Address to Pakistan Bar Council, Lahore on January 30, 1973

Mr. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Chief Justice of the High Court, Chairman, Pakistan Bar Council, Judges and friend:

It is a great pleasure for me to be present with you this afternoon. I confess that I am here without a prepared text. Although the speech you delivered, Sir, just now was sent to me yesterday, however, since I had gone to Shakargarh and had a number of unexpected matters to attend to, it was not possible for me to come here with prepared text. Nevertheless, I did find time to go through your speech and I believe I am in position to answer some of the points you have raise. I am not trying to avoid the others. I would have certainly answered each and every one of them, if had the opportunity of consulting the relevant departments. But let me tell you straightway that the Government s sympathetic to your needs and requirements, and I am happy to inform you that this much-sought-after plot of land that you need, which is adjacent to Shah Chiragh Mosque, will be transferred to you immediately. The Punjab Government has embarked on a number f housing schemes and I had directed the Provincial Government to make a suitable allotment of plots to the legal fraternity so that they can set up nice, decent and modern residential quarters in these plots of land which will be available to them. And, of course, this will make it easier for you living next door to another to steal each other’s law books as well. I would like to inform you that in the provincial budget for this year two lakhs of rupees have been allocated for the extension of the existing building of the Lahore High Court Bar Association.

You also raised the question of a suitable amendment in the companies’ Act and the Partnership Act, making it obligatory for the companies to employ or engage lawyers. I think this is a preeminently sensible suggestion, and I will direct to Central Government to study it, and as far as I am concerned, I see no reason why it should not be implemented.

Now, I am aware of your difficulties. I am acutely aware of many of difficulties. And I know one of the main frustrations that is faced both here and in Karachi, and I dare say even in Peshawar, is that cases have been in arrears, cases have been pending not only for years but for decades. And I know the bitterness and resentment it entail not only to the legal profession but also the litigants and especially those who are involved in criminal case. This has been the problem which we should have talked and solved years age. I do not know whether we will be able to solve it in the near future but it needs to be solved. I know that there are many other demands on the exchequer, there are many priorities, but it is essential to weigh the conflicting equities and to take some radical steps to improve the situation. The situation is crying for improvement.

I can announce straightway that we are going to increase the strength of the Lahore High Court by two to three judges but you will turn on and tell me that this is not enough, this is hardly sufficient that, as you have mentioned, there are thirty thousand or more cases pending and you cannot dispose of expeditiously and with justice, so many cases by increasing two or three judges. I believe the present strength of Lahore High Court is about 20 judges. You need about forty or so, double the strength, in order to tackle this problem in such a way that you can sweep the desk and it is not possible to double the strength of the judiciary at this time not only for financial reasons, even the High Court premise, will not be sufficient. You will have to have more facilities. These will take some time. But I hope that we can tackle the problem seriously and earnestly, and within the next few years we will break the back of this problem. Because it is about time we solve some of our problems, it is about time we get some of the problems out of our way. So far, problems on top of problems have been heaped up and this has been a tragic trend. It’s about time that we grapple with problems seriously, see to it that some of the burdens are reduce. And I hope that with the cooperation of my colleagues in the Provincial Governments as well as from all of you, from the legal profession, from the judiciary, we will be able to move profoundly forward in trying to resolve this unfortunate problem. But in the first instance, we will increase the strength of the judiciary. But with increase of strength, as time passes, without casting reflection on the legal profession, we will also have to raise our standards, and this does not apply only to legal profession. Unfortunately, I think, you will all agree with me that our educational standard has deteriorated in every field, whether it is engineering, science or the arts, this problem really dismays me.

