বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (দ্বাদশ খণ্ড)/৪৩
| শিরোনাম | সূত্র | তারিখ |
|---|---|---|
| সিমলায় অনুষ্ঠিত সর্বভারত কংগ্রেস কমিটির অধিবেশনে পররাষ্ট্রমন্ত্রীর ভাষণ | ভারত সরকারের পররাষ্ট্র মন্ত্রণালয় | ৮ অক্টোবর, ১৯৭১ |
Foreign Minister Sardar Swaran Singh’s speech at the All India Congress
Committee Session at Simla October 8, 1971
I am extremely grateful to the members of the, A.I.C.C. who have unanimously and whole-heartedly endorsed the Indo-U.S.S.R Treaty. As ours a political body, therefore, apart from the general approval and full endorsement, it is necessary for us on an occasion like this to understand clearly the contents of such a far-reaching document and also the various important ideas which have been concretized in this Treaty. I would like to consider this Treaty as comprising four important aspects and elements. First and foremost, it is agreed by the two countries that they will constantly, assiduously and energetically work for elimination of remnants of colonialism and for ending the racist regimes wherever they are. This is a very important joint declaration which is contained in the Treaty. The House is, no doubt, aware that still large portions of the world are under colonial domination and racist regimes. The Portuguese colonial rule still pervades under colonial domination and racist regimes. The Portuguese Guinea. Racist regimes are still flourishing notwithstanding the unanimous resolution adopted by the United Nations in its various organs-in South Africa, in Namibia and also in Rhodesia. It has always been the ideal of our great Organization-the Congress-to work for elimination of colonialism and for ending racist regimes. This posture of ours was however not adopted after Independence, but this has been our objective even before Independence, and the Congress organization always raised their voice in a very effective manner against colonialism and, in fact, the Father of the nation Mahatma Ji, started his early political activity in South Africa itself. It is a matter of regret and a matter of misfortune that South Africa still continues to practice apartheid under a racist regime. Determination of two countries like Soviet Union and India to end the remnants of colonialism and racism is an important article which is contained in the Treaty.
Another important concept in the Treaty is the Soviet Union’s acceptance of the policy of non-alignment which is being pursued by India. It is surprising that some people, at any rate in the initial stages, did raise a voice of criticism saying that this Treaty compromises India’s policy of non-alignment. If a careful scrutiny of this criticism is made, both from inside the country or from certain quarters abroad, it will be clear that generally this criticism has come not from any non-aligned country, but from countries which themselves are aligned and are members of military pacts. It is interesting that on India’s signing this Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Co-operation with Soviet Union the love for non-alignment should suddenly spring in the hearts of those people who themselves and their countries are members of military pacts and defense pacts. This Treaty in actual terms specifically says that the Soviet Union respects India’s policy of non-alignment. Not only that, I think, it was for the first time that in a formal document the Soviet Union accepted the validity of the policy of nonalignment as a major factor for peace and for reducing tensions throughout the world. So, not only has India’s policy of non-alignment been fully safeguarded but the validity of the concept of non-alignment in the context of international affairs is incorporated in Article IV of the Treaty.
I would also like to draw the attention of the House and the country to the relevant clause in the latest communiqué that was issued at the end of our Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow. This concept of non-alignment and India’s policy of nonalignment have again been specifically mentioned in the joint communiqué that was issued at the end of our Prime Minister’s visit.
The third important provision of the Treaty relates to the acceptance by the two countries of the desirability of co-operation between the two countries in the scientific field, in the technological field and in various fields for the mutual benefit of two countries. It will be an important provision according to which the advance in science and technology, the advance in latest sophisticated fields of technology, advances in the field of electronics, of other sophisticated fields in which Soviet Union undoubtedly has made tremendous progress, India on the basis of this agreement can fully get the maximum benefit by mutual co-operation which no longer depends upon the exigencies of any particular situation, but is solemnly agreed in the form of Treaty between the two countries, and under these provisions it will be of mutual benefit and, I feel, very much to India’s advantage that we can take full and complete advantage for advancing our economy, for advancing our industry, for advancing our scientific know-how and knowledge by drawing freely upon the U.S.S.R resources which are available to us in this Treaty as a result of the clauses in the Treaty.
