Interviewer: An average Indian believes that why should there be the return of the POWs comprising four divisions when Pakistan has attacked again and again in the past and when the chances are that it may seek the help of China to have another round.
           
President: I respect the common man’s thinking because he is generally right. But let us prove him wrong for a change. The point is that we do not lack manpower. We can raise four or five divisions. If we have resources we can raise ten divisions. There is no shortage of manpower that is one answer. The second answer is that if we are going to move with insincere motives, then China would not come to our assistance.
           
Interviewer: What about a non-aggression pact between India and Pakistan?
           
President: Every one, more so in India and Pakistan, become slaves to words. Unfortunately, the creators of independence, Mr. Nehru on the one side, and our leaders on the other used old British terms and they drilled them in–confederation or no-war pact. In Pakistan, the no-war pact means surrender, it has that connotation. The moment Mr. Nehru offered this pact, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan said it meant surrender. Since then every one all along the line, has said that no-war pact means surrender.
           
Now going to the essence of the problem, not immediately, step by step, you will see that there will be no procrastination on our part. We are prepared to consider, taking all things into account that we conclude not a high-lifting word like the treaty, but a joint communiq2ue or some other document to the extent that we will settle all our problems by peaceful means and not by war-stipulating peaceful means like those spelled out in the Charter, like direct negotiations, arbitration, mediation or good offices. This will be a breakthrough.
           
What has the past taught us? We have had three wars. We have not gained. Looking at it philosophically you have also not gained. The fall of Decca does not mean a gain for India when the dust settles down. So, you have not gained, we have not gained and our people have lost both in India and Pakistan. And we have not been to fight our biggest war-war against poverty, the moral war in which we will be blessed by the future generations. So we can sit down and satisfy you that we are not going to follow the policy of war or confrontation.
           
Interviewer: You have been in favor of confrontation. Have you changed?
           
President: I am not ashamed of confrontation. I believe that like your Prime Minister we must primarily think of the interest of our own country and our own people. Now let me explain the policy of confrontation. Pakistan was a member of two defense alliances, but we were getting the raw end of the stick. We were diplomatically isolated, isolated in the third world. Internally people wanted to know what advantages the alliances had brought. There were no political gains, but there were military gains. We thought that being in those pacts….; let us derive the benefits of those pacts. There was a time when militarily in terms of big push we were superior to India because of the military assistance we were getting. That was the position up to 1965. The Kashmir dispute was not being resolved peacefully. We had the military advantage and we were getting the blame for it. So it was political prudence to say: Let us finish it once for all and come to terms just as you know that the problem has been finished. That was the reason why up to 1963 it was thought that with this edge we could finish this problem because even morally we felt justified since India had agreed to the right of self-determination earlier. Now that position does not exist any more. I know it better than others. It is not going to exist in future also.
           
Interviewer: Does it mean that the Kashmir problem is out of the way?
           
President: The right of self-determination is given to the people not by a country or an individual, but by the circumstances. As far as Kashmir’s concerned, both India and Pakistan have given it the right of self-determination. Mr. Nehru promised that and there are various U.N. resolutions on that. It is the question of principle. The Third World gained by it and so did parts of East Europe. If I can support the people of Vietnam and Latin America, how can I say we abandon that right in Kashmir?  India is also partly responsible in the sense that it has given special position to Kashmir in her constitution. There must be some reason for that. India is therefore responsible for delaying a permanent solution by giving the state a special status. As long as the people of Kashmir want the right of self-determination, no one can stop them. What I say now is that you maintain your position and we maintain our. You maintain your position that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Between these two positions, there is enough room to defuse that problem and lower the tension. We can make the cease-fire line as a line of peace. Let the people of Kashmir move between the two countries freely. One thing can lead to another. Why should it be ordained on me or Mrs. Gandhi that we resolve everything today. We should set things in motion, in the right direction. Others can pick up from there. We cannot clear the decks in one sweep. There can be no grand sweep in the sub-continent.
           
Interviewer: Would you like to accept the Kashmir cease-fire line as the international border?
           
President: Mr. Swaran Singh had offered me a much better line. Let us facilitate that movement of Kashmir’s between the two countries and leave it at that for the time. Let us not hurry things.  If after the settlement of the recent war problems we feel inclined to discuss this matter, we can do so. Let us not run around the world chanceries, nor the U.N.
           
