Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s First Public Speech After Cabinet Resignation, 1966

TRANSCRIPT

Spool 6 - transcription

0 to 19 seconds: clapping for Mr. Bhutto

[00:19 - 00:51] Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I am not supposed to be in good health, (clapping 31 secs to 47 secs) but I can assure you, no matter how poor my health, it is sufficient for Indira Gandhi. (laughter/hooting from 50 secs to 1.27)

[01:28 – 3.20] I am very delighted honoured to meet you. I say I am honoured to meet you because I was advised that it would not be a good thing for me to meet and address Pakistanis in England, and I thought about it.  I gave it thought because the advice came from some good friends. And I have not spoken since I have left the Cabinet, I have not spoken in the country for good reasons, and I don't think that I would like to speak here also for good reasons on internal matters. 

I would not like to refer to any question or matter relating to the internal conditions which in legal parlance are called within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, for a number of reasons.  I think you can understand them. One is that, as the President himself has repeatedly said in the recent past, that Pakistan is going through a difficult period, and undoubtedly, if you look at the objective conditions, we are going through a difficult period. But it is a challenge which we have to face and meet, like any other country in Africa and Asia. Some of these factors are inherent in the objective realities which face newly emergent countries in Asia and Africa, some of them are essentially peculiar to Pakistan. So that is one good reason why I would not like to touch upon internal conditions. 

The other good reason is that I would not like to speak on internal matters in a foreign land, and especially in a country which ruled us for 200 years, it would be a derogatory of the sovereignty and independence of Pakistan for me to speak on internal conditions in Great Britain. (clapping from 3.13 till 3.20) 

[03:20 – 6:31] And that is another good reason why I would not like to speak on internal factors. You are all enlightened people, you all take an interest in the affairs of the country. I know I have been a student like you.  I have been to Gibson and Wellesley also (laughter at 3:37-3:38), and I am aware of the problems that face you and how deeply you are involved in the country's future, in the country's interests, and you come to your own conclusions.  It is not necessary for me to call a spade a spade and to talk on matters on which I am sure you have given very deep and profound thought. So taking all these things into account, I hope you will forgive me if you were expecting me to talk on Tajkhan spirit or any other intoxication if I do not speak on such subjects. But I would like to talk generally on international relations because I have dealt with that subject for a number of years and I have been personally and directly involved in the evolution of the foreign policy of Pakistan. Of course, I was only an instrument in the execution of Pakistan's foreign policy and only an agent according to the constitution and even otherwise, so I do not take any credit for having rendered a contribution to my country, but I think it is a truism that anyone who is responsible, anyone who is in government, anyone who has a responsibility should make a contribution to his country.  From that point of view, I would not say that I am being immodest or I am violating the constitution or any sanctity if I say it gave me great honour and gave me great satisfaction to represent a hundred million people, the like of which I have never seen anywhere in the world (clapping at 5.12-5.20). I was wondering whether I should write a speech, make points and notes and I thought about it, I wondered, and I said that if I was addressing some people in Larkana, which is my hometown,  I perhaps would jot down a few points, but you people are too sophisticated for me (5.40 laughter) and I thought that it would be much better if I spoke off the cuff and sort of shared our minds and got into a communication between ourselves rather than to jot down points or to speak on any specific subject. And if I were to ramble and meander in this manner, I would like to say that one of the things that has struck me since I have left the government is that the foreign press of the Western countries has labeled me as being pro-Peking, pro-Chinese.  Now, as I said in Cairo when I was a guest of the UAR government, Gamal Nasser very kindly invited me to stay there and I met an Indian correspondent, he came to see me. 

[06:31 - 06:34] I said, I am a Pakistani, that's all I am. I believe in my country's interest in safeguarding the sovereignty and independence of Pakistan. Millions of lives were lost for the creation of Pakistan. Pakistan is a great ideal.  I was a student when the whole concept of Pakistan emerged and to me Pakistan was the handsomest offspring of self-determination.  And Pakistan will always remain a great concept (6.55 till 7.00 clapping). 

