Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am not supposed to be in good health. But I can assure you no matter how poor my health, it is sufficient for India. I am really delighted and 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. I thought about it. I gave it some thought because the advice came from some good friends and I have not spoken since I left the Cabinet. I have not spoken in the country for good reason and I don't think that I would like to speak here, also for good reason, on internal matters. I would not like to refer to any question or matter relating to our internal conditions which in legal parlance, I call, within the domestic jurisdiction of the stale, for a number of reasons. And I think you can understand them. One is that, as the President himself has repeatedly said in the recent past, Pakistan is going through a difficult period. And undoubtedly, if you look at the objective conditions, we are going through a difficult period.
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's 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 has ruled us for two hundred years. It could be derogatory to the sovereignty and independence of Pakistan for me to speak on its internal conditions in Great Britain. There is one more good reason why I would not like to speak on internal matters. You are all enlightened people; you all have taken interest in the affairs of the country. I know, I have been a student like you. I have been to Gibson and Weldon also. And I am aware of the problems that face you and how deeply you are involved in the country's future and the country's interest, and you come to your own conclusions. It is not necessary for me to call a spade a spade and to talk on matters, to 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 are expecting me to talk on the Tashkent spirit or any other intoxication, if I don't 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 don't take any credit for having rendered any 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.
And from that point of view, I would not say I am being immodest or I am violating the constitution or any sanctity if I say it gave me great honour and great satisfaction to represent a hundred million people the like of whom I have never seen anywhere in the world. I was wondering whether I should write a speech or speak from notes. I thought about it, I wondered, and I said that if I was addressing some people in Larkana which is my home town, I perhaps would jot down a few points; but you people are too sophisticated for me. And I thought that it would be much better if I spoke off the cuff and shared our thoughts and got into a communication between ourselves, rather than to jot down points to speak on any specific subject. And if I were to ramble and meander in this manner, I would like to say that the thing that struck me since I left Government is that the foreign press of Western countries has labeled me pro-Peking and pro-Chinese. As I said in Cairo, where I was a guest of the UAR Government because Gamal Abdel Nasser very kindly invited me to stay there, to an Indian correspondent who had come to see me, "I am a Pakistani, that's all I am. I believe in my country's interests and 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. Pakistan has a role to play in Asia and Africa, in the world. It is 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 do not know this phrase "down to earth" is an Anglo-Saxon expression. But nonetheless "down to earth" is a concept which I do not fully understand, because there is nothing stronger than the force of an ideal—the first 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 have espoused a great and honourable cause. One day I was told that the Indian army is three times the size of Pakistan's. Now it is supposed to have become four times the size of Pakistan's. And I gave a non-military answer. "That means", I said, "our soldiers will have to shoot three times more—that's all." And now they are threatening us with the atom bomb. Well after all, science and technology are everyone's right. Man goes to the moon. Progress and scientific technology cannot be restricted. If India has the bomb, that does not mean that we are going to be subjected to nuclear blackmail, because the question here is not of arms, against having less arms: the question here is of right against wrong.
Therefore, I am not concerned if India's military strength is augmented, because Pakistan stands for a right cause, a just cause, and a right and just cause must prevail. This is the history of the world. You go back to Rome. There was Spartacus against Rome: Carthage against Rome. Weak empires have dwindled. The British empire is gone. The French empire is gone. The oppressed must be the victors over the oppressors. It is OUR position that the five million people of Kashmir 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 hundred million people must continue to struggle. And this struggle must continue until it has been fulfilled. It is only a question of stamina. It is not a question of resources. It is not a question of might. It is a question of stamina and will. You must have the will to continue the struggle. And the people of Pakistan. I hope, will have the massive will to continue to 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 Kashmir is an old problem. After all, there are insoluble problems, there are insoluble disputes like Berlin. And this is another insoluble problem. That's one argument that is used. The other argument that is used, also from interested and special quarters is: Why should fifty-five million people of East Pakistan make sacrifices for the five million people of Kashmir? Why not let economic development take place? After all, economic development is more important; and we have lived with this problem. We can live with it for the future. It is not that at all. These arguments refute the will of the people of a country. We should take a direct lesson from Vietnam. 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 use phrases like "an equitable solution" or "meaningful discussions." They say, "Get out and then talk".
We ask for self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir and nothing else. I must tell you that at the time of partition, we lost Gurdaspur: we lost areas in East Pakistan, certain regions of Assam and Tripura and we rationalised. After all, we argued, if you get an independent country, it is more important to hold on to it than to seek instant 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 rationalised on other matters. But if you keep rationalising, there will be a gradual territorial attrition of Pakistan. If today you take the argument that the five million people of Jammu and Kashmir should not be sacrificed for the fifty-five million people of East Pakistan, that will lead to our undoing.
