Translated text of an interview with Mir Javed ur Rehman and Mr. Shorish Malik, Representatives of the Daily Jan.

Question: Of all the reforms which you have introduced during this one year which are the areas where progress has been according to your expectations and where it fell short of your expectations.

President: This is a long story. If you look at the situation as it obtains today we have succeeded to a great extent in our education policy, although in other fields also there’ll be progress with the implementation of the reforms. At present the land is being distributed. Soon you will see a basic change., Similarly our labor policy also has benefited the workers to the extent of 40% You only have to calculate it. Of course, the increase is not in the wages alone because if the wages are increased too much it enhances the prices, but the workers have been given increased wages plus facilities which are now about 40% more than ever before. As that is at a time when our production has decreased by almost that much. After the war our economy was badly damaged. You may perhaps recall that when, after elections, Yahya Khan went to Dacca and he announced that Mujib ur Rahman would be the Prime Minister, he said at the Dacca airport that he was willing to transfer power but that he was not sure whether any person can tackle the economic chao which the country was facing at that time. Now if conditions were so bad in 1970, you can well imagine how much worse the economic situation must have been when we formed the Government. Under these trying condition it is no ordinary matter that we have been able to bring about so many reforms. But there may be people who would say that we have done nothing. Well, there are always such people in every country, Nevertheless if the nation takes correct decisions and makes objective evaluation it would be seen that a lot has already been done in the country. There is nothing final in this world, we have to go a long way. If we take the right road we would reach the destination in quick time.

Question: Is it not possible that exactly in the manner you obtained a consensus of all parties on an agreed formula to settle constitutional disputes an agreement is obtained, for whatever limited period, on some guiding principles about the national politics so that the national issues are not settled in the streets?

President: We do wish such an agreement and every government would wish it, but it has to be decided by the Opposition. My approach from the very first day has been this! We negotiated patiently and listened to whatever they said. Before I went to Simla I met people of every shade of opinion, the Ulemas, the lawyers, the labour and other leaders. At that time too we did not have one opinion, but we did talk. We did discuss. Democracy was restored at the center and also at the provinces. Interim Constitution was introduced. Principals of a permanent constitution have been worked out. Now did we not struggle for democracy? We struggled because we wanted democracy. Wince we ourselves wanted freedom we have allowed freedom to everyone else. There is freedom of speech. Newspapers are free. But with freedom, in every country there are certain laws also. Lawlessness is not democracy. Even so if our friends want to go to the streets we too know every lane of the country.

Question: Do you think that after the decision on the Control Line and after the forces are withdrawn and the prisoners of war return to their homes there can be a possibility of a settlement with India on all other disputes, including Kashmir?

President: These matters cannot be decided in one day nor in one year. They cannot be decided in a hurry either because earlier also they have taken a lot of time. They have already taken twenty years. I’m not a simpleton. I understand full well that these are problems that cannot be settled in a hurry. First, let the after-efforts of war wear off and matters be straightened out, let our prisoners of war return and then we can easily hold discussions and meetings on the question of Kashmir in a settled atmosphere, then the problem can be solved. But it would take time. We can wait. We are in no hurry. As far as we are concerned, the Indians know it and the world knows it, that so long as we are in the Government, there can be no compromise on principles. Of course we are prepared to talk and we shall talk, Why should we be afraid of talking? Had our point of view been wrong, our objectives been against the international law and conventions we would have perhaps avoided talks. But when our stand is justified and the entire world accepts it — and when even Indian herself had been talking for quite some time of self-determination — we would not be afraid of talks. We would talk and negotiate. We would not commit the same mistakes that were committed by Mr. Manzoor Qadir, Ayub Khan and others. It is one thing to make foreign policy and be a Foreign Minister but it is another thing to run a foreign policy, so that we are not going to make such mistakes and we are always ready to talk. It would take time. We would negotiate coolly and with patience. You know that China and America have been talking. You also know the number of meetings held on the question of Berlin between Russia, America and Germany.

Question: What additional steps are you taking for the release of POWs and to what extent is their release related to the question of recognition of Bangladesh?

