation is concerned, as far as the question of eviction of Muslims is concerned, as far as the question of justice is concerned we are not precluded from espousing and propagating these causes.

Then in Article 6 the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan have agreed to consider measures for the normalization of economic relations and the implementation of the existing agreements between India and Pakistan. Are those agreements in favor of Pakistan or in India’s favor? Do we have to give Berubari to India or India has to give Berubari to us? Has India to fulfill the agreement on Jammu and Kashmir or do we have an obligation to fulfill? There are two important international agreements which India has to fulfill towards us, that is, the transfer of Berubari and the self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir. Are these agreements against us or against India?

Article 1 goes against India, Article 2 goes against India, Article 3 and Article 4 go against India. Then, the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan agreed that the talks will continue to discuss the question of eviction of Muslims. Now here under Article 8 as far as the eviction of Muslims is concerned, are these people evicted from Pakistan into India or these are people who were evicted from India into Pakistan? Here again it is the people of India that are being evicted into Pakistan and not the people of Pakistan who are being evicted into India. Who has to gain from it? Pakistan has to gain from this provision because it is India that has evicted Indian Muslims from Assam, Tripura and West Bengal and from Rajasthan. India is accountable. India is answerable and not Pakistan. Are these Muslims going from East Pakistan to India or are these Muslims coming from India to East Pakistan?

Then Article 9 talks about the machinery and this is important. On January 9, when we were discussing the machinery I put a direct question to Premier Kosygin. I said that, “In this question of machinery you must know that as far as we are concerned we can only accept it if Jammu and Kashmir is made the main dispute for determination by this machinery”, and he said, “Jammu and Kashmir is in dispute and naturally you have a right to bring this up under Article 9.” And that is why in the Ministerial Conference we brought up this matter.

Now, it has been said that the Tashkent Declaration is a no-war Pact. The Tashkent Declaration is not a no-war pact. We cannot accept a no-war pact when the disputes of Jammu and Kashmir, Farakka Barrage, eviction of Muslims, all these problems remain to be solved. The Tashkent Declaration is not a no-war pact. But suppose some individual in his fancy would like to contend it is a no-war pact. Here again the United Nations Charter is there. What does the Charter say in Article 51? The Charter says, ‘Nothing in the present Charter shall impede the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence.’ The people of Jammu and Kashmir are the victims of armed aggression by India and nothing in the Charter will preclude our right to come to their support and to help them to secure their right to self-determination. Article 51 is an overriding Article and as such we have the right under the Charter to the defence of our people against India’s aggression.

As far as the Tashkent Declaration is concerned, Article 103 says that in the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail. So, the United Nations Charter is the supreme document and if there is any inconsistency between the Tashkent Declaration and the United Nations Charter, anything which is inconsistent with our obligations to United Nations, to that extent the Tashkent Declaration is null and void.

Now we come to the Soviet initiative. Who is responsible for the strained relations between Soviet Union and Pakistan? This is a legacy which we carried with us. There was a time when relations between the Soviet Union and Pakistan were non-existent We are not responsible for that. The previous regimes pursued that policy in their better wisdom. This great neighbor to the north with all its industrial power and one of the genuine great powers was something which did not exist in our consideration. There were no delegations that went to the Soviet Union. There have been no contacts. As a matter of fact, one of my rare privileges is to be the Minister who for the first time went to the Soviet Union to conclude an Oil Agreement in 1960. I know the difficulties I had to go through in arriving at the agreement and that was the first time that we had any direct relationship with the Soviet Union. We talk about the Soviet veto. When we talk of it, we must ask why there was a Soviet veto. What was the consideration that brought it about? What was India’s attitude and what was Pakistan’s attitude to the Soviet Union. There must be a gradual and a slow and imperceptible change like summer going into autumn and like autumn going into winter.

You cannot expect the great powers to turn turtle. You cannot expect them to turn round by 180 degrees. We require closer contact. We have to exchange views. We have to keep on convincing others through talks and discussions. The Soviet Union regards self-determination as one of its foremost principles which Karl Marx enunciated and which influenced the activities of Lenin. There has to be a gradual and solemn approach in order to focus their attention on the fact that here is a power, small power, which demands self-determination and if the Soviet Union does not support self-determination after her relations with Pakistan have been normalized, it will have no logical basis to claim any advantage on account of its ideological standing. If, on the other hand, the relations between the Soviet Union and Pakistan be such that they cannot possibly support us then they can say that they believe in self-determination but our relations are such that they cannot support us, then no one will criticize them. So first of all we have to establish normal relations with the Soviet Union.

The most important question and the prime factor in the Tashkent Declaration is that the Soviet Union has recognized that there is a dispute between India and Pakistan in respect of Jammu and Kashmir. In the past, I remember, in 1962, the representative of the Soviet Union supported the Indian points of view in the Security Council and stated that Jammu and Kashmir was an integral part of India. If morality is on our side and if our cause is right and if the Soviet Union is a believer in the ideology of self-determination, in that case it will have to come round to our support with the gradual improvement in our relations.

