Television interview with Mr. H. K. burki and Mr. Safdar Qureshi on December 20, 1972

Question: Mr. President, when you assumed the office on December 20 last year, Pakistan or what remained of Pakistan was gravely threatened externally. What steps did you take to ensure the security of what remained of Pakistan?

President: Pakistan was threatened externally undoubtedly. It was also threatened internally and the internal threat was as serious, if not more serious, than the external threat. However, since you asked about the external threat, in the first place, as you know I tried to mobilize the people, rally the people and that is the most effective method in my opinion to meet any crisis. The deeper the crisis, the greater the need for mobilization. We sought that and I think to some extent we succeeded. Also you may recall that I made unscheduled visit of Afghanistan to know how our friends were thinking of our future relationship and I think that visit also contributed to a better understanding of the threats and the attitude of our northern neighbors which I must say was good and positive. In addition to the I went to Moscow and I think that was an extremely important meeting and we held long discussions. Also you would recall that I went to Chine before I went to Moscow and that was also most important, very necessary. So we tried to reactivate the support of our friends. Mellowed the opposition of our opponents and those who were doubtful, uncertain, to assure them that all was not lost and that we were going to make a great new beginning.

Question: You made it, Sir, that there were internal threats also and very rightly they were major threats. What would you say were the most prominent of those threats when you took over?

President: It is the mood, it is the attitude of people as to how they rally around a crisis or a cause and in our part of the world they say “Chalti Ka Naam Gari Haey” and it works in the reverse and that was the mood that we saw and I must tell you that there were some extremely intelligent and capable people who came to me in sheer despondency feeling that all was lost and there were opportunists, and we have our full measure of opportunists, who came to me with wrong conclusions and wanted to take advantage of the situation so that they could say that we were acting on principles. Thirdly, there were those who have always opposed Pakistan and thought it was a mad concept, unworkable concept and they were smug and went about saying that we told you so. Slogans were raised in Quetta and other places which I don’t want to repeat now since 12 months have passed. And many leaders, true and so-called, made statements which were completely contrary to the law of treason, the law on secession. They did it with impunity or so they thought. They must realize that Indian orders are very close to the Pakistan border and even if there is a cease —fire, there is no war, activities can take place both physical and psychological, in the field of propaganda. In the state of despondency and defeat people tend to despair. Despair plus the machinations added to that, the diehards who say they do not eat their words and say that others eat their words; all these factors put together. You remember that when I was in London on my way to Pakistan, I did not know what was in store for us but I, nevertheless, did say that it was like the first chapter of genesis and really we have been through a nightmare. I would not like any other country, even our worst enemies, to be so placed or any other government, even the one we don’t like, to face a situation that we faced.

Question: Could you perhaps, Sir, list the major problems apart from this one, the other major problems which stared you in the face when you took the responsibility?

President: Of course, this was the most important one and with our army on the borders facing the Indians, you saw the mood of the police in the strikes in Peshawar and in Punjab. These are all basic problems, total problems but, nevertheless, in spite of their totality, the economic issues did get our serious attention. I can tell you now that a year has gone in normal conditions. I think it would have been much more but at that time it was impossible. We inherited ashes. Very often I have said that it was a sinking ship because that is the expression that is used but really it looked like a dead body and it needed blood transfusion, it needed electric shock to make the heart tick again.

Question: To get you back to these problems more precisely, Sir, you have talked about the demoralization of the people at that time, shattered economy that despaired despair, then you had no government established. Would you like, for our viewers, to say how did you move about dealing with these problems?

President: Again I go back to what I said earlier, basically faith in the people, knowing that the man in our country has always sacrificed, trusting the rural population, trusting the intelligence and capability of our laboring classes, of our youth. Basically they are terribly sound. Faith in god, faith in the concept of Pakistan, all these were the factors. Then good men, and you know when you are talking about good men you cannot talk in terms of hundreds, you have to count them on your fingers. That is true of every society. Good men working with me who had gone through our struggle, who knew my mind, opposed these problems. A nucleus of hard core of devoted people who believed in do or die concept, and then we were right, we were dismembered. There was a conspiracy, people had worked against us and whatever our faults, we were lacerated; all these factors put together. Our administration is also basically sound. Our Journalists, and you are two journalists, will basically respond to our clarion call and there was a clarion call if ever there were a clarion call. So I think all these factors put together really sandwiched us.

Question: But you did find there were difficulties of the kind that you found in the beginning between different parties and those were political difficulties that were not easy to overcome.