It is going to reach alarming proportions if the standards keep failing. Whereas in the rest of the world people’s standards are rising. Everywhere the competitive spirit is casing societies to meet the challenges of our times. Somehow or the other, we have become insular isolated in the realm of educational norms, and I think, here each of us can play a role and those outside Government are better equipped to play this role. Because those who are in Government the student community or those incharge of the educational institutions might think that the Government has its own angle, and in the name of discipline wants to curb the spirit of the students or the freedom of the students. Far be from us, we need that spirit. By raising the standard of our education we don’t intend or we don’t want the spirit of the student community to be in any way, deflated. On the contrary, with higher education, with better performances, the spirit, the positive aspects and characteristics of the student community will keep on rising. But I think, by and large, you will have to agree with me that there are certain minimum standards which need to be maintained. If we don’t for forward, if we don’t make our standards rise, they should not fall and we should arrest this deterioration, and it is essential that we should arrest this deterioration otherwise it will affect the totality of our life in every sphere of activity. And I think you will agree with me that correspondingly with increase in strength of judges there will be more need for lawyers to be elevated to the Bench. For the judges of the subordinate courts and especially in the legal profession, it is essential that we maintain our high standards. You have, by and large for variety of reasons, been able to maintain some standards better than in other institutions.

I do not think the credit entirely goes to you for doing it. But for a variety of reasons and partly the credit goes to you. Whereas there has been more marked deterioration in the other institutions, by and large, thank God, we have been able to maintain comparatively a standard in the legal profession and in the judiciary of which we can be truly proud of. So we want this to be maintained. We do not want standards here to fall, and in this respect the Government will do everything in its power, and in its authority to maintain a liaison with you, to have frequent contacts. If you had not invited me today, the day would have come when I would have invited myself and come to the High Court to met you because we must maintain these contacts and it does not matter if differences develop. These differences do develop and differences develop in our society very easily. Misunderstandings are cause, we are a sensitive people and therefore there are times when the relationship goes through a strain or misunderstanding leads to certain differences and it is no use turning our backs on each other and say, well, the Executive has become arrogant and the Executive has become deaf to the protestation of the people, and the Executive says, well, our difficulties are not being understood and our point of view has not been appreciated; and the gulf grows wider and wider. That should not happen and we did not want that to happen. There have been matters which you have raised here today in your address about the unfortunate incident that took place in the city of Lahore when a procession of lawyers was attacked. And I can tell you quite plainly, whether you believe it or not, that it hurt me and I was pained when I heard about it and condemned it. I immediately got in touch with the local authorities and found out as to what had happened. I will repeat here again that how can we tolerate or not feel unhappy about such incidents. They do cause us anguish and we don’t want such things to happen. After a great struggle, many sacrifices, a Government comes into authority. It does not come into authority to alienate its people and to treat, in this fashion, its elite, its intellectuals, its thinkers. And today, as I was telling our Honorable Judges the other day when we had tea together and informal discussion, the situation is that these days unfortunately everyone has got a pistol in his pocket or a gun somewhere hidden. And in these processions, in these surcharge situations, incidents like that are happening and they do take place. It should be our effort to see that these are reduced and we go back to normal times. For over five years, we have been seeing abnormal conditions, and it is about time that Pakistan made earnest efforts to bring back normalcy, bring back normal conditions. In this connection, I can assure you that here again the lawyers can play an extremely important part to restore normal life in the country.