Let us lake that to its logical conclusion. It sounds all right if you believe in the status quo if you are belying facts: if you want to just sit on your back: if you don't want to be a part of the music of change, of metamorphosis, then, of course, you can logically argue that way. But let us take it to its logical conclusion and I am not saying something new, I have said this before, if this argument is taken to its logical conclusion, that means it is all right to leave the five million people of Jammu and Kashmir and say that they are not worth the sacrifice of fifty-five million people of East Pakistan and the fifty million people of West Pakistan. But does the problem end there? The problem does not end there. When India having whetted its appetite, starts something in the Rann of Kutch, then you can argue with equal validity: "The peoples of Karachi and Sind, being so many in number are not worth the 80 million people of Pakistan. So why not give up Sind and Karachi?" Then they will say, "Well, Afghanistan has some claim. Then the thirty lakh people or forty lakh people of that region should go because a hundred million people cannot sacrifice them-selves for three hundred thousand. So why not give up your territorial claim there?"' Then comes Baluchistan and they say, "Well, all right, after all, these are only seven million people and what the hell! It is only rocks and stone. Give up Baluchistan."
It is an argument, therefore, which is used by some superficial quarters and some vested interests. We must realise that the struggle for Kashmir is not something which is an obsession with us; it is a principle: it is the completion of Pakistan. I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, I firmly believe that without Kashmir Pakistan is a body without a head and it is a very beautiful head we cannot abandon that struggle. It is out of the question. But in order to espouse that cause 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, and Ivory Coast to support Pakistan on Kashmir, if we do not also support their cause, because that is not something which is our private reserve. We go to some country and say that they must support us. They would ask us why? We have to give them reasons. When countries support us on Jammu and Kashmir, it is not on a partisan basis; it is on principle. I have repeatedly said that when countries say there should be self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir, it is not that they are taking a pro-Pakistan position and an anti-India position; it is that they are taking a right position, a judicious and just position which in the twentieth century one expects from important and sovereign states.
That is why it is important for Afro-Asian solidarity to crystallise, because we belong to the underdeveloped countries. We are the proletariat of the world. We have gone through great difficulties, trials, tribulations, poverty, disease, misery, exploitation and domination. It is not just a phenomenon which is confined to the subcontinent. It is a world-wide phenomenon and, therefore, we have to co-operate, collaborate, get-together, assist one another, whatever the odds or difficulties. There are bound to be setbacks. 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 and finally the right cause and justice must prevail. And Asia and Africa must have a better day. 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 when we ask for an end to this exploitation? Is it unfair that we want our children to get a better education? Must we be labelled as communists and various other things merely because we fight against domination, because we rise against 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 not have a better life, that children should not have smiles on their faces, that they should not be able to go to schools, that they should not be able to have an education? For that, must we be stigmatised, must we be called pro-Peking or pro-something else, just because we want to defend our sovereignty and 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, so that we should live without respect? Independence becomes meaningless, just an abstract expression, if it is not taken to its logical culmination. 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 social facilities and a cultural existence of their very own. 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, it is not because Afro-Asian solidarity is directed against "any other country. It is not directed against any 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, see why there should be so much hatred or so much fear against the concept of Afro-Asian solidarity.
It is said that it is a myth, that it is not a reality. What is a myth? It's again an ideal. It is again an expression of decolonisation and of the quest for a better life. This quest is not directed against any country in the world. And, therefore, when we say, there should be Afro-Asian solidarity and the nations of Asia and Africa must get together, that does not mean there should be a coup d'etat and revolution where a conference is going to be held. But if there are coups d'etat and revolutions, then we have to face the odds if you want to espouse the right cause. You must be prepared for sacrifices. 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 but I will give you my own reasons why I think this would be so, once we have really removed the vestiges of all foreign domination and of all grotesque interference. Once we have removed those factors with sacrifices we will realise that relations between Asia and Europe will be better. Why they will be better is because both Asia and Europe have a geographical propinquity. They are close together geographically. Both Asia and Europe are the homes of old ideas of religion and philosophy. 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 come into operation. And that is why, I believe, rightly or wrongly, that General de Gaulle espouses a great ideal when he talks about European Europe. As there must be a European Europe, there must be an Asian Asia. Talking in terms of an Asian Asia as Pakistanis, we must take into account the fact that we are a hundred million people living in Asia. China is in Asia. Any development, any progress that takes place in Asia must take into account the Chinese factor. We must first take the Chinese factor into account. Secondly, we have a common boundary with China, along four hundred square miles or more of the most rugged area.
They are our immediate neighbours. 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, as no problem of Europe can be solved without the participation of the great European Powers. Fourthly, we are a small country; we are an underdeveloped country. We want to see the United Nations, as a collective force, grow in strength. How can you have United Nations which in its charter believes in the universality of representation but keeps the real China out? When we say that 700 million people should be included that's not being pro-Chinese. That is accepting the reality of life. Then for the last thirty or forty years there have been disarmament conferences. How can you have disarmament, true and meaningful disarmament, when you exclude seven hundred 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 and it should be understood every-where.