Sir, the main point in the Tashkent Declaration is that the Soviet Union has accepted for the first time that there is a dispute relating to Jammu and Kashmir. This is a sufficient moral support to our assertion. We have to tell the Soviet Union that they have got to support us if they believe in the principles enunciated by Karl Marx regarding self-determination. If they abandon that principle, then every other people will say that the Soviet Union is abandoning the principle of self-determination. At the present moment, they have supported the fact that there is a dispute. This is going a hundred miles from its previous position. That is a breakthrough from its original stand that Kashmir and Jammu is an integral part of India. On the 9th of January last, when I put this question to Mr. Kosygin, he said that certainly we can take this up in the Ministerial meeting.

Now, Sir, I come to Pakistan’s relation with the United States of America. Pakistan always maintained cordial and friendly relations, and it was only after the China-India conflict that a new strategy developed and our relations with the United States were influenced by it. It is not natural nor is it desirable for a small state to have conflict with the great powers, and undoubtedly the United States is a great power. On the other hand, it would have been opposed to the very basis of Pakistan’s ideology, if we had not taken exception to certain changes in the United States position in the subcontinent. As a matter of fact, it is only because we expressed our apprehension; and if we had not shown our concern, then the United States might have been misguided. However, strains developed in the relationship between our two countries, but since the visit of our President to the United States, these difficulties and misunderstanding have been explained and at the moment our relations have improved.

An honorable Member of this House made the most uncharitable allegation and said that Pakistan has arrived at some invidious arrangement with Soviet Russia and the United States in Washington. The question here is that if Pakistan or the President of Pakistan was to arrive at some invidious arrangement, then why should we have strained relations and why should we have faced one crisis after another in our relations with the United States of America? It is a contradiction and a basic and fundamental contradiction if we were to succumb to the pressure of the great powers. It is impossible for Pakistan to compromise on its fundamental interests. This nation is an Islamic nation and is backed by ideology. This Muslim nation cannot be purchased with 400 or 500 million dollars. We are Muslims. We are committed to the traditions of Islam. We shall never sell Pakistan and refrain from the right struggle of the people. Please, therefore, do not think that there was any consideration of economic development or any other motive that could have led to an agreement in Washington, prejudicial to the interests of Pakistan. I can return to my constituency and say to my people that you rather stop development work but do not undermine the ideology of Pakistan, and I am sure that they will accept the position. I think that the whole of the population of Pakistan will accept this position. It is for this House to judge such a situation. I say that we have no strained relations with America. If we have, it is for the legitimate protection of our interests. I would say that the President’s visit to the United States of America was very beneficial, because we were able to explain our difficulties and our points of view and motivations and also other factors that constitute the affairs of a nation and the affairs of a community.

I would like to say here that the United States has not been a classical imperial power, it has not dominated any part of Asia; perhaps the Philippines and some other places are exceptions. So they are not cognizant of the aroma of Asia and of the forces at work among Asian nations. They are not like the British or the French. The British ruled the subcontinent for 200 years, so they know a little about the subcontinent, the French also held sway over parts of this region, so they are familiar with the problems. But the United States of America has not been in power in Asia and is not, therefore, acquainted with the problems of Asia. It is unfamiliar with the motivations or the nature of Asian forces. Even the British are not entirely familiar, because theirs was a master and servant relationship. The master knows little about those he rules, those who are ruled know the weakness of the masters.

Even an imperial power was not familiar with the motivations and feelings and aspirations of the people of Asia and Africa. How do you expect the United States to be familiar with the aspirations of Asia and Africa, merely because they are a great power? Mr. Humphrey, Vice-President of the United States, yesterday urged for the friendship of the people of China. He said, “The people of China must not be isolated. We must take an opportunity to show our friendship to the Chinese people. We respect and value their contribution to civilization.” He said, “We know too little about Asia. We need to do our level best to widen American interest in Asia including Communist China.”

Here is a statement of the Vice-President of the United States who says, “We know too little about Asia,” and I am giving the reasons why? They have not been a classical imperial power and their contact has been an alien contact. It is an association of comradeship which develops feeling of acquaintance. Who is Vice-President of the United States? Theodore Roosevelt was Vice-President, he then became a great American President; Harry Truman was Vice-President, he became President and responsible for great decisions like the 4-points, for dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Lyndon B. Johnson himself was Vice-President, and here the present Vice-President of the U.S A. admits that the American people know too little about Asia and this is the difficulty. It is because the American people know too little about Asia, that the Asian problems and difficulties cannot be met by computer control. You must know the aroma of Asia, you must know the dust and love it, you must know how to live with the people. The affairs and factors at work in Asia cannot be presented in terms of communism and anti-communism. There is a new nationalism in Asia, we want to develop our own society, we want to develop our own political institutions, we want to develop our own economy, our own objectives. This should not be judged in terms of communism and capitalism.