President: Difficulties there always will be. Society cannot function without difficulties. There will be more and more difficulties, that is with mode and temperament of every upheaval, of every revolution and the central theme, central motive of Asia is that of revolution and upheaval and change. So form that point of view, of course, there have been problems there have bee people who have tried to be nasty, difficult. We do not expect cooperation from people who have had negative approach, people of steep prejudice who do not have respect for historical forces, who have always been really the torch-bearers of reaction, who have thrived on exploitation of the people, who have always used diabolical and insidious methods to achieve their objectives, who really have no other objectives, who really have no other objective except self-perpetuation and self-aggrandizement. Those people there we had to contend with them before, and we will deal with them effectively and properly in any future crisis.

Question: But you did bring about some kind of, to begin with, interim understanding between various parties and established the Governments in four provinces and eventually an overall understanding on the Constitution. How did you go about this, Sir?

President: There were many reasons for it. We were active and energetic, we worked hard, we talked to them, we had Marathon sessions, we discussed problems. They also had their interest, they wanted to take charge of the affairs of the provinces, there was interest in their need for limited cooperation. So we threw a dictum play of forces. What is this about. In this connection I am not talking about those who think progressively or relatively progressively, those who are enlightened, those who have some concept of the way the world moves. There we have differences with them and deep differences in certain respects, but we can deal with those later. There are those negative forces, those dire forces and the diluvial forces who know that they are fighting a losing battle. They become more desperate and we have to use certain doses for them also. It is not that was done without a plan, it is not that it was done without some effort and that was necessary. I knew that we know how to deal with their strategy and their tactics. What they are doing today. Since they are really devoid of imagination, bankrupt of principles and lack a moral concept in their direction, it was but obvious that we could checkmate them, so their cooperation we got through by checkmating, by politically putting their back to the wall. On the other hand, we appealed to the concept of autonomy in which we believe, we believe in autonomy, autonomy with a rational framework, and various other factors, the democratic traditions, Parliament, national Assembly, so a variety of methods and moods came into play. This is the way it is necessary for a Government, a political regime Government, I do not like to use the word regime; regime is for those we are not politically supported; so we did put two ends together and brought about a situation which I think has been in the interest of the whole country, and in the interest of the parties of one side and the party from the other side.

Question: Sir, so by establishing, by allowing the parties which were in the opposition to your own, by allowing them to form their governments in the provinces you have tried to establish democratic traditions. Would you say that you have had the same kind of response from the country generally and from some of the political elements other than the PPP; I am asking this because there have been many efforts, many attempts, perhaps you would recall the language riots in Sindh or the current agitation from provoked students, have you had the kind of cooperation that you expected in a democratic setup?

President: No, not really. It should have been much more taking into account the national crisis, taking into account the difficulties that the country as a whole was facing, that was lacking, that is my disappointment. But you see you go back to the major premise. We have to deal with people who did not believe in this whole experiment. We have to deal with other elements who would believe anything if it came about and who would not believe if it did not come about, so that has been unfortunately a great drawback, great disadvantage. If we have had a mode of cooperation that you have in mind we would have been able to move much faster.

Question: Was it due to, did you think that this was due to the fact that we have been under a military rule for the last fifteen years or so, that this democratic response had not developed in the country?