The fourth important provision about which quite naturally a great deal of popular upsurge has been expressed in the country, is that which could broadly be described as touching upon the security aspect. This provision is contained in three clauses in the Treaty and it is important for us to understand the implications of the security aspect of this Treaty neither of the two countries will get automatically involved if the other party is involved in a military conflict. This is the real difference between this Treaty and the conventional military pact or mutual defense pact. Under those pacts, there is automatic involvement of the other country if one of the countries might be involved in an armed conflict. There is no such provision in this Treaty. There is, however, clear provision about what could be described as non-aggression, that is neither of the two countries will take any of the two countries is engaged in any armed conflict then the other country will not give any help of any type to the country that might be engaged in such a conflict with either of the contracting parties, that is. India and Soviet Union. Now, this is an important provision because in our country from time to time, and quite rightly for reasons of security, doubts were always expressed that if we are engaged in an armed conflict with any other country where is the guarantee that such other county will not continue to get aid notwithstanding the past declarations to the contrary that might have been made by ourselves. Again there has to be an assurance about our getting in a continuous manner whatever supplies we may require for strengthening our defence potential. I would say that both these negative and positive aspects are fully safeguarded in this Treaty. To put it in unambiguous terms; after conclusion of this Treaty, Soviet Union is not now entitled to make any military supplies of any type of Pakistan nor give any help to Pakistan which might strengthen the military potential of Pakistan. Again, as Chavan Jivery lucidly explained, there are very important provisions in this Treaty which are vital for our security. But the central key-note in the Treaty is not war and conflict, but to avoid war and to strengthen the forces of peace. In a nutshell, the essence of these security provisions is that when either of these to countries is either attacked or is faced with the threat of an attack, then the two countries will start negotiation with the object of avoiding that threat or to doing away with that aggression, and steps will be taken-“effective steps” are the words used in the treaty-to ensure that the threat of attack is avoided and attack if any, is prevented or is vacated or done away with. Therefore, these are very important security provisions, in the Treat, and if I may say the Treaty was concluded at a time when feeling in the country was fully receptive to a concrete step of this type, as it was often said that in moments of test, in moments of trial, who are our friends? It is very interesting that those voices which used to remind us: “where and who are your friends;” they themselves has started, picking holes in the Treaty. I would like the country and this great organisation to be reminded of the immediate reaction even from the leaders of parties who are traditionally opposed to the Congress. Even they, as the first reaction to the conclusion of this Treaty, did not have the courage to oppose this Treaty and their spokesmen on the floor of the House did support the Treaty and did not raise any voice of dissent. They did, however, try to raise doubts. but they knew that the feeling in the country in favor of the Treaty is so strong that they would be completely isolated if they attacked the Treaty and therefore they did not have the courage even though they may have different political motivations to oppose the Treaty. Later on, however. I do not know what may be the considerations, uncharitable interpretations can perhaps point out to some wire-pulling, but they did try later on to alter their original stand of support to the Treaty and started in some form or other to offer some voice of criticism. But the more we consider the terms of the Treaty the impact produced in the country and the effect produced in the international community, there is no doubt, and there should be no doubt in the mind of anyone, that the Treaty is sound in content, is practical, safeguards our independence and non-alignment, and at the same time it binds us to constructive course of mutual co-operation, safeguarding the sovereignty and independence of the contracting parties and at the same time providing enough of safeguards from the security angle, to preserve the sovereignty and security of the two countries, without the automatic involvement of either of the two countries.
Voices-latest about Bangla Desh?