There is an Asian way, and we all are developing our own society. We have the oldest society of the world. This continent has produced great religions and great civilizations. Our direction should be an Asian direction. If we say that it is communist direction or capitalist direction, it is not true. This is the fundamental problem between the Eastern and Western world that the urge of Asia is the urge of self-assertion, it is an urge of the personality of Asia. The sooner they realize it, the better it is for them and the sooner they stop dubbing us as belonging to any bloc, it is better for us and for them. We want to achieve dignity and self-respect, we want to end poverty, we do not want those things which are the product of foreign association because those factors cannot answer our problems, those factors are alien factors, they cannot be grafted on to the body politic of Asia, they cannot just harmonize with the Asian factors, we cannot have injection of foreign elements and we cannot say that we are communists or capitalists, we are not a people who can be categorized by ‘isms’. We have our own self-assertion, we have our own feeling of confidence, we have our own feeling of self-respect and I say these things in order to let them know a little more about Asia. They must realize this so that we can be friends; we must be friends and well-wishers of other countries. Our revolution is like the French Revolution against oppression and tyranny; that does not mean that we are for one ‘ism’ or the other. It does not mean that we belong to another social order. We want an Asian way as our own way without any domination. The Western world must understand the problems of Asia. Do not reject and disregard the true leadership of Asia. The Asian leadership must first of all be faithful and must serve the Asian people. The people of Pakistan must be served first. There is no question of ‘ism’ or ideology involved here. Why is there misunderstanding, preconceived prejudices? There should be a totally different environment. Don’t be unfair to the Western civilization. We may have a red tie, but our heart is Pakistani. We cannot wean our soul away from our own civilization. With foreign education, we will not be able to answer the problems of an Asian society, they will never be able to harmonize themselves with the music of Asia, and the music of Asia is a revolution of greatness and of justice.

Now. Sir, here again Mr. Humphrey has said:

“The people of China must not be isolated. We must take every opportunity to show our friendship to Chinese people. We respect and value their many contributions to civilization.” And then Senator Fulbright, who is a very distinguished and honorable Member of Foreign Relations Committee, said on the 13th March as the Chairman of that Committee:

“That U.S. objections to the admission of China to the United Nation may be softened or withdrawn as a result of hearings on China in the Senate.”

Speaking in a 90-minute televised panel discussion on China, Fulbright said:

“Administration officials had told me privately they thought the hearings which have just begun would have a beneficial effect.” He said,

“I think they feel it will give them greater freedom of action when it comes up again, as it undoubtedly will, in the United Nations.”

Now Vice-President Humphrey says, “We must have relationship with China. We cannot ignore Chinese contribution to world civilization.” And Senator Fulbright says, “We must soften our attitude towards China and we must see that China becomes Member of the United Nations.- Now, if you say that Senator Fulbright is a communist that is another thing. He comes from the deep South. He comes from the conservative South. Now, here you have Senator Fulbright saying that attitude towards China must be softened and China must be admitted to the United Nations. This has been our position regarding China. We have said, China is a neighbor of Pakistan and we have to develop friendly and cordial relations with all our neighbors first. We have said that China is a nation of 700 million people, that cannot be ignored and Vice-President Humphrey says that China cannot be ignored. This has been our position. We have said that China should take its rightful place in the United Nations; Senator Fulbright now says China should be admitted to the United Nations. We have said, no problems of Asia can be truly settled without the participation of China. Sooner or later, sooner than later, you will have to accept this position.

Now the leaders of the United States say the same thing. Having said this much, having spoken the truth, having said something which is self-evident, why are we misunderstood? It is because great powers with their vagaries can change their positions and they can change their attitudes and we are caught in the vortex of great power rivalries. So, we have to determine the problems on their merits. We believe that we will have to solve our problems on their objective merits. Then, sooner or later, others will also agree with that situation. This is what is happening. This is an irresistible force, an uncontrollable force of history. You cannot ignore 700 million people. You cannot forget the fact that China is a great power. You cannot forget that Chinese participation in the Disarmament Conference is necessary. Senators Kennedy—Robert Kennedy and Edward Kennedy say this,—Walter Lippman may be a Sinophile—but all these people are saying the same thing. How are we at variance? We, who know the aroma, the scent and the perfume of Asia, must be in a better position to know what these difficulties are.