[07:00 – 10:31] Pakistan has a role to play in Asia, in Africa, in the world.  It's the voice of a hundred million people articulated on the purity of an ideal.  And there is nothing more important than an ideal. Now this may be unrealistic, this may not be pragmatic, this may not be down to earth, but everything is not achieved by being down to earth.  I don't know this phrase, down to earth, it's an Anglo-Saxon expression (7:26 – 7:27 laughter), but nonetheless, down to earth concept is something which I don't fully understand because there is nothing stronger than the force of an ideal, the force of principles. And that is why, although India is much larger than us in geography, in resources, in military hardware, in every sense. I am of the firm conviction that we are bound to prevail.  We are bound to prevail because we espouse a great and honorable purpose (7:57 – 8:04 clapping). One day I was told that the Indian army is three times the size of Pakistan.  Now it's supposed to become four times the size of Pakistan.  And I gave a non-military answer, that means I said that our soldiers will have to shoot three times more, that's all (8:17 to 8.26 laughter). And now they are threatening us with the atom bomb. Well, after all, science and technology is everyone's right.  Man goes to the moon, progress and scientific technology cannot be restricted. If India has an atom bomb, that does not mean that we are going to subject ourselves to nuclear blackmail because the question here is not of arms or having less arms. The question here is of right against wrong. And if you look at it from the concept of right against wrong, it is like giving Mr. Shastri, who is dead now, an atom bomb, and taking him and making him go to a nightclub.  I mean, after all, he can't use it properly (9:08 – 9:09 laughter) if he does not have the capacity and the power and the right force and resources to use it. And therefore, I am not concerned if India's military strength is augmented because Pakistan stands for a right cause, a just cause, and that right and just cause must prevail. This is the history of the world.  You go back to Rome, Spartacus against Rome, Carthage against Rome, Greek empires have dwindled, British empire has gone, the French empire has gone, the oppressed must be the victors over the oppressor.  And this is our position, that the 5 million people of Kashmir, they are the oppressed. And by standing by them, by upholding the right of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, we have not to consider in any way the size, the resources, or the support that India gets from any quarter because we must prevail. The 100 million people must continue the struggle.  And this struggle must continue until it has been fulfilled. It is only a question of stamina.  It's not a question of resources. It's not a question of might.  It's a question of stamina, the will, the resources. 

[10:31 - 13:57] You must have the will to continue the struggle.  And the people of Pakistan, I hope, will have the massive will to continue, uphold the cause of the people of Jammu and Kashmir because here they are supporting an ideal, supporting the very basis of Pakistan. Sometimes now it is said, I know from what quarters and from where, that, well, Kashmir, it's an old problem. After all, there are unsolvable problems, there are insolvable disputes, like Berlin, and this is another unsolvable problem.  That's one argument that's used. The other argument that's used is also from interested and special quarters.  Why should the 55 million people of East Pakistan sacrifice for the 5 million people of Kashmir? Why not let economic development take place? After all, economic development is more important and we've lived with this problem, we can live with it for the future.  It's not that at all.  These arguments refute the will of the people of a country. We should take a direct lesson from Vietnam (clapping at 11:50 to 11:57). The struggle in Vietnam has a great bearing on the future of the world, particularly on Asia and the subcontinent. The Vietnam government does not say, just an equitable solution, meaningful discussion, they say get out and then talk (clapping at 12:20-12:28). We have self-determination for Jammu and Kashmir and nothing else. I must tell you that at the time of partition, well, you can explain it, we lost Gurdaspur, we lost areas in East Pakistan, a certain region of Assam and Tripura,  and we rationalized, well, after all, if you get an independent country, it's more important to hold to it than to try and seek justice.  This is in the process of upheaval, in the process of revolution, and therefore we had to accept the position. And on that account, we rationalized on other matters.  But if you keep rationalizing, there will be the gradual territorial attrition of Pakistan. If today you take the argument that the 5 million people of Jammu and Kashmir should not be sacrificed for the 55 million people of East Pakistan, let us take that to its logical conclusion.  It sounds all right if you believe in the status quo, if your belly is fat, if you want to just sit on your back, if you don't want to be a part of the revolution, if you don't want to be a part of the music of change, of metamorphosis, then of course, Western, yes, you can logically argue, well, after all, why do that? But let us take it to its logical conclusion. 

[13:58 – 16:07] And I am not saying something new, I have said this before. If this argument is taken to its logical conclusion, that means, all right, you leave the 5 million people of Jammu and Kashmir, and say that they are not worth the sacrifice of 55 million people of East Pakistan or 50 million people of West Pakistan. But does the problem end there?  The problem does not end there. Then India, vetted by its appetite, aggrandized by its appetite, they will say, well, let's start doing something that is out of touch.  Then the 30 million people, or 30 lakh people, 3 million people, or whatever it is, of Karachi and Sindh,  well, they are not worth 80 million people of Pakistan. Then give up Sindh and Karachi (14:20 laughter).  After that, they will say, well, Afghanistan has some claim, then the 30 lakh people or 40 lakh people of that region, because 100 million people cannot sacrifice themselves for 30 lakh people.  Then give up your territory in that. Then comes Balochistan. Then say, all right, after all, these are only 7 million people, what the hell (15:04 laughter),this is rots and dry. Give up Balochistan.  Then give up certain parts of East Pakistan. That is why, that is why it is so important that people say we shall fight for every inch of our territory. And the whole must always sacrifice for the part.  There is no such thing.  Then when should you make sacrifices?  Should we make sacrifices for 101 million people? There are no 101 million people for which 100 million people should make sacrifices. Then why make sacrifices for one man? Because if you say 100 million people should only make sacrifices for something larger, then we should make sacrifices for 101. Where is that one extra man (15:44 – 15:49 clapping) for which we should make the sacrifices?  So the question does not arise. It is an argument which is being used by some superficial quarters and some vested interests.  And we must realize that the struggle for Kashmir is not something which is an obsession with us. It's a principle. 

