On November 4, 1971, President Richard M. Nixon, Indira Ghandi, Ronald L. Ziegler, Parmeshwar N. Haksar, Manolo Sanchez, and Stephen B. Bull met in the Oval Office of the White House from 10:29 am to 12:35 pm. The Oval Office taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 613-015 of the White House Tapes.
Transcript (AI-Generated)This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.
Oh, it's breaking through.
There we are.
You can sit there, you know.
Sit there.
Well, can I thank you once again for the great gift that I've been given.
at this moment of so many changes around the world.
But we don't have a chance to talk about it.
I particularly want to naturally talk about it and get back to that.
But also after we get that, I don't know, but perhaps we can get that into discussion.
.
.
.
Yes, but you're from Washington, right?
You're from Dallas, right?
Your first, uh, you got surprised, right?
And you're from Clark, uh, New Dallas, so Dallas, right?
Yes.
That's a very good decision.
That's a very good decision.
We hope you have a good stay.
Thank you.
It works.
I don't care about it.
You were the hardest man here.
We ran the afternoon, and the rest of the night.
Did you have men?
No.
Just men.
The march was, I'm not the kind of chief that... Well, I want to say that the, that I think it's very, very good that we have this talk at this time.
Most of the talk came out.
because there are two problems that you're aware of that Ambassador has spoken about.
Of course, they have to keep very close to touch and stay in control and so on.
Our interest is to try to find a solution to them.
On the broader scene, I thought perhaps maybe tomorrow
I think it would be useful if I could give you a little fill-in on what I see coming out of the Chinese visit and the Soviet visit.
Because your interests are extremely involved.
I'm going to ask just to say, because I'll just let him tell you correctly how he appraises the situation, the Chinese situation, and I will do as best I can my appraisal of the living.
So, of course, you have seen them already, I don't know about I, but particularly in the field of arts, control, Mideast, perhaps, while you're
Well, your interests are not directly involved.
You have an enormous stake in that, you know, because in our time, if arms control doesn't work, it's basically we're all going to go out and smoke, and that's far worse.
And if the mid-east blows, it's, it's something like, it's out there, you know, it's a, it always runs the risk of a,
It's a major part of the foundation of the nation's power and constitution.
Yeah.
Henry, do you have a question?
Well, you were there.
Why don't you sit there?
We've been through Tito last week.
We had a translator, so we had no problem with translation.
I mean, we could do twice as much instead of trying.
What we were talking about, I was talking about a prime minister that I thought that tomorrow would be useful in a chain race that we, between time and our time together, discuss urgent problems, immediate problems, to run over our alliance on the Chinese-Soviet trip.
So I want you to be prepared to talk about that and give your impression that you can.
and also get your views as to what you've seen in some of these people.
The other thing is that I thought that also I would like to give you
And again, you have only a tangential interest.
I write to you with my letters to a phrase from Vietnam.
It's not coming to the National Register, or whatever we talked about in 1969.
This package, for us, is not coming to Atlanta.
It's still on the rocky road.
But beyond that, and I'm not trying to indicate what, but if you would prefer to report it to me, is that if you see a problem, or see anything you want to bring up, I would still love to make it as far as the one you mentioned, which we urge.
I believe, of course, it's very much in our minds, the whole salvation problem, where we stand, and so forth.
Let me say that on this, I'm very .
I have no objection.
Well, I have confidence, of course, that .
I sometimes send talks to this site that they go out on a whole different kind of wire, and they're not as useful, and they can talk very candidly, and they were gone.
I made her all some things.
I got to go to the bureaucracy, and I want you to know that I studied it quite a bit before you came, and compared it to the trip.
And if you say to me, well, we don't have signed bases, so whatever notes, Henry, you make, or if you think, I want you to give him, whatever note you give, this will be useful so that you'll have the record.
So if you do that, Henry, you give the same record you give to them, we give it to you, would that be fair enough?
You should have the same record as we have.
Yeah.
We've never had any leaks.
I know that.
I know.
Well, that's one of the reasons we can talk on the state of Canada, which I think is useful, because there are misunderstandings and occasions which we'll be able to figure out because of the tremendous public press.
And there are things that we've got out
They just might, uh, serve our interests.
No, I wouldn't.
The coffee also is distant.
Would you like coffee?
Yes, I did.
Oh, some more?
I thought you missed the director.
Oh, not all of it is there, ma'am.
Okay.
So, Paris Burgers, is that all right with you?
Yes, sir.
I would like to say that, uh, I was basically advised
you know, this problem looks like it's not, like that would not be, I mean, every movement seemed to be getting tighter and more entangled.
So we were full of admiration how unsubmitted considerable powers just got across in the way that we did.
So we, but many people just wanted to be mined since our relationship with China was not so good, and that we mined her by the
of apprehensions or misgivings, but that wasn't so extraordinary.
That's my great, great imaginative way in which you have to cross it, but actually there was no other way.
You couldn't just open it bit by bit.
We did it part to pieces because we had had, let me say, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and,
is critical of what we're writing on this.
that we were going over there and dealing with these people who were enemies of ourselves.
But we had, your effort had to be fit, the bullet had to be fit, totally intact, with no surprise, for the reason that if we had ever leaked it out, then we would have had a enormous public outcry that would have stopped it.
The second part, though, I think,
to be made is that it really has been very helpful that you have taken the position that you have.
Because if you will remember that when our talk in 69, I told you that, that I did not believe that you, that with the decontaminating of the Soviet against China, or with Europe and Soviet against China, it would be useful even though China was, at that time, quite aggressive in its attitudes.
And you totally agree when you said that even though China had its problems with India, a direct change in any sort of thing that fenced them off.
You can't fence off the interconnected people.
It'll work in five years, in 20 years from now.
We have a long shot.
Did you feel, do you still feel that?
Did you?
The path is frankly the move forward, but it's segregation.
We've been taking a lot easier.
But we don't mind.
That's why they pay us these big salaries.
But let me say this.
The other thing, and then I can do a little bit more until tomorrow.
The more I get into this, the more I understand that our initiative towards China in the long run will make Asia safer rather than more dangerous.
The reason being that if the United States versus the Soviet Union is not a communication of China, except on a foreign basis.
All right.
Now, as far as any nuclear power is concerned, who is what?
PR.
Now, if we do not talk to, we can do one of two things.
We can say, but that has nothing to do with it.
And that means that the only alternative, if they decide, and I don't mean that they have pretensions of doing this, if they move in any part of the, on the perimeter, on the ridge of the bay, whether in the Indian area or Southeast Asia, or the rest of it, the only alternative to that is migrants.
So it's much better, we believe, to have a dialogue now.
Try to have some influence.
And I think you deal with it that way.
It's not interesting.
But Henry, after his long talks, we have no illusions.
We have no illusions.
Understand, these are very strong people.
and different views in the world than we have.
But we believe that this is a very, very important move.
Is that your feeling, Henry, at this point?
Well, yes.
Of course, our purpose, as I explained to you when I said I'm giving you an indication of the precise move is to see whether we can encourage a more moderate China policy, an exact policy by China, that under no circumstances would we
collude with China, and they won't collude with us.
The way I would put it is this way.
I had to make a very tough decision.
The decision was, because there were many people, criminologists, you know what we call them in this country, in our State Department, didn't they?
Tommy Thompson, Chip Boland, the rest of them were very much against the challenge.
And the reason was they thought it would exacerbate our relations.
It was so different.
Or when China's neighbors, China and Japan.
My view is that, as far as peace in the world is concerned, anything that can moderate the Chinese serves that cause.
That the United States, on the outside, confronted China would make it more
antagonist that the outside of the United States, on the inside, may not moderate it.
We have no illusions.
But it has some chance.
In other words, if you're talking to somebody, there's a chance, at least, for moderation.
But if you're on the outside, what are they going to do?
And that's the way we look at it at the moment.
And particularly as they gain in strength.
Now, what they are getting to in terms of their military or nuclear power, that's one thing.
But look ahead 20 years, and that's what we have to do.
Where you see about 80 people with a significant number of irritability, it can be a great temptation for somebody, a great temptation to push.
That's really one of what we've tried to do.
So I must say that your statement, I had it in my ear when we were talking to Phil Rogers, your statement and the fact that you welcomed it at the time was very helpful here because I remember that two or three of the columnists here, you probably didn't see them, but you probably did, were saying, well, it's a bad idea and stuff like that.
Right?
Right on.
Because of China's active restraint, and you know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,
I've read it, but when I look at it this way, in this country, and we're not trying to pull your leg or anything, in this country, there is a feeling about India, which is deep-seated.
I mean, legally, meaning.
We want you to make it.
I said to the prime minister when I was there before in our private talk, I said, look, there are 500 million of you.
This is Chester Holt who told me this in 67.
He's right.
He said, look, there are 500 million of you.
There are 750 million Chinese.
These are the two largest countries in the world.
One is Joseph of Galateria and the other is Joseph of Freedom.
