SPEECHES AND STATEMENTS ON JAMMU & KASHMIR

By Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto

Prime Minister of Pakistan

JAMMU AND KASHMIRSTATEMENTS AND SPEECHES OF

PRIME MINISTER BENAZIR BHUTTO

Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in response to message of felicitation by the Indian Prime Minister Narasimha Rao on her assumption of office of Prime Minister of Pakistan, said:

“I would like to assure you that my democratic government attaches the highest priority to the establishment of normal, tension-free relations with India. I am sure that progress towards this objective would contribute to strengthening peace and stability in South Asia”.

“I believe that the Jammu and Kashmir issue is the main obstacle in the way of better relations between our two countries and that its solution must be based on the aspirations and legitimate rights of the Kashmiri people. My government is prepared to engage in serious and purposeful discussions in order to resolve this issue, as well as all other problems between our two countries, through peaceful negotiations”.

The Muslim, Islamabad,

The News International, Rawalpindi,

Nawa-i- Waqat, Rawalpindi,

21-10-93.

Before departure to attend Commonwealth Heads of Govern­ment Meeting at Limassol (Cyprus), Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said in Islamabad on 20th October 1993:

“Pakistan would raise the issue of Kashmir at the Common­wealth Heads of Government Meeting in Limassol (Cyprus) in the context of Commonwealth value and in the light of emergence of new humanitarian global order. Pakistan would stress that the continued human rights violations of the people of Kashmir contravened the fundamental values of Common­wealth and that the Association should shoulder its responsi­bilities in promoting a world order which respects human rights and fundamental freedom of all without discrimination.”

The Muslim, Islamabad, 21-10-93.

While addressing at the third executive session of the Common­wealth Heads of Governments meeting on 22 October 93 at Limassol in Cyprus Prime Minister said:

“Kashmir has a special importance and symbolism for Pakistan and its people. We believe that such disputes must be settled through peaceful negotiations”.

“Pakistan was ready to address the core issue of Kashmir in meaningful and purposeful manner believing it could be settled through peaceful negotiations. Pakistan would welcome “direct talks with India to address all issues between their countries including Kashmir”

The Indian Premier was the first leader to congratulate her on her election as Prime Minister of Pakistan and offered to hold talks to discuss various issues between the two countries.

She regretted that the Indian Prime Minister Narasimha Rao could not come to Limassol to attend the Commonwealth Summit. She was looking forward to meet him here.

Regional tension in certain parts of the world was becoming dangerous. In this connection she referred to the issues of Kashmir, Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto told the Commonwealth leaders that the PLO-Israel Agreement was “a good example of how to solve intractable world problems”. The Agreement signed in Washington on September 13 would set an example to other states involved in conflicts.

While talking earlier to newsmen at Limasool, Prime Minister said:

“Severe tension in Kashmir can be defused when oppression ends”.

“Violation of human rights in Kashmir was “A matter of deep concern for Pakistan. Tension is mounting high in Kashmir”.

She hoped that Pakistan and India are able to move in the right direction of seeking a political settlement of the Kashmir issue.

Prime Minister said she attached great importance to the Commonwealth and that this is the reason that she has come to attend the Commonwealth meeting after two days being elected as the Prime Minister.

She was hoping that the Indian Prime Minister would also be here so that they could discuss the Kashmir issue. But now may be only the talks can be held at the Foreign Secretary level.

During her meeting with the British Premier, at Limassol, the two leaders are understood to have reviewed the present situation in Indian-Held Kashmir besides matters of bilateral, regional and global interest. With Begum Khalida Zia, the Kashmir issue was also discussed.

The Muslim, Islamabad,

 The Pakistan Times, Islamabad,

The Frontier Post, Peshawar,

Nawa-i- Waqt, Rawalpindi,

 Jang, Rawalpindi,

23-10-93.

Prime Minister while at Jeddah on 23 October, 93 on her way to Pakistan from Commonwealth meeting at Limassol, condemned the killing of Kashmir is by the Indian security forces and called for an immediate end to the siege of Hazratbal shrine in Srinagar. She said, “Such harazen disregard for human lives can only aggravate tension in Occupied Kashmir. This will only vitiate further the strained relations is clearly inconsistent with the latest offer of Indian Prime Minister Narasimha Rao for talks on normalization of Indo-Pakistan relations.

The Nation, Lahore, 24-10-93.

On arrival on 24 October after attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Summit in Cyprus said:

“The Commonwealth Summit provided her an opportunity to raise the Kashmir dispute for inviting the world’s attention towards the human rights violations in Occupied Kashmir. During her visits she was able to meet British Prime Minister John Major, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad and others. These meetings with world leaders enabled her to present Pakistan’s viewpoint and to discuss with them prevalent situation in Held Kashmir and Bosnia.

The Nation, Lahore, 25-10-1993.

After obtaining the vote of confidence on 27 October 93, Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, expressed her government’s resolve to consult all political parties for a unified stand and building a national consensus on Kashmir. She demanded of India to lift the siege of Hazratbal shrine and enter into dialogue with Pakistan for the solution of the Kashmir problem in accordance with UN resolutions.

Prime Minister appealed to the United Nations and international community to take notice of the grave situation in the Occupied Kashmir before it deteriorates further and take steps for the solution of the problem at the earliest.

She laid stress on the need of recognizing the right of self- determination in accordance with the UN resolutions. She said the government has summoned the special joint session of the Parliament to discuss the situation in Kashmir and adopt a joint resolution on the issue. She said the session would provide an opportunity to the members to express their point of view on this important issue. She reminded India not to forget that the siege of the Dargah Hazratbal was not an ordinary matter.

She said the shrine was the center of devotion not only for the Kashmiri Muslims but also for the entire Muslim world as it contains a hair of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him).

She said no Muslim could ignore the desecration of the holy relics. Ms. Bhutto said that during siege of the Shrine, the Indian army has committed atrocities against innocent Kashmiris which is a shame for the humanity.

The Muslim, Islamabad, 28-10-93.

Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto wrote to UN Secretary General Boutros Ghali on 6 November 93. She drew his attention to the serious situation in the Valley.

The Muslim, Islamabad,

7-11-93.

During her meeting with US Assistant Secretary of States Mr. Robin Raphel on 7 November 93, Ms Benazir Bhutto, discussed the situation in Kashmir. There was agreement on the importance of lessening tensions. The Prime Minister reiterated Pakistan’s position of the urgent need to find a negotiated, peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the UN resolutions and in the spirit of the Simla Agreement.

The Pakistan Times, Islamabad,

7-11-93.

Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has urged world leaders to use their influence to persuade India to end its repression in Occupied Kashmir and engage in a substantive dialogue with Pakistan to resolve the dispute in accordance with United Nations resolutions.

In special messages addressed to the leaders of a number of friendly countries, the Prime Minister expressed her confidence that the world leaders in view of their governments’ friendly relations with both Pakistan and India would take concrete steps to ensure a reduction of tensions in the region and a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute.

Drawing their attention towards the repressive measures the Indian government has recently taken in Occupied Kashmir, the Prime Minister expressed her deep concern at the heightening tension between Pakistan and India.

The Prime Minister said the siege of the Holy Hazratbal Shrine continues unabated, causing untold misery and suffering to the Kashmiris. She said nearly half a million Indian military and para­military forces have been deployed in Indian-held Kashmir, represent­ing an unprecedented ratio of one soldier to every three Kashmiri adults to brutally suppress the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination.

The Prime Minister said the siege of the Hazratbal Shrine has aroused deep sensitivities all over Kashmir and in the region. Every step the Indian government takes to suppress the indomitable will of the Kashmiri people, she added, leads to an inevitable escalation of tension.

Benazir Bhutto further said that in the recent exchange of letters between Prime Minister Narasimha Rao and herself, she had underlined Pakistan’s desire to resume bilateral talks, indicating that for talks to be purposeful, the entire status of Jammu and Kashmir must be addressed as a separate agenda item.

Among the world leaders to whom the Prime Minister’s message has been sent are the heads of government of Bangladesh, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Russian Federa­tion, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Turkey, United Kingdom, the United States of America and the UN Secretary General.

The News, Islamabad, 11-11-93.

In an interview to an English daily ‘The Hindu’, the Prime Minister, Ms. Benazir Bhutto said that she was originally pleased to receive Mr. Rao’s message offering talks on Kashmir, she learnt subsequently that India had promised earlier also to talk on Kashmir, but when the talks took place, India had refused to discuss the future status of Jammu and Kashmir.

Ms. Bhutto told the interviewer Ms. Malini Parthasarthy that Pakistan was seeking a clarification as to whether the India was prepared to talk about the future of Jammu and Kashmir as a separate item on the agenda.

She indicated during the interview that Islamabad would have more confidence in bilateral negotiations if India takes steps to implement the 1989 Agreement on Siachen.

Talking about the preconditions for bilateral talks, Ms. Bhutto said lifting of the siege of the Hazratbal shrine and withdrawal of security forces from the area were essential so that the people of Pakistan should not wonder about the killings going on in the Valley.

Referring to the Simla Accord, Ms. Bhutto said while it had been “a valuable instrument” in preventing war between India and Pakistan, it had failed to prevent repression in Held Kashmir, but, Simla Accord could not preclude Pakistan raising the Kashmir issue at the interna­tional fora.

Answering a question, the Prime Minister said if the Indian Prime Minister was able to put Jammu and Kashmir as a separate item on the agenda, in order to decide the future of disputed territory and managed to have a ceasefire in Valley, withdrawal of troops from there, perhaps, he could set the ball rolling.

Discussing the linkage of the Kashmir dispute to the nuclear question, Prime Minister Ms. Bhutto said: “If we don’t link the two issues, we are totally defenceless.” She noted that India’s military capability was more formidable, given the range of the missiles like Prithvi and Agni and the fact that an agreement with China made it possible to delink troops from the Chinese border and that the Indian army was much bigger than Pakistan.

Ms. Bhutto rejected the idea of a similar agreement between India and Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir referring to Indo-China troops reduction, saying that it would bypass solving the dispute.

The Nation, Lahore,

Jang, Rawalpindi,

Dawn, Karachi,

The Muslim Islamabad,

13-11-93.

On 28 November 93, Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto has con­demned the genocide in Occupied Kashmir during the last couple of days and expressed her government’s great concern over it. She said:

“I have been deeply shocked and dismayed by the brutal acts of repression that have been perpetrated against the people of Jammu and Kashmir over the last two days.

“Though the foreign minister has been asked to issue a statement too, I, however, feel this is not enough, and I must convey my personal sense of shock and condemn such wanton acts which are an affront to human dignity and sanctity of life.”

“We deplore these repressive measures and call upon the Indian Government to take immediate steps to remove the so- called ‘security cordon’ around Hazratbal Mosque, stop the use of force against Kashmiris holding peaceful demonstrations against the denial of their human rights, release Kashmiri leaders and bring an end to the atrocities perpetrated by the Indian forces against the people of Jammu and Kashmir,

“The brutal force employed to disburse peaceful processions in Srinagar and other towns of Indian Held Kashmir on Friday followed by the so-called “cordon and search operation” in Spore, which killed a large number of Kashmiris and burnt scores of houses will not credit India.

“The escalating violations of human rights regretfully are an indication that the Government of India has no regard for the spirit of the agreement reached for foreign secretary level talks and the understanding that there would be a tangible reduction in human rights violations to create the right atmosphere.

“Pakistan hoped that the partial end of the month-long Hazratbal Mosque’s siege would be followed by withdrawal of the military and para-military forces. “We were also waiting for a visible signal for ending the systematic repression throughout Occupied Jammu and Kashmir.”

But reports on the incidents on November 26 and 27 indicate the resolve of the Indian authorities to continue to brutally repress Kashmiris and to deny them their fundamental rights, particularly their right to worship.” The Prime Minister has drawn the attention of the world community to the grave human rights situation in Indian Held Kashmir and urged them to call upon India to desist from its campaign of repression in the Valley.

“We hope all those countries which favored a dialogue between Pakistan and India for peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute, will .use their influence with India to create the necessary conditions for meaningful talks. They may also urge India to allow unhindered access to humanitarian relief and human rights organizations, as well as the electronic media, to monitor and report on the deteriorating situation in Indian Held Jammu and Kashmir.”

She has assured the people of Jammu and Kashmir of Pakistan’s determination to wholeheartedly support their legitimate and inalien­able right to self-determination and to make all possible efforts to ensure respect for their human rights.

The Nation, Lahore,

The Muslim, Islamabad.

29-11-93.

On 1 December 1993, Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto urged the international community to influence India to stop atrocities in Held Kashmir in order to make the upcoming Pak-India talks fruitful:

While addressing a Tribal Jirga from Orakzai Agency, Benazir Bhutto said “We have made it known to the world that the talks (between India and Pakistan) will be of no use unless India ends atrocities on innocent Kashmiris.”

Bhutto said “all the justice loving countries are siding with Pakistan on Kashmir,” About the struggle of the Kashmiri people she emphasized, “They cannot be suppressed as they are not afraid of death.” Prime Minister said Pakistan was no more isolated in the world and the negotiations have started with the countries with which it did not have good relations.

The News International, Islamabad,

 The Nation, Lahore,

Pakistan Times, Islamabad,

2-12-93.