There was a phase when the whole world was affected by upheavals and changes and tensions. The root cause of it, one way or the other, lay in the Vietnam war which took a very great toll of human life. It was a struggle unparalleled in history. It caused so many social tensions. And everywhere people found methods of protest. The student community, the phenomenon of 1967 and 1968, when it became a world-wide phenomenon where students in their disgust and in their anger showed their resentment of the youth against that barbaric and savage war. It had its economic ramifications. It had international ramifications. As matter of fact, almost every important issue in the world was, in one way or the other, traceable to that unfortunate and tragic war. And so we saw in Europe and the United States, everywhere people on the streets, demonstrations, youth in an agitated state of mind, workers, laborers marching on the street of Paris, and in other capitals and metropolises of the world. Somehow or the other, in those countries which grappled with the problems, And everywhere else, you can see, relative normality coming and the international scene moving into a state of détente and dialogue. The two Germanys have broken their barriers and they are now locked in dialogue. Profound movements have taken place in Western Europe. United Kingdom has now joined the Common Market. There are efforts being made to bring about a European conference for European security to be attended by states of Eastern and Western Europe. So these great changes are taking place in both Europes, they are taking place in Northern America. Many important developments are taking place in Africa. Asia and, here. We in the subcontinent, are still mounting one tension on top of another. I am not entering into Indo-Pak relations but let us first of all talk about our own internal tensions. I think many of these internal tensions can be resolved in a spirit of accommodation and understand. And that is why it is essential for Pakistan to bring about or make an effort to bring about normal conditions. In this connection, we have had series of discussions on the fundamental law, on the constitution. You all know on the 20th of October, all parties, represented in the National Assembly, including leaders of the independents or the spokesmen of the independents, were invited to a conference to find a consensus on the fundamental principles of the constitution. And we held long discussions for over five days and in the spirit of understanding and accommodation. We arrived at the Constitutional Accord. Before the Accord was reached, some people said that the Government wanted a Presidential system – that we wanted constitution of France based on General de Gaulle’s pattern and that under no circumstances would they permit a presidential form of Government and that it was essential for Pakistan to have parliamentary form of Government. That only a parliamentary form of Government could work in Pakistan.

When we met at this conference, I told m friends that they had attributed to the Government its propensity towards the presidential form of Government, more precisely based upon the pattern of France which was evolved by General de Gaulle. I told them that they were wrong. Either they were misled or basing their views on some wrong information or for political reasons, this was being said. I told them quite clearly that we want to see some fundamental decisions taken which would last, which would remain permanent in the sense of permanence in the historical context. And I told them that it was my view that whether we have a Presidential system or a Parliamentary system it is for the people to make it work. If the people are not prepared to make a system work it will not work. If the people are not prepared to make the democracy work, if the people are not prepared to safeguard democracy, neither a presidential nor a parliamentary system can work. We can have a parliamentary system but unless that system is defended by the broad masses of the people, unless they believe this is a system in which their lives are interlocked, unless they, with al their devotion, work to defend it, it will suffer, it will not last. And so also with the presidential system. You can have a democracy. As you know better than anyone else, in a presidential system you can have a democracy. In a parliamentary system, there are some built-in devices but basically it is for the people to make that system work to protect it. So I told them I leave the choice to them because all of us will have to work to protect it. All of us will have to safeguard that system. If they want a parliamentary system let us have a parliamentary system. But we must have a parliamentary system which should work. We must take into account our past history. We must take into account our past experience. We must look back at the first ten years of Pakistan, and we must consider all the tensions through which the first and the second Assemblies had to pass before the second Assembly was dissolved and Martial Law came to the country. We must not forget eh period. We must not forget even the period before Independence, and, therefore, now we are going to restore democracy, let us err on the side of caution, let us put this delicate plant into our soil, let us nurture it, let it grow, let the people’s consciousness, their enlightenment, their personal attachment to the system grow, and with that, with the passage of time, this will be the way to safeguard democracy. But we must take a realistic built-in stability to overcome this acutely tense period, this highly abnormal period of transition where the country has been dislocated, dismembered and with all the other problems that we face.

So, in principle, we must find some arrangement whereby this parliamentary system will last, spread and take roots. And then if time passes and we have done the right things, well, already 25 years have passed, a little more period will pass. So in principle, we said that there was need to take into account our past experience; not only our past experience, Gentlemen, but also the current forces that are work, those forces which contributed to the events of December, 1971. How active they are? How vigilant they are? And all with the other international factors involved in the situation, it was necessary for us to have, in principle, an agreement whereby there can be some democratic element of stability in the system, whether it is parliamentary or presidential. And once this was agreed to by everyone, all of them agreed. Yes. This is true we have had a sad experience in the past. We have seen how democracy was destroyed within 10 years of creation of Pakistan and how difficult it has been again to bring back democracy. So, therefore, we must be realistic, we must work in a spirit of accommodation and agree to certain temporary, transitory arrangements for the temporary, transitory period through which the country is passing. So as far as we are concerned, we agreed to the system. They said it should be the parliamentary system. We said all right we respect the parliamentary system. We will have the parliamentary system but on the condition of this principle to which all agreed.