If any of the experiments fails,
The impact of that on all of the many powers around the world is enormous.
It is important that it succeed.
And that's difficult.
It's much more easy to run a country, particularly a big country, with enormous problems, you know, problems with all of the rest.
It's much more easy to run from just boom.
And here you are trying to make it that way.
But now there are billions of Americans and people that way, really deep down inside.
And we want you to, we want to help, you know what I mean, where we can.
But, of course, you can find your defendants.
That's really the honest feeling.
And again, that's the reason I had trouble getting one subject out of the way right away so that you wouldn't have no concern.
You may have, I'm sure, got your daughter as low as the back of the Senate Friday afternoon.
I can assure you why.
That person, I have invited all the way for him.
Second, we will get him.
as far as whatever our programs are, you know, compared to you including the L-40s, right?
Third, the refugee from the 100, uh,
140, it seems like.
The additional 140 or 150 that I've asked for.
250, yes.
Well, that's a total of 250, including tonight, right?
70 plus the amount today.
With that 250, we will cancel.
If this is your question, pay no attention to the papers.
The rest is all hanging around.
And there is, there is a very strong Senate in this country.
And we have sort of a mix.
The Senate, if I don't want to bore you with our problems, but the Senate in our country now
is that a majority would probably come down on the side of aid for humanitarian purposes.
The House on the other side comes down on the side for aid on the military security side, that nasty humanitarian thing.
But Henry was here the other day when I got less errands than two Republican leaders in the House who are important, but who have a problem holding them in line.
I said, look here, we've got both.
And we, so the continuing resolution in the House, which will be passed probably within a week, will include everything.
And then we will vote to file it in the Senate.
This stuff, just forget all the stories.
Mr. President, I have asked this question as the President has asked.
It's not in London.
Oh.
And the news had come, too.
And I said, I don't think this is the last word on it.
I told you to reply.
Very good.
It's a setback, not a defeat.
We know how the legislating process works.
It is only a defeat when it's forever.
This is something that the Congress is still in session, and they're very embarrassed about it now.
Although it wouldn't do it if the Prime Minister or President Trump just wanted to press the
When you're at the dress code, which is remarkable, when you're at the dress code, I would say that you could say two things that would help us in this fight.
One, that it is essential, just essential, from a humanitarian standpoint, to say that there is great
concern as to whether the United States is getting up on the third world, et cetera, et cetera, and the so-called developing countries.
And then third, you might, I think you might say, you've been assured of the President, and I want you to say this, that he not only is fighting for it, but he is confident that we will pass it, that you just feel it.
Something like that could really help us with it, because India, as a refugee thing, is a big part, a big bundle of the humanitarian, what we call it, it isn't just humanitarian, it's both economic, it's humanitarian plus economic.
That's sort of the thing.
That's the thing with the military.
And that would help a lot if it would, if you could sort of put it along those lines.
People are worried.
They are concerned.
We want to keep, see, we're trying to keep their feet to the fire.
And you know how it is.
This is politics.
It's true.
It's got to be done.
It's got to be done.
But what I'm speaking of, where your statement would help is that people
We'll do a little quicker.
That's the point.
Time is essential so that people don't get discouraged.
After that, I'd love to ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, on India-Pakistan, when I say India-Pakistan, it's India, the refugee problem, the East Pakistan thing and the rest.
I would appreciate having a good time talking about that because
I know your deep concerns, and I know ours, and we want to be helpful.
We will be glad to take any guidance that you've made into consideration and would be helpful in our relations with Pakistan, and so on.
We think we've had some influence on them.
Apparently not as much as it may be necessary at this point.
But if we could talk about that, it would be helpful to know.
As I said, it has concerned me.
I know, of course, this is something that you have known.
And I had it over in our press.
But there had been some notice of a very, very
a big press campaign in India, very critical of the United States that we are exacerbating the issue, that we're not being helpful to the press.
And let me say, this is not our intention.
Not our intention.
We want to help the refugees.
We want to help you.
We have no idea.
Well, to start the situation, this takes out of the way
We have no illusions about where the center of power is in South Asia, after all.
The center of power is in Dalai.
It is there because of your numbers, because of your position in the rest.
Second, we know that you have no desire to get a war on your hands.
You feel, as you said that to me before, and you feel as we do, that this
is the worst thing that could happen.
Third, our relations with Pakistan, frankly, have been maintained for a very practical reason.
That is that we believe that we can be more influential having a voice than not having a voice.
We believe that if we won't have a voice, we leave a vacuum.
And frankly, the only voice that will be heard will be the voice of the Chinese.
We don't think that would be a salutary thing.
We may be wrong, but that's my judgment.
Now,
We, with that in mind, so that we can get one not a problem, at least understood at the moment, I know great concern has been expressed in our close rating program.
As you know, that program is less than 5,000.
It includes only those matters that were contracted for before this situation did occur.
The other point that I should make, Mark, is that we have talked very strongly to Yali about, as a result of that program, about several of the problems that you actually will raise.
And at the present time, I can tell you now that it is completed.
there's $160,000, I just checked this this morning, $160,000 on the docks in New York, loaded, but because the docks are not ready to go, that will go, and that's it, and there will be no more.
So I don't want you to be, I don't want you to have the feeling that the United States at this time would deliver a few military weapons
a country that frankly might encourage them to engage in military activities.
So that's the military side.
But again, I emphasize that I have resisted, and I want to be quite candid with this, I have resisted attempts on some very well-intentioned people who have been to India, Teddy Kennedy and others,
And he'll come back and set a cutoff all the way to Pakistan.
Now, I can do that.
I mean, not military.
They're talking about economic.
I can do that.
We cut off all aid to Afghanistan.
We cut off totally our aid funds there.
My only view is that would not be good.
It would not be good because at least we have a voice.
And we have used that voice.
And we have used it perhaps more strongly than we realize.
There are a couple, as I can tell you today, that will indicate that we've made some progress.
uh if we cut all away then we isolate pakistan and the country is isolated where does it turn well it turns to whoever else i've talked to that's really putting a cold turkey and i uh
If you feel, however, that this is an unwise policy, we want to know, because our concern here is, well, it's the same as yours.
We see those 9 million refugees, 9 or 10 million, I don't remember who it is.
by just one minute to nine, but it was nine.
Okay, we see those people in there, and we know, of course, the terrible problem of overcrowding the whole thing.
Even though I haven't visited that area except just briefly in 1957, the West Bend Colliery, we realized, as you said in your remarks, the enormous problem you already have with so many mouths to feed around
We know what a terrible burden this is, and there's nothing we want more than to be helpful.
But I must say, if the impression is abroad that the United States is a hate-impacted man who served in the history of harassment for the purpose of encouraging the nation, not that.
We are hate-impacted for a very practical reason.
Continue with our program.
The military is a hate-hater.
The economic, of course, is limited, but we have a voice.
The consortium has not in fact made no commitments.
We've done humanitarian assistance in East Pakistan, which we believe actually the Indian government
is an outpost because it prevents another outflow of refugees.
Police said that we can prevent firing in Yuzbek or we can prevent another outpouring of refugees, thereby complicating India's problems even more.
So that's really the major thing we've done.
By and large, what we have done on the humanitarian relief
and food to appeal for a food intuition to record on.
And we have still
Some unexpended paid funds from the previous years were not expended.
That's what I'm referring to.
But there is a move in the House and the Senate, which I resist, to cut that off.
But we resist that.
If we cut that off, we cut our voices off.
If our voices are cut off.
On the military side?
No, this is the communist side.
No, what is it?
What is the standing down?
No, we, uh, uh, the, uh, want to cut off military, but that's no longer an issue because... That's a whole issue.
We'll question it.
We have worked out that drying up of the military is a blot on that incident.
Yeah, I agree.
Let it not be denounced.
I say he's agreed.
Uh...
The one that's already loaded, it's on the docks, and it won't be out unless the lady strikes.
No one can just trade it up.
And then the shipment is on the way after they have driven up.
Yeah, except for that, that's $160,000, which, of course, is not true.
The total program was only $250,000.
I don't have anything going on with that.
But then there was on the economic side, it's not really, it's also, it's actually a mood issue because people do, people go along with the consortium.
The consortium has not found it possible to make any commitments to Pakistan.
The only thing that's being discussed there now is a debt rescheduling.
which eases their problem a little, but doesn't make new funds available.
So the only sum we're talking about now are $75 million of our expended aid programs from previous years.
That's right.
Which we have, however, used.
Money in our account.
Money in our account, but we have used it almost exclusively.
I can check the details to support the relief efforts.
That's right.
We have not used it.
for development then?
That's correct.
So this is, this is maybe the... That's what I mean, I mean everything we, we have to face it, that there is a move to cut even now, you know.
Yes.
The consortium, the rest of it.
And if you want to gain your, you know how to use it, but they're not there, and there was tension in crisis.
Yes.
That's for an ass-man.
