Assignment of Discourse Studies

In Respect of: Ms.Lubna Zahid

Submitted by: Umme Adeeba,Hira Sajid(12),Ayesha(03)
Standard: A.D.P. English Semester 6(M)
Course Title: Discourse Studies
Topic: Text Analysis of a Speech

CDA of Z.A.Bhutto’s Farewell Speech to the UNSC

Following are the chunks extracted from Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s speech which he delivered at the
Security Council of the United Nations on 15th December,1971.

“We have met here today at a grave moment in the history of my country and I would request the
Council kindly to bear with me and to hear the truth, the bitter truth. I know the United Nations; I
know the Security Council I have attended their sessions before. The time has come when, as far
as Pakistan is concerned, we shall have to speak the truth whether members of the Council like it
or not. We were hoping that the Security Council, mindful of its responsibilities for the
maintenance of world peace and justice, and bring an end to a naked, brutal aggression against
my people. However, I felt that it was imperative for me to come here and seek justice from the
Security Council. But I must say, whether the members like it or not, that the Security Council
has denied my country that justice. It will be recalled that when the Indian Foreign Minister
spoke and I spoke after him, I said that filibustering was taking place. The Security Council, I am
afraid, has excelled; in the art of filibustering.
I requested you, Mr. President, to convene a meeting of the Security Council immediately and I
am thankful to you for having convened this meeting, because precious time is being lost. My
countrymen, my people, are dying. Perhaps this will be my last speech in the Security Council.
So please bear with me because -I have some home truths to tell the Security Council. The world
must know. My people must know. I have not come here to accept abject surrender. Yesterday
my eleven year old son telephoned me from Karachi and said "Do not come back with a
document of surrender. We do not want to see you back in Pakistan if you do that."The Security
Council has failed miserably, shamefully. "The Charter of the United Nations," "the San
Francisco Conference," "international peace and justice"—these are the words we heard in our
youth, and we were inspired by the concept of the United Nations maintaining international
peace and justice and security. President Woodrow Wilson said that he fought the First World
War to end wars for all time. The League of Nations came into being, and then the United
Nations after it. What has the United Nations done? I know of the farce and the fraud of the
United Nations. You do not need a Secretary-General. You need a chief executioner.
Let us face the stark truth. For four days the Security Council has procrastinated. Why? Because
the object was for Dacca to fall. All right, so what if Dacca falls? Cities and countries have fallen
before. China was under foreign occupation for years. France was under foreign occupation. So
what if Dacca falls? So what if the whole of East Pakistan falls? So what if the whole of West
Pakistan falls? We will build a new Pakistan. We will build a better Pakistan.The partition of
India in 1947 took place because they did not have a vision. I am not talking as a puppet. I am
talking as the authentic leader of the people of West Pakistan who elected me at the polls in a
more impressive victory than the victory that Mujibur Rahman received in East Pakistan.

The Permanent Representative of the Soviet Union does not like my reference to the Roman
Empire. I go back to the Roman Empire and I say what Cato said to the Romans, "Carthage must
be destroyed." If India thinks that it is going to subjugate Pakistan, Eastern Pakistan as well as
Western Pakistan—because we are one people, we are one state— then we shall say, "Carthage
must be destroyed.”
 So please, Mr. President and members of the Security Council, realise the implications. The
Pakistani nation is a brave nation. One of the greatest British generals said that the best infantry
fighters in the world are the Pakistanis. We will fight. Ethiopia was under Fascist domination.
But the Ethiopians fought. Ethiopia is free today.The principle is that Pakistan is an indepen-
dent, sovereign state which came into being because of the volition of its people. If India talks
about the will of the people of East Pakistan and claims that it had to attack Pakistan in order to
impose the will of the people of East Pakistan, then what has it done about Kashmir? Yesterday I
saw how the Security Council was pandering to India.The great powers will forgive me. I have
addressed them in this moment of anguish, and they should understand. The great powers or the
super powers—the super-duper-powers, the razzling-dazzling powers—the super powers have
imposed their super will for the moment. But I am thankful to the people and the Government of
the United States among the super powers, for the position it has taken.As a result, American
public opinion and public opinion in Great Britain and France and other countries was
influenced. Unfortunately, nothing was said of the massacres that took place between 1 March
and 25 March. No doubt there were mistakes on our side.
Hitlerite aggression was not accepted by the world.A new chapter may have begun in India and
Pakistan, but please do not start a new dreadful chapter in the international relations. For us, it is
a hand-to-hand, day-to-day minute-to-minute fight.In the old days great warriors swept over the
world—Changiz Khan, Subutai Khan, Alexander, Caesar, coming down to the great Napoleon.
But this is worse. The United States has stood by the traditions of Jefferson, Madison. Hamilton,
right down to Roosevelt and Wilson by supporting Pakistan as an independent state.As you sow,
so shall you reap. Remember that Biblical saying.Today,it is Pakistan.We are your guinea pigs
today.But there will be other guinea pigs and you will see what happens. We are not going to lick
the dust.
There is no third road. It is a black and white situation in these matters; there is no grey involved.
You are either for right or you are for wrong. Great Britain and France want to come back into
the subcontinent as Clive and Dupleix, in a different role, the role of peacemakers. Because in
East Pakistan they have their tea estates. They want the jute of East Pakistan. So that is why they
sat on the fence. Finally, I am not a rat. I have never ratted in my life. I am not boycotting.
Impose, Impose any decision, have a treaty worse than the Treaty of Versailles, legalise
everything that has been illegal upto 15 December 1971. We will fight; we will go back and
fight. My country beckons me. I will not be a party to the ignominious surrender of a part of my
country. You can take your Security Council. Here you are. (Ripping papers) I am going.”