When we propound these things all sorts of sinister interpretations are given, collusion, agreements, these are not relevant points; what is relevant is to determine issues on their merits, not to treat them to subjective interpretation. So, gradually, slowly, this position is being realized everywhere and Pakistan having articulated it, has made a contribution. We have made a contribution, without being presumptuous, to the development of these relations. Therefore, sometimes strains and difficulties are inherent in situations. You cannot have goodwill all the time; you cannot have tranquility, normalcy and peace all the time. You have to accept challenges. You have to face the odds. So, I think that by facing these consequences by holding our head upright, by saying that this is a situation, which has to be reckoned with, we have not really caused misunderstanding with the United States. We have, on the other hand, caused better appreciation in the United States of the factors and the forces that are at work.

Taking all things into account, Sir, what is a great power? A great power is not just territory, it is not just vastness of territory. If that were a great power, India would be a great power, India is not a great power although it is a vast country. A great power is not merely one that acquires technological know-how and excellence. Because, if that were the case. Switzerland and Sweden would be great powers. A great power is not a country which merely has atomic weapons. If that were the case, sooner or later, Israel would become a great power. A great power, Sir, is an amalgam of all these things—vastness of territory, resources, economic wealth, technological progress, and, above all, in the modern context, a great power is a power with an ideology. A great power without an ideology cannot remain a great power in the context of the modern world. That is why I said the United States and the Soviet Union will have to take into account whether to support self-determination or not in Jammu and Kashmir, because in supporting or not supporting the people of Jammu and Kashmir on self-determination it places its ideology at stake.

The United States of America is a great power not merely because of its resources, not merely because of its technological ability; it is a great power because it is wedded to the ideals of Jefferson; it is wedded to the ideals of Abraham Lincoln, of Hamilton, of Wilson, and that is how its basic attributes of a great power are preserved. Therefore, the Wilsonian concept of self-determination is at stake in the final position that the United States takes on Jammu and Kashmir. Now, China, which is another ideological power, has taken the correct position on Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with its ideology and supported the people’s right to self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir, and although quantitatively and qualitatively in terms of material resources, in terms of atomic arsenal, in terms of technological knowhow, China is not equal to the Soviet Union and the United States, China is today regarded as one of the great factors because ideologically it has not compromised its position. If any great power ideologically compromises that position, it will have to contend with a great dilemma which may strike at the roots of its being a great power.

Now, Sir, as I have said at the very beginning. Pakistan is the product of self-determination; Pakistan is the most magnificent product of self-determination because with the establishment of Pakistan other people, other communities also derived a sense of protection and it is for us to uphold the people’s cause in Jammu and Kashmir, because in so doing we would be helping the completion of the process of self-determination. But let me sound a note of warning that self-determination cannot come without the support of the majority; the majority must support the cause of self-determination. The majority in our country here are the people of East Pakistan. So it is not for the people of West Pakistan to determine whether we should pursue the right of self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir; it is for the people of East Pakistan to determine and be the harbingers of the struggle, because they are in a majority.

If the people of East Pakistan think that Jammu and Kashmir is too far away and that these are problems which do not directly affect them, then let them come here and say so; because, without their support, there could have been no Pakistan, no matter how great might have been the struggle of the Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan and North-West Frontier Province. There could have been no Pakistan if the people of East Pakistan did not support Pakistan. This is a historical fact.

So, to take it to its logical conclusion, it is the majority of the people of our country whose will must prevail. I can boldly and clearly say that even if every individual in West Pakistan is prepared to be destroyed, we cannot espouse the cause of the people of Jammu and Kashmir because the majority is here in East Pakistan. The determining factor is in East Pakistan, and they should guide us and they should tell us whether we should continue the process of self-determination or not, because it is for them to decide.

Sometimes, we are told that Kashmir is far away that there are other problems—you must attend to them. I tell you, Sir, this is a negation not of Jammu and Kashmir. this is a negation of Pakistan, because the difficulty we face either in East or West Pakistan is inherent. So it is no use saying that by abandoning the cause of Jammu and Kashmir we will be removing our difficulties. You will not be removing your difficulties; on the contrary, you will be whetting the appetite of an aggressor who launched his final attack on Pakistan. The struggle of Jammu and Kashmir will determine the final destiny of India itself and I know that the people of East Pakistan are prepared to face those consequences. The people of East Pakistan are foremost in the struggle for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. I feel this with all my heart—with all my soul, because with them and with us rests a great truth. I tell you we are true. There can be no force, no strength greater than truth. Truth is on our side. I say this to you, because history has shown that truth is on our side. Colonization must be removed from Jammu and Kashmir because it is the order of the day. Jammu and Kashmir cannot be an exception to the process of de-colonization. India will have to abandon its colony in Jammu and Kashmir. You must not get Asia fatigued. Asia is not ripe for fatigue. Asia is too vibrant. She is fully alive. Asia has to stay, but those who want to abandon honest rule for vested interests feel that the cause is lost. Sir, our cause can only succeed if we pursue our struggle because ours is an honorable struggle sanctified by law and protected by Allah.