পাতা:বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (পঞ্চম খণ্ড).pdf/৫০৯

485 বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্রঃ পঞ্চম খন্ড "Taking note of the developments in East Bengal since March 25, 1971 both sides consider that the interest of the preservation of peace demands that urgent measures should be taken to reach a political solution of the problems which have arisen there, paying regard to the wishes, the inalienable rights and lawful interests of the people of East Bengal as well as the speediest and safe return of the refugees to their homeland in conditions safeguarding their honor and dignity." In other words, the guideline for any political solution of the problem has been made clear in these lines. The wishes and lawful rights of the people' mean nothing else but upholding of the results of the December 70 elections. In other words, the two countries demand a political solution acceptable to the elected representatives of the people of Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Government, through a statement, has made it clear that nothing short of independence should be acceptable. Another most significant aspect of the statement is the unique fact that the statement was signed, on behalf of the Soviet Union, by the Chairman, the Prime Minister and the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. In my opinion, the most significant remark of the Soviet Premier concerns that internal matter "phrase". This, if taken singularly, could give rise to misapprehensions. But as the statement should be taken in its totality one must note that the Soviet Union also considers the problem thus created-an international matter. Against such a background, what does the Soviet leader mean by "internal matter"? We must not forget that the only way to disrupt our liberation struggle would be by internationalizing it in a wrong sense. In the sense of, say, Vietnam. This is, considered an internal matter so far as the war between Bangladesh freedom fighters and Islamabad generals is concerned. This is our fight. It is the Bengalee nation aloneand no other nation-that must be involved in the war that is now raging. We would rely upon such friendly countries as India and the Soviet Union to guarantee us that-to guarantee us international non-interference. Let me remind other friends and wellwishers that this "non-interference line" is precisely the stand of the Vietnamese people and, of course, that of Soviet Union vis-a-vis Vietnam. In fact, the failure of the world community to restrain foreign forces from getting involved in Vietnam has been directly responsible for the prolongation of the conflict. In this context, we must also note a few significant omission. Particularly missing were words of sympathy that both the countries feel for the freedom fighters. Any such mention would have given sufficient grounds to the imperialist backers of the fascist Islamabad regime to get involved directly in Bangladesh. There is no reason why we one should assume that neither Indira nor Kosygin wants to see a victorious liberation army. One must remember here that the Soviet Union supplied billions of dollars worth of arms and ammunition to the Vietnamese while demanding, all along, a peaceful political solution. Nobody is averse to any political solution suggested by the joint statement provided the solution is endorsed by the legally elected representatives of the people of