[16:07 – 19:00] It's the completion of Pakistan.  I tell you ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that Pakistan is a head without a...  is a body without a head? And it's a beautiful head, Jammu (16:18 to 16:26 clapping). We cannot abandon that struggle. Out of the question. 

But in order to espouse that struggle and in order to continue that struggle, we need all our resources, all our unity and we must support principles throughout the world. We cannot expect people in Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Ivory Coast to support Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir if we do not also support their causes.  Because this is not something which is our private preserve.  We go to some countries and say, well you must support us.  They say, why? So we have to give the reason.  And when countries support us on Jammu and Kashmir, it is not on a partisan basis.  It's on principle.  I have repeatedly said that when countries say that there should be self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir, it is not that they're taking a pro-Pakistan position and an anti-India position. It is that they're taking a right position, a judicial and a just position, which in the 20th century one expects from important and sovereign states.  So it is not that we are taking a position which is anti-India and pro-Pakistan. We're taking a just position.  And that is why it is important for Afro-Asian solidarity to crystallize.  Because we belong to underdeveloped countries. We are the proletariat of the world. We have gone through great difficulties, trials and tribulations, poverty, disease, misery, exploitation, domination. It's not just a phenomenon which is confined to the subcontinent. It's a worldwide phenomenon.  And therefore we have to cooperate, collaborate, get together, assist one another, whatever the odds, no matter what the difficulties. They are bound to be set back. They are bound to be set back. There will be ups and downs.  There are bound to be vicissitudes. People may change. Ministers may go. Presidents may go. People who hold the right cause may go. But eventually...(18:25 to 18:32 clapping)  Eventually and finally,  the right cause must prevail. Justice must prevail.  And Asia and Africa must have a better day. We are not asking for... We are not asking for domination of any part of the world.  We are just asking for a better life.  Our people deserve it.  For centuries they have lived in misery, squalor, filth and poverty. Is it unfair that we say that we halt this exploitation? 

[19:00 – 21:04] Is it unfair that we want our children to get a better education for our future generations to live better?  Must we be labeled as communists and various other things merely because we fight against domination, because we resist exploitation? Must we be blackmailed and must we be slandered in this fashion merely because we say it is not the law of God that people should have a better life, that children should have smiles on their faces, they should be able to go to school, they should be able to have education?  For that must we be stigmatized? Must we be called pro-speaking and pro-government?  Just because we want to defend our sovereign integrity and our national independence and give our people a more egalitarian future? Did we fight for our independence so that we should live in misery and we should live in disrespect? Independence becomes meaningless. It is an abstract expression if it is not taken to its logical culmination that people must have a better life, their children must go to school, they must have employment, they must be able to have social security, they must be able to have the social facilities and the cultural existence which is of any other country. Where is the opposition to any ideology or to any group or to any country? If the people of Asia and Africa cry for justice after centuries of exploitation and domination this affliction of solidarity is not directed against any other country.  It is not directed against any other force. It is for self-preservation. It is for the consolidation of national independence.  This is something which is due to us.  It is a part of the process of independence and I do not therefore fail to see  why there should be  so much hatred or so much fear against the concept of Asia-Africa solidarity  that this is a myth, it is not a reality. What is a myth? It is again an ideal, it is again an expression, decolonization, end of oppression, a better life. 

[21:04 - 23:58] That is not directed against any country in the world and therefore when we say that there should be Afro-Asian solidarity and that the foundations of Asia and Africa must get together  that does not mean that unnecessarily  there should be coup d'etats and revolutions  where the conference is going to be held but if there are coup d'etats and revolutions, well, we have to face that situation. You must be prepared to face the odds. If you want to espouse the right curve, you must be prepared for sacrifice.  You must be prepared to go through a long struggle and in Asia and Africa we are going through a long struggle and I tell you that once that struggle is completed the relations between Asia and Europe will be much better. It may seem a contradiction today that it is not better but I will give you my own reasons why I think that once we have really removed  the vestiges of all foreign  domination and of all grotesque interference, this is the worst aspect of the 20th century foreign interference in the internal affairs of others which I shall come to later.  Once we have removed those factors with sacrifices, we will realize that relations between Asia and Europe will be better. Why will they be better? Because both Asia and Europe have a geographical propensity.  They are close together geographically. Then Asia and Africa Asia and Europe are the homes of old ideas of religions, of philosophies. They have gone through war and turmoil more than any other continent and they know what it means to suffer. But in the age of domination differences between Asia and Europe became great because the era of domination accentuated not the common factors but the differences.  Once you remove domination once domination comes to an end the common factors will come into operation. And that is why I believe rightly or wrongly that General De Gaulle has espoused a great idea when he talks about a European Europe.  As there must be a European Europe there must be an Asian Asia (23:10 to 23:18 clapping).  Now talking in terms of Asian Asia as Pakistanis we must take into account the fact that we are a hundred million people living in Asia. China is an Asia. Any development, any force, any progress that takes place in Asia must have the Chinese factor and must take the Chinese factor into account. Firstly. Secondly, we have a common boundary with China.  Four hundred or more square miles of the most rugged area. 