Data Analysis and Discussion

 Introduction
Critical discourse analysis and content analysis are employed to evaluate the importance of
Z.A.Bhutto’s discursive and socio-political views .Ideological orientation of his political
rhetoric, linguistic style and power relations are also mirrored through language. This address
holds peculiar significance due to description of predicament of East Pakistan’s separation in
1971.Fairclough describes three stages of discourse namely Description(text
analysis),Interpretation (processing analysis) and Explanation (social analysis).

I. Description
 Description deals with vocabulary, lexical form, grammar, kinds of sentences, equality of
time and sentence structure. In his speech, Bhutto used undiplomatic language which
highlights his grudge and offensiveness as he said, “we shall have to speak the truth
whether members of the Council like it or not.” He broke all the traditions of official
oratory. He has used intensive subjective approach.
 Engagement and Stance Stategies

Reader Pronouns:

Time and again, he made use of we and our. It is evident through: “We have met here today at
a grave moment in the history of my country and I would request the Council kindly to
bear with me”. “We” is a reader pronoun refers to his delegation and the members of the
UNSC .He used the word you as unrefined address to president of the UNSC.

Appeals to Shared Knowledge

Bhutto made appeals to shared knowledge which shows his background and interpersonal
knowledge. “We shall have to speak the truth” and “We were inspired by the concept
of the United Nations maintaining international peace.”

Personal Asides
“I know the United Nations; I know the Security Council I have attended their
sessions before.” He used this strategy to reflect more of his views.

Imperatives
“Please bear with me” and Don’t come back with a message of surrender, “ do not
start a new dreadful chapter in international relations”, “Let us face the stark
truths”. All these sentences are examples of his directives.

Questions
He questions his audience and wants their response to the fall of Dhaka as he says, “so
what if Dhaka falls?” and “ UN has procrastinated. Why?”

Self-mentions

Bhutto made repetitive use of personal pronouns to show himself as a daring leader.
“I”is used almost seventy-seven times. I must say ,I have attended,I’m not bycotting etc.

Hedges,Boosters and Attitude Markers.

 “We will fight” and“My people must know” contain boosters (will,must). “A new chapter
may have begun”, “ …would act according to principles”and “Perhaps this will be my last
speech in the Security Council.” consist of hedges(would,may,perhaps).Unfortunately and
shamefully in “The Security Council has failed miserably, shamefully” are attitude markers.

 Bhutto used assertive and imeperative sentences. He consumed a lot of time in giving
historical references.
 Additive,adversative and causal conjunctions (and,however,but,because)are used.
 Reiteration lies in the use of “super-duper powers, razzling-dazzling powers” for the
powerful nations.
 Anaphoric reference( the great powers) in Yesterday I saw how the Security Council
was pandering to India.The great powers will forgive me” for the SC.
 Allusions of Cato, Napoléon ,Hitler, Caesar, Changez Khan etc. are used to create
parallelism with the unfair exploitative policies of the UNSC
 Metaphor of “guinea pigs” is used for third world submissive countries.
 Conventional Implicature is however.

II. Interpretation
Bhutto strongly condemned and criticized UNSC’s policies as failures in the maintenance
of peace. He used discursive devices to gain heed of the SC members towards the plight
of his nation as it is obvious through “For us, it is a hand-to-hand, day-to-day minute-
to-minute fight”. He also gives a fierce forewarning to India and super powers by
saying that we will fight and we will not bow down before your unjust decisions.
“If India thinks that it is going to subjugate Pakistan, Eastern Pakistan as well as
Western Pakistan—because we are one people, we are one state— then we shall say,
"Carthage must be destroyed.” He raised the courage and morale of his warriors by
citing the historical sentence of Cato that they are able to annihilate the brutal powers to
the backbone.
Conversational implicatures:It lies in his allusions to the savage historical leaders and
the emancipation of the previously subjugated countries,Etihopia and China, who got
freedom despite the inefficiency of the Security Council. Similarly, Pakistanis are
capable of coping up with atrocious rulers .He wished UNSC to propose viable solution
to the Indo-Pak conflict. The delaying tactics of the UNSC disappointed him. He did not
surrender as it is demonstrated in “Impose any decision… we will go back and fight”
Face-threatening Act and Impoliteness: Bhutto used highly aggressive language
against the hegemonic role of the super-powers. “The Security Council has denied my
country that justice.” “Here you are. (Ripping papers) I am going” “You do not
need a Secretary-General. You need a chief executioner. “He threatened the face of
the SC members and its president. Prosodic features are highly aggressive and tone is
confident.
Explanation

Bhutto was well- aware of the political crisis going on in his country. He used historical
references of subjugated nations of the world which shows that he had background
knowledge.He also quoted Cato in his speech to demonstrate the similarity between the crisis
of his nations and of the Romans.
Research Tool

CDA of Fairclough is used as a research tool for analyzing the stylistic and socio-political
aspects of Z.A.Bhutto’s speech.

Qualitative Data

Excerpts of Z.A.Bhutto’s speech at the UNSC on 15 th December, 1971 are taken from
the internet

Conceptual Framework

In critical paradigm of CDA, issues associated with ideology, power relations and social
relations are discussed.

Significance

Linguistic and cognitive strategies in his discourse uncover opaque motives and notions.

Conclusion

All in all, Bhutto delivered a vivid and apt discourse that appealed much. There were
certain stylistic flaws but the use of concrete terms made his speech inspiring with
flowing narrative .The Washington Times called his speech a living theatre. Bhutto was
more successful with his Pakistani audience. To some extent, his speech deflected
attention from true events underlying the Fall of Dhaka. In short, Bhutto presented
himself as a microcosm of the country.In the darkest hour at the SC, he outspokenly
blurted out his frustration and anguish due to the inactivity of the super-powers towards
the problems of downtrodden nations.