Prime Minister, Ms. Benazir Bhutto on 7 December 93, said that in her forthcoming visits to Iran and Turkey, the Kashmir situation and massive human rights violations in the Valley will figure in the bilateral talks:

Benazir Bhutto raised the Kashmir issue and informed the Iranian leaders about the atrocities being committed on innocent civilians by the Indian forces. She also thanked Iran for its support to Pakistan on Kashmir issue and hoped that this support would continue. Iran is extending moral and political support to the Kashmiris in their struggle for the right to self-determination.

The Iranian President reaffirmed Iran’s support for the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir. He stressed that the solution of Kashmir dispute should be achieved in accordance with the UN resolutions. He said there had been no change in the Iranian stand on kashmir issue.

She informed the Iranian President that the human rights violations in the Occupied Kashmir have not ceased and in such circum­stances, Pakistan will continue to mobilise world public opinion against India and in favour of the kashmir struggle.

The Muslim, Islamabad,

The Pakistan Times, Islamabad,

10-12-93.

While at the shrine of Imam Raza at Mashad in Iran, Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto said:—

“Kashmir is a burning issue which deserved utmost attention, where repression and atrocities of the worst sort were being committed by India.

“Those atrocities are of enormous magnitude, which must awaken the Muslims,” she said.

Pakistan wants resolution of the Kashmir dispute through grant of right to self-determination. We will continue our endeavour to secure the right to plebiscite for the Kashmiri people, who have continued a valiant struggle for their birth right. Pakistan has a special concern for Kashmir, but it has always supported the freedom movements all around the world.

The Muslim, Islamabad,

10-12-93.

During her visit to Turkey, Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto have her Turkish counterpart a full briefing on Kashmir including the past history and current wave of Indian repression in the Valley. This had been documented by world organizations like Amnesty International. Both the Prime Ministers emphasized the need for a solution on the basis of the UN resolutions.

Ms. Bhutto stressed the need for completely lifting the Indian siege of Hazratbal shrine.

The News, Islamabad,

Nawa-e- Waqt, Rawalpindi,

10-12-93.

Turkey extended full support to the right of self-determination of the people of Kashmir.

Pakistan Times, Islamabad,

13-12-93.

After the official part of visit to Turkey Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto told in news conference:

“We believe the question of Jammu and Kashmir should be solved according to UN resolutions. There can only be peace if nations conduct themselves according to recognized principles of international law.

“International law must be the denominator for the solution of Jammu and Kashmir. Repression is no solution. And this is what is happening now. The repression, torture, the destruction have all been documented by international agencies,”

“We ask India to put an end to these killings, to end the human rights violations.”

Pakistan was opposed to the proposal for making India as permanent member of the UN Security Council as it continued to violate the Security Council resolutions on Kashmir.

Pakistan was seeking peaceful resolution of its outstanding disputes with India including the Kashmir issue. In this spirit it has agreed to resume Foreign Secretary level talks with India next month which will discuss Kashmir issue also as a separate agenda item.

Pakistan has not abdicated its right to raise the Kashmir issue at international forums and restrict it to bilateral talks only. “We want to build a new world of peace and respect for international law in conjunction with other nations and expect India to honor international commitments.

The Nation, Lahore, 12-12-93.

Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto reiterated her government’s resolve to continue political, moral and diplomatic support to Kashmiri freedom-fighters in their struggle for achieving the right to self- determination.

Prime Minister informed the Cabinet that her Government had stepped up its efforts for mobilizing international support on Kashmir issue. She said Kashmir issue should be resolved according to the wishes of the people of Kashmir and in accordance with the UN resolutions.

Dawn, Karachi, 21-12-93.

Prime Minister announced Kashmir Committee of the National Assembly on 22 December 1993:

The Committee, according to the modalities being framed for its activities, will be responsible for monitor situation in the Occupied Kashmir and would actively work to mobilize national and internat­ional opinion in favour of the kashmiris’ struggle.

The Muslim, Islamabad, 23-12-93.

During her visit to North Korea, Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto briefed the Korean President about Kashmir and Indian policy of repression and terror in the Occupied Kashmir. She also gave the background of the Foreign Secretary level talks between India and Pakistan. She stressed that India must come out with a clear signal to de- escalate terrorism in the Occupied Kashmir, must lift Hazratbal siege, reduce the number of Armed Forces in Occupied Kashmir and release all the political prisoners there. She expressed the hope that India would shun intransigence and respond to reason.

President Kim Sung declared that Democratic People’s Republic of Korea supports the inalienable right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir in accordance with the United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The News, Islamabad, 31-12-93.

Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto welcomed the Indian foreign secretary and was glad that the talks resumed after a gap of 15 months.

She re-affirmed Pakistan’s position on Kashmir and asked the Indian foreign secretary to take visible steps regarding human rights situation in the occupied Kashmir.

She further said the secretary level talks were being held at an important juncture of Indo-Pak relations and needed to demonstrate positive results.

The Frontier Post, Peshawar, 3-1-94;.

Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said she will present Kashmir case before Human Rights Commission of the United Nations in Geneva on February one.

Addressing the nation over radio and television networks on Jan. 24 the Prime Minister said Pakistan wants to awaken international conscience on Kashmir issue by making this new move. “We will pinpoint human rights violations before the Human Rights Commis­sion.”

She said Pakistan will continue its efforts to mobilize world opinion. “We know that sometimes the international public opinion follows double standards. On Bosnia the international community has not been able to take up any effective step. Even on Kashmir, the world does not have a good record. But we have to continue our political, diplomatic and moral efforts in a changing world. We believe that, at last, these efforts will succeed and the Kashmiris will definitely achieve their right of self-determination, Inshallah,” she said.

The Nation, Islamabad,

 The News, Rawalpindi,

The Muslim, Islamabad.

24-1-94.

SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER MOHTARMA BENAZIR BHUTTO

At Dinner Hosted in honor of Lawyers

Islamabad April 07, 1996.

Ladies and gentlemen!

You are all lawyers. Who knows better than you what it means to submit before the Constitution and never to cross the limits.

The lawyers and the People’s Government have fought together against despotism. We have been against despotism in all its forms, whether it is political despotism, social despotism, judicial despotism or economic despotism.

We have always stood for egalitarianism. We do not believe that a set of people or an institution can become judge and jury at the same time.

We believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We believe that power cannot be exercised without responsibility, and there cannot be responsibility without accountability.

That is why, in our Constitution the Parliament is the supreme body to make laws. Members of Parliament are accountable in the court of the people.

We believe that the Judiciary has the right to interpret the Constitution but not to amend it. That is why; we opposed the “Doctrine of Necessity”. That judgement gave the power to the dictator to amend the Constitution which was totally illegal and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of the United States evolved the doctrine of judicial restraint when called upon to interpret the New Deal Legislation, which was for the welfare of the people. The Supreme Court of the United States consistently displayed a reluctance to enter into political questions.

In the British Parliamentary System the Lord Chancellor, as the Chief Justice, is changed when a government changes. He serves in differ­ent capacities including as a member of the Cabinet.

The Constitution of Pakistan of 1973 is also based on parliamentary system. Unfortunately, under the Martial Law regime of General Zia-ul- Haq the Supreme Court used the power to interpret the Constitution to re­write, amend and alter the Constitution thereby undermining the Rule of Law.

This was a great blow to civil society and the Rule of Law, and it was condemned internally as well as internationally.

Judgments must be consistent to be respected and valued. When Mr. Junejo was dismissed by the President in 1988, it was declared illegal by the Supreme Court.

In 1990 the dismissal of the Benazir Government was declared legal. In 1993, the dismissal of the Nawaz Government was declared illegal.

Judgments must be consistent. They cannot be based on a subjec­tive definition of what will “please the people”.

Our sad history of playing with the Constitution began on October 23, 1954, when Governor General Ghulam Mohammad issued a procla­mation dissolving the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan whose task was to frame the Constitution of Pakistan. Simultaneously, General Mohammad Ayub Khan, was sworn in as the Defence Minister, contrary to express pro­visions of the Constitution.

In a historic judgement the dissolution was declared illegal by the then Chief Court, Sindh. However, during the appeal in the case of Federation of Pakistan vs. Moulvi Tameezuddin Khan, the decision of Sindh Chief Court was overturned.

The Federal Court gave a free hand to the Governor General who was himself not accountable to the people.

This was the beginning of a slippery path where the Judiciary became instrumental in Constitutional subversion. Till today, this judge­ment is considered a dark and ugly chapter in our country’s history.

The Federal Court authorized the creation of a new Constituent Assembly which enacted the Constitution of 1956.

Soon after, the Republican Party or the “King’s Party” as it may be called emerged on the scene. It was but a hand maiden of the bureaucratic military complex.

As many as four Prime Ministers changed between 1956 and 1958. Thus, a stage was set for military intervention.

By the Proclamation of October 7, 1958, the President of Pakistan annulled the Constitution of 1956 and dismissed the Central and Provincial Assemblies.

Martial Law was declared throughout the country and General Mohammad Ayub Khan was imposed as the Chief Martial Law Administrator.

A few days later, Ayub Khan took over as President and sent President Iskandar Mirza into exile.

The Martial Law Proclamation of October 7, 1958, was tested in the case of StateVs. Dosso. The stage was set for another judicial blow to the concept of Rule of Law.

Chief Justice Munir held that a coup d’etat can destroy the Constitution and the national legal order.

If the attempt fails, the sponsors are guilty of treason but if it suc­ceeds, it becomes a law creating fact in itself.

Nothing succeeds like success. He equated efficacy with validity as well as legitimacy. The Doctrine of Necessity was invoked to legitimize what was otherwise illegitimate.

The principle of ‘might is right’ was engrafted onto our Constitutional Jurisprudence.

All the talk about Rule of Law was set aside with one fatal judicial stroke. The destiny of millions of Pakistanis was relegated to a gun-toting usurper.

It was another ugly chapter which sowed the seeds of anarchy and chaos. An individual dictator imposed his Constitution in June 1962. Ayub Khan claimed the mandate to enact the Constitution on the basis of a referendum held in 1960, which elected him as President for five years. And we all know the truth about such referendums.

The Constitution of 1962 imposed a Presidential Form of Government. And what a Constitution it was. At the time of its promulga­tion it contained no fundamental rights. The people of Pakistan were robbed even of their basic rights to franchise through the ruse of “Basic Democracy”.

In the elections which were held in the winter of 1964-65, the main demand of the then Opposition was for direct elections based on adult fran­chise. But dictators have little regard for the public opinion.

Eventually, a popular movement dethroned Ayub Khan. The Constitution of 1962 was destroyed by its creator. Such was Ayub Khan’s respect for even his own Constitution.

Not surprisingly like other dictatorial fiats it was consigned to the debris of history when General Yahya Khan proclaimed Martial Law in March 1969.

It was only with the restoration of a democratically elected Government that the Supreme Court asserted the role of an independent institution. In the case of Asma Jillani it declared Yahya Khan as usurper, of course after Yahya Khan had fallen from power.

Bold though the decision in Asma Jillani’s case was, we cannot forget that it declared Yahya Khan an usurper only when he was no longer in power.

At last, in 1973, the people of Pakistan gave themselves a Constitution which truly reflected their aspirations. It was unique as it was the first Constitution that was framed by the elected representatives of the people who were directly elected in fair elections. It was passed unani­mously.

Ladies and gentlemen!

Alas the forces of despotism could not tolerate democracy for too long. You are familiar with the most sordid chapter in our history when General Zia overthrew the elected government of Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and later subjected his mentor and benefactor to murder.

When Martial Law of 1977 was tested in Begum Nusrat Bhutto’s case, the Supreme Court once again resurrected the nefarious Doctrine of Necessity thereby departing from Asma Jillani’s case.

Thus, the Supreme Court once again legitimized the illegitimate, declared the lawless, lawful, and handed over the destiny of the people into the hands of a vicious despot.

One man was empowered to subject the Constitution to his demented whims and what a havoc he wreaked to our Constitution.

Pakistan’s longest Martial Law lasted over nine years, from July 5, 1977 to December 29, 1985. The usurper Zia got himself elected as President by referendum held in December 1984, where barely seven per­cent of the people voted. Taking a cue from Ayub Khan’s elections in 1962, elections to the National and Provincial Assemblies were held on a non­party basis in early 1985.

Again non-party elections were totally illegitimate and against the clear provisions of the Constitution of 1973.

This unrepresentative and unconstitutional Assembly enacted the Eighth Amendment.

The Eighth Amendment permitted the usurper to combine the Office of Chief of Army Staff and President contrary to the provisions of all previous constitutions that the President could not hold any other office of profit.

The Amendment also indemnified all cruel and horrible punish­ments, and ratified reactionary laws that had been introduced by General Zia. Ultimately in August 1988 the Almighty Allah intervened to bring the darkest night of our history to its logical end.

On November 16, 1988 free and fair party-based elections were held in Pakistan in which the Pakistan People’s Party emerged as the sin­gle largest party.

As it turned out the remnants of darkness were not prepared to tol­erate the spring of democracy for too long.

Ghulam Ishaq Khan dissolved the Assembly and the Government in purported exercise of power under the Eighth Amendment.

The contradictions in our judicial history are apparent in the con­flict between the Supreme Court judgements upholding the dissolution of the National Assembly in August 1990 while restoring the National Assembly dissolved in 1993.

A majority of the Judges who set aside the dissolution order of April 18, 1993 had upheld the dissolution of August 6, 1990.

On the face of it, the grounds for dissolution on April 18, 1993 were greater as the then Prime Minister in his concluding remarks on tele­vision on April 17, 1993 himself acknowledged that the Constitutional Machinery had broken down.

