Role of Political Parties Speech in the National Assembly, July 10, 1962

Sir, I rise to take part in this debate with a sense of humility because, Sir, as a God-fearing Muslim I know the consequences of victimization It is in a sense of humility, with a sense of fear in the mercy and wisdom of the Almighty that I move to take part in this debate of far-reaching consequences.

On the determination of this problem lies not only the outcome of the role of political parties in the country, but the future of 95 million people of Pakistan who have in the last fifteen years gone through a period of crises who have been buffeted about by circumstances and have known what it is to suffer under weak and corrupt governments. The role of political parties is essential to every state whether it is democratic or dictatorial. We know that even in dictatorships—in Fascist and Communist dictatorships—the party is a supreme organ of the state. In the Communist states, in the Soviet Union, the party leadership, the party organization and the control of the party caucus determines the government. The party in the Soviet Union is superior not only to the other organs of the state but to the army and all other institutions in the country. So, it is not only in a democracy but in every system that political parties or a party are essential. The other day when we were discussing Kashmir, Mr. Chatta made a cogent observation. He said, “You cannot channelize, and generate the atmosphere, the loyalties and the emotions of the people without a party organization.”

There is undoubtedly a gap in political life without an active well-organized disciplined party system. It is in acquiescence of the realities of the situation that the Government has sponsored this Bill There is no argument, there is no logic superior to the compulsion of events and the compulsion of events have necessitated the introduction of this Bill. It has been said that the Government has introduced this Bill out of some ulterior motive and that the Government is trying to stampede the passage of this Bill. Various other sweeping and unfounded charges have also been made against the Government. This, I think; is most regrettable. On the contrary, there should have been universal appreciation of the fact that this Government is conscious of public feelings on important, reasonable, legitimate and sensible issues that this Government is willing to accommodate the opposition’s point of view, after its past prejudices, if there were any against party politics. If democracy is to flourish, you must have respect for the other man’s point of view. But when respect for the other man’s point of view is shown, instead of appreciation, resentment and anger is being shown.

Sir, why was Pakistan created? Why did millions of people give their lives for the creation of our state? There are some here, including yourself, who have been stalwarts in the Pakistan movement, who have fought who have suffered, who have known miseries and the privations and the sacrifices which all went together and were necessary for the creation of this state of ours. Some of us were not privileged in those days to take part in the freedom movement for the simple reason that we were in our schools and universities, but even in our schools and universities, we felt a great and glorious urge for our promised homeland and were keen to see it carved out as a separate state from India. We prayed for it so that we could call it our own, where we could practice our own way of life, where we could proudly live as a separate community, basing our social, economic and political edifice on the principles and precepts of our religion. The fountain head of our way of life was to be a democratic way of life. But unfortunately soon after the creation of Pakistan, we lost our great and beloved leader, the Quaid-i-Azam, and soon after his death we lost the Quaid-i-Millat. Thereafter, Sir, the political history of this country went through such an unusual turmoil that in October, 1958, the Revolution had to come to try and put the state of affairs in order.

We have been told that democracy was not given a chance to survive in this country; democracy was not given a chance to take roots in Pakistan. But may I ask who was responsible for the collapse of democracy? Is the present Government responsible for it or are the misdeeds of the past responsible for the death of democracy? If now, at last, democracy is to survive in the country, which it must, then it is absolutely essential that those who had contempt for democracy, those who played havoc and ran amuck with the destinies of the people, should be debarred from polluting the social and economic life of the nation. This is a simple proposition: once beaten twice shy, but we have been beaten twice; we have been beaten again and again for the last fifteen years. We have faced one crisis after another. It has been due to the resilience and the courage and the fortitude of our people that we have managed to survive these crises. We have been told that this Constitution is defective but at least a Constitution has been given to the country. Now, Sir, you will find that for four years we were not able to produce a Constitution at all. In four years we produced one page, called the Objectives Resolution. That is all that was achieved in that period when democracy was supposed to have existed in the country.