President: Well the point is even if we had been under military rule for fifteen years and, perhaps, democratic institution had not been established to bring that about, the patriotic urges, patriotic responses, I think, to some extent these patriotic responses and urges of one to bury the hatchet, forget the differences, forget the animosities, if that had been done we could have been way ahead. Today our production would have gone up, today our Constitution would have been resolved, today we would have gone much faster. Actually I do not understand because if these very forces that have always opposed us, they were there to cooperate with Ayub Khan at Round Table Conference. They were opposed to Ayub Khan at one stage, so they claimed, but when Ayub Khan called the Round Table Conference, they were the first to march into the Round Table Conference to try and salvage him and his system and his people. They cooperated hook, lie and sink with Yahya Khan. I think all of you know, Mr. Burki certainly knows and I think Safdar too, that Yahya Khan regime was hell packed on destroying us and we were supposed to be collaborators with Yahya Khan. In this very room where I am sitting I had a nasty meeting with him one day after he took action in East Pakistan and he called and threatened me that he would do the same thing to me that he did to Mujibur Rahman. I absolutely gave him very hell in reply and I came back to Intercontinental and I think you were waiting for me. And one of his Generals came running out after me when I had just walked out and they arrested our people and that sort of thing. So these people are his collaborators, they were collaborators and dictators, they were collaborators of military Juntas, they collaborated with people whose hands were not only full of blood but full of blood up to the elbow and now they talk about democracy. Of course, we believe in democracy because we struggled for it. They did not, they called him Mujahid, they accepted the Constitution, his Interim Constitution, not only that they praised him and one of the leaders of the political parties after fifteen-minute interview or half an hour interview with him without seeing the Constitution left and held a press conference and said that he is fully satisfied that this is an Islamic Constitution. They have the audacity and they are faltering now to talk about democracy. They have the affrontry to talk about saving the country. What party they played in saving the country? If they had not set up all these randles against the people of East Pakistan, who looted the shops, houses and homes of East Pakistanis? Do you think that we reckon to this past? They are responsible for the debacle and now they try to be sanctimonious and I think they are fully exposed, terribly exposed, and if they think they are not exposed, we will expose them, for we have defeated them when the power of the Government was on their side. Now that we have the authority of the Government, you think we cannot tackle them? We cannot deal with them? All their Press, all their foreign supporters, all the vast, enormous sums of money they spend? We know how to deal with them. If Yahya Khan and Ayub Khan did not know how to deal with people, we are not going to get dray lips like Ayub Khan got, when he had to face crisis and armed struggle and ran to the Radio station to make a broadcast that he was going to quit. Well, we will quit happily and gladly, democratically through elections, through the National assembly, we will not only quit, we will be happy to vacate our seat and place the successor democratically on our seat. We will be happy to leave this house democratically, but if you use undemocratic methods as the Governor of Punjab has rightly said today, you should choose the field. If they want to choose the field, we are prepared. If they want to choose democratic field, we are prepared for a democratic field. If they want to choose a non-democratic field, we are masters in dealing with situations in that also. So, there has not been cooperation, the kind of cooperation that patriots should have given, by some of these elements who talk about patriotism. That is the irony of it. They opposed Pakistan, tooth and nail; they abused Quaid-I-Azam. I do not know why people have such a short memory. They called him names, they called him Quaid-i-Kafir. You read their books and their writings. If they profess and shed crocodile tears for Pakistan, at least somebody should get up and say that you are the last people to talk about the interest of Pakistan.

Question: To revert to the earlier remarks you made, Sir, about the shattered economy of the country. Now, you had one year of the Government, how do you look at the progress or otherwise of our economic development since you have taken over?

President: I would say otherwise we have progressed and we are not despondent about it. I have only recently concluded a four-day conference, making a detailed review of all that has taken place and I think that now we are ticking, we are going ahead, production is going ahead and things are returning back to normal. When I said normal, I do not mean the normality of the ‘Danda’, coercal normality: that is no normality, that is abnormality looking as being normal but we are now returning to a normal normality, a natural normality. We are moving ahead with our mixed economy. Some people say that there can be no such thing as a mixed economy. I ask you the question. Where in the world do you find a place where there is not a mixed economy. You might turn on at me and say yes in China there is not a mixed economy, in North Vietnam there is not a mixed economy, and in North Korea perhaps there is not a mixed economy. But then otherwise in Yugoslavia there is a mixed economy, in Romania there is a kind of a mixed economy, in Czechoslovakia there is a kind of mixed economy, in Poland there is a mixed economy. I would say that in soviet Union, to some extent, there are the incentives, the initiative, and factors of trying to encourage the individual participation and individual contribution is taking place. In America they brought about mixed economy in the time of Frankin D. Roosevelt when he came to save the American society and American economy, American society could not have endured the strains of the depressions and the crisis that faced a free market economy. In other words, there is no such thing as a free market economy, there is no such thing as a tight regimented, computerized, state economy. There has to be a mixed economy, there is mixed economy in France, there is mixed economy in Germany, and there is mixed economy all over the world. So I do not think we have done something unusual. To bring a larger participation of the public sector which is necessary and we will keep on enlarging the public sector, but side by side the private sector can make its contribution and can go ahead provided they make the contribution, provided they do not sabotage, provided they do not play tricks because we are not going to tolerate monkey tricks. I have given a commitment that we will not nationalize any further for the tenure of our office till the next election. After next election, perhaps we will in our new manifesto, go ahead, but till the time of the new elections whenever they are held, and they will be held at proper time, we will want this to go ahead, and they must contribute, they have to contribute. If they do not contribute and if they think because I have said in three places that we will not nationalize any further, that this is now cast-iron, Quranic law which it is not and that they can play hell and do all such things, then they are sadly mistaken. My commitment is dependent on good behavior and on participation, cooperation not on defiance, not on smuggling capital out of the country, not on establishing sub rosa banks abroad. So if that happens, then I am afraid it is a different situation, but otherwise we have now taken the road ahead, we are going ahead. There are new applications coming in; people are wanting to invest, people are wanting to make contribution. Public sector is expanding, private sector is expanding. Together we will go ahead, but we have had our difficulties. Those difficulties have been that the business community, the so-called twenty-two families have not really had any firm roots in people. They have come here as if like soldiers or mercenaries, they come as if they are mercenaries of economy. That is a wrong approach and they must get roots to the people, they must come to love the country, they must come to like, they must go out, they must fan out, they must go into the interior, they must see how the people live, they must readily get down to the task. If they do that I think that will be all right, but otherwise, we are going to remain vigilant. We are not going to allow the economy to collapse because people do not want to cooperate. There is again to some extent flight of capital taking place. That is a serious matter. That means they do not have confidence in the country, because you weather the storm. We weather the main storm and no Indians are going to sit in Lahore Gymkhana, that they know, we all know. Why then should the flight of capital take place? You must not forget we had asked for declaration of assets and those declarations of assets, they have not been made according to the commitments. If anyone thinks that I have forgotten it, then they do not know me. I would not forget. So they must cooperate fully, we will give the fullest cooperation on our side, but basically we will not allow any further sabotage, we have not overcome the initial set-backs of problems, no segment of society is strong enough now to challenge what is good and what is ethical and what is right. We stand by our commitments. They must also participate fully and totally. I do not care for the stock exchange crisis. Therese things do not alarm me, the right things have to be done and the right decision will be taken.