[23:58 – 27:02] They are our immediate neighbors. We look at each other face to face every day. We must have some understanding and some modus vivendi. That's not being a communist. Thirdly, no problem of Asia can be solved without the participation of China like no problem of Europe can be solved without the participation of the great European powers (24:17 to 24:23 clapping).  Fourthly, we are a small country but an underdeveloped country. We want to see the United Nations as a collective force growing strength. How can you have a United Nations, which in its Article 2 or whatever it is, believes in the universality of the United Nations when you exclude 700 million people? So when we say that 700 million people should be included, (24:44 to 24:46 clapping) that's not being pro-Chinese but accepting the reality of life. Then, for the last 30 or 40 years, there have been disarmament conferences.  How can you have a disarmament, true and meaningful disarmament, when you exclude 700 million people and a nuclear power from the disarmament conference? So when we say that these are the objective facts and the objective realities of the situation, that should be understood. That should be understood by the West. It should be understood everywhere. And it's a great pity.  It's very painful that people should be labelled, leaders should be labelled, others should be labelled.  Oh, this is pro-Peking, pro-Chinese.  These are the rooted facts of history and they must prevail.  And we are not being coveted.  We have our ideology, we are proud of it. And Pakistan, I think, has a contribution to play, as I told you, at the very outset on the ideological plane, on the ideological basis. And there have been many times when Pakistan has rightly, or according to its own judgement, not agreed with certain views of China, like of the United States or of any other country. But this cannot detract from the objective considerations.  Also, taking into account the objective considerations, India is a great objective consideration. It has been said that I am anti-Indian.  Believe me, ladies and gentlemen, I am not anti-Indian. Why should I be anti-Indian? There is no reason for us to be anti-Indian. As Muslims, we are supposed to be magnanimous. And we got Pakistan.  We got what we wanted. Why should we be anti-Indian? There is no basis for me to be anti-Indian.  The question is that India is a great fraud. (26:24 to 26:40 clapping) What can I do about that? You remove the fraud and the chicanery, there is no basis for the people of Pakistan to have anything against the people of India. The people of India and the people of Pakistan, we share a common history.  We are part of the same geography, geographical compulsions, geopolitical factors, you know (26:59 laughter).  And we have the same culture. 

[27:03 – 30:10] And there are many things that are similar to us.  They share poverty. We are part of the same music and march of affiliation, solidarity. So we have nothing against the people of India. All that we say is that for cooperation to exist, cooperation must be between equals.  Cooperation must be on the basis of reciprocity.  Cooperation must be when nobody is trying to do someone else down. Cooperation should not be a means to subjugation. Cooperation should not be something that through the back door you come and knife someone like Shivaji knifed Afzal Khan (27:37 to 27:40 clapping).  And when those conditions exist, then we would be only too happy to cooperate with India. But until the fraud and the farce and chicanery is removed, I believe confrontation must continue (27:53 to 28:02 clapping). When a chief comes into your room, you don't put off the lights, you put on the lights. That's what confrontation means (28:10 to 28:12 clapping).  Expose the wrongdoer.  Expose the delinquents. And we, all right, you have referred to the thousand years war which I referred to. It was a political and a metaphorical trait. But we have to be careful if we do not want to fight for a thousand years,  please do not forget there is a thousand years of conflict behind us (28:31 to 28:37 clapping).  Our quarrel with India is not eternal.  It can come to an end on the basis of justice and equity. But if there ever is a quarrel in the whole world, it is between India and Pakistan.  Unless it comes to an end properly on the basis of justice, which means not only the right of self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but for proper treatment, not on the basis of subjugation of their own minorities, where there are 100 million Muslims living there, also on the basis of justice in East Pakistan.  For the first time I have spoken that we have rights in East Pakistan also.  Pakistan has legitimate rights in the eastern part.  And time will come when I will mention those rights. And the question is that those rights must be fulfilled. The wrong against Pakistan must be put right. And till then, I am quite convinced in my mind that whatever the turmoil and the difficulties, eventually we shall succeed because India is the cancer of Asia like Israel is the cancer of the Middle East (29:34 to 29:53 clapping). Now, sometimes we are given very good advice.  And we are told, look here, old boys, be nice, you know (30:05 to 30:10 laughter).

