QUEST FOR PEACE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, WASHINGTON, April 27, 1964

I am greatly honored to be here this afternoon. As a matter of fact, as your Club President has just mentioned, we have a number of political advisers in our Embassy, in addition to the Ambassador. They have been giving me plenty of political advice as to how to confront you gentlemen. I was told that if I made a long speech, the question time would be shorter. That was tip number one. I do not know whether to agree and accede to that advice because actually Pakistan has nothing to conceal in its foreign policy. I would welcome questions from the press, provided I am in a position to answer them. And I shall make an attempt to do so. So I shall make a brief speech, but before I do that I would like to thank you again for your very generous and kind hospitality.

As you know, we are here for the Central Treaty Organization Ministerial Meeting. Pakistan is a member not only of CENTO, but of SEATO as well, and committed to the Western defensive arrangement.

I was a student here in California, many years ago, and in those days I used to hear the phrase “bipartisan foreign policy.” At present, one does not generally come across this phrase and I am told the only thing on which both parties have a bipartisan approach is their passionate commitment to golf. We in Pakistan, as a friend and ally of the United States, too, have taken up golf in a big way. I am told the Ambassador here also now goes golfing and that our Commander-in-Chief, who was here for the CENTO meeting, also played golf during his stay here. This is one game I shall have to take up to show you how keenly and loyally we are devoted, not only to the defence alliances, but to the American way of life.

Gentlemen, Pakistan is a new state. We were born in a crisis. After many trying years, Pakistan emerged as a sovereign state. Today, our population is 100 million. Coming from Asia, we are deeply committed to the welfare of the peoples of Asia. We know the miseries and the misfortunes of backwardness, of poverty and of misery. Time is of the essence to us. Our resources are limited. We have to do everything possible to mobilize our resources in order to give a better life to our farmers, to our school children, and to the many millions of young and unfortunate Pakistanis who have not really seen a good and decent life. In order to meet the great challenge of the rising expectations, we need peace. Without peace we really cannot overcome the tremendous tasks and challenges of poverty and want which stare us in the face. For this reason, Pakistan’s policy—its foreign policy—is committed to friendship and goodwill for all its neighbours, and, in particular, for the peoples of Asia, because only by a combined effort can we really overcome these difficult tasks that face us today. In pursuance of this policy, which is dear to us, we have endeavored to establish cordial relations with all our neighbours.

After the British withdrew in 1947, we were faced with a number of legacies left over from their rule. Chief among them were the questions of territorial and boundary disputes. In a spirit of accommodation and understanding, we have resolved our disputes, territorial and otherwise, with almost all our neighbours. With Burma we have concluded an agreement which would demarcate the frontiers between Pakistan and Burma. With Iran we have also concluded an important boundary agreement. With Afghanistan we have restored normal relations and live in peace and friendship with that country. And also with the People’s Republic of China we have demarcated our frontier, which stretches over 400 miles.

India, in many ways, is our most important neighbor because of the length of history and the various other ties that bound us over the centuries, but unfortunately so far we have not been able to come to an understanding, to a modus vivendi with that country. It is not that we have not tried. In the last 16 years, we have made many attempts, but unfortunately because of the Kashmir dispute, which is really the bane of all troubles and problems, not only between India and Pakistan but in that whole region, success has eluded us. The Kashmir dispute vitiates the air to such an extent that it has its ramifications not only within the subcontinent, but even beyond the subcontinent.

At present, as I talk to you today, things are moving very fast in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. After an incarceration of about I1 years, Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, the Kashmiri leader, has been released by India. The people of the state are in revolt, unmistakably in revolt. They have shown to the world that they are not satisfied. They are not content with the arrangements that exist in Kashmir. We have always tried to resolve this dispute by peaceful means, by appealing to the United Nations, by coming to the Security Council, and when we hear from certain Indian spokesmen and leaders that certain countries take a pro-Pakistan stand on Kashmir, this is regrettable because all that those countries have to do is to take a fair and a just stand on Kashmir.