But that's, but getting to the more fundamental point, uh, we, uh,
We have made some progress, we think.
We understand that it's not as much as we think it should be made, but the replacement of a civilian, of a military governor to a civilian governor, not enough, but it's something.
That is the result of our talks.
the agreement for an international group to investigate rather than having it done from here.
That's what our suggestions are.
At least we think we ought to go in there.
The, uh, the, the, uh, the attitude of the, uh,
at least in the humanitarian context, in context where, if you put your finger on it, where by interacting through any aid that was received, they would use it for their own purposes rather than for purposes of the refugees.
We've got that nailed right in.
But these are all things that...
We have discussed that.
And there are other times, Steve, that there are others that, apart from that particular one, I want to raise, and we'll be numbering these, sir, the other two, maybe some other time.
The point is that we have the, yes, I discussed with Bob, Mr. Van Alstyne, also with Mr. Knox,
We had rightly designed for us to move matters in the direction where politically, political economy in East Mecklenburg would logically follow.
They agreed that political economy in East Mecklenburg, all except for the tax, national, you know, whatever.
Now, they also agreed, now this does not go as far as I know, I'm going to try to get down to East Mecklenburg,
they agreed to a discontent of the representatives of the mecca.
They agreed to consider
We had an absolute commitment, and I can say as an absolute and personal note to Navy design citizens that there will be this trial is not going to end in execution.
Correct?
That's correct.
I was extremely hard on that.
I said, you go down that road, we're finished.
Now, I can assure you that I consider that to be an absolute
that we have accomplished.
However, of course, we finally get down to the key question.
This is one of the choices.
What do we want to have happen?
It could be said, well, your ambassador has put it to us quite promptly.
We appreciate that.
So has our ambassador, Keith.
As a matter of fact, the imam, the Assyrian pastor, who's tonsil, his man, who has been a great deal with us, he talked to me about this.
He says there's only one answer.
He says that what Yahya has to do is to agree to release Abraham.
And we have looked into that.
problem very, very pragmatically is that if he does that, he's finished.
And the choice is, as our analysis of Pakistan, if it isn't Yahya or something more moderate, if it's Yahya or something much worse, he's on the spot, too.
As he often says, he is a military man.
He's not particularly sophisticated in politics.
He has been taking our guidance.
He probably will take some more of it.
But he can go only so far before he breaks the umbilical cord.
And when he does, off you go.
Now, I think we're really looking at a very tough political problem here.
What do we want?
There are a lot of choices.
There are no do's.
We can say that the only attitude, the only attitude
and deal with them in an autonomy, which is part of that matter of independence.
Even some go that far.
And that's the only thing that will stop the record team from going to get a postcard and back the other way.
It might do.
That is not possible.
I think that that would be a decision by the audience.
I mean, the political side of this part,
And also to get something that he could not wheel with his own fleet, the group, as the case might be.
Now, you talked to the Iron Man, right?
Also the air passenger.
Is that an overstatement or not?
But because we don't want to beat around the bush, that really is the key problem.
I mean, everybody says, I'll do something about this law.
I mean, I said, I was sitting here two days ago, and you had to do something about it.
I said, it's private, or I'm disgusted.
I mean, she's here, but I won't take it to work.
Go ahead.
Mr. President, could we talk to the Indian ambassador here?
Oh, no.
That's what he said, and I told him this.
but also to Yahya and also to the Pakistani Valley.
In fact, our effort and interaction has always been to move matters in East Vancouver.
In the direction of political economies, our judgment is that the political economy in East Mecca must lead, in fact, in a foreseeable future, to substantial independence.
That's the historical processing that will work our way.
Now, that's something we can't say more than.
And that's what's going to happen.
That's what's going to happen.
You can't look at that map.
have any differences in the rest of our real life.
That's our judgment.
But you have the immediate problem of what happens with a group of people who might commit suicide, even though they know.
Let's have no illusions.
Let's have no illusions about one thing.
Speaking of Gatwick, we have no illusions that if there is a military conflict, there's no context.
If you wipe them out, but then the question is, what happens?
Will others intervene?
And after you do that, what do you reap?
My feeling is, I looked into that too, my feeling is that if a war comes,
The warning comes, but we know that it's not in the real sense.
I view it as, too, that if a war comes, the very dangerous consequences could develop.
I mean, I must say that many people in this country, when they, not to be objected to it, because we know you're
You have the total right to make any policy you want, but you had your agreement with the Soviet Union that we said, what does that do to India's policy of unalignment?
We realized the agreement did not deal with military things, but you know, this is, you seem to calm.
So a lot of people are worried about that this changes India's position.
But then you also have to look at Pakistan's position.
And you also have to look at the effect of the Chinese and their attitude.
Here's Pakistan.
Carolina or Pakistan.
Well, the private just say, well, the Chinese couldn't do anything, the Chinese wouldn't do anything, and so forth and so on.
I just am not able to predict.
I have no idea what they would do.
We haven't talked to them yet.
What I am suggesting, though, is that if we allow, that's why this talk is so important,
If we allow this situation to go down the road to an inevitable confrontation and a conflict, I think that the conflict, which none of us want, could lead to consequences going far beyond the relationship between India and Pakistan.
And the other thing that concerns me deeply is this, that I...
It would not be understood in this country.
This, of course, is a subsidiary issue, but it is not unimportant.
I try to say in my remarks, there's a deep feeling for India.
It has nothing to do with a piece of paper.
It just comes from the heart.
But he does in this country.
You get people who contribute to India, or this guy, or the other thing.
But on the other hand, in Warfield County,
There's a neo-isolationism growing in this country which says to Americans, stay out of India.
That's the problem.
What I've not said, what I've not suggested for one moment, that we're saying that because the United States would not understand what India did in order to protect itself and that should determine what we should do.
I'm only reflecting the deep problem that we've got and why we're so interested and so concerned
try to work out something the best way that we can.
I mean, we'll cooperate any way that we can.
But we have to deal with the realities, and one reality we have to start with is that I do not think I
and his government can survive on the basis that has been suggested by your ambassador here, and Keating has reported this also to us, on the basis that he must see it, must release and deal with it.
Now, is that your understanding of this?
Yes, that's correct, Mr. President, it is.
We could try to put it in some other words, but this is what we have at this point.
Now, is there anything to go to that?
That's really what I'd like to know.
What do you want us to do?
You tell us, let us consider it.
Because we'll do it.
We want to help.
I talk too much and you two don't have any chance to hear very often what the American opinion is, but we just want you to know that you speak so much higher press about what we think and what we don't think.
And my goodness, you must get the idea that we're taking on the package strategy that we don't care about the ruling.
I finally think the United States, I must say this in all honesty, has gotten a bad rap.
A bad rap in your press and a bad rap in our press.
And our press, of course, is attributed to it because some of our politicians said it.
We are deeply concerned about the refugee problem.
After all, $250 million is a considerable amount.
We are deeply concerned about the problem, trying to work it out.
We spent hours, I must say, we worked on Vietnam and some of these other problems in China.
I spent more time on India and Pakistan, as Henry will tell you, for the past month, than any other subject.
And we talked to the ambassador, and I sent the messages to this guy and the rest.
And we want to help.
And it does not help, frankly, for us to be in the position that here is the United States as being the one that is responsible.
As somebody has charged, one of our politicians said, well, this administration is responsible for a war between India and Pakistan.
That's what we read.
And that doesn't help because it is what we feel is what we're trying to do.
We just honestly want to help.
We don't think you want that.
We don't want it.
So we want to find out what we can do to, frankly, get a better understanding of this difficult problem.
Firstly, I'd like to say that we are not at all anti-Pakistan, nor do we have any interest in seeing Pakistan disrupted or weakened.
We think that to have a labor country which is unstable and has chaotic conditions is not a good thing for us.
And we believe that
the United States is responsible for what is happening there, or is any part of the system to move forward?
I don't think anybody on our side has said that.
No, I mean, it's the press.
Well, even the press, you see, what they, I think they've said, not that I read all that they've said, but I don't know.
You have time to talk about it.
I don't.
In my approach to liberalizing it,
You know, I was so delighted to point out, you know, I had noticed that of all the leaders that I've met here, she's received more votes through the Parliament than any leader in the history of the world.
Go ahead.
load to Pakistan, just to help in the understanding of how the situation is.
I also say that when the country was partitioned, you know, the majority of people were very angry about it.
Now, and of course, quite a large number in Pakistan also.
In some of the other states, like that of Balochistan and North Western India.
India, if I interrupt you, I was interested when I visited you in 67, India has a great Muslim population.
Back to the Muslim presence in India.
That's right.
Go ahead.
So there was a feeling that my father and Mr. Khan and some of the other leaders, Mr. Patel, had let down Indian people or the whole concept of India by accepting partition.
In fact, Mr. Gandhi himself was not so happy about it.
This is still, this is coming away from now in the environment itself.