[30:10 – 32:58] And we are told that this is not the right thing to do.  After all, we must live in peace. We live next door to each other and all that (30:17 to 30:19 laughter). But, I tell all our friends from wherever they be that physician, heal thy own wounds. When it comes to your own problems, then you are prepared to forget everything. You are prepared to close your eyes on Vietnam, on southern Rhodesia, for the pounds turning, you are prepared to do whatever you like (30:42 laughter).  But when it comes to us, you tell us, now look here, boys, now you know. Hahaha.  (30:46 to 31:16 laughter and clapping) I tell you the truth. I, as foreign minister and as a minister, you said briefly I was minister for eight years, a long time (31:24 to 31:38 clapping and laughter). I was not ever anti-British.  Because I do not believe that we should carry over the legacies and bitterness.  The struggle is finished. We are Muslim.  The struggle is completed. We have survived.  We are victorious. Let bygones be bygones. This is our weakness. This is, as George Brown now is temperament.  This is our temperament.  So, I tell you the truth. God above me, I have not been anti-British. I think that they have great quality. They are a resourceful country and they are skillful. They have many virtues and they know it on many issues in which we could have disagreed. We said, no, all right, we agree. And I have some of the best friends in this country and here I am on my sick leave in London (32:23 to 32:30 laughter) But, taking everything into account, I don't think I will be misunderstood. If I were to say that our relationship with this country, for instance, must be more realistic.  We are on the eve of a Commonwealth Conference. Another Commonwealth Conference is taking place in a few weeks' time. Have they, and have we really and honestly with integrity asked ourselves if there is any virtue left in this institution. 

[32:59 - 35:58] And if we believe that we must take into account the objective conditions, then I believe that time has come when we have to reassess our attitude to the Commonwealth without (33:14 to 33:18 clapping) without in any way affecting our bilateral relations with the United Kingdom.  I believe that our bilateral relations with the United Kingdom will become stronger.  Now let me briefly tell you, as I said I am going to meander on the subject, let me briefly tell you what are the contradictions.  Contradictions are that the Commonwealth exists because there are disputes (33:43 laughter). And disputes are not supposed to be reconciled by the Commonwealth. (33:47 laughter) India became a part of the Commonwealth not because Nehru had great ideals of a multi-racial organization, because he knew there was Kashmir and he wanted British support.  We also had to become members of the Commonwealth because he said if India does not become a member of the Commonwealth if India becomes a member of the Commonwealth we will not have the support, so let us be members. So disputes give rise to membership of the Commonwealth. (34:11 laughter) In Africa, also the same position exists. The African states, they say, they have territorial claims against each other and they say Commonwealth. I have often wondered what is the virtue and the vitality of the Commonwealth. And I have come to one conclusion, that at the end of every Commonwealth meeting, I hope I am not revealing any secrets, it is said you know it is very good that we  met and exchanged views, this in itself  is very important.(34:38 laughter) The very fact,  the very fact that we have met  and exchanged views, this is very  important. That is very good. But is it going to lead to lessening of tensions?  Disputes give rise to membership of Asian African states and disputes are not supposed to be resolved in the Commonwealth. Then, disputes accentuate tensions. And those tensions are bottled and caught in the Commonwealth. Secondly, the whole face of Asian Africa is changing. We are going through really a great upheaval. And it must not, we must maintain our contact.  We must send our students here. We must have the best relations bilaterally, but we must not confuse our people. Our people are not sophisticated, they are not intelligent, they haven't gone through the bar and lentils and everything. You must talk to them in terms of black. They get confused, what is this? On the one hand, you say that there is colonialism, neo-colonialism, there are exploitations. On the other hand, you say where in fact we met is a very good thing, you know, and all sorts of things. So, our people must know, our people must know where their position lies. 

[35:58 - 39:03] And our position lies in Asia. (35:58 to 36:01 clapping) It is in Asia alone that we have to...  ...  ...  that we have to forge our future.  Which does not mean that there should be no contact at all with the West. The contact with the West is wonderful.  I tell you, one of the greatest satisfaction I have had as foreign minister is the contact that I have forged between France and Pakistan. Because they understand our music. Perhaps there is something in them. They have given self-determination to their colonies, they have given self-determination to Algeria, they know the role of China in Asia, they know the position of Vietnam, and we have developed good contact. There can never be anything as to break relations. How can relations be broken? Why should relations be broken? We want to foster relations. What is the basis of fostering relations? It is not on the basis of East or West.  What is this sophisticated neo-colonialist chauvinism East or West? East or West means the policy of West or West must be different. What is the policy West or West? West or West, the policy is cooperation, goodwill, fraternity. If you get thrown out of the common market, try and get back into the common market. (37:02 laughter) No exploitation, no domination.  But there must be a policy East or West. (37:08 to 37:17 clapping) You've lost all your teeth, yet you want to show your teeth (37:19 to 37:23 laughter and clapping). East or West is a policy which in political terms can only be described in terms of domination and interference. In South Arabia, in U.A.R., in the subcontinent, and in Malaysia (37:40 to 37:45 laughter).  So we want to have good fraternal, sound relations with Great Britain and with others. Great Britain must realize its present capacity (38:00 laughter). It must know its role.  It cannot play a triple role. It does not have the capacity to play a triple role in the Atlantic, in Europe, in the Commonwealth, and East or West.  The pound sterling is collapsing, Mr. Wilson must do all sorts of things, and yet, they have a triple role to play. And they must lecture and to pontificate to us as to what should be our foreign policy and who should be the minister and who should not be the minister (38:25 to 38:36 clapping). That's the story. That's the story. That story I still have to tell. In national interest, I will not say it. But I will, one day, one day, I'll have to say this is the grossest and the grotesque interference in internal affairs of Pakistan (38:48 to 38:58 clapping). There's no place for it.  So, let everyone cultivate his own backyard.  