Question: Sir, when you say that you had given them a commitment, on the other hand, we find that they manipulate the market particularly where the basic commodities are concerned. We had a sugar crisis recently. How are you going to tackle this, because obviously, black marketers and smugglers, all kinds of people are involved in this and questions are being asked by the people how is the Government going to tackle this problem which concerns the basic requirements of people generally?

President: Quite right, are quite right, and you know that today prices have gone up. There are a number of reasons for it. Number of reasons, not only this, other factors also but this also contributes, that is why I spoke at such length. I would not have wasted your time or the time of those who are bored with listening to me but this is very important. It is essential that I must make it abundantly clear, crystal clear that there is a limit to our patience. There is a limit to our spirit of accommodation. We must now, all of us, collectively put the shoulder to the wheel and bring about a new situation. I have really answered your question. With the passage of time, I think you will find that there will be no deviation from our point of view. At the same time I do not make commitments in a hurry. If I make a commitment I stand by it. My commitment is: play clean and until the next general elections whenever they are held, we hope they are held and we expect they will be held, under normal times whatever the tenures, till then we stand where we are and together we contribute. If that does not happen, if they do not do that, then my commitment cannot be made in the abstract.

Question: There is the other side to it, Sir, the new programmes, how much importance are you going to give to the public sector in the new venture, in the new schemes, the plans that you are making particularly in the major industries?

President: A great deal and a great deal more as the time passes. I have never believed that public sector is inferior to the private sector. Who runs the public sector, who runs the private sector? Individuals, human beings, we do not get men from the moon with orange soil to run the public sector. It is one of the biggest farces, one of the biggest frauds of Pakistan’s past projections, public sector is terrible, private sector is very good. I do not say, look! How National Shipping Corporation has failed. But if you put the wrong man incharge of PIDC and you put the wrong man incharge of the National Shipping Corporation then the public sector will fail as much as the private sector will fail in a socialist country. If you put the vagabonds and the scoundrels incharge of the private sector and say that look here that private sector has failed, the public sector in Pakistan was made to fail so that it could be shown that only the private sector can succeed. It was a conspiracy against the public sector. It was a conspiracy against the people. It was a conspiracy against the socialistic economy. Our public sector will receive set-backs. When we took over these industries we did not have financial institutions to finance them. But we are now quite confident after this four-day conference. Yes, there have been drawbacks, difficulties but we have to get out of the woods, much quicker and much faster than any one can expect. Public sector will receive primary consideration. Yes, if the private sector wants to cooperate in certain fields, we are prepared for that but we are not going to wait for that. We are not going to allow the end to dry. Applications are there. If fertilizer factories are to be made, we don’t mind if the private sector comes. One of the industrialists wanted to set up a fertilizer factory with the assistance of the Japanese. I said go ahead; if another one comes I will say go ahead, because we need fertilizer factories. We are very short of fertilizers. I don’t want to import fertilizers. We want to be self-sufficient in fertilizers, so there is room for public sector, there is room for the private sector. If the private sector feels shy and expects that we are going to make all sorts of overtures, they must come otherwise we can’t run the country, then they are not indispensable. It is a question of management.

Question: Reverting to the earlier questions, Sir, on the Constitutional Accord that you have reached for the permanent constitution which is now being drafted. This is a question which has been eluding us for the last 25 years. As certain doubts are being expressed again in certain quarters that this Accord has not been reached through proper means, do you anticipate any difficulties in getting the constitution through in spite of all these doubts which are being expressed now?