Interviewer: Some of us believe that China, because of its hostility towards India, is not allowing Pakistan to bury the hatchet. What are your comments?
           
President: That is not my experience. My first contact with the Chinese was in 1963, when we signed the boundary pact with them. They said that Pakistan and India should settle the Kashmir question on a bilateral basis. It was only in 1964 that China first supported Pakistan on the right of self-determination for Kashmir. Even if it is in the interest of a third party to see us quarreling, it was up to us to consider our own interests first. The blame lies with us.
           
Interviewer: Releasing Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman was a bold decision, but why don’t you recognize Bangladesh, which is a reality?
           
President: We are moving in that direction, but I cannot do any thing until I meet him.
           
Interviewer: What is your priority? Meeting Mrs. Gandhi or Sheikh Mujib?
           
President: In terms of immediate problems it has to be you and us today. East Pakistan is literally 1,000 miles away. There is no chance of East and West Pakistan going to war. But there our armies are confronting each other. The situation can get out of hand. There is the question of disengagement and prisoners of war. Take POWs. It is hurting me, hurting me like hell. But you will soon see it becomes counter-productive for you, of diminishing returns. “ If you do not release them, I will go back to my people and say that I can not barter human flesh for the concessions you want. Then every one will jump in: the U.N., ICRC, even the USSR with which we have closer border than you have.”
           
Mrs. Gandhi is not being advised rightly by those who want the pound of flesh from Pakistan. The attitude is wrong. You must understand that if I go out, the arrangements in Pakistan will be those of the military, either openly or through a puppet government. It will not be to India’s benefit.
           
Interviewer: It seems to me that the people in Pakistan do not know about the atrocities committed in Bangladesh. Muslims killed not Hindus, but Muslims as well. What do you say to this?
           
President: Horrifying things took place. We can never condone or overlook what happened. But Mujib’s figure of three million was utterly wrong. According to us 45, 000 to 50,000 died. People of the subcontinent are civilized, but when they go berserk they act like savages. This is what happened in 1947. It happens to many nations – Greeks, Germans and French.
           
Interviewer; General Tikka Khan’s appointment as the Pakistan commander-in-Chief has given the impression in India that Mr. Bhutto wants to perpetuate the crisis.
           
President; Yes I know about the impression. But Tikka Khan was against Yahya Khan’s policy and he went on protesting against it. It was not Yahya who removed him, but it was Tikka who did not want to continue. He is a professional soldier and there is not an iota of Bonaparte’s in him. He is very sincere and commands great support in the Army. When you are pruning an institution like the armed forces, you can prune them on two grounds: one there is politics in them and the other that they are inefficient. If a General is not bitten by the bug of politics, and is a first class professional soldier, then I cannot muck around the armed forces. As far as you are concerned, you will see that Tikka Khan’s presence will not cast any shadow on our negotiations.
           
Interviewer: What about the Bengalis living in Pakistan.
           
President: I have let the nightingale out of the cage. Now I can only equate POWs with Bengalis. I hope it won’t have to be done. But I have nothing in my hands.
           
Interviewer: Looking back would you say that the two-nation theory has failed?
           
President: Some say it in our country. I am a practical man, not an idealist. I will say that the theory has not been shattered; it has received only a crack. The debate can end if we can make a go at it. After all, countries have shrunk in size before. Look at the British Empire.
           
Interviewer: What about an Indo-Pakistan common market? We need gas and you probably coal.
           
President: It is not coal so much any longer because that was for East Pakistan. In principle we would resume trade on bilateral basis. The experts can work out the modalities since we have not traded for so many years. As for the common market I have no objection, but we are not yet ready for such an arrangement. Even the European common Market took time to shape. We produce primary commodities. We have not reached India’s industrial standard. Collaboration will be difficult. Probably time will bring it about.
           
Interviewer: Would you consider a confederation of the subcontinent?
           
President: Why is there this yearning? It is a sign of failure. Per se I am against confederation. If there has to be a confederation, it will look towards southward and West Asia. Our relations with Iran, Turkey and Afghanistan are good and friendly. But we cannot turn our back on the sub-continent. We cannot turn away from geography.
           
Interviewer: What about the exchange of journalists?
           

Site created and designed by Sani Hussain Panhwar