Then, Sir, we have been advised to take all issues to the people because the people are the ultimate arbiters of all issues. This is quite correct but let us ask ourselves how many issues did we take to the people of Pakistan when there was democracy in the country? Did we take the parity issued to the people or was the parity formula arrived at in the palaces of the politicians? Did we take the general and separate electorate issue to the people? Did we take any single issue to the people? Those great champions of democracy who now talk about full and complete restoration of democratic life should know better. No, Sir, they did not take one single issue to the people. On the contrary, they had been denying general elections to the people of this country. The elections they did hold were so farcical that it would be an insult to call them elections. How were the provincial elections held? But let me not speak about the provincial elections because they are more important. Let me ask how were the local bodies elections held? Were not the ballot papers tampered with? Have we forgotten how the whole machinery of the police and the bureaucracy were geared up and brought into operation to stifle freedom of thought, freedom of expression and the freedom of participation in elections? To practice dictatorship in a democracy is the worst form of evil against society, and that is exactly how we were functioning before the present Constitution Though there was democracy in name, yet the most brutal ruthless and selfish form of dictatorship of a coterie ran the country. The people’s rights were butchered and lacerated in the name of democracy.

Sir, we are all conditioned by our environments. Pakistan is a big state. The problems of East Pakistan are somewhat different from the problems of West Pakistan. But even in West Pakistan. Sir, problems differ. Of course, there are common factors, but this notwithstanding, each area; each region has its own peculiar problems. By and large there is a great deal in common in our lives and in our values but there are differences also. Let us recall how we in our regions have suffered in the name of democracy, the democracy of dictators.

My former province of Sindh was separated from Bombay Presidency in 1937. Sindh, Sir, was not a poor province, as I have said before in this House. Its lands are rich, it is a surplus province. At the time of integration of West Pakistan, the province of Sindh surrendered three hundred million rupees to the unified province. So, the province of Sindh is not poor, its resources and wealth are not inadequate but still the people are amongst the poorest in the world. This is a great tragedy, Sir. In a country where there are no resources where there is no ability to mobilize wealth, the people can be poor but where there are plenty of natural resources, where there is agricultural abundance the people should not be poor—Sindh is rich but the Sindhis are poor. This is the anomaly and the grief of the situation. In 1937, as I said, Sir, this province was separated from Bombay Presidency. We immediately had a few Cabinet crises, but it was felt that by the passage of time things would settle. Things did settle, Sir. in the sense that in those days there was no EBDO there was no PRODA. So we could not resort to such uncivilized laws. Instead a Chief Minister who came in the way had to be murdered as there was no other way of getting rid of him. If there had been PRODA and EBDO, perhaps he may have lived. But a very talented Chief Minister of the province had to be murdered instead, as there were no laws as EBDO. The record of Sessions Court is available for all to read and to judge and adduce the motives and forces behind the murder. I would not like to dilate on it.

Thereafter, Sir, we suffered and continued to suffer from the petty-mindedness or feudal rivalry in our province. I too am a part of that society. Perhaps one reason why I am here today as a minister is because I belong to this privileged class. Therefore, I do admit the advantages of the system. But, Sir, in spite of the advantages that some of us have derived from the system, in spite of the fact that some of us would fight to see it remain, it has many inherent drawbacks. It leads to petty intrigues; it leads to victimization of the people. it leads to callousness towards poverty and it leads to lethargy. So when feudal rivals clashed with each other the people remained exactly where they were. There was no development; no factories, no roads, no communication; absolute darkness and miserable poverty prevailed. Only the great ones, the .chosen few prospered. What issues were such arrogant lords going to take to their chattel—the down-trodden people? But now we talk about taking issues to the people.

Then, Sir, Pakistan was established. Soon after the coming into being of Pakistan, the Quaid-i-Azam initiated the disqualification philosophy. We have not introduced it we inherited it from the founder of our state. The Quaid-i-Azam had no rivals or did the Quaid-i-Azam fear some politicians and for that reason disqualified them. No, Sir, the Quaid had no rival, no equal. He introduced this measure because he knew our conditions and our problems. He knew that on account of our backwardness. on account of unscrupulous practices, on account of political immaturity it was possible for people to play havoc with the sentiments of our masses.

