We
have met here today at a grave moment in the history of my country and I
would request the Council kindly to bear with me and to hear the truth,
the bitter truth. I know the United Nations; I know the Security
Council I have attended their sessions before. The time has come when,
as far as Pakistan is concerned, we shall have to speak the truth
whether members of the Council like it or not. We were hoping that the
Security Council, mindful of its responsibilities for the maintenance of
world peace and justice, would act according to principles and bring an
end to a naked, brutal aggression against my people. I came here for
this reason. I was needed by the people of Pakistan, and when I was
leaving Pakistan I. was in two minds whether: to go to the Security
Council to represent the cause of my country, to represent the cause of a
people that had been subjected to aggression, or to remain with my
people, by their side, while they were being subjected to attack and
violence. However, I felt that it was imperative for me to come here and
seek justice from the Security Council. But I must say, whether the
members like it or not, that the Security Council has denied my country
that justice. From the moment I arrived we have been subjected to
dilatory tactics.
It
will be recalled that when the Indian Foreign Minister spoke and I
spoke after him, I said that filibustering was taking place. That was my
immediate observation. The Security Council, I am afraid, has excelled;
in the art of filibustering, not only on substance but also on
procedural matters. With some cynicism, I watched yesterday a full hour
of the Security Council's time wasted on whether the members of the
Council would be ready to meet at 9.30 a.m. or that bed and breakfast
required that they should meet at 11 a.m.
The
representative of Somalia referred to the population of East Pakistan
as 56 million, but later on he corrected himself to say that the
population of Bengal—of Muslim Bengal—was 76 million. If he had waited
for a few more days he need not have corrected himself because millions
are dying, and it would have come to 56 million if the Council had kept
on filibust ering and discussing whether it should meet today or
tomorrow or the day after tomorrow—whether the lines of communication
between New York and Moscow and Peking and other capitals would permit
the members to obtain new instructions. Thus, we could have gone on and
on. That is why I requested you, Mr. President, to convene a meeting of
the Security Council immediately and I am thankful to you for having
convened this meeting, because precious time is being lost. My
countrymen, my people, are dying. So I think I can facilitate your
efforts if I speak now. Perhaps this will be my last speech in the
Security Council. So please bear with me because -I have some home
truths to tell the Security Council. The world must know. My people must
know. I have not come here to accept abject surrender. If the Security
Council wants me to be a party to the legalisation of abject surrender,
then I say that under no circumstances shall it be so. Yesterday my
eleven year old son telephoned me from Karachi and said "Do not come
back with a document of surrender. We do not want to see you back in
Pakistan if you do that." I will not take back a document of surrender
from the Security Council. I will not be a party to the legalisation of
aggression.
The
Security Council has failed miserably, shamefully. "The Charter of the
United Nations," "the San Francisco Conference," "international peace
and justice"—these are the words we heard in our youth, and we were
inspired by the concept of the United Nations maintaining international
peace and justice and security. President Woodrow Wilson said that he
fought the First World War to end wars for all time. The League of
Nations came into being, and then the United Nations after it. What has
the United Nations done? I know of the farce and the fraud of the United
Nations. They come here and say, "Excellence, Excellence, comment
allez-vous?" and all that. "A very good speech—you have spoken very
well, tres bien." We have heard all these things. The United Nations
resembles those fashion houses which hide ugly realities by draping
ungainly figures in alluring apparel. The concealment of realities is
common to both but the ugly realities cannot remain hidden. You do not
need a Secretary-General. You need a chief executioner.
Let
us face the stark truth. I have got no stakes left for the moment. That
is why I am speaking the truth from my heart. For four days we have
been deliberating here. For four days the Security Council has
procrastinated. Why? Because the object was for Dacca to fall. That was
the object. It was quite clear to me from the beginning. All right, so
what if Dacca falls? Cities and countries have fallen before. They have
come under foreign occupation. China was under foreign occupation for
years. Other countries have been under foreign occupation. France was
under foreign occupation. Western Europe was under foreign occupation.