In our country, we talk a lot about the independence of the Judiciary.

In our country the Judiciary is independent.

It cannot be taken to task by any independent body but only by itself.

No one can question its judgments.

Chief Justices Munir and Anwarul Haq and their fellow Judges could not be questioned for allowing Ayub and Zia, to overthrow the Constitution or the power to amend the Constitution. Although we all know it was illegal.

No one could question why Doctrine of Necessity was legal in the hands of a usurper.

No one could question the Judges who ruled that dissolution of Assembly was legal in one case and illegal in another within a span of three years.

No one could question a Chief Justice who swore a false affidavit to get a plot of land.

No one could ask as to why a Judge who became Chief Minister next day was not held disqualified.

No one could question those in the Judiciary who were allegedly involved in a housing scheme. They decided it themselves.

No Judges resigned when Chief Justice Yaqub was dismissed because he refused to toe Zia’s line.

Chief Justice Anwar kept his job because he toed Zia’s line for per­sonal gain.

Did Anwarul Haq not refuse short adjournment when Justice Waheeduddin fell ill during the case but the case was adjourned for one week when Anwarul Haq went abroad during the case for a propaganda campaign and declared Shaheed Bhutto guilty while the case was sub- judice.

And when General Zia asked Judges to swear allegiance under the PCO, except for a few exceptions how many refused?

To be independent means to be free.

Our Judiciary is free.

Looking at our convoluted Constitutional history from the fifties, are the people not entitled to wonder as to whether our Judiciary has always been impartial. Each dictator has found a willing Court to legitimize his overthrow of the Constitution.

Many articles have appeared in the press criticizing judicial judg­ments for being violative of the Constitutions as in Doctrine of Necessity cases, or for being based on subjective reasons “pleasing the Nation” rather than enforcing the law or for being biased for personal gains as in the case of Anwarul Haq.

What the Judiciary needs is credibility. It needs a public perception that what it does is devoid of personal likes or dislikes.

The Judiciary must be above criticism and controversy.

And to be so, the Judiciary has to guard its reputation jealously.

If a relative of a judge is appointed to the Court, as many have been in the past, no one has criticized it because the Executive has made the appointment.

But if the appointment was made by the Judiciary, even if the can­didate was deserving, allegations would be made of favoritism and crony­ism.

As the Executive is elected, it is answerable to the people.

And power flows from the people.

Governments come and go. Judges don’t. They stay on for as long as 30 years.

In America, a judge may be appointed who is liberal or conserva­tive depending on the Government.

So too in England, the Commonwealth and Pakistan.

I would like to mention here that while we have consistently worked for the independence of the Judiciary, those who have been opposed to us have been very consistent in undermining the independence of the Judiciary. In this context many of you may have heard that the Opposition had launched a campaign to call Judges of the Superior Courts “Jiyalas”. Had the Opposition Leader not vowed to throw the Judges out of window if he comes to power again? This venomous campaign was launched to harass the Judges to avoid accountability. It was this attitude which was aimed at undermining the Judiciary.

Distinguished members of the noble profession!

You know that, who is today the Judge of the Supreme Court was nominated after 1977. So, almost all members of the Supreme Court have been made a Judge either by General Zia-ul-Haq or by Ghulam Ishaq Khan or by Mr. Nawaz Sharif.

But we did not turn around and use derogatory language for the Judges appointed by Zia-ul-Haq, Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Nawaz Sharif. We did not do so because we wished to see institutions flourish. The Judges appointed by the present government are junior most Judges, and they will not attain senior positions until ten to fifteen years have passed by. None of them has ever been a party to any legitimization of a dictatorial rule. In fact most of them had fought against it.

The entire Judiciary so far, whether it is the Supreme Court or the High Courts, is dominated largely by people who were appointed in the long period between 1977 and 1993, and this is a period of almost 20 years.

So, I would urge all of you to spread the word amongst the mem­bers of the legal community and tell them to ask the simple question that: Is the Opposition’s criticism based on reality or just fiction?

Distinguished lawyers !

Many politicians throughout our history have wanted to fire their shots at democratic governments through the shoulders of different institutions. You know that many politicians wanted to fire their shots at the people’s government through the shoulders of President Ghulam Ishaq Khan.

At the end of the day, when the President exceeded the powers and dismissed the government in 1990, he was the loser. Rigging of the elec­tion was fore-gone conclusion to keep out the true representatives of the people.

So too, when the PNA and foreign powers fired their shots from the shoulders of General Zia-ul-Haq in 1977, he was the big loser in the eyes of history. He will be forever condemned for hanging an elected Prime Minister and imposing a ruthless dictatorship.

When General Zia fired his shots on the shoulders of Chief Justice Anwarul Haq, the Judiciary was the loser and Anwarul Haq the man responsible for it.

In our history political groups have used the President, the Armed Forces and the Judiciary to fulfill their own anti-democratic agendas.

In this the losers have been those who fell prey to the machinations of such groups and allowed themselves to be used.

Time passes. Time waits for no-one. The moving finger of history having written moves on. Life ends and another begins but history lives forever.

Those who live in the pages of history, live forever. Those who blot their copy book are condemned forever. Yazid can never be forgiven.

Then why do men make mistakes? Why do the Zia’s, the Ishaqs, the Munirs, the Anwarul Haqs make fatal errors? Because they are mortals. They get carried away by temptation.

Temptation for power, for pomp, for fame, for fortune. They like to think of themselves as messiahs when in fact they are pawns in the hands of political groups.

They stand convicted at the bar of history.

It reminds me of the French historian Chateaubriand who said : ‘When in the silence of humiliation there is no sound save the clanking of the slave’s fetters and the voice of the informer, when everything trembles before the tyrant, and to earn his favour or incur his wrath implies equal danger, then the historians appear to avenge for the people”.

In Pakistan, history has ultimately avenged for the people. Where are the dictators or their apologists? Their ashes have been meshed with the dust of history.

Time passes. The concerned political groups are forgotten and their pawns discredited forever.

As Shakespeare said: “The evil that men do lives after them”. Of course, Shakespeare was a very wise man. So, he knew that women did not do evil.

I remember that Gen. Zia was reluctant and frightened to impose martial law. But he was convinced by the vested political interests that PPP as a party was finished and Quaid-e-Awam could be defeated in Larkana by Pir Pagaro.

We can laugh now and say what a joke. But such was the talk that Zia actually came to believe it and swore at Makkah Shareef that he would hold elections in 90 days.

Of course, he could not hold those elections during his entire life time for the fear that PPP would win.

Ghulam Ishaq Khan was also convinced by vested and power hun­gry people in 1990 that PPP was finished and Benazir would flee the coun­try once her husband was arrested.

With hindsight we can say what a joke. But such is the propa­ganda, the power of the prophets of doom that they can actually convince quite rational and mature men of their fantasies.

Of course, after 1990,1 did not leave the country, although my hus­band was arrested, the elections had to be rigged and the country faced political instability.

So, the real wise men are those who do not get carried away by vested political interests, the propaganda of such vested political interests and the whispers of the prophets of doom.

I may say the Holy Book repeatedly warns us to beware of those who slander and to beware of evil whispers.

The real wise men are those who do not seek to make wise deci­sions because such decisions, being subjective, turn out to be unwise.

The real wise men are those who stick to their constitutional roles through thick and thin, through thunder and storm and thereby win respect in their own time and the time that comes after.

Distinguished Guests!

Political stability does not depend on the government alone.

Political stability depends upon the President, the Parliament, and the Judiciary, the Armed Forces, the Provinces, the Opposition and other organs of state fulfilling their constitutional obligations.

If today there is poverty and backwardness in Pakistan, we must blame all those who violated their constitutional oath, exceeded their con­stitutional duties and power and sought to do what they were not supposed to do. There is a road to success. There is a road to emancipation. There is a road to prosperity.

As democratically elected leader, elected in fair, free and impar­tial elections, permit me to say that the Pakistan People’s Party Government and I symbolize that road.

Just as we symbolize the hopes, the aspirations, the dreams of the down-trodden and discriminated people of Pakistan who have elected us to positions of office. Positions we accepted only because it came from the people.

I invite you today to join us in travelling this road on a journey to emancipation, enlightenment and egalitarianism.

Thank you.

ADDRESS AT GAKUSHUIN UNIVERSITY

By

Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto

Prime Minister Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Tokyo 20 January, 1996

Your Imperial Highness,

Mr. Chancellor,

Mr. President,

Distinguished Guests!

Apart from giving me the opportunity of addressing such a distinguished and friendly gathering, Gakushuin University has conferred on me three honors this afternoon. I have received the Honorary Award, the Honorary Degree of Doctorate of Economics and I have been made an honorable member of the Alumnae Association. I am deeply touched by the gesture and thank you very much for this.

As the world stands on the precipice of a new century and a new millennium, the structures that provided order and stability to international affairs for the last fifty years have dissolved.

The structure of the cold war, with two super power alliances consuming all other bilateral and multilateral rela­tionships under the simplicity of the East-West dichotomy, has disappeared.

The Soviet Union has ceased to exist. The Warsaw Pact is no more, and its most central nations—Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic – are attempting to enter NATO.

The constraints of super-power politics have been swept away; nations of the world have reached a political and economic consensus behind democracy and free market economics.

But rapid political change did not result in the social and economic revolution that many anticipated as the peace dividend that was to follow the end of the cold war in 1990.

The world today is very different. But the world, today, is not yet much better. Heightened expectations in the emerg­ing democracies of East and Central Europe, Asia, Africa and South America remain unfulfilled.

A disequilibrium, a discontent, an ennui is sweeping across the world. Although democracy has triumphed, although the free world has triumphed, even developed nations battle to balance their budgets. For too long, we spent more than we earned to sustain the super power con­frontation. Now that it is over, we confront the challenge within our nation states to balance our books. We face this challenge in the East and we face this challenge in the West, in the rich countries and in the poor countries.

The Information Age, advertising consumerism, on a mass scale, whets our appetites, raises our expectations, makes us want more than our resources can cater for, and when we can’t get all that we see, it makes us angry and frustrated.

We see it in the streets of Paris, where workers unite to preserve a system to which they are accustomed to, but a system which the French economy can no longer sustain.

In Washington, the world’s sole super power, the Federal Government twice shut down in the last months over the question of deficit, balanced budgets and reduction in government’s social entitlement programme.

In the countries of the former East bloc, and just last month in Russia itself, the frustration of the masses expressed itself in the political rejection of the reformers who only a few years ago were admired and idolized. A former Communist leader has become President of Poland, defeating Lech Walesa, the hero of Gdansk.

In Russia, President Yeltsin, who stood before tanks to defeat the coup in 1991, has been surrounded with Commu­nists who won a plurality of seats to the Duma in the last Parliamentary elections.

The end of the Cold War has seen the decline of ideology.

Ideological differences no longer characterize different political parties.

The lack of ideological clarity has led to confusion at the mass level.

This confusion has resulted in split mandates all over the world. It has led to split mandates, or close electoral man­dates, in England, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Palestine, India, Bangladesh and Japan.

The world needs new yardsticks to judge political lead­ers and political parties with.

I believe a new yardstick exists. A yardstick based on the incontrovertible evidence of statistics.

I believe political leaders and political parties should be judged on:—

(i)                     The economic factor: Who reduces the budget deficit, who increases it, who reduces domestic bor­rowing, who increases it, who attracts more invest­ment, who attracts less.

(ii)                     On the social factor: Who spends more on educa­tion, who spends less, who spends more on health, and who spends less, who spends less on sewerage and water supplies and who spends more.

(iii)                    And also on Corruption: Who allows government min­isters to take loans, who doesn’t, who spends more on government buildings and bricks, and who spends less, who has a more transparent form of privatization, and who has a less transparent form of privatization.

Unfortunately, in the twilight period of transition, this yardstick is not universally recognized.

Instead, politics have become increasingly personalized. Accusations and counter-accusations are made.

The media then highlights scandals. Public trials are conducted through the press, through allegations and counter – allegations.

The result is greater confusion, and greater cynicism, and this cynicism leads to disenchantment. The disenchantment provides the perfect backdrop for the rise of the extremists.

Against the background of urbanization and crime, drug, poverty, heightened expectations and cynicism of polit­ical leaders and political parties, and some time the democ­racy itself, people begin to yearn for order in a world they see confronted with disorder.

The simplistic, nostalgic yearning for a world of order gives rise to extremism.

Freedoms are threatened. So called messiahs and self- righteous groups seek to undermine freedom of choice and force their own views on a confused and cynical public. And this is the new danger we confront.

If there is a lesson in the twentieth century, that lesson is that democracy is the best system.

It may not be the perfect system. It may not cure all the problems. But it is better than all the other systems the world has known, experienced and dismissed.

And the youth of today are special. The youth of today have more knowledge at their fingertips through the computer and the information highway than the youth in any other generation.

This places a special responsibility on the youth of today on whose shoulders will fall the responsibility of chart­ing a new course in the new century.

Youth is always full of idealism. Idealism is the catalyst to pursue dreams and to turn dreams into destiny.

There is no horizon broad enough, or sky high enough which the young, with the spirit of adventure and the spirit of endeavour, do not seek to conquer.

In the greatness of men and women’s ability to conquer new horizons, a dark cloud casts its shadow.

Despite the desire to do good and be good, men and women have often turned technological advancement into monstrous machines of destruction.

The twentieth century saw the greatest advances in science and technology.

We expected the new sciences to banish disease, pover­ty and degradation forever.