President: You must have seen the statements of Mujib ur Rahman and Indian leaders. POWs are not in our hands. They are in the hands of India. India says that the POWs had laid their arms to a joint command of Bharat and Bangladesh. You have also seen in these 25 years as to how strong and effective the UN has been. This problem cannot be solved unless we talk to India and Bangladesh and give serious thought to their clams and they seriously consider ours. The decision of the recognition of Bangladesh will have to be taken by the nation. I have said nothing more than that in my humble opinion Bangladesh would have to be recognized by us. I have not said that that was the decision of my Government or my party. I have only said that the decision will have to be made by the National assembly and that I shall obtain the will of the people and I am sure that, God willing, the people will take a correct decision. Why should the people take a wrong decision. It is not the law of nature that only our government and people should make wrong decisions. After all someday the right decisions will have to be taken by this nation and I am sure that when we will go to the people and tell them what are the advantages and disadvantages and ask them to weigh them on the scale of objectivity, because it is not my person that is involved, it is a national question which is to be decided by the entire nation, well I’m sure the nation will then take the correct decision and our POWs, will then return. Besides, the trials that are taking place in East Pakistan will then not be held. Had we negotiated earlier we could perhaps have saved these people. Then there are certain decisions which are to be taken regarding certain economic matters. They have some claims and we also have our claims. There are local and foreign loans on which some honest agreement has to be obtained. After all both of us, they and we have lived together. We must seek friendly relations once again. Let us first have friendly relations and then we can get still closer. After having been united for so long if we can get separated we can also get reunited. But so long as you would not recognize Bangladesh and keep your eyes shut, other influences would continue dominating and you would be completely eliminated from the scene. Moreover, other organizations which are there will continue creating hatred against you and you would not be there to counteract it. Now if you do not have your feet on that soil and you have no contact with them how do you propose to redeem the situation? A member of a political party said to me in Peshawar, I do not know what is the solution of this problem, but leave it to God to solve it. All right. We all have faith in God, but God only helps those who help themselves. If we would just sit with folded hands and hide ourselves in our rooms and shed tears and do nothing else we don’t think that much good would come of it. If mere crying could solve problems then let us sit down and weep and see what all we can achieve by crying.

Question: On the question of Muslim Bengal while your approach is flexible and positive Mr. Mujibur Rahman’s is rigid. How in your opinion can this deadlock be broken?

President: Now if the nation takes a decision I do not think we would find any difficulty in it at all. As for Mujibur Rahman it has been his nature. Had it not been so where do you think was any difficulty in arriving at some kind of a settlement on six points? After all the disagreement was on one and a half or may be two points, and even on those one and a half points we did say that let us get together outside the Assembly and talk it over, like the accord on the constitution which we have now reached. Had Mujib agreed to this suggestion, I think, everything could have been straightened out. And there were many other alternatives too. But these members of the Opposition parties who used to say one thing now and another thing later, it is because of their non-cooperation that we have suffered this loss. Whatever happened in the Paltan Maidan was very well-known to them and yet they are saying that the majority of Bangladesh was not in favor of secession and that they all wanted a united nation. Now you have seen for yourself what all they did. They welcomed the Indian Army and cooperated with them. When Tikka Khan was the Governor they were not cooperating with Dr. Malik. You could not even get candidates for elections. Don’t we know all these things? And now they are celebrating the first anniversary of Bangladesh with a lot of funfair and splendor. Are they doing all this for nothing? At the same time there is such appalling poverty there. It has further increased. In these conditions I do not know what would have happened if people were not told that they were now free and independent and should give more sacrifices. Had this not been the case the worst would have happened there. At present what is holding them back from doing the worst is their belief that they have won their rights and that their Bengali nationalism has succeeded. Still we have people who deny this. I know that some people have come from Bengal. They are sitting in London. They have suddenly become avid Pakistanis, I know why this happened with them. I do not want to unfold the story of their vested interest which makes them such zealots. Some of them belong to your profession too and you can imagine what vested interest they must be having.

Question: Don’t you think that the recognition of Bangladesh would amount to condoning the Indian aggression and that now for any aggressor this would be a precedence for similar action?