So what if Dacca falls? So what if the whole of East Pakistan falls? So
what if the whole of West Pakistan falls? So what if our state is
obliterated? We will build a new Pakistan. We will build a better
Pakistan. We will build a greater Pakistan.
The
Security Council has acted short-sightedly by acquiescing in these
dilatory tactics. You have reached a point when we shall say, "Do what
you like." If this point had not been reached we could have made a
commit ment. We could have said, "All right, we are prepared to do some
things." Now why should we? You want us to be silenced by guns. Why
should we say that we shall agree to anything? Now you decide what you
like. Your decision will not be binding on us. You can decide what you
like. If you had left us a margin of hope, we might have been a party to
some settlement.
But
the Indians are so short-sighted. Mr. President, you referred to the
"distinguished" Foreign Minister of India. What may I ask is so "distin
guished" about a policy of aggression he is trying to justify. How is he
distinguished when his hands are full of blood, when his heart is full
of venom? But you know they do not have vision.
The
partition of India in 1947 took place because they did. not have
vision. Now also they are lacking in vision. They talk about their
ancient civilisation and the mystique of India and all that. But they do
not have vision at all. If I had been in his place, I would have acted
differently. I extended a hand of friendship to him the other day. He
should have seen what I meant. I am not talking as a puppet. I am
talking as the authentic leader of the people of West Pakistan who
elected me at the polls in a more impressive victory than the victory
that Mujibur Rahman received in East Pakistan, and he should have taken
cognizance of that. But he did not take cognizance of it. We could have
opened a new page, a new chapter in our relations.
As
I said, if the French and the Germans can come to terms, why cannot
India and Pakistan come to terms? If the Turks and the Greeks can still
talk sensibly as civilised people over Cyprus, why cannot India and
Pakistan do likewise? If the Soviet Union and the United States can open
a new page in their history, if China and the United States can open a
new page in their history, why can we not usher a new era in. our
relations? We could have done so. But as it was said about the 1967
Arab-Israel war, the military victory of Israel made it more difficult
for Israel and the Arabs to reach a settlement. If you want to subjugate
Pakistan militarily, you will find it more difficult to bring peace. I
say that the choice for us is either to accept living in the-same
subcontinent and co-operating for peace and progress, or to be
implacable enemies of each other forever.
The
Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union does not like my reference
to the Roman Empire. I do not know what objection he has to it, unless
he sees some similarity between his empire and the Roman Empire. I do
not really see why he had any objection to that. But I shall again refer
to the Roman Empire, and I hope that the Permanent Representative of
the Soviet Union will have no objection to it because we want to have
good relations with the Soviet Union and we want to open a new chapter
with the Soviet Union because we are neighbours. I go back to the Roman
Empire and I say what Cato said to the Romans, "Carthage must be
destroyed." If India thinks that it is going to subjugate Pakistan,
Eastern Pakistan as well as Western Pakistan—because we are one people,
we are one state— then we shall say, "Carthage must be destroyed." We
shall tell our children and they will tell their children that Carthage
must be destroyed.
So
please, Mr. President and members of the Security Council, realise the
implications. The Pakistani nation is a brave nation. One of the
greatest British generals said that the best infantry fighters in the
world are the Pakistanis. We will fight. We will fight for a thousand
years, if it comes to that. So do not go by momentary military
victories. Stalingrad was over whelmed. Leningrad was besieged for a
thousand days. People who want to be free and who want to maintain their
personality will fight and will continue to fight for principles.
