Misc.

Dear Dr. Dorfman:



This is to acknowledge your letter of April 10, 1971, with which was enclosed a copy of 'An Appeal to the President of Pakistan' (Washington Post April 12, 1971). I have forwarded to my Government a copy of the advertisement which appeared in the 'Washington Post' of 12th April.

I cannot help but express my regret at the fact that you and your co-signatories should have thought it fit to publicise the appeal as an advertisement in the leading daily of the capital city even before you cared to share your concern with us directly. As you know its publication in this manner could only generate public hatred and antagonism in this country against Pakistan. You are fully aware of the respect and esteem in which we hold you all. A letter of appeal would have had, I am sure, as much if not more effect on all of us, than a statement made public in an advertisement.

3. We regret also the conclusion you have apparently come to, that the Government of Pakistan abandoned peaceful negotiations and democratic procedures. You are aware that President Yahya repeatedly declared that it was his principal objective and constant endeavour to re-establish the democratic process in the country. He had already proved his bonafides to the hilt by holding the first nationwide elections in the history of Pakistan on the basis of one man one vote, thereby guaranteeing to the people of East Pakistan their right to the majority of the seats in the national parliament.

4. The press has published full reports of the discussions held by the President in Dacca with the leaders of the different political parties and particular with the leader of the Awami League for the purpose of achieving a broad political agreement regarding the convening of a constituent assembly and the framing of a new constitution. Such an agreement would have secured for East Pakistan a quantum of autonomy unprecedented in any union. President Yahya had publicly pledged himself in favour of maximum autonomy to the two wings of Pakistan with the sole qualification that its extent should not impair the national integrity and solidarity of the country. In other words that Pakistan would remain one nation and one country.

5. The President conducted prolonged negotiations with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to find a peaceful political settlement of national constitutional issues. But as we all know, the latter had adopted an inflexible attitude. He had even refused to come to West Pakistan to see the President. The President, therefore, travelled for the second time to Dacca on March 15 for discussions with the Awami League leader. For eleven days he and his advisors tried to assure Sheikh Mujibur Rahman that his demand for autonomy would be accepted, but he should also concede that leaders of other political parties and other regions also have some rights. But all these efforts proved in vain because Sheikh Mujibur Rahman not only refused to acknowledge the rights of other parties or of the other regions, he even resorted to illegal means to impose his will upon and coerce the others.

As early as March 2, he had launched his civil disobedience movement and had started running a parallel government by issuing directives to the civil administration of the province and its police and other authorities in total defiance of the lawful authority of the provincial government of East Pakistan and the central government of Pakistan headed by the President. From early March mobs had begun to harass peaceful citizens, normal life and economic activity was totally disrupted and a reign of terror was let loose in the province. The President exercised considerable patience, even when destructive elements had come out in the streets destroying life and property before his very eyes. This is because he still believed in solving the national crisis through peaceful negotiations. It was the Awami League that abandoned the path of reason and peaceful negotiations and had already taken the law into its own hands. Could any negotiations have continued indefinitely in the face of non- cooperation and a civil disobedience movement already launched and in spite of a parallel government having been established? The President as well as leaders of other successful parties from West Pakistan had agreed to the demand for regional autonomy. But unfortunately, the leaders of the Awami League left no doubt that what they were really working for was not the normal kind of autonomy exercised by a state within a federation but the dismemberment of the country. In short they wanted to set up a sovereign independent state in East Pakistan with the help of forces hostile to Pakistan.

6. In these circumstances, the preservation of the unity and the integrity of the country had to become the overriding consideration. As President Yahya Khan said in his message to President Podgorny:

"No government can condone or fight shy of dealing with subversive elements attacking its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The .Awami League leaders had no mandate from the people of Pakistan to dismember the country and yet they encouraged antinational elements, materially supported by an actively hostile neighbour, to destroy the unity of Pakistan. In a situation in which law and order was being steadily eroded, innocent citizens were being terrorised and large scale arson, loot and murder had become the order of the day, there remained no alternative but to meet the situation. Measures undertaken by the Government are intended to protect the honour, lives and property of the vast majority of East Pakistani citizens who do not agree with the fascist methods that had been put into operation by some Awami League leaders."

It is of course tragic that the government forces, in restoring law and order by ridding the province of armed and lawless bands, had to use force. Ever since President Yahya Khan assumed power in March 1969, the forbearance of his martial law administration in the face of the flagrant provocation offered by members of the Awami League towards his declaredly interim administration was fully apparent not only to the nationals of the country but to all foreigners who resided in or visited East Pakistan since that date. The manner in which simple, patriotic and disciplined men forming the national army of the country were treated by the members of the Awami League, the attempts that were made to raise hostility and hatred against them in the mind of the innocent law abiding masses of East Pakistan, is too well known to need reiteration. What alternative was left to the President in the end but to order the military to take action against the lawless elements and the miscreants, no matter how highly placed, especially after killing and looting by such elements had begun all around him in the province even while he was holding such talks with the Awami League leader in Dacca.