Now we suggested certain other methods of bringing about safeguards, the necessary democratic safeguard. That was also not accepted by our other friends. They rejected that and we said all right, you offer us an alternative, we are prepared to accept your alternative but you have agreed to the principle. Now that they have agreed to the principle, they should accept their own suggestion. They made a suggestion relating to the vote of no confidence. It was a suggestion, made by our friends, and it was their suggestion. We said to tem the same thing which, perhaps, they are saying today. When we said that our suggestion should be accepted they raised certain objections. We dropped our suggestion and we accepted the suggestion which they made and afterwards everyone felt very happy that there was an Accord after 25 years on the constitution and the man in the street, I think, heaved a sigh of relief, felt that we have learnt some lessons from the cataclysm of the past and that at least people have responded to the call of the crisis and arrived at a just and equitable compromise in the higher national interests. But subsequently there were certain second thoughts. You must not believe anything that comes in the papers. We have nevertheless been in touch with one another. We have been talking even before coming here. We were holding discussions on this matter because there is no question of personal pride involved in national issues. And so when we have had some discussion I can’t say where this discussion will lead us. But you, I think, will appreciate that we haven’t closed the doors in the sense that we said that we are not prepared to talk more. We are prepared to talk and must talk. That is our duty. We must talk. We are going to talk and we have been talking. In this connection the opposition parties have boycotted the National Assembly session and they have given two conditions. One is that the Ministers must behave themselves, they must respect the opposition; and the other one is relating to privilege motion. Now, I would like to tell you, I thin, this is the best gathering where could make my views known to break this little deadlock. As far as the last point is concerned, it is assumed, it goes without saying, and I am not in any way prejudicing the issue, whether Ministers behaved or did not behave or whether the opposition behaved or did not behave because I was not present in the House. I was in Karachi and I would assume without prejudice to what really happened on that day and this is what is expected of civilized people. Civilized people claim to democracy and want to make the country strong and prosperous again. So I accept the first point because I can never reject the first point. It can never dream of rejecting such a contention. So I think there is no controversy over this point. Ministers should not misbehave; they should not lose their temper. The opposition should not misbehave; they should not lose their temper as we expect the opposition to behave. And, I am sure, the opposition will also behave, and I can fully understand the need for the Ministers to behave. And, therefore, I don’t see any difficulty in accepting the first point. I think that is resolved. There was never a controversy over it in the first place. I don’t think it is controversial point. So the question of its resolution does not arise. But suppose you say the question of resolution does arise. I say it is resolved.

The second point is regarding the privilege. As far as the privilege is concerned, that is for the Speaker of the NA to decide it. If I were to make any comment on it, it will be a reflection on his high office. It is a ruling which the Speaker has to give. I can’t assure my client, as a lawyer, the ruling that a judge will give. I can tell him that I expect the judge to give a judgment which I think would be according to my own reading of the case. That, I think he was he was going to lose his case. But I can’t say he was going to win it. It is for the Speaker to give his ruling and in this connection whatever ruling the Speaker would give we would welcome and we would welcome always the ruling the Speaker would give, not only in this case, but also in any other matter. But we can’t challenge the ruling of the Speaker, we can’t challenge the umpire. We can’t hope to make democracy function. So, that, I think, really resolves the problem that we accept the ruling of the Speaker, they accept the ruling of the speaker. If the ruling of the Speaker goes in their favor, well, we don’t make a long face, and if the ruling of the Speaker goes against them they must show the spirit of accommodation and they must enter the House and come and participate in law-making and on February 2 when the constitution Bill is presented. But since these unfortunate differences have arisen over the Constitutional Accord I like to make one or two submission for your consideration, not as an edict or a last word from me but for you to know whether my thinking is right or wrong because I might be wrong: But I believe that the more I look on the problem, the more I think over it, I believe that we are on the right side.