We
were told about the realities; to accept the realities. What are the
realities? Realities keep changing, the Permanent Representative of the
Soviet Union knows that once the reality was that the Nazis were out
side the gates of Moscow, but you fought valiantly, bravely, and the
world saluted the Soviet Union for having resisted the realities that
were sought to be imposed on it. The reality was that China was under
the occupation of Japan, that Manchuria was taken—half of China. That
was the reality. Since the Opium War, China has seen reality. The
reality for France was that it was under occupation. But there were
great men like President de Gaulle who left France and fought from
across the seas. Ethiopia was under Fascist domination. But the
Ethiopians fought. The Emperor of Ethiopia left his country and sought
asylum in Britain. Ethiopia is free today. The realities that matter are
those which are not temporary phenomena which are rooted in historic
principles. The principle is that Pakistan is an indepen dent, sovereign
state which came into being because of the volition of its people. That
is the basic reality which has existed for 24 years. Pakistan would not
have faced dismemberment like this if it had not been attacked by
another country. This is not an internal movement. We have been
subjected to attack by a militarily powerful neighbour. Who says that
the new reality arose out of free will? Had there been the exercise of
free will, India would not have attacked Pakistan. If India talks about
the will of the people of East Pakistan and claims that it had to attack
Pakistan in order to impose the will of the people of East Pakistan,
then what has it done about Kashmir? East Pakistan is an integral part
of Pakistan. Kashmir is a disputed territory. Why does India then not
permit it to exercise its will?
But
yesterday I saw how the Security Council was pandering to India. Even
the great powers are pandering to India, saying to us, "Do not
misunderstand," "Would you please let us know" and "Would you please
answer the following questions; I am not insisting on those questions,
but if you do not mind." India is intoxicated today with its military
successes.
I
told the Indian Permanent Representative in 1967 that we wanted good
relations between the two countries—but based on principles, based on
justice, based on equity, not based on exploitation and domination,
because such relations cannot be lasting. What we want is a lasting, a
permanent solution. I do not say this just today; I said that in 1967 to
their Permanent Representative who was then the High Commissioner of
India to Pakistan. I said that to the Foreign Minister of India when we
were negotiating on Kashmir, "Let us settle this problem on the basis of
equity and justice, so that we can live as good neighbours." And I add
today: we can still live as good neighbours, as friends. Do not wipe out
that possibility by military conquest and military power.
This
has been the worst form of aggression, of naked aggression. Even Poland
was not invaded by Germany in this fashion. Even in that case there
were some pretences, some excuses that were made. Here the excuse was,
"We have refugees, so we must invade another country." We said, "We are
prepared to take those refugees back." If we had said, "We arc not
prepared to take them back," then you could have said, "Well, you will
be sunk." India's population rises by 13 million a year. The number of
refugees was alleged to be 9 million, 10 million. According to our
estimate they were 5 million. But that is not important; figures are not
important. The point is that we were prepared to take them back. If
India's population can grow by 13 million a year, then with all the aid
and assistance that India was getting for the refugees, it could have
held on for a short period till Pakistan had a civilian government to
negotiate the return of the refugees. I told the United States
Ambassador in Pakistan that once a civilian govern ment came into power
in Pakistan, was prepared to go to the refugee camps myself to talk to
them. But India pre-empted it all because the refugee problem was used
as a pretext to dismember my country. The regfuee problem was used as a
pretext, an ugly, crude pretext, a shameful pretext to invade my
country, to invade East Pakistan.
The
great powers will forgive me. I have addressed them in this moment of
anguish, and they should understand. The great powers or the super
powers—the super-duper-powers, the razzling-dazzling powers—the super
powers have imposed their super will for the moment. But I am thankful
to the people and the Government of the United States among the super
powers, for the position it has taken. The people of the United States,
to some extent have been misled by massive Indian propaganda. Because we
had no paraphernalia of popular administration and government in
Pakistan, there was a political vacuum. The Indians took advantage of
that political vacuum and they spread out fast to project their point of
view. As a result, American public opinion and public opinion in Great
Britain and France and other countries was influenced. Unfortunately,
nothing was said of the massacres that took place between 1 March and 25
March. No doubt there were mistakes on our side. I said yesterday that
mistakes were made, and the Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union
said that I had admitted mistakes. Well, that is not a sign of
weakness, is it? Do we not all make mistakes? Are India and the Soviet
Union the only two countries that have never made mistakes? I have made
mistakes personally. But mistakes do not mean that my country must be
destroyed, that my country must be dismembered. That is not the
consequence of mistakes of government. Which government does not make
mistakes? But if some government has made a mistake, does it-follow that
the country itself must be dismembered, obliterated? Is that going to
be the conclusion of the Security Council if it legalises Indian
aggression on the soil of Pakistan?