[39:03 – 41:06] Let everyone develop according to their own national mores, according to their own national traditions. Let everyone develop relations on the basis of geographical, political considerations, on account of the exigencies of the time.  And do not label people in terms of black and white. There is no black and white left. The world has become grey (39:26 murmurs). And let natural evolution take place. And there will be upheaval.  Why should we be afraid of upheaval?  Because when you're striving towards justice, when you're striving towards a great ideal, it must be on the basis of upheaval. It must be changed. This took place in Europe from 1848. They had their revolutions. They had their revolution in France.  They had their revolution here in this country of its own nature. And they had revolutions everywhere. So, Asia is going through change. The face of Asia is changing. And you must understand that the main difficulty, the main problem is that either they refuse to understand it or they do not want to understand it. But you must understand that the change will take place if you close your eyes or if you open your eyes.  It's better that you open your eyes and see the change (40:24 to 40:28 clapping). The change is a beautiful change. It's a great change. There are many scars on the face of Asia today, but it's got a smile on its face at the same time.  And there can never be farewell to sunshine. We must go through this change. We must be prepared for it (40:45 to 40:48 clapping). And I believe that Asia, and particularly Pakistan, which is a nation of a hundred million people, must take into account all these factors, all these considerations.  We cannot confine our relation on the basis of certain considerations alone. 

[41:06 - 43:17] We have to look at the totality of things. You have to look at the whole picture, the whole canvas, not only for the present, but for the future also. And I believe that and I know in our part of the world, part of the legacy left behind by colonialism, politicians, you know, they're nasty people. But if you really examine the role of political life, shall I say, rather than politicians, it is a great role and a great challenge. A politician has to be a mathematician.  He has to calculate, take into account everything.  A politician must be a musician and a romanticist. This does not mean that we go to nightclubs, but he must know the tempo of the times, the rhythm of revolution.  A politician must be an architect, must build for the present as well as the future. And those who are involved in the political life of our Asia, and I would like to talk of Asia in personal terms, of our dear Asia, we must know the rhythm of these times (42:18 to 42:23 clapping). And we must think of our country not only in terms of our country, but in terms of its totality. There was a time when Pakistan thought there was only India, and the rest of the world fitted into that picture.  Now there is the world and India is a part of that world.  And this is what I mean by the totality of things. And I believe that this is my firm conviction that our two wings, East and West Pakistan, very often it is said, oh, geographical monstrosity and things like that. But this is the most sublime balance that has been achieved.  What we say, what we talk of parity is not really a political expression. Parity, if you bring it down to earth, it is balanced.  It is like two wheels on a pulley. You remove one wheel, the other must fall.  And here is where our balance lies. 

[43:17 – 46:04] The two great Muslim forces are galvanizing against a decadent society (43:22 to 43:30 clapping). And this must continue. This must continue, not only in the interest of East and West Pakistan, I would much rather call it Pakistan, Eastern problems and Western problems, but this must continue, not only in the interest of Eastern, but must continue in the interest of progress, in the interest of the evolution of the right ideal, and above all, in the explosion of the fraud called India. We must continue this great partnership, this heroic partnership. Eighteen years have passed.  Eighty years will pass, but the unity will continue. It has to continue in the interest of both the wings of Pakistan. And I believe that here or anywhere else, we may have our differences, we may have our difficulties, but overriding those considerations is this great common factor, that we need each other and we need this balance in the subcontinent. It has to exist in the interest of Pakistan as otherwise. If you examine the problem of West Pakistan without East Pakistan, you come to a dead end. If you examine the problem of East Pakistan without West Pakistan, you come to an equally dead end. And, as I said, Pakistan is the handsomest offspring of self-determination.  It is the will of a hundred million people in which the people of Bengal were in the vanguard of the movement.  This cannot be forgotten.  And we must bury our prejudices, we must forget our differences. Every country in the underdeveloped nations has specific tendencies. You look at it from Nigeria to Indonesia, you will always have some centrifugal forces, the North and the South, the East and the West, Samatra, Java, Northern Nigeria, Eastern Nigeria, but we have to overcome the difficulties. We have to see that the consolidation of the nation takes place. And, why should people be interested in the unity and in in the commonness and strength of these regions? It is for us to show the interest, because the seeds of discord will always be laid. It is for us, for leadership of Asia and Africa to bury them. Anywhere, I said, from Nigeria right up to Japan even, anywhere you go, you will find these factors.  This is because the complete evolution has not taken place.  And this evolution must take place. It has to take place. 