Now, in this connection, first of all, on the Accord itself, as far as the Accord is concerned, all the correct procedures were followed by us in bringing about the Accord. There was no irregularity in procures. In other words, al the members of the NA, who were leaders of parties and who were the spokesmen of the independent, all of them were invited. Not a single party was omitted; not a single party was left out. That means the House was fully reflected and represented in the discussions that took place on the Constitutional Accord. And if anyone was left out it was the duty of the gentlemen who attended the meeting to say that this is not a complete forum, that there are certain lacunae in this forum; such and such gentlemen, who represents such and such party, or by such and such criteria, is entitled to participate in this conference, should be invited, and that without his participation any discussion or agreement between us would be incomplete. This position was not taken, of the simple reason that all formalities were complied with; each and every formality was complied with. Everyone came there with proper credentials; no one came there without proper credentials; no one with proper credentials was left out of the meeting. And the discussions were held in a free and voluntary atmosphere and it goes without saying that it was. How can the opposition claim that they met under duress; they did not and they cannot. So there were free discussions, fair discussions; there was give and take and there was more take than give, us I have said. They said we want a parliamentary system. We said take the parliamentary system. We sent our method of having the built-in democratic device. Because we were interested in an agreement on fundamentals, we were interested in the agreement on the constitution, and we were in search for consensus. This is the position which my party took long long ago, that for a constitution it is desirable to have a consensus.

And here again please consider that that was entirely a different situation, that was a situation in which there was not only a constitution but a constitution which was for two parts of the country. One part known as West Pakistan, the other part known as East Pakistan and separated by a thousand miles. And that being the case, not only a consensus was desirable, but a consensus was imperative because there was one wing which represented only one provinces and there was the other wing which represented and one province, and they were divided not only into four provinces and one province but they were divided into two separate wings. That means if One Unit had not been broken it would have been West Pakistan province and East Pakistan province where the majority of the people of West Pakistan said that they should at least be heard and if they are fair and reasonable their point of view must be accepted. That much assurance was sought for and at that time it was told that no, the majority party has a right to frame the constitution. I say all right even if you, accept that position, that the majority party has a right to frame a constitution .it has to be a unitary or a federal constitution and not a confederal constitution The six points were nothing but a confederation. How can the one province, the one party, the one party form that side, could say that for the whole country there should be a confederal constitution because the majority party wants it.

Same conditions don’t obtain now. I three out of the four contiguous provinces, there is representation even if the Constitutional Accord is Broken because People’s Party in Punjab and Sind has the majority and in frontier also Khan Qayyum Khan’s Muslim League has majority in the National Assembly, leaving the provinces of Baluchistan alone, wanting to exercise the veto. Well then, there are other ways of determining the wishes of the people of Baluchistan or of the country as well. There is a known method of a referendum also. So these doors are not closed. But, nevertheless, we will still say that we prefer to have a consensus. But, in our search for something which is desirable how can we indefinitely hold up something which is reparative especially when the essence of that imperativeness has been met democratically and according to the norms of constitution-making. So there is nothing which is wrong with the Accord itself if some members afterwards happen to have after thoughts. The validity of the Accord is not in any way affected by the after thoughts of some of its signatories. For instance, in the Parliament when the bill is presented and the bill becomes law that we don’t regard it as law. It is law, it does become law even if some of the members of the legislature don’t like that law afterwards. But that is not the way then to remove that law. There is a proper procedure and a forum for the removal of the law ice, they go back to the legislature and have it either amended or annulled. So there is another forum where the Accord’s validity can be changed without affecting their position and that is the Assembly itself. Because one forum has become ‘functus officio’ and now the valid forum in the National Assembly.