But man converted the mastery bestowed by science into a massive technology of war, death and torture.

But if each generation is to learn from the past, if each century is to avoid the pitfalls of the earliest century, the youth of this generation and the youth of the new century have a very special responsibility.

—                      A responsibility to learn from history.

—                      For those who do not learn from history, repeat the mistakes of history.

—                      Human hubris comes from human excess.

—                      In moderation lies the path of stability.

—                       In moderation lies the order that we seek.

—                      Each generation is a link in the chain of human history.

—                      The future must connect to the past.

—                      Traditional values and strengths must not be thrown at the wayside in embracing an           

                           unknown future.

—                      The two must connect the past and the future.

—                      The family unit has always been at the heart of a social organisation.

—                      The disruption of the family unit threatens to dis­rupt civil society as we know it.

                           And east has many values that the West can learn from.  

The importance of the family and respect to elders lies at the heart of the Eastern tradition.

Single families outside marriage and same sex units are not part of the Eastern cultural identity.

In a world of great change, in a world of great move­ment we all need an anchor.

Time-tested traditional values are the anchor in an individual’s life if one is not to be lost or left adrift in the sea of life.

Dear students!

If the 19th century was the century of Europe and the 20th century was the American century, there is little doubt that the 21st century will be the Asian Century.

Long overlooked, often subjugated, Asia stands today on the brink of leadership in the new economic and world reality of the 21st century.

As the economic industrial giant of the continent, the Asian century puts the very special responsibility on Japan. Economically, politically and strategically your role will inevitably become even more pivotal in world affairs than it is today.

For Japan, that will require that your interests and concerns transcend this part of Asia, and extend into our part. As an example, it is short-sighted to treat nuclear pro­liferation as a problem of the Korean peninsula, when a much more immediate and dangerous threat exists in South Asia.

In 1974, India exploded a nuclear device, called “the Smiling Buddha”. Reports now surfacing in intelligence cir­cles indicate that India is preparing to detonate still another device.

India’s arsenal also include ballistic missiles — long range ICBMs which they are seeking to develop, that can strike as far as the straits of Mallacca and Yemen.

These developments put enormous pressure on Pakistan, for India has gone to war three times against Pakistan and continue to occupy the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

The world understands Japan’s special sensitivity to the issue of nuclear proliferation. Pakistan strongly endorses this commitment and that is why we have eight times made specific proposals to prevent nuclear proliferation in South Asia. We have proposed:

—                      to establish a nuclear weapons free-zone in South Asia;

—                      to renounce the acquisition of nuclear weapons;

—                      to have mutual inspections of nuclear facilities;

—                      to simultaneously sign with India the NPT;

—                      to simultaneously agree to full-scope IAEA safe­guards;

—                      to sign a bilateral or regional nuclear test ban treaty;

—                      to have a five-nation conference on the question of nuclear proliferation in South Asia;                                                            

—                      to declare South Asia a zero missile regime.

Let India join Pakistan anywhere in the world at any time to ensure that what happened in Hiroshima and in Nagasaki will never happen in Lahore or Delhi.

Let the world ensure that the people of Kashmir are granted the right of self-determination just as the people of South Africa were granted that right; and people all over the world were granted that right.

Dear Students!

You are half my age. Life’s challenges still await you.

Do not be afraid of challenges, for in every challenge there is an opportunity.

I would like to conclude with a word of advice to all of you, and that is :

“Leave everything a little bit better than you found it, for every individual can make a difference”.

Thank you very much.

ADDRESS BY Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto

Prime Minister Islamic Republic of Pakistan

To Jacobabad and Nasirabad Bar Associations

Jocobabad

Distinguished members of Jacobabad and

Nasirabad Bars;

Assalam-o-Alaikum!

It is a great pleasure to address the Jacobabad District Bar Association. I am no stranger to this Bar and to its honorable members. In fact this Bar gave great strength to the people’s movement launched by Quaid-e-Awam against the regime of Ayub Khan and it gave great strength to the struggle launched by Quaid-e-Awam’s daughter against General Zia-ul-Haq for human rights and for democracy. Together we fought and faced the forces of tyranny and injustice for the nation. We fought and struggled for the supremacy of the Constitution and for Quaid-e-Azam’s vision of a federal, democratic and parliamentary form of government.

So, the association between the Jacobabad Bar and me, which started in 1978, is now almost 20 years old. In this time I have seen the Bar grow in size as more distinguished members have joined practice. I remember correctly when I first addressed the Bar in 1978, there were about 20 members, and I am told that now there are 120 members in Jacobabad Bar. So, I take pride in your growth and in your success.

The Jacobabad Bar and the People’s Government have fought to democratization against despotism. We have been against despotism in all its forms, whether it is political despotism, social despotism, judicial despotism or an economic despotism. We have always stood for egalitarianism. We do not believe that a set of people or an institution can become judge and jury at the same time. We believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We believe that power cannot be exercised without responsibility, and there cannot be responsibility without accountability. Accountability is the hallmark of an egalitarian order. Accountability is the check on excess. That is why, in our Constitution the Parliament is the supreme body to make laws. Members of Parliament are accountable in the court of the people.

We do not believe that the Judiciary has the right to alter or amend the Constitution, only the right to interpret it. That is why, we opposed the “Doctrine of Necessity”. That judgment gave the power to the dictator to amend the Constitution which was totally illegal and unconstitutional and stole from the people of Pakistan the right to amend the Constitution through their elected representatives. Thus, judicial restraint is the hallmark of an independent Judiciary free from political consideration devoted to interpreting the law.

The Supreme Court of the United States evolved the doctrine of judicial restraint when called upon to interpret the New Deal Legislation which is for the welfare of the people. The Supreme Court of the United States consistently displayed a reluctance to enter into political questions.

Every student of Jurisprudence knows that it is for the Legisla­ture to make the law, for the Executive to implement the law, and for the Judiciary to interpret the law. This separation of Power is known as the Rule of Law. If any of these organs is supreme in the parliamentary system, it is the Legislature. The Legislature is the essence of representative democracy. It is the forum where the people rule themselves through their delegates.

In the British Parliamentary System the Lord Chancellor or Chief Justice is changed when a government changes. He even serves as a member of the Cabinet.

The Constitution of Pakistan of 1973 is also based on Parliamentary System. Unfortunately, under the Martial Law regime of General Zia-ul-Haq the Supreme Court used the power to interpret the Constitution to re-write, amend; alter the Constitution as the Rule of Law. This was a great blow to civil society and to the Rule of Law, and it was condemned internally and internationally. Judgments must be consistent to be respected and valued. Unfortunately in the past, judgments were tailored to suit the occasion. When Mr. Junejo was dismissed by the President in 1988, it was declared illegal by the Supreme Court. And two years later when Benazir Bhutto was dismissed by the President in 1990 it was declared legal by the Supreme Court. And three years later when Mr. Nawas Sharif was dismissed by the President, it was declared illegal by the Supreme Court. So, we can see that judgments are shockingly turned on their heads in a very short time and this has not evoked the kind of confidence that is necessary to have an independent Judiciary, per turbulent history.

The nation now expects all its organs and institutions to work according to the Constitution and not to exceed the limits placed by the Constitution on their roles, their obligations, their duties and their responsibilities.

From its birth, Pakistan has sought to reconcile an authoritarian political culture with the plural society. The Supreme Court has oscillated between extreme judicial activism and judicial restraint. The Court has played a legitimizing function using the “Doctrine of Necessity” to legitimate the illegitimate and to condone the powers of the usurper. This sad history of ours commenced on October 23, 1954, when Governor General Ghulam Mohammad issued a proclamation dissolving the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan whose task was to frame the Constitution of Pakistan. Simultaneously, with the proclamation the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, General Mohammad Ayub Khan, was sworn in as the Defence Minister contrary to express provisions of the Constitution. In a historic judgment the dissolution was declared illegal by the then Sindh High Court. However, when the Sindh High Court’s judgment- was challenged before the Federal Court of Pakistan, an appeal in the case of Federation of Pakistan Vs Moulvi Tameezuddin Khan, the Federal Court allowed the appeal of the Government. It was allowed on the technical ground that the writ petition was not maintainable, because Section 223-A which conferred the power to issue the writ, had not received the assent of the Governor General. The Federal Court gave this ruling in complete violation of the Constitution and the fact that the Quaid-e-Azam had not accorded assent to amendments in Government of India Act, 1935. Thus, the Federal Court exceeded the limits of the Constitution. I might say it subverted the Constitution itself. Till today, this judgment is considered a dark and ugly chapter in our country’s history.

This decision paralyzed the administration as a number of constitutional amendments had not received assent. In overcoming the crisis the Federal Court adopted the doctrine of state necessity advanced by the Counsel for the Government. The Court went on to declare that things which are otherwise not lawful can be made lawful through necessity.

In order to resolve the issue the Federal Court authorized the creation of a new Constituent Assembly elected by the Provincial Assemblies on the pattern of the present Senate. This Constituent Assembly enacted the 1956 Constitution. Soon after, the first “Lota Party” or Republican Party or the ‘King’s Party’ emerged on the scene. As a result of the Muslim League’s lack of internal discipline and cohesion, its off-shoot, the Republican Party, was but a hand maiden of the bureaucratic military complex.

As many as four Prime Ministers were changed between 1956 and 1958. Thus, a stage was set for military intervention. By the Proclamation of October 7,1958, the President of Pakistan annulled the Constitution of 1956, dismissed the Central and Provincial Cabinets and dissolved the National and Provincial Assemblies. Martial Law was declared throughout the country and General Mohammad Ayub Khan, Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army, was appointed the Chief Martial Law Administrator.

A few days later, Ayub Khan took over as President and sent President Sikandar Mirza into exile.

The Martial Law Proclamation of October 7,1958. was tested in the case of State Vs Dosso. According to Chief Justice Munir, the Constitution of a national legal order may be destroyed by a coup d’etat. If the attempt fails, the sponsors are tried for treason, but if the attempt succeeds, there is nothing like success. So, the coup itself becomes a law creating fact. It is then judged by reference to its own success. Applying this twisted doctrine the Chief Justice, Mr. Munir, and his companion Judges conferred legitimacy on Ayub Khan.

Again they violated the Constitution by amending the law rather than interpreting it. It was another ugly chapter which sowed the seeds of anarchy and chaos. The Constitution of Pakistan of 1962 was promulgated in June of that year by one man, President General Mohammad Ayub Khan. He claimed the mandate to enact the Constitution on the basis of a referendum held on February 14, 1960, and that referendum elected Ayub as President for five years. And you know the referendums are meant to elect the dictators as Presidents.

The Constitution of Pakistan of 1962 divided into twelve parts, represented a radical departure from the Parliamentary form of Government. It imposed a Presidential form of Government with complete separation of powers between the Executive and the Parliament. Under this Constitution, the people of Pakistan were robbed even of their rights to franchise through the ruse of “Basic Democracy”. It was the “Basic Democrats” and not the people of Pakistan who elected the President and the members of the Assembly.

In the elections which were held in the winter of 1964-65, the main demand of the then Opposition was that there should be direct elections based on adult franchise. Eventually, a popular movement dethroned Ayub Khan. The Constitution of 1962, a one man Constitution, did not survive Ayub Khan’s removal. It was consigned to the debris of history when General Yahya Khan proclaimed Martial Law in March, 1969.

The verdict on the Yahya Khan regime was written by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the Asma Jilani’s case, but it was written only after Yahya Khan fell from power. Asma Jilani’s case is of fundamental importance to Pakistan’s jurisprudence. In that case the Supreme Court over-ruled its earlier decision in the case of State vs. Dosso.

Bold though the decision in Asma Jilani’s case appears to be, it cannot be forgotten that the Court declared Yahya Khan an usurper only after he was no longer in power.

The Constitution of 1973 is unique. This is the first Constitution that was framed by the elected representatives of the people who were directly elected in fair elections. It was passed unanimously.

This was all the more impressive, considering the deep ideologi­cal differences that existed among the members of the Assembly. The religious parties wanted a Constitution in which Islam would play a dominant role. The majority in the National Assembly consisted of parties that had a socialist orientation. There was a major difference of opinion on the question of the rights of the provinces. The National Awami Party (NAP) and its allies, who were in the majority in the Provincial Assemblies of NWFP and Balochistan, stood for far greater autonomy for the provinces. Thus, the making of the Constitution required major concessions on all sides.

Gentlemen of the Bar, you are familiar with the most sordid chapter in our history when General Zia overthrew the elected government of Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and later subjected his mentor and benefactor to judicial murder.

When Martial Law of 1977 was tested in Begum Nusrat Bhutto’s case, the Supreme Court once again applied the nefarious Doctrine of State Necessity, departing from the rule in Asma Jilani’s case where this doctrine had been over-ruled.

Thus, the Supreme Court once again legitimized the illegitimate, declared the lawless, lawful and the lawful, lawless.

Pakistan’s longest period of Martial Law lasted over nine years, from July 5, 1977 to December 29, 1985. The usurper Zia got himself elected as President by referendum held in December 1984, where barely seven percent of the people voted. Taking a cue from Ayub Khan’s elections in 1962, elections to the National and Provincial Assemblies were held on a non-party basis in early 1985.

Again non-party elections were totally illegal and against the clear cut provisions of the Constitution.

