পাতা:বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (ত্রয়োদশ খণ্ড).pdf/৯২৪

896 ংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্রঃ ত্রয়োদশ খন্ড because there is censorship, in Pakistan. If there were censorship, these critical comments against the Government by the political leaders of Pakistan would not have seen the light of day. The Representative of India was good enough to inform this General Assembly about the relationship between me and the Pakistani Ambassador in Washington, and to quote from what Ambassador Hilaly stated in a television interview as to how the insurgents and the secessionist elements obtained arms. He was speaking of the situation between 1" and 25th March, 1971, when the loyalty of large sections of the East Pakistani police, the paramilitary forces and the East Pakistani regiments were subverted. The loyalties of these elements of our armed forces from East Pakistan were subverted and they were incited to loot the armouries and the shops which sold arms and ammunition. Obviously, being paramilitary forces and members of the regular armed forces of Pakistan and East Pakistan, they were armed with weapons, and when they defected and rose in rebellion against the Government, they used these weapons against the Government's forces. But that is not the end of the story. There has been infiltration of armed Indian elements into East Pakistan over a long period. The fact that arms and ammunition are being collected and sent by India into Pakistan is a fact of public knowledge. No attempt has been made by the Indian officials over the last few months to deny that they are supplying and arming the guerrillas. Only today, we have had a desptach in the New York Times from Sydney Schanberg, who is the New York Times correspondent based in India, about trainload after trainload of arms going to Calcutta for arming these insurgents so that they can step up their raids into East Pakistan. I can quote many correspondents from 25th March onwards, correspondents of world famous newspapers-The Times of London, the Daily Telegraph and others-who have sent despatches to their editors about the extent of the involvements of India in the arming and training and unleashing of these insurgents, with the support and with the assistance of the Indian armed forces. We hear a great deal from Indian Representatives about the need strictly to observe the Principles and purposes of the Charter, the Principles of Strengthening International Security, the Declaration on Principles of Friendly Relations, the Principles on which aggression should be defined, and we know that Indian Representatives have themselves taken an active part in formulating definitions of aggression, not definitions of international conduct, stating that the arming and inciting of guerrillas and sending them across international borders to carry out raids and sabotage are acts of aggression. But this is precisely what they are doing in regard to Pakistan; yet they say that they do not wish to interfere in our internal affairs. It is always most painful to have to enter into any argument as to the awful arithmetic of death or the number of casualties. The Representative of India has persisted in stating that the casualties number "from a quarter of a million to two million", Now, is it responsible to make such a statement-to take the liberty of giving a margin from a quarter of a million to two million, as if they are just figures or just inanimate units, and not living human beings? If we consider the laws of our own countries, every single death is investigated as the highest crime, and a country is most concerned and exercised over