The trouble with you, Gentlemen, is that none of you have understood the little old man called Hans Kelsen. This is not a contempt of court, Our former Chief Justice gave a ruling in Dosso’s case based on Hans Kelsen. Now the Supreme Court has given its Judgment again recently in Jilani’s case. Again poor Hans Kelsen has been dragged into it, both of the Chief Justices have dragged in Hans Kelsen but the purity of Hans Kelsen’s thoughts, is pure theory of law and state, is something which is the last word of logic in law. And I say I have the honour of studying three years under Hans Kelsen. So I fall back on Hans Kelsen and tell you the validity of the Accord is in no way affected by the second thought that some of the members might have on having made the Accord. Its efficiency and validity remains unimpaired. But then there is something else as well. What are the points that have been raised subsequently. One point that has been raised in the TV broadcasts is that they want checks and balances.

Now here again there is another fallacy. What kind of checks and balances? If they are talking about constitutional checks and balances then they should have opted for a President system. Because the juridical system of checks and balances is to be found in a presidential system and not in a parliamentary system. It is in the presidential system that was evolved by the Americans. In that system they worked out the theory of the legislature being separate, the executive being separate, the judiciary being separate and one being a check on the other. And if the American country would not have been such a prosperous country full of so many natural resources, the American constitution was not working properly in the beginning. And it took a long time for the American constitution, by convention and tradition, to find its roots really not in the checks and balances which were evolved in the American constitution by Montesquieu’s writings. They found those checks and balances in the electorate and also in the parliamentary system, not talking in juridical terms. The check and balances in the people, because the parliamentary system accepts the supremacy of the legislature and the executive merely flows from the legislature. There is no question of checks and balances in the parliamentary system. The parliamentary system recognizes the preponderance and supremacy of the legislature and, therefore, the executive flows out of legislature. On the contrary, the advantage of the British system or the parliamentary system is that it is not given to hindrances and impediments which are known in American or Presidential system as checks and balances. That the three organs of the state are not in confrontation of conflict all the time with the legislature, the executive going to the legislature, legislature again not talking cognizance of it, then the 2/3rd, the presidential veto, then presidential veto going to 2/3rd of the Congress. All these checks and balances in the American system are there because it is the presidential system where the three organs are supposed to be separate. Then if they want checks and balances I am again prepared to discuss with them, if they want the presidential system. And if they want a parliamentary system then they need not talk about those checks and balances. Because in a democracy there is only one check and there is only one balance i.e. the willingness of the people to work that system. That is the only guarantee for the system. There can be no other guarantee for that system. So, much for the question of checks and balances which they have been again and again propounding on the TV with an authoritative ignorance. The other question is that they say, when there are elections, for the pendency of which there should be a national Government. Now gentlemen, here again this is an important question. In the first place, I won’t take much of your time.

That nowhere in the world you have a National Government during the elections.

Nowhere in the world you have either a national Government of hand over the executive branch of the Government to some other agency or authority. Because it is neither fair to the executive branch nor is it fair to the judiciary nor to any other branch which is then told to trespass and opt out of its own functions and go into an alien function. Why do we oppose military intervention in Government? You can say judge of the Supreme Court why not say General of the Armed Forces, because if you accept the principle that the executive must vacate itself for a certain period of time, for a certain contingency, which is not met by the formula suggested, then it need not be a judge. Then the principle you have accepted that some other elements must be injected into the executive, and that need not be a judge, that can be, as I said, a General of the Army. So the question here is this that among other reasons, nowhere in the world they have this. You give me one example where they have this. I will say well, it merits some consideration. You might say the Turkish constitution. Well the remarkable thing of the Turkish constitution is that they have not implemented it yet, and especially as far as this provision is concerned. So the point is that in India they have had elections. Mrs. Gandhi was Prime Minister. Before that Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru was Prime Minister when elections were held. In England Mr. heath, will hold elections, he will be Prime Minister. Before him, Mr. Wilson was Prime Minister. In Canada they recently had elections, Mr. Trudeau remained Prime Minister. They had elections in US, President Nixon remained President. Always that would be the position. In Germany, willy Brandt got elected and he remained Chancellor. Similarly Pompidou in France, and why must you always make Pakistan a guinea pig. The question is this, that a party has been defeated in elections. Suppose a party that has been miserable defeated by the electorate, rejected whole-heartedly, fully rejected, seeks to come into Government after its rejection by this method because it can find no other method of coming into Government. Because the only method by which it can come democratically into Government is through the people. But he people have rejected the party. Perhaps, they have got only even one member or not even one member in the Assembly yet, although they have been squarely rejected and the ruling party might have the over whelming confidence of the people, for those crucial moths, for which they attribute mala fides, they want to get into office. Is that the democratic method of getting into office? Then why not say better get us into office whether we win or lose, because we want to get into office. So this is a negation of democracy. That those who have been rejected wholly and squarely by the people insist that despite the fact that they have been rejected they should be brought into office at this crucial time because they want to rig the elections, because they know there is no other way they can be elected, because they have seen they cannot get elected. Therefore, bring then in so that they can get elected by irregular means.