So
you will see now: this is not the end of the road, this is the
beginning of the road; this is not the end of the chapter, a new chapter
has begun a new page has been written in international relations. This
is gunboat diplomacy in its worst form. In a sense, it makes the
Hitlerite aggression pale into insignificance because Hitlerite
aggression was not accepted by the world. If the world is going to
endorse this aggression, it will mean a new and most unfortunate chapter
in international relations. A new chapter may have begun in India and
Pakistan, but please do not start a new dreadful chapter in
international relations. For us, it is a hand-to-hand, day-to-day,
minute-to-minute fight. But do not do that to the rest of the world.
Please do not permit this kind of naked, shameful barbaric aggression to
hold sway. In the old days great warriors swept over the world—Changiz
Khan, Subutai Khan, Alexander, Caesar, coming down to the great
Napoleon. But this is worse, this is much worse than all that was done
by the great conquerors of the world in the past. If the United Nations
becomes a party to this kind of conquest, it will be much worse than all
that has been done in the past. You will be turning the medium-sized
and the small countries into the harlots of the world. You cannot do
that. It is against civilised concepts: it is against all the rules of
civilisation and of international morality and justice.
The
United States Government was criticised for supporting the position of
Pakistan. What crime has the United States Government committed? It has
taken a position identical to that of the whole world on the
India-Pakistan conflict. That position was supported by 105 countries—it
was 104 officially, but it was really 105 because one representative
did not press the right button. That was the voice of the world. It was
an international referendum. You talk about the election of 1970. Well, I
am proud of the election of 1970 because my party emerged as the
strongest party in West Pakistan. But here was an international poll and
India flouted it. With such an attitude towards international opinion,
how can India pretend to be sensitive to a national election in another
country? The same India that refuses to hold a referendum in Kashmir?
The
Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union talked about realities.
Mr. Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union look at this reality. I
know that you are the representative of a great country. You behave
like one. The way you throw out your chest, the way you thump the table.
you do not talk like Comrade Malik; you talk like Czar Malik. I see you
are smiling. Well, I am not because my heart is bleeding. We want to be
friends, but this is not the way to be friends when my country is
decimated, sought to be destroyed, wiped out.
Why
should China and the United States be criticised when the whole world
is for Pakistan? You know that we have won a great political victory. We
might have suffered a military defeat, but a political victory is more
important than a military defeat because political victory is permanent
while military defeat is temporary. The United States Government has
acted according to its great traditions by supporting Pakistan, and I.
will go to the people of the United States before I return home and tell
them the truth. The United States has stood by the traditions of
Jefferson, Madison. Hamilton, right down to Roosevelt and Wilson by
supporting Pakistan as an independent state, its national integrity and
its national unity. What wrong and crime has the United States
committed? Why is the Indian delegation so annoyed with the United
States? The Indian delegation is annoyed with U.S.—can you imagine that?
If it had not been for the massive food assistance that the United
States gave to India, India would have had starvation; its millions
would have died. What hope will India give to the people of East
Pakistan? What picture of hope is it going to give when its own people
in Western Bengal sleep in the streets, where there is terrible poverty,
where there is terrible injustice and exploitation, when the parlia
mentary rule in West Bengal has been superseded by presidential rule? Is
India going to do better for East Pakistan, for Muslim Bengal, than it
has done for West Bengal? Thousands of West Bengali people sleep in the
streets of Calcutta. The people of West Bengal are the poorest. India
goes hat in hand to the United States for six million tons of food. If
they are going to impose presidential-rule in West Bengal, in their
Bengal, how can they do any better in our Bengal? They will not. And
time will show that they will not.
