Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...
Yes, Please make this my home page!
Speech in National Assembly on July 14,1972
Mr. chairman, Sir, i am speaking in the national assembly of Pakistan after a quite long time.
After that, Mr. chairman, with your kind permission i would like to go to the main issue before the house,that is, the state of indo-Pak relations as it stands after the Shimla agreement and,of course,after that its corollary,our relations with the authorities of Dacca.
Now, i come to the Shimla agreement, Sir there have been three distinct towards the Shimla Agreement. One is, that it has been praised beyond recognition. Second, that it has been condemned and condemned wholly. Thirdly, cautiously it has been said that it is only a beggining. Why have we got three different attitudes? Objectively speaking, we have got three different attitudes because we have three different thoughts associated with shimla agreement. People have praised it, But why have they praised it? There must be some good reasons, because circumstances were really difficult, circumstances were really impossible, India had all the cards in her hands and India is not a generous nagotiator. They had Pakistan's terrotary,They had east Pakistan separated from Pakistan. They held ninety three thousand prisnors of war. They had the threat of war trials. They were sitting pretty, as the saying goes. What did we have in our hands? Riots,labour troubles and all sorts of internal dissenions. But we also had something else in our hands. Basically the common man of Pakistan, the nameless man of Pakistan, the faceless man of Pakistan was with us. We had his blessings. When he went home he prayed for our success. So out of this un equall situation an equall situation arose.
Now i want to cover those who have condemned it. Sir, if there is no motive behind the condemnation, then there must be some reason for inherent defect in the agreement. what is that reason? what is that defect? i really cannot find any rational reason,my dear friends,for any opposition to it. But,surely, Sir,these gentlemen,these friends of ours,they must know the ultimate realities. Certainly they cannot be ignorant of what is happening. You know, that on the 20th of december,things were bad when i took over;and today when i look back,i wonder how we pulled through. It was a nation completely demoralised, shattered, and these very chauvinist, who are now talking in these terms,they sent messages,"Immediately recognize Bangladesh, immediately agree to Indian terms, otherwise west Pakistan will also be finished and our women and childern will be raped by Indian soldiers," I told them not to be so defeatist in their outlook,to hold on,to have the spirit revive.Now,Sir, there are prople who are opposing the Shimla Accord because they went to take revenge from India. But even if they want to take revange, Is this moment to take revenge? Is this moment to go to war with India? You know the agent provocateurs. The role of agent provocateurs has been perfected in our times. I don't want to give example of other countries where agent provocateurs went more extreme than was warranted by the situation. I do not want to go into the Arab-Israel war of 1967 and the role played by the agent provocateurs who compelled President Nasser to go to war. These people are nothing short of agent provocateurs. They want to provoke a war with India immediately, here and now. They want to see Pakistan eliminated. why do they want to do it? I don't want to say more. Look into their past and you will find the answer.Now,Sir, We come to the criticism that the Shimla agreement is worse than Tashkent agreement. While it is said that Tashkent agreement was a better agreement, the arguments given here are that East Pakistan was with us at that time, therefore shimla agreement is worse than Tashkent; teh doors of the united nations were not closed at the Tashkent; Kahmir was not satteled at Tashkent- it was settled in shimla;withdrawals were effected throughout west Paksitan including Kashmir, wheres on this occasion this was not done. A certain officials was present at both Tashkent and shimla who have been responsible for all the damage.
I will take the last point first Sir, i do not think that it is fair , whether a member in this house be a prince or a pauper, to make such allegations. It is not fair , to the official and it is not fair to the leadership. I can never conceive of an official of my government doing something against my instructions. It will be a direct insult to me.I resent and deplore these allegations made by relations of Ayub Khan to cover the betrayal of the nation of Pakistan at Tashkent. I assert that if Ayub Khan had left the Tashkent nagotiations to me and to my officials, just as left the Shimla negotiations to the officials,we would have secured a much better agreement;perhaps we could have secured a settlement of the Kashmir dispute at Tashkent. But the Ayub Khan,the field marshal,was shivering in his pants,the field marshal was brownbeaten,the field marshal was shaking. And what did the fiels marshal do at Tashkent?what is the difference between Tashkent and Shimla? At Shimla,we had lost half of the country,we had 93,000 prisnors of war,our three tehsils were i Indian hands,we had threat of war ttrials, Pakistan was damaged physically and ideologically. At Tashkent we went with our heads high, If we had not won the war,there was atleast a draw.East Pakistan was with us.Mr. Shastri was in a weak position.He was demorolised and was trying to find a way out.During the first meeting at Tashkent which i had with Mr. Chavan,the defence minister said to me,"You must settle Kashmir here and now,there must be a final settelment." I said to Mr. Chavan, "if you expect me to remove ash-tray from here to there, i would not do it,if Kashmir has to be settled on our terms." Then he went to Mr. Shastri, Mr. Shastri went to Mr. Kosygin, Kosygin went to Ayub Khan and they all said,"You have a very difficult foreign minister and unless and until he is removed from the negotiations there can be no progress."According to Ayub Khan, Shastri told him,"i am too little person,i am in the hand of my lok sabha but, sir you are a great man, a great ruler,a great statesmen,you can go beyond your people,you can go beyond the nation." Ayub Khan said,well if he cannot do it,if he cannot compromise on Kashmir,i will make a copmromise on Kashmir.". I was the one man who got up. Mr. ghulam Farooq was there, I said,"Shastri had no right to compromise because his peo had not given him this right. Don't feel you have been given the divine right by God because,finally, you are answerable to God,Mr. Ayub Khan." for that i was victimised,for that i was brownbeaten,for that there were assassination attempts on me, because i stood for the integrity and the houner of Pakistan at Tashkent.