This unrepresentative, illegal and unconstitutional Assembly enacted the Eighth Amendment moving the country backward to the Constitution of 1956 which had been the root cause of political instability. The Eighth Amendment permitted the usurper to combine the Office of Chief of Army Staff and President contrary to the provisions of all previous Constitutions that the President could not hold any other office of profit. The Amendment also indemnified all cruel and horrible punishments, and ratified reactionary laws that had been introduced by General Zia.

On November 16, 1988 free and fair party-based elections were held in Pakistan in which the Pakistan People’s Party emerged as the single largest party at the Federal level. Once again this was the false spring. Ghulam Ishaq Khan dissolved the Assembly and the Government in purported exercise of power under the Eighth Amendment.

Thus, the contradictions in our judicial history are apparent in the conflict between the judgement of the Supreme Court of Pakistan upholding the dissolution of the National Assembly of August 6, 1990 and restoring the National Assembly dissolved on April 18, 1993. Eight out of the ten Judges who set-aside the Dissolution Order of April 18, 1993 had upheld the dissolution of August 6,1990. On the face of it, the grounds for dissolution on April 18, 1993 were greater as the then Prime Minister in his concluding remarks on television on April 17, 1993 himself acknowledged that the Constitutional Machinery had broken down. So in our country, we talk a lot about the independence of the Judiciary.

However, independence and respect of the Judiciary can only flow when judgments are in accordance with the Constitution and do not exceed it. It can flow when judgments are consistent and do not change with the political climate. It can flow when it is recognized that Parliament alone can amend the Constitution, and no one else.

Those who would like to see laws amended should knock at the doors of Parliament. Political questions are for Parliament. Politicians can go to the Press, the public or the floor of the House to defend themselves and their views.

I would like to mention here that while we have consistently worked for the independence of the Judiciary, those who have been opposed to us have been very consistent in undermining the independence of the Judiciary. I have already referred to some of the judgments that were delivered from the Judiciary, which were politically motivated, which exceeded the Constitutional limits and which of course, tarnished the image of the Judiciary. But even now the Opposition is hell bent on tarnishing the image of the Judiciary. In this context many of you may have heard that the Opposition has launched a campaign to call Judges of the Superior Courts “Jiyalas”. It is supposed to politicize the Judiciary and it is an attempt to undermine the Judiciary.

I would like to mention to you, honorable members of the Jacobabad and Nasirabad Bars that you should judge for yourselves. You know the Constitution gives us the power to appoint anybody as Chief Justice. We can appoint some body from the Jacobabad Bar as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of the High Court. But we did not exercise this constitutional power so far, and instead we chose the Chief Justices from the existing lot of Judges.

You know distinguished members of the Bars, that every single Judge of the Supreme Court was nominated. Who is today the Judge of the Supreme Court was nominated after 1977. So, every single member of the Supreme Court has been made a Judge either by General Zia-ul- Haq or by Ghulam Ishaq Khan or by Mr. Nawaz Sharif. So, is it not an irony that they should call the Judges that they have appointed “Jiyalas”. These are people they had appointed. But I thought that let us try and strengthen the Constitution, and although the Constitution gives us this power I did not exercise it to take a Chief Justice from the Bench. You know Constitution also gives us the power to take Judges in the Supreme Court from the Bench. So far, we have not exercised that constitutional right. I did not turn around and say that the Judiciary is full of “Payaras”, people appointed by Zia-ul-Haq, Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Nawaz Sharif. So, I will not appoint from the Bench, I will appoint from the Bar, because I don’t want people who were tarnished by appointments by General Zia, a Martial Law dictator, or by a rigged Prime Minister. I did not do that, because I want to see institutions flourish, and only those who do not want to see institutions flourish, only those who do not want to see democracy flourish, who do not want to see the rule of law flourish, they distort the fact, but I am prepared to challenge them to take on fact. But each person in the Supreme Court of Pakistan has been made a Judge after 1977 either by General Zia-ul-Haq or by Mr. Nawaz Sharif or by Mr. Ghulam Ishaq Khan. So not one of them can be called a “Jiyala”. If anything, he can be called a “Payara”, but they are not into calling “Jayalas” or “Payaras”, because we believe that if a man becomes a Judge he should do above any political consideration and he should work according to his conscience, and he should work according to the Constitution. So, we do not do that. Even in the High Courts the Judges that we have appointed now are junior most Judges, and they will not attain senior most positions until ten to fifteen years are passed by. So, the entire Judiciary so far, whether it is the Supreme Court or the High Courts, is dominated largely by people who were appointed in the long period between 1977 and 1993, and this is a period of almost 20 years.

And you can yourself imagine how much the Judiciary was used as the political lever. That if today for two years we are appointing Judges and those Judges will not attain any important positions for the next ten to fifteen years, already Opposition is making such a hue and cry. But I may say that Opposition is making a hue and cry because they wish to discredit the Judiciary, because the Judiciary is to set in judgments of the cases that the Government has filed against the Opposition. So, I would urge all of you to spread the word amongst the members of your own Bar, and the members of other Bars and tell them to ask the simple question that, is the Opposition’s criticism based on reality or the just fiction or fact?

Distinguished members of the Bar!

Many politicians throughout our history have wanted to fire their shots at democratic governments through the shoulders of different institutions. You know that many politicians wanted to fire their shots at the people’s government through the shoulders of President Ghulam Ishaq Khan.

At the end of the day, when the President exceeded the powers and dismissed the government in 1990, he was the loser. Rigging of the election was a fore-gone conclusion to keep out the elected repre­sentatives.

So too, when the PNA and foreign powers fired their shots from the shoulders of General Zia-ul-Haq in 1977, he was the big loser in the eyes of history. He will be forever condemned for hanging an elected Prime Minister and imposing a ruthless dictatorship.

When General Zia fired his shots on the shoulders of Chief Justice Anwarul Haq, the Judiciary was the loser and Anwarul Haq was the loser.

When the Judiciary convicted Quaid-e-Awam to satisfy Gen. Zia in the charge of conspiring to murder a man who is still alive, they were the loser.

Political groups have used, in our history, the President, the Armed Forces and the Judiciary to fulfill their own unrepresentative agendas.

In this the losers have been those who fell prey to the machinations of such groups and allowed themselves to be used.

Time passes. Time waits for no-one. The moving finger of history having written, moves on. Life ends and another begins but history lives forever.

Those who live in the pages of history, live forever. Those who blot their copy book are condemned forever. Yazid can never be forgiven.

And, if that is a religion passage, pause to think of Hitler. He can never be forgiven. History is unforgiving.

Then why do men make mistakes? Why do the Zias. the Ishaqs, the Anwarul Haqs make fatal errors? Because they are mortals. They get carried away by temptation. Temptation for power, for pomp, for fame, for fortune. They like to think of themselves as messiahs when in fact they are pawns in the hands of political groups.

Time passes. The concerned political groups are forgotten but their pawns are remembered in the annals of history.

As Shakespeare said: “The evil that men do lives after them.” Of course, Shakespeare was a very wise man. So, he knew that women did not do evil.

I remember that Gen. Zia was reluctant and frightened to impose martial law. But he was convinced by the vested political interests that PPP as a part was finished and Quaid-e-Awam could be defeated in Larkana by Pir Pagaro.

We can laugh now and say what a joke. But such was the talk that Zia actually came to believe it and swore at Makkah Shareef that he would hold elections in 90 days.

Of course, he could not hold those elections during his entire life time for fear that Quaid-e-Awam and the PPP would win.

Ghulam Ishaq Khan was also convinced by vested and power hungry people in 1990 that PPP was finished and Benazir would flee the country once her husband was arrested.

With hindsight we can say what a joke. But such is the propaganda, the power of the prophets of doom that they can actually convince quite rational and mature men of their fantasies.

Of course, after 1990,1 did not leave the country, although my husband was arrested, the elections had to be rigged and the country faced political instability.

So, the real wise men are those who do not get carried away by vested political interests, the propaganda of such vested political interests and the whispers of the prophets of doom.

I may say the Holy Book repeatedly warns us to beware of those who slander and to beware of evil whispers.

The real wise men are those who do not seek to make wise decisions because such decisions, being subjective, turn out to be unwise.

The real wise men are those who stick to their constitutional roles through thick and thin, through thunder and storm and thereby win respect in their own time and the time that comes after.

With political stability comes economic stability. With economic stability, comes progress and prosperity.

But political stability does not depend on the government alone.

Political stability depends upon the President, the Parliament, the Judiciary, the Armed Forces, the Provinces, the Opposition and other organs of state fulfilling their constitutional obligations.

If today there is poverty and backwardness in Pakistan, we must blame all those who violated their constitutional oath, exceeded their constitutional duties and power and sought to do what they were not supposed to do. There is a road to success. There is a road to emancipation. There is a road to prosperity.

As democratically elected leader, elected in fair, free and impartial elections, permit me to say that the Pakistan People’s Party Government and I symbolize that road.

Just as we symbolize the hopes, the aspirations, the dreams of the downtrodden and discriminated people of Pakistan who have elected us to positions of office. Positions we accepted only because it came from the people.

This is the road which leads to an age of reform. It is the path of enlightenment mirrored in Iqbal’s lectures on the Reconstruction of Islamic Thought, in Quaid-e-Azam’s speech to the Constituent Assembly of August 11, 1947.

I invite you today to join us in travelling this road on a journey to emancipation, enlightenment and egalitarianism.

I have noted the points that were made by the President of the Bar Mr. Mahr. He has mentioned that the Government should consider setting up Labour, Banking and other Courts in Jacobabad. As you know there are financial implications always involved in such decisions, therefore, I will certainly ask the Provincial Government and the Ministry of Law at the Federal level to examine these proposals made by the Jacobabad Bar.

You have also mentioned that the Jacobabad should not be associated with the Larkana Bench of the Sindh High Court when it is set-up. As you know the Judiciary is now separate from the Executive so in all humility I would request you to take up the demand directly with the Chief Justice of Sindh High Court because it is he who will have to decide under which Bench the Jacobabad Bar Association will fall.

I have noted the points that have been made about housing. I would request the Chief Minister of Sindh to sympathetically examine setting up a Lawyers’ Cooperative Society in Jacobabad, so that on a “no-profit, no-loss basis” the lawyers of this Bar may have recourse to plots where they can build their own houses.

I have noted what you have said about the daily air fare from Karachi and Jacobabad, and I will direct the Pakistan International Air Lines, which is an autonomous Corporation, to examine this demand in a sympathetic light. If there is enough traffic between Jacobabad and Karachi, I am sure they will be very happy to solve this issue.

The Chief Minister may have noted your demands about the establishment of Jacobabad Development Authority. I would ask him to examine it and to try and do the needful.

As far as my promise for a by-pass to Jacobabad is concerned, I do no.t break my promises and I will build that by-pass for Jacobabad.

I would like to announce here a grant of rupees five lakhs for the Jacobabad Bar and five lakhs for the Nasirabad Bar Association which is also here.

I have been very pleased to note that there is a lady lawyer here. There was no lady lawyer when I visited you in 1978, although I do believe that Mr. Pecho’s wife was at one time a lawyer, although she has now gone on to other task.

I learnt from your President that he has been elected for seven terms. Having myself only two terms, I am very keen to know how he did it.

Thank you very much.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF WRITER,INTELLECTUALS AND THINKERS

Address by

Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto

Prime Minister

Islamabad November 30, 1995

Ladies and gentlemen,

Distinguished guests!

It is a privilege to welcome the distinguished writers, intellectuals and thinkers who have travelled long distances to join their Pakistani colleagues in the Capital city of Pakistan. I trust that your stay in Islamabad will be both pleasant and rewarding.

An International Conference of Writers and Intellectuals is no small event. You are the repositories of the best achievements of mankind, and thus the protectors of the man’s heritage and the guarantors of its continuity. Your endeavors not only link the past and the present, but you also represent the cutting edge of human aspirations for the future. Islamabad is truly honored with your presence. The people of Pakistan will surely avidly follow your exchange of experience and thought as deep down, human-beings, wherever they are confronted with the same existential dilemmas and moral choices.

Ladies and gentlemen!

One does not have to detract, at all, from the excellence and perfection of other arts to claim that literature has been the most direct articulation of the human condition. It is the gift of speech and language, which makes the history of literature such an excellent mirror of the history of human civilization. All over the world, in diverse human communities, we witness the emergence of strong oral traditions of literature. I remember my own visit to the Kyrghyz Republic where the People were celebrating the Manas tradition, again an oral tradition, which has been passed down through hundreds of years, from centuries to centuries.

We talk of the complexity of modern civilization, but the situation was, by no means, easy for early man. His own experience of the joy of birth and the agony of dying was no different from ours. Around him was the vast and alien world with its spectacular procession of sun, moon, stars, day light, night fall and the changing rhythm of seasons. He found that both his mind and his body reverberated to this colossal setting. Primitive though they were, these early men and women did not miss the great resonance of the universe, nor did they fail to respond to it. Soon there were amongst these early men and women, exceptional individuals with a remarkable gift of bringing human responses into coherent shape and formal order. Soon, hymns were raised to the spirits, deities and gods who seem to lie along the entire spectrum of this universal resonance. In his terrible loneliness, Man created literature to please these invisible powers. Soon, these remarkable people gathered their fellowmen into flocks who shared celestial and earthly visions and sang out to them. It didn’t take long time for the great oral epics to appear which fused the mythical beginnings with current events, beautifully arranged around men who walked much taller than others and, as heroes of mankind; nearly challenged the stature of the gods. This seems to have been the manifest destiny of mankind. Out of this striving for glory arose tragedy which we have come to recognize as one of the greatest literary forms of all times.