He knew that through intrigue, and vandalistic exploitation, a coterie of people could capture power and victimize people. Therefore, out of sheer necessity he ordered the removal of undesirable elements from the political life of the country. Sir, I was referring to the political condition of my region, and it was the Quaid-i-Azam who dismissed a Chief Minister of my province and instituted proceedings against him.

The dismissal order was passed at the time of Quaid-i-Azam. Later, during the time of Quaid-i-Millat PRODA was introduced for the same good reasons. No motive could be attributed as PRODA was enforced by a personality of the stature of the Quaid-i-Millat. Why and how PRODA was repealed is also well-known. Sir, and the motives and the sinister reasons behind those repeals are an open book known to all the citizens of this country. In 1958, Sir, when the Revolution came, any measure could have been taken by the Revolutionary Government not only to enforce EBDO but even to take harsher and stronger measures. Although there was nobody to question the revolutionary authority yet only a disqualification of six years was imposed on certain politicians from taking part in the political life of the country. Now, Sir, on the one hand, we are told that it is evil and wrong to take repressive measures; on the other hand, we are told that democracy must be protected under all and any circumstances. If democracy is to be protected it is absolutely essential that those responsible for the failure of democracy must not be permitted to contaminate the national life of the country for a period of time, until democracy is unshakably established in the land. This is a factual matter. It is much more sagacious to be on the safe side because nobody is indispensable. If those who have been responsible for the deluge, for the miseries of our people are kept out the progress of society and the march of time will not come to a halt. How can there be a reversal of progress?

On the contrary, Sir, it is absolutely necessary to allow new leadership to develop and I would, in particular, appeal to the younger generation in this House and tell them that as elected representatives of the people they must save our people from destruction. It is our duty and responsibility to protect their rights and not to allow the same mockery of justice, the same distortion of principles to prevail again. This is the duty we owe to the people of Pakistan. We cannot go back to them and say that this is a personal matter and out of pity and charity we forgave them. It is not such a simple thing. You cannot decide such an issue on a personal basis. It involves the future of the whole nation. It is no use appealing to the magnanimity of the President and to his sense of pity. It would be a dereliction of duty on the part of this Government if we do not take a lesson from the past. We have no option. It is absolutely essential that this country is saved from another emergency. Let democracy take its roots so that after a period of time nobody could threaten it. It is necessary for the system to take roots. So, I would, in particular, appeal to the younger generation in this House and outside to fulfill the sacred and bounden duty we owe to Pakistan by serving it properly and courageously. I repeat nobody is indispensable. Men of destiny like the Quaid-i-Azam, Kemal Ataturk, or Lenin adorn the horizon of political life once in an epoch. The ordinary political individuals who were responsible for ruining democracy cannot be put in the same class. In that event it is essential to prevent them from getting another opportunity to run amuck with our people’s destiny.

We have been told that these people were not given a fair trial, that the code of procedure was a travesty of justice. I have said earlier that when a revolution takes place in a country, then there is no law superior to the law of revolution. Instead of EBDO proceedings, instead of trial, whatever its form, other measures could have been adopted. Believe me there were some people who did want other measures to be adopted. If their advice had been accepted, there would have been no room for the present controversy. Such measures have been adopted in other countries, in the recent past. Once, Sir, Stalin was told by George Bernard Shaw that in Europe people were saying that Stalin’s hands were full of blood, and he replied, “I am full of blood up to my elbow. When you have a revolution,” he said, “it is necessary to be full of blood up to your elbow.”

The success of a revolution lies to the extent to which it can break away from the past. Yesterday, a friend of mine said that thought and action cannot be controlled like the Rawal Dam. Surely they should not be controlled; thoughts and action should never be controlled but there are societies in which efforts have been made, and rather successfully, not only to control thought and action but to wipe out a mass of people altogether. God forbid that such a thing should happen in Pakistan, it should never happen in Pakistan, but if we are to save Pakistan from such atrocities, if we are to save this country from such bloodshed, then, Sir, it is necessary to be cautious; it is necessary to be prudent, it is necessary to learn from our mistakes. If we do not learn from our mistakes, nobody can save us. Our leadership will be found defective if we do not learn from the mistakes of the past. Sir, I have said from the very beginning that I speak with a sense of humility. Some of the politicians have been of more high calibre. I have every regard for them and they are my personal friends. I genuinely feel sorry that some of them have been disqualified.