[46:04 – 48:30] So these are the realities of life, we have to face it. Yes, we are separated by a thousand miles of territory, all that is understood. That we speak Urdu and Bengali, that is also understood.  But, nonetheless, what are the forces that unite us? And what are the disasters that divide us? That should be taken into account. And, here, if I can just plainly brush aside on local problems, I know Mr. Mujeeb ur Rahman very well. I have met him just before he was interned. I have met him. We had long discussions and all this. I said, let's go and address public meeting.  And, so, it's not that we should look at things again in our own country in terms of black and white. Just as I have appealed to you not to look at international problems in terms of black and white, I think even our national problems, we must not look in terms of black and white. Whatever our faults are our faults. And we should admit them. We should try and find a solution. Solutions are bound to be there, because there is a common interest. And there is a will to survive. And, as I said, divided there is disaster for us. For both the East and West.  And I believe that as much as East Pakistan and West Pakistan has made a great contribution to the unity of Pakistan. And the last war against India showed it. It was a glorious period in our history. It was really a great period in the history of Pakistan. How this great nation united stood as a rock against an onslaught of a predatory of a country (47:37 to 47:46 clapping)

47:46: Inaudible comment in the crowd 

 [47:48 - 48:43] Said that by evening, by evening Lahore shall fall. And my reply was that no Indian mother has given birth to an Indian who can take Lahore apart (48:01 to 48:10 clapping). (48:09 – inaudible comment in the crowd) it's not the size of India. It's not the military resources of India. What is required is our stamina. We have the stamina. We have the will. And we have the right cause.  We uphold the right cause and a just cause. And Inshallah, we shall succeed (48:30 to 48:43 clapping)

[48:43 – 48:48] no audio

[48:48 - 48:56] clapping continues

[48:56 - 49:06] no audio 

[49:06 – 50:01] commotion/ no clear audio/ static

[50:01 – 50:12] question from the audience (cannot understand) 

 [50:17 – 50:48] I am very thankful to you for asking the question. I must admit I salute you for it. I say ask the 5 million people of Kashmir (50:26 to 50:48 hooting) 

[51:02 – 51:44] commotion/no clear audio 

 [51:44 - 52:44] Yes, yes, please come closer.  Thank you very much, Mr. President, who has allowed me to ask you large-scale questions, all of my supplementary questions. The first one is, as you have already put in your statement, that since Mr. Guterres is almost out of the cabinet, I want to ask him if the foreign policy, as he said, was instrumental to found A, is going to be aided by the present regime and the present government. And the second question is, if so, what are the principles that part of the foreign policy are going to be aided by? (52:38 commotion) And the third question is, what are the infringements of PNIA on the government of India? 

[52:44 - 52:59] May I make one little request? Mr. Bhutto has very little time to answer questions, so I request the ladies and gentlemen to forget about the slogans for the moment. (moderator speaking – note from transcriber) 

 [52:59 - 54:13] As some of my friends know that I am fond of reading, I recently bought a book called Parliament and Mumbo-Jumbo or something (53:07 laughter). That's right. And so this is a parliamentary question with supplementary.  I didn't say that I was the author of the book. I have never said that I have been the author of the Pakistan foreign policy. I have said that the foreign policy of Pakistan is rooted in objective realities and the constitution of Pakistan is very clear as to the authority in the country and I have only been an instrument. I didn't say I was the author of the foreign policy of Pakistan. I have only been an instrument of the people of Pakistan in the execution of the foreign policy. So that much I must make clear beyond doubt.  And secondly, well, great powers, they have their great means. Once Apollo enters, it's an Apollian entry, so you have to take these things into account. As I said, whatever the sacrifices, whatever the difficulties, in the end, the stream must go down on its right course.  And this has nothing to do with the Chinese Cultural Revolution (54:13 laughter). 

[54:30 -54:36] Can we survive without American aid?  If not, then what we are going to do about it? ( - this is a question from the audience – transcriber note) 

[54:36 - 56:15] I think this is a very important question and I made reference to it, I think, briefly by saying there is no such thing as terminating contacts at all. Today you find efforts are being made for the improvement of United States and Cambodia relations. You find that there are efforts, as Mr. McNamara has said, building bridges to China. Now that he has said at the time of the war between America and Asia. And when you make these statements, that means that 100 million people also have to be taken into account. They are important. The fact of their geographical strategy. I don't think there is ever a question in terms of black and white, that America must completely suspend arms, military or economic assistance.  After all, we are members of CFO, I think, we are members of CENTO, God knows what other (54:39 laughter), bilateral agreements and everything else. So, we have not left any of these organizations, we are still there.  And the question is, we have made some flexibility, some adjustments, some other factors have to be taken into account. Mrs. Gandhi says that India is non-aligned. 15 million tons of food grains from the United States, 900 million dollars of commodity aid, 105 million dollars of project aid, still they are non-aligned. This is double alignment; I think (56:15 laughter). 

