US press doubted our unity, democracy, and ability to survive. Here I am again: Indira Gandhi

On 5 November 1971, at the National Press Club, PM Indira Gandhi spoke about India's resilience, political change, and the burden of the Bangladesh refugee crisis.

Indira Gandhi | Photo: Commons

Mr President and members of the Press Club, I am delighted to be here once again with you all. I have met several of you in the meantime in India or in other parts of the globe.

You were given some description of my day, but perhaps all of you who are acquainted with the life of anybody who is in politics knows that actually no two days are ever the same. And much as one would like to meditate and do various other such necessary and agreeable things, more often than not, this remains in the realm of desire rather than practice. As I’ve said that I find my relaxation and recreation not by setting apart a period for it, but when I’m with people, and especially when I’m with interesting people, such as in this hall today.

Now, our time is limited, so I’m not going to make a long speech. I’m just going to mention a few points which may help you to formulate your questions, and of course anything that you are interested in will crop up in the questions you ask. 

I was here five years ago, and I spoke to you then of what we have been trying to do in India.

Much has happened in that time, not only in India, but in most parts of the world. But naturally, just now I’m more concerned with my own country. Doubts were expressed then, in 1966, in my own country and by the world press, including the press in the United States, about our unity, our democracy, and even our ability to survive.

Well, all I can say is here I am again. But we have gone through a period of darkness and difficulty, which even for a people accustomed to hardship has been exceptionally severe. We are now self-sufficient in wheat and rice and other cereals, which are the staple diet of our people.

With increasing expansion in irrigation facilities and fertiliser output, major breakthroughs are expected in other farm products as well. Our family planning programs have had some impact. Last March, our census last March showed that our population was 14 million less than had been estimated.

Political changes in our party have taken place peacefully, giving greater coherence and sense of direction to our national life. Our confidence in our people was justified in our general elections. On an average, 60% of the people voted not only in the cities, but in the remote areas of the interior and in the mountains.

The people gave me and my party a good majority. But what was special about the elections was the enthusiasm with which the people, and especially the young people, made it their own campaign. The elections aroused new hope in our people and generated new energy and purpose in us.

But today, your thoughts and mine are preoccupied with the crisis of Bangladesh, that is, East Bengal. There too, elections were held. The fact that even under a military regime, the people of East Bengal so overwhelmingly voted for the Awami League showed their deep desire for democratic rights.

The military rulers used the period of negotiations to amass troops, and on the very day when the Awami League thought their settlement was to be reached, a reign of terror such as history has rarely witnessed was unleashed. I have not hesitated sometimes to criticise the press, of course in self-defense. But on this occasion, I should like to express appreciation of the manner in which the press of many countries has tried to arouse the conscience of the world.

They have shown courage and perseverance in lifting the veil around East Bengal and revealing the truth of the grim tragedy being enacted there. Their words have been honest and direct, but the photographs have outdone them in conveying the very essence of sorrow and misery. What is taking place there is not a civil war in the ordinary sense of the word.

It is a genocidal punishment of civilians for having voted democratically. It is a strange and cynical way of getting rid of one’s opponents and of deliberately using helpless millions as a weapon against a neighbour nation. The number of the refugees is equal to the population of some of the countries of Europe, such as Austria and Belgium, where I was only recently.

We feel that this is a new kind of aggression. It certainly casts an unconscionable economic burden on us and has created political and social tensions, endangering our security. This is not a purely internal matter of one country, because the overflow of the political, economic, and security consequences are affecting another country, that is, India.

This is not an international dispute, certainly not an Indo-Pakistani dispute, for the traditional international instruments to be evoked. We are told that the confrontation of troops is a threat to peace. Is there no threat to peace when a whole people are massacred? Will the world be concerned only if people die because of war between two countries, and not if hundreds of thousands are butchered and expelled by a military regime waging war against the people? We cannot draw upon precedents to deal with this unprecedented variety of aggression.

We have to devise new patterns of response. It is in order to impress on world leaders the nature of the crisis and the means of resolving it that I wrote to heads of governments several months ago and sent some of my colleagues to meet them. We informed them that the only way out of the mess which the military rulers of Pakistan have made for themselves is to have a political settlement with the elected representatives of East Bengal, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, if he is alive, and his colleagues who embody the will of the people.

Had the world realised it then, much of this mounting misery and the migration of many more millions could have been avoided. The chances of such a settlement have grown more slender with each new day of neglect. But there might still be time if world leaders appreciated the reality of the situation.

In the various capitals I have visited on this tour, I have been asked what solution India would like. The question is not what we would like, or what one or other of the big powers would like, but what the people of East Bengal will accept, and what solution would be a lasting one. I should like to plead with the world not to press me for a solution which leaves out the people of East Bengal.

It is an illusion to think that the fate of a country can be decided without reference to its people. Once again we see the old habit of underestimating the power of nationalism in Asia, and of the demand of the people of Asia to make their own choice. Those who subscribe to the belief that democratically reached decisions are the most viable should recognise that the process of democracy admits no geographical disqualification.

If democracy is good for you, it is good for us in India, and it is good for the people of East Bengal. The suppression of democracy is the original cause of all the trouble in Pakistan. The nations of the world should make up their minds who is more important to them, one man and his machine, or a whole nation.

I am asked what initiative India will take. We have taken the biggest possible initiative in remaining so self-restrained, and in keeping in check the anger within our country. We have endeavoured strenuously to see that this does not become an Indo-Pakistan issue.

Any direct talks between the two countries would immediately convert it into such a dispute and make the solution more difficult. Pakistan has been trying to create conditions in which the world would feel that Pakistan is threatened by a more powerful neighbour. As I have said, the threat to Pakistan has come from its own rulers, not from us.

When the regime there found out that its calculations did not succeed, it moved its troops to our western frontier, knowing full well that we would be forced to follow suit. Pakistan’s pleas for observers from the United Nations, for bilateral talks with India, and for mutual withdrawal of troops seemed very plausible at first sight. But these are only methods to divert the attention of the world from the root of the problem to what are merely by-products.

We cannot be sidetracked. We cannot have a dialogue with Pakistan on the future of East Bengal because we have no right to speak for the people of East Bengal. Only Sheikh Mujib or the elected and accepted representatives of East Bengal have that right.

As I said, I have merely touched on certain points and on what I thought would interest you the most. But I would like to leave the time now for questions and I would like to add only one thing because Mr. President said that I had come here to ask for aid. Now, I have not asked for any aid, neither in this country nor in any of the other countries which I have visited.

I believe that it is not the task of any one country to say to another what they should do, even if it is a question of helping. It is my duty to put the situation in my country and its neighborhood, to give my assessment of the situation to the leaders of the countries I visit. It is for them then, with their own assessment and what they hear from me, to make up their minds what they think about it and what they should do about it.

So my intention in coming here was, of course, primarily in response to the President’s invitation which was given to me, which was extended to me just about a year ago, long before these events took place. But because I believe that in our fast-changing world, it is important for heads of governments to keep in touch with the leaders of other nations to find out their thinking and find out to be better educated about this changing world. So once again, I would like to thank you for this invitation and for giving me the opportunity of being with you and telling you something about my country.

This is part of ThePrint’s Great Speeches series. It features speeches and debates that shaped modern India.