As a matter of fact, I am coming to that. To be able to speak about this important matter, was the main object of my speaking after the resolution on Treaty was adopted. Having said this much about the Treaty. I would now with the President’s kind permission, like to say something about my recent visit to several capitals and the United Nation. I will give my assessment of the general feeling amongst the international community about one of the most important issues that confront us, namely the developments in Bangladesh. As you are no doubt aware, in the initi8al stages there was a tendency to find an easy escape in the various Chanceries and an attitude was generally taken that the question of Bangla Desh is essentially an internal question and an internal matter for Pakistan. But as the genocidal activities of the military authorities gathered in momentum, the forces of oppression were let loose and unleashed against the unarmed civilians and the democrative forces of Bangladesh, this resulted in suppression of human rights and fundamental freedoms and caused such conditions of insecurity that a large volume of forced exodus took place. The situation which initially was sought to be brushed aside as an internal development presented a facet which made it obviously a matter of international concern. Slowly but surely, the international community wakeup to the fundamental and basic issues involved and there was a great measure of response to the reality of the situation and a growing awareness of the risks involved. In various capitals as a result of visits of my colleagues and myself, when the situation was explained, the statements-some joint statements, sometimes official statements-from a large number of those capitals were issued which pin-pointed the essentials of a situation, namely, the humanitarian aspect of the problem and also the necessity, an inescapable necessity of working out a solution which creates conditions for the return of these refugees to their homes and hearths in conditions of safety and in conditions of honor.
Now, if we carefully examine even the trend of the debate in the United Nations General Assembly, it is noteworthy that the Four Big Powers who are permanent members of the Security Council with the right of veto, their spokesmen, their Foreign Minister, with varying degrees of phraseology, which is not uncommon experience when the same concept is presented, have broadly accepted the essentials of the situation. And the essentials are a continuing forced exodus of helpless people and their being pushed on to the Indian territory, the resultant burden, not only economic but social and political tensions resulting from the presented of these large number of refugees in an arca which has always been both economically and politically a sensitive area; and as a necessary corollary to these two, solution can only be found by creation of conditions, in Bangladesh which might facilitate the return of these refugees. We have made it abundantly clear, and I have a feeling that this is now growingly understood and appreciated and in certain cases endorsed by the other countries that the political solution is the solution which will be acceptable to the elected, representatives of the people; a solution to be acceptable has to be acceptable to the people of Bangladesh and that people of Bangla Desh have in unmistakable terms expressed their confidence and expressed their reliance upon Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the Awami League whom they returned with unprecedented electoral victory giving as many as 167 out of 169 seats in the National Assembly. These are the essentials of the situation and amongst the four permanent members of the Security Council-the Soviet Union, United States of America, France as well as Britain-these essentials are broadly accepted and statements to that effect have been made by their representatives in the Security Council. Foreign Ministers of several other countries, particularly those where democratic institutions are functioning, and also the socialist countries representatives, have also openly made statements endorsing the Indian appreciation of the essentials of the situation.
In the entire world, we should also, while noting these positive factors, be careful about what could broadly be described as negative factors. Let us not forget that a fairly large number of sovereign countries, who are members of the United Nations, have in their countries regimes which are in their content and in their operation not very much different from dictatorial regime of the type that now controls the destiny of Pakistan. This has been an unfortunate experience of the postcolonial era. A large number of countries became independent and the colonial forces were on the run. As a result of this, a large number of countries became independent and free. With varying degrees, they started with democratic establishments. democratic set-ups, democratic ideologies, democratic constitutions. But is a cruel reality that democracy was unable to take root, whether democracy be of the Presidential type or the Parliamentary type, except in a comparatively smaller number of these countries and, therefore, there are whispers to this effect, that perhaps Yahya Khan committed a mistake in ordering elections. But even they are obliged to admit that having initiated the process of holding the election, he is now trying to run away from it, and this is a situation is a situation in which he cannot run away and the events are bound to overtake him. So, whereas these democratic ideals and our adherence to these, our love for these, and our natural abhorrence when they are violated, appear to be a very normal reaction to us, because we in our country have been fortunate in establishing the roots of democracy in a very solemn and in a very purposeful manner, there are other countries whose experience has not been of the same type as ours and this explains the reticence and reluctance of several other countries who should normally be on our side of the fence when a situation of this type arises.