It is a great pity, that people should be labelled, leaders should be labelled, others should be labelled pro-Peking or pro-Chinese. The facts of history must prevail. We are not being communists. We have our ideology. We are proud of it. And Pakistan, I think, has a contribution to make, as I told you at the very outset, on an ideological plane and on an ideological basis. There have been many times when Pakistan has, rightly or according to its own judgement, not agreed with certain views of China, or of the United States for that matter. 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-India. Why should I be anti-India? There is no reason for us to be anti-India. As Muslims we are supposed to be magnanimous. We got Pakistan. We got what we wanted. Why should we be anti-India? There is no basis for me to be anti-India. The question is that India is a great fraud. What can I do about that? You remove the fraud and the chicanery and 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 share a common history. We are part of the same geography, the same geographical compulsions, the same geo-political factors. We share poverty. We are part of the same music and march of Afro-Asian solidarity. So we have nothing against the people of India. All that we ask for is co-operation to exist, for co-opera-lion as among equals. Co-operation must be on the basis of reciprocity. Co-operation must be when nobody is trying to strike someone else down. Co-operation should not be a means to subjugation. Co-operation should not be something that you come through the back door and knife someone, as Shivajee knifed Afzal Khan. When these new conditions exist, then we would be only too happy to co-operate with India. But until the fraud and the force and the chicanery is removed. I believe confrontation must continue. When a prowler comes into your room you don't put off the lights, you put on the lights. That's what confrontation means. Expose the wrong-doer, expose the delinquent.
Reference has been made to a thousand years of war. It was a political and metaphorical phrase. We do not have to fight for a thousand years, but please do not forget there is a thousand years conflict behind us. Must our quarrel with India be eternal? It can come to an end on the basis of justice and equity. But if there was ever a quarrel in the whole world, it is between India and Pakistan. It can only come to an end on the basis of justice, which means not only the right of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but proper treatment of minorities.
For the first time, I have spoken that we have rights in East Pakistan also. Pakistan has legitimate rights in the Eastern part and a time will come when I will mention those rights. Those rights must be fulfilled. The wrong against Pakistan must be put right. Till then, I am quite convinced in my mind that whatever the turmoil and the difficulties, eventually, we shall succeed. Now sometimes we are given very good advice and we are told. "Look here, old boys, be nice, you know!" We are told that this is not the right thing to do. After all, you must live in peace, you live next door to each other. But I tell all our friends from wherever they be to heal themselves. When it comes to your own problems then you are prepared to forget every thing. You are prepared to close your eyes on Vietnam, on Southern Rhodesia for the pound sterling. You are prepared to forget everything. You are prepared to do whatever you like. But when it comes to us. You tell us, "Now, look here boys!"
I was a Minister for eight years. It is a long time. I was not ever anti-British, because I do not believe that we should carry over the legacies and bitterness of a struggle when it is finished. We are Muslims. The struggle is completed. We have survived. We are victorious. Let bygones be bygones. This is our weakness. This is our temperament. The British have great qualities. They are a resourceful country and they are skilful. They have many virtues and they know it. But taking everything into account. I don't think I will be misunderstood if I were to say that our relationship in this country must be more realistic. We are on the eve of a Commonwealth Conference. It is taking place in a few weeks' time. Have they and have we really and honestly asked ourselves if there is any virtue left in this institution? If we believe that, we must take into account the objective conditions, and I believe that time has come when we have to reassess our attitude to the Commonwealth without, in any way, affecting our bilateral relations with the United Kingdom.
Let me tell you that I am going to meander on the subject. Let me briefly tell you what the contradictions are. The Commonwealth exists because there are disputes. Disputes are not supposed to be reconciled by the Commonwealth. India became a part of the Commonwealth not because Nehru had great ideals of a multi-racial organisation, but because he was in Kashmir and he wanted British support. We also had to become a member of the Commonwealth because if India became a member and we did not, we would not have had the support. At least, this is how we argued it. In Africa also the same position exists. The African states have territorial claims against each other and have their membership in many cases. I have often wondered what the virtue and the vitality of the Commonwealth is 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."
Well, that is very good. But is it going to lead to the lessening of tensions? Disputes motivate Commonwealth membership of Asian-African states and disputes arc not supposed to be resolved in the Commonwealth Conference. Disputes accentuate tensions and these tensions characterise the Commonwealth. Secondly, the whole face of Asia and Africa has changed. We are going through really an upheaval. We must have the best of relations bilaterally, but we must not confuse our people. Our people are not sophisticated. They may say. "What is the meaning of this? On the one hand, you say there is colonialism and neo-colonialism and exploitation. On the other hand, you say the very fact that we have met is a very good thing.''