Poets and philosophers had already discovered that the external cosmos had its counterpart in the internal cosmos of the heart of the man. The human journey through Time and Space had its exterior and it also had its interior. Then, the experience, of living together in a community crowded man’s space with a wide-range of emotions and social relationships. The burden of man was, indeed, awesome. Antigone felt the compulsion not only of the laws of gods, but also the irresistible forces within her in fulfilling the rites of burial of a loved one, Love, hatred, revenge, compassion, martyrdom and a thousand other situations was the warp of human existence, Each of these situations was an enigma which demanded an answer, and an explanation. The universality of questions and available answers were the building blocks of Man’s cultural organization. It was an attribute of their daring creativity that writers and philosophers took both the domain of gods and of man as their provenance. They transformed their communities into distinct, recognizable cultural entities.

People were, hence forth, to be held together by common beliefs, attitudes, signs and symbols. The culture of people thus came to transcend their superficial history at the cronical of time.

It became a paradigm of development and quality as men of literature, as indeed, practitioners of other arts discovered value in human experience and invested their communities with it.

The cultural acquisitions of the civilization became the measure of its triumph over the flux of time. The permanence of this cultural achievement provided, at least, a partial answer to the inescapable challenge of man’s mortality. Henceforth, poets and artists were at work both in time and out of it.

Ladies and gentlemen!

I believe the state of man is of ambivalence, strife and discord. Great warring spirits dwell in his soul and turn his existence into a battle ground. The three great religions of Semitic origin have defined the state of man as perennially suspended between Good and Evil. There is a central drama of the Fall of Man and the possibility of Grace and Redemption.

Human history provides ample testimony that men and women have not always chosen the path of redemption. In the name of ideology or a social system or an economic order, they have often opted for tyranny and injustice. Intolerant cultures have burnt thousands of people who held different beliefs on the stake, exterminated hundreds of thousands in gas chambers and sanctioned the merciless massacres of people of another creed or ethnic origin. This propensity to deviate from the noblest calling of man has been so persistent that a pessimistic view of human nature hangs like a dark cloud over the entire canon of our philosophical thought.

The 20th century will long be remembered as the century of death and destruction. The preceding century had generated great optimism about the achievements of human knowledge. Scientific discoveries in every field of enquiry fastered the view that the progress and development were the natural dynamics of human civilization and that there was no limit to human achievement. Though there were grave voices of caution, the general drift of .thought was to trust the new sciences to banish disease, poverty and degradation forever. It is, indeed, tragic that within a very short time, man converted the mastery bestowed by science into a massive technology of war, death and torture. At another plane the new opportunities created by science were harnessed to manipulation, totalitarian control, torture and exile.

Ladies and gentlemen!

Honesty demands that we admit freely that men of considerable learning made their services available to tyrannical regimes in the fulfillment of their dark designs. Fortunately for mankind, the majority of writers, thinkers and philosophers opposed fascism, opposed tyrannical dispensations, often at the price of their life or their liberty. So, the saga of resistance to tyranny constitutes a glorious heritage of that human race. At a writers’ conference like this, one must applaud this tradition of upholding truth in the face of grave peril.

The essence of man’s historical experience is that human-beings flourish and develop, I believe, in liberal cultures. A liberal culture admits diversity and plurality. It encourages freedom. It encourages and nurtures honest disagreement. It possesses the power to tolerate divergent points of view and even reconcile them in a new synthesis. It celebrates the signs and symbols of all people and denies sanction to their destruction under any pretext.

A liberal culture is, in fact, another name for civil society. The historical framework of culture in the areas now comprising Pakistan is defined by tolerance and acceptance of diversity.

In the pre-Islamic era, Buddhism constrained man’s weakness for instant gratification of all human-desires and it created a culture given to caring and fellow-feeling. In course of time, Buddhism fused with occidental influences brought by the Greeks and this led to the flowering of an extraordinary culture known as the Gandhara Civilization.

The advent of Islam in this area also had certain unique characteristics of its own. Before Islam arrived here, the Message of the Book had interacted with ancient civilizations including that of Iran, and Islamic culture has been enriched by the great literature produced by the Sufi poets. This literature inspired meditation of God, contemplation of Nature and introspection about the state of man in the local vernaculars and became a major factor in the widespread acceptance of Islam. It is tempting to suggest that the democracy is the logical extension of a liberal culture and there is a large element of truth in this, but history does not provide a definitive cause and effect relationship. Similarly, one is inclined to assume that by definition democracy promotes higher forms of literature. This again is not entirely true because some of the greatest literature was produced under circumstances of terrible suffering. In many cases, it was the struggle for democracy or struggle for freedom, or struggle for equality which provided the inspiration for master pieces of literature.

Times of trouble marked by an absence of democracy, rather than a contended democratic culture, seem to drive writers to the highest attainment of form and substance.

You will, no doubt, deliberate upon these relationships with a more specific reference to literature and men of letters. For myself today, I would like to talk of democracy from a somewhat different angle. We have had the seeds of democracy in the ancient republics of Greece. But this is a concept which is very different from what we mean by the sovereignty of the people and freedom of the individual today. We must regard that early experience as a noble beginning but no more.

For hundreds of years to follow, men and women lived under political systems characterized by authoritarianism and often by despotism. Even in the last two hundred years, which are defined as years of enlightenment, human societies have had more than share of dictatorship of individuals, military over-lords on monolithic political parties. What are truly heartening is the ceaseless efforts made by men of vision to demonstrate that all such political regimes lack a fundamental legitimacy. They extended and deepened the currents of human thoughts by analyzing various political alternatives and developing the argument that political life must evolve in the direction of liberal democracy, where power is shared, where rulers are elected and held to account and where people have the inalienable right to vote them in or vote them out. It was demonstrated convincingly that other forms of government had, more often than not, ended in disaster. Legitimacy could come out from the collective will of the people.

The 20th century experienced the denial of individual’s freedom on unprecedented scale under Naz’iism and Stalinism. The pro­pagandists of these evil regimes argued with some justification that their apparatus of coercion and control had, at least in the short run, made things better for people in the material sense. The inescapable truth, however, was that these non-democratic experiments resulted in millions of deaths and the destruction of large areas, particularly in Europe. The horrors of the totalitarianism have left a lasting memory behind. Also men and women have discovered the great virtue of dignity through the harrowing memory of its denial by totalitarian regimes. A consensus has, therefore, emerged now, as we are at the end of the century, that while there may be no ideal way of governance, the most satisfactory one is that of democracy.

Human societies are turning their back on self-styled heroes who looked larger than life when they strutted on the world stage and are reaffirming the advantages of ordering their affairs in civic societies regulated by democratic institutions whose roles are clearly defined by the Constitution. Unfortunately, those who have just emerged from the darkness of dictatorship often have a mindset shaped by the forces of tyranny.

Today, in Pakistan, the President, the Parliament, the Judiciary, the Armed Forces, the Provincial Governments are working in accordance with the Constitution. Instead of taking satisfaction from the dawn of a constitutional order, some elements act as agent provocateurs and claim that the President, the Parliament, the Judiciary, the Armed Forces, the Provincial Governments are working as the hand maidens of the political government instead of taking on the government in an extra constitutional manner. There can be neither greater lie nor any greater disrespect to the Constitution, the verdict of democracy and the verdict of the people itself than to make such a claim. The political government today does not face intrigue, conspiracy, confrontation from the different organs of government because all these organs are fulfilling their obligations according to the constitution and according to the oath that they have taken to uphold the Constitution. Political governments cannot be weakened or undermined by subjective evaluation of gloom and doom of a handful of people filled with lust of power that they look to extra constitutional means to achieve their ends. Political govern­ments are to be judged by the people of a country in fair, free and impartial elections.

It is only two years, in Pakistan, since the different organs of the state started to work in accordance with the Constitution and the oath that they have taken. The forces of tyranny had for 17 years, directly or indirectly, tried to sow the seeds of discord and disruption. And the forces of tyranny are still busy. They talk of a change of system, not a change of governments. They claim that all democratic governments are the same. They claim that the answer, therefore, lies in the so-called Islamic Revolution. In fact, the people of Pakistan have already seen the so-called Islamic Revolution in Pakistan when the pristine name of the last Messenger of God was cynically exploited by a bunch of clerics trying to act more pious than the most pious.

In 1977 in Pakistan, a follower of the Muslim brotherhood, General Zia-ul-Haq seized power. He announced a change in system. He announced that only good and pious men as he defined them could take part in elections. So, elections on party basis were never held. The so-called discredited politicians of the past were to be disqualified and new, fresh and clean faces were to be found. These so-called clean faces turned out to be the dirtiest of the lot. They were the ones without conscience who were prepared to betray their people and democratic principles of the founder of the country, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, for a loaf of bread. An unholy alliance was created to sustain an unrepresentative and unaccountable regime. This was an alliance between the clerics and the opportunistic politicians. This so- called new system introduced the politics of violence and corruption in the body politic of Pakistan. It betrayed the blood of the martyrs who formed Pakistan as a modern, liberal Muslim social democracy. These people traded in drugs and guns and were unscrupulous enough to plunder the funds of Jihad in Afghanistan to enrich themselves and their families.

Behold the landscape of Pakistan and see a new class of the rich, fortune hunters who made their fortunes on the backs of political prisoners, the cries of the lashed, the screams of the tortured. No dissent was allowed. The press was censored. Political activity was banned. Women were degraded and humiliated. Minorities were persecuted. Discrimination, intolerance, hatred were the hallmark of the so-called Islamic Revolution led by General Zia, supported by the clerics and the corrupt unknown charlatans who were made into politicians. Ethnicity, sectarianism, terrorism, narco-politics, kalashnikov culture, violence was spawned by this unholy group of unelected and unelectable people. Money was lavishly given to clerical parties. They were asked to set up schools to train robots in the use of arms and in the use of hatred. The declared purpose was the noble one. The declared purpose was to fight Jihad. The declared purpose was to fight for freedom in Afghanistan, Kashmir and wherever it was threatened. The real purpose was to create a constituency and to create a cadre and to create the manpower to seize power by violent means should the dictatorship come unhinged. The real purpose was to make sure that democracy could never take root that polling stations would be seized and the ballot papers should be stamped. But the dream did not materialize; the dictator died. His class of supporters, the clerics and the opportunist politicians tried to derail democracy in 1988, but in 1993 they lost power. But they have not given up their ambitions to discredit the Quaid-i-Azam’s dream of a liberal democratic state. They called the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah who was fighting for Pakistan an unbeliever or Kafir and accused him of being a British agent. They lied and slandered the great founder of the great nation. And today, nearly fifty years later, they tell the same lies. Those who oppose their politics of greed, the politics of violence, the politics of thuggery and dictatorship are called American agents and disbelievers.

Let us call a spade a spade. Elected governments are only agents of God and agents of the creatures of God, that is the people who elect them. The real agents are these so-called clerics toting their guns bought during the hay day of the cold war with CIA funds and running their organizations by money given for the Jihad in Afghanistan. It is said that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Allow me to say that hell hath no fury like a cleric scorned. Why did the British and the CIA fund the clerics? The British had an Empire where the sun never set. They clearly believed in the politics of “divide and rule”. They funded the clerics to oppose, discredit and confront the nationalist politicians who wanted freedom from colonial rule.

Colonialism more or less ended with the end of Second World War. The Yalta Conference brought with it the end of the Second World War. The CIA took up where the British had left. They needed the clerics to confront godless communism. To prevent countries from going communist clerics were funded. Once the fight for the free world ended on the war torn and ravaged soil of Afghanistan, the clerics were dumped like hot potatoes.

And hell hath no fury like a cleric scorned. So, the clerics funded, organized and trained by the forces of Imperialism and the west took up arms against the West to get their attention once again. They cannot get power through democracy, nor were they trained to support democracy. So, they are against democracy. And anyone who supports democracy is branded as a pro-west, as a non-believer, as a prelude to set the stage for dictatorship and authoritarian rule. Let me at this stage state that the Pakistan People’s Party government and I make a clear distinction between clerics and religious scholars. Religious scholars are those who devote themselves to religion and teach others religion, who spread the Message. Clerics are those who have a political agenda of tyranny which they try to hide by cynically exploiting the name of religion.

Let me also say that the clerics are exploiting a western insensitivity, be they the issues of a political nature such as the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, the bloody repression in Kashmir, the genocide in Bosnia, be it the economic deprivation, poverty and debt trap of the developing countries or be it attempts at cultural domination. Some of you might have recently heard of an abortive coup attempt in Pakistan. Again, who were these people who wanted to bring in a so-called Islamic Revolution? Who were these people who wanted to call themselves Amir-ul-Momineen and declare Pakistan a sectarian state? Who were these people who wanted to murder the President, the Prime Minister, the Chief of the Army Staff and the elite corp of the Pakistan Armed Forces? Who were these people prepared to break their solemn oath to God and country? Who were these people who were going to send the Judges of the Superior Judiciary packing home and establish their agents in so-called Shariat Courts? They were a small group of power hungry adventurers who would have plunged Pakistan into a civil war, destroyed the cream of our Armed Forces, opened to attack our sensitive military institutions and threatened the security of the unborn children of Pakistan. Their own personal and professional lives would make scandalous reading.

All I will say is that they were morally and financially corrupt and they wanted to teach the nation piety. These unpious adventurers wanted to throw out the political representatives branded by them as feudals and traders (Tajir Siyasatdans) and bring in so-called clean people. For clean read corrupt crooks who would have sold their soul for political power without political legitimacy.