About the general trend of discussions in the United Nations, I would like to take a positive view and also a negative view. Positive view in this respect is that those countries whose representatives have in their statements supported broadly our assessment of the situation are now hereafter likely to use their influence in a more purposeful manner in bringing about a change in the attitude of the military rulers of the Pakistan, and also I would like to say that it is also understood even amongst some of the closest friends of Pakistan who would like to be the helpers of Pakistan that the manner in which President Yahya Khan and his military Generals have tried to tackle the situation, the military method has failed and, therefore, the military method has to be abandoned and political approach has to be brought about in the interest of the Pakistan regime itself. We have some reliable information to this effect that countries that are traditionally close to Pakistan also have started counseling them that they should abandon, and that the military Generals should abandon their military ways and should try to find a political solution of this problem.
There are other critics here in our own country who have tried to pick holes in our policy. When we say that there should be a political settlement, they say in this respect have we in anyway compromised our stand in relation to Bangladesh? I would like to clarify this aspect because there is some uninformed criticism on that score. Our position is clear. We say that we will accept whatever is acceptable to those who have already been elected by the people of Bangla Desh and it is for those already elected representatives to arrive at any settlement with Pakistan Military bodies. It can be a settlement on the basis of independence or of greater autonomy-whatever is acceptable to the elected representatives, the already elected representatives of Bangladesh, is the only way by which the present deteriorating trend can be reversed and conditions can be created in Bangladesh which might facilitate the return of refugees.
I would at this stage also like to say that this is universally accepted and it is also realised-that India is determined to ensure that the refugees will return to Bangladesh and that India will not keep them. In the initial stages, some parallels were drawn to carlier occasions when soon after independence we were faced with the problem of refugees and for a variety of reasons-historical and humane-we did take an attitude based on human considerations and considerations of compassion. For historical reasons, we were prepared to subject ourselves to the strain of looking after millions and millions of refugees. Whatever may have been the earlier history, now after 20 years of independence, any person who is in Pakistan is a Pakistani citizen, is a Bangladesh citizen; or a West Pakistan citizen and that foreign national when he comes to India, if we look after him, it is on human considerations because geography has placed us in a position where we are the first recipient of this task. But we treat them as first and foremost the responsibility of the international community and if we do anything, it is in discharge of our being responsible members of the international community. We discharge this trust on behalf of the international community and the international community has to reimburse us for all the troubles and with all the expenses and with all the strains that we are bearing. It is also of importance for us to remember that any country who might give us aid for looking after these refugees is to a very small percentage trying to discharge that obligation which is squarely that of the international community or may be that this is a help to Pakistan because these are Pakistan and Bangladesh citizens whom we are feeding and any help that is given to look after these refugees should be help either to Pakistan, to Bangladesh or to international community. Whereas we in India appreciate this help as at any rate the immediate clear burden on us is reduced, we have made it absolutely clear that this is a situation which cannot be brought out. Who can judge in terms of money the immense socio-political tension that is generated by the presence of 9 million people in an area of our country which is already over-populated? Can anybody in terms of dollars or pounds or deutschmarks or yen determine the amount of economic, social and political tensions to which our entire country is subjected?
I will be quite frank in saying that after this sad development, the entire administration in whatever sphere it may be-whether it is the Central Government or the State Government-our primary and principal preoccupation has been to take steps to meet the situation, to look alter the refugees and also to look after our affairs so that we could continue with development and progress of our country. Is it possible by any calculation, by any statistics, to determine in terms of money, to determine in terms of pounds and dollars, the strain to which 55 crores of India people are being subjected? The number of school that we have closed to house these refugees, the number of hospitals where doctors are doing nothing else except to look after the refuges, the medical students who have disrupted their education to look after these refugees, those educationists and the volunteers who have abandoned their work and are looking after the refugees? Now these are the problems which we have to highlight because there may be a tendency that this is a situation where if all the money is found, perhaps India can get reconciled. This is a very dangerous aspect and generally if you talk to the representatives of other countries, they can be very sympathetic to you saying it is quite a big burden, we realize it; we have, shared it, we will share it. But that is not the correct approach. We might appreciate this sharing of burden but our principal objective has to be to create political conditions in Bangladesh which reverses the present trend, which in the first instance stops the forced exodus of people from Bangladesh into India territory, and secondly that this flow turns backward and these people go back and we are convinced that this can happen only if there is a solution which is accepted by those who have already been elected by the people. This in essence is the entire situation in Bangladesh. I think, the essentials of the situation are dawning upon the people and Governments of other countries. We have also made it clear that there is a limit to our5 patience and our perseverance there is a limit to our restraint and it will be a very dangerous development if the time were permitted to run out. It is, we are afraid, already running out rather fat and the limits are being reached. These are the realities of the situation, and we have. I think, to a large measure succeeded in projecting this to the world. The unity, the basic unity demonstrated by our peoples and the determination of our people to meet the challenge, are sources of our real strength.