Taking a fair and a just stand on Kashmir, which is in consonance with the rule of law, with international peace and morality, cannot be regarded as a pro-Pakistan stand. It should be regarded as a stand which is in favor of justice, which is in favor of strengthening the rule of law.

So when we hear, as I said, from responsible Indian spokesmen that the United States of America, for instance, takes a pro-Pakistan stand on Kashmir that is not correct. The United States of America, enforced by its rich history and past, cannot but take a proper and a just stand on the dispute over Kashmir. As it is, as a leader of the Western world, committed to certain values which are unalterable, no one can expect the United States to blind itself from the realities of the Kashmir dispute, from the fact that the people there are in bondage and that they seek self-determination. And if the United States Government endorses the principle of self-determination for the people of Kashmir, then it is not taking a pro-Pakistan stand. It is taking a stand which is in consonance with its historical background and its traditions as a great power.

For us, the Kashmir dispute is a simple one.

It involves two fundamental elements. One is that there is an agreement, an international agreement, between India and Pakistan, endorsed by the United Nations, and this agreement calls for the implementation of the right of self-determination. There is the sanctity of an international agreement involved and, secondly, there is an important fundamental principle of the twentieth century—the right of self-determination, in whose evolution the United States, through its great statesman, President Woodrow Wilson, made an important contribution.

These are the two fundamental principles and elements involved in the Kashmir dispute. All other considerations are irrelevant. All other considerations—that India is good and Pakistan is bad; that India has a parliamentary system and Pakistan does not have a parliamentary system but has a presidential system; that India is the largest democracy in the world and that Pakistan is not a large democracy; that in India the people are philosophical and in Pakistan the people are not philosophical—all these considerations are irrelevant.

The main consideration is that an international agreement is involved, and the right of self-determination is embodied in this international agreement. We have pursued this problem. We will continue to pursue it. We find that a great deal of activity is taking place in the state today. We have always believed that sooner or later this problem can be settled. And it will be settled. It has to be settled. Once it is settled, we are willing to live in peace with our great neighbor, India.

One of the reasons for the creation of Pakistan was that if the two communities could not live together in the same country, then it would be better for us to have our own separate state, get tucked away in our own small little corner, and then, perhaps, as equal sovereign states, establish a new equation and a new modus vivendi with India.

That was our intention, and that was one of the purposes of the origin of Pakistan. But, unfortunately, the tragedy of Kashmir interposed in our effort and in our endeavors to achieve that end. But we definitely believe in and subscribe to the principle of good neighborly relations with India. We do not want to be in conflict with India. We do not want to pursue a policy of confrontation with India. We do not have the resources to dissipate for that negative end. We want to channel all our efforts and all our resources for bettering the lot of our own people. Why then should we unnecessarily take on a much bigger country and a much greater country, with greater resources and with greater potential? This has a demoralizing and a dissipating effect, not only on our people, but also on the people of India.

And when you hear that Pakistan is a religious state and Pakistan will find some other reasons to be on bad terms with India—even if Kashmir is settled—this is not on the books. It is absolutely incorrect. We have the most cordial relations with Nepal. Nepal is a Hindu state, and I think, to some extent our relations with Nepal are as good, if not better, than those of India with Nepal.

We are not a religious state in the way India tries to make us sound to be. We do admit that we are an ideological state; that we are a state with an ideology; that we have certain values which we regard to be more important than anything else—values that we want to fight for and preserve. But this gives strength to our people. It gives inspiration to our society; and we are not ashamed of being an ideological state. Our ideology is one which can make a positive contribution to the cause of world peace. That is why, for instance, Pakistan opposes apartheid. It is not because it is fashionable to oppose apartheid. It is because it is rooted in our ideology. We believe in the equality of all men. But when India, with its deep-rooted and rigid caste system talks of apartheid, it can well be said: “Physician, heal thyself.”

Today, living in this fast-changing world, with concepts changing so rapidly, one has to be vigilant all the time. We know that we are undergoing a process of change. And national interests and world interests are always subject to change. But in the last analysis, and in the final analysis, what is important is fundamental principles.

