He was an emotional man just like his daughter. So we paid western Pakistan for his blunder based on emotions which were outcome of his love for the kursi while his daughter paid her life for the same emotional habit of her.
Although he was an intellegent man unlike his daughter but unfortuantly he was more emotional.
If we had followed the history surely we can find his gesture of tearing a speech or i dont remember if it was charter of UN, during his speech at UN..
(i had read it somewhere, the seniors can correct here it as i dont know i havent seen his era)
How can I ever forget this tragic event. I was witness to the speech itself. Let me enlighten the members.
Towards the end of the East Pakistan debacle; when it was becoming clear that PA was on the verge of collapse. UN Security Council met on Pakistan’s request in an emergency session on Dec.15, 1971.
Two draft resolutions were on the table. Anglo-French resolution called for a cessation of hostilities, the urgent conclusion of a comprehensive political settlement and the appointment by the UN Secretary General of a special representative to “lend his good offices, in particular for the solution of humanitarian problems”.
The Polish resolution was an unvarnished demand for power to be transferred to the Awami League. In its wording Polish resolution called for a peaceful transfer of power in the Eastern theatre of conflict to “the representatives of the people lawfully elected in December 1970”. It also called for negotiations between India and Pakistan for troop withdrawals in the Western theatre.
Bhutto entered the Security Council and made an emotional and also probably a well rehearsed speech. He said:
“I have not come here to accept abject surrender. If the Security Council wants me to be a party of the legalization of abject surrender, then I say that under no circumstances, shall it be so. The United Nations resembles those fashion houses which hide ugly realities by draping ungainly figures in alluring apparel.
“The Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union talked about realities. Mr Permanent Representative, look at this reality. I know that you are the representative of a great country. You behave like one. The way you throw out your chest, the way you thump the table, you do not talk like Comrade Malik, you talk like Czar Malik. I see that you are smiling, well; I am not because my heart is bleeding.
“I am leaving your Security Council. I find it disgraceful to my person and to my country to remain here a moment longer than necessary. I am not boycotting. Impose any decision, have a treaty worse than the Treaty of Versailles, legalise aggression, legalise occupation, legalize everything that has been illegal up to December 15, 1971. I will not be a party to it. We will fight. We will go back and fight. My country beckons me. Why should I be a party to the ignominious surrender of a part of my country? You can take your Security Council. Here you are. I am going.”
ZA Bhutto then tore up the draft resolutions and left. Next day Dec 16, 1971 it was all over as Gen Niazi had surrendered unconditionally.
IMO Bhutto understood that any move which would allow PA to get out East Pakistan with her honour intact would mean a continuation of Army rule and ZA Bhutto away from power. Quite correctly, PA was disgraced in the eyes of the public, Yahya Khan and his clique resigned and Bhutto was called back to, as President of, what was left of Pakistan.
, you articulated your point quite well, and I in fact agree with what you said - and in my last post I adjusted my opinion to reflect a POV that I had not considered.