But they said that the situation was developing in which this was not a good solution, but it was the nature of the evil statement.
It was better to accept it than to go on, go ahead with the job of creating better conditions and higher standards of living in India, rather than keep on with the other struggle.
And, but once this decision was taken, it was accepted by, except for now, party-like, which I was done with, extreme right-wing, very chauvinistic, and I was looking, if you are interested, well, this is a bad thing, and so on, but now it's done, it's done, and we don't want to, we want to be fired.
And unfortunately there was a trail of criticism.
First there was a riot and there was a constant campaign within Pakistan which was hate India, against India.
Culminating in, first of course they invaded Kashmir in 1947 and then again we have the conflict in 1955.
Now, where America is blamed, and this is, I'm interrupting the main thing just to say, was because at that time, when President Eisenhower gave the arms to Pakistan, we said very strongly, and my father did point out that even though the Pakistanis are not the same, that this is true world.
protect the subcontinent from communism.
In effect, these arms will be used against us, and we are absolutely sure that they will not use them either against the Chinese or against the Russians.
And, well, afterwards, they will use them against us.
Now, this is the sore point.
And just from this sore point, what is said today
It's not at all against you or really that what you're sending now makes a kind of difference, but it is because it's such a past thing that it's just a ram that you have this experience and now you see something repeating.
We're fully aware that what you're now giving us, spare parts, that in themselves it's a small amount, it's done to make a very great difference to the energy capacity.
but square parts can activate something which perhaps was not usable or was not in good condition earlier on.
And here again, the government in India has tried to say, as little as possible, and only when you are extremely high-pressing in Parliament or something, can we react.
But the Indian public opinion has been very excited, including people like the Tencent Party, which throughout has been very robust, I imagine.
I mean, when we have had some calls, we have spoken of their white people who have stood out, not only in the United States, but generally the Western bloc.
But in this matter, they took the knee.
They are the ones who had the biggest demonstration.
In fact, we have curbed our party.
And they said, no, no, no, there's no demonstration.
Now, if we don't go, it will create the public will wonder why they're not going.
So even then, we tried to curb them and set them on extreme and so on.
But this is, by the way,
Now, when the two countries were formed, I mean the new setup, before independence, why were we fighting for independence?
The struggle was all over the subcontinent, including what is now Pakistan.
But when independence was achieved in India, those who had fought for independence formed the government.
There was an election, they were elected in Pakistan.
But on the other side, in Pakistan,
it was those who had been with the British in Mongolia and those who had fought for it together, continued to be on the wrong side, and many of them continued to be in prison.
He was in the north-western Sanctuary Province there.
He was after the Bafangas.
He was there for many years.
And after he was released, he was a bachelor.
He went to Kabul and stayed in France.
How many people were at the Gulab and so forth were on the British side?
Yes, but the Muslim League was smaller.
They were not in the Independence Party.
I didn't realize that.
That's very interesting.
And most, many and most of them were sent back in the Bronx.
So these, the political people remained on the Bronx side.
And, um, Abdul Ghaffar Khan was in the Bronx.
And he was released, and he's coming.
And almost as soon as I became president, he was released.
Or maybe not, he's right, but he's never been released.
Now, he has not gone back to Pakistan, he has stayed in France.
In Baluchistan, which is another province, there was another gentleman called Abdul Samad Khan.
He remained in prison for about four years or so.
He was released because of a bad death and within a few months he died.
And in both these states, the provinces of Singapore
There is a sort of movement.
It's a full-blown autonomy.
Now again, it has come up not because they want to escape, but because they were very angry at the formation of Pakistan.
And Abdullah Farhan and this other gentleman spoke just this last year about India and my father and Mr. Patel.
And he didn't forget the Pakistanis.
He said, these are the people who betrayed
We fought alongside them, but when it seemed convenient to them that India was getting sassy, they didn't think about us.
They had been allowing us to be locked in jail and that sort of thing.
They later asked us for help.
And we took the line that we were now Pakistan's sponsor.
It was not a great tour purpose for India to get any kind of movement against the government.
So we had to move and thereby we lost all the connections with them.
A similar situation took place in Singapore.
At that time, the person who approached us was a gentleman called Murana Mishra.
He came to India and asked my father whether my father would support the separatist movement.
And my father said very clearly, no, this is not our line.
We stand for good systems and non-interference and so on.
Very one, he went almost straight from India to Peking, and he got support from China.
And he had a pro-Chinese group there, which existed right up to, well, now the present time.
And, and it was many people, as well, I would not have gone to China, I, India had, but India didn't satisfy, I had no choice.
He stood for elections and his party failed miserably in the present elections in Singapore.
Now, after their defeat, they are now supporting Sheikh Majeed.
But before that, they were totally pro-Chinese and were being led by China with arms in other hands, even though China was so friendly with the government, but it did prevent them from helping these people.
Now,
So the major grouse in East Bengal, apart from the extremist groups, I mean Michelle McKinnon and so on, was merely that their language should be kept and very more in culture, and secondly that they should be allowed to have trade with India.
Now their economy suffered greatly because in 1965 when we have the countries of Pakistan they stopped all trade.
Both the areas, ours and theirs, are very backward.
They don't have any industry.
We have coal, we have fruits, we have oranges, pineapples, and so on.
And it was a very natural movement.
There's no big person, they eat us, we're just a big businessman.
So most of them, they were small people, they just walked across the border so they were on both sides.
And they gave us fish.
Oh, I see.
They gave us fish.
Fish is a very important thing there.
They just don't give us fish, and especially river fish.
And when partitioned, they got cut off from the main supply position.
They gave us fish, we gave coal and fruit and gave us our life.
Now when this was cut off, the person who was hit was the smaller man.
Because the government, it doesn't make any difference, but the smaller man on both sides of the frontier was hit.
And obviously they were hit more because they were surrounded by India on the
on all sides, except for a little portion of Burma, and they don't have, I mean, I don't think it's Dutch anymore, they've trialed people in that area.
So this was their main concern, that if the straits would start, there was a smaller, a bigger economic discontent with the Indies and the Muslims.
But for some reason, the government of West Pakistan didn't pay any attention to this grievance in this mountain.
and then gave the entrance.
Now, we had no contact whatsoever.
I was shaken.
In fact, what we were reading in the papers was that he was constantly being called a student of humanity.
We only thought that he was a very non-religious person, believing he was a student and all this sort of thing.
But we didn't think that he had very pro-West leanings.
That's why time and water strategy he had to prove.
But somehow he came out as the leading team leader of the people and that he got the biggest majority that I think anybody has got in a free and simple matter of days.
He put his six points to the program with four, I mean with EIF on as the program, the public had the program, and the lay.
And all the leaders of that team are, now most of the retinue is overcoming, I have six, I hope.
quite a bunch of it.
And if you ask them why did they go to those communities, they said that we had all these economic difficulties and it was clear that the man who understood our problems and who would help us in, you know, by saying that he was a poverty seeker.
That's the kind of people they were.
They were not allowed to tell us the rest of the news.
But after the election, as you know, Mr. President, that government
I'm sure that if Professor Jaya Khan had let things go as they were, they would not have wanted to separate from Pakistan or India.
Equal to, you know, that you draw a circle and you bring people into your circle, isn't it?
Yes, that's how it is.
Yes, that's how it is, and we have had to do with many of our people, whether it's in Africa, whether it's in other places in the group that wants to separate,
You talk with them and you give them some degree of autonomy.
That's one of the essentials of the country.
We have a party there that's very extremely difficult.
First they start off saying they wanted to separate from you.
Now, because they can't do that centrally, they have no...
There was not a rival and there's no... And I must say that the people don't really want to...
They also, they've built it up to a wrong language.
But by talking with them and saying, you know, what are the difficulties, let's hope them out, we were able to ease the tension.
You know, the entire country now is more united than it's ever been.
And we kept this unity even though at one time most of the governments were run by parties against the centre.
But even then, this cohesion and unity was not raised still.
But now,
What we heard after the election is that Sheikh Moti still had no idea of asking for any kind of declaration of independence.
He thought that they could work out something within, with Pakistan, but he didn't want a little more autonomy and he was very stopped by the Strait of India, because he thought that was the only way he could keep the people content.
Well, they had these negotiations and
I'm told, in fact, I met somebody who said he was practically there with the shredding tea by the store, or in the next room, that on the 24th of March, they thought that they practically reached some payment.
Later, of course, we found that all this kind is used to bring troops from the West.
And on the 25th, they struck, now it's
In fact, how it began is very difficult to say because there are two different, two entirely opposing versions.
But, one news we have got from West Pakistan, or rather from West Pakistan, which is the boundary of Pakistan,
There were some words between the West Pakistan commander and his Bengali officer.
And he was very quick.
The West Pakistan looked down upon the Bengalis.
This is one of the things which one comes to the sight of.
They said, well, we are good fighters and these people are intellectuals and musicians and artists and that sort of thing.
Muhammad Ali was a nice man.