President: No, I do not think so at all. I am quite confident and what were the improper means. There were no improper means used. I did not even invite them for lunch if that was supposed to be like Ayub Khan who gave to Mujibur Rahman ‘Gajar Ka Halwa’ in 1969. I did not give them ‘Gajar ka Halwa.’ We had a voluntary discussion, a free discussion, a complete discussion and they put their signatures on it. We are honor bound to fulfill the accord in letter and spirit, if they claim to be leaders, if they claim to represent public opinion, if they claim to represent constituencies. It was as voluntary as it counts. They made statements themselves. After the agreement they came on television and made pronouncements in support of the agreement. If anyone wants to rescind out of the agreement, we are morally committed to go ahead with it. I will go ahead, they know that, but I do not think that we should be so despondent, because I would like to tell you and I would like to tell the nation, through this means, through your courtesy, that the discussions are going extremely well. I think before the month is out, we will have the report of the Constitution Committee, which should be a big achievement. I am quite confident that we will have this report. Once the Committee’s report comes through a consensus, the rest of the question of going through the mechanism of passing the Constitution clause by clause takes more time but it is the mechanism. In any case we have a comfortable majority. If there is some element of disagreement on small points then we will invoke the majority but where the basic principles are involved, we will go along with the agreement. If someone rescinds out of it, and I think a very small person or a very small party will opt out of a firm commitment. You do not do the same every day, you do not enhance the prestige of the country or your own.

Question: Sir, to go back you said you do not enhance your country’s prestige but politician and others have been enhancing our country’s prestige for twenty-five years as Mr. Safdar pointed out. What was the magic formula, how did you manage to bring this about now after all those twenty-five years.

President: Well! We caught them at the right time. We had exposed some of their machinations which put them also on the defence to some extent, we have appealed to the others’ sense of patriotism and we have to do a lot of hard work. We worked and worked and I would say that as far as the constitution is concerned, both the objective conditions and efforts put in by all our colleagues helped us a great deal. Although some of the ironical speeches of some of our colleagues cause us difficulties or try to cause us difficulties, I do not want to go into that now because I do not think it is an appropriate moment.

Question: Sir, you will agree that during the last twelve month there have been periods of agitation, as you mentioned earlier, of the police, the labor, and now this is a new situation which is arising, about the agitation, about the recognition of Bangladesh to recognize or not. I would like to ask you this question how did and why did you allow the discussion to come out into public rather than being decided by the National Assembly itself?

