Real road to peace

in tragic Hindustan

By SPARTAK BEGLOV

The discussion of the Indo-.
Pakistani conflict at the UN
Security Council has graphically
demonstrated the different ways
in which it is possible to evalu-
ate one and the same event. The
sponsors of several resolutions
proposed merely separating the
conflicting sides as if it were
a most ordinary and “run-of-the
mill” war. But there are too
many extraordinary things in
today’s seething world. And
though. the tanks and _ aircraft
operate. on either side of the
border, the central feature of
the situation is that the real
seat of conflict and the chief
line of confrontation runs inside
Pakistan.

The Hindustani tragedy has
been in several acts.

The first act 25 years ago was
enacted according to the script
of the British colonialists who
did all they-could to build the
pattern of independence for
India and Pakistan on the prin-
ciple of “divide and rule.” The
1965 war was one of the links
in the chain of that bloody
scenario.

The second act _ inevitably
flowed out of the ethnical and
economic contradictions, inher-
ent in the structure of Pakistan
with its two wings. The writer
had occasion to attend in March
1966 a meeting of the all-Pakis-
tani national assembly held as
an exception in Dacca, East
Pakistan’s capital. An outside
observer could not but be struck
by the very first clash between
the two factions over the pure-
ly procedural issue — which
language was to be used for the
debate. The West Pakistanis
speak Urdu and do not under-
stand the Bengali of East Pakis-
tan. But the East Pakistanis,
since the meeting was in their
territory, demanded, that Ben-
gali should be the chief
official language. A compromise
was found only after turning to
the heritage left by the former
colonialist — it was agreed to
consider English a “third of-
ficial” language.

But passions flared up espe-
cially when it came to the gist
of the matter: distribution of
monetary and other ,, resources
between the two parts of Paki-
stan. The East Pakistanis with
their embryo industry and flood-
and drought-affilicted primitive
agriculture were demanding at
least an equal share for sthem-
selves. The West Pakistanis, on
the other hand, tried to. steer
the debate into enflaming pas-
sions against the “sworn ene-
my” — India. The East -Pakis-
tanis demanded what was due
them — justice for themselves
and for the land they were born
on. That was how five years ago
the main contradiction eating
at Pakistan was placed nakedly
and in sharp relief. It was alrea-
dy clear then that neither arti-

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1971—PAGE 4

ficially whipped up’ bellicose
moods towards the “external
enemy,” nor tightened military
control within the country
would offer good prospects for
Pakistan and the peace in that
area.

The elections of 1970 held
out hope for the East Paki-
stanis. Their party—the Awami
League—led by Mujibur Rah-
man won most seats in the all-
Pakistani Assembly, and the
East. Pakistanis got the chance
to have just regard paid to their
interests. But the hope was
dashed by the “massacre of St.
Bartholomew” of East Pakistan.
By the end of March, 1971, hun-
dreds of thousands of people
had been repressed, according
to most conservative estimates.

Over 10 million East Pakis-
tanis crossed the Indian fron-
tier to save their lives. That was
not a mere flow of refugees.
The eruption of the East Paki-
stani volcano became for India

an event which drastically up-

set the balance of its domestic
economy, affecting its security
in the wide sense of the word
and the outcome of all its politi-
cal campaigns at home. Yet the
ever more threatening state-
ments from the Pakistani capi-
tal made it increasingly clear
that the intention of those who
repressed the East Pakistani
was to quench the flames of
the domestic blaze by kindling
war-like passions against India.

When they speak in the UN
of “mutual troop withdrawals”
and “ceasefire” as the. sole
means of putting down the
flames of war, they forget that
the seat of war cannot be ex-
tinguished without a, simul-
taneous settlement in East Paki-
stan with its people’s expressed
will taken into account.

So the keys to peace and
security in the entire <area of
Hindustan are first of all in the
hands of the Pakistani autho-
rities. They have taken away
justice from a whole people,
substituting the sword for it.
It is not late to restore that
justice, and then the sword will
have nothing to do but return to
its sheath.

The Soviet Union has always

wanted Hindustan to be a sub-’

continent of peace and the
efforts of its peoples . devoted
entirely to tackling the prob-
lems of their economic and so-
cial development. Everyone re-
members the Soviet initiative in
1966 in Tashkent which put an
end to a previous act of the tra-
gedy. Eaced with today’s mili-
tary outburst, the Soviet Union
stands for an early halt to the
bloodshed and for a_ political
settlement in East Pakistan on
the basis of respect for the
legitimate rights and interests
of its people.

iT on
Quebec

MONTREAL — In an historic a
which mirrors the aspirations and crisis
of organized labor in Quebec, the 12th
bi-annual convention of the Quebec
in Montreal
brought forward and endorsed a new
principle of political action.