He was a nice man.
Very nice man.
He had a heart attack, didn't he?
He had a heart attack, didn't he?
He had a heart attack, didn't he?
He had a heart attack, didn't he?
He had a heart attack, didn't he?
He had a heart attack, didn't he?
He had a heart attack, didn't he?
I spoke to everybody, we spoke, we sent a message to Uthant also that, well, please do something before this whole question gets out of hand.
But at that time, I think that it's an internal problem.
Actually, we ourselves were saying that it is an internal problem.
You might say, just go home to your country here, and therefore it may well become something else.
But nobody paid any attention.
Now, we have a massive production.
There are only 2 1⁄2 people.
But the Muslim communities are 2 1⁄2 also.
But we do have very high numbers.
Hindus, some Christians, some Buddhists.
Let me say on the numbers.
I told Kissinger, he gave me the log.
His staff at the State Department said, well, there's an argument between the two of you.
We've set the number.
I mean, one minute is enough.
It's a terrible tragedy.
And I want you to know that.
It's probably nine minutes.
That's my guess.
We do know what they are, and we don't do this.
We've set them.
Well, it could be a little different, because, you know, sometimes they go down into confusion.
But they can't be saturated, because the two million Muslims are definitely registered, two and a half.
And we know that the larger number are Hindus.
And then we have this whole block of Christians from one particular tribal area.
So these are all registered and named and all.
There may be, if they go, there will be some confusion because at one time we had 4,000 people a day a week.
And there may have been some confusion about numbers, but we are having them counted all over again.
Of course we can keep that because they each have a ration card.
So they each have a ration card.
But, um, it is in that region, I mean, it certainly is not as little as 3 million.
Sure, sure.
Well, let's... Now, all these people have come into an area which is the most difficult for us, and the best and most peaceful of times.
It's the area which has produced all our extremists, the Marxists, the so-called Marxists.
That's a tough problem for you, I know.
It's a very tough problem.
They're a very volatile group, isn't that?
Volatile, they are.
Well, the presidential election was almost the only place where presidential rules came about because of their own request.
There was a government.
But the chief minister and the entire government said that, you know, we just can't handle the Secretary of State.
What is that called in the country?
Do you call it West Nagao?
Or do you call it the... What is the name?
Uh-uh.
Here it is.
West Nagao.
But the refugees are in four states.
Where is Carol?
Okay, I...
Okay, I got her.
So I wish I'd known this in my mind, I wouldn't be, but anyway.
Well, you know, it's such a big country.
I've only been to four cities, you know, because Sunday had a month and two weeks there.
That's maybe... No, this is a big place off the edge of my understanding.
That's right.
I got the picture of you.
Now, what is, firstly, politically this area has always been difficult.
Aztlan has one type of problem, Tripura has another, Mekale has a tribal state and the red-whites are separate, and of course, West Singapore is bursting at the seams, really with the previous population and all these political and other questions.
So, the refugees have imposed an enormous financial burden.
And I honestly don't know how we'll manage it.
And I think that we're just, uh, practically every program has stopped.
All the pledges we've made during the election, the people who promised us we'd make it, everything is put on the shelf.
If I could interrupt for one minute.
Let me say, I do not suggest that our number now will be 250 negative, which we will cap, plus food, you know, which will not be less than negative.
And the number for the rest of the world, of course, will be 250,000.
It's not enough for all of us, for both sides.
But I know your problem.
I know that we will try to do everything we can on that side.
That's one thing where I can really bring the changes with our isolationists over here.
I think we can solve it.
The little art in the house, the main thing that can
The press up then, I would think, the humanitarian thing hard, and the properties from the Hill and Stanton, who cares about that.
And if you ever see, if you see any House members come as distinguished Senate members, they are the ones that need to hear it.
The Senate, we haven't had any.
The House has done it.
But I'll, I'll get at it.
But, uh, go ahead.
Why is this, is the fact a crushing one?
No, he goes to see the House people.
That's one thing he must do.
He always sees the Senate.
So I have to go over and see the House leadership on this planet.
Not just the Foreign Affairs Committee.
The Security Council, for example, is all set.
It's a good man.
The Security Council was out there.
He was in the top five places.
But you see, the guys they got together are out past, you know, the hard lines.
Telling them, I want this money.
before, in my life, on a personal sense, we've got to have it from the humanitarian side, and also to put the heat on some of our European friends to come through a little more.
But we are far more concerned with the other problems.
First is administration.
It's stretched to a limit, and we just don't know where everybody went, and now it's break down.
I can say this then, because they just, they have to give up their normal work.
They're looking after the refugees.
who in the beginning were docile because they were that non-good shop.
Now they're demanding and they're also, if anybody talks at the shop, they're docile, they're all bureaucracy, you see that.
So it's just a state of danger.
Apart from this, the very great social problems happened.
because the refugees that we try our best to keep them within the camp, but because of the large numbers, we had to receive staff, they get out, and they, because of them, the labor rates have fallen.
Which is that our...
So our young labor is, well, I mean, to put it... ...hopping mad, and they tell us that... ...we're promoted, some people say.
I think I want to tell you an interesting thing.
In Florida, we have had a great number of human refugees.
If you hadn't heard, everybody running was four.
On the other hand,
It has had a very, very exacerbating effect because many of our Negro workers down there who used to have good jobs, the Cubans had good jobs.
So you see, for example, some of our Mexican workers in California, you see, they take the jobs from them.
I know the problem is this economic problem must be terrible.
Because your own people don't say, get rid of these people, get out of here.
Even though they're, even though they have the same religion.
All right, but they say, but when you get that economic, uh, strength, that let, that bounce off the rest.
They don't have the same religion.
Because on the borders, on our side, they're mostly Muslims.
Or half-Anchorism.
Now you have a massive Hindu scum, and they, they try and... Oh, I see.
They also try to, you know, say, well, you know, why are you doing this?
That's worse.
We are into that.
I get it.
And they go and they want to occupy the house.
Then they go and they cut the crops of other people, they cut the trees of these people who belong to the local people.
So there's tremendous local tension.
When is being exploited by the extremists?
Now in Zipporah, although we have such a wonderful victory to which it resides, in Zipporah we lost both this parliament and the seat of the master.
It was a fully communist state some time ago, but in the last election before this, to the great ease of death, we have been lost.
By this time, it was largely due to the fault of our own man there, but, you know, some of these party bosses, you know, they just don't listen to much.
You probably know.
And we've told him that, you know, he must talk with people, not resort to our games and so on, but he just doesn't listen.
And we've lost both, as he said.
And my greatest fear is that there's an assembly election next year.
There's two.
February, that's just two.
And the Marxists may well be coming, because they are coming.
So in this situation, with the labor people, with the other populations,
are so ready for it.
And, you know, they go, they do two things.
They go to the refugees and say, you see, now there's so much common sense, the government's not giving it all to you, wherever it's going.
Then they go to the people who are affected by the floods and so on and say, you see, all this sense is coming from the refugees.
Nobody's doing anything for you.
So it's both sides, they work them out.
Can I ask one question?
Where are the floods in this?
That's a different part of the country.
Well, firstly, earlier on, we had floods all over the North, in West Bengal, and in Iceland, and Bihar, and what we call the U.S. people.
All over the North they had terrible floods, and in the South they had drought.
Now, what you're probably referring to is a cyclone which has come to a state called Batrista, and that's a little far east coast, but it's far south.
But it's more wind, isn't it?
I need more wind than water.
I see, I see.
But it's far north, isn't it?
It's far north, isn't it?
Yeah, well, when you see this, we really don't have full information because it's a state where the internal communication, I mean, we have communication with the main city, but they don't know what's happening in these, uh...
The reason that I thought that's really one thing you might want to re-conspirate to right here is not that you might have to cancel your trip because of it.
I said, well, that would be ridiculous.
What do you do?
Fly over it?
I mean, yes, I go there and fly over it and look at it and send a money.
Sure.
What does it do for you to be there?
I understand that.
So here there are political, social, economic problems.
But greatest of all, we see, is the threat to our security, because along with these people, there are some of them who do 6,000, of course, now they're doing a claim and so on.
But some are just spreading the gentle rumour, you see, anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu, according to who is saying where.
And this, in our country, is a very explosive question.
We've got some bombs in the city and are spread out all over.
They're not patched in one place.
So if this thing catches, then we will have chaos all over the country.
Of course, there is a great deal of sympathy for the refugees.
mixed with this regimental survival.
The main thing to do, as I can see it, is to get refugees out of there.
That's your problem.
Just hit the nail on the head.
That's your problem.
They must go out and... Just tell them that.
Exacerbate your intro.
It does.
It does.
I see it.
And also, it's inciting more people to come.
Now, the question arises that how do they go back?
And let's talk about United Nations observers.
Perhaps you know that we've got ten people already.
When Prince Satyajit came here, either he left them or they came after he returned, who were there on the eastern side to observe.