President: I am glad you asked this question. Let me tell you quite clearly as far as East Pakistan or Bangladesh is concerned, we have no personal commitment or personal approach to it. We are out to pledge it, to recognize it. And I may tell you that in my mind, according to my thinking there is no other way to again restore links with the Muslims of Bengal. Either we go across India, defeat the whole of India and capture East Pakistan and again unite the country. If we do that again there would be turmoil However, I do not see that we can do it by those means. The only means whereby we can again restore links with them, bring them closer to us, establish goodwill, is by the methods of diplomacy, political means and if there were another method, I would extend them my hand to try that method. I will jump with joy because I have been searching and searching, I do not want go against public sentiments. I do not want to force people. If they do not want to recognize Bangladesh who am Ito say to hell with it, I will never say that. I never said that no much smaller things, why should I say that on such a big thing. If the people want to destroy themselves by negative approach, by fanatical frenzy, I am not in a position to say that you are destroying yourself because you see in our country unfortunately till the knife reaches the bone, we do not appreciate that the knife is on the chest, till the knife causes the pain and blood comes out, till then we do not realize that this has happened. You remember that in Hyderabad who in his right senses could have thought that Hyderabad could either become independent or a part of Pakistan. But at that time who was that who dared to have said that you cannot agitate on this but now is there a soul in the country who talks about the question of Hyderabad. What is the plight of the people of Hyderabad? I could go on and on, for the history of the last twenty-five years has shown either the leadership has not the courage to go directly to the people or there has been something wrong in the way things were being run. I will never by-pass the people. I know many people have suggested to me that I have a comfortable majority in the National Assembly, a thumping brute majority but the Governor of Baluchistan yesterday gave a statement to say that the problem should go to the National Assembly that we should not take to the streets that we should not take to the public and he met me after that, I told him that he had given the statement and he could not understand why I have gone to the people and why I have not gone to the National assembly and got the matter decided. First thing that I have not a personal stake, no crown is going to be offered by Mark Anthony to me that I should recognize Bangladesh. A number of factors are involved, country’s interest, Pakistan’s interest, our people’s interest, their interest, seven crores there, six crores here. Interests of Muslims in India. India does not want the recognition of Bangladesh. In their hearts they are very happy that we have not recognized Bangladesh. Why they are saying that you should recognize Bangladesh, because Bangladesh is insisting on them to take such position and they do not want to give the impression that they exercise hegemony over Bangladesh. So they are doing lip service to tell Bengali Muslims look you told us to say, we are saying but yet they are not doing that, what can we do. It is not a genuine demand. Why should that be. They wanted to take over the control of East Pakistan. Slowly, day by day they are cutting out the roots, cutting out Pakistan’s feeling, cutting out feeling of Muslims there. Professors and other teachers are all going in more and more and that Marwaries are going more and more, they want to exercise their complete control over Bangladesh in East Pakistan and not give us a footing. We must have a footing. Ordinarily we put our foot there by the peaceful means so that our mission is established, we get in touch with them. We start our contracts again, get back into a reasonable frame of mind. The hate campaign comes to an end and that is the only way whereby we can win over East Pakistan again. The only way you can win over East Pakistan again is to win over their hearts. You cannot win over their hearts by bullets or by browbeating or by invasion. So you have to solve a bit of it. I give an example. When Pakistan was created what happened at that time. There were some people who said, never, over our dead bodies, so we created Pakistan. After the creation of Pakistan some said do not recognize Pakistan. Nehru said no, we must recognize Pakistan and Pakistan was recognized and this is how the Indians came into Dacca, into Rajshahi and this was how the message of Tagore replaced the message of Iqbal. In the Universities and colleges this is how our student community was turned against us; they came, they recognized us and they spread their tentacles to turn the people of East Pakistan against us. Is that not so, since they had recognized us we did not spur it for the prescribed influence that is Protocol. I, therefore, want to make it quite clear to the people that I have no personal interest. If they want amiable terms with the majority of the Muslims over there, that is the decision of the majority. We were in minority. The Indians were in majority in India. They were opposed to Pakistan but the minorities said we must have Pakistan and we got Pakistan. Now the majority wants to opt out. If they do not want it how can a minority force them a thousand miles away to have it. Now the point here is this that why I am taking it to the National Assembly? Because I believe people are supreme. Of course, the National Assembly represents the people. I know what I am advocating is the right decision in the interest of Pakistan so why should I shy away from it. Why should I shy away from going to the people and telling them that they ought not to be silly, not to be emotional for once, take charge of their liabilities and that is why I am going to the people. You know many people are saying how East Pakistan went apart. Some people say because they are a thousand miles away. They were the majority. Different languages, different factors, well I do not want to go in history, but past history also, you must not be oblivious of it. Quaid-I-Azam himself had said that if Calcutta is not to be a part of Pakistan we much rather have a united Bengal or a separate Bengal. Allama Iqbal in his Allahbad address did not mention and apart from that Rehmat Ali Chaudhry coining Pakistan did not bring it into it. But I leave those arguments aside. The moment you took two decisions in Pakistan that day you brought about the separation of East Pakistan: One was the One Unit decision and the other was the Parity decision. One Unit made one state here which you called a province and one state there which you called a province and parity brought about equality. The concept of equality of states is sovereign equality. You created sovereign equality in 1954 or 1953. Those two decision were taken in the national Assembly. They were not taken continue to go to the people; I have no qualms about it. I have complete confidence. Why should I do anything against the people and the creator of the people. You want that I go down in history as opposed to the people of Pakistan. I would never like to go in history like that. But I would like to go down in history that I was one of the few people who told the people of Pakistan what was right and what was wrong, and I believe that they will calm down. A struggle can only be sustained if the cause is right. It can be everlasting, brilliant, and magnificent provided the cause is right. If the cause is wrong, if it is macabre, if it has some ulterior motives in it, then it cannot be sustained. These people, who are now brought, I am glad they have done it now, and we know how to deal with them because we are spousing a right cause. How can people who opposed Pakistan, be interested in Bangladesh. How can the two-nation theory be compromised. Are they not a Muslim majority area? Are they not a Muslim majority state? Have they abandoned Islam? Two-nation theory will get compromised not if we recognized Bangladesh but if we keep getting more and more into the quagmire of poverty, misery and injustice. If we are given the opportunity to attend to our problems, give full attention to the internal problems of Pakistan, develop our people, we will consolidate and unite the people. The constitution we have given, the interim one, now permanent one, is that not a great achievement? I tell you that I will get to the National Assembly. I will have to go to the National Assembly. National Assembly represents the people but why should I shy away from the people themselves. I said during my elections also one leg will be in the Assembly and one leg will be outside the Assembly. I would never run away from the people. Even if they guillotine me I will accept that but I will never run away from them.

Question: In your by-elections, Sir, which are being fought I think the last one was in Narowal and this question has been discussed as an election issue. Do you think this kind of result gives you an indication of the feeling of the people on Bangladesh-recognition of it or otherwise?