But it is not, Sir, a question of individuals, it is not a question of removing a disqualification from one or two of them. It is, Sir, a question of fundamental principle, not an academic issue on who has been Ebdoed or who should have been Ebdoed. This is no longer relevant. Apart from the good ones, the exceptions, the general class has been properly dealt with because among them are also those who shook the very foundations of the State, who on occasions would go all over the country, to every part, East and West Pakistan, and champion a particular cause. It was said that the foreign policy of Pakistan was bankrupt; that we must walk out of the alliances of CENTO and SEATO but the next day on getting into office, there were dazzling somersaults and it was solemnly said that without CENTO and SEATO. Pakistan would not survive. These are some of the people who have played havoc not only with our internal life but have made us feel ashamed in the world outside in our external dealings.

Sir, then there are others who went about saying that One Unit should be established, because they wanted to become Ministers. When they were sacked, they said “One Unit must be destroyed.— Where is the end, Sir? Where are the principles? Is this how policies are settled? Are we not going to belie this cult of personality? How can we respect issues if we base everything on the cult of personality? We are Muslims. Islam is a religion in which we break idols; but Sir. Muslims have become idol worshippers. As long as a leader is active in the national political life, he is criticized. The moment he is out of it, he is idolized. But Sir, we cannot be forgiven by the future generations, if we fail today. So, please ponder and think about this matter rather seriously. What is the problem involved? The problem involved is the survival of democracy. It is necessary that those who were collectively responsible for the destruction of democracy should be debarred from politics in Pakistan; otherwise the democracy restored will be endangered. It is as simple a proposition as that. And it is only from that point of view that the problem should be approached. We know that our people are carried away by emotions; we know that our people can be subjected to all forms of exploitation. It is therefore, necessary to protect them, to assist them, in having clean, healthy, sound and moral politics. It has been said that let us start afresh from the 8th of June. Yes, come on, let us start afresh from the 8th of June. But is this the way to start afresh? No, this is the way to go back; this is not the way to start afresh. If you want to start afresh, come on. let us develop a new society, together we must work for it, let us wipe out poverty from our land, let us serve our people together. Why must we go back into the rancor and bitterness of past politics and past politicians? It is in this spirit that the Government has introduced this Bill. No personal motive is involved, and no such motive can ever be involved.

Sir, I would like to summarize the position. First of all, it has been said that democracy is our creed that without democracy Pakistan cannot progress. We agree, and we say that, if democracy is to progress, if democracy is to take roots in the country. it is vital that people who were collectively responsible for the crisis of democracy be debarred for a period of time from coming into the national life to threaten the foundation of this new-born democracy.

Secondly, Sir, it is necessary to take all issues to the people. We must take each and every issue to the people. The people’s will is paramount. There is nothing superior to the people’s will; but we also know that through organizations, through various dubious and devious methods, people’s wills have been suffocated, and people’s wills have been stifled.

By a process of democracy a coterie of dictatorship has been imposed time and again. Therefore, Sir, people’s will must prevail; but, at the same time, one must protect and safeguard, through institutions, through democratic measures, the indirect and back-door method of stifling the people’s will. In a democracy people who are against democracy, people who believe in a totalitarian system impose a dictatorship by using democratic methods. Mr. Farid Ahmad mentioned the other day the example of Fascist Germany, and stated how through democratic processes a dictatorship was imposed in Germany. We also know in other countries as well how by the very process of democracy a dictatorship can be imposed. So we cannot misuse the process of democracy and permit a dictatorship to be established by democracy. That has happened before in other countries, it has happened in this country, and it must not be permitted to happen again.