Prince Satyajit himself is either gone or is going in the next one or two days.
Now, in India there have been some revelations about more observers coming in.
Because the question is asked, what will they do?
We don't object to the organization of human beings.
No, but we feel that one is the purpose of data.
If the purpose is to solve, to help them to go back, then the first step is to prevent new ones from coming in, and now the new ones are coming in and out.
and each batch brings a fresh story.
Now most of these stories that we are getting, they are not from Indian sources.
They are from British, American and other correspondents.
We also have ambassadors and high commissioners who visited, not only the campus, but more inside East Bengal.
Who did we meet, sir?
I think the Australians, sure.
That's right.
He says that he's been there, and that the High Commissioner is there.
All right.
Well, you see, he deals with Pakistan.
He's on that side.
And he's an organizer of humanitarian relief.
In East Pakistan.
Oh, I see.
And he says he goes with India.
I see.
He goes to Kazakhstan to tell them we have trouble.
Yeah.
We want to know.
We want to know.
I know you are, but you see, if you'd be very frank with me, we've got trouble with some of our people.
Let me know and we'll do what I can.
I haven't heard any questions.
I just think that all these people are free to go when they want to go.
We've had parliamentary delegations from Canada, the United States, Japan, Lebanon.
The world cares.
All of us care.
And this is a condition that we just need to have to go to the same place.
that the tremendous feeling of unity which the East Bengalis have, even those East Bengalis who today continue in the service of the Yan'er Foundation, even they, when these people go, they whisper to the museum, don't, have you asked, have you seen Santa's place?
We are blowing up Santa's place today.
I mean, this is what these people can't care.
The one thing that was concerning me the great deal when the Prime Minister was
Which I couldn't understand.
I know I can understand Blumhunter Bridge and that sort of thing, but for people to go out, this required a sophisticated training.
I don't know who in the world would get it, but it must have been the communists.
But to go out and frog them and...
Well, these are trained people from before.
You see, they were people in the Pakistani Navy.
They were people.
They had the... Over 60.
60.
Well, they're very sizable, but they're sexy.
Oh, and this is not, you know, I just, when I say blow off your head, there's no picture in which you blow off your arm.
I think that's about it.
It's finished.
Well, the two days are over.
They're clear.
Well, it's worth it.
They did a good job.
Most of the audience reported from that hut up.
How this whole thing is so intense.
How can Dhaka, the village of Dhaka, lead inside Pakistan?
How training, as I think I mentioned to Dr. Christine, I will tell you this.
Initially, sir, they started the, according to their contribution to India and Pakistan, the way that in 1936, I think it was, what are called the ground rules.
the border posts on either side of the frontier were to demand paramilitary forces and not higher-up forces.
What about the DOP border post?
So on our side, we had an offensive or border security force.
On their side, they had paramilitary forces from the East Bay border to East Pakistan right from Ansar's and Mujahid's.
According to the most conservative estimates,
These numbers, somewhere in the region, the hardcore and wealthy trades, they are of the order of 50-60 thousand, don't know about 100 thousand people.
And it appears that the over-wealthy majority of them who were recruited locally for this purpose, reported.
And much of the... Sir, by the time he landed in London, I mean London, he gave a figure as one hundred fifty-two thousand.
There are groups inside East Mongol, this one city group, I do not know what is their traditional education, but they say they are young people, they will think of the diverse groups of management.
They trust in a very strong group of populations in that congregation.
And so it goes on with us, day after day.
Well, I'm just saying, at first there was, I went to the Mathematica, where they concentrated on university students and so on, and of course all those who later on wanted to vote for Sheikh Haji.
And, according again to this, Mrs. Khan, who was the correspondent, or somebody else, who is actually now leading the Congress,
It's been really ruthless and undiscriminating, and you have plenty of suspicion that this person there was a victim.
And that's just what creates this feeling of error on this day.
And this is what happened to us.
This is done?
No.
And it is consistently being anti-Indian before independence and after independence.
Now, when she came there, of course, I didn't have much time to ask her questions when she was questioning me.
But I just asked her, you know, we have no news outside.
What is it like?
She said it's utter chaos.
And in spite of all the military, they have no control over the area.
They have control over the patrolmen.
But even in the patrolmen, she said, if you go out,
Everything involves you coming and getting something which either happens or is going to happen.
She says it's extraordinary how they know it's going to happen.
They say watch out, you know, this is going to happen tomorrow or in two hours or something like that.
And in there it has happened.
She said that the whole, you know, you people at the regime were everywhere during the lesson.
One village is burned, the whole village marches out.
They may find a village unoccupied, they settle there for one or two.
Then something happens, either somebody is killed or there's a race case or something, so they move out again.
And she said the whole population seems to be on the move.
We don't want to disrupt Pakistan or weaken it, but as we see it and as we are told by people who have been there, that it is no longer possible for Britain and China to keep these two sides together.
Now, we have to face the reality of the situation and see how it affects us.
As the situation is today, the pressures inside the country are tremendous.
You referred to my victory, and I'm sure you were very happy when the party won, but I thought, but today we've come back to a situation where if people feel that we're not protecting India's interests, the majority will mean absolutely nothing.
Our own party won't even go against it.
Well, then my own cabinet, I mean, they just think that I'm very soft on this issue.
One of the reasons why he insisted on taking this test.
On his side.
Well, then he said why his teachers had not taken it.
As his radio broadcast, he had a radio broadcast to which he listened in.
Well, it was...
I think so.
To be perfectly honest, I read all the things and...
I don't hold any brief on how I should have made any speech, but the rhetoric on both sides, Madam Prime Minister, has been pretty rough.
The rhetoric in your press against the United States has been extremely rough.
You can't control them.
You can control ours, but it has not helped.
Because we're trying and all that, and we get no credit at all.
I have to look out there, and I fight for this belief, and I'm going to fight for not only the 250 million, but I want to really believe.
I feel very strongly.
I started with this whole problem when I entered my 1953 trip, my first Matthew of, you know, I believe the United States has a responsibility, and I think we should be better than we do in this field of, you know, assistance to the countries, the newly developing countries.
But this is very difficult for us.
on just speaking to the rhetoric standpoint.
And I must say, you have been totally responsible.
I know it's hard to do that.
But it's difficult for us when we get wrapped and get no credit at all on Perth or anything.
We are trying.
I mean, I think it is something that Yahya has at least at our suggestion agreed to have us speak.
He has agreed to a civilian government.
He has agreed to international
supervision and so forth.
All of this is not enough, because I know that his point is what he can do about it.
I also realize that he may be sticking to his constituency, however.
You see, that's the main affair.
But he has, you see, he makes a broadcast in which he talks about what is, in their language of work, called jihad, which means a religious war.
Now, when you make a broad plot like this, and it's not just the words but the story which it would mean.
Now, this is what it means.
You see, I was inundated by Telly Mancungo that you are letting the country down, here is the world attacked and you are just a decoupling and trying to go abroad.
And there was a question arose in Canada whether I should give up this trip.
Now the reason why I didn't give it up was because I had to exchange views with you, and I thought that it should not be enough.
But technically, I felt that had I stayed at home, when the whole situation would have rotted out so fast, it wouldn't be completely out of control.
And I thought whatever the risks in my going out, at least there would be a common attempt.
Now this is what, I should have mentioned earlier, but this is what the Soviet treaty also did.
that immediately after when the news, the general impression was that, I know that we are not supporting Pakistan or any of the United States,
the fact that that has been pretty good time in Pakistan's credit while getting some cash is really very negative.
Three and a half.
Three and a half.
But it's a level of gesture, not the amount.
And what you said in the IAEA, you know, he said we have support from USA, we have support from China, and he's saying that the USSR will also not help India.
You know, he gave a list like this.
In August.
was, it was just, we didn't know how to move it together.
And at that time, things started where, you know, you have to do something.
So, yes, and... No, but we don't think we are.
I think the Chinese are vertically aware of what the street means.
We're not truly free.
We'll take another 15 minutes.
That will hold you.
I mean, I haven't tried that much.
Let's treat you as so.
It was offered just two years ago, and we just had one.
And you said we don't have to put friendship in there.
It doesn't need to be put down.
Our friendship is not bad.
I agree with that.
But isn't what we said to them, that when we are friends, why do we have to put friendship in paper and so on?
Well, their dedication, basically, is just, I mean, and all parents, well, I will agree to believe that they don't want a war.
And that's tough.
That's tough.
Well, because, you know, they know what the nuclear thing will do.
In other words, if the Russian ambassador decides to push the button, he kills 70 million Americans, that's 70 million Russians.
If I decide to kill 70 million Russians, that's 70 million Americans.
So no one's going to push the button.
But beyond that,
uh... cars
It's a certain kind of principles.
When we really come down to it as a prime minister, we do feel very strongly that you have the most enormous experiment of democracy in the history of the world.
We want you to succeed.
That's all.
I agree.
I mean, I don't say this in any way.
We want you to succeed.