President: The answer is very simple. If the nation is on the road to progress, if it is gaining in strength, its people are happy, if there is a constitutional government, a just Government, if economy is improving, if there is free education available then no one would dare intimidate Pakistan. Every nation is built like this. If, on the contrary, the youth of the nation is lashed, the result would not be different from what happened with us. For the last fifteen years our government has been behaving like that. This is how nations are destroyed. Now what do you mean by precedence? First, do not forget that they are a thousand miles away from us. Then you must also examine the proceedings of the meetings of the Quaid-I-Azam with the Cabinet Mission. In England nothing remains classified after 25 years. You read the proceedings of the meeting of the Quaid-I-Azam with the Cabinet Mission and see for yourself that they had talked in very clear terms about East and West Pakistan. According to these talks there was a situation when the Quaid-I-Azam said that if Calcutta did not become part of Pakistan it did not matter. It is on record and you can go and examine it. Then you may also examine the concept of Pakistan as conceived by Allama Iqbal. What was his idea of Pakistan? What was the concept of Pakistan which Chaudhry Rehmat Ali had in his mind? It was all different from what emerged as Pakistan. Now forget all that and recall for a moment that the decision for separation was taken when the Government, their Government and ours, the Central Government took the two important decisions, I had even then said and wrote about that. The first decision was the creation of One Untied and the second was the principle of parity. Now while you are already at a distance of one thousand miles from each other and you decide to create a nation here and give it the name of a province and give the name of another nation to the other province, when you create two nations and give them the equal status on the basis of Parity, you are at once accepting the parity in sovereignty. If Pakistan was one nation then why were you afraid of giving representation to the majority population in the assembly on the basis of population. These people who are now shouting and demanding an answer why did they not say about Bengalis, that they were their brother and that they should not be treated with suspicion? When did you give them (Bengalis) the Government. When did you say that yes, you are in a majority, you may come and take over the government. The parity formula was the formula of equal sovereignty. The opposition keeps saying that it was I who raised the slogan of your country for you and our country for us. Although it were the leaders of the Opposition who had said ‘you are 50% and you be there, and we are 50% and we shall be here.” Separation was the result of parity and of One Unit. Then there were various decisions (and policies) of Ayub Khan which further led to separatism. Why should Ayub Khan have divided the Railways? Railways were part of communication. Where was the necessity of the division of PIDC or keeping only the Bengali government servants in Bengal? No one was pressing for it at that time. At that time there was no disgruntlement of that kind. Then the disloyalty of Sheikh Mujib ur Rahman resulted in Agartala case. We were not in government in 1967. Ayub Khan had seen all the documents and all the proofs were in his hands. These things are now in our possession. There was enough proof then that compelled Ayub Khan to release Mujib ur Rahman? Why nobody ever questioned Mujib ur Rahman when in 1966-67 he first propounded his six points? Didn’t they sit and talk in 1969 at the Round Table Conference? I had said as early as 1966 that that was the opportune time to expose Mujib politically and to let people know that six points were a wrong thing. They were neither good for the Bengalis nor for Pakistan. We should have made all the political leaders in the country agree that six points were pointless and meaningless. They were damaging the interest of the nation. They were a wrong move. But they threw Mujib ur Rahman into the jail and removed and Yahya Khan arrived on the scene. Why did not Yahya question of provincial autonomy? After all we also obtained consensus on the question of provincial autonomy after we came to power. He too could have said that all right let us first decide as to the type of autonomy and that elections would be held only after it is decided as to what would be the correct (and agreed) approach to the question of provincial autonomy. He could have refused to hold elections and not done away with the One Unit and the system of parity until they had signed an agreement on the question of provincial autonomy. But Yahya Khan did not do so and held elections and when elections were held Mujib ur Rahman had already created enough bitterness and hatred and had already established very close relations with India. A point of no return had already been reached. But now it is all over. Things in West Pakistan are different now. We are a compact region and a nation. Although East Pakistan was a thousand miles away even then if wisdom would have prevailed situation would have been saved (at least) for some time. West Pakistan is an organized country. We shall give people a constitution here and they would live a happy life. Social justice would be done to everyone. Such a Government which grants all this does not fall. But if we are unjust to the people and treat them with high-handedness and exploit them and only talk of justice (without importing it) then in that case a country cannot last for long.