Thirdly, Sir, it has been said by Mr. A. M. Khan that the main and urgent need of this country is development. It is known that our people have one of the lowest per capita incomes in the world. If we base to develop, if we are to have a better life on earth, if our people have to have schools and hospitals and institutions and industry, if they are to have sources of employment, then it is essential, it is absolutely vital, that there must be stability of Government and administration.

Fourthly, Sir, as I have said before, this EBDO philosophy is not the creation of this regime, it is not the creation of the Martial Law Government, nor is it the creation of the present Government. The philosophy behind EBDO, the logic of the disqualification formula dates back to the Quaid-i-Azam. The Quaid was the first to initiate this measure, and it was continued by the Quaid-i-Millat, for good and sound reason. And why these disqualifications were removed is also well known to this House and to the whole country.

Now, Sir, there is another aspect of the problem, and that is: if you permit individuals to join political parties, and you disqualify them from holding office, that is giving them power without responsibility. The aim of all political parties is to capture power, and it takes all measures to become the government of the country. Now, here is an important fundamental principle involved. If you have people who are disqualified and debarred from holding responsible office, but free to be members of political organizations, how can you ensure a responsible government? In such a situation you saddle people with power—power over the forces, power over our masses, power over ideas, power over molding people’s opinion, and at the same time you debar them from the responsibility of holding office. That would bring about a sense of complete irresponsibility. They will take impractical issues to the people which are not capable of fulfillment, and yet they will escape blame for it, because they will not have office to fulfill those promises. We know, Sir, how demagogues have taken issues to the people. We know how, without ever believing in issues or in principles, people have tried to say that a certain issue is their religion. We have known how manifestoes have been drafted for political purposes with no intention of fulfillment. Then Sir, in that case what will happen? You will have complete chaos in the administration. Therefore, Sir, if it is considered necessary to allow them to be members of political parties, it is equally necessary for them to be in a position to take the reins of government in their hands. You must take it to its logical conclusion. It is not so simple by proposing that there is no real objection to membership: it is not so innocuous. I say it is a serious situation„ and it must be taken to its proper conclusion. If you are permitted to be a member of political organizations, you should be permitted to be an office-bearer. Sir, how can you prevent it? It is absolutely illogical – I would call it absolutely immoral. On the one hand, you permit a person to become a member, a two-anna member, and on the other, you disqualify him from becoming an office-bearer. A two-anna member can be as assertive, can be as important, as an office-bearer; he can be even more important than an office-holder of a political party. I think Mr. Gandhi was not even a four-anna member of the Congress.

So, you see, Sir, if you permit them to become members of the political parties, you must permit them to become office-bearers. If you permit them to become office-bearers of the political parties in charge of the manifesto of the party, in charge of the programme of the party, incharge of the implementation of the programme, and if the party is in a majority and is capable of forming a government, it must be permitted to hold government offices as well. And if you are going to allow them to hold government offices, then you might as well allow them to threaten democracy as well, and you might as well again face the consequences of the musical chairs and all the machinations that went on for several years before Martial Law was imposed in the country.

Now, Sir, as I have said, it is not a simple matter to let the disqualified persons have the right of becoming members of political parties. 1 would say that it we allow them to become members, then why not remove the EBDO disqualification also?

Sir, these puerile compromises can never build a nation.

If you agree with the thesis that this country must be given an opportunity to develop democracy, then you must agree with the proposition .hat those who destroyed democracy must be kept out. But, on the other hand, if you think that our people are enlightened, that our people are mature enough and that they can decide issues on merits and that they cannot be swayed by emotions and that these people who originally destroyed democracy will not be permitted to form insidious groups and subvert the process of democracy, then it is perfectly all right. It is for this House to determine the further course, you are the law-makers, you can take measures and remove the ban altogether. There is no question of fear. There is no question of individual fear. There is no question of a malicious approach to this problem. It is based on principles and has nothing to do with victimization. It is for you to decide but let us not have a half-way approach.