We want it all.
That's why we didn't.
This is something that, of course, our Soviet friends are not quite interested in as much as that.
But they do, I think, in this situation have said that stability and security of India is important in the general scheme of Southeast Asia.
And I think this is why, in this matter, they are, they don't, they are doing anything possible they can to restrain us, and also to displace us.
And, yeah, I mean, they also are trying to go the side.
Well, thank you for all that stuff.
And... And I can't do that.
I can't.
I don't think so.
You've used it once in confrontation in the South Asian.
Would you agree, Henry?
It's been a micro-neutral conversation.
Thank you.
Good evening.
So this is what they have said to us also.
Now, we also are, I know something about war, and I know because now war is very much worse than any war that we have known earlier.
I happen to be in England throughout the British and all that part, so I saw some of the worst features and how it affects the civilian population.
But, you see, if a country's security is threatened,
then the idea of freedom and security does become more important than being free.
Now this is what we are today contesting.
We have no illusions about the very, I mean, the difficulty is just too small a word to use.
which will arise if there should be any politics.
And that is why I am doing everything that is humanly possible to avoid it.
Even if, as I said earlier, I do not have the support of all my partners,
Some speeches are made which are entirely against my advice and which I tried to say as soon as I knew about it.
Well, you know, one should not be dead and so on, but it's, you know, it's very difficult with all the forces that are involved.
You have to go through a question and answer the other question.
Oh, I see.
Oh, that's right.
It's not a question.
We will have a debate on the first day onward, and it's not going to allow us to get on to any other subject so far.
I was at the Indian Parliament in Nigeria, but they go radio after.
Now, I met every, all the important parties I met before coming here, saying just that, you know, please, cool it.
It's too grave a situation for speeches, for hearings, or anything like this.
and so on, but I just don't know how they are all going to react.
Now, we naturally are most grateful to you for the research you are making about age and so on, but frankly, I mean, when I was leaving, all these people, including the child from which, up to now, has been, has always been against the government, when they vote, you may not hear it, you know, you will not have to go and say something like this now.
Well, they like that, saying, you have no business, you say this and so on and so forth.
But on this issue, they are, I mean, I'm way behind everybody here.
They're just bullying.
I mean, is there any solution except the release of Moshe?
Is there, I mean, I'm trying to think.
We have no influence on the issue.
And we can only just, as you say, talk to Jaya.
Now, we can say what we want to say.
But you do not want, you do not want West Packers to disintegrate?
No, we don't.
But I want to say, I want to give my assessment that I think that as President Jaya went on, he will not be able to do it.
Because I don't... No, yes, I don't think that's the case.
But we just can't say, because even these people, they don't want to be in a situation where they say, well, we've got one lot of rulers, which is the West, the Pakistanis, and now we've got Indians.
We are not going to go into this kind of situation.
Some of your strangers probably would like to see the whole breakup occur, but I can see that you're...
You and you too, you see the point, which is that, let me say, we don't know for assistance or what they want, what people want to work out in their own business, but instability
make you out of the situation, only makes it worse for you, worse for us.
That's what actually concerns me.
My instability in a small area like Pakistan is one thing, and having instability in Kirov or communal writing all over India is something which is wrong.
What is the religious war or whether it's an economic...
In your name I'm going to use it.
Oh, you're going to use it.
I know that.
So it is not only by these who use the name of religion, but by the extremists of different colors and persuasions.
And this is my main concern is they have to be concerned with the problem of East Singapore.
It is purely in the, I mean, certainly how we feel the human dignity and the way that people are suppressed is very sad and so on.
But seeing it as a realistic, you know, realistic political point of view, we are mainly concerned about what is that is happening in our country.
It's only when we see that this is having a destructive view
But we have to take it very seriously.
I understand.
Madam Prime Minister, let me ask you this, but quite bluntly.
Do you think your interests would be served, and the interests that you have shown are very supportive here, to me, effectively, by
our discontinuing our efforts to influence the president uh uh should we just throw up our hands but he wants to continue to work on it now i i i i had a huge deal it's hopeless and it's hopeless
Mr. President, some situations do, but we've not...
I'd be saying we're not going to get you in this situation, but we did have, and we know that the idea is the greatest.
And as Mr. Chester told me when he returned, Mr. Chester's after all, he said, we have our past, and I think it runs very well.
We want both to survive.
I believe in the right.
I'm going to see a non-president today.
I want none of us to survive.
They're good, they're nice people, good people.
But India is 500 million people.
You're a great force in the world.
We know that.
Yet the problem that we have here is this.
Do you want us to continue to try to use our influence with Yaya or anything?
We should break off.
No, I think you should use your influence.
But we would not like a situation to develop where in order to save Yaya Khan, you would lose India and Pakistan.
We won't do that.
Well, we've got another trade.
Now that's a start.
That's done.
That's done.
There's no more military assistance.
Go ahead.
Yeah, sure.
Sir, the central point of our routine is simply this.
We have ordered this man.
Sold to millions of these men by rightly wrongly in December.
We didn't mention it.
That's how he came out.
He came up with a lot of these directions.
Now then, if I had anything to do with fashioning the structure, the political structure of our country, I would like to say to that, who he is, I would like to say, I don't talk to him, but I can say, Mr. Brody, who I'm talking to, talk to him.
or I ask that another person adopt it.
Because why is it that we are anxiously searching for selling off a settlement under the brand name of Buddhism?
Without that brand name, the leadership of Bangladesh has neither the strength
You're suggesting that in other words,
There could be some participation by regime.
He was in jail.
Yes.
Yes, it was.
It's another good company.
Yes, it was fine.
They did that for a while.
They did that for a while.
It's a terrible thing.
I forgot.
Is that true, Henry?
No, sir.
The British always believed when he was in jail.
They never made a decision without consulting him.
Correct.
You know what I tell you?
He was guilty.
And yet, there was never a time that they broke off on him.
We don't say it publicly because we don't like the fact that we have to pay.
All these 8 months that we've wasted are the days that came there that had no pay.
They could have said, no, the children don't agree.
The children can agree.
We are not going to say anything publicly.
They are your people.
We can have the settlement.
And ultimately, what about the settlement?
If he says, yes, he takes his reputation, his own settlement, then please,
The only thing that I can say that we know about that is that we are telling you everything we know on this subject that is proper to tell.
It is the education, as far as you are concerned, that they, with breaking the law, will consider that possibility.
Is that the way I should put it?
Will consider the possibility of discussion.
I think our immediate problem to the candidates is, and I've explained this to your advisor for six months, there are a lot of things we can get done if we can get some sort of a time schedule.
On the other hand, if they're asked to go immediately, they don't have to.
The time is never extended anyway.
You came to us several times ago, and you put to a drive in this town.
Why don't we leave?
Why don't we leave?
And you said, you said that you were waiting for him to get here.
Well, he did, too.
He did get a result of that.
We got the... We got the... We got the military commander.
We got the military commander.
We got the military commander.
All of which grew out of my visit there.
And now...
And they have to stay.
And now there's one other, one other thing, and I suggest, as we...
But also people have been killed since then.
I have.
I was.
Believe me.
The situation with Mutti is, is, I think, is lost.
It seems to us that once we can get her out of this, without her talking to me, it'll be a lovely day.
And, and Yahweh,
But then, inevitably, and he had said that he would consider letting Muci designate who would be allowed in the... That's his point.
But that Muci would designate who would be the talk that he considered.
Considered.
That's right.
I don't want to overstate it because we haven't stolen it.
Oh, he didn't.
We practically had to break bones to get that.
But the fact was of...
Lots of talk video marketing stuff.
I agree with Huxley on that.
In other words, we'll have to admit that that's unfortunate.
That it's not too far down the road.
It's just a certainness.
It's always been true of the great leaders of movements of this startling end.
You cannot kill them.
If you kill them, they're ours.
May I say one other thing?
that I think particularly I want to see the prime minister's view on this.
Now, one of the things that some of our congressional people were in over the same few days ago, and they said, well, what's wrong with this attachment?
There'd be a crucial pullback of forces.
And so I think Joe Kennedy had heard that your ambassador, he said, well, the difficulty with that is that it's
to the advantage, and to the disadvantage, let me say, of Indian forces, and to the advantage of Pakistan forces, and it's a dangerous proposition.
Do you, you know, your position is that the mutual pullback is, I should cool it a bit now, is something that could, isn't in the cards.
And do you agree with the mutual pullback?
Because there may be something more, something we can do on this score, but I don't know if it's worth trumping.
just to some pullback from the workers.
And we're not urging you to understand.
I mean, we're, because you've got to do what's in your magazine.
Well, the situation is different on the Western and the Eastern.
You see, the East is meeting a different kind of aggression, the way the discrepancies are coming.
And whenever we do anything, we always get the news that something's happened, and we have to retaliate.
We had to do it to save ourselves and that sort of thing.
Now, in the West also, our way we were before, I don't know what it's called in the United States, was quite far off.