[56:15 - 57:17] So, there is no such thing as these things all come to an abrupt end. In those terms, diplomacy, the interest of a country, everything has to be taken into account. So I don’t .. And secondly, I don't like the word aid. It's loans (56:35 clapping). These are loans, they have to be repaid, they have to be repaid with our jute, our cotton and the farmer on the field. With interest. So, it's not aid, it's loans, they may be long-term loans, but that's the competition between the various blocks.  We are not a part of that. Western Europe got 18 billion dollars of martial aid, and they never called it aid, although they got much more than we have got. And today, what we are getting is less and less. Asia and Africa is getting less and less, and with greater and greater conditions.  So, we must take everything into account.  

[57:17 to 57:23] Another point is that why America is not going to solve this problem when it is the best in terms of Asia, and in terms of America, it is going to be a different country. (question from the audience – note from the transcriber) 

[57:24 to 57:27] I think I have very often said that finally this dispute has to be settled by us. (57:28 to 57: 33 laughter)

[57:33 - 57:35] Next question by Mr. Chaudhary. (moderator speaking – note by transcriber) 

[57:35 – 57:43] static

[57:43 – 58:32] A lot of my friends have already mentioned, but not replied, our membership of CECO. And we have heard it clearly in your speech, that it is not a question of cashing in, ] it is a question of just cause and issue that are inter-religious.  Now, taking into consideration that, how has you as a foreign minister reconciled the fact that because of the lack of a CECO operation,  CECO became a lie, when the CECO proposal of fighting against inter-religion, then, as you say, Mr. Chaudhary, that the CECO is not a just cause.  And yet, I think we also oppose the CECO.  How much has the CECO in Vietnam (58:32 laughter and clapping)? (lots of commotion in the background, unclear voices – note from transcriber) 

[58:32 – 59:54] Well, you perhaps do not understand it because you weren't the foreign minister (59:33 laughter). But, I know, I understand.  You know, this has something to do with the evolution of the times.  As I said a little earlier, non-alignment has got a different interpretation today. Alignment has got a different... We have gone far away from the Bandung Conference.  You must take into account the development of relations between the Soviet Union and the United States. You must take into account the situation in Eastern Europe.  You must take into account the position in Western Europe of France's role, of President De Gaulle's working of Europe from the Atlantic to the Euros. So, a drastic evolution has taken place to put those labels out of date. So, the nations are now concerned more with the substance. India can call itself non-aligned. Countries are not concerned with what it calls itself, but what it is. Pakistan, we call ourselves aligned, but we are concerned not with what it is. In technical terms, but where it is moving towards. The factors of independence, these things all come into the picture. And here again, it's a question of, I say, black and white. Vietnam, internal affairs (59:56 to 01:00:06 laughter). 

[01:00:06 to 01:00:10] non audible question from the crowd

[01:00:10 - 01:01:19] Yes, the speaker's last. Yes, somebody is speaking.  Wait a minute.  You know, I'm going to ask a little question, but the point of view of the country is the internal economic conditions.  But the point of view to which you have mentioned on this point of it, is quite contradictory to the economic conditions and economic people we are having at home. Do you think it will be possible? Well, I know my question will be against relating to each other, because the point of view of it, which we are pursuing, I think, from it, and we have a feeling that we are going back to the American economy or American intelligence itself. Do you, I mean, discern that by saying that whether it is true or not, and if it is not true, how are we going to get rid of our economic conditions, which always haunt us, this is what the American military has done. 

[01:01:19 - 01:01:54] As I told you the other day, when we met the day before yesterday, that internal and external considerations influence each other. Internal policy influences external policy, external policy influences internal policy, actually the whole thing is unitary. There is no separation, truthfully speaking.  But the influences are also, that is also an advantage. But I am sure you are not satisfied (01:01:54 laughter). Mr. Hasna, please, next question. 

[01:01:54 – 01:02:40] No, Mr. Hasna. You were asking me from before. How do we get out of that? May I ask you one question?  As you have explained about the foreign policy of Pakistan, and we have said that now, that Pakistan has been continuously a victim of external influence, and because we are not clear, as the foreign minister of Pakistan, do you expect that so far the foreign policy of Pakistan is concerned, there will be a change in the foreign policy because of the foreign pressure?  

[01:02:41 – 01:02:54] I didn't say that.  I don't think I said that Pakistan is subject to external influences. You may have come to your own conclusion, but I didn't say that. And I believe that Pakistan... (01:02:54 distortion)

[01:02:54 - 01:03:05] And you cannot have a more authentic statement than the words of the President himself. That should assure you fully that Pakistan's policies depend on Pakistan's interests.