About People’s Republic of China, you must have noticed that after the second visit of Dr. Kissinger to Peking the United States of America altered their policy which have been pursuing for all these years to keep the People’s Republic of China out of the United Nations, to deny to the Government of the people’s Republic of China their rightful place in the United Nations. When they suddenly reversed their policy, then a large number of countrics, who, mainly under United States’ inspiration and persuasion, had pursued a policy of endorsing the American line, suddenly found that their original postulates and their original postures had become out-of-date and they started revising their briefs. It is not easy to revise briefs quickly, and even the latest effort that is being made is again a very interesting approach. On the one hand, the United States effort is to ensure that the rightful place to the People’s Republic of China is resorted to them not only in the General Assembly but also in the Security Council, with a permanent seat and with the right of veto. Whereas they are in support of this, at the same time, they do want to retain Taiwan as representative of Taiwan. Historically, it is not an easy exercise because all these years the supporters of the United States and the United State were saying that Taiwan Government is the government not only of Formosa and Taiwan but also of the whole of China. And now suddenly to take another line again has caused a certain measure of confusion. So far as India is concerned, notwithstanding our bilateral difficulties in relation to the People’s Republic of China, our brief has been straight, and this changing situation has not necessitated the alteration of even a single comma in our attitude in this respect. We have all along been strongly of the view that there is only one China, there is only one Chinese Government, and that is the People’s Republic of China and its rightful place in the United Nations should be restored to it. That has been our consistent line. I am not sure whether during this session the efforts to retain Formosa will succeed, but I have no doubt that the restoration of its rightful place to People's Republic of China will receive overwhelming support. We have always been of the view that in the interest of universality and also in the interest of exposing China to international pressures, the Government of People’s Republic of China should take their responsibilities and should play their part in the U.N., and that this is in the long range interests of the international community; we steadfastly adhere to this view.
It has been our view that keeping out China for too long has created several complexities and tensions in the world and it will take quite some time before the world settles down to a Norman course even after the People’s republic of China is admitted into the United Nations. These are some of the important matters facing the international community.
To give a little more complete picture, I will take a few minutes to give you the latest developments in Europe. As you are, no doubt, aware, the situation in Europe is definitely taking a turn towards lessening of tensions. This is due primarily to the great courage shown by Mr. Willy Brandt, the Chancellor of Federal Republic of Germany, in reversing a policy which had been pursued by the Federal Republic of Germany ever since the second World War, and his deliberate policy to alter that course received a very good response from the Soviet Union, and the conclusion of the Moscow Treaty between Federal Republic of Germany and the U.S.S.R. has opened a new are of relaxation of tensions in the European context. This also to a certain extent un-nerved the traditionalists on both sides, and they feel a new situation is developing and they are trying to adjust their minds. The latest four power agreement about such a difficult and complex question as that of Berlin, has generated a hope that Europe is definitely moving towards an era of freedom from tensions and relaxation of these tensions. These are good developments and this might guarantee and strengthen the forces of peace. We ourselves are happy that these developments have taken place and a process of détente and of relaxation of tensions has been generated and, I have no doubt, that pursued with patience and imagination, this will usher in an era where Europe, free from the scourges of armed conflicts, might open up some hope for the developing countries to develop their economy with aid from these highly developed countries.
These are some of the aspects of the international situation. I have nothing more by way of new information to give about the situation in the Middle East or the situation in Viet Nam. These unfortunate areas in Asia-one in the West of Asia and the other in East of Asia-still continue to be gripped by war and the process of having a durable peace in these areas do not appear to be very much in sight although we have constantly been working for establishing stable peace in these areas.