I mean, it's quite an operation to bring our troops forward to where they can be useful.
And when the Pakistani troops came, it was quite, more than a week we didn't join them at all.
But at the end of the day, it's because they believe the traitors are coming in and so on, and so the troops are being mobilized, they need to be cancelled, and all that.
And then we have to take the faction.
I don't think there's any other probable situation on the list of Francis Magnus.
Me?
Lines are moving in and out at the same time.
That's the part.
It's like, in a very different sense, the problem of mutual drawback in Europe, you know, in America, which was 3,000 miles, and the Russians would go 10,000 miles.
The other forces...
are situated anything from three months or 300 miles to 700 miles.
But because on the internet, ever since the Bangladesh difference, we brought out posts which were abandoned and the bodies were lost.
The result is that the Pakistanis are inevitably driven to man the power of force by the Red Army.
So instead of having paramilitary forces on either side, as what they did in the water for the Jammu, the Pakistani army naturally, and that is why they cleared the waterway, the waterway which is thrown on the border area was, and they had therefore moved to the border.
Now this border, you and I would beg it of yourself one day to have a look at it in the physical.
Oh yes.
And one of the most terrible borders is in Tirunel.
Tripura is a border where even our runway is so near the border of Pakistan that the aircraft taking off or coming down has to be extremely careful to miss it by any means, not crossing over the border.
It is to that area that constitutionally it takes place.
I'm not saying it's very good.
If they didn't have it that way, it may be that if we would have just put it up there.
But in this, it is a hole where people have pooped up millions.
It's like an abandoned city now in the tour of Pakistan.
Right.
That's a very good description, yeah.
So that is even, that is a different situation.
And that is why, if it is merely a question of mere pullback in that community, as we are doing nothing but pushback,
Also, I see what, as I understand, a post-Provost view of usual agreement to do that would, on your part, would be very difficult.
Your people would not probably...
The team of the law, the team of the recommendations of the group, which is responsible for providing ceasefire, has spoken in a discussion.
In fact,
when this unfortunate, very unfortunate episode took place in the building of an Indian aircraft on the hijacking incident.
The situation was very tense.
It was in the middle of an election.
And I was too busy to be on schedule.
He was busy for a good cause.
And it was a very tense moment.
There was an enormous forward movement of troops and so on.
And we didn't disengage at that time.
But then after that, the situation became worse because they had a judicial inquiry, a judicial inquiry, which said that Indians all died in identity and loyalties.
Let me say this, and on this, naturally, much of the most recent conference, as I said, a lot of memorandum only for us, because we've all talked to you, talked constantly, and I appreciate it, and you can do that, and I have.
I got a message this morning.
I've been working on this.
I've been working, not work, going on this prayer to tell people about that.
I told Yaya, I said, look, I don't think it's really
Because I read, not the way I'm glad you explained it, but I didn't understand it.
I didn't understand it before anybody.
But I didn't think, frankly, that this might not be good to take.
You understand the limits of that problem.
So I had a kind of policy.
So I said, no, this won't go.
I mean, it's good you pulled back a bit.
It sounds good to the outside world, but it's not a problem myself.
Why don't you take the first step?
He had a cable back.
that he will be willing to, he will have to pull back.
Now, he will have to pull back.
He knows of your suspicions with respect to, he has a terrific problem.
You know, he knows it's gonna blow for himself if this thing continues to go on.
He knows when the war comes that he's down too.
But, on the other hand, he's willing to pull back.
If we could have nothing agreed to, except simply on your part, or our own understanding, that if it works out, if your fears are not realized, you might, on your own, not on any agreement, but you might then.
That takes on several moves.
Now, do you want me to pursue this or not?
I can get up to do it.
I want to know what situation it needs to be brought to.
This is from the West.
This is from the West.
This is from the West.
He would be prepared to withdraw his forces on this.
Oh, I see you're talking to the other.
No, I'm just talking about... Oh, yes.
Well, you see that everybody talks about the nature of war, where they bring us in troops, and it's there.
If I were there, I wouldn't rely on the police troops.
It's Pakistan.
But he's willing to go back.
And...
We can deliver that.
When I say we can, when I say we can deliver it, I can.
I can tell him that he can do it.
Now I, and that's not in terms of just simply as a move.
And I'll be quite candid.
You can
You can make the decision having in mind your own interests.
If your own interests decide that you can't do it, nothing's to be said.
If I overstated the understanding, you can repeat me.
We, in other words, we're not, this is not something where, I understand, there cannot be an agreement of some sort, but that's about where it's going to go.
Science says, the Indian position has been that since the Pakistanis moved their troops to the borders first, and since this forced you to move your troops, that it is not for you to talk about future fallback.
Right.
But also because we have been attacked and taken unawares twice before.
Exactly.
Right.
So, what he's agreed there for, Lina is with Yahya,
He said the Pakistanis should withdraw their troops from the borders first.
They should withdraw themselves from the borders first.
Now, we haven't got into the details of this.
We can't negotiate upon business, but that part he has been agreed to.
Now, if he was true, and then nothing at all happened on the Indian side, I don't know how good a direction it would be, but he is prepared for some period of time.
To take the first step without a formal agreement is even unlikely with no ring around to pull this truce back some distance.
It was a matter of fact, on the contrary, it's not so.
Now, this is something that we can pursue, and then you can determine.
Now, as a matter of fact, let me say, don't answer now.
We'll talk about it again tomorrow, but it's a very significant thing, I think, that he has come this far, because this message came in.
Well, as a matter of fact, it came in this morning.
I guess it should have awoken at 4.30 to give it to me.
Maybe he'd send it over to me.
He meant the end of it.
It wasn't the end of it.
Our ambassador had to be confirmed.
That's right.
To follow him.
That's right, yeah.
We had to be confirmed at the time.
Well, he said I could race.
That's right.
Well, he said I could race with you.
I don't think you'd respond.
There's nothing.
Because if we're not going to start communicating, we're not going to race.
And you've got to determine.
But I...
We've got to do this tomorrow.
Because, you see, we do have some influence here.
We want to use it for our .
We will pursue the, as I've said, we're going to go all out.
the refugee side, and that will help some.
All I can say is this exacerbates some of your other problems.
We will continue to urge your strength on their side.
We will pursue this one if you want us to.
We will pursue the whole machine business to see what
in what can be done there, what he didn't live with.
And having said all that, we come back to the proposition we began with that, and as you put it so eloquently, that nothing is to be served by, for you, the disintegration of Pakistan, the war, and the rest.
On our part,
And I'm just looking at it now as an individual and also from what we have to hear.
It would be almost impossible to understand.
It is the American attitude, I think, in order to come.
This is true as a value as part of the work through the committees.
I've told my charity friends, and frankly, we've done the work also through our rejection of warrants for Canada.
That's the way it, that's the American end for the people.
I don't mean to renounce any of our treaties.
The other thing that concerns me is, frankly, the great powers that are here.
As far as work is concerned, but I don't know what they will do.
Maybe nothing.
Maybe the Chinese have got problems, maybe without doing anything.
The Soviet are, of course, a counterweight there.
And even though your agreement with the Soviet was not directed against the Chinese, as you have pointed out...
I have two and a half cents with him.
Yes.
What's that?
Two and a half cents with him, but he doesn't speak.
Yes, yes.
Of course, he would have said that.
It's the very culture of man.
It's the very culture of man, as I understand.
But anyway, I'm not criticizing your treaty thing.
Believe me.
You have got to seek your interests, and we understand that.
Let me just say, frankly, though, and I really meant what I said out there in the podium,
You do, we want you to know that we, that if you have our, not only our sympathy, our support, and that we can go through, I mean, you don't have to put it in words.
We, there's a freedom in this country, and this is just Chester Bowles and Ken Keating and I hear you, but I feel that way.
I mean, I see the people, I see what you've done, and we want you to make it, we really do.
And that's the time that we're talking about it.
Think about this process as we're talking about Vietnam War.
And then we, let's get it, we can do it.
If you'd like, would you like to go, excuse me, try to start with India, Pakistan, the road for it, Vietnam, our side, and maybe a little bit on the Middle East, Henry, if you've been on that side.
What do you think?
I genuinely appreciate the trouble you're getting over this, sir.
Well, it's a problem, but it's nothing compared to yours, and we're concerned.
We want to help.
We don't want to hurt.
And I think your visit is...
I'm so glad you didn't call it off, because that, I don't think, would have helped me to stay home.
Uh, I think you'll be here, uh, till you get back.
We don't want your visit to hurt.
And that's the part of this we hope something can come out of it that's good.
Uh, what should we get to the press?
Are we going through?
Yes, sir.
What should we get to the press?
I lost it.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it to the press.
We want to take it
General, we're on issues.
I could also say general, we're on issues because I think they know very well what I'm trying to say.
We're sitting here just talking about bilateral.
I think you should look at your desk and grab one of these.
How does that sound?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.