I would like to appeal to all, particularly the younger generation, to take this opportunity to make this nation a great and vigorous nation. The leadership of this country cannot be the monopoly of only a few people. It is for the young to take on the mantle of leadership. It is for them to go to the people. No one is born a leader. Work together on the basis of principles to wipe out the past stigma, and increase the per capita income of our people, serve them honorably, and have respect for them, give them facilities for education, for employment. We have not believed in the people in the past. We have had so far only a one-sided approach of inter-locking intrigues and conspiracies. That is how democracy was worked in the past. Let us put an end to that sort of democracy. Let us now have a new and vigorous democracy. It is absolutely necessary that we start with a clean slate. The clean slate must really be clean and not a polluted slate.

What is the sense in believing that those who actually destroyed democracy should come back again and ride rough shod over the rights of our people. They have betrayed us everywhere. They have betrayed us on Kashmir. They have betrayed us in our approach to India. They were in one party one day and in another on the following day. After 14 years of our history we must settle controversies. We have not settled one controversy so far. They never took a single issue to the people. Had they taken the issues to the people controversies would have been settled but not a single issue was taken to the people. The parity issue was not taken to the people. The issue of One Unit was not taken to the people. They played with the issues like little Caesars. Now should we allow them to come back and exercise dictatorial powers again over the people of Pakistan? Should we allow them to subvert and uproot the cause of democracy? Are we so sentimental and emotional? Can we let the people of Pakistan suffer because of our sentiments? Can we take chance after chance at the cost of our people? Who will be held responsible if there is chaos again? After all Pakistan was not created for chaos and confusion. Adolf Hitler said he was responsible for anything that happened to Germany. He died, he was turned into ashes, but the whole nation suffered as a result of it. It is all very well to say here that if these people do anything wrong we will be responsible for it. But this is not a question of individual responsibility. It is the responsibility of the people because it is they who will have to suffer, and it is the people’s right that has to be protected.

It is ironical that elections were held for the first time when Martial Law was imposed in the country. No general elections were held before that. I will tell you how the elections were held before martial Law.

Under the old constitution it was possible to be a Minister for six months or so and thereafter get elected. A Chief Minister was brought into office by this method and he had to seek a by-election. So, Sir, the poor individual who had the courage to file a nomination paper was huddled into a car and thrown into the desert. When after a day or two he returned, he enquired from the successful Chief Minister if there was no law and order in the land. The Chief Minister replied that in his realm there was no law but only order and that was his order. That is the way elections were held. Now, Sir, these men have got glass jaws and glass hearts. The time for the completion of the nomination papers and declaration of results was 12 noon. At 9-30 the Chief Minister filed his nomination paper but he could not wait till 12 in case someone else came to file a nomination paper. His will was the will of God! The time was to be changed and an order issued changing the time from 9-30 to 12 noon.

Then, Sir, we talked about party discipline. The Vice-President of the Pakistan Muslim League was taken for a joy ride on a camel, a weak man, a feeble man, was taken for a joy ride and he almost died. He suffered all this merely because he had the courage to oppose the great Chief Minister who was also a member of the same political party. These were the elections and this was the way party discipline was enforced. We are today blamed and questioned why UAR did not support us on Kashmir, why did UAR abstain, and a barrage of questions are asked as if we are responsible for the attitude of UAR.

I would not like to go into details; I would not like to give instances because the other side should also have the opportunity to address this House. Therefore, I would not like to go into details but at the same time it is essential that we should not forget these things. We talk so liberally about free elections, we talk so openly about the fulfillment of democracy but we must talk of it in the context of what has happened in the past.

As far as East Pakistan is concerned, it can be said that the development budget of East Pakistan shortly after Partition was about Rs. 90 million; thereafter it was increased to Rs. 190 million and when we had an East Pakistani Prime Minister it was increased to about Rs. 270 million. Last year there was a record budget of Rs. 890 million and this year of Rs. 1090 million and that should be considered substantial. But that is not the issue here. The point is this that we have done everything possible to try and bring about development in the country. Every effort has been made to channel our resources both in East and West Pakistan. It must be admitted that the economic activity that has taken place in East Pakistan in the last three years has been really remarkable.