HC Deb 24 November 1971 vol 826 cc1344-9
Mr. Wilkinson (by Private Notice)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation on the borders between Pakistan and India, how British subjects and property are affected, and what action Her Majesty's Government is taking.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber)

The situation in East Pakistan gives rise to serious concern. There is still a great deal of uncertainty about the precise course of events. But it is clear that there have been military clashes on a growing scale in the course of the last few days.

There are no reports of injury to United Kingdom citizens or of damage to British property. Our High Commissioner in Islamabad is in touch with representatives of the British community in Pakistan and has advised those in the border areas to consider moving to areas of greater safety.

As the House is aware my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has throughout been in continuing and close touch with the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India and these contacts are continuing. We are also in close touch with the United States and other governments.

The possibility of a Security Council meeting is one that is constantly in our minds. But neither the Indian nor the Pakistan Government have as yet been ready to call for a meeting. It is far from certain that a public debate at this stage would enhance the prospects of achieving a reduction of tension. The view of other Governments as well as ourselves has so far been that better hopes lie in the continuation of the diplomatic exchanges in which we and they are engaged.

Mr. Wilkinson

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the present situation in which attacks are being mounted in the direction of Jessore, Rangpur, Sylhet, Comilla and Chittagong, there is evidence of concerted action of an aggressive nature? As this matter causes such worldwide concern, not least in this country, which has historic, traditional and personal ties with both India and Pakistan, will he, first, ask the Prime Minister of India whether she will at long last accept the offer of the President of Pakistan to invite U Thant's mediation? Secondly, will he ask both countries to adhere to the Liaquat-Nehru ground rules, whereby regular forces were not stationed within five miles of the frontier? Thirdly, if the situation deteriorates, will Her Majesty's Government consider making a forthright statement such as that issued on 6th September, 1965?

Mr. Godber

Making forthright statements can sometimes be of help, but I am not sure that it would be on this occasion. I am sure that we should all like to see withdrawal from the frontier, and we have urged this on both sides. As to the actual course of events and the particular attacks to which my hon. Friend refers, he will realise that all the reports are confused and conflicting. It is plain that attacks have been made across frontiers, but we are always told that it is the Mukhti Bahini who have crossed frontiers, and the Pakistanis say they have repulsed these attacks. It is the conflict of evidence that is the real problem.

Mr. Healey

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the full statement he has made. I think the whole House will share the concern of Her Majesty's Government, and will approve the precautionary measures which have been taken to protect the lives of British citizens should that become necessary.

On the two major issues which the right hon. Gentleman raised, while I understand the reasons why a debate in the Security Council might not assist at this time, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that there is a patent threat to peace, indeed more than a threat to peace, in the sub-continent, and it is urgently desirable that the great Powers should get together to create the conditions for United Nations intervention?

Since the right hon. Gentleman says that he is in touch with the American Government, has he any information about the American Government's contact with the Government of the Soviet Union, and what prospects there is of general agreement by the super-Powers on this issue in the near future?

Mr. Godber

On the last point, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman realises that I cannot say very much in regard to two other major Powers. I am aware that the contacts exist, and of course we are in touch, as I have indicated, but it is difficult for me to comment further on that.

On the main point about discussion in the United Nations, so long as neither of the two major parties directly concerned is willing to initiate debate, it is difficult for others to do so. I think that the very high level approaches that are being made to both sides, not only by ourselves but by various others, are the best way at the moment of trying to defuse the situation.

Sir F. Bennett

Does the Minister agree that time is running out very fast and, if we are not careful, we shall find the conflict spreading rapidly beyond Pakistan and India? Does the Minister still contend that only guerrillas are involved in East Pakistan? If so, can I be told why those guerrillas have heavy guns, tanks and limpet bombs? Does not the Minister realise that if this intervention goes on, however much my right hon. Friend urges moderation, it will not be long before Pakistan counter-attacks in another part of the sub-continent where it is at less of a tactical disadvantage than it is in Bengal?

Mr. Godber

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out the dangers of attacks in other parts. On his specific question about the use of regular forces, there is no doubt that they have been engaged. The Pakistanis on their side claim that theirs have been defensive against the Mukhti Bahini. Mrs. Gandhi said in the Indian Parliament today that some regular Indian forces had been engaged, but implied that this was to repulse Pakistani attacks across the border. It is this conflict of charge and counter-charge that is the problem at the moment.

Mr. Shore

Leaving aside allegations as to who is responsible on either side for particular incidents, surely the Minister will agree that the immediate problem is not the continuing rivalry between India and Pakistan but the continuing civil war, or war of liberation, that has been going on in East Bengal for the past six months? If this is so, and if we wish to see conflict avoided in the Indian sub-continent, as we do, the Government, with other Governments, must find ways of bringing pressure to bear on the Pakistan Government to find a solution to the civil war which they have brought upon the people of East Bengal.

Mr. Godber

Yes, I fully accept that the problems within Pakistan call for a political solution within that territory. This is what my right hon. Friend has repeatedly urged on those concerned. The immediate problem arises with the clashes across the border. The real tragedy is that where this happens things are made much worse for the refugees. What is so deplorable is that one hears that the Bangla Desh radio is supposed to have said that food supplies are now a legitimate target. That is a shocking thing for anyone to have said and should be condemned on both sides of the House.

Mr. J. H. Osborn

Are not the refugees now in a much worse plight? What contact have the Government with the United Nations Agencies to bring food to the refugees? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend say how much British property is involved, and has he any information about British interests being at stake? Thirdly, what steps have been taken to obtain information on the extent to which this conflict is being conducted by the regular army or by the Mukhti Bahini?

Mr. Godber

So far as I am aware, there is at present no risk to British property. As for the conflicting reports on the position of the Mukhti Bahini. I cannot add to what I have already said. It is a situation in which there are bound to be counter-claims on both sides.

The British position on refugees is that we want to continue supplying to the maximum extent we can within the very generous terms in which we have already sought to contribute. We shall certainly do so as long as it is possible for us to do so. If our food supplies come under attack, it will be impossible for us to maintain the supply.

Mr. Pardoe

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is not only heavy guns that the Mukhti Bahini have on their side, but justice too? Would he not recognise that as a result of their success the ultimate recognition of an independent Bangla Desh is now inevitable and that we would do well to recognise this fact?

Mr. Godber

The hon. Member is entitled to his point of view, but it would be wrong for Her Majesty's Government to take up a partisan attitude on this matter. We must try to maintain a position in which we can try genuinely to help bring down tension, not to create it.

Mr. Tinn

I fully accept the limitations on the Government's action in matters involving independent countries, which is a matter often under-estimated in the House. However, would the Government use their high level contacts, to which the Minister has referred, to impress on the Indian Government the importance of accepting United Nations observers in the border area which for some time the Pakistan Government have been willing to accept?

Mr. Godber

This is a difficult aspect, and I personally, in contacts at the United Nations and elsewhere, have tried to reach an agreed position on both sides. I should not like to say anything publicly on this matter because, whatever point one takes, one can be criticised from either side. It would be a great help to have United Nations observers on both sides of the border. This is what I should like to see above all else.