The new order was more or less the same as the old order of 1977 which had lasted nearly 17 years, the order of intolerance, hatred, violence, self-righteous and victimization. And unholy alliance between the clerics and the unscrupulous, unelectable individuals, who are fortune seekers, was the aim that they had in mind.

Here I might add that generally speaking these politically motivated groups like to use the name of charities, NGOs and try to disguise their real agenda under a cloak of goody goody two shoes. Of course, the majority of charities are good. The majority of charities do serve people. And we have seen noble work done by charities such as the Edhi Foundation and Orangi Pilot and many others.

But I remember a former Western Ambassador who was very keen to know what my government intended in 1988 to do about the NGOs which had been set up during the Afghan Jehad. Of course, I did not understand his question. Those NGOs set up with Western funds or funds brought from Muslim countries on Western pointation had a lot to do with creating warriors to fight for the free world and Afghanistan. I did not realize this until last year, but I learnt of the close association of Ramzi Yousaf, the dreaded terrorist involved in the World Trade Centre and an NGO which has been set up to provide relief in Peshawar.

So, the next time you are asked to donate to a noble charity, please ask for the audit reports. Many of others who had little properties or real estate have started building luxurious homes and plazas and their tax returns do not indicate where this money came from ?

Many Arabs came to Pakistan too. If these Arabs are against their countries, and everybody has the right to defense, let them go back and fight in their own countries. In Islam, courage is the code word and death in the way of Allah is welcomed as martyrdom. Instead, like cowards they hide in Pakistan while plotting against their own countries. We, in Pakistan, fought against General Zia. We faced the threat of death because we believed in the righteousness of our cause. Except for one year, for an ear infection, I spent all twelve years of Zia’s Martial Law in Pakistan, in prison or out on the streets protesting. So, these individuals should now go back to their own countries and fight their own political battles instead of hiding like cowards over here.

The recent bombing of the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, has enraged the people of Pakistan. We do not expect our guests to abuse our hospitality. This is against the Message of God. No guest is allowed to abuse our hospitality. According to our customs, if an enemy enters our house, he is to be treated honorably, for hospitality cannot be abused.

So, dear writers, guests, I am here to tell you that the battle between the free world and the Communism is over. But the battle between democracy and dictatorship still rages. And while this battle shapes up in the Muslim World or in the South, the lack of concern by the West for global issues such as freedom in Kashmir or debt relievement and cultural domination adds fuel to a combustible mixture.

In these new battles which are shaping up the intellectuals, writers, poets will make their own contribution. And in making this contribution you will have to sift fact from fiction.

Ladies and gentlemen!

In this speech I talked about the crisis of authoritarianism in the world. But in fact, the problem is much deeper. It is a crisis of human thought itself. Many philosophers in the West speak of a crisis in western philosophy. Violence, alienation, the disintegration of family, the erosion of values and above all, a deep anxiety about the future of the planet which we have so ruthlessly exploited all combine to produce a new angst. Unable to cope with it so many of the young people seek refuge in strange cults or simply drop out of their societies. The answer has to be found in the collective wisdom of men and women although I believe the disintegration of the traditional family has had a part to play.

It is sad that some intellectuals in the West seek to submerge this real crisis of mind and soul in imaginary confrontations between the East and the West, between Christianity and Islam, between Christianity and Confucianism. These battle cries are false as no battle has to be joined. Technology has brought us to a point where the East and the West and the North and the South are much too close and their only option is to work together and not at cross purposes.

I trust that this great Conference will reaffirm the resolve to work together. And I trust that this Conference will once again proclaim the universal brotherhood of men and women. Let the voice of this conference be heard in support of peace and harmony. Let its delibera­tions become a fresh emphasis on the dignity of men and women and on freedom. Pakistan’s national poet, Iqbal visualizes the journey of man as virtually an un-ending journey to reach God. There is constant struggle and there is constant striving. For all this striving the destination may still be very far away. Let this conference make its own contribution to that eternal striving for finding the ultimate truth.

Ladies and gentlemen !

On behalf of the Government of Pakistan, I would first like to congratulate Mr. Fakhr Zaman for the hard work he has put together in organizing and bringing this conference to success. As one of the poets and writers who gave off his best during the years of struggle and tyranny, I am glad to see that the democratic culture has not softened him and he continues to strive. And I would like to announce two awards. One for an outstanding work on literature in any language, and the second for an individual or organization for distinguished work in promoting the cause of democracy anywhere in the world. The first award for literature shall be named after our founding father: the Quaid-i-Azam Award; the second award will be named after Pakistan’s first directly elected Prime Minister; the Quaid-i-Awam Award.

Thank you very much.

ADDRESS BY Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto

Prime Minister Islamic Republic of Pakistan To the

Iranian Majlis (Parliament)

Tehran.

Mr. Speaker,

Honorable Representatives,

I consider it an honor to address the elected representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has a long and ancient history, a rich cultural heritage, a distinctive language. A history, heritage, language have left an influence, far and wide, in the region.

The Islamic Revolution in Iran came about as a result of long struggle, the sacrifice of many martyrs and the sufferings of many more. It was the personal uprising of a people desiring to take charge of their own destiny. The Islamic Revolution was closely followed by the rest of the world and forcely defended by the people of Iran.

Shortly after its inception the Revolution was caught in an unfortunate conflict. The people of Iran once again faced this new challenge with fortitude. We are glad that peace has now dawned and the people of Iran are engaged with the task of nation-building under the guidance of their elected representatives.

I mentioned the history to recall the sense of sacrifice which the people of Iran have demonstrated to defend, what they believe in, irrespective of the cost. We too, in Pakistan, have struggled and sacrificed for what we believed in. The creation of Pakistan itself was the result of the struggle and sacrifices of the Muslims of the Sub-continent under the leadership of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

Many of the opponents of Pakistan thought that it would not survive the difficulties caused for it at its inception. But the people of Pakistan rose to the challenge and defended the nation against all threats. In three wars, Pakistan upheld its sovereignty and independence.

Deeply conscious of the needs for Islamic solidarity and of the struggle against colonialism, Pakistan has been in the fore-front of all Muslim causes. Whether it be the independence of Algeria or Morocco or Tunisia Pakistan played a critical role. Equally, Pakistan raised its voice for the people of Kashmir, Palestine, Zimbabwe, and Namibia and against the Apartheid. More recently, Pakistan along with Iran and other countries of the world helped its Afghan brethren to resist the foreign occupation of Afghanistan. We raised our voices together for the people of Bosnia Herzegovina.

Iran and Pakistan are not only two neighboring countries, but we are two Muslim countries. Islam binds us together in spiritual bonds which others cannot share in the same manner. Islamic principles have helped guide our peoples and shape our destiny. If Iran and Pakistan have raised their voices for the peoples of Kashmir, Palestine, Bosnia and Afghanistan it is because Islam binds upon us to speak the truth and uphold the banner of justice for the just cause. Islam makes it incumbent upon its followers to help the weak, the poor, and the oppressed. Thus it has been human dimension to shape our thoughts and our actions. All Muslims, whenever meet, greet each other with the words “Asslam-o- Alaikum”, which means “peace be upon you”. Therefore, Iran and Pakistan seek peace wherever they see conflict. All Muslims face the Holy Ka’ba when they bow down to prayers. In this act of prayer is the demonstration of our unity. Some elements would not like to see the unity of the Muslim world. Some elements would like to see the Muslim world divided on sectarian lines. Such elements are not sincere with Islam and the Muslim world. We, Muslim countries, and we Muslim people must beware of such elements. The rise of sectarianism would weaken us, divide us, and undermine our aims, objectives and goals.

All Muslims are Muslims, whether they belong to one sect or another. All Muslims bow down and submit to the will of Almighty Allah. In unity lies our strength, and in unity lies our common identity, our hopes for the future and the attainment of our common goals for the prosperity of our peoples and the dignity of our nation states.

With the end of the cold war, we have witnessed the decline of the order which dominated the world since world War-II ended. This was the world of ideological camps where different groups were identified as ‘Left’ or ‘Right’. Now we see the rise in some areas of new dangers, the dangers of ethnicity or the dangers of tribalism. In Islam there is no place for ethnicity, racial prejudice, tribalism or discrimination. In Islam all human-beings are equal before the eyes of Almighty Allah irrespective of their ethnic, tribal or racial affiliation. In this again, we see the message of unity. And because we believe in the concept of unity and repudiate discrimination, we seek a world order which is just and equal, and that is why we oppose tyranny and injustice.

The end of the Cold War has seen the winds of freedom and democracy below across the world. Iron curtains have been lifted, the Berlin Wall has fallen. We have welcomed the process of greater democratization within nations. However, the process of greater democratization within nations is not sufficient. We need greater democratization between nations too.

Recently Iran and Pakistan both participated in the golden jubilee celebrations of the United Nations. It is the time for recollection. It is the time to recollect what we have achieved and what we still need to achieve. And while we have achieved global peace, regional conflicts continue to cast the dark shadows on the international horizon. One such major conflict which has remained unresolved is the Kashmir dispute. The Secretary General of the United Nations has called the Kashmir dispute one of the oldest unresolved items on the agenda of the United Nations. More than six hundred thousand (600,000) occupying troops have failed to crush the indomitable spirit of the Kashmiri people. Dawn to dusk curfews, gang-rapes of women, summary trials, arbitrary detentions, custodial deaths, and widespread tortures are some of the atrocities which have been committed. Acts of sacrilege have been carried out to destroy the Freedom Movement. And such acts have provoked the sentiments of all Muslims, all the Kashmiri people and all those who oppose sacrilege. Who can forget the siege of the Holy Hazratbal shrine in the valley of Kashmir? Who can forget the burning of the Mosque and the Mazar of Charar Sharif? Who can forget that this was done by those who burnt the Babri Masjid. Such acts were aimed not only against the Kashmiri people but they were aimed against all Muslims also and these acts cannot be forgotten by anyone. And they cannot be forgotten nor forgiven by the Kashmiri people. They will be passed from generation to generation.

Pakistan and Iran stand shoulder to shoulder in support of the Kashmiri people, in their struggle for self-determination. We recall the historic words of President Rafsanjani when he addressed the Pakistani Parliament: “The Kashmir issue is your problem and it is our problem too, because it is an Islamic problem. Like you, we complain against the United Nations why do they not enforce the implementation of their resolutions and why do they allow this bloodshed”. Iran, Pakistan and the entire Muslim world at the historic Casablanca Conference in a Declaration in December, 1994, called for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the United Nations resolutions. So-called elections will not satisfy the people of Kashmir who are demanding plebiscite with one voice.

Pakistan and Iran have condemned Serbian aggression against Bosnia Herzegovina. The naked aggression against Bosnia in the heart of Europe telecast across the world is the sane on the conscience of the mankind. The world has shown a dismal failure to put into place security mechanism to uphold the Charter of the United Nations. The world has forgotten the two world wars sprang in one way or another from Sarajevo. Recently, some moves have been made to bring about political settlement. We hope that these moves will be to the satisfaction of the people of Bosnia Herzegovina, and will lead to peace. However, the tragedy of Bosnia has made one thing clear, that is, the each nation must be prepared to defend itself. If it cannot defend itself, it will be swallowed up or blotted out. Unless a country has its strategic importance to the rest of the world, the rest of the World will ignore it or be slow in responding to it. The slow response may lead to a fait accompliin itself.

We are aware that some of our friends have argued that the world would slow in responding with the ulterior purpose of allowing the aggressors to fulfill the aims of their aggression. It was only the spirit of the Bosnian people which thwarted this strategy. I must say the Muslim World through their OIC Contact Group on Bosnia also contributed in a humble way to keep the issue alive, to assist and to coordinate global and regional move along with the Government of Bosnia Herzegovina. But again I must say that there is one clear lesson that each country must be prepared to defend itself if it is not crucial to the larger world. To be critical one has to have access to critical sea passages or energy flows which can adversely affect the rest of the world trade. Thus, nations in this world are judged by their impacts on global trade. One example, the country ravaged by civil war, is Afghanistan. The world united in Afghanistan when it was under foreign occupation to not only defend freedom in Afghanistan but to defend the free world. Now that there is no threat to the free world Afghanistan is forgotten story.

Since Afghanistan has no bearing on the flow of global commerce it has no impact on world opinion. Except for a handful of countries the world has forgotten Afghanistan. Every now and then cursory references are made to Afghanistan. Both the United Nations and the OIC have sent their representatives to Kabul regime, but the Kabul regime has been sending them off. My heart bleeds for the brave people of Afghanistan. A whole generation of young people has grown up in war known only conflict, seen only sufferings. They live against the background music of marters and rockets. They live in the ravaged land with poverty, hunger and insecurity. Peace is the message of Islam, but the leaders and the commanders seem to have substituted the word ‘peace’ for the message of ‘power’. They fight each other for ‘power’. This is most unfortunate.

We, in Pakistan, have decided not to give any material or military assistance to any faction. We believe that the term of Kabul regime is over. We condemn the Kabul regime for burning our Embassy in a pre­meditated attack. And yet we do not interfere.

When President Rafsanjani addressed the Pakistani Parliament, he said, and I quote; “In fact no one but a mad man who wants to kill himself would like to interfere in Afghanistan in such a severe situation”. Today, a sister of President Rafsanjani is here to repeat his words as our own sentiments in the Parliament of Iran.