8. It is strange that you and your colleagues should talk of the Government of Pakistan having "loosed the terrors of modern warfare" against "unarmed people". The lawless elements that the army had to deal with, whether in the streets of cities like Dacca and Chittagong or in the countryside in a number of districts adjoining Indian borders were certainly not "unarmed people". These were dangerous traitorous elements, fighting the national army with the armed assistance of the country's enemies. When fighting broke out between these elements and the army, it became quite obvious to impartial observers that the antistate elements had made preparations to obtain arms and assistance from infiltrators from India in advance of the discussions held with President Yahya Khan.

9. Army action was resorted to most reluctantly when no other course was left open. Neither was it the first time that any government had done so in a similar situation. At this very time Ceylon is doing the same and even England in North Ireland. There was no question of subjugating any majority of the population by force. The army took action against armed bands and lawless mobs which were constantly breaking the law and committing crimes. Such elements did not form a majority of the population of East Pakistan.

10. The Awami League was one of the several parties that contested the elections to the National Assembly. It won, as we all know, an impressive victory in East Pakistan but it is, nevertheless, also true that other political parties in that province secured a certain percentage of votes. It was also true that East Pakistan is one of the five provinces of Pakistan and in the other four provinces the Awami League won no electoral representation and other political parties emerged victorious. The Awami League was successful purely as a provincial party. Powerful, yes, but in one of the five states of the nation only. As a majority party, the Awami League had its rights, but in a real democracy the opposition and the minority parties also have their rights and in this particular case one or another of the other parties was also the majority party in each of the other four provinces and together they had the right to represent the people of those regions who as comprising the population of the other half of the country (the western wing) were also entitled to have their say as regards the future of the country as a whole.

11. Let us not lose sight of the fact that elections were held to frame a new constitution for the whole of Pakistan - not merely for one of its two wings. A constitution is a fundamental law which must represent the broad consensus of the entire nation and all its constituent units. While the ordinary laws can be passed by a simple majority, constitutions are normally approved by a three fourth majority or at least a two third majority. Moreover, any federal constitution, to be viable, must enjoy the majority support of the different federating units. The Awami League had won not more than 53.7 per cent of the seats and had no representation at all in the other four provinces. Since the elected representatives of the people were charged with the task of framing a constitution, it was clearly essential to accommodate the interests of all the regions. It was incumbent for the Awami League to consult, discuss and, take into consideration the views and aspirations of those elected from the other wing of the country This, of course, the Awami League junta did not care to do and all political discussion ended in sterile confrontation. The Awami League leaders insisted only on what they considered was in the interest of their party whereas there were those like the President of Pakistan, who had to be, and were concerned, with a larger picture not only for Pakistan but for all South East Asia

13. It is unjust and quite incorrect to charge that the Government of Pakistan imposed its will on a population which had spoken unanimously and whose aspirations were reasonable. As already pointed out to President Podgorny in electing the representatives of the Awami League, the people of East Pakistan did not give them a mandate to demand separation. Mr. Hamidul Haq Chowdhury, one of the East Pakistani leaders who was a Foreign Minister in 1955-56, pointed out the other day in Dacca, the entire adult population of East Pakistan went to the polls on the 7th December last year to elect members for a single national assembly and to make a constitution for one country, not for two. That election was not a plebiscite or a referendum for enabling the people of Pakistan or even the people of East Pakistan to vote on the issue whether they wanted to stay in the Republic of Pakistan or wanted to separate. That election was organised within the framework of one State. The moment the junta of the Awami League broke out of that framework and made a demand for dismembering the country, the State had the right to outlaw the party and to arrest its leaders. In no country of the world is it held a reasonable aspiration for people belonging to one part of the State to separate and claim independence for themselves. There could be neither sense nor stability in international life and international relations if any such right or custom was upheld.

14. Finally, with reference to your appeal for the restoration of legitimate and responsive government in East Pakistan with all possible haste, may I point out that the President of Pakistan, in his broadcast of March 26 (enclosed) has pledged himself in these words: "Let me assure you that my main aim remains the same, namely, transfer of power to the elected representatives of the people. As soon as the situation permits I will take fresh steps towards the achievement of this objective. It is my hope that the law and order situation will soon return to normal in East Pakistan and we can again move forward towards our cherished goal". Again, on April 5, the President in his reply to President Podgorny of the Soviet Union reiterated his pledge in the following words: "I would like to inform your Excellency, in conclusion, that my objective remains the same and that I intend to start talks with rational representative elements in East Pakistan at the earliest opportunity.

15. As I have said earlier, your advertisement has scarred Pakistan's image - it is a pity that this should have been done by people like you whose good will is undoubted than by those who hate us and hate Pakistan. All of us are profoundly pained at the turn of events in Pakistan and we all regret the loss of life and property of our own people. It is, however, for us to settle this tragic family quarrel among ourselves and no outsiders have any right to intervene. We deeply value your friendship for our country and your desire to see it prosper. But we also request you not to pass moral judgement on our right and our desire to live together in one country, because that still remains our supreme desire.

Yours sincerely

(signature)

(A. HILALY)