No in India Nehru had made a constitution for the country and settled the provincial demands. And you know what the provinces there had been demanding in those days? Language demands in Maharashtra and so on. But they made adjustments and after a compromise they carried on the business (of the state). They shaped their country. That is the way nations are built. I say, if we also start agreeing with each other most of these disputes would end and we could concentrate on making our country the strongest in the subcontinent. We settled the language problem and it is incorrect to allege that we are enemies of Urdu and are perpetuating Sindhism. What we did was after a careful study of history. It did not damage the interest of Urdu and the people of Sindh are also happy that we are not out to destroy their language. Now you can see that it is all calm and quiet there. But these (the Opposition) were sending us (long) telegrams and were alleging all sorts of things. Now even if Mujib would have stayed (with Pakistan) you would have witnessed that the atmosphere here would have been completely spoiled and everyone would have started talking of sovereignty for himself. This was not our concept (of politics). We shall build Pakistan. We shall live in Pakistan and our language and culture would not be allowed to be destroy. If you take correct decisions and run the Government properly where is the question then of any loss? But what can one say if a mad man becomes President of Germany or America. I can only say that America would lose at least Alaska and perhaps Hawaii too.

Question: Does Pakistan not feel the need to have a pact with some power similar to the Indo-Soviet Treaty?

President: I know what you are hinting at. But it is not the policy of those people to enter into pacts and treaties. I did tell my friends that all these young men who stand up and say that we must enter into such and such pacts must be told that pacts are not in our hands. We cannot compel anyone to enter into pacts with us. You must also take into consideration their national policies. I said that since you are making such a noise about it I would talk to them about it (pact) when I go there but when I opened this subject with them they said, “Well we have a treaty with Russian and look what has come of that treaty? Look at the number of disputes we have between ourselves and Russia? Look at the pact you have with America and what has come of that pact? So long as we have common interests we do not need pacts.” And they said that their policy was not in favor of pacts. “If we continue having good relations like we have had so far and if we continue like this, improving our mutual relations and having more and more confidence in each other, we would not need pacts. We have seen so many pacts broken and so much of loss incurred by us because of that. But of course we must have confidence and mutual trust and friendly relations and above all Common interest.” If we lose another nation also loses, the nation with whom we have a pact. So if we believe in joint losses too, the pacts may then have some practical utility and one can render some sacrifice for such pacts. But if the interests are different, their interest being different from our interest then there would always be a way of wriggling out of such pacts.

Question: Does the present unrest of the youth not a proof of the failure of the second line of leadership of the People’s Party?