President: Of course, it does in a way, some people have tried to suggest some proposals to embarrass me. Somebody has suggested that there should be a referendum. I do not mind a referendum. I can carry a referendum. Look here, three provinces apart from certain exception, are basically in favor of recognition. Two or three important parties or four important parties are basically in favor of it. I believe that we can carry the majority with sufficient preparation. Although the results of by-election have shown another way, but referendum by a minority cannot be the basis of the decision. If a referendum has to be held, it has to be held in Bangladesh. That is why they are holding elections. For that reason alone, how can the minority decide the referendum because the minority’s decision in a referendum is rejected. It is the majority’s decision in a referendum that is accepted. So let them hold their election. That will also be another factor in the situation. If we had gone ahead sensibly, properly, by now these trials would have been avoided, by now our prisoners of war would have come back. By now we would have many other factors in the situation that I cannot mention, but leave alone those things. Either 90,000 POWs are to be sacrificed, provided their sacrifice leads to the unity of the country, but if that sacrifice is not going to lead to unit of the country then certainly at the Day of Judgment God will ask me and ask us that why did your treat them like monkeys in a cage because they are living in a zoo. Is that not a great humiliation of Muslims and Pakistanis that our brave soldiers who fought for on motherland, should now be behind bars and foreigners should go and see them sitting there, see them get killed in cold blood, where has our conscience gone. Do we not think properly, where is the moral contend gone of these people who preach negative philosophy only to do down the Government. I can tell you quite clearly that I did not sleep over their detention because it is an immoral detention. There is nothing more sublime, there is nothing more sacred, there is nothing more supreme, than sacrifice for a cause but there is nothing more degrading, nothing more humiliating, nothing more disgraceful than a sacrifice without a cause, that is barbarism, that is cannibalism. I would like to ask these friends of ours that why are we sacrificing these gallant brave people, who were sent to East Pakistan, under overwhelming odds, impossible odd, to fight in East Pakistan, a part of Pakistan, and perish if they perish, I will ask the whole nation, not only 90,000, then million, five millions, should perish, but they are not going to bring about, their detention in India, their remaining hostages in India will not bring about the unity of Pakistan. That is a much bigger problems, the biggest moral problem. We are not the most prosperous country in the world. We are not the richest in the world. You know how we are paying today for the fiction of the country still being wanted, because the foreign debtors say when you do not want to recognize Bangladesh you say that it is still a part of Pakistan, then you must pay the foreign debts. Now the total foreign debts of this very rich country of Pakistan which has abundance of sugar, which has no scarcity of wheat, which has all the wealth of the world, we have a debt of 3½ billion dollars, and out of that East Pakistan’s share is a billion point two dollars. This is not our calculation. This has recently been calculated by the World Bank, and the World Bank has arrived at this figure after having consultations with all the creditor countries. The whole consortium has now come to the conclusion, that out of 3½ billion dollars that we owe to the Consortium countries, East Pakistan’s share is 1.2 billion dollars which means that every year we have to pay for East Pakistan who claims to be a separate State and who are a separate State and the whole world has recognized them as a separate State; we are paying 90 crore rupees a year, for this. I do not mind if we have to pay the whole three billion dollars. I would not mind to pay five million dollars, I would not mind paying two hundred crores. I would not mind paying hundred and eighty crores provided that brings us together, a united Pakistan but this country is too impoverished there is no blood left in the flesh of common man, Poor man. The poor man sleeps on the streets. In the winter of this country he is going about in tattered clothes in Chitral, Dir, Nagar and all places where snow falls and yet 90 crores of rupees, 90 million dollars he has just to give away because you want to say that no we won’t recognize Bangladesh to the end of time and Bangladesh is saying that well Pakistan has to pay that and this is what Pakistan has to recognize but you see the point is if people want to kill their dead bodies and you know you can kill a dead body, who said you cannot kill a dead body, you can. Then it is all right, that is their decision. I cannot stop it.

Question: Sir, you have already talked about foreign relations, your efforts to secure the Frontiers. One of the things which is also related to the issue of Bangladesh indirectly because of the POWs, are our relations with India. Since the Simla Agreement what kind of developments have taken place to bring about some kind of normalization on the basis of justice?

President: Well! Justice must always prevail. We will never abandon a just cause. And if you abandon a just cause, you do not settle a cause. Now as far as the Simla Agreement is concerned, it is a broad agreement of the mode of negotiations which are to be essentially bilateral and you know, Mr. Burki, I have always believed in bilateralism much before this happened. But the main feature of the Simla Agreement is tangible terms was the withdrawals which is a very big thing. I do not think you have the case of withdrawals within a year, since the end of the Second World War. There is one exception, that was Tashkent, because we gave so much that they were prepared to withdraw. Here without giving that we have secured withdrawal within a year whereas Israelies are still sitting in chunks and chunks of Arab territory and I give you many more examples; so withdrawal is no mean an achievement. Ten lakh people, a million people, are going back to their homes, becoming productive again and they can make contribution to the economy. We are on the verge of withdrawals. I think by tomorrow, by 21st there will be withdrawals and after that we will again meet. There are so many things to be discussed. We live in the same subcontinent, but we always uphold our principles. These cannot be compromised in the name of peace because that is not peace, it is capitulation. We want peace.