We are all conditioned by our own experiences. In the last sixteen years we have encountered experiences as individuals and as states. I do not have to say here what has been that experience in terms of Pakistani- United States relations. You are all very knowledgeable individuals. You are all aware of the last sixteen years, of the political and philosophical attitudes of Pakistan in its relations with the United States. You are also aware of India’s attitude to the United States—here, in the United Nations and otherwise. I am not here to draw up a balance sheet or try to record the past and to inform you gentlemen of our contribution to the strengthening of world peace.

Today, we hear all sorts of talk of Pakistan’s changing attitudes. I would beseech you impartially to examine the objective facts and to consider how difficult is our situation—how we feel that at present we are menaced, more than ever before. Not only are we menaced more than ever before, Indian statesmen have again started threatening Pakistan and calling Pakistan as India’s “Enemy No. 1.” Mr. Chavan, the Defence Minister of India, has said that India shall be “Pakistan’s graveyard,” and other Ministers—the Minister for Rehabilitation has said that India’s Enemy No. 1 is Pakistan and “the enemy is next door.”

So we are being very brazenly hemmed in.

The growing and menacing military potential of India is a factor which causes us great concern and, among our people, great restlessness, because they have been subjected to many unfortunate and tormenting experiences in the past. We have also seen that in the last sixteen years India has chosen to settle her disputes by the sword. On no less than five occasions in those years, India has chosen to settle her disputes by armed conflict. Take that into consideration. Also the fact that she regards Pakistan as her “Enemy No. 1.”

There is a, movement in India—a slow but growing movement—for bringing about some sort of a negotiated settlement with China. We do not mind if they negotiate a settlement with China. India can have that negotiated settlement. As a matter of fact, we have always said and advocated that there should be a negotiated settlement between India and China, because both of them are our neighbours and this gap between the two giants is bound to have its ramifications in other parts of Southeast Asia, and particularly in countries like Pakistan, which are close to both these countries.

We do not look with equanimity on what is taking place today. So we have our problems and we have our difficulties. All I request is that you kindly consider our present difficulties and also remember the contributions we have made—not only to the cause of world peace but to the strengthening of the defence alliances. And sometimes this contribution has taken a heavy toll from us. I do not want again to record some of the positive contributions of Pakistan in the strengthening of the defence alliances, but we have made them. And I think that if you were to tabulate them, you will find that Pakistan has some assets. We are a nation of 100 million people; We believe that we have a role to play in the future destiny of the peoples of Asia and Africa; and that is why we are so firmly committed to promoting the second Asian-African conference, which we again feel can make a positive contribution to our peoples.

I shall now end my speech for there may be a number of questions to be answered.

But before I conclude, I would again like to tell you gentlemen that our paramount consideration is to give a better life to our own people. We have had enough of misery, and of squalor and poverty. It is not the law of God, it is not the law of nature that our people and the peoples of Asia and Africa should live in poverty and misery, and others should live affluently. Therefore, we want to mobilize all our resources in order to encounter this great and terrible battle against poverty.

To be a little more informal, I have four small children, and recently I sent two of them to a boarding school. The eldest is 9 and the youngest is 6. I wrote to them, when I was in Jakarta, a fourteen-page letter, in which I spoke to them about disarmament, about the Afro-Asian conference, about the need to avert another war. When I came back to Pakistan they told me: “Daddy, we didn’t understand a word of what you said.” I said to them that it is important that the younger generation should be told about these problems although you may not understand these things, because the tasks and challenges that face the younger generation are much greater than those which the older generation faced. The future that we face is an exciting challenge but it also carries dreadful prospects.

The responsibilities are growing heavier by the day, and in order to discharge these responsibilities properly, they should not only read Alice in Wonderland, but about disarmament and about the horrors of a Third World War, and especially a nuclear war, which may destroy all that we hope for nobly and cherish as the greatest achievements of mankind.