Mr. Speaker!

We continue to give refuge to one-and-a-half million Afghans. We want the Afghans to solve their problems themselves but we do keep our channel of communication open with all groups. We keep our country open for all groups. Both Iran and Pakistan, and, indeed, all the geographical neighbors of Afghanistan are concerned about the instability in Afghanistan and will continue to watch over the situation closely. We, in Pakistan, believe, the UN and the OIC should re-double their efforts for a political settlement. We do not believe that any one group in Afghanistan has the strength or influence to rule over all Afghanistan. Different groups will need to come together and decide on a formula of power sharing.

Mr. Speaker Sir!

Pakistan’s Foreign Policy is based on principles. Pakistan and Iran are good friends. Our history shows that we do not change friends with changing seasons. We believe in keeping friends and we believe in nurturing friendship. Our relation with one country is never on the cost of our relation with another country. When America and China were not on speaking terms we had relations with both. Their disagreements were their disagreements. If we did anything it was to counsel both to come close and bridge the differences.

We consider Iran a friend, a neighbor and a brother in Islam. I recall the words of President Rafsanjani when he said to the Pakistani Parliament, and I quote: “It is a cruel and again against us that we both are rivals and are competing against each other, Rivalry for what? There is no rivalry between us. And if anyone thinks that Iran and Pakistan are having their own interest in interfering in Afghanistan then, no doubt, he is crazy”. A segment of public opinion has started such rumors which are baseless. Those who are jealous of the friendship between Iran and Pakistan, those who like to see the security of Iran and Pakistan weaken, those who would like to create differences between two leading members of the Muslim Ummah, perhaps they would like to see Iran and Pakistan as rivals. Neither of the leadership, the governments, the people, nor the elected representatives of Iran and Pakistan can dream of the day when we would be rivals or compete with each other. We are friends, friends because of the principles, friends because of geography, friends because of religion, friends because we trust each other, and meet each other and because our mutual security and our well-being rest on this trust and on this friendship. If anyone seeks to undermine the security of Iran, the Iranian nation knows that it can rely on Pakistan. And if anyone tries to undermine the security of Pakistan, the Pakistani nation knows it can rely on Iran.

Mr. Speaker Sir!

While markets are taking the place of missile and the measure might, we cannot turn a blind eye to those who seek to dominate with military might. In our region one country is building up military arsenal. It is determined to build a blue water Navy. It has started production of short range missiles which can be deployed in half an hour. These missiles can target every single city in Pakistan, and are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. After this, this country intends to develop more missiles with a greater range. This country seeks to develop missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, all the way to Yemen to the Strait of Malacca. This country which is a non-Muslim country seeks to bring mostly Muslim countries from Yemen to the Strait of Malacca under the range of their missiles. We believe that if this country did not have far-reaching ambitions, it would not seek to make missiles of such range and carrying such lethal weapons. The developing of such missiles will cast the shadows of nuclear threat to the sovereignty of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to the west, and to Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Brunei to the east.

Pakistan deplored this missile build-up which threatens to start a broader missile race. Pakistan calls for a regional solution to the missile issue. Pakistan did not wish to see this spread of nuclear proliferation or the spread of the weapons with mass destruction. Pakistan cautions the world to the danger boiling in the cold drink, before it overflows with dangerous consequences for regional and international peace and stability.

Mr. Speaker Sir!

As a Muslim woman, it gladdens my heart to see my Iranian sisters take their place with pride in the Parliament of Iran. In August this year Pakistan hosted a conference of Women Parliamentarians from Muslim countries. More than one hundred women representatives from 35 Muslim countries participated in this Conference. The large participation by our Muslim sisters show that a great awakening is taking place amongst the Muslim women. This awareness amongst the Muslim women first took place at the dawn of Islam. No one can forget that God chose a woman Hazrat Bibi Khadija to be the first witness to Islam. No one can forget that the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) married a working woman. No one can forget that the God chose a woman Hazrat Bibi Fatima through whom the line of Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him) was passed on to the generations. How can we forget that Hazrat Bibi Fatima is the daughter of the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him), the daughter of the first convert to Islam, the wife of Hazrat Ali, the mother of the Imams: That God chose one woman for so many exalted positions have a meaning which we need to appreciate. Women in Islam must be accorded respect, dignity and right bequeathed by Allah in the Holy Book, as recited by the Holy Prophet (Peace be upon him).

Mr. Speaker!

I thank you once again on my own behalf and on behalf of the Pakistani people for inviting me to address the Iranian nation through its Parliament and its elected representatives. This is the singular honor as I am the first female Pakistani Chief Executive who has been accorded this honor.

Mr. Speaker Sir!

Iran can count on our friendship. We shall continue to cooperate in the years ahead as we have cooperated in the past.

Thank you very much.

THIRD ECO SUMMIT MEETING INAUGURAL

 Address by

Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto

Prime Minister Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Islamabad

14 March, 1995

Presidents, Prime Ministers and

Foreign Ministers of the ECO Member States,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I thank you for conferring on me the honor of chairing the third ECO Summit meeting. I am confident that with full support from you all, our meeting will make a significant contribution to the progress of our regional cooperation under the aegis of the ECO.

On behalf of the people and the Government of Pakistan, I welcome our distinguished guests to this springtime of political and economic rebirth in Islamabad. May the colors and fragrance of the season be your special welcome from our people, our city and our Nation?

In the tapestry of history, our strong cultural and trading ties, our religious bonds, our mutual goals and objectives have woven us together into a rich communal cloth. Our poetry, our literature, our songs, our dances, our legends reflect the community of our nations, the brotherhood of our people. This common heritage has given us the collective political will, and the modus operandi for further regional cooperation and integration amongst our ten countries.

Excellencies !

The cleansing winds of economic liberalization and free trade are sweeping through the world.

We all stand at the threshold of a rapidly changing post-Cold War order, a post-modern political era of complexity that has replaced the simplistic polarities of the cold and the old East-West confrontation.

Powerful regional organizations for economic cooperation like the European Community, the North Atlantic Free Trade Association, ASEAN and APEC are replacing NATO and the Warsaw Pact as the defining operationalization of the new millennium.

Markets have replaced missiles as the measure of might.

The ten nations of the ECO must take full advantage of the new, worldwide economic trends by maximizing regional economic co­operation.

Our natural resource potential will only be realized when we work together to develop economic competitiveness in the world marketplace.

We need to educate and train our people so that they will have the skills in the modern marketplace, to provide for their children and end the cycle of poverty that plagues us in the developing world.

Together our populations comprise over 300 million people. Together we live on an enormous land mass spanning seven million square kilometers. We are an economic force to be reckoned with in the post-Cold War era. By realizing the full potentialities of our economies, we can, God willing, turn our peoples’ hopes into substantive achieve­ments in the emerging economic order.

Excellencies,

Just two years ago, we took the historic decision to enlarge the membership of ECO to include Afghanistan and the six newly independent states of Central Asia and the Caucasus. In these two years, we drew up plans in the Istanbul Declaration and the Quetta Plan of Action for the development of infrastructure in the region. We are exploring joint ventures for trade.

Progress towards the realization of these goals may be slow. But we must make sure they are heading in the right direction — first steps in a long and arduous journey towards closer cooperation.

On the eve of our meeting, Excellencies, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzia and Pakistan made an agreement in Islamabad for the Karakorum Highway which was originally the Silk Route, for trade with the outside world. With this agreement, an era of much contested search for warm waters has been brought to a peaceful denouement.

During our summit meeting, we plan to sign an agreement for facilitating transit trade throughout the ECO region. Our national development plans already reflect the highest priority accorded to the development of infrastructural links within the ECO region.

The People’s Government of Pakistan has already allocated Rs. 500 million for upgrading the Karakorum Highway into a modern all-weather road. This road will link us directly to the Kyrghyz Republic through Kyrghizia into Central Asia. In anticipation of the stabilization of Afghanistan, we have drawn up plans for reconstruc­tion of its highway system as well as pre-feasibility for railway link integrating Pakistan’s rail network through Afghanistan with that of Central Asia through Afghanistan and Turkmenistan. We are already expanding rail and road links between Iran and Pakistan. Potential also exists for building a road link across the Wakhan border into Tajikistan.

These measures are aimed at providing the shortest outlets to the sea for Central Asian neighbors. Similar measures are underway in Iran and Turkey which will help boost the Southward trade traffic considerably.

Such links also promote people-to-people contacts essential for joint ventures and an early awareness of trading opportunities.

For us in Pakistan, there has been a dramatic increase in the regional aviation links. Regular air services are now available to virtually most ECO capitals. Air travel has become simple and safe.

Unfortunately, prospects for economic development are often being overshadowed by conflict and turbulence. Our region manifests human tragedy – the suffering of the people of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kashmir and Tajikistan. This continuing human tragedy is an avoidable impediment to the process of development, promotion of trade and investment in our region.

The ECO countries need to take a firm stand against terrorism and militancy.

Terrorism and civil war are evil scepters that are threatening the well-being of our hardworking people.

It stands between our region and full integration into the new technology of the new century, the modern miracle of the third millennium.

Pakistan seeks peaceful and cooperative relations with all its neighbors. We are still burdened with the lingering legacy of colonialism, the baggage of the aborted agenda of autonomy, which continues to bedevil our relation with India.

For over five years, an indigenous uprising has erupted in the Indian-occupied Kashmir. It is an intifada for the basic and universal right of self-determination. This struggle for freedom has unfortunately evoked a draconian response from New Delhi, making a mockery of human rights.

Pakistan is a direct party to the Kashmir dispute, as recognized by the United Nations. We have tried, so far unsuccessfully, to convince India to allow the international community to implement Security Council resolutions, guaranteeing the right of the people of Kashmir and Jammu to decide, whether they wish to accede to India or Pakistan. Until the basic right of self-determination is implemented, genuine peace in South Asia will continue to be beyond our grasp.

After a decade long miraculous fight against repression and occupation by the communist superpower, peace still eludes the tragic people of Afghanistan. The continuing fratricide is an on-going cause of concern to all of us. We continue to work with the UN and with the OIC to achieve peaceful reconciliation in Afghanistan.

We fully support the process of bringing about peace and stability in Tajikistan through the good offices of the UN Secretary General. The aggression on Azerbaijan needs to be reversed and is causing sympathy and concern in Islamabad, as elsewhere in the ECO region. All such efforts and measures will, we hope, promote peace and stability in the region.

Our region has been blessed by Allah with an abundance of resources — oil, gas, coal, hydro-electricity, various minerals as well as industrial and agricultural goods.

Our economies must generate adequate investment funds, acquire managerial skills geared to the market economy and, in the case of our new member-states, develop alternative routes of access to world markets.

We have taken some steps to meet these challenges. Pakistan has offered training facilities at our training institutions. We have provided supplier credits to our ECO partners. However, we need to develop a more coherent approach to resolving these problems, including joint efforts to secure capital resources from international institutions and private sectors investors.

I may recall here that the new trading regime under W.T.O. envisages flow of services just like the flow of other commodities. We, therefore, need to focus on the services in our joint deliberations, in our planning for regional integration. Clearly, we are in different stages of development, but we are all undergoing rapid change. There is much we can do individually, and some of that restructuring is difficult, many of our economic decisions are painful. Nevertheless we must proceed with the market agenda of the new millennium, and we can so proceed on the regional integration of our economies. With increased involve­ment of the private sector in development activity, our governments need to redefine regulatory functions, simplifying procedures, we need to provide necessary economic information and generally produce an environment conducive to regional cooperation.

Pakistan fully recognizes the merits of the South-South Cooperation and world-wide regionalization of economies in EC, ASEAN, NAFTA and APEC.

Regional economic development is a necessary prerequisite to peace and stability. Economic development and political development need proceed together. We must never have to choose between the two.

The imperatives of regional cooperation have never been greater than in the rapidly changing environment of today. The establishment of Group of Eminent persons for enhancing the effectiveness of ECO is a very welcome step.

Let me compliment the ECO Ministers and Senior Officials for their contribution at the meetings of the Council of Ministers and Senior Officials. Important decisions were taken then.

We hope that at Islamabad Summit, major agreements on the Simplification of Visa Procedures for the Businessmen of ECO countries, ECO Trade and Development Bank, ECO Shipping Company and ECO AIR will be signed to build an institutional basis for economic collaboration. The Treaty o! Izmir envisages the establishment of Reinsurance Company. We expect to arrive at a decision about the establishment in the near future.

I express our appreciation to the Secretary General of ECO for his dedication and contribution to the work of the Organization.

Following the conclusion of Uruguay Round, global trade has entered a new phase. The ECO countries need to evaluate the implementation of this development with particular reference to the World Trade Organization and the newly liberalized trading environment in which the ECO countries will have to operate and compete.

Excellencies,

Our region is capable of taking a quantum leap into an unchartered future — a future of unlimited opportunity, a future of infinite hope.

We have already enshrined the political will for this extraordinary new era in the Istanbul Declaration and the Quetta Plan of Action.

We now need to mobilize —jointly and individually — financial resources as well as managerial and technical skills to secure timely implementation of our common objectives.

The task before us is surely not easy. But this is a remarkable time of transition and transformation, and the decisions we take now can affect the lives of our people, and the very futures of our nations, as we cross into a new millennium. The times demand innovation, the times demand boldness, the times demand courage.

As it was said long ago,

“The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts today. Let us move forward with strong and active faith.”

I thank you, distinguished guests.