So
the United States has taken a correct and moral position. Thomas
Jefferson once said, "I have sworn eternal hostility against any form of
tyranny practised over the mind of man". This is a vast form of tyranny
practised over the mind of man and over the body of man. So the United
States has adhered to its tradition. And if some misguided Senators were
here, some young, misguided Senators who have been overtaken by Indian
propaganda—and if the Permanent Representative of the United States were
not from Texas—I would have told those young Senators that I was
setting up the headquarters for a republic of Texas and making the
former President-of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, the chief of that
republic, in order to spread the cult of Bangladesh everywhere. Why can
Texas not be free? Let there be a republic of Texas. We did not buy
Bengal as Alaska was bought by the United States. We did not pay money
to get our territory. We did not pay dollars to acquire territory. The
people of the United States should appreciate the position taken by
their Government.
Muslim
Bengal was a part of Pakistan of its free will, not through money. We
did not buy it as Alaska was purchased. Why do the people of the United
States not see that? And we are beholden and thankful to the great
People's Republic of China. We shall always remain thankful for the
position it has taken. It has taken a position based on principles of
justice. And I thank the Third World for having supported a just cause, a
right cause.
And
now in the Security Council we have been frustrated by a veto. Let us
build a monument to the veto, a big monument to the veto. Let us build a
monument to the impotence and incapacity of the Security Council and
the General Assembly. As you sow, so shall you reap. Remember that
Biblical saying. Today, it is Pakistan. We are your guinea pigs today.
But there will be other guinea pigs and you will see what happens. You
will see how the chain of events unfolds itself. You want us to lick the
dust. We are not going to lick the dust.
Britain
and France have abstained from voting in order to play a role. I said
the other day, with all due respect to those two great powers, that they
have really exhausted their position in trying to play a role because
now the only role they can play is to accept a shameless fait accompli.
Britain and France abstained, and that abstention has cost us dearly.
Gallic logic and Anglo-Saxon experience, whatever it is, have cost us
dearly. If Britain and France had put their powerful weight behind the
international community rather than sitting on the fence, the issue
might have been different. There is no such animal as a neutral animal.
You take positions. In that respect we admire the Soviet Union; it took a
position, a wrong position, but it took a position. You have to take a
position on these matters. You have to be either on the side of justice
or on the side of injustice; you are either on the side of justice or on
the side of injustice; you have to be either on the side of the
aggressor or of the victim. There is no third road. It is a black and
white situation in these matters; there is no grey involved. You are
either for right or you are for wrong; you are either for justice or for
injustice; you are either for aggression or for the victim. If the
United Kingdom and France had earlier put their full weight behind the
verdict of the inter national community, I think that we would not have
reached this position. But Great Britain and France want to come back
into the subcontinent as Clive and Dupleix, in a different role, the
role of peacemakers. They want a foot here and they want a foot there. I
know that British interests in East Pakistan required this kind of
opportunistic role because in East Pakistan they have their tea estates.
They want the jute of East Pakistan. So that is why they sat on the
fence. And I am sorry at France's position because with France we had
developed very good relations, extremely good relations. But they took
this position. And now, today, neither Britain nor France can play a
role because their resolution has been overtaken by events. There is a
lot of goodwill for France in Pakistan, and they will not get the same
goodwill in East Pakistan because in East Pakistan already the clock is
now moving in another direction. Everyday that the Indian Army of
occupation stays there, it will be a grim reminder for Muslim Bengal
that they are under Hindu occupation, and you will see the result of it.
You will see how it will turn out. Let them stay—why not? Let them
stay. Let them swagger around. If they want to take East Pakistan, let
them stay as an army of occupation. They are an army of occupation; how
can they be called liberators? They will stay, and they will see how the
clock is going to move in a different direction.
Finally,
I am not a rat. I have never ratted in my life. I have faced
assassination attempts, I have faced imprisonments. I have always
confront ed crises. Today I am not ratting, but I am leaving your
Security Council. I find it disgraceful to my person and to my country
to remain here a moment longer than is necessary. I am not boycotting.
Impose any decision, have a treaty worse than the Treaty of Versailles,
legalise aggression, legalise occupation, legalise everything that has
been illegal upto 15 December 1971. I will not be a party to it. We will
fight; we will go back and fight. My country beckons me. Why should I
waste my time here in the Security Council? I will not be a party to the
ignominious surrender of a part of my country. You can take your
Security Council. Here you are. (Ripping papers) I am going.