President: Various forces had been preparing themselves for agitation for quite some time. Infact, I told my party friends that these people would resort to agitation. Their action is wrong because it has been taken at this time, after the Simla Agreement. This Agreement is in a way Pakistan’s victory, but these people said that since it is the success of this Government, (Precisely for this reason) something must be done to discredit it and they were trying somehow to divert the attention of the people. So they created the language problem which made people overlook the merits of this Agreement through which Pakistan is to get back 5,000 sq. miles of her area and as a result of which forces would be withdrawn to their respective territories. They wanted to put a cloud over all this. That is what they tried. And when it was decided to withdraw the troops. I did tell my friends that they should be ready to witness yet another attempt of that kind. I am glad that they have come out in the open and are exposed. Now the truth is that there are many reasons for these agitations. One is that defeated political parties are very unhappy and are trying to find an occasion to avenge their defeat. They are all the time dreaming of a coup d’état. In the beginning they used to say that they were against military regimes and could not tolerate any army man (heading the Government). Then Ayub Khan whistled and they all rushed to join the Round Table Conference. And when Yahya Khan took over then they welcomed him and praised him also. Now they say that they were against a military regime and that they believed in democracy. But they keep dreaming all the time as to how they could get rid of this government, the very next morning. Why do they want to get rid of this government? This government has not damaged them in anyway. It is not that they want to liberate the nation from this Government as they claim. Infact they want to somehow avenge their defeat. Their attitude is negative. I must tell you in clear terms that if an attempt of that kind is made at this time the result would be such that even the Himalayas would shed tears. We are not like Ayub Khan whose lips were dry out of nervousness and who announced on the Radio that he was withdrawing and that he was running away. We who are in the Government today have not come to power through the backdoor or by shedding other peoples blood or by forging our way illegally. We have come to power democratically, although Yahya Khan’s Government had opposed us and tried to destroy us. Now ours is a democratic constitutional government and it is our right to build this country exactly as we have saved it. We have now advanced beyond the first stage. By the grace of God we have saved the country. Now it is our democratic right to be able to build this country, during our tenure. If they interfere and resort to undemocratic methods then they would repent it. As I have already told you that we know every lane in this country and we are aware of everything. We have taken the beating and have known what lathi charge means. We have seen the use of tear gas so that they should have no illusions about us. By merely bringing out one or two processions they cannot overthrow us? It can be done only through elections. And when the elections would be held (in time) we would very willingly vacate our seats and tell them that now, sir, it is your right to occupy the chairs with all the pleasure. We would tell them everything about this Assembly and show them round every room of this Presidency and we would pick up our hats and leave. That is the way it is supposed to be in democracy. There is no other way. If we have spent 25 years like this let there be another five years. Now if our government did some wrong things, if we had not served the people, if we had betrayed the people, if the youth had gone against us then they would naturally join them as their workers and act as Mujahids. I don’t say that the younger generation or students have much reason to go against us. It is a fact that I have still not allowed my party to have inroads into the Universities to do that is to insult a University. They (the Opposition) give scholarships (to students) in every field. I have said that we would not do that. But now if the Central Committee decides otherwise I cannot say that it would not be done. So far, I have resisted it. We would not like to start this kind of patronage. We are only supposed to give a general line and we would give a general line if people like it they would support us and if they do not like it then even if we have these branches, it would make no difference. So far as students are concerned it should not make any difference as to which party of students wins because it is said that all over the world they are Communists as long as they are students and when they get employed they cease to be Communists. But here it is different. Here the students are rightists when they are in schools and when they are employed they become leftists. In other countries in the schools, they are leftists and when they go out and join the service etc, they become rightists. Our so-called young Communists have tripped here too while they are delivering speeches they think that they are being popular although they do not even know what Communism is. They brag that this world is not created by God. That this universe does not belong to God. They say that there is no God? (They question His Existence) and ask who has seen God? When these so-called young Communists deliver such speeches the general body of students go against them and of course it must go against such people. So they go and cast their votes in favor of others. That is why we did not interfere with the politics of the students. I do not say that students should not be in politics. There is student politics and it should be there. But I have never been in favour of our interference with the students politics. Now some of our Central Committee people recommend that we should also have our own groups amongst the students. So the problem of leftists and rightists among university students is simply this — on the one hand we have not interfered with them because our objective has been nationalism, the Pakistani nationalism, not Communism, but Socialism as a I had declared in the Convention. This is the line which we have given clearly and openly and not secretly. Moreover, those who are the so-called Communists, their attitude in the University is such, their speeches are such their behavior is such that the general body must go against them and thus they get a negative vote.

Question: What behavior do you expect from the Opposition for the establishment and advancement of democracy in the country?

President: I say, let them do their work as the opposition. Make public speeches. Let them also not accept Bangladesh if they so desire and speak about it with all the passion. Let them also say that this party has done nothing for the people; that so much was said in the manifesto; that all that was a fraud; that a wrong foreign policy is being pursued; and why don’t we come out of the CENTO? And so on. Let them also say that we must not talk to India. Well, all this is all right, We do not stop them from doing or saying this because it is their platform. We also had been fighting for a platform. But sir, when they stand up and start shouting all kinds of abuses at us and do all kind of dirty things and then ask people to come out in the streets and remove us from the Government and pull down the walls of the Presidency, then what do you expect the army to do? Must it sleep? These are not democratic speeches and they would get a similar response. This is very simple. You cannot deny that violence is not democracy. We do not call it democracy. After all there is something known as law in this country.

Question: Ever since the Pakistan People’s Party has come to power it has introduced several reforms. It was regarded as a leftist party and it is a leftist party. But now you are tilting towards the right which gives an impression that now you think that if it is in the interest of the country to advance towards the right you would be a rightist and if it is good for the country to be a leftist you would go towards the left. Is that so?