Thirdly, it is again a negation of democracy. That means, you don’t believe that you will operate democratically. Either you believe in democracy and that it will be operated democratically, or you don’t believe that democracy can function in this country. And if you don’t believe that democracy can function in this country whatever checks and balances you have, or even if you come into a government, into a hotchpotch, for the purpose of election, you cannot allow democracy to remain in the land. Because then democracy will not function, because you don’t trust democracy. That is why you say. At this crucial period, you must be in the government because you don’t trust the people. You don’t trust the institutions. Therefore, it is a negation of democracy, it is saying that people are not fit to run a democracy. So this in itself is, I think, a biggest insult to democracy.

If you trust democracy, ad you ask them to trust democracy and the democratic processes. And if the Government in power rigged the elections, the electorate will not allow that for the electorate will see to it that they are then thrown out. Then why don’t you trust democracy and why do you want a built-in device for a transitional period of time? I want to answer that because I anticipate, that you might ask the question. Then all right, if they are to trust democracy, then they should trust democracy and not as for a transitional provision. In the first place, as for as the transitional provision is concerned, it is transitional but trust in democracy is not transitional. But even that is not transitional. But even that is not important, there is another reason for it. The provision is theirs, it is not ours. But even if I say the provision is ours there are other reasons for it. That is because, as far as their claim for sharing Government is concerned, that means they don’t trust the people at large. They don’t trust the broad masses of people, that they will not allow malpractice, and if malpractices take place they will throw out the Government which indulges in malpractices. That is a vote of no confidence against the massed, against the people, against the electorate, by saying that we must come into office to ensure that we get elected although we have been defeated. This is fear safeguarding a rising institution but this does not go to the heart of the basic factor of the trust of the people. This goes to the interest of the institution which needs to be built, and for that, you need, for a given period of time, some method to allow that institution to grow, Institutions are not directly concerned with the people. The judiciary is not directly concerned with the people.

The people are beneficiary of the judiciary. The people have their contact. But they don’t bring the judiciary into being in the sense they bring the Government into being in an election. So, the legislature, the parliament, the people are concerned with it. But is order to see that the parliament does not fall to the caprices and the whims of members and other factors, you give it a period of time to make that institution grow. That is not the same thing as distrusting the whole community. This is taking a cautions position of the building of an institution. So these are, gentlemen, the causes and the factors which are involved in the present situation. Whatever happens the country must have a constitution. It must have a democratic progressive constitution, rooted in the people, calling for periodical elections, strengthening the institutions which have been battered and destroyed in the past. It is our solemn duty, it is our moral obligation to see and to ensure that no longer such battering and bashing again takes place in the history of Pakistan. And for that reason we are making every endeavor to promote the cause of democracy, the cause of the people, and the pledge and the promise we made to the people of Pakistan, to make our country into the most formidable and powerful country in the subcontinent, and come what may you will see the dawn of that day.