Question: this Thako Chak, the territory involves about 1.7 square miles or something and the withdrawal was delayed for about four months. What was the significance of this that we had to postpone the withdrawal and prevent the return of our own displaced persons to their homes.

President: Well! I would end this long discussion on a lighter note and you know that in the course of the discussions the Pakistan side, the Pakistan Commanders who were dealing with negotiations, they offered Thako Chak to Indians three times, and three times Indians refused it. These are the anomalies that take place when people are suspicious of one another but since it turned out like this, I could not expect or accept an arrangement without a yard-stick — a criterion and after it has been offered to them three times and they rejected three times and then they came and said we wanted it. It is all right if that is the position you will have to give something else in exchange. The exchange took place. Now that vindicates our position, the exchange took place firstly, territory for territory. If we were in possession of Thako chak and they wanted it we took another territory from them which they were in occupation of, secondly, it also shows and sort of vindicates the disputed nature of the territory involved because you do not exchange territory which is part of your country. If an exchange takes place it is of disputed territory. In any case, the Simla Agreement quite clearly says that without prejudice to the recognized position of the two sides. As far as recognized is concerned, it has to be objective, internationally recognized. But, however, we will talk about these things when we meet but for the time being it is quite clear that in spite of very adverse conditions, in spite of the fact that we had not won the war, I do not want to use the word we lost the war, because there are people who say that you must not use that word so I would not use that word, but we did not win the war. We did not win the war, half of the country fell and half of the country went apart; 5000 square miles in Punjab and in Sindh together, more than 90,000 POWs, a collapsed and a bankrupt economy. You are talking about the economy. Even in Yahya’s time when he was President just before the election or some other time after the election I think when he went to Dacca, he said, well my successor, is going to get a bankrupt economy, an economy which they cannot work.

You remember that I really felt about the state of economy, you can imagine what we really got. And so with the economy destroyed, with people coming with all sorts of wired notions, with people predicting in world chanceries that Pakistan has three months left or Pakistan has two months left. Now with all that we went ahead we got this Agreement. We did not compromise the Kashmir dispute. We did not compromise, we made it quite clear, without prejudice to Kashmir dispute and the right of self-determination, and Swarn Sing has admitted that the delineation line is the ceasefire line, another ceasefire line, a temporary line pending settlement. I do not think it is humanly possible to do more and how has this happened. This has happened not because we are terribly intelligent, we are no Einstein and no great giants, the people have been kind, the poor man has been kind, the good man has been kind, the poor man has been kind I repeat, and we have mobilized them. We have their confidence, they have our confidence. God has been kind in His infinite mercy and we have tried to work hard.

Question: Sir, the final question I would like to ask. One year is too short a period for any government’s performance to be evaluated. Could you, perhaps, very briefly look ahead and tell us what are kind of hopes you foresee for Pakistan in the year to come?

President: Yes, one year is too short a period. But in this one year we have achieved political cohesion, institutionalized our Governments and given provincial autonomy to the satisfaction of the people, brought about reforms in the field of education, labor, land, health, various other things, administrative reforms, tried to cope with the question of corruption, evil of corruption, tried to tackle with smuggling which is on the increase unfortunately; all these problems we have dealt with, and we will give a shape and direction to our foreign policy, and reinvigorate the spirit of the people so much so that now they can go about again burning buses and stoning things. I am glad that there are muscles in their flesh, because to have muscles is good but I hope they use it more productively but now, a year from now, again, is too short a period for a nation. We can hope for tomorrow, we might be there we might not be there. A year is too short a period but I think that by the end of next year. If we are still in charge of the situation and from the point of view of our democratic mandate, we have every right to be, I think the picture will be much happier, there will be many strides, we are going to move much much faster. Now we have started, you see, the momentum is there, now we have to pick up the momentum. I remember Nehru once told me when I met him, he said it was much more difficult to get rid of a bullock-cart than to get the aeroplane. So the beginning is always slow, especially after such a big collapse, after such a trauma, so now that we have again begun, we have again started off, the thing is ticking again, and you can hear the sound of music in the distance, and I think now we have got to that pace we can gallop. Insha Allah, I am confident that we will gallop and become the most prosperous and powerful State in the subcontinent and I do not use these words in the aggressive sense.

Burki: Thank you very much, Sir, Mr. President. Safdar: Thank you, Sir.

President: Thank you.