I tried to explain that there was a great difference between me and Mujib [Rahiman]: he was a secessionist and I wasn't.

What can you say of a leader who starts drinking as soon as he wakes up and doesn't stop until he goes to bed? You've no idea how painful it was to deal with Yahya Khan. He was really Jack the Ripper.

I don't say it in the Indian fashion that is hypocritically. I say it sincerely because, instead of hatred, I feel great compassion for Mujib Rahiman.

In March [1972] the unity of Pakistan depended on the suppression of the secessionists. But to carry it out with such brutality on the people instead of on those responsible wasn't necessary. That's not the way to convince poor people who've been told that with the Six Points there'll be no more hurricanes, no more floods, no more hunger. I spoke out against such methods more emphatically than anyone else, and when no one dared do so.

To conclude, the tragedy of March 25 [1969] caught me by surprise. Yahya Khan fooled even me.

If the people wanted my head I would bow without demur. If I had lost the confidence or respect of the people I would not want to live. The tragedy of the drama is that the very opposite is true.

The sanction of force stands behind the medley of personal orders and regulations of Martial Law. The sanction of the people's consent stands behind the hierarchy of laws. In one situation, the population is regimented into acquiescence. In the other, the population voluntarily establishes a contract with Parliament.