Our people must know where they stand, what is their position. Our place is in Asia and nowhere else. That we have to forge our future in Asia does not mean there should be no contact at all with the West. The contact with the West is useful. I tell you that one of the greatest satisfactions I had as Foreign Minister is the contact that I 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 to develop good contacts. There can never be anything like a break in 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 of Suez. What is this sophisticated show of neo-colonialism, this chauvinism East of Suez? East of Suez means that the policy of West of Suez must be different. What is the policy West of Suez? West of Suez policy is co-operation, goodwill, fraternity. If you get thrown out of the Commonwealth try and set back into the Common Market. No exploitation, no domination. But there must be a different policy East of Suez. You have lost all your teeth, yet you want to show your teeth. Policy East of Suez in political terms can only be described as domination and interference in South Arabia, in the UAR, in the subcontinent and in Malaysia.
We want to have good, fraternal and sound relations with Great Britain and others. Great Britain must realise its present capacity. 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 of Suez. 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 pontificate to us as to what our foreign policy should be, who should or should not be a minister. That story I have still to tell, but in the national interest I will not. But one day I will have to tell of this gross and grotesque interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan. So let everyone cultivate his own backyard. Let people develop according to their own national mores, according to their own national traditions. Let everyone develop relations on the basis of geographical and political considerations, on account of the compulsions of time and not get labelled in terms of black and white. There is no black and white left. The world has become grey. Thus let the natural evolution take place.
It is said there will be an upheaval. Why should we be afraid of an upheaval? When you are striving to have justice, when you are striving for a great ideal, it must be on the basis of an upheaval. There must be change. It took place in Europe. From 1848 they had their revolutions. They had a revolution in France. They had a revolution here in this country of its own nature. There have been revolutions everywhere. Asia is going through a 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 whether or not you close your eyes to it.
And the change is a beautiful change. It is a great change. There are many scars on the face of Asia today, but it has got a smile on its face at the same time. There can never be a farewell to sunshine. We must go through this stage. We must be prepared for it. 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 relations to certain considerations alone. You 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 know, in our part of the world, part of the legacy left behind by colonialism is a certain brand of politics.
But if you really examine the true nature of politics, the role of the politician is a great role, 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 romanticist. This does not mean that he should go to a nightclub. But he must know the tempo of the time, the rhythms of revolution. A politician must be an architect. He must build for the present as well as for the future. Those who are involved in the political life of our Asia—and I would like 10 talk of Asia in personal terms, of our dear Asia—must know the rhythm of the times. We must know and we must think of our country no! 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 a world and India is a part of that world. And this is what I mean by the totality of things.
It is my firm conviction that East and West Pakistan can achieve the most sublime balance. When we talk of parity, it is not really a political expression. Parity, if you bring it down to earth, is balance. It is like two wheels on a pulley. You remove one wheel, the other must fall. This is where balance lies. Two great Muslim forces galvanising against a decadent society. This must continue not only in the interest of East and West Pakistan, but also in the interest of progress, in the interest of evolution of the right ideal and, above all, in order to expose fraudulent politics. 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. I believe that we may have differences;
We may have our difficulties but overriding these 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. 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 the same 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. This cannot be forgotten. We must bury our prejudices. We must forget our differences.
Every country in the underdeveloped region has fissiparous tendencies. You look from Nigeria to Indonesia and you will always see some centrifugal forces, the north and the south, the east and the west. Sumatra, Java, Northern Nigeria, Eastern Nigeria. We have to overcome the difficulties. We have to see that the consolidation of the nation takes place. Why should people be interested in the unity and common interest of a region? It is for us to show the interest because the seeds of discord will always be laid. It will be for the leadership of Asia and Africa to banish disunity, from Nigeria right upto Japan. Anywhere you go, you will find these factors because a complete evolution has not yet taken place; but this evolution must take place. It has to take place.
These are the realities of life we have to face. Yes, we are separated by a thousand miles of territory and the people speak Urdu and Bengali. Nevertheless, both the forces that unite us and the factors that divide us "should be taken into account. I know Mr. Mujibur Rahman very well. I met him just before he was interned. We had long discussions. I said. "Let us address public meetings." Therefore, it is not that we should look at things in our own country in terms of black and white, just as I have appealed to you not to look into international problems 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 East and West. I believe that both East and West Pakistan have made a great contribution to the unity of Pakistan. 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. It was great how the nation unitedly stood as a rock, against the onslaught of a predator. The Indians said that by evening Lahore shall fall. And my reply was no Indian mother had given birth to an Indian who could take Lahore. So it is not the size of India or the military resources of India that matters. What is required is stamina. We have this stamina. We have the will. We have a
cause which is right and just. We shall uphold it and Insha Allah we shall succeed.