Meant as a new weapon in the hands
of Quebec trade unions, the resolution

Federation of Labor

unity resolution.

ction

Lana ney ern er eae awn

union convention
proposes common front

labor political action

By ALAIN PATRIE

proposes “the possibility of masslve }
participation in a political party 4”

if necessary, the creation of a new PO
litical party.” aene
~The resolution was a compromise °
a previous resolution which ,
down to defeat in the workshop voting:
At a news conference later, Mr.
berge stressed the fact that one

Pe

| ‘Delegotes to the Quebec Federation of Labor convention vote on

Nixon offers Trudeau
consideration ‘later’

U.S. as with all other countries.

Until we are given more in-
formation, it is to the point to
quote from.a letter sent to Tru-
deau by William Kashtan, lead-
er of the Communist Party of
Canada, on the eve of the prime
minister’s departure for Wash-

Prime Minister Trudeau went
to Washington on Monday ...
but as we go to press the pub-
lic has not been told what he
has come back with. He talked
with President Nixon about the
international situation, but it
isn’t known whether he held to
the independent course which
Canada has begun to take in
foreign affairs during recent
months. They talked about the
surtax. Auto Pact and trade
with the U.S., we are given to
understand, but there is no in-
dication of agreement on any-
thing except that Finance Min-
ister Benson and U.S. Treas-
ury Secretary Connally “were
instructed to work out the de-
tails of a solution.”

It was clear from Nixon’s po-
sition that he would continue
to play the role of Scrooge, not
Santa Claus. He is reported as
saying that “in the long run the
United States would honor Can-
ada’s wish for a. measure of
economic independence, al-
thougn the U.S. needs more Co-
operation from trading partners
to secure its own. economic
stability.”

“In the long run” means “in
the sweet bye-and-bye.” Then
whenever that is, the U.S. bos-
ses are prepared to grant Cana-
da “a measure of economic in-
dependence” (what’s a “meas-
ure’? and why should a sover-
eign state be given ‘‘a measure”’
of independence?). However, the

U.S. needs more “cooperation” |

from its business partners
(that’s what the wolf said to the
lamb).

Of. course, independence be-
longs to those who take it, and
the people of Canada are not
minded to bargain for ‘‘meas-
ures” of it, however much they
want to establish equitable trad-
ing and other relations with the

ington:

“Press

reports that some

modifications are being consi-
dered in the Canada-U.S. Auto-
motive Pact on the eve of your
visit to President Nixon are a
matter of great concern. So is
the statement by Mr. Drury
who suddenly and conveniently
discovered ‘hidden’ agreements
in respect of ‘defense sharing’
which now need to be acted
upon, also on the eve of your
discussions with the president.

“The question which. could
be asked is whether these are

actual
believe

agreements or make-
agreements to prepare

the ground for capitulation to
U.S. pressures upon our coun-

try?

@ Continued on page 9

~ demonstrations, direct

—— }

had gone

not put the cart be “te
horse. Much work must be |
to politicize workers.”

: . sation
He said that in his estimatlo

cially and the NDP fedet y
were his choice. But

concrete situation and that
was no doubt that the
strategy was to bring Ss
to Quebec. ;
aa Cherry, geleer
from Local 712, Internal?
Association of Machinists,
the Canadian Tribune that
time had come for unions er  :
quire real levers of powel
men have changed,” he a
“They realize that priefs
promises are useless. They
political action.”

Further to this
ammunition to fight ba¢
rising tide of economic.
which is mirrored in moun
jobless and falling wage ri
convention endorsed thé Pe
ciple of “general strikes 5
problems of importance a <
and their solution requires P
sure by the masses.”

The ee eeption was told ei
the new weapons to be us®
all working men in
against their exploiters
range from general strikes ica

jalis

d fo
deme the
crisis
tinh;

mus

“ A gener?

action and sit-ins. P
ania’

strike, provided it is 08
while taking into account
dividual situation and di
of each group of wage
can represent a new inst 1a
of pressure on the politic’ "|
financial powers.” tt i

What is noteworthy is nial
Quebec Steelworkers pert |
representing 30,000 mem io
voted against this resolu!
But once the mandate was
the floor of the convention
into stormy applause 3”
militant rhythm of the
workers burst into the
famous couplet: “It is only
beginning, let’s continue
fight.”

Another major step fort
was taken when all prec 0
were shattered and the
voted to establish per™
structures which will lin .
to the Confederation of a
Trade Unions and the
Teachers Corporation S°
form a common front !2 th
future struggles. It was Ly
stated that the common
would work together wit tu
dents. and farmers ‘in all 3
political, social or econom!
forts.

Jean-Marie
Woodworkers Union SP?” ing’
the question of self-detething
tion for Quebec. He eXP nti,"
on the floor of the conve’ jog
the Canadian constitutio® tot,

that though Quebec is 4 ™
a9? ip
R

pro™,

@
:
jar

t
Bédard Of gb
@e

)

@ Continued on P