President: Not at all. That is what the Communist friends are doing. I have already told you that first we saved the country and at the same time introduced reforms. I have always said that first examine these reforms and see where things have not gone right and where we have been successful. Let the wrongs be corrected so that some more reforms are introduced. Which rightist Government could have introduced such land reforms as are introduced by us, land to the farmers without any payments, not even a small price, and over and above that they would also get seed, fertilizer and loan? Which rightist Government would take education out of the private sector and transfer it to the state sector? Which rightist Government would take over so many industries as we have taken over? Every step that we have taken has been in accordance with the concept of Socialism and the logic of Socialism. Not one has been against Socialism, not even our foreign policy, such as getting out of SEATO and other similar decisions, for example the recognition of North Korea and North Vietnam and so on but we do not want to be applauded for that. We do not need it, because people would see for themselves the difference as the laborer has seen the difference. It is not the same any more. He has more cash in his pocket. The same would be with the farmer and others. Prices would be controlled through increased production. We devalued rupee because it was necessary. But if production does not increase prices are bound to increase. If there would be strikes and the production falls by forty per cent who would you blame for that? If people become so callous as to smuggle food and then if the prices go up who would you blame for that? War too has its repercussions. At least ten lac displaced persons could not till their lands and their lands could not produce anything. These people went out begging like orphans. This again was a pressure on us. Now if we increased the price of wheat by double in the villages, the villagers got more money and with that money they want to buy more things. Then population is also increasing. And yet if the production increases, and indeed it would increase because that is what is our endeavor, then with this increase we would have increased our resources. Our project aid has not yet been resumed. Let the project aid also be resumed, the commodity aid has just been resumed. Of course, I don’t say that this aid would appreciably bring down the prices. But we would be able to control them.

Question: When would the Hamudur Rahman Commission Report be published?

President: I would be very happy if we decide something about it soon. As soon as I received his report I appointed a high powered committee which included the three chiefs of Staff, Secretary-General of Foreign Office, our Ministers, Special Assistants and the Attorney-General. The report is rather lengthy. I have even reminded the members about it once or twice and have asked for their views. As soon as the Committee decides that the report be published in full it would be done. If the Committee finds some sensitive portions such as are related to the foreign policy which should not yet be made public we would go by the Committee’s recommendations. (As far as we are concerned) we have nothing to hide.

Question: Would any action be taken against Yahya Khan?

President: This too depends on the Committee’s recommendations.

Question: That is if the Committee so recommends?

President: That recommendation is already there in the Hamudur Rahman Report.

Question: What role Pakistan would play in West Asia?

President: Pakistan would play a very important role. If we get down to business and do not chase shadows and do not resort to day-dreaming, accept the reality and having accepted it we start using both of our hands and do hard work with zeal then I can say it with full confidence that we would make a lot of progress and would prosper. At least in this subcontinent we can become a model state.

At the end of the interview when the President was requested to give a message to the nation through the daily Jan, he said:

“My message is that, God willing, our future would be bright. We are making untiring efforts to secure that future. We pray to God almighty for the happiness of our people and may all their troubles be over. Of course all our troubles cannot be over at once but the basic problems such as unemployment can be overcome. People may not remain without employment. I wish that we may not see people hungry or see them half clad braving the cold weather or facing the rigor of hot weather. We are trying to overcome all these problems. Our objectives are, bread, clothes, house and employment. You can say that we have not succeeded in this as yet. I say it has only been eleven months. We had to face many national and international problems. After all what was the shape in which they handed Pakistan to us? Think of it for a while. In the light of these facts you may say that we have not succeeded in these eleven months I would say that eleven months is not a long enough time. We stand by our promises to the nation. We have just embarked on our programme of making the nation prosperous in which we shall Insha Allah succeed. This would be a country where every citizen would feel secure and respectable. Not that he would only be respected if he is big and affluent. Government servants would be kept in their places because without that the citizens would not acquire respect. Petty Government servants would be required to meet people as men meet men and keep in touch with the people. People need security. I know that incidence or crime has increased because now everybody owns a gun. We are therefore, increasing the police force. We have done a great deal to check and stop dacoity on the highways. We have give jeeps etc., to the police. Cases of dacoity appear to be decreasing now. People would not feel secure. We are building houses for the workers and the poor people. Work has already started in Karachi and you must have seen it in progress. We are starting it in Lahore too. God willing, Pakistan shall be strong and prosperous and respected in the world. It would be a Pakistan which would be heard in the International world. A Pakistan which was sought by people who struggled for it under the leadership of Quaid-i-Azam. Had that not been the concept of Pakistan people would not have struggled for it. But we could not see Pakistan of our dream after 25 years. Now one year had passed. We are diverting people from the wrong to the right direction and would lead them